SONA 2015

ZCFOutkast said:
You're evading the point. Ad hominem reasoning rears its ugly head again. DA were cowards, and they sought to create their own reasons as well as an environment to walk out, when they had 3 clear reasons before that, actually four including the physical abuse of men&women during a SONA. Resorting to insults will not change that fact.
Click to expand...

The DA were attempting to play by the rules even although nobody else was. The DA simply has no jurisdiction to ask for credentials, that would be up to the presiding officers. One has reasonably simple choices: Abide by the Constitution or descend to anarchy. Hopefully we are still a mite away from the latter.
 
bekdik said:
The DA were attempting to play by the rules even although nobody else was. The DA simply has no jurisdiction to ask for credentials, that would be up to the presiding officers. One has reasonably simple choices: Abide by the Constitution or descend to anarchy. Hopefully we are still a mite away from the latter.
Click to expand...

The EFF were also playing by the Rules - even if their intention was outside of the spirit and purport of the Rules. No case to allege that the EFF violated the Rules has been made.
 
Paul Hjul said:
Cowards? On what basis

- also take a look at the meaning of "ad hominem" and while you are at it "reasoning". I am insulting you, you ****ing moron, not using an insult to discredit your argument - ergo no ad hominem. I've thrown out your argument with reason and logic and insulted you for other reasons.

They walked out at the appropriate time after establishing an appropriate basis to walk out - namely that the Speaker had determined to abuse Parliament. The assaults committed on Members of Parliament gives rise to action against the person who committed assault until the questions raised by the DA were raised there was not a clear basis to attribute the behaviour to the presiding officers.
Click to expand...
I will use a language you'll understand better then "play the ball not the man" Better? Throwing in insulting words won't add value to points. it achieves the opposite.

You've answered me - 'all the other 4 reasons I gave you fromed an inappropriate basis to walk out, there was not a clear basis to attribute the behaviour to the presiding officers'. Thank you!
 
well it is not fair to think of the ANC as a "group" not following the Rules - many ANC MPs were probably sitting their squirming and members such as Pandor have an enviable task: she made a tu quo que argument in the truest Parliamentary traditions

Mbete disrespects the Rules as does Zuma and then good ol Blade is a whole additional story. Individual MPs in our system do not have the luxury of being principle followers of the Rules. Even Ambrosini found himself bound to weigh disregard for the Rules with political pragmatism from time to time. I have deep sympathy for ANC MPs who aren't part of the cabal.
 
ZCFOutkast said:
The attitude of Maimane and Steenhuisen was the same as EFF. Are you implying the EFF got clarity on the question they asked?

Personally I thought, Malema, aside, those of the EFF who asked questions were very polite and obedient in comparison to Mamaine&Steenhuisen. Didn't badger the speakers as much as those two.
Click to expand...

No they didn't get clarity but you are complaining they weren't treated the same and implying that the DA is in league with the ANC. What you seem to fail to see is that they raised two separate issues and one party was evicted wrongfully ( under noise about disruption etc and hence the article you are arguing about ) and the other chose to walk out in protest over the actions of the speaker during the SONA. They were'nt referenced in the article because they were not part of the scuffle between the speaker and the EFF MP's.
 
ZCFOutkast said:
I will use a language you'll understand better then "play the ball not the man" Better? Throwing in insulting words won't add value to points. it achieves the opposite.

You've answered me - 'all the other 4 reasons I gave you fromed an inappropriate basis to walk out, there was not a clear basis to attribute the behaviour to the presiding officers'. Thank you!
Click to expand...

There is no value to be added or diminished from my "points". The argument is made and established and I have more fun things to set out to accomplish than simply debating with you - and all of these things make calling you a ****ing moron a valuable exercise.

O and the patronizing language doesn't help your case mate ;)

You've been answered repeatedly by members of this forum and yet persist in nonsense - if calling you out as a moron gets you to admit when you've been answered it is well worth it
 
Kosmik said:
No they didn't get clarity but you are complaining they weren't treated the same and implying that the DA is in league with the ANC. What you seem to fail to see is that they raised two separate issues and one party was evicted wrongfully ( under noise about disruption etc and hence the article you are arguing about ) and the other chose to walk out in protest over the actions of the speaker during the SONA. They were'nt referenced in the article because they were not part of the scuffle between the speaker and the EFF MP's.
Click to expand...

and punches sell more newspapers than decorum ...

if anything the EFF could be said to be in league with the ANC in seeking to dismantle the heritage of Parliamentary authority by being the folks lighting the fire in the Reichstag
 
Kosmik said:
No they didn't get clarity but you are complaining they weren't treated the same and implying that the DA is in league with the ANC. What you seem to fail to see is that they raised two separate issues and one party was evicted wrongfully ( under noise about disruption etc and hence the article you are arguing about ) and the other chose to walk out in protest over the actions of the speaker during the SONA. They were'nt referenced in the article because they were not part of the scuffle between the speaker and the EFF MP's.
Click to expand...
I've only received one honest comment in this forum. One of your colleagues admitted he was surprised Maimane&Steenhuisen were not ordered out, and conceded that he thought "they were actually pushing for that very thing to happen and they too would've been surprised they were not thrown out".

Ther is absolutely no one who was watching that live as it happened would not have thought to themselves "John&Mmusi are getting dangerously close to being thrown out" then afterwards, "why weren't they thrown out"
 
ZCFOutkast said:
I've only received one honest comment in this forum. One of your colleagues admitted he was surprised Maimane&Steenhuisen were not ordered out, and conceded that he thought "they were actually pushing for that very thing to happen and they too would've been surprised they were not thrown out".

Ther is absolutely no one who was watching that live as it happened would not have thought to themselves "John&Mmusi are getting dangerously close to being thrown out" then afterwards, "why weren't they thrown out"
Click to expand...

Colleagues? I suppose in as much as a forum member is a colleague.

They were not thrown out as the speaker already knew she had made a huge mistake and anything she did further would paint a catastrophe in a even worse light. She pretty much said so herself. They also raised their points coldly and impartialy whereas the EFF started to lost it once Malema took a stand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X