Simon calls another development in.

Ahh areaman, can’t read (I said the issues wasn’t this particular call in), can’t count (my issue is with three call in’s not one), has exceptionally low expectations of politicians and high ones of volunteer news services.

Also unable to understand that by linking to a document I am expecting people to read it before making further comment. Hence I do not need to recapitulate all the information therein.

My argument is not that there is (necessarily) anything wrong with *this* call in.

“Don’t get me wrong, things getting done I’m all in favour of.”

The problem is as I said above, that by having to make three call-ins in two months Simon has admitted that to get anything done the planning process has to be bypassed.

There are two major problems there.

One is that if the biggest most crucial projects can’t manage the planning process what hope the rest of us? When exemptions are made for the powerfull the process will never get fixed and that is normally considered a hallmark of corrupt societies.

The other major problem is that Simon has had carriage of these planning laws for some years now and they are still broken.

And to me that indicates it’s time to give someone else a go.

Your memory seems to be letting you down as well Areaman, we ask for decent government from whoever is in power. I’m not going to go down on the ALP just because they’re so big and incumbent and sexy. Most of the time we don’t talk about the Liberals because they are irrelevant.

Ahh, negative on RA rather than negative on any of the issues, yeah I’d pay that. Now on the issues however I’d say you guys are more negative.

“I’d probably be a bit less pro-Stanhope government if this place was anything like balanced or impartial. “

“As to why I post, well if I see someone talking what I consider to be utter rubbish of course I’m more likely to post than if I see fair, unbiased, balanced impartial stories. “

“I don’t feel a need to balance your comments, or anyone’s comments per say. “

Areaman, you’re changing tack a bit. Might be time for a meditate. Go burn some incence.

If you want to know why you’re being negative, please analyse this comment of yours..

I’d probably be a bit less pro-Stanhope government if this place was anything like balanced or impartial. For example in this very posting the ABC article that JB links to give the explanation that I just gave on why Corbell used the call in powers, yet the story JB wrote gave made no mention of this. It even went to far as to ask a question that had been answered in the ABC story and then went on to basically call on the Minister to resign for not having answered it (even though, as I just said, he had). Hardly balanced and impartial (except in the Fox News sense).

You’re being negative dude.

I reckon you should keep posting, areaman – if it helps Maelinar to keep his chakra in balance. 😉

Besides a debate with only one person talking is simply a monologue (whether their opinion’s true or not).

tomayto, tomahto. Go find me Foskeys market rent contribution then stat boy.

Still doesn’t change the fact that Corbell’s a dick and I can say that all day and all night long.

So just why after 4 years can Corbell still be throwing shit at fans and wonder why it splatters ?

Again, I’m not negative, I just disagree with you, there is a difference.

There’s also difference between “telling it like it is” and “telling it how you see it” one implies impartiality the other a point of view. And, no I don’t have a problem with you giving your opinion (I generally don’t like the onions but that’s a different issues), but I don’t like them being given as fact.

And I know, it’s not like I don’t give opinions, but I generally try and back them up with as many facts as I can find, be that quotes, links to other sites or ABS stats.

I don’t feel a need to balance your comments, or anyone’s comments per say. It’s just that when I see right wing bull I arc up and want to post a reply. If I didn’t see so much right wing rubbish I wouldn’t post as much.

Areaman, I think you will agree historically that I have never denied that I am a rightie, infact it was me who pointed that out to you if we go back that far.

I make comments based upon my feelings on subjects which has influenced and changed subjects, often violently, into huge dialogues which have exposed some huge inadequacies into topics that I am concerned about, being Government, inequality, racism, or extremist lefties pushing their shit on innocents.

I don’t comment on the Raiders, football, or any of the band action that also gets posted here on RA, because that’s not what I’m interested in either. That’s not to say that I don’t read them, they just don’t concern me at all.

I tell it how it is. I tell it how I see it, how I interpret it, what I think about it. I know you don’t like that, but as I always say, welcome to the world of denial. You’re in it.

The first time there will be an anti-liberal story on this website will be the next time they fuck up, and somebody posts something about them. I will offer my comments, and where I think they could have improved their performance. Please believe me when I say that I’m unbiased in that regard.

I am concerned for you if you have a ‘need’ or ‘calling’ or ‘predisposition’ to balancing my comments politically. There is no need for that. I offer my opinion, you can’t change that.

So you are negative, so what ?

To be honest, if I were to believe in Yin and Yang, any form of Karmic energy or Raeki, or any of that other spiritualist crap, I would think that you were my opposite identity. I don’t have a problem with that.

The funny thing is I’m gonna call you a hippie spiritualist now and get away with it.

How am I being negative? It’s people like you and JB who are saying that everything’s fucked, I’m saying that it’s not (or at least not always).

And talk about biased, claming that you guys are “telling it like it is”. That’s bullshit, you tell it like you choose to see it, not like it is, do you even see the irony in your statement? You (by which I mean the general far right illuminate of RA) hardly every try to see the other side or a point of view, or post balanced, unbiased posts or comments (which is fine if you admit your bias, but don’t try to claim you’re giving “the truth”).

As to why I post, well if I see someone talking what I consider to be utter rubbish of course I’m more likely to post than if I see fair, unbiased, balanced impartial stories. That means that I generally post on local politics stories because that’s where my beliefs differ the most from you guys, and where I see the most bias (when was the last time there was an anti liberal story on this site which didn’t hack on Pratt for being one). The federal government posting have a fair slant on them as well , but as none of us seem to like the Howard government much I don’t post much on those as how many “me too” posts do you really need.

ok now I’m confused.

So the reason why you are so negative is because of everybody else on this site is telling it like it is, so you have self-appointed yourself as a topic balancer ?

Next you’ll be telling us that you only came up to the top of the water tower to see what was going on, and then you saw the rifle lying there… follow the bouncing ball.

Sure there is, I can even give examples. In the post on Tilly’s stoping live music I bagged on them for using workcover to force Toast to shut.

I’d probably be a bit less pro-Stanhope government if this place was anything like balanced or impartial. For example in this very posting the ABC article that JB links to give the explanation that I just gave on why Corbell used the call in powers, yet the story JB wrote gave made no mention of this. It even went to far as to ask a question that had been answered in the ABC story and then went on to basically call on the Minister to resign for not having answered it (even though, as I just said, he had). Hardly balanced and impartial (except in the Fox News sense).