# Rudderless



## lasty (31 December 2009)

Ever since the failure of Copenhagen Rudd is nowhere to be seen.
Had the outcome become different he would bathing in the glory.
With a high turnover of his staff, do we have a PM who has mental issues?
Unless he doesn't get his own way a dummy spit occurs.
Abbott being dubbed the mad monk will know exactly how to push Rudds buttons.
Forget climate change or illegal boaties the debate will be in 2010 will be who is more mentally stable.
My money is on the mad monk to get under Rudds skin and leave him with a Latham like explosion.


----------



## Fishbulb (31 December 2009)

I've had my suspicions re Rudd's mental state. There's definitely something rotten in Denmark.

I still don't understand his popularity. How does a shifty, and manipulative little fella like that get away with it? It actually mystifies me, and I think about it at night....


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 December 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> I still don't understand his popularity. How does a shifty, and manipulative little fella like that get away with it? It actually mystifies me, and I think about it at night....



Socialism and inflation. Hand out lots of $ and people will vote for you. 

It's much the same as how Howard remained popular at the hands of a credit-fuelled boom in asset prices.

In both cases, the proverbial chickens come home to roost eventually and there's a rather huge mess to clean up. But history shows that people like the inflationary process in its early stages so it's a no brainer to go down that track if you want to win an election or two.

But ultimately, now we're stuck with ridiculously expensive houses, huge private debts and mounting government debt. It doesn't work in the long term.


----------



## Purple XS2 (31 December 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> I've had my suspicions re Rudd's mental state. There's definitely something rotten in Denmark.




One could question the P.M's judgement, his morals or his ego, but I would suggest it's misguided to doubt either his sanity or his temperament. 



> I still don't understand his popularity. How does a shifty, and manipulative little fella like that get away with it? It actually mystifies me, and I think about it at night....




Rudd's popularity has a lot to do with his opposition and his predecessor. Party discipline helps. A lot.

His weakness is his glibness. I don't doubt he'll be glib and smarmy till the cows come home, but eventually the public will get sick of it (I gather some already are  ).


----------



## noco (31 December 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> I've had my suspicions re Rudd's mental state. There's definitely something rotten in Denmark.
> 
> I still don't understand his popularity. How does a shifty, and manipulative little fella like that get away with it? It actually mystifies me, and I think about it at night....




Rudd gets his popularity from control of the media especially the ABC. The pollsters also assist him by taking polls in strong Labor held seats which gives him a favourable result and voters like to be on the winning side when it comes to election time.

I have never recieved a phone call from any of the pollsters and I don't anyone who has!!!1


----------



## prawn_86 (31 December 2009)

noco said:


> I have never recieved a phone call from any of the pollsters and I don't anyone who has!!!1




I have once, i accepted just out of interest, and its a poorly constructed survey to be honest. Im in North Adelaide, not sure what seat/party etc its under

You have to answer each question as a yes or no, there is no 'pass' or 'dont care' option, meaning it always skews the results.


----------



## Julia (31 December 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> I've had my suspicions re Rudd's mental state. There's definitely something rotten in Denmark.
> 
> I still don't understand his popularity. How does a shifty, and manipulative little fella like that get away with it? It actually mystifies me, and I think about it at night....



As Smurf has suggested, money in people's pockets is everything.  So far they're still looking at the nice plasma tv they bought.



Purple XS2 said:


> Rudd's popularity has a lot to do with his opposition and his predecessor. Party discipline helps. A lot.



Yes.  When the respondents to polls are asked which party they prefer, they can't help but consider the rabble that has comprised the Coalition in recent months, and apply that cliche "if they can't run their own Party, then they can't run the country".  
If Tony Abbott can summon up some party unity and attack Rudd, Wong & Co where they simply have no answers, there could be some change in public sentiment.



> His weakness is his glibness. I don't doubt he'll be glib and smarmy till the cows come home, but eventually the public will get sick of it (I gather some already are  ).



Yep.  And this glibness (which usually actually says nothing) will be more obvious in the face of Mr Abbott's, um, very plain speaking.




prawn_86 said:


> I have once, i accepted just out of interest, and its a poorly constructed survey to be honest. Im in North Adelaide, not sure what seat/party etc its under
> 
> You have to answer each question as a yes or no, there is no 'pass' or 'dont care' option, meaning it always skews the results.



Prawn, it will depend on who is doing the polling.  What you describe sounds very poor.  I've answered one for Qld State government and opposition a few years ago and it was well designed, quite fair and not push polling at all.


----------



## prawn_86 (31 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Prawn, it will depend on who is doing the polling.  What you describe sounds very poor.  I've answered one for Qld State government and opposition a few years ago and it was well designed, quite fair and not push polling at all.




Mine was an AC Nielsen poll and a lot of the questions only had the 2 major parties as the only answers.

Like "Which party do you think has better health care" i couldnt answer neither, both, or another party, i had to choose one of the 2.

No wonder the polls are always skewed/wrong


----------



## Julia (31 December 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Mine was an AC Nielsen poll and a lot of the questions only had the 2 major parties as the only answers.
> 
> Like "Which party do you think has better health care" i couldnt answer neither, both, or another party, i had to choose one of the 2.
> 
> No wonder the polls are always skewed/wrong




OK, I see.  I guess all they are interested in is the difference between the major parties, rather than whether you think they both are crap, so the questions will be designed to find this out.

When they are collating the responses, they would find it impossible to include all sorts of more general responses, such as perhaps "well, I don't think either of them are great, but if Labor were to include XXX policy from the Greens, and if the Coalition were to drop their XXX policy, then I might vote for them" etc etc.

Polls are just designed to provide a clear result between the two parties, not really find out what people are unhappy about.

Didn't you have a view about whether Labor or the Coalition had better health policies?


----------



## noirua (1 January 2010)

lasty said:


> Ever since the failure of Copenhagen Rudd is nowhere to be seen.
> Had the outcome become different he would bathing in the glory.
> With a high turnover of his staff, do we have a PM who has mental issues?
> Unless he doesn't get his own way a dummy spit occurs.
> ...




Good old Mr Rudd is spending his time making statements in interviews in the UK, Europe and the States. He is repeating and repeating the need to cut down on the burning of fossil fuels; whilst at the same time knowing the coal ports in Australia are being expanded, especially Newcastle, and he seems to be being quite two-faced about it - MAYBE HE HAS A PLAN.  Also slamming people in Australia for all living along the coast as erosion increases.

Mr Rudd does sound quite impressive and is now a leading light abroad, very interesting in fact.


----------



## condog (1 January 2010)

The guy is an absolute ken doll with perfect hair and scuptured speeches....everything about him smells of a complete lack integrity 

His constant and persistant use of colloquilisms makes me sick and his economic mis managment is even worse... Why does he turn into a complete fake once elected......when he used to do his stints on sunrise he was a genuine person who spoke genuinely and reasoanbly honestly (by politician standards)

I work in a place that recieved a significant amount of Rudd money and it has been completley wasted....because every place recieved it at once the building costs are 3 times what they would normally be...then there the plasma cheques, his fiddling and ruining of the Super changes.....the inept and thank god failed ETS scheme......his rebadging of workchoices under national awards

Where are our new roads, public transport, better hosiptals.....the guy has spent more money then all recent prime ministers combined and what do we have to show for it.....has your life significantly improved....

Modified but close to how As Will Anderson puts it; I thought we elected Kevin Rudd not Harvey ##$@!## Norman....... He wanted us to buy big screens with the stimulus package so the poor @#@#$!@ have something to watch when they lose thier !@#$!@#$@ jobs!


----------



## Fishbulb (1 January 2010)

condog said:


> The guy is an absolute ken doll with perfect hair and scuptured speeches....everything about him smells of a complete lack integrity
> 
> His constant and persistant use of colloquilisms makes me sick and his economic mis managment is even worse... Why does he turn into a complete fake once elected......when he used to do his stints on sunrise he was a genuine person who spoke genuinely and reasoanbly honestly (by politician standards)
> 
> ...




And, as Julia and others have noted, therein lies his popularity I guess. And perhaps, therein lies his genius. That it's not really about hospitals and public transport, those things are perhaps nothing more than political footballs to kick about and score points from. 
But the population will love you if you give them a new telly. And of course, if this cynical viewpoint is the case, then it speaks volumes about us as a people.

On the other hand, maybe I know nothing about what real politics is.


----------



## noirua (1 January 2010)

condog said:


> Where are our new roads, public transport, better hosiptals.....the guy has spent more money then all recent prime ministers combined and what do we have to show for it.....has your life significantly improved....
> 
> Modified but close to how As Will Anderson puts it; I thought we elected Kevin Rudd not Harvey ##$@!## Norman....... He wanted us to buy big screens with the stimulus package so the poor @#@#$!@ have something to watch when they lose thier !@#$!@#$@ jobs!




I think there may be some new roads here, on the other hand ...:  http://www.ozroads.com.au/
I would like some circular freeways to go round and round on to save having to come back. Then we could build some small towns just off the circular freeways to save Mr Rudd's worries about erosion near the beach dwellings.
I'm not certain what to put in the middle of the circular freeways, "answers on a postcard".


----------



## noco (1 January 2010)

noirua said:


> I think there may be some new roads here, on the other hand ...:  http://www.ozroads.com.au/
> I would like some circular freeways to go round and round on to save having to come back. Then we could build some small towns just off the circular freeways to save Mr Rudd's worries about erosion near the beach dwellings.
> I'm not certain what to put in the middle of the circular freeways, "answers on a postcard".




Yes new roads that were surveyed, planned and budgeted for, before Rudd was elected in 2007.

Let's not be eluuded about Rudd taking credit for some of this infrastucture. New highways just  don't happen overnight.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 January 2010)

condog said:


> Where are our new roads, public transport, better hosiptals.....the guy has spent more money then all recent prime ministers combined and what do we have to show for it...



Indeed. If we're going to spend money then surely it would make more sense, from a long term national perspective, to be putting it into transport, water, energy (especially renewables given Rudd's apparent concern about coal and CO2), hospitals and so on rather than blowing it on Chinese TV's that will eventually end up at the tip.

Reality is though that Rudd has played the handout card incredibly well. Nobody calls it "economic stimulus" or anything like that, everyone I know just uses the term "Rudd Money" in relation to the $900 handout. Brilliant politics there, but we'd be better off with something permanent, like water or transport infrastructure, than a new TV or a few nights out on the town.


----------



## condog (1 January 2010)

Why is it that every person recognizes how bad the $900 handouts was, but his popularity is still so high....Is it that your all secretly saying you dont like it when you do or are we and the people we mix with no representative of the bogans that are home to answer the phone all day every day to answer the polls....?????

Honestly in a few years time Kevin Rudd and to some extent Howard will be held accountable for squandering Australia most prosperous years with nothing to show for it....  We will still have waiting list, gridlock, public transport nightmares, infrastructure bottlenecks and a rediculous amount of govt debt to repay through higher taxes.....  Will they name it the Krudd Recession We Didnt Have To Have.....

Howard had excellent economic credentials, but he failed to begin to adequately address climate change and now we will pay the price through hip jerk reactions and over reactions by rudd....poorly thought out policy and internationally disadvantaged energy cost structures...


----------



## Logique (1 January 2010)

Chinese soceity; Church religions; desire for a new bureaucracy to tax carbon; desire for a senior position at the UN; high staff turnover - what is the common thread here = control. And a healthy dose of megalomania. 

Control freak, classic control freak.  Personal control, state control. Chairman Kevin.

He has surrounded himself with similar glib talking policy vacuums.


----------



## trainspotter (1 January 2010)

lasty said:


> Ever since the failure of Copenhagen Rudd is nowhere to be seen.
> Had the outcome become different he would bathing in the glory.
> With a high turnover of his staff, do we have a PM who has mental issues?
> Unless he doesn't get his own way a dummy spit occurs.
> ...




*clap clap clap clap clap*  Must be one of the better political POV posts I have read for awhile.


----------



## So_Cynical (1 January 2010)

lasty said:


> Unless he doesn't get his own way a dummy spit occurs.
> Abbott being dubbed the mad monk will know exactly how to push Rudds buttons.
> Forget climate change or illegal boaties the debate will be in 2010 will be who is more mentally stable.




Another week another Rudd/Labor bashing thread  if i didn't know any better id say that some disgruntled Coalition voters are getting desperate and trying to create any kind of positive political spin where there simply is none. 

As for political dummy spits the biggest one we saw in 09 came from that coalition party room meeting, where the right simply said its our way or no way and promptly dumped the Turnbull and Hockey show for Abbott and Bananaby the loony right....what a joke. 

The Debate in 2010 will be the temporary status of Abbott as leader and how the Govt was left with no choice after the senate rejected the ETS for the third time and so forced the Govt into a double dissolution election.

Then its simply a matter of how many seats the coalition will lose....im predicting a bloodbath.



Fishbulb said:


> I still don't understand his popularity. How does a shifty, and manipulative little fella like that get away with it? It actually mystifies me, and I think about it at night....




Shifty, and manipulative little fella sounds more like little Johnny.  
:nosympath :nosympath :nosympath :nosympath :nosympath


----------



## nunthewiser (1 January 2010)

A BIG Happy new year to Mr Rudd ....... u da man!


----------



## nunthewiser (1 January 2010)

Can we get a mexican wave going in his honour ?


----------



## Fishbulb (1 January 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Shifty, and manipulative little fella sounds more like little Johnny.
> :nosympath :nosympath :nosympath :nosympath :nosympath




I suppose.

In fact it would apply just about equally to the lot of them.


----------



## condog (1 January 2010)

Wow this thread is getting better with age....Loving it

I personally think all communist party supporters should be banned from ASF.... they have no place in the world of greed and capitalism.....anyone who reads the Herald over the Tele....straight on a boat...anyone who watches the ABC can go with them.....LOL

All thes Labour hard liners should be put on a boat and thrown over board off indonesia  LMAO but this time dont rescue them.... And if you do send them to xmas Island for 7 years processing...by then we will have Priminister Mad Monk....look out..... tax returns will be given out at church and put straight in the plate...

So Cycnical - where you givin your name at a Labour party branch meeting or at birth when indoctrinated and handed your red scarf...LOL


----------



## Zird (1 January 2010)

Happy new year to the right wing of the ASF and blessings from above on the others.

There is one reason why Rudd is so popular -  a majority of people feel that despite a few fallings and personal foibles he is doing a reasonable job and saying the right things. Too simple - a bit like the how  'the market is happy/unhappy with a situation. 

It may be that those that cannot understand this are somewhat blinkered by their own belief. 

Under Rudd there *has not* been totally unfair ideology in action  like work choices,  no industrial unrest caused by antagonistic government policies (re Howard et al). Plus there is a little action happening on addressing real issues that affect people like hospitals, poor state of public school funding, , transport, higher education,  alternative energy solutions, global warming. 

 Under Howard there was a complete denial  of any issues other than smashing the unions and a fake sense of returning values of mateship. (Howard is reported as having few if any 'mates") 

There is also a feeling that Australia has come through the recession in great shape  - 'envy of the world'  The pain for most was minor and could have been far worse.

Overall it has been a steady Rudd/Gillard hand on the tiller and a straight course ahead without  desk polishing scandals and vicious internal warefare of the libs/nats.

Honestly why wouldn't they be popular? Any body can see that  the other mob is a complete shambles with weirdos in control.

I dont vote for either of them.


----------



## condog (1 January 2010)

Zird said:


> Happy new year to the right wing of the ASF and blessings from above on the others.
> 
> There is one reason why Rudd is so popular -  a majority of people feel that despite a few fallings and personal foibles he is doing a reasonable job and saying the right things. Too simple - a bit like the how  'the market is happy/unhappy with a situation.
> 
> ...




Congrats Zird your first on the boat.... take a towel some water and sunscreen... a fishing line, hooks and bag of worms could be handy too...


----------



## Zird (1 January 2010)

Condog - Was that Hamilton or Xmas island you mentioned - both seem to be a bit crowded at present


----------



## condog (1 January 2010)

Zird said:


> Condog - Was that Hamilton or Xmas island you mentioned - both seem to be a bit crowded at present




Mate there is always room on those hot over crowded islands for communist party labour supporters........after all its for the common good of society...


----------



## marklar (1 January 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> The Debate in 2010 will be the temporary status of Abbott as leader and how the Govt was left with no choice after the senate rejected the ETS for the third time and so forced the Govt into a double dissolution election.



There won't be a DD election, both majors are sh*t scared of the Greens & loony lefties gaining control of the senate.  Won't happen.

Politics is a numbers game, it's the reason that Julia will never be PM, she doesn't have (and won't get) the numbers.

m.


----------



## condog (1 January 2010)

marklar said:


> There won't be a DD election, both majors are sh*t scared of the Greens & loony lefties gaining control of the senate.  Won't happen.
> 
> Politics is a numbers game, it's the reason that Julia will never be PM, she doesn't have (and won't get) the numbers.
> 
> m.




LMAO They said that about Obama and Hilary Clinton, they both fought for the ticket and as you know the rest is history..... Where exactly is MCain now , wasnt he given 90% chance of winning against a black man or woman??????

Politics has a funny way of making predictions and commonsense seem irrellivant... eg: NSW labour and Johny Howards defeat....both against all odds .....


----------



## Purple XS2 (1 January 2010)

marklar said:


> There won't be a DD election, both majors are sh*t scared of the Greens & loony lefties gaining control of the senate.  Won't happen.




I first read this as your inferring of a distinction between "green" and "loony lefties", but that only leaves Senator Xenophon as the only claimant for "loony lefty". Sen X, I thought, is neither.

But then I realised you probably refer to "lefties" (who are by definition) "green and loony".

You know, I really do think there's a fundamental omission in such an assessment. What we're seeing here is a entirely new political theatre of operations. The whole socialism vs capitalism, worker vs boss, nanny state vs free-enterprise, the whole kitten and cat-doodle _is over. It doesn't matter. It's being eclipsed._

Copenhagen a show organised by green loonies, heads of state attending for a free lunch? I'm very sorry mate, _I really don't think so._

Greens a camouflage for socialism? Forget it. If I thought for one second that private enterprise would come up with better solutions for dealing with degradation of the earth, I'd tattoo the brand-name on my forehead.

Yes there are nutters in the greens. Now tell me there are no nutters in any other political movement, no (non-green) nutters in parliament?



> Politics is a numbers game, it's the reason that Julia will never be PM, she doesn't have (and won't get) the numbers.




Actually, I think Julia G. is just one runaway bus from the top-job, and if she got it she'd keep it (and earn it). Not that I wish ill for the current incumbent.

Oh yeah, my disclosure for political threads: I am a greenie.


----------



## Julia (1 January 2010)

Zird said:


> Happy new year to the right wing of the ASF and blessings from above on the others.
> 
> There is one reason why Rudd is so popular -  a majority of people feel that despite a few fallings and personal foibles he is doing a reasonable job and saying the right things. Too simple - a bit like the how  'the market is happy/unhappy with a situation.



Zird, would you consider in saying this that the majority of the electorate are not that interested in politics, and as long as they are not personally being disadvantaged (and especially if they have been the recipients of that lovely cash), then they're more or less happy with whatever is happening, i.e. they just don't care?



> Under Rudd there *has not* been totally unfair ideology in action  like work choices,  no industrial unrest caused by antagonistic government policies (re Howard et al).



True.


> Plus there is a little action happening on addressing real issues that affect people like hospitals, poor state of public school funding, , transport, higher education,  alternative energy solutions, global warming.



Not really true.  Many words.  No real action.  Rudd promised to take control of health by mid 2009 if there was no improvement.  Zilch has happened.
More enquiry or reports or something.  Ditto the other categories.




> Under Howard there was a complete denial  of any issues other than smashing the unions and a fake sense of returning values of mateship. (Howard is reported as having few if any 'mates")



You are ignoring the building up of the surplus.
Labor has since spent this and then some.




> There is also a feeling that Australia has come through the recession in great shape  - 'envy of the world'  The pain for most was minor and could have been far worse.



Gee whiz, this gets me.  You are completely ignoring all the money that has to be paid back, now that it has avoided retail sales figures going into the red when it mattered politically!   This massive amount has effectively been wasted, when we so desperately need funding for health, transport, education etc.  How bloody stupid to build assembly halls which schools didn't particularly need, whilst those same schools are bereft of adequate teaching staff.



> Overall it has been a steady Rudd/Gillard hand on the tiller and a straight course ahead without  desk polishing scandals and vicious internal warefare of the libs/nats.



That is quite true on the surface and undoubtedly how it will appear to your average uninterested constituent.
And further agree that the Libs/Nats are unable to offer anything any better to date.


marklar said:


> There won't be a DD election, both majors are sh*t scared of the Greens & loony lefties gaining control of the senate.  Won't happen.



Agree there will not be a DD election.



> Politics is a numbers game, it's the reason that Julia will never be PM, she doesn't have (and won't get) the numbers.
> 
> m.



Not so sure about this.  She hasn't put a foot wrong.  (That is ignoring her capacity for reciting the party line a la Rudd & Swan, and her very unfortunate voice.)  She seems a pretty decent woman to me, at least she has a sense of humour.  If the Dear Leader achieves his ambition of a seat at the UN, Ms Gillard would for me be an improvement over said Dear Leader.


----------



## So_Cynical (2 January 2010)

marklar said:


> There won't be a DD election, both majors are sh*t scared of the Greens & loony lefties gaining control of the senate.  Won't happen.






Julia said:


> Agree there will not be a DD election.




I will have to disagree with both of you...a DD election is a certainty in the Spring of 2010 after the ETS has been rejected for a third time, its the perfect platform to go to an election on....and why not clean out the senate with a DD election, Labor has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

The senate at the moment http://www.peo.gov.au/students/now_senate.html
.


----------



## Fishbulb (2 January 2010)

condog said:


> Wow this thread is getting better with age....Loving it
> 
> I personally think all communist party supporters should be banned from ASF.... they have no place in the world of greed and capitalism.....anyone who reads the Herald over the Tele....straight on a boat...anyone who watches the ABC can go with them.....LOL
> 
> ...




It's "Labor" these days. K? Thnx Bai.


----------



## Fishbulb (2 January 2010)

Zird said:


> Happy new year to the right wing of the ASF and blessings from above on the others.
> 
> There is one reason why Rudd is so popular -  a majority of people feel that despite a few fallings and personal foibles he is doing a reasonable job and saying the right things. Too simple - a bit like the how  'the market is happy/unhappy with a situation.
> 
> ...





Yeah, "warefare" aside, your analysis is highly intelligent and chock full o keen observations on all things Labor and Liberal. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. 

And if you're a Collingwood supporter, I would be even more impressed.


----------



## Zird (2 January 2010)

Thanks for the considered reply to all (except Condon) whose only response really is to send those with differing views on one way boat/train trips to extermination camps. Julia as always your response is detailed and well thought out and I will try and respond accordingly..

Yes most people are politically disinterested as is case globally. Most people just want to get on with their lives. I agree a DD is an option for labor but Labor will take up this option if they think they will win with this option. Labour picks up options when there is sufficient public support  eg Franklin River issue in the 80s.

I agree Julia many words little action. But the words are sort of soothing to the electorate and do not rock the boat - pathetic really, I heard that there is some progress on building the 'community medical centres' - but slow.

Yes Howard did build up a surplus -  but it was a decade  of economic strength. Some of that surplus should have gone into infrastructure along the way.

You get distressed with the cost of deficit. I would argue that  the cost would have  much greater if the  Australian economy had  collapsed to the extent of say England. We would still be in recession, the dole ques huge and business in a bad state. 

Hope this response is sufficient.


----------



## Timmy (2 January 2010)

What this about?


----------



## noirua (2 January 2010)

noco said:


> Yes new roads that were surveyed, planned and budgeted for, before Rudd was elected in 2007.
> 
> Let's not be eluuded about Rudd taking credit for some of this infrastucture. New highways just  don't happen overnight.




Adolph Hitler was probably the quickest road builder at one time. Perhaps that's one leaf Mr Rudd should take out of his book, even though he'd best ignore the rest.
During my stay in Ontario they moaned about the lack of roads; big sized countries need big people to take on big road development. 
The UK had the Romans to build their roads using slaves, so I suppose they built their own roads in a way. Small country, but massive road systems. 

Might be an idea if Mr Rudd and Co allowed China to buy some big companies in return for building roads.


----------



## Logique (2 January 2010)

No loonies or weirdos amongst the Left, the Greens and climate change army are there. Only to be found within the political right it seems.

Anyone promoting La Gillardine as PM would do well to study the former NZ Labour (that's the spelling over there) prime ministership of Helen Clark.  What a horror story, and resoundingly tossed out of office when NZ electors finally woke up. 

Style should never triumph over substance. A former employee of the Communist Party, policy achievements such as medicare gold, compulsory school halls (even if you don't need them), and plasma tvs on demand. Yep, that sounds like policy and leadership credentials to me.

Also with the ETS - have a look at the demographic of the political spruikers and supporters.  All citizens would incur higher power and water bills.  But how would this tax windfall for the govt be re-distributed?  To me it's pretty obvious who expects to benefit. For starters I'd expect lashings of (even more) middle class welfare.


----------



## Zird (2 January 2010)

3  decades ago I spent years in Canberra. I was staggered at how quickly superb roads leading to nowhere for no one were built. There does not need to be a dictator to get things done - just a government with determination, intelligence and future vision. 

It is easy to say nothing will change and we are in a bad way. But travel to Sth America makes you realise that many Aussies are just a bunch of spoilt squealing brats. Wake up Australia and be happy -  you are truly some of the luckiest people in the world.

Of course there are loonies everywhere but I try and avoid them


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 January 2010)

Zird said:


> Yes most people are politically disinterested as is case globally. Most people just want to get on with their lives. I agree a DD is an option for labor but Labor will take up this option if they think they will win with this option. Labour picks up options when there is sufficient public support  eg Franklin River issue in the 80s.



Ignoring the issue itself and NOT wanting to start that debate here , the entire politics of the Franklin issue were a defining moment in many ways in my opinion.

It's not often you find Tasmanians voting Liberal, nor is it common to hold state referendums, and it's even less common to have the results of a referendum overturned by the Commonwealth. Not often you find greens and Shell (as in the oil company) pushing the same interests. Not often you find greens advocating using more wood and coal either.

The thing I find really interesting though, again trying not to be biased as to the original issue itself, is that it was the views of those in Sydney and Melbourne particularly that decided the issue. And yet to this day virtually nobody living in either of those two cities has actually been to the Franklin (and nor have most Tasmanians by the way).

The media, particularly the 60 Minutes program, determined public opinion and the ultimate outcome there. To this day, I've yet to meet anyone not directly involved (on either side) who recalls any real factual information about the proposal. Most don't even know the basics, like where the dams were to be built and how much power they would have produced - really basic information in relation to the entire debate. 

*And yet it's hard to find someone who doesn't recall what the media said, even though both sides will to this day acknowledge that it was factually incorrect. Such is the power of the media*.

Relating that to the climate change issue, it's essentially the same situation. Many people say they want something done but have no real understanding of the issue. They just repeat whatever the media feeds them. They just think whatever News Corp, Channel 9, ABC and all the rest tell them to think. That's a very, very sad situation for our country to be in.


----------



## kitehigh (2 January 2010)

Zird said:


> It is easy to say nothing will change and we are in a bad way. But travel to Sth America makes you realise that many Aussies are just a bunch of spoilt squealing brats. Wake up Australia and be happy -  you are truly some of the luckiest people in the world.




Australia was a lucky country, but I don't see that anymore.  Australians have the highest levels of debt due to ridiculously high cost of housing.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/284509#tab=comments&sc=0&contribute=&local=

The cost of daily living expanses seems to have gone through the roof as well.  

When you compare the cost of housing and living expanses in the US, than Americans are much better off than most Australians.  Have a look what your money can buy you in the US and you will be impressed.

South America has a massive problem with poverty and general inequality, but they have some positives as well.  Namely the sexiest woman on earth , great food and wine, awesome natural beauty.  

A lot of people like to repeat the chorus about Australia being the lucky country an all but I don't see that on the faces of the average Australian working 50+ hours a week, just trying to keep their heads above water servicing a massive mortgage.  
I see more happy people in Brazil with a fraction of the so called wealth that Australians have.
So please can we stop using the term "Lucky Country", as I believe it no longer applies, and Politicians love to ride on this myth.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 January 2010)

kitehigh said:


> Australia was a lucky country, but I don't see that anymore.  Australians have the highest levels of debt due to ridiculously high cost of housing.
> http://digitaljournal.com/article/284509#tab=comments&sc=0&contribute=&local=
> 
> The cost of daily living expanses seems to have gone through the roof as well.
> ...




I'm very happy mate and wouldn't want to live in a pox ridden place like Brazil.

Wake up to yourself. All those buggers in boats coming here, all the tourists, all the poms and South Africans, all want to migrate here.

Happiness has nothing to do with poverty. Poverty is evil. It saps your strength and extinguishes hope. 

You are full of it mate.

gg


----------



## cashcow (2 January 2010)

Timmy said:


> What this about?




 The value of 13 approaches 12, except for large values of 13


----------



## Zird (2 January 2010)

Sorry Kitehigh but you are an example I was talking about. You probably eat every day 3 good healthy meals,  live in reasonable quality house/ unit, the sewer/water/power works without fail, you have a car, a job, your kids go to reasonable schools with classes less than 50 or 60 kids, your family and associates can get quality medical care, the police protect you rather than threaten you, the military is there to support us, the politiciands dont take huge bribes, you have holidays and probably even have a reasonable if not newish car and probably a new flat screen TV and computer.

Mate if you are bored, worried, stressed, feeling threatened, scared of the future,  suffering from overeating and lack of exercise get a life and go and visit somewhere in the world where most of the population have none of the things you take for granted. Then come back to Aus and tell us we any not one of the luckiest people on earth.

As for Brazil's being happy - yes you are right in general = but if you get to know the ones that cannot get enough food each day, or kids die because of easily prevenative illness, live in cardboard shacks - happiness is somewhat relative experience.

Aussie may have a high level of personal debt but they can afford it even if materialistic stupidity is part of the equasion.

Winge all you like - but the fact is you are a pampered, rich bunch of middleclass cry babies.


----------



## kitehigh (2 January 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You are full of it mate.
> 
> gg




Actually you are the one who is full of it.  You live in your own delusional world, but I suppose it keeps you insulated and happy so good for you.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 January 2010)

kitehigh said:


> Actually you are the one who is full of it.  You live in your own delusional world, but I suppose it keeps you insulated and happy so good for you.




You are a whinger mate, as has been pointed out above. Turn off the ABC and put your Sydney Morning Herald down and go down to the beach or out in the bush, up in the hills, or downtown and see what life is all about.

You've got the Kerryobriens mate.

Its like pre menstrual tension but it is continuous and lasts from the late teens all your life for some who like to bag their own people.

gg


----------



## Zird (2 January 2010)

I have enjoyed being part of this thread today but please if you really want something to sink your teeth into swap to Killing of the Bull forum with weatherbill's predictions of the immediate future. 

I have just read the terrifying account of the world's end and truly  I need a Bex and a good lie down -


----------



## kitehigh (2 January 2010)

Zird said:


> Sorry Kitehigh but you are an example I was talking about. You probably eat every day 3 good healthy meals,  live in reasonable quality house/ unit, the sewer/water/power works without fail, you have a car, a job, your kids go to reasonable schools with classes less than 50 or 60 kids, your family and associates can get quality medical care, the police protect you rather than threaten you, the military is there to support us, the politiciands dont take huge bribes, you have holidays and probably even have a reasonable if not newish car and probably a new flat screen TV and computer.
> 
> Mate if you are bored, worried, stressed, feeling threatened, scared of the future,  suffering from overeating and lack of exercise get a life and go and visit somewhere in the world where most of the population have none of the things you take for granted. Then come back to Aus and tell us we any not one of the luckiest people on earth.
> 
> ...




You have no idea about my life.  I actually live in Brazil.  I work in a war zone.
I have seen more poverty, death and destruction than 99% of Australians and that probably includes you.

So don't pretend you can lecture me about life in Oz.  I have lived in 5 different countries across the world and know first hand about the different qualities of life people are living.

I actually have few possessions as that's how I chose to live my life, I don't need an expansive car or expansive toys to feel complete as some of you do.


----------



## Fishbulb (2 January 2010)

kitehigh said:


> Australia was a lucky country, but I don't see that anymore.  Australians have the highest levels of debt due to ridiculously high cost of housing.
> http://digitaljournal.com/article/284509#tab=comments&sc=0&contribute=&local=
> 
> The cost of daily living expanses seems to have gone through the roof as well.
> ...




I can see what you're saying, and with a couple of reservations, I agree.


----------



## Zird (2 January 2010)

Apologises are needed then Kitehigh and I apologise to you as you are witnessing the injustice of poverty that is the fate of majority of Brazilians. 
I was wrong in thinking that you were in Oz and complaining about conditions here.
 Surely then you must agree with me that any Aussie that winges about his/her living conditions is a pathetic case of middleclass patheticness.

My wife is also from Brazil (Minas Gerais)  from very poor rural background - 11 kids no Dad etc. I am Aussie of Anglo/scotish ancestory.

I would like to correspond with you out of forum if you are happy to.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 January 2010)

I still reckon he's a tosser.

It didn't sound as if he was arguing from the "I live in poverty amongst the poor" angle initially.

I'd say he works for the ABC or some other organisation which is out to vilify anything good about Australia.

The Brazilians I met in E Timor were up themselves, like the Portugese and didn't seem to give a crap about poverty there.

They are my thoughts anyway.

gg


----------



## Fishbulb (2 January 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I still reckon he's a tosser.
> 
> It didn't sound as if he was arguing from the "I live in poverty amongst the poor" angle initially.
> 
> ...





Nah...to me it looks simply as if he's questioning the value systems we live under. Perfectly acceptable and right to do so.


----------



## Zird (2 January 2010)

GG, there are many sorts of Brazilians. I often employ them in preference to wingeing aussies.  Those you met in ET were probably from the educated, middleclass.  Talk to the poor ones and poverty is with them every minute of the day and then it is a diiferent story. Most of the Brazilians I have met are wonderful people. However  I did not like the one that offered a bullet from his pistol if I did not hand over my camera - but this is extremely rare. Millions travel to Brazil annually with no problem. 

 I love to travel there but the poverty makes me sad but the peoples vitality and endurance is wonderful. Even other Sth Americans talk of Brazilians being happy. 

There are also great signs of hope with the present government trying to tackle problems of immense magnitude - poverty/corruption/lack of education etc.

I am signing off for today and going fishing tonight on the high tide with my boy - I am a lucky man.

Over the last 5 years I have noticed signs of improvement with the economy with examples of poor peoples houses having a bit of paint on them etc.
In one city there was the peoples resturant where 100,000 could eat ech day for $1 a meal and food co-opts for the poor to buy bulk cheap goods.

Bazil is a rich country with resources on a vast scale (minerals - tourism - agriculture etc). There are hundreds of places that lool like our gold coast. It is just that it has a history of slavery,  military dictatorships and universal corruption, appalling inequality and no complusory education untill 1900.  

 President Lula has been named Man of the Year (or decade?) by Le Monde newspaper and given a Noble Peace Prize for lifting millions out of poverty.

We all need to get out a bit more and see the world.

I am signing off today and going fishing with my boy. I am a lucky man. 

Good on Weatherbill he assures me that I am normal and in full control of my faculties.


----------



## So_Cynical (2 January 2010)

Good to see yet another Labor/Rudd bashing thread completely derailed.


----------



## codenameone (2 January 2010)

I said from day one, they have worked out if they get the welfare vote and the union vote, they are over the line. Anyone else (as far as Labor is concerned) can take a hike. If you are on welfare, you make $200 per year out of the ETS-go figure !


----------



## Julia (2 January 2010)

Zird said:


> I agree Julia many words little action. But the words are sort of soothing to the electorate and do not rock the boat - pathetic really, I heard that there is some progress on building the 'community medical centres' - but slow.



You're probably right about most people simply accepting the words, and also the assured and authoritative tone in which they are delivered.



> Yes Howard did build up a surplus -  but it was a decade  of economic strength. Some of that surplus should have gone into infrastructure along the way.



Absolutely right.



> You get distressed with the cost of deficit. I would argue that  the cost would have  much greater if the  Australian economy had  collapsed to the extent of say England. We would still be in recession, the dole ques huge and business in a bad state.



OK, that's a fair point.  I just find it hugely disapppointing that so much money was squandered when there is so much in the way of infrastructure that is needed.
And I find it all the more irritating because I believe the $900 cheques were more about Rudd's quest for popularity (entirely successful, it seems) than any *lasting*benefit for Australia.


----------



## lukeaye (2 January 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> I still don't understand his popularity. How does a shifty, and manipulative little fella like that get away with it? It actually mystifies me, and I think about it at night....




Just to get back on topic

I figured this one out quite a while ago, here is my take on it.

I believe that the stupid law we have in this country that everyone must vote is just idiotic, and thats what won him the election, and here is why.

Now in general, the australian population don't have an interest in politics, and wouldnt know the first thing about it. So as a result the masses are swayed by catchy one liners, clever advertising.

What won kevin rudd this election, was this simple line "Its time for a change".

That line influnenced millions of youths. Alot of my friends, who have no idea about politics were telling me how John Howard wasn't doing a good job anymore and that change was a good thing, and a way to solve it.

They had no idea about anyones policies, what exactly kevin rudd would change that needed to be changed anyway? The thing that people Forgot was that if it isn't broken, then don't fix it!

Politics is a joke. It is less about what is best for the country and more about who has the cleverest and catchiest campaign, who can rag out the other person better. The millions of dollars spent on it instead of the country is another joke.

So to fix the problem, make it legal to not vote, then those who have a general interest and are intelligent in the area vote. Then you won't have idiots voting, and putting our countries future on the line for some dumb one liner they saw on TV. **** Kevin Rudd, and **** this stupid political system we have. Its time somebody did something about it. Im sick of these Morons.

The same thing nearly happened years ago when the GST campaign was launched. Kim Beezley made it seem like supporting GST was like supporting satanic rituals. Imagine if he got in.


----------



## Julia (2 January 2010)

Your theory about the change of government being largely on the basis of "it's time for a change" is probably reasonably correct.  Plus the massive negative effect of Howard's 'Workchoices'.

However, it doesn't explain Mr Rudd's continuing popularity.


----------



## wayneL (2 January 2010)

lukeaye said:


> Just to get back on topic
> 
> I figured this one out quite a while ago, here is my take on it.
> 
> I believe that the stupid law we have in this country that everyone must vote is just idiotic, and thats what won him the election, and here is why....




I used to have that opinion, but....

It is not compulsory to vote in either UK or NZ. 

UK has been in the grip of the Fabian socialists for 12 years. NZ had the Labour heathen for 10 years before booting them out.

It comes down to who can bribe the swinging voter successfully. Compulsory or not, I no longer believe is relevant. Very often, the most politically interested are under-employment, government employed etc and inclined to the left.

The actual producers in any economy are usually busy producing the economies wealth and not always politically savvy or active.


----------



## lukeaye (2 January 2010)

Julia said:


> Your theory about the change of government being largely on the basis of "it's time for a change" is probably reasonably correct.  Plus the massive negative effect of Howard's 'Workchoices'.
> 
> However, it doesn't explain Mr Rudd's continuing popularity.




How are you gauging his continued popularity? From what i read and see his popularity is greatly falling


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 January 2010)

Julia said:


> Your theory about the change of government being largely on the basis of "it's time for a change" is probably reasonably correct.  Plus the massive negative effect of Howard's 'Workchoices'.



I'm no unionist that's for sure, but it took me about 5 seconds to work out how the already disadvantaged could and would be explouited further under Workchoices. 

Just like at the state political level here in Tasmania, the Liberals are already fighting and they haven't even gone to the upcoming (March 2010) election yet. So despite all their rather blatant faults, Labor still looks the better option there.

As for Rudd and climate change, one thing I've noticed over the past few days is a shift in sentiment in media reporting on the issue. http://www.news.com.au/national/wea...ar-in-year-ahead/story-e6frfkvr-1225815414199

Just a few week ago, anything like that was routinely reported as solely or predominantly due to climate change. Now they mention natural variation in the weather. 

Without arguing about the climate itself, that change in sentiment is quite likely of significance in my opinion. The media makes public opinion and if the media's reporting climate as due to something other than CO2 then that _will_ change public opinion over the issue.


----------



## Purple XS2 (2 January 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> ...As for Rudd and climate change, one thing I've noticed over the past few days is a shift in sentiment in media reporting on the issue. http://www.news.com.au/national/wea...ar-in-year-ahead/story-e6frfkvr-1225815414199
> 
> Just a few week ago, anything like that was routinely reported as solely or predominantly due to climate change. Now they mention natural variation in the weather.
> 
> Without arguing about the climate itself, that change in sentiment is quite likely of significance in my opinion. The media makes public opinion and if the media's reporting climate as due to something other than CO2 then that _will_ change public opinion over the issue.




Point taken, but my prediction for the next 12 months is that 'public opinion' will become less relevant - this is moving into the murky realm of international trade and alliances.

As for citing News Limited as your source of influences of public opinion, I think it's fair to say News Ltd has an agenda, and furthermore that agenda would spin on a sixpence should Mr Murdoch as #1 agenda-setter see fit.

I'm on par with Mr #1's harshest critics, but I never underestimate his intelligence. My hot tip for 2010? Murdoch changes editorial policy on climate change, and News Ltd starts singing a very different tune.

Rupert Murdoch would prefer to create winners, but where capacity is lacking, he'll back winners.

Regards,
P.


----------



## Julia (2 January 2010)

lukeaye said:


> How are you gauging his continued popularity? From what i read and see his popularity is greatly falling



From the opinion polls, i.e. Newspoll and Nielsen.  One published in "The Weekend Australian" today follows the pattern of Rudd's popularity being maintained, even increased.

If you Google both the above organisations, you will be able to access their past polls.




Smurf1976 said:


> Without arguing about the climate itself, that change in sentiment is quite likely of significance in my opinion. The media makes public opinion and if the media's reporting climate as due to something other than CO2 then that _will_ change public opinion over the issue.



Exactly.  And that is why there was a widely held perception that the general public were in favour of an ETS.  They were being 'informed' by the popular press.  Now that some alternative views have emerged, and further, now that the media are realising the folly of flogging the dead horse of climate change and the ETS, public opinion will follow accordingly.


----------



## Zird (2 January 2010)

I think you are twisting the arguement to fit into your beliefs or hopes.

Everybody I speak to is aware of climate change, everybody I speak to is deeply concerned  about it and fear for the futre of their children. Labour policy accepts that there is climate change and is perceived to be doing something.

The Lib/Nats are climate change denialists and are totally out of step with the majority of Australians and after the tricky dick Howard years are not to be trusted. 

Why wouldn't Rudd be popular? Whether you like it or not he is far more intouch with thinking of the majority of Australians. The Libs/Nats are totally out of step  with general environment concerns, with abortion, with their internal party discipline  and in particular with their climate change denialist stance. They simply are not reading and do not care about what most Australians are concerned with. Totally out of touch with reality.

The self asurredness of ASF c.C. Denialists also puts them on the outer edge of current concerns not just in this country but with probably a majority of the world's citizens.


----------



## Julia (2 January 2010)

Zird said:


> Everybody I speak to is aware of climate change, everybody I speak to is deeply concerned  about it and fear for the futre of their children. Labour policy accepts that there is climate change and is perceived to be doing something.



Well, Zird, I suppose it depends on in which circles you mix.  Out of everyone I know, which is a wide cross section of people, only two believe in anthropogenic climate change.  And when asked why they believe this, neither could claim to have read anything at all from any scientific source, not a single word, but agree they have sourced their views from the media.



> The Lib/Nats are climate change denialists and are totally out of step with the majority of Australians and after the tricky dick Howard years are not to be trusted.



I'm disappointed in you, Zird.  So far you have presented objective and courteous argument.  But now you descend to the pejorative "denialist' labels.  Pity.



> Why wouldn't Rudd be popular? Whether you like it or not he is far more intouch with thinking of the majority of Australians.



Indeed that is correct.  He is utterly populist in every way.



> The Libs/Nats are totally out of step  with general environment concerns, with abortion,



Abortion?  What, actually, is official Lib/Nat policy on this?
Perhaps you could be a little clearer about what you mean?



> with their internal party discipline  and in particular with their climate change denialist stance. They simply are not reading and do not care about what most Australians are concerned with. Totally out of touch with reality.



Oh dear, again we go with the perjorative and judgemental language.
What you are actually saying is that they are not, as a Party, agreeing with your own particular view.  

We'll see what happens now on 'climate change' and the ETS.
Surely you don't think Australia should go ahead with this flawed legislation now that is is patently obviously the rest of the world will be doing nothing in particular?


----------



## kitehigh (3 January 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I still reckon he's a tosser.




Good, the feeling is mutual.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I'd say he works for the ABC or some other organisation which is out to vilify anything good about Australia.




This gave me a good laugh, couldn't be anymore further from the truth.  
Actually don't watch much tv so can't comment on the abc barb.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> The Brazilians I met in E Timor were up themselves, like the Portugese and didn't seem to give a crap about poverty there.




It's funny how we can perceive people to be arrogant.  Reminds me of a time I thought this guy was arrogant and up himself also, but just turns out he wasn't confident with his English and lacked confidence in social settings.  He turned out to be a great person when I finally got to know him and I vowed I wouldn't be so judgmental in the future.  The Portuguese have a lot to answer for, in regards to the mess Brazil finds it self in.  The Portuguese were all about exploiting the local people and the countries natural wealth.  Maybe if the English had colonized Brazil than it would be in much better shape as the old English colonies seem to be functioning much better. 

By the way I'm not anti Australian at all, just open to the possibility that there are other just as well off countries in the world.  

They are my thoughts anyway.


----------



## kitehigh (3 January 2010)

Zird said:


> Apologises are needed then Kitehigh and I apologise to you as you are witnessing the injustice of poverty that is the fate of majority of Brazilians.
> I was wrong in thinking that you were in Oz and complaining about conditions here.
> Surely then you must agree with me that any Aussie that winges about his/her living conditions is a pathetic case of middleclass patheticness.
> 
> ...




Apology accepted.

I agree with you that there are many Australians complaining about things when they actually have it pretty good, compared to a lot of people in the world.  Usually find they have never been outside of Oz.  Or if they have it was on a piss trip to Bali / Thailand.


----------



## condog (3 January 2010)

kitehigh said:


> Good, the feeling is mutual.
> The Portuguese have a lot to answer for, in regards to the mess Brazil finds it self in.  The Portuguese were all about exploiting the local people and the countries natural wealth.  Maybe if the English had colonized Brazil than it would be in much better shape as the old English colonies seem to be functioning much better.
> They are my thoughts anyway.




OMG OMG OMG This is sooooooo sad / funny / ironic / disturbing / crazy / terrible / politically incorrect / sensible all rolled into one paragraph.....

It conjurs up all sorts of thoughts.......

I dont know whether to give you Gordon Browns phone number so he can send the troops, whether to send you $50 USD to help or whether to laugh....

Its the funniest and truely saddest sentence ive ever read all in one...."Maybe if the English had colonized Brazil than it would be in much better shape as the old English colonies seem to be functioning much better. "

When we live in a country that is cursed world wide for what happeneed 200 years ago....where injustices still occur today and even we that try and help are still called racists and tarred with the same brush as those not helping and those being racists......and then you come out with this.......OMG

WOW...sorry cant comment further too confused......arrrrrrr my head hurts

But I have very geniune empathy and sympathy and am a big contributor to charities for the worlds poor....including brazil....


Now lets get this stupid thread focused back on Rudderless - you communist labour party followers stop derailing it or I will put you on the boat....


----------



## condog (3 January 2010)

Rudderless

Hospitals taken from states - - Not Done
Public waiting lists - reduced - hardly
Stimulus money well targeted - hell no
Huge debt to repay for generations and nothing productive for the country to show for it - fully achieved
More top end teachers being retained - failed
More nurses so hospital beds can open - failed
More police on the beat - failed
Better public transport - failed
Alcopop tax grab - achieved
Reduced teenager binge drinking - failed
Better national 1 high way - hmmmm stimulus could have finished it -failed
Better ports n rails - failed
NBN we dont even need - partially achieved....
Stop the boat people - failed
Encourage more boat people - achieved
Abolish stamo duty to mobilise the work force - failed
Start manipulating a great superannuation system so no younger workers trust it again - achieved
Design a massively costly ,unpopular, and inefficient  environmental ETS platform that even the greens hate -achieved
Destroy the fledgling solar industry by stupidly pulling funding for 6 months- achieved
Introduce national awards that undermine the conditions of all the people who voted him in against work choices - achieved
Increase industrial disputes - achieved
Give out big screens to everyone and ask the middle income earners of Australia to fund it...achieved

Generally waste our hard earned surpluses and have nothing we really wanted or needed to show for it and give us the huge labour debts back we love and enjoy from our inept labour economists - achieved..




Wow this guys gunna get PM of the century......vote 1 Krudd


----------



## nunthewiser (3 January 2010)

No offense condog but i find your posts immature .

kitehigh holds some valid argument and points and just because you may not have seen past your armchair there is no reason to trash the posts for those that do get out.

i do not agree with some parts also but happy to read it

have a great day.


----------



## Fishbulb (3 January 2010)

lukeaye said:


> Just to get back on topic
> 
> I figured this one out quite a while ago, here is my take on it.
> 
> ...





Except for the very last sentence, I think I agree with everything you've written here. I don't know much about the system itself either, and all we plebs see are the outworkings I suppose. 

Gough got in with a very similar slogan "It's time" - yep, remove compulsory voting and take the clueless element out of decision making sounds like a good idea. I'd probably vote less than a third of the time myself.

Re the last sentence; I kinda liked the Beaz. He seemed to me to be a genuinely good bloke, along the lines of my other favourite Laborite; Hawkey. Beazley is very well read too, he's no moron, and I think he thoroughly deserves his new posting in the States. I'm sure that would be one plum job for any pollie.


----------



## Calliope (3 January 2010)

This country may be leaderless, but it will not be Rudderless for the foreseeable future. Rudd does not have a power base in the Party but he is propped up by La Gillard's control of the left wing power base.

Mr Rudd is tolerated for one reason only, and that is his popularity with the masses. That is why there is no chance of Rudd introducing any sweeping reforms as his firmly entrenched predecessors, Hawke, Keating and Howard were able to do.

Even his much vaunted ETS was watered down so that the masses on whom he is so reliant, would be more than compensated for increased power bills at the expense of those whose votes he doesn't need.


----------



## pilots (3 January 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> Except for the very last sentence, I think I agree with everything you've written here. I don't know much about the system itself either, and all we plebs see are the outworkings I suppose.
> 
> Gough got in with a very similar slogan "It's time" - yep, remove compulsory voting and take the clueless element out of decision making sounds like a good idea. I'd probably vote less than a third of the time myself.
> 
> Re the last sentence; I kinda liked the Beaz. He seemed to me to be a genuinely good bloke, along the lines of my other favourite Laborite; Hawkey. Beazley is very well read too, he's no moron, and I think he thoroughly deserves his new posting in the States. I'm sure that would be one plum job for any pollie.




What a joke compulsory voting is, I can walk in to any voting Booth and use your name and vote for say xyz, I then go to the next school and vote again, and vote with your name again, lets say I do this twenty times on voting day, each time I vote for xyz, now what happens if xyz get in to power with a lead of only ten votes, they do a recount and find YOU have voted twenty time, you are in trouble, but what are they going to do?? do we all have to vote again??, its all a joke.


----------



## Logique (3 January 2010)

Zird said:


> I have enjoyed being part of this thread today but please if you really want something to sink your teeth into swap to Killing of the Bull forum with weatherbill's predictions of the immediate future.
> I have just read the terrifying account of the world's end and truly  I need a Bex and a good lie down -



Where - link please.


----------



## noco (3 January 2010)

Calliope said:


> This country may be leaderless, but it will not be Rudderless for the foreseeable future. Rudd does not have a power base in the Party but he is propped up by La Gillard's control of the left wing power base.
> 
> Mr Rudd is tolerated for one reason only, and that is his popularity with the masses. That is why there is no chance of Rudd introducing any sweeping reforms as his firmly entrenched predecessors, Hawke, Keating and Howard were able to do.
> 
> Even his much vaunted ETS was watered down so that the masses on whom he is so reliant, would be more than compensated for increased power bills at the expense of those whose votes he doesn't need.




Calliope, I read a similar article written by Peter Van Onsellen in The Weekend Australian pointing out Rudd did not have a power base in the Labor Party caucus, which means he has to stay popular to retain his position.


----------



## Calliope (3 January 2010)

noco said:


> Calliope, I read a similar article written by Peter Van Onsellen in The Weekend Australian pointing out Rudd did not have a power base in the Labor Party caucus, which means he has to stay popular to retain his position.




noco, I must confess that it is no coincidence that my views coincided with his.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...pularity-contest/story-e6frg6zo-1225815349874


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 January 2010)

noco said:


> Calliope, I read a similar article written by Peter Van Onsellen in The Weekend Australian pointing out Rudd did not have a power base in the Labor Party caucus, which means he has to stay popular to retain his position.





You read it first on ASF

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=517656&postcount=1

gg


----------



## kitehigh (3 January 2010)

condog said:


> OMG OMG OMG This is sooooooo sad / funny / ironic / disturbing / crazy / terrible / politically incorrect / sensible all rolled into one paragraph.....
> 
> It conjurs up all sorts of thoughts.......
> 
> WOW...sorry cant comment further too confused......arrrrrrr my head hurts




Not to sure what you are confused with.  It is pretty easy to have a glance around the world at the old colonies and see which ones seem to be doing better.  For simplicity I will list a few of the old english colonies and a few of old portuguese ones.

English: United States, Australia, Canada, 

Now lets compare that to the Portuguese:
Brazil, Mozambique, East Timor.

I think anyone with half a brain can see the commonality within the groups.
It was actually a Brazilian who mentioned to me that they wondered how their country would be now if it was the English and not the Portuguese who colonised their country.  I was interested in his comments and asked him to elaborate.  He said he could see that the English speaking countries seem to functioning very well in terms of economies and general law and order. 

Yes all colonies were exploited for their resources, but if you look at the English ones at least a decent structure was left in place.  
This topic probably deserves it own thread, so I won't go into here anymore.


----------



## condog (3 January 2010)

Kitehigh - no offence to you or your post....you have to read between the lines to see what Im eluding too... Im hearing what you say and whilst I agree I think there are a ton of activist groups within Australia and from overseas who very much disagree with the way the British and the colonies have treated there indigenous populations....so yeh mate i have half a brain

Nunthe wiser----cheers mate - thats very very rich from you .....i do recall you as having a ton of one line immature responses in almost every debate / topic I have read.... but just for you I will ...


----------



## Mr J (3 January 2010)

You're comparing Portugal's examples with Britain's best. Britain colonised many countries that are still developing or third world, such as India and about one-third of Africa. One influence may have been Britain entering her golden age in a more recent era than the other major colonial powers. Spain lost most of her empire in the early 19th Century, and Portugal had peaked by the early 17th Century.


----------



## condog (3 January 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> Can we get a mexican wave going in his honour ?







nunthewiser said:


> A BIG Happy new year to Mr Rudd ....... u da man!






nunthewiser said:


> No offense condog but i find your posts immature .
> 
> kitehigh holds some valid argument and points and just because you may not have seen past your armchair there is no reason to trash the posts for those that do get out.
> 
> ...




So immensly more mature and contributory to the dialogue then what I was saying........Im not sure how your three brief posts add more maturity to this dialogue then what I was offering.....no offence but perhaps your level of maturity is bordering on dementure....you see how the no offence bit doesnt hide what your actually saying...apparently Im mature enough to interperet that...


Im more then happy to be a tad immature for ever....I love being around young people ...they are full of vitality, energy and enthusiasm......not for a moment would I ever wish so much maturity on someone that they take themselves too seriously and lose the ability to have a bit of fun.....if thats maturity....you can have it nun, but rewst assured I expect all your posts to be full of maturity and wisdom from now on....especially if you want to go pointing the hypocritical stick like this...


----------



## nunthewiser (3 January 2010)

yawns.

My beef was in regards to your juvenile attack on a persons opinion that was posted here ..........

I,m fine being viewed as immature as quite often i am and am happy to admit it ............ shame you cant come to terms with the fact that your attack on a poster was in a most childish and immature manner .......

Anyhoo have a niceday , cant be bothered arguing the point any further ........


----------



## condog (3 January 2010)

Kitehigh I unreseredly apologise if i offended you, that was not my intention. If you re-read my post you will see that my intention was to comicly highlight the immense irony of what you had just said....

the other hypocracey,  does not warrant a response...


----------



## nunthewiser (3 January 2010)

> KEVIN Rudd remains dominant and is on track to pick up Liberal-held seats in Victoria, South Australia and Queensland if he chooses to go to the polls early in a double-dissolution election.
> 
> That is the finding of a Newspoll survey, published exclusively in The Weekend Australian today, which also reveals Labor has reversed its drop in support in regional cities, returning to 53 per cent on two-party-preferred terms.
> 
> ...





Yes Rudd sure looks good for the next Election ...........


----------



## kitehigh (3 January 2010)

condog said:


> Kitehigh I unreseredly apologise if i offended you, that was not my intention. If you re-read my post you will see that my intention was to comicly highlight the immense irony of what you had just said....




Thats the problem with the printed word, you lose a lot of the other persons intent because you can't hear tone, see body language etc etc.  

I know the indigenous people suffered immensely in pretty much all the old colonies.  It just that some suffered more than others as far as I can see.  Imagine if the Portuguese had colonised Australia first.  I bet it would be a totally different dynamic than it is now.



Mr J said:


> You're comparing Portugal's examples with Britain's best. Britain colonised many countries that are still developing or third world, such as India and about one-third of Africa. One influence may have been Britain entering her golden age in a more recent era than the other major colonial powers. Spain lost most of her empire in the early 19th Century, and Portugal had peaked by the early 17th Century.




Well I was just comparing the larger Colonies, although I should have put Angola in there instead of East Timor.   Portugal didn't have any where near as many colonies as Britain.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 January 2010)

I'd like to kick coitehigh.

He seems to have assumed sacred no go status amongst previously sane and sentient posters, apologising and genuflecting to his coiteness.

Is it because he has a brazilian??

gg


----------



## Zird (4 January 2010)

While seemingly off topic Ie the pros/cons of our dear leader it seems for me  within the divergent concept of 'rudderless' or direction/less. 

As to the effect of various colonial   powers on subservient countries I would have to say that they were all equally vicious in terms of effect on indigenous people and all survived on some form of slavery - Australia/convicts and African slaves throughout the world.  

African/Sth American/Asian  colonies where ruthlessley exploited for their natural resources. IE India was a well off country before Britain sent all the wealth  back home and shut down local industries, Portugal/Spain/France etc exploited Africa/Americas sending vast amounts of gold/wealth back home.  All colonial powers flourished on the exploited well of other countries..

It is impossible to say who were the worst bastards.  I think it impossible to say whose legacy was the least destructive re: post colonial period as none of the colonising powers had any interest in educating the population or setting up the country for real independance.
Each colony was left with so many difficulties and internal complexities that affected the post colonial development.

Australia was a lucky with it's post colonial development of which much must be attributed to British legacy of Westmiinster style Government and organisation  as was America(USA). Aus & US were short lived colonies compared to say Brazil (500 years of exploitation). Maybe duration  is a factor.

This is a complx issue but  a few of my thoughts.

World Cup/Olympics in Brazil - will be incredible place to be - world's biggest celebration.




.


----------



## kitehigh (4 January 2010)

Hey Zird I have sent to you a pm.


----------



## Zird (4 January 2010)

Thanks Kitehigh I will go to it.
Julia I am working on my response to your last return post.


----------



## Zird (4 January 2010)

Julia, sorry for response delay.



You dont quote any number of people who you associated with but state only 2 were concerned. Can you quantify? Ie 2/2 or 2/20 etc. For me I would say about 18/20 are concerned. Maybe your associates dont care but mine do.

How come Leaders of China/America/Japan/Australia/Africa/Asia etc all say that the current rapid rate of Climate change is anthropogenic (I did not need a dictionary) but many ASFers believe otherwise.

The previous PM tried to be popular but failled miserably and lost his seat plus that of government. Rudd is liked by many.

The Lib leader is outspokenly anti  abortion as is National party. There are also some dissenters in ranks.

Julia as Australia is the biggest CO2 producer/emitter per H.o P. we have a responsibilty to do something and so do the rest. We are as with all things environmental way behind advanced European standards. *The EU already* has  a trading system.

* "The European Union Emission Trading System (EU ETS) is the largest multi-national, emissions trading scheme in the world,[1] and is a major pillar of EU climate policy. The ETS currently covers more than 10,000 installations with a net heat excess of 20 MW in the energy and industrial sectors which are collectively responsible for close to half of the EU's emissions of CO2 and 40% of its total greenhouse gas emissions.[2] [3]

Under the EU ETS, large emitters of carbon dioxide within the EU must monitor and annually report their CO2 emissions, and they are obliged every year to return an amount of emission allowances to the government that is equivalent to their CO2 emissions in that year. In order to neutralise annual irregularities in CO2-emission levels that may occur due to extreme weather events (such as harsh winters or very hot summers), emission allowances for any plant operator subject to the EU ETS are given out for a sequence of several years at once. Each such sequence of years is called a Trading Period. The 1st EU ETS Trading Period expired in December 2007; it had covered all EU ETS emissions since January 2005. With its termination, the 1st phase EU allowances became invalid. Since January 2008, the 2nd Trading Period is under way which will last until December 2012. Currently, the installations get the allowances for free from the EU member states' governments. Besides receiving this initial allocation on a plant-by-plant basis, an operator may purchase EU allowances from others (installations, traders, the government.) If an installation has received more free allowances than it needs, it may sell them to anybody.[citation needed]

In January 2008, the European Commission proposed a number of changes to the scheme, including centralized allocation (no more national allocation plans) by an EU authority, a turn to auctioning a greater share (60+ %) of permits rather than allocating freely, and inclusion of other greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons.[3] These changes are still in a draft stage; the mentioned amendments are only likely to become effective from January 2013 onwards, i.e. in the 3rd Trading Period under the EU ETS. Also, the proposed caps for the 3rd Trading Period foresee an overall reduction of greenhouse gases for the sector of 21% in 2020 compared to 2005 emissions. The EU ETS has recently been extended to the airline industry as well, but these changes will not take place until 2012.[4][5]
*

Julia, I hope this response is suitably framed in the correct language for the diplomatic exchange of views. However I retain my right to express my dissapointment at the attitudes of those that deny anthropogenic climate change exists.


----------



## wayneL (4 January 2010)

Zird said:


> ...I retain my right to express my dissapointment at the attitudes of those that deny anthropogenic climate change exists.




That's OK, so long as you accept the right of others to express their own disappointment with those who believe in the Goreist fallacy.


----------



## lasty (4 January 2010)

Recent hunger strike farmer is protesting over stolen land.
Apparently $100 billion dollars is needed to be paid for compensation in what land the govt has taken from 300,000 farmers.
Barnaby Joyce reckons it communism.
It's more like North Korea.
His only two friends are a dog and cat.


----------



## noco (4 January 2010)

Zird said:


> Julia, sorry for response delay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Zird, you don't give a mention as to how the EU, Brittain and even Canada and the USA have reduced their CO2 emissions. May I suggest you do some homework on the number of Nuclear Power plants currently in use in those arears. 

As at 2005,  439 Nuclear power plants were in operation in those arears and some 54 now under construction. 70 plants alone are in operation in France. All producing zero CO2.

Perhaps you might convince our illustrious leader Mr. Rudd that Nuclear power is the way to go in Australia.


----------



## Zird (4 January 2010)

NOCO - you presume that am anti - nuclear because I express pro conservation views.  I have never stated anything regarding nuclear power and in fact feel that it can be apart of a raft of measures taken to effect CO2 reduction.

Please withdraw and apologise for your unsubstantiated claim.

Wayne - why would I have a problem with freedom of expression and the right to speak and debate issues? When have i ever suggested anything else.

As above please withdraw and apologise for misrepresenting me.


----------



## wayneL (4 January 2010)

Zird said:


> Wayne - why would I have a problem with freedom of expression and the right to speak and debate issues? When have i ever suggested anything else.
> 
> As above please withdraw and apologise for misrepresenting me.




I have misrepresented you?

How so?

What would you like me to withdraw and what what you like me to apologize for?


----------



## Zird (4 January 2010)

Your assertion is that I dont accept others right to express etc etc"

Waynel  This disparaging comment of yours  is so great and affected me so much I am calling in my 2nds and polishing the sidearms.

" so long as you accept the right of others to express their own disappointment with those who believe in the Goreist fallacy.


----------



## So_Cynical (4 January 2010)

noco said:


> Zird, you don't give a mention as to how the EU, Brittain and even Canada and the USA have reduced their CO2 emissions. May I suggest you do some homework on the number of Nuclear Power plants currently in use in those arears.
> 
> As at 2005,  439 Nuclear power plants were in operation in those arears and some 54 now under construction. 70 plants alone are in operation in France. All producing zero CO2.
> 
> Perhaps you might convince our illustrious leader Mr. Rudd that Nuclear power is the way to go in Australia.




Under certain GHG accounting policy's power produced by Nuke plants is treated as non renewable and there fore excluded from baseline GHG calculations.


----------



## lasty (4 January 2010)

Australia pollutes more co2 than anyone else in the world ?
Interesting... Considering Australia is an island surrounded by co2 sinks
also who has collected all the information on vegetation sinks?

as for the ets schemes in the EU how much reduction has it achieved ?
Australia has a land mass to redirect water ways and plant vegetation.
If Rudd believes in man made co2 then why not incrase the sinks and sell them to other polluters?


----------



## wayneL (4 January 2010)

Zird said:


> Your assertion is that I dont accept others right to express etc etc"



Non-sequitur.

Sorry, there is no such assertion.


----------



## Mofra (4 January 2010)

lasty said:


> Australia pollutes more co2 than anyone else in the world ?



By head of population, apparently. 
Would it be glib of me here to mention out that despite all the wind and solar farms under construction in China at the moment, they are still building the equivalent of our entire coal-fired power industry every _4 months_, and will continue to do so until 2020?



lasty said:


> as for the ets schemes in the EU how much reduction has it achieved ?
> Australia has a land mass to redirect water ways and plant vegetation.
> If Rudd believes in man made co2 then why not incrase the sinks and sell them to other polluters?



Perhaps that is the grand vision of Mr Rudd, and he believe we need a national ETS to start bargaining for international sanctions. 
In any case, it is unlikely to match the mass land-clearing Australia has undertaken since federation so I'm sure there will be developing nations blocking any attempt to give Australia any meaningful trading credits until a huge tract of land is covered with plantation first.


----------



## lasty (4 January 2010)

Mofra said:


> By head of population, apparently.
> Would it be glib of me here to mention out that despite all the wind and solar farms under construction in China at the moment, they are still building the equivalent of our entire coal-fired power industry every _4 months_, and will continue to do so until 2020?
> 
> 
> ...




I would like to know the amount of carbon sinks Australia has.
Know one seems to be able to tell me. How do you know we aren't carbon neutral ?
I have just seen a green advert on tv stating that our cattle industry emits more harmful than coal.
So what do we do now become vegans ?
With media influencing the minds of the gullible and little teens think that models aren't airbrushed the best thing to do is gather all the information before making judgement.
The EU is a disaster and it needs revenue. The ETS will bring it to them.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 January 2010)

Zird said:


> NOCO - you presume that am anti - nuclear because I express pro conservation views.  I have never stated anything regarding nuclear power and in fact feel that it can be apart of a raft of measures taken to effect CO2 reduction.



It's worth considering that the output from hydro and nuclear, which account for the vast majority of non-fossil fuel energy worldwide, now exceeds the entire generation of electricity from all sources 40 years ago.

In other words, the problem is not so much the source of energy but that we keep using more and more of it. Constant growth on a finite planet is an inherently flawed concept no matter how it's powered.

I'd suggest that anyone with an interest in the climate / energy issue, regardless of your viewpoint, takes a long hard look at this graph and thinks about it. http://www.iea.org/stats/PDF_graphs/29ELEC.pdf

Bottom line is we're burning through oil and gas at a rate that sees even the optimists conclude that production will peak and decline well within the lifetime of someone born today. Don't worry about changing the power source - NOTHING we have now, from coal to hydro to nuclear to geothermal to solar, is going to save us if we continue ramping up demand as we are. We'll end up nuking, strip mining, drilling and damming the lot and still wanting more. Look at that graph and think about it...


----------



## Zird (4 January 2010)

Climate change seems to be threatening the CO2 sinks (oceans).
Also Australia has hardly any  vegetation covering, mainly saltbush etc  so not much of a carbon sink. Plus we have cut down most of our forests.



Climate change weakens carbon sink
Friday, 18 May 2007
NIWA Science

The first evidence that recent climate change has weakened one the Earth’s natural carbon ‘sinks’ is published this week in the journal Science.

The results of the four-year international study reveals that an increase in winds over the Southern Ocean, caused by greenhouse gases and ozone depletion, has led to a release of stored carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere and is preventing further absorption of the greenhouse gas. The study involved researchers from the UK, Germany, Australia, France, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, and the US.

Lead author Dr Corinne Le QuÃ©rÃ© of the University of East Anglia and British Antarctic Survey said,

“This is the first time that we’ve been able to say that climate change itself is responsible for the saturation of the Southern Ocean sink.  This is serious. All climate models predict that this kind of ‘feedback’ will continue and intensify during this century. The Earth’s carbon sinks – of which the Southern Ocean accounts for 15% – absorb about half of all human carbon emissions.  With the Southern Ocean reaching its saturation point more CO2 will stay in our atmosphere.”

This new research suggests that stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously thought. Additionally, acidification in the Southern Ocean is likely to reach dangerous levels earlier than the projected date of 2050.

The saturation of the Southern Ocean was revealed by scrutinising observations of atmospheric CO2 from 40 stations around the world, and combining this information with oceanic observations and high precision modelling.

One of the study’s authors, Antony Gomez of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA), helped extract and analyse Southern Hemisphere CO2 measurements. NIWA’s atmospheric monitoring station at Baring Head, near Wellington, provides the longest-running continuous measurement of Southern Hemisphere CO2.

Mr Gomez said,

“The Baring Head measurements show that CO2 concentrations were rising steadily through most of the 1980s and 90s at a rate of about 1.5 ppm [parts per million] per year. But the growth rate has accelerated since then and is now at about 2 ppm per year. The study shows that this trend is caused not only by higher emissions but also by the weakening carbon sink. CO2 emissions increased by 50% since 1981 but the Southern Ocean CO2 sink remained the same.”

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the world’s oceans have absorbed about a quarter of the 500 gigatons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by humans. The Southern Ocean is the strongest ocean sink.
"

XXXXX

So who to believe -  a group of people on ASF who are largely interested in profiting from sharetrading or scientists working collabratively from all over the world. I know scientists do get things wrong but I prefer their chances of being right


----------



## So_Cynical (4 January 2010)

lasty said:


> I would like to know the amount of carbon sinks Australia has. Know one seems to be able to tell me. How do you know we aren't carbon neutral ?




Ok so our base line is year 2000 so imagine every bush and tree standing on Jan 1 year 2000 and now imagine is that tree/bush still there, you now have some idea of how our sinks are going.

In simple terms National parks are neutral, growing forests (plantations) are positive and harvesting native and plantation forests and land clearing is negative....as far as forestry sinks of all types goes we would be close to neutral if not slightly positive. (Guesstimate)

Add an ETS into the equation and we go positive in a hurry from a sinks point of view because the offsets will have a real dollar value.



lasty said:


> I have just seen a green advert on tv stating that our cattle industry emits more harmful than coal.




Did you also know that our wonderful coal industry is also a major emitter of radio active waste. 


			
				ansto said:
			
		

> In comparison, a 500-megawatt coal-fired power station produces almost 320,000 tonnes of toxic waste each year, including 2.6 tonnes of uranium and 6.4 tonnes of radioactive thorium.




http://www.ansto.gov.au/nuclear_information/managing_nuclear_materials/managing_nuclear_waste

Anyway once GHG offsets have a dollar value some serious research will begin into producing cattle and other live stock that emit less GHG, also this is where innovation comes into it, perhaps a pill or feed supplement will do it or a new variety of grass, who knows what will come with innovation, even thought this is not covered under the current ETS it will be included over time and is covered under Kyoto.


----------



## Julia (4 January 2010)

wayneL said:


> That's OK, so long as you accept the right of others to express their own disappointment with those who believe in the Goreist fallacy.



Zird, please accept Wayne's comment here as appropriate summary of what I would have said.

I lack the energy and interest to go round in circles which have already been covered a multitude of times.  You believe what you want to, and so shall I.


----------



## Zird (5 January 2010)

Julia I accept but do not agree and visa versa.

In the interests of this thread I think we should get back to original topic of 
our beloved leader sent to us from above as the new Messiah and how he is sorting out all problems in Austrlia for all people.

I will persue the climate change discussion with the hard nuts in Resisting Climate Change Hysteria forum. Apologises if I have caused any offense to anybody - no personal attact was intended. I am going to spend the rest of the morning in my vegetable patch which is going wonderfully after the rain.


----------



## Mofra (5 January 2010)

lasty said:


> I would like to know the amount of carbon sinks Australia has.
> Know one seems to be able to tell me. How do you know we aren't carbon neutral ?



Moot point - carbon sinks existing prior to 1990 are excluded from calculations.

More research is being done on the area anyhow so hopefully we can gain a better understanding of how much our net emissions are:
http://www.science.org.au/nova/054/054key.htm


----------



## Mofra (5 January 2010)

lasty said:


> I have just seen a green advert on tv stating that our cattle industry emits more harmful than coal.
> So what do we do now become vegans ?



Water is a more worrying concern - it takes 50,000 to 100,000 litres of water to produce a single kilo of beef. 

On that measure, tonights dinner will have taken 20,000 to 40,000 litres to produce _before_ I boil the veggies


----------



## noco (5 January 2010)

Zird said:


> NOCO - you presume that am anti - nuclear because I express pro conservation views.  I have never stated anything regarding nuclear power and in fact feel that it can be apart of a raft of measures taken to effect CO2 reduction.
> 
> Please withdraw and apologise for your unsubstantiated claim.
> 
> ...




Zird wtf do I have to apologise for?  I was merely pointing out how some countries had reduced their CO2 emissions with the introduction of Nuclear power. Think you have a bit of growing up to do!!!!!!


----------



## Happy (5 January 2010)

Mofra said:


> Water is a more worrying concern - it takes 50,000 to 100,000 litres of water to produce a single kilo of beef.
> 
> On that measure, tonights dinner will have taken 20,000 to 40,000 litres to produce _before_ I boil the veggies





Another good reason to have Sun - run desalination plant.

Water is not a problem, and rising sea levels even more compelling to bite into that body of water.

We are just being stupid, running around with debate to tax what and yet we have plenty of water to use.

Seems we just want to do it the hard way, through sacrifice.
(Surely shows too much Rudd Church time  )


----------



## lasty (5 January 2010)

Australia maybe 2/3 desert but we have vast vegetation.
So far the measure of sinks has been mooted.
How much carbon emission do bushfires produce?
What about rejuvenation of these.
We have national parks bigger than some countries.
Water isn't a problem it's dispersement is.
Scientists have a hidden agenda it's called funding.
Opposing ASF members don't.


----------



## Zird (5 January 2010)

Noco you suggest  that I should tell Rudd to start building nuclear power stations. Your implication is  that I am a supporter of Rudd and that I am anti-nuclear. You have no basis for this. Your inferance is  also that I am without knowledge of the use and benefits of world wide nuclear power.   How can you infer this?  I have never disussed  nuclear power.

I was trying to add a little humour and so probably were you.


----------



## Zird (6 January 2010)

Lasty

You say scierntists have hidden agendas.

Does this mean all scientists in the world have hidden agendas or are biased or are faking data??

This is a wild statement with no factual basis..

Does ASF contributors have hidden agendas. Some do some dont.

International scientific research results such as those in the journal Science go through many processes of assessment, criticism and peer review on an international scale before publishing.

Most of ASFers (including myself) us have vested interests as we  own shares in coal/oil/gas companies ie CO2 producers..

But not all of us have think one way or another.

I think that to lump all scientists together is totally wrong.


----------



## condog (6 January 2010)

The last time i said this thread was way off topic I got belted, so I reservedly say ...this thread seems to have got slightly distracted from its real issue which is the uselessness of our fearless and ruderless leader MR Krudd....

Blessed is he/she who knows when to take himself / herself too seriously.....its great to see passionate debate.....but lets all take a chill pill and remember we are here to hopefully enjoy each others company and debate / opinions, even when we disagree....

True wisdom is in knowing that there are 50 sides to an argument and that yours is only one opinion.........( I forget this often) but it is often very handy to see things with clarity when I am reminded.......

ITs no secret that I think Krudd is a terrible leader......doing an absolutely pathetic job, but I fully respect the opinions of those far less intelligent then I that think he is doing a great job..........

Zird relax bro - your obviously a seriously intelligent bloke if you dislike Rudd, but please relax and see tha some blokes are baiting you and you seem to be taking it hook line and sinker......breath in, breath out, relax......

a little more respect is needed in this thread for all opinions, even for the Krudd suporters........oh and a good sense of humour ay.......cheers to all...  lol


----------

