# The Australian Greens party



## Calliope (8 August 2010)

Paul Howes, who of all people is familiar is with Socialists, puts the Greens under the spotlight.  They are only masquerading as environmentalists. Their motives are much more sinister.

 The enigma is... why is Labor preferencing them in the Senate? They are only making trouble for themselves. Perhaps they want to use them as a backstop, in case they lose the election, to sabotage any Coalition legislation in the Senate. They are playing with fire.



> Rhiannon, standing for the Senate and tipped by psephologists including Malcolm Mackerras as likely to win, has a well-documented past as a "red diaper baby"; the daughter of pro-Soviet communists Bill and Freda Brown.
> 
> While her heritage need not dictate her politics, she has a reputation -- including within her own party -- as a hard-left, urban socialist with only a passing interest in the environment; if not pink then watermelon (green on the outside and red on the inside).
> 
> ...



  My* Bolds*

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...eatens-to-divide/story-fn59niix-1225901945949


----------



## Calliope (8 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

On the last Q&A show in Brisbane one of the panelists was a Green Senate candidate, Larissa Waters. When she spoke she received  more sustained applause than the other  panelists. It was quite scary because this was presumably a balanced audience.

I think it is an alarming indicator that the Greens will gain seats by default.


----------



## drsmith (8 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> On the last Q&A show in Brisbane one of the panelists was a Green Senate candidate, Larissa Waters.



Was that the show where Bob Brown (by remote linkup) was ducking and weaving a question on GDP growth ?


----------



## explod (8 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> On the last Q&A show in Brisbane one of the panelists was a Green Senate candidate, Larissa Waters. When she spoke she received  more sustained applause than the other  panelists. It was quite scary because this was presumably a balanced audience.
> 
> I think it is an alarming indicator that the Greens will gain seats by default.




Both Labor and Liberal Governments, and governments of the entire western world a being seen to fail.

In spite of official figures people are finding money not going as far, jobs are becoming harder to get, highways and main roads to work are becoming clogged.   Wars are being fought that people are becoming increasingly uneasy about.  And we could go on.

The Greens may seem (and at this time are) thin on the ground, but where are other alternatives.

And if you are alarmed Calliope, it may be time for some hard thinking.  With nine Grandchildren that state of affairs has got me thinking.


----------



## Ageo (8 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Both Labor and Liberal Governments, and governments of the entire western world a being seen to fail.
> 
> In spite of official figures people are finding money not going as far, jobs are becoming harder to get, highways and main roads to work are becoming clogged.   Wars are being fought that people are becoming increasingly uneasy about.  And we could go on.
> 
> ...





Explod the problem with the greens and i keep saying this they do not give 2 ****s about about the problem at hand but their own personal agenda and ideology. If they have control basically you can kiss your freedoms goodbye as they are the 1 party whos main focus is to stop people in this country to do things what they enjoy. All they care about is ban this, and ban that.... meat is no good ban it, fishing no good ban it blah blah blah..... 

Sry but all they are to me is a bunch of eco terrorists........

Labour or liberal might be a bunch of wankers (and i agree) but the greens having the balance in power (in the senate) would be the scariest thing on earth.


----------



## wayneL (9 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Both Labor and Liberal Governments, and governments of the entire western world a being seen to fail.
> 
> In spite of official figures people are finding money not going as far, jobs are becoming harder to get, highways and main roads to work are becoming clogged.   Wars are being fought that people are becoming increasingly uneasy about.  And we could go on.
> 
> ...




The thing is Explod, the Green's policies will not result in a new Garden of Eden for your grandchildren. Rather, it would result in a poverty stricken, dysfunctional police state, unable to economically support itself.

This will result in base level pillage of the environment by the peasantry just to try and survive, as seen in other poor countries. Is that what you want for them?

The best environmental solutions require a wealthy community and the Greens would destroy that with their Marxist/Leninist ideals. The Greens are only green on the outside.


----------



## Calliope (9 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Explod you are sadly deluded about the intentions of the Greens. Obviously the link I provided in the first post went completely over your head.

A Green voter is either irresponsible or deluded or both. A Labor voter who gives preferences to the Greens is foolish.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (9 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Both Labor and Liberal Governments, and governments of the entire western world a being seen to fail.
> 
> In spite of official figures people are finding money not going as far, jobs are becoming harder to get, highways and main roads to work are becoming clogged.   Wars are being fought that people are becoming increasingly uneasy about.  And we could go on.
> 
> ...




Under the Greens your grandchildren may be emigrating to a better life elsewhere.


----------



## Calliope (9 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

When I started this thread I thought it would be an opportunity for Greens supporters to rally to the cause to defend their beloved party. Only one, explod, has put his hand up because he thinks voting Green would provide a better lifestyle for his nine grandchildren. 

Surely there must be others who support the concept that destroying  the Australian economy by imposing crippling taxation on the extractive industries is a guarantee of a rosy future for this country.

Where are the tree huggers, the whale watchers, the fruit bat lovers? Or have you all seen the light and decided to be responsible citizens?


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

"Last summer, Tasmania imported 48 per cent of its energy from brown coal in Victoria. Tasmanians should be ashamed and are ashamed I'm sure," Senator Milne told ABC-TV. 

"We will return this state to a self-reliant 100 per cent renewable energy leader 

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/08/09/164721_tasmania-news.html

The 48% figure is rubbish but oh the irony!!! If it wasn't for the Greens then we'd already have 100% renewable electricity in Tas, they being the ones who stopped it in the first place. The only reason Tas is connected to Victoria and importing electricity is because that was politically the only real option given that the Greens oppose any practical means of generating power within the state. Indeed opposing renewable energy development in Tas was the very issue which lead to the formation of the Greens in the first place... 

Fair enough to make a point. Fair enough to protest. But let's not rewrite history. The Greens and their precedessors at various times supported nuclear, coal and wood. OK, wood is technically a renewable energy source - but now they're opposing that too (a point on which I agree with them by the way - it's a silly idea burning wood for power in 2010 just as it was when the Greens once advocated it).

What next? Are they going to start opposing the mass tourism and aviation they have always promoted as the alternative to any other sort of industry? Yep - they're none too keen on aviation judging by what they're saying these days and that is due to emissions and oil consumption, points first made by their opponents some decades ago...


----------



## drsmith (9 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

From the Greens policy statement on transport.



> 29. environmental costs incorporated into the cost of air travel.



What does this mean in terms of affordable air travel for the public at large ?



Calliope said:


> When I started this thread I thought it would be an opportunity for Greens supporters to rally to the cause to defend their beloved party. Only one, explod, has put his hand up because he thinks voting Green would provide a better lifestyle for his nine grandchildren.
> 
> Surely there must be others who support the concept that destroying  the Australian economy by imposing crippling taxation on the extractive industries is a guarantee of a rosy future for this country.
> 
> Where are the tree huggers, the whale watchers, the fruit bat lovers? Or have you all seen the light and decided to be responsible citizens?



It's all fine as long as it's at someone else's expense.


----------



## Julia (9 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

What did they claim to be the basis for opposing renewable energy in Tasmania?


----------



## Logique (10 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> This will result in base level pillage of the environment by the peasantry just to try and survive, as seen in other poor countries. Is that what you want for them?



Medieval isn't it. Symbolically, the Greens = the city squire's gamekeeper, ask anyone in the bush. 

In parliament I think Lab and Coalition would freeze the Greens out most of the time, since with the Greens it's their way or no way, evidence the demise of the ETS and CPRS on the vote of the Greens. 

If they were genuine about reducing carbon emissions, they would support nuclear power. 

Another way to see them is as the modern day Luddites. But we can't change the climate by de-industrializing and making ourselves poor.


----------



## noco (10 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Calliope, the information being revealed on your thread is frightning but not surprising when one looks back on the way communism flourished in the 50's and 60's and mainly through deception of the real truth of their aims which was world domination. They infitrated into the unions, caused so much industrial trouble with demands of higher pay, increased holiday pay, long service leave, penalty rates and a whole host of other demands purely in an endeavour to disrupt the way of life and the economies of the western world resulting in higher costs, reduction in competition, unemployment and eventually a revolt against the Government. They were banking on the fact that people would look for an alternative from the two party system and this is what is happening with the Green's strategy. Switch voters to their ideology based on the assumption that the naive are disgruntled with both of the major parties and it appears to be  working in their favour.

The Greens, who appear to be alingned with communism,  are operating in the same fashion of using the environmental umbrella without revealing their main aim. They don't have any real polocies and keep pressing the propaganda of saving the world. They are doing their best to create havoc in this Country which eventually will lead to massive unemployment and economic strife. That is when the naive will support the Greens for an alternative away from the main political parties.

Between the Greens and Islam I would hate to see what this world of ours will be like in 20 or 30 years time. I certainly won't see it as I'll be popping up daisies by then and that may well be the safest place to be.


----------



## sails (10 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Explod, I have different ideas for my grandchildren. I would like to think they can have the lifestyle of their choice rather than one forced upon them.

If they want a self-sufficient lifestyle, there are plenty of places out bush in Australia where this can be achieved.  I suspect the majority of my grandchildren will want the opportunities of modern day living - and I think it is only fair that our grandkids are given this freedom of choice.

If the greens got some power, do you really think they will allow our grandkids to have the choices that we currently have?


----------



## Knobby22 (10 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> Explod, I have different ideas for my grandchildren. I would like to think they can have the lifestyle of their choice rather than one forced upon them.
> 
> If they want a self-sufficient lifestyle, there are plenty of places out bush in Australia where this can be achieved.  I suspect the majority of my grandchildren will want the opportunities of modern day living - and I think it is only fair that our grandkids are given this freedom of choice.
> 
> If the greens got some power, do you really think they will allow our grandkids to have the choices that we currently have?




We are losing choice under the present governments with their high immigration policy.
Make sure you watch the Dick Smith population special on Thursday ABC this week.
I grew up with a big backyard and played Cricket with my brothers. My kids don't get this and I am well off.


----------



## DB008 (10 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Think the "Greens" are "radicals", check out the;

*Australian Sovereignty Party (ASP)* http://www.sovereigntyparty.org.au/

Quoted from their website;



> Abolish All TAXES!
> The Australian Sovereignty Party is strongly of the view that no Australian should pay tax, ever!  Yes, you read that right, NO TAX!.






> ...we are against the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and its agenda to de-industrialise the West, and to further consolidate wealth and power into the hands of banking cartels and other special interested parties. For instance, the Copenhagen Treaty (if ratified) would have enforced a carbon tax to be payed to the World Bank as a precursor to the establishment of a one world government.


----------



## trainspotter (10 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Weird how life imitates art ...... Anyone remember Mad Max 3 Beyond Thunderdome with the feral kids? This is the future if the Greens get their way.


----------



## trainspotter (10 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Hot off the press ...... 

*The Greens plan a 100,600sq KM zone from Dongara to Kalbarri and the whole of the Abrholhos Islands.*

Greens bid for vast fishing bans makes ALP/Greens’ threat to W.A. coast worse.

The announcement by Bob Brown that the Greens would seek massive fishing closures around the Western Australian coastline has compounded the already major threat to commercial and recreational fishers posed by existing Labor policy, WA Senator Chris Back said today.

Senator Back said the Greens want closures covering of up to 30% of Australia’s marine reserves. Under their policy, they will demand the States commit to the same process in waters under State control.

With the Greens attempting to guarantee control of the Senate after a recent preference deal with Labor, Senator Back said big fishing closures now seemed a certainty – if Labor wins the August 21 election.

“Labor’s Environment Minister Peter Garrett went fishing for Green preferences using fishers and tourism operators as bait, showing a clear green bias in his handling of Labor’s plan for marine parks,” Senator Back said.

“That earned massive distrust of his motives and intent, compounded by his failure to properly consult with the community.”

“Now Labor has got the Green support it was chasing, Bob Brown will be able to name his price, and this, as far as fishermen and tourism operators are concerned, will obviously be very high indeed.”

Senator Back said locking away 30% of marine parks as “no catch” zones, with no reference to scientific validation or compensation for displaced operators, would decimate Australia’s professional fishing industry and massively reduce opportunities for recreational fishers and offshore tourism.

http://www.noblemailer.noblecrm.com.au/download/files/26770/1228398/Fishing Map.pdf to look at how much will become marine "no catch" zones.


----------



## noco (10 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

The Greens have no policies except to control the Senate.

When  Brown was asked what he stands for he says "TRUST ME". OMG what are we in for in the next three years.

http://www.ielect.com.au/?p=543


----------



## drsmith (10 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



DB008 said:


> Think the "Greens" are "radicals", check out the;
> 
> *Australian Sovereignty Party (ASP)* http://www.sovereigntyparty.org.au/



So, he wants to charge economic rents for land and resources and abolish all other taxes.

One slight problem.

What is he going to buy the land back with in the first place ?


----------



## Mofra (10 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Well, it sounds like too much fun to not step into the breach at this point and play devil's advocate:



noco said:


> Between the Greens and Islam I would hate to see what this world of ours will be like in 20 or 30 years time. I certainly won't see it as I'll be popping up daisies by then and that may well be the safest place to be.




Sorry, but I can't help finding scaremongering such as this hilarious.
We've been through all this just over a century ago - when the Irish were denigraded in the same manner as muslims today; they were seen as a "race" of violent, lazy drunks who could not assimilate into society in a civilised manner. 
We had the scaremongering that associated the mass migration of Europeans in the 50s and 60s as well; I'm not sure too many people would be worried by the neighbours eating pasta these days.

As for the economic argument - I trust the veracity of the Australian business community to keep the greased up wheels of capitalism turning. The economic reforms of the 70s through to the early 90s are just too far entrenched for any new hybrid government to completely destroy - the Australian economy has survived huge government waste under successive labour and liberal governments, chronic underspending on infrastructure over the past two decades, and as much as Green policies may (will) damage individual industries I have not seen a policy from any party in Australia likely to gain representation in the Senate that would cause major changes to the Australian financial landscape. 

Do I have too much faith in the Australian community and economic character? Perhaps, but history suggests that as a nation we tend to emerge from any challenge stronger than we were.


----------



## IFocus (10 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Mofra said:


> Well, it sounds like too much fun to not step into the breach at this point and play devil's advocate:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I would vote for you Mofra....................but after reading this thread I will sorely be tempted to vote for the greens LOLRATF


----------



## Mofra (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



IFocus said:


> I would vote for you Mofra



Democracy is officially dead


----------



## nioka (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Mofra said:


> Democracy is officially dead




Not dead but very very sick. We are now governed by a minority few that are pandered to so that one party or the other will get the power they crave.

 Maybe Pauline Hanson was right. What we needed to do was become one nation, not a nation that had different rules for some just because they want to be different. The regular posters on ASF have shown that doing that is an impossible task. There are too many one eyed participants that will never see the point of view of someone else as having any value. 

Back to the stocks.....................................................


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Just heard on ABC news 24 that the Greens agree with the unions with a super profit tax on the banks.


----------



## moXJO (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> Just heard on ABC news 24 that the Greens agree with the unions with a super profit tax on the banks.




Won't that just affect workers super as well, but offer plenty of cash to govt


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



moXJO said:


> Won't that just affect workers super as well, but offer plenty of cash to govt



An economic rent for resources makes sense (it's paid now in the form or royalties)n but this sort of nonsense is just socialism gone mad. 

All the banks would do is pass on the cost to their customers.


----------



## explod (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> An economic rent for resources makes sense (it's paid now in the form or royalties)n but this sort of nonsense is just socialism gone mad.
> 
> All the banks would do is pass on the cost to their customers.




Stuff the banks, they control everything need to nationalise them.  This country boomed under the Commonwealth and State Banks.

Unwittingly doing it in the US, why not here.


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Economic rationale ?

EDIT:
Australia's 4 largest banks have a market capitalisation of ~$265bn.

How would the government pay to nationalise them ?


----------



## explod (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> Economic rationale ?
> 
> EDIT:
> Australia's 4 largest banks have a market capitalisation of ~$265bn.
> ...




The capitalisation is the unit value of shares on issue.   Banks exists on deposits and loans.  When this is stripped down they have nothing.  If things get crook here the government may be forced to take on the loans to save a full collapse of our system.  Just a thought of course.

More than 100 banks in the US have gone to the wall in the last 12 months because of loans that cannot be repaid.

Interesting that the quantative easing announced by the /fed Reserve overnight is to basically provide (read that as print) funds to buy back loans to in effect try to save banks.

The GFC had at its root packaged loan sludge which was found to be valueless.   Pension funds and Municipalites here in Australia  lost money from this stuff.


----------



## wayneL (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Stuff the banks, they control everything need to nationalise them.  This country boomed under the Commonwealth and State Banks.
> 
> Unwittingly doing it in the US, why not here.




Discredited ideology revisited.

Like Hell!!


----------



## Calliope (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

The Stock market is very afraid that the Labor/Greens will soon be running the country into the ground.



> Shares in Australia's biggest bank were down $1.12, or 2.12 per cent, at $51.63 at 12.02pm.
> "What disturbs me is the reaction to Commonwealth Bank," said Mr Smith.
> "Why the bank is down two per cent on average, particularly when it's put in a good report and $1.70 dividend.
> "Why we've knocked Commonwealth Bank down is beyond me ... there's got to be an overriding reason, and I think it's the election."




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/bre...on/story-e6frfkur-1225903902698#ixzz0wHGdEB17


----------



## Purple XS2 (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> When I started this thread I thought it would be an opportunity for Greens supporters to rally to the cause to defend their beloved party ...




Missed this thread till now, C: happy to oblige.
Discl: I qualify as a greenie, but I do not pretend to speak for anyone but myself. I'm a bit on the outer amongst most people in _the Party!!_ that I've spoken to.



> Surely there must be others who support the concept that destroying  the Australian economy by imposing crippling taxation on the extractive industries is a guarantee of a rosy future for this country.




I don't advocate crippling the extractive industries, but I would advocate 2 things: 1. Slowing it down a little - are we supposed to mine everything? Now? What extracted wealth can our future generations look forward to?
and 2: getting some more money out of what we mine now. Does the stuff in the ground belong only to the shareholders of the mining companies (who may or may not be aussies), or does it belong to the nation?

On economic philosophy generally, there can neither be a sensible economy nor a civil society worth living in without managing the environment. Until now economic progress as we've known it has simply outsourced the environmental costs to the future, and we now, for the first time in human history, are becoming aware of the fact that the future is closing in on us - the free ride is over. I see it as an aspect of our civilization maturing. It's inevitable, and it's our historic burden and opportunity to be the generation that grasps this fact.



> Where are the tree huggers, the whale watchers, the fruit bat lovers? Or have you all seen the light and decided to be responsible citizens?




Just for the record, I don't hug trees, haven't watched whales, and would quite happily take a potshot at a fruit-bat when their numbers become a nuisance.
Am I responsible citizen now? 

Regards,

P.


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> The capitalisation is the unit value of shares on issue.   Banks exists on deposits and loans.  When this is stripped down they have nothing.  If things get crook here the government may be forced to take on the loans to save a full collapse of our system.  Just a thought of course.
> 
> More than 100 banks in the US have gone to the wall in the last 12 months because of loans that cannot be repaid.
> 
> ...



Are you suggesting that in nationalising the banks, the government pays nothing to existing shareholders for their shares ?


----------



## explod (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> Are you suggesting that in nationalising the banks, the government pays nothing to existing shareholders for their shares ?




Read up on the wonderful Modern Day US of A, shareholders in banks to big too fail but did lost the lot.

I am saying the way the money dilution is going, even here in Australia we should be watching the world financial space.

The government merely either picks up the pieces or provides replacement banking facilities.

On my reading of a number of financial texts from 2005 I sold my shares in Macqurie, NAB, Babcock and Brown.   Only hold selective mining stocks now.

Just my thoughts and maybe fairy tales.


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Do you reckon the government should get in first and tax them to death ?


----------



## explod (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> Do you reckon the government should get in first and tax them to death ?




Banks under our current system are vital to the entire financial sector and the government has to hold it together.  

However, what is playing out overseas is horrifying, but with shed tools as bright as Swanny, I just shudder for our future.


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Banks under our current system are vital to the entire financial sector and the government has to hold it together.
> 
> However, what is playing out overseas is horrifying, but with shed tools as bright as Swanny, I just shudder for our future.



That's another story, but it's hard to see the Greens managing the economy any better given some of their policy suggestions.


----------



## explod (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> That's another story, but it's hard to see the Greens managing the economy any better given some of their policy suggestions.




Agree, a great example of that was Labor under Whitlam.  Having been in the political wilderness from the end of WW2 they had no idea, but those terms, albeit cut short did prepare them for the time of the Hawke and Keating arrival, whether you think they were successful or not.   A successful change in toto takes a long time and experience.  It cannot be done in theory.

My concern is that we are running out of time and the current Government and Opposition do not seem to be able to put good governance before self interest.


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

That doesn't, by default, make the Greens the answer.


----------



## Calliope (14 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

If Labor get up on Saturday (and I think they will) it will be on the back of Green preferences. I can understand those on the extreme left preferring the Geeens and naturally Labor would be their second preference.

But the recent big swing to the Greens, has come from well healed people living in the leafy suburbs, who once would have been conservative voters. Now, because they can afford it they are attracted to the woolly, pie in the sky, feel good programs like saving the world from carbon and saving the whale.

These thoroughly irresponsible  people are blinded to any consideration that what could be best for Australia would be to have a well managed economy.


----------



## drsmith (14 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Anyone considering voting Green needs to cut the green skin to see the colour of the flesh below.


----------



## noco (14 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> Anyone considering voting Green needs to cut the green skin to see the colour of the flesh below.




Yes, that is becoming more evident day by day and it is not just in Australia.

I would like to know if Bob Brown is receiving any international ideology instructions from an upper source and from where.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> What did they claim to be the basis for opposing renewable energy in Tasmania?



The Greens owe their political existence originally to campaigning against hydro-electric development in Tasmania. That is the basis on which the predecessors of the Greens was formed and on which Bob Brown was elected to parliament.

*Without wanting to start that debate here*, I will simply point out that if you are going to oppose not just one very well known dam but virtually every significant hydro scheme that could be built anywhere in the entire state, whilst also being on record as opposing large scale wind farms, viewing gas development as "wasteful" and (presumably) opposed to using local coal from within a National Park then the ultimate outcome was inevitable. 

At some point either we were going to be in the dark or we were going to use someone else's resources to supply energy. And for practical purposes that left either importing electricity and/or gas from Victoria or, in the unlikely event that construction of such a plant didn't result in a Green blockade, building a coal-fired plant fuelled with imported coal (realistically from NSW).

To now complain about the effects of past actions of themselves is my objection. They do indeed have a valid point about wild rivers and also about burning coal. But you can't have it both ways - the only reason we're using power from Victorian brown coal in Tasmania is as a direct consequence of the past actions of environmentalists. 

In short, you can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## Julia (14 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Thanks, Smurf.   This is exactly the sort of nonsense we can expect from the Greens when they have the balance of power in the new government.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> But the recent big swing to the Greens, has come from well healed people living in the leafy suburbs, who once would have been conservative voters. Now, because they can afford it they are attracted to the woolly, pie in the sky, feel good programs like saving the world from carbon and saving the whale.



I'd be incredibly rich if I had just one $ for every time I've heard "...buying green votes in Sydney and Melbourne..." over the years.

And it works. Labor has been winning elections this way since the 1980's. Save this, stop that and shut down something else in a rural area in order to gain the Green vote (either directly or via preferences) in Sydney and Melbourne. It works just about every time.

To be fair though, Labor and Liberal play the same games. Indeed all politics is a game, the reason I decided not to pursue it myself.


----------



## chrisalex (14 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

You are Quite right about 'The Greens' and coupled with Ms. Gillardine another Socialist It does make for quite a scary outlook. I also noticed the back room boys have removed all her Socialist endeavours from the ALP web sight. The daughter of a Welsh miner, she has a severe working class chip on her shoulder,
the Robin Hood syndrome. If they do gain power, wait for the 'spin' and the new taxes on "those fat cats" the mining companies. I find it astounding these intelligent people cannot see the damage they will inflict on this country. If only the public could see that countries like Greece and Spain have 'Bureaucratic Socialist' governments. But the average lazy Labor voters don't read newspapers. I did overhear something encouraging, a girl about 18 saying to a friend, "Labor people want things for themselves, but Liberals want what is good for the country". 
                                  good punting, chrisalex


----------



## Calliope (15 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I don't think anyone can dispute that Bob Brown and his gang of Luddites are a massive  impediment to Australia's progress.

If it wasn't for the Labor party being so dependent on Green preferences, it would make sense for the $42 billion being borrowed for the NBN project, to be diverted towards building nuclear power stations.

I think the majority of the population would opt for reliable clean energy in the future over providing extravagantly high speed broadband to the bush.


----------



## Ageo (17 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Dont forget to vote below the line this saturday and preference the greens last


----------



## explod (17 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

In the past 20 years or so both ALP and Liberal have made wonderfull promises and delivered on very little in improving the overall quality of life.   We work longer hours, we sit in trafic jams longer, there seems to be less disposable income for holidays and time out with the family and so on blah blah.  So lots of money is not necessarily good.

The Greens make certain statments that are interpreted in certain ways but maybe they will not live up to the promises that many of you detest (even though they have not been tested) but come up with the oposite and things become improved.

No one can say for sure.  We can say for sure that ALP and Liberal on past performance is bad.


----------



## drsmith (17 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

And the Greens if ever they were in control would be worse.


----------



## Calliope (17 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I thought you had retired explod.



> We work longer hours, we sit in trafic jams longer, there seems to be less disposable income for holidays and time out with the family and so on blah blah


----------



## explod (17 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> I thought you had retired explod.




I'm just the old codger, many family and friends doing it hard.  Being retired does not put one on an island Champ.


----------



## explod (17 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> And the Greens if ever they were in control would be worse.




How do *you* know that ?

In fact nobody really does, but the ones we do know are no good in my view so perhaps its time to try some we dont'.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



chrisalex said:


> I find it astounding these intelligent people cannot see the damage they will inflict on this country.



I can indeed see the problems with Labor. But reality is that we are almost certain to get either a Labor or Liberal government, and based on all I know about Abbott he seems the more dangerous of the two.

Hence I'll be voting Labor this Saturday. Not because I support the party and its' policies, I don't, but because they seem the "best" of a very bad bunch.

Fundamentally, none of the 3 significant parties comes anywhere near representing my views and I suspect that applies to a large portion, perhaps the majority, of the population.

What would I prefer? Freedom not authoritarian leaders frightening the population into submission,  actual free enterprise not government-controlled markets with investment banks and other sponges  propped up by the tax payer, sensible progress rather than the save everything versus mine/log/dam the lot debate. And so on.

In short, restore freedom, implement justice and stop pandering to vested interests.  

There's nobody significant in Australian politics that I'm aware of advocating such a path. They're all somewhat authoritarian, all seemingly neither outright socialists nor supporters of actual free markets and enterprise, all incapbable of dealing with the question of sustainability, all happy to do nothing about the farce that our concept of justice has become. In short, all pandering to some special interest group rather than governing for the benefit of the country as a whole. 

To me, Labor seems the least dangerous amongst what is actually on offer.


----------



## Julia (17 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> And the Greens if ever they were in control would be worse.






explod said:


> How do *you* know that ?
> 
> In fact nobody really does, but the ones we do know are no good in my view so perhaps its time to try some we dont'.



Explod, the Greens have made it very clear that when they have the balance of power they will insist on having their demands met in exchange for passing legislation.  e.g. they WILL have an ETS and it will be one which pays no regard to the economic consequences as long as they believe it's putting a high enough price on carbon.  

Christine Milne is even more shrill and radical than Bob Brown.

The only plus for the Greens imo is that they are socially progressive.


----------



## Julia (17 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> In the past 20 years or so both ALP and Liberal have made wonderfull promises and delivered on very little in improving the overall quality of life.   We work longer hours, we sit in trafic jams longer, there seems to be less disposable income for holidays and time out with the family and so on blah blah.  So lots of money is not necessarily good.



The traffic jams are the responsibility of State governments' failing to keep up with necessary infrastructure.  Unreasonable to blame the Feds for this.
And if you're working longer hours, change your job, manage on a bit less money.  The whole 'we must make more and more money' mantra has become a culture unto itself, ignoring the need for balance between work and leisure.



> The Greens make certain statments that are interpreted in certain ways but maybe they will not live up to the promises that many of you detest (even though they have not been tested) but come up with the oposite and things become improved.



Yeah, right.  Much more likely, imo, that they will be far worse than we have imagined they could be.



> No one can say for sure.  We can say for sure that ALP and Liberal on past performance is bad.



Disagree.   Although I was unhappy with the last period of the Howard government, overall I think they did a pretty good job.  Pity that John Howard felt it necessary to be such an acolyte of George W, the result being we are still engaged in two wars we should have had nothing to do with.
Actually, that is indeed an area where the Greens would probably be positive, Explod.  As I recall, they were against any commitment to either Afghanistan or Iraq?


----------



## Ageo (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Any party that continues on insisting on taking away other peoples freedoms and liberties to me is a party that should be abolished......


----------



## wayneL (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Ageo said:


> Any party that continues on insisting on taking away other peoples freedoms and liberties to me is a party that should be abolished......




Jesus! We'd have to ban the lot!!


----------



## Mofra (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Disagree.   Although I was unhappy with the last period of the Howard government, overall I think they did a pretty good job.  Pity that John Howard felt it necessary to be such an acolyte of George W, the result being we are still engaged in two wars we should have had nothing to do with.



I wasn't a fan of the Howard government squandering the boom time gains with a lack of infrastructure spending and a lack of economic reform post GST (I was pro-GST for the record), but I do admit to regarding Costello as the greatest leader this country never had (in my time at least). 
Certainly a contrast to the current leadership vacuum we're experiencing with the major parties at the moment (Swan & Hockey as the alternate choices for treasurer! God help us). 



Julia said:


> Actually, that is indeed an area where the Greens would probably be positive, Explod.  As I recall, they were against any commitment to either Afghanistan or Iraq?



They were - and IIRC polls at the time showed more than 50% of Australians were against the Iraq war as well, and I don't think the Afghan War has ever held too much popularity with the public at large either. 

Afghanistan is unwinnable - the region has been in an almost perpetual state of war for decades and the entire might of the Soviet Union failed in Afghanistan; how will the US with a much lower commitment, along with a rag tag bunch of small contributions of other countries & whatever mercenary tribes they can pay, possibly compete?

The only regular standing army to actually defeat an insurgent militia since WW2 was the British army in Malaysia - and that was by virtually closing down every village in the country during nightfall. This is an impossibility in Afghanistan.


----------



## Ageo (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> Jesus! We'd have to ban the lot!!




Haha i know ay.......


----------



## Woodsy58 (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> In the past 20 years or so both ALP and Liberal have made wonderfull promises and delivered on very little in improving the overall quality of life.   We work longer hours, we sit in trafic jams longer, there seems to be less disposable income for holidays and time out with the family and so on blah blah.  So lots of money is not necessarily good.
> 
> The Greens make certain statments that are interpreted in certain ways but maybe they will not live up to the promises that many of you detest (even though they have not been tested) but come up with the oposite and things become improved.
> 
> No one can say for sure.  We can say for sure that ALP and Liberal on past performance is bad.




Explod
I can see where you are coming from, but if you vote for the Greens on Saturday I swear I will put a curse on KRL!.


----------



## prawn_86 (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

For me the Greens are looking like the only major party alternative and i will probably be voting for them

Despite the fact i disagree on a a few of their economic policies, they are the only party putting forward actual change, with Libs and Labor essentially the same thing now, and independents never going to get enough votes to do anything. As Explod says, whether they can pull it off is a different question.


----------



## drsmith (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



prawn_86 said:


> For me the Greens are looking like the only major party alternative and i will probably be voting for them.



I hope you are looking forward to a carbon tax because Bob Brown at the end of his NPC presentation has said one will be introduced during the next term.


----------



## explod (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Explod, the Greens have made it very clear that when they have the balance of power they will insist on having their demands met in exchange for passing legislation.  e.g. they WILL have an ETS and it will be one which pays no regard to the economic consequences as long as they believe it's putting a high enough price on carbon.
> 
> Christine Milne is even more shrill and radical than Bob Brown.
> 
> The only plus for the Greens imo is that they are socially progressive.




Absolutely agree with Greens policy on this.   We actually need to stop all progress now and learn to live a whole new way if this planet is to be saved for 2 or 3 generations hence.   

Carbon *is* enemy No 1 Julia.


----------



## drsmith (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Bob Brown has stated that the Greens would not block supply. He has however stated that there would be a carbon tax during the next term of government even though both major parties have ruled it out.

What then could he horse trade for his carbon tax ?


----------



## Calliope (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Absolutely agree with Greens policy on this.   We actually need to stop all progress now and learn to live a whole new way if this planet is to be saved for 2 or 3 generations hence.
> 
> Carbon *is* enemy No 1 Julia.




If you are a typical Green's supporter, and you are the type of person Labor is sucking up to for preferences, the next three years will be very nasty indeed. 

For a country whose economy is almost wholly dependent on it's extractive industries, what you say is sheer stupidity.


----------



## explod (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> For a country whose economy is almost wholly dependent on it's extractive industries, what you say is sheer stupidity.




If we shut our bourders we could provide enough food to feed ourselves and of course we can shelter ourselves.   The Pakistani's would be happy with our country right now.  We are just so lucky in Australia.

Under Maslow's hierarchy of needs we need no more to be healthy and well.  Think right outside the square Calliope and think about some real change.


----------



## drsmith (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Shutting our borders is rejecting what's outside the square.


----------



## wayneL (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Absolutely agree with Greens policy on this.   We actually need to stop all progress now and learn to live a whole new way if this planet is to be saved for 2 or 3 generations hence.
> 
> Carbon *is* enemy No 1 Julia.




When will you people understand that what Aus/NZ does is irrelevant on the grand scale of things. All "The Red.... errr, Greens" policies will achieve is the export of development and jobs to the third world.

This will have zero effect on purported anthropogenic climate change.


----------



## explod (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> When will you people understand that what Aus/NZ does is irrelevant on the grand scale of things. All "The Red.... errr, Greens" policies will achieve is the export of development and jobs to the third world.
> 
> This will have zero effect on purported anthropogenic climate change.




Too true, no place for idealism.  However there are other countries doing much bigger things towards greening, and, we have to start somewhere  IMO.   The leaders would have you believe that we have a big effect on other countries.

And this attitiude that it wont have an effect or wont work is worse than that of doomsayers.


----------



## wayneL (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> And this attitiude that it wont have an effect or wont work is worse than that of doomsayers.




A Non Sequitur and a statement without foundation.


----------



## moXJO (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> When will you people understand that what Aus/NZ does is irrelevant on the grand scale of things. All "The Red.... errr, Greens" policies will achieve is the export of development and jobs to the third world.
> 
> This will have zero effect on purported anthropogenic climate change.




Thank you....
Taxing us on carbon emissions to save the planet
How about investing in clean coal technologies that China and India might actually use and make a difference.
You know if the shooters party actually brought out a policy on shooting greens, then they would swing my vote and provide a useful service.
I've got an idea how about those wanting an ETS can pay for it.
And as for Bob Brown, he can't even manage his own finances let alone be trusted with policies that govern the country. God forbid they manage to control the senate.


----------



## noco (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Too true, no place for idealism.  However there are other countries doing much bigger things towards greening, and, we have to start somewhere  IMO.   The leaders would have you believe that we have a big effect on other countries.
> 
> And this attitiude that it wont have an effect or wont work is worse than that of doomsayers.




Yeah, well for a start just look at France, they cut down on carbon emmissions with 70 nuclear power stations, as had the USA 100, UK 34, Russia 30, Japan 70, Canada 24 and China has joined the nuclear party as well. Actually there were 439 nuclear power plants around the world at 2005.

So tell me, with Bob Brown's policy to close down coal fired power stations and coal mines, how does he plan to have base load power stations without coal or uranium. Please don't tell me renewable energy, because it just won't work.

He plans to build 500 kph rail links between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Will they be run on solar power?


----------



## Calliope (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



moXJO said:


> .
> And as for Bob Brown, he can't even manage his own finances let alone be trusted with policies that govern the country. God forbid they manage to control the senate.




Gillard says "it's the economy stupid" and yet she's prepared to allow Brown, who is economically illiterate, to be in a position where he can veto government legislation.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> If we shut our bourders we could provide enough food to feed ourselves and of course we can shelter ourselves.   The Pakistani's would be happy with our country right now.  We are just so lucky in Australia.
> 
> Under Maslow's hierarchy of needs we need no more to be healthy and well.  Think right outside the square Calliope and think about some real change.



Cutting off food exports means that someone else goes hungry. Either that or someone else clears more land to expand global food production (ie negative for the global environment).

That's certainly thinking outside the square, that I would agree. I wouldn't call it overly positive however.


----------



## Julia (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Absolutely agree with Greens policy on this.   We actually need to stop all progress now and learn to live a whole new way if this planet is to be saved for 2 or 3 generations hence.
> 
> Carbon *is* enemy No 1 Julia.



Oh God!   I've tried really hard to be charitable about your utter naivete, Explod, but this is just too much.



drsmith said:


> Bob Brown has stated that the Greens would not block supply. He has however stated that there would be a carbon tax during the next term of government even though both major parties have ruled it out.
> 
> What then could he horse trade for his carbon tax ?



Good question.  Bob Brown and Christine Milne are now talking quite as though they will be The Government, making all the decisions, such is their hysterical delight in anticipation of having the balance of power.
We can only hope some sanity will be retained by the government and the opposition voting together to exclude the Greens in order to get reasonable legislation through.




wayneL said:


> When will you people understand that what Aus/NZ does is irrelevant on the grand scale of things. All "The Red.... errr, Greens" policies will achieve is the export of development and jobs to the third world.
> 
> This will have zero effect on purported anthropogenic climate change.



The warmists just do not get this, Wayne.  They have absolutely no idea about whether any sort of Australian ETS will make any difference to anything at all, but it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy to be able to say "well, at least we're doing something".  



moXJO said:


> Thank you....
> Taxing us on carbon emissions to save the planet
> How about investing in clean coal technologies that China and India might actually use and make a difference.
> You know if the shooters party actually brought out a policy on shooting greens, then they would swing my vote and provide a useful service.
> ...



But the Greens' fans don't spare a millisecond's thought for the economy, moXJO.  They just want to feel good, even if they're not quite sure why.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Absolutely agree with Greens policy on this.   We actually need to stop all progress now and learn to live a whole new way if this planet is to be saved for 2 or 3 generations hence.
> 
> Carbon *is* enemy No 1 Julia.



Is carbon really the enemy? Or is it too many people using too many resources, fossil fuels included, that are the real problem?

One termite won't cause the house to fall down anytime soon. It's when you've got a whole lot of them that you've got a problem. There's 6.5 billion people and counting at present, each of them chewing through the world's resources.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Too true, no place for idealism.  However there are other countries doing much bigger things towards greening, and, we have to start somewhere  IMO.   The leaders would have you believe that we have a big effect on other countries.
> 
> And this attitiude that it wont have an effect or wont work is worse than that of doomsayers.



Which significant countries have actually shifted to cleaner energy in a signficant way (assuming we're talking about climate change as the issue here) other than by means of swapping one unustainable energy source for another, collapsing their economy or by simply exporting their emissions?

I can't think of a single country that has actually done it.


----------



## Purple XS2 (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> If you are a typical Green's supporter, and you are the type of person Labor is sucking up to for preferences, the next three years will be very nasty indeed.
> 
> For a country whose economy is almost wholly dependent on it's extractive industries, what you say is sheer stupidity.




C: I would venture the opinion that for this country to have its economy almost wholly dependent on its extractive industries isn't real smart either. History would suggest it always ends in tears.

Regards, P.


----------



## Calliope (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Purple XS2 said:


> C: I would venture the opinion that for this country to have its economy almost wholly dependent on its extractive industries isn't real smart either. History would suggest it always ends in tears.




You are right. If the Chinese economy fails, ours fails too. But keeping the economic illiterate Bob Brown out of the decision making process, gives us a better chance to cope.

Brown is basing his economic prowess on the fact that he backed the second stimulus package, which most think was a disaster.


----------



## Mofra (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Purple XS2 said:


> C: I would venture the opinion that for this country to have its economy almost wholly dependent on its extractive industries isn't real smart either. History would suggest it always ends in tears.



Our third largest industry is education (foreign students) - anti-immigration rhetoric is already hurting the industry (drop in current enrolments as opposed to last year) - too bad the marginal seats tend to be those with the least progressive constituants, as the current political spin from both parties is actively hurting our only major value-add industry and making us more beholden to China's whims.


----------



## explod (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Oh God!   I've tried really hard to be charitable about your utter naivete, Explod, but this is just too much.
> 
> 
> .




Never mind Julia, we have to have the practical and we have to have the dreamers, it makes for ballance and hopefully progress for* humankind*

Off to the airport now, next two weeks in the sunshine at Cains.


----------



## Mofra (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> So tell me, with Bob Brown's policy to close down coal fired power stations and coal mines, how does he plan to have base load power stations *without coal or uranium*. Please don't tell me renewable energy, because it just won't work.



Is answering "Thorium" too smart-arsed an answer?


----------



## Mofra (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> But the Greens' fans don't spare a millisecond's thought for the economy, moXJO.  They just want to feel good, even if they're not quite sure why.



But the two major parties are directly hurting our 3rd biggest earner! 
Neither major party cares much about the economy when political expediency is there for the taking.


----------



## prawn_86 (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I would argue that the 2 major parties have been letting Aus go backwards, or at least stagnate for the last 20 or so years. Why not give someone else a shot, surely it cant be any worse?


----------



## Calliope (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Off to the airport now, next two weeks in the sunshine at Cains.




Obviously you prefer global warming to global cooling, as do thousands of your fellow Victorians.


----------



## Julia (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Never mind Julia, we have to have the practical and we have to have the dreamers, it makes for ballance and hopefully progress for* humankind*
> 
> Off to the airport now, next two weeks in the sunshine at Cains.



You're probably right, Explod.  You might like the following:


> Dreams are the soul's pantry.
> Keep it well stocked and your soul will never hunger.
> ......Cindy Williams



Hope you have a good holiday, untroubled by political woes.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



prawn_86 said:


> I would argue that the 2 major parties have been letting Aus go backwards, or at least stagnate for the last 20 or so years. Why not give someone else a shot, surely it cant be any worse?




I don't think that's true, but I would like to see some new thinking, some vision. 

What is being done to encourage the economy to develop high tech manufacturing for instance? Can't we form a trade block with the South Pacific and manufacture cheaper products there as well as improve farming.
So many options, so little vision from the current would be leaders.

I wouldn't mind the Greens getting more popular, if it mean't the major parties had to lift their game.


----------



## prawn_86 (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Knobby22 said:


> I wouldn't mind the Greens getting more popular, if it mean't the major parties had to lift their game.




Yes, another benefit of a vote for the greens, or any other non lib or labor party


----------



## drsmith (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Never mind Julia, we have to have the practical and we have to have the dreamers, it makes for ballance and hopefully progress for* humankind*



Practicality and dreaming rarely go together.



explod said:


> Off to the airport now, next two weeks in the sunshine at Cains.



The Greens want environmental costs incorporated into the cost of air travel.

http://greens.org.au/policies/sustainable-economy/sustainable-planning-and-transport

Sounds all warm and fuzzy but where's the detail ?
Does it mean they want to price air travel beyond the reach of ordinary Australians ?



prawn_86 said:


> I would argue that the 2 major parties have been letting Aus go backwards, or at least stagnate for the last 20 or so years. Why not give someone else a shot, surely it cant be any worse?



From a overall policy perspective, what do the Greens offer that is better ?


----------



## prawn_86 (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> From a overall policy perspective, what do the Greens offer that is better ?




Something different to the standard large party thinking. Both major parties are stale and virtually the same and just rely on the ignorance of the general populace to maintain power.

As i said before i would rather give someone else a crack (be they Greens or Independents) at running the country, because you cant really do any worse than what the major parties have done.


----------



## sinner (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



> From a overall policy perspective, what do the Greens offer that is better ?




Weren't you just on the policy website?

For me it is just about one, that's right, one issue that everyone seems to have forgotten:

The Greens seem to be the only ones who remember what power-grab junk was enacted under the aegis of counter-terrorism, the only ones even remotely concerned with the rights of the citizenry at large, etc. I was hoping Labor would do something about this, but it became apparent very very quickly that they were just as interested in the power grab as the last guy.

The Greens have stated they will repeal anti-sedition laws and reform counter-terrorism laws. 

That is good enough for me to put them ahead of all other parties.


----------



## drsmith (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



prawn_86 said:


> Something different to the standard large party thinking. Both major parties are stale and virtually the same and just rely on the ignorance of the general populace to maintain power.



The Greens rely more on public ignorance than either of the major parties. Their policies are little more than feelgood statements with no tangable assessment of overall economic impact.

How is their difference better overall ?



prawn_86 said:


> As i said before i would rather give someone else a crack (be they Greens or Independents) at running the country, because you cant really do any worse than what the major parties have done.



The governence of some countries overseas would tend to suggest otherwise.


----------



## nioka (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sinner said:


> The Greens seem to be the only ones who remember what power-grab junk was enacted under the aegis of counter-terrorism, the only ones even remotely concerned with the rights of the citizenry at large, etc.
> 
> The Greens have stated they will repeal anti-sedition laws and reform counter-terrorism laws.
> 
> That is good enough for me to put them ahead of all other parties.




Almost enough to remind me not to vote for them. But then I'm one of the "If it moves shoot it, if it doesn't, chop it down" in the eyes of a lot of greenies.


----------



## prawn_86 (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sinner said:


> The Greens have stated they will repeal anti-sedition laws and reform counter-terrorism laws.
> 
> That is good enough for me to put them ahead of all other parties.




Yep, the major parties seem hell bent on eroding freedoms. The Greens were the 1st to oppose the Internet filter also. A lot of their drug ideas are quite progressive also, both of these are enough to (probably) get my vote.

Im the first to admit that they have a lot of bad policies, but so do all parties


----------



## drsmith (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sinner said:


> Weren't you just on the policy website?
> 
> For me it is just about one, that's right, one issue that everyone seems to have forgotten:
> 
> ...



Economic well being is front and centre as far as I'm concerned. We are in a far better position to deal with social issues from a sound economic base.


----------



## sinner (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I find the responses to my post amusing, but not surprising. Extremely amused that people here would publicly espouse money over freedom. What I do find surprising is that even on ASF where you would have to assume the average poster to be several notches more financially literate than the average joe sixpack, even after a global financial crisis, people still believe that the Government somehow can control the economy. 

Frankly, I side 100% with prawn on this one (prawn for PM? ). I am not voting for the Greens to see them win. I am voting for the Greens to see the party named LiberalLabor but also known as LaborLiberal squirm in their seats.


----------



## wayneL (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sinner said:


> For me it is just about one, that's right, one issue that everyone seems to have forgotten:
> 
> The Greens seem to be the only ones who remember what power-grab junk was enacted under the aegis of counter-terrorism, the only ones even remotely concerned with the rights of the citizenry at large, etc. I was hoping Labor would do something about this, but it became apparent very very quickly that they were just as interested in the power grab as the last guy.
> 
> ...




Is this true?

Woulda thunk it? Socialist bastids espousing libertarian ideals?

Somehow I feel that if push came to shove, the Greens would experience some extreme cognitive dissonance. I could be convinced otherwise, but I think the Greens would go the authoritarian route to resolve that.


----------



## drsmith (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sinner said:


> I find the responses to my post amusing, but not surprising. Extremely amused that people here would publicly espouse money over freedom.



You don't automatically overcome social issues by impoverishing the economy. It's the overall package that has to be considered relative to the other options on the table.



sinner said:


> What I do find surprising is that even on ASF where you would have to assume the average poster to be several notches more financially literate than the average joe sixpack, even after a global financial crisis, people still believe that the Government somehow can control the economy.



The question is who can manage it better. Between the Coalition, Labor and the Greens, do you consider the Greens to be the better economic managers ?



sinner said:


> Frankly, I side 100% with prawn on this one (prawn for PM? ). I am not voting for the Greens to see them win. I am voting for the Greens to see the party named LiberalLabor but also known as LaborLiberal squirm in their seats.



They don't need to win to exercise an economic influence beyond their vote.

Are you in favour of increased taxation in the form of a carbon tax and a net 66.5% tax on resource profits ?


----------



## bellenuit (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

My two cents worth on the Greens.....

The Greens are always telling us how our mineral wealth is a finite resource, but don't seem to understand that investment capital is also a finite resource when it comes to their policies of taxing mining companies to the hilt to pay for their promises. The limited investment capital won't all just stay invested in Australia if there are more lucrative opportunities abroad.


----------



## Calliope (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I think prawn and sinner are just having us on. It is hard to imagine that anyone contributing to a stock forum, and by inference supports the stock market and private enterprise, could cast their vote for a socialist party, which opposes private enterprise.

Perhaps it's just naivette.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> The Greens want environmental costs incorporated into the cost of air travel.
> 
> http://greens.org.au/policies/sustainable-economy/sustainable-planning-and-transport
> 
> ...



Given that for almost the entire history of the party they have promoted tourism as the economic answer to just about everything, the notion of discouraging air travel is nothing short of a truly massive backflip.

Not a "non-core" backflip. But a backflip comparable to Liberal turning against business or Labor turning against unions. The Greens and tourism always were joined at the hip right from the beginning, the associated reliance on oil burning being a key issue that has long  worried opponents of the Greens' economic policies.


----------



## sinner (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> I think prawn and sinner are just having us on. It is hard to imagine that anyone contributing to a stock forum, and by inference supports the stock market and private enterprise, could cast their vote for a socialist party, which opposes private enterprise.
> 
> Perhaps it's just naivette.




Surely you aren't serious? Sounds like *naivetÃ©* on your part. Countries like Germany and Canada are far more socialist than us, in fact in Germany the "Social Democrats" have been one of the two major parties every election since 1949. Arguably some of the most successful economic times for Germany. Last time they were in power in grand coalition along with the Christial Social Union and Christian Democratic Union the DAX rose to all time highs. 

Like I said, the government does not control the economy. Socialists or Liberal Conservative or Republican.


----------



## electronicmaster (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sinner said:


> Like I said, the government does not control the economy. Socialists or Liberal Conservative or Republican.




Have you been asleep Sinner?

Here are some things you forgotten about.

The government has indirect control of our markets using tools such as Taxes, freedom of speech, Fiat Currency, policies on the Internet, rivers, water, post mail, Oil and war.  Oh, and Laws and more laws that contradict Laws

Just to name a few.


----------



## Julia (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



prawn_86 said:


> As i said before i would rather give someone else a crack (be they Greens or Independents) at running the country, because you cant really do any worse than what the major parties have done.






drsmith said:


> From a overall policy perspective, what do the Greens offer that is better ?



Prawn, to say that the Greens 'can't do any worse' than the existing parties is simplistic and unreasonable.  They can do way worse imo, or would if they actually ever are able to create legislation.

What about them do you think would be so good, other than their progressive social policies re drugs and gay marriage etc?



sinner said:


> I find the responses to my post amusing, but not surprising. Extremely amused that people here would publicly espouse money over freedom.



To say that there is a choice between money and freedom is unreasonably simplistic.  There is absolutely no need for that to be the case.
Can you really envisage a successful society under the Greens where to be sure homosexuals may marry, drug users will receive whatever they want on the PBS, every last spotty toed flea in the environment will be protected, along with all the gazillions of fruit bats etc etc, all the coal fired power stations will be closed down leaving us in the dark with a cooking fire in the back yard.  Motor vehicles will be banned unless solar powered, and bikes plus helmets will be free to every person.  Whacko!  What a utopia that would be!




> What I do find surprising is that even on ASF where you would have to assume the average poster to be several notches more financially literate than the average joe sixpack, even after a global financial crisis, people still believe that the Government somehow can control the economy.



Are you serious?  You don't believe governments affect the health of economies?



> Frankly, I side 100% with prawn on this one (prawn for PM? ). I am not voting for the Greens to see them win. I am voting for the Greens to see the party named LiberalLabor but also known as LaborLiberal squirm in their seats.



Well, without wanting to be disrespectful to you, sinner, you may be the one squirming in your seat when the Greens do get the balance of power.  You may not be quite so gung ho about it then.



drsmith said:


> You don't automatically overcome social issues by impoverishing the economy. It's the overall package that has to be considered relative to the other options on the table.



Exactly.



> They don't need to win to exercise an economic influence beyond their vote.
> 
> Are you in favour of increased taxation in the form of a carbon tax and a net 66.5% tax on resource profits ?



Allowing this to be repeated in the hope of a clear answer on it from sinner and prawn.

I have a great concern about the number of people who seem to be planning to vote Greens just as protest vote against the two main parties, without giving any serious thought to the potential ramifications.


----------



## prawn_86 (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> I think prawn and sinner are just having us on. It is hard to imagine that anyone contributing to a stock forum, and by inference supports the stock market and private enterprise, could cast their vote for a socialist party, which opposes private enterprise.
> 
> Perhaps it's just naivette.




If there was a truely capitalist party in favour of one flat tax and no restrictions on anything else (save for basic human rights), no lobbyists, no spin, no industries supported or not allowed, no layers of government etc etc A truely laisse faire party I would vote for it in a flash. But there isn't so i can't



Julia said:


> Prawn, to say that the Greens 'can't do any worse' than the existing parties is simplistic and unreasonable.  They can do way worse imo, or would if they actually ever are able to create legislation.
> 
> What about them do you think would be so good, other than their progressive social policies re drugs and gay marriage etc?
> 
> I have a great concern about the number of people who seem to be planning to vote Greens just as protest vote against the two main parties, without giving any serious thought to the potential ramifications.




Julia,

I think that both parties have gone no-where with health, infrastructure, human rights, housing and the environment, everything seems the same as it was 10 yrs ago. 

The only reason Australia is doing so well is because of our resources and the fact we happen to be close to China. Neither of the major parties have even been able to leverage off of this and value add into any industries either (except for unsustainable lobbied ones like the car industry). So no, i dont think the Greens could do any worse than what has already happened, and i'm happy to give a protest vote to them.

As i have said all along, their economic policies are not to my taste, but neither is that of the major parties. The majors will get nothing done, at least the Greens will/would try things. How much money do the majors waste on jobs for the boys, 'roundtables', discussions, investigations, process and all the other BS? If you cut this out and add the bad economic policies of the Greens it would probably come out equal anyway 

Im also happy to vote independent, just anything to try and change away from, or change the major parties themselves.


----------



## noco (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

The Australian News paper published in today's paper a photo of Bob Brown embracing his homosexual patner.

Whist it made me nauseous to view, I thought to myself what if it had been Tony Abbott in a similar situation. It would have been explosive headlines in every newspaper and TV with the Labor Party exploiting it to the fullest.

But comrade Brown gets away with it.


----------



## sinner (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> To say that there is a choice between money and freedom is unreasonably simplistic.




Well right, I didn't actually say that. I said I was surprised posters premised a free society on a healthy economy, not the other way around. 



> Can you really envisage a successful society under the Greens where to be sure homosexuals may marry, drug users will receive whatever they want on the PBS, every last spotty toed flea in the environment will be protected, along with all the gazillions of fruit bats etc etc, all the coal fired power stations will be closed down leaving us in the dark with a cooking fire in the back yard.  Motor vehicles will be banned unless solar powered, and bikes plus helmets will be free to every person.  Whacko!  What a utopia that would be!




Patronising, nonsensical, rubbish. 



> Are you serious?  You don't believe governments affect the health of economies?




Stop misquoting me. I said governments can't control economies. Of course they can affect the health of an economy. But even central banks don't control economies. Electing a government based on the premise they are "better economic managers" completely ignores the reality of the situation we are in. Certainly it is obvious those "better economic managers" did not see the financial crisis coming, in fact if anything their policies exacerbated the problem. So what credentials are you actually trying to convince me to vote for? 



> Well, without wanting to be disrespectful to you, sinner, you may be the one squirming in your seat when the Greens do get the balance of power.  You may not be quite so gung ho about it then.




Maybe. Or while we are throwing around patronising random hypotheticals, maybe you will be pleasantly surprised by a Greens government 



> Exactly.
> 
> 
> Allowing this to be repeated in the hope of a clear answer on it from sinner and prawn.




Have said it before, will say it again. We need to put a price on impact of industry on our environment. Regardless of global warming. Regardless whether bigger polluters do it or not. Because sooner or later we will pay that cost anyway, voluntarily or not. The only difference is we currently have a chance to use Australian ingenuity and innovativeness to come up with a real solution before it all comes back to bite us on the **** and people are crying "o no nobody could have seen this coming".

I do not support a 66.5% tax on resource profits, but then again I don't support the huge subsidies which resource industry currently receives from the government at taxpayer expense and goes mostly into shareholder pockets and I don't support the huge influence resource industry lobbying currently has on our government+media.



> I have a great concern about the number of people who seem to be planning to vote Greens just as protest vote against the two main parties, without giving any serious thought to the potential ramifications.




Seriously Julia, stop acting like I am an idiot or something. I have thought about it plenty. I lay awake at night thinking. There are people out there voting for Tony Abbott to "Stop the Boats", 5000 *refugees* p.a. who have a legal right to seek asylum (what is that as a % of our total annual immigration?), there are people out there voting Liberal just because their Pastor or Priest told them to, there are people out there voting Labor because they support middle class welfare. Some people vote one way just because their parents did. I am serious when I say I want to see those scum sucking bastards *squirm*.

When I wrote to MPs and Senators about the erosion of what are supposed to be inalienable human rights, only the Greens gave two ****s. Guess what, I will repay the kindness in kind. To those who succumbed to nationalistic fascist fervor, you will get your comeuppance "under the line" come election day. Shame you can't put more than one party as your last preference.


----------



## electronicmaster (19 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> I have a great concern about the number of people who seem to be planning to vote Greens just as protest vote against the two main parties, without giving any serious thought to the potential ramifications.




I second that.


----------



## Calliope (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> The Australian News paper published in today's paper a photo of Bob Brown embracing his homosexual patner.
> 
> Whist it made me nauseous to view, I thought to myself what if it had been Tony Abbott in a similar situation. It would have been explosive headlines in every newspaper and TV with the Labor Party exploiting it to the fullest.
> 
> But comrade Brown gets away with it.




Don't forget noco, that about 10% of the electors are homosexual. In the same way as Gillard is winning the women's vote, Brown will be winning the gay vote even though most probably they are not interested in "marrying."


----------



## Ageo (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Well i have nothing against peoples freedoms and rights and they should choose to vote for whoever they see fit.....


But if the greens get the balance in power of the senate i will most likely shoot myself.....
(oh wait the greens by then will have taken away my firearms, so a rope should do the trick)...


----------



## Calliope (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Ageo said:


> But if the greens get the balance in power of the senate i will most likely shoot myself.....




Don't do that Ageo. I know the country will be rooted,  but there will still be opportunities. There will be a mass exodus of persecuted entrepreneurs.  How about setting up a boat people smuggling racket to New Zealand?


----------



## prawn_86 (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Ageo said:


> (oh wait the greens by then will have taken away my firearms, so a rope should do the trick)...




Didnt the Libs do that years ago...?


----------



## Ageo (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> Don't do that Ageo. I know the country will be rooted,  but there will still be opportunities. There will be a mass exodus of persecuted entrepreneurs.  How about setting up a boat people smuggling racket to New Zealand?




lol always a thinkin man eh Calliope....



prawn_86 said:


> Didnt the Libs do that years ago...?




96 i know, but that was a knee jerk reaction towards the port arthur massacre.

The greens dont need an excuse, they just care about their own personal agenda and will try and ban everything they dont like.


----------



## sails (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



prawn_86 said:


> ...Im also happy to vote independent, just anything to try and change away from, or change the major parties themselves.




Prawn, I understand your frustration at the major parties, but isn't a vote for the Greens a vote for Labor?

Labor is relying on Green preferences.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> Prawn, I understand your frustration at the major parties, but isn't a vote for the Greens a vote for Labor?
> 
> Labor is relying on Green preferences.




Not in the Senate as far as im aware. I could be wrong though, our political system is complex and ****e and thats what politicians rely on


----------



## sinner (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> Prawn, I understand your frustration at the major parties, but isn't a vote for the Greens a vote for Labor?
> 
> Labor is relying on Green preferences.




Extremely amused to be admonished on this forum for supposedly voting frivolously, when it is clear those who are voting "acceptably" don't even have a clue how the Westminister system functions.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/08/17/cox-the-weird-and-wonderful-world-of-senate-preferences/
http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/electoral_system.html

and the very most useful link of this election for those who can't be bothered educating themselves

https://www.belowtheline.org.au/

Will tell you who you are really voting for.


----------



## sails (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



prawn_86 said:


> Not in the Senate as far as im aware. I could be wrong though, our political system is complex and ****e and thats what politicians rely on




I was thinking house of reps when I posted and not sure about senate votes either.  Anyone else care to comment?

However, labor is likely to do deals with greens in the senate to get as much of their somewhat unpopular policies passed.


----------



## sails (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sinner said:


> Extremely amused to be admonished on this forum for supposedly voting frivolously, when it is clear those who are voting "acceptably" don't even have a clue how the Westminister system functions.
> ...




Hey Sinner, I don't see where I typed the word "frivolously" anywhere in my post?  I think you are jumping to conclusions.  I respect the views of others even if I may not agree with them.

My post was a genuine quesion to Prawn whom I also respect.  Also, I didn't assume that not voting greens is "acceptable" voting.  That is another assumption on your part.

I simply want the awful spin and wasteful spending to stop.  The last 3 years have been a worry.  I have my TV on mute whenever JG drones on because I am becomming increasingly irritated at how she can never answer a simple question and usually has to include  bagging TA.  It's tiresome.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Having a browse now and i'm probably going to vote for the Senator Online party, as i like thier way of thinking (that the majority decides on senate votes)


----------



## choice1 (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I just did a quick look through all the registered political parties and it seems the Liberal democratic party  fits nearly all of my views on Australia.

http://www.ldp.org.au/

In the same respect my vote may be better served with the coalition to stop the LaborSocialistGreens pushing policies down our throat.


----------



## Mofra (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> The Greens rely more on public ignorance than either of the major parties. Their policies are little more than feelgood statements with no tangable assessment of overall economic impact.



I would argue the opposite - fear and ignorance is the modus operandi for political powerbrokers in the new era (especially the far right). 

The Greens have the highest proportion of members who are university-educated out of any major party in Australia.


----------



## Mofra (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



choice1 said:


> I just did a quick look through all the registered political parties and it seems the Liberal democratic party  fits nearly all of my views on Australia.
> 
> http://www.ldp.org.au/



Can't see any reason why they wont develop into a legitimate political force in elections to come. Some very sensible policies and their overall idealogy will capture the mood of the voting public by the time we are faced with a non-choice again at the next election.


----------



## sails (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



choice1 said:


> ...In the same respect my vote may be better served with the coalition to stop the LaborSocialistGreens pushing policies down our throat.




That's how I feel.  This is an unusual election where it seems the vote is more important to stop the rot than necessarily vote in who you want. There will be more elections down the track that may not be so critical to Australia's future to give the minor parties a go.

Thanks for the link to the LDP - will have a read through.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

http://senatoronline.org.au/ - look extremely interesting. Based on the premise that every person can vote on bills in the senate and then the elected senators will vote as per the majority.

Proper democracy


----------



## choice1 (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



prawn_86 said:


> http://senatoronline.org.au/ - look extremely interesting. Based on the premise that every person can vote on bills in the senate and then the elected senators will vote as per the majority.
> 
> Proper democracy




Very interesting party that shows great out of the box thinking. They managed to get the kind of democracy that we all want without having to dissolve the current system. I actually linked that to a friend of mine then as he was complaining about the system and how he wanted something like this in place. 

Perhaps some other parties could follow suit and restore some faith in the political system.


----------



## springhill (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Mofra said:


> I would argue the opposite - fear and ignorance is the modus operandi for political powerbrokers in the new era (especially the far right).
> 
> The Greens have the highest proportion of members who are university-educated out of any major party in Australia.




A university education doesn't make you free from ignorance, nor does it make you politically savvy.
There is a difference between smarts and street smarts.


----------



## Calliope (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



springhill said:


> A university education doesn't make you free from ignorance, nor does it make you politically savvy.
> There is a difference between smarts and street smarts.




That true. You only have to read nonsense like this. Political bias maybe. It supports the old saying  "if you can,do...if you can't, teach."



> The Labor federal government prevented the Australian economy from falling into a deep recession and a consequent huge rise in unemployment, a group of more than 50 academic economists say.
> 
> The group, which includes professors and lecturers from the nation's leading universities, on Monday released an open letter supporting the fiscal stimulus measures taken during the global economic downturn




http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/7770126/labors-spending-vital-say-economists/3/


----------



## Julia (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sinner said:


> Stop misquoting me. I said governments can't control economies. Of course they can affect the health of an economy.



So they can 'affect an economy' but not 'control an economy'.   I'm not sure where you'd draw a dividing line between the two.   


> But even central banks don't control economies.



No, but they too have a significant effect, viz the multiple and rapid interest rate cuts to prevent economic stress.  This was arguably as important or more important than the government's much lauded stimulus.



> Electing a government based on the premise they are "better economic managers" completely ignores the reality of the situation we are in. Certainly it is obvious those "better economic managers" did not see the financial crisis coming, in fact if anything their policies exacerbated the problem. So what credentials are you actually trying to convince me to vote for?



I'm not trying to convince you to vote for anyone, sinner.  I don't know even to whom you're referring when you talk about 'better economic managers' above, given both major parties are claiming this distinction.
I was simply expressing my disquiet about the Greens ever having any significant say in how taxpayer dollars are spent and gave my reasons.

I'm sorry you feel I was patronising you.  That wasn't my intention.  Probably I indulged in a bit of hyperbole when describing life under the Greens, but that just reflects my fears about them.

I stand by my earlier comment that many of those will vote Greens as a protest against the two main parties will do so in ignorance of the potential ramifications of the Greens having the balance of power.

One scenario I heard put up today was the Greens getting the Melbourne seat that Lindsay Tanner is vacating, giving them their first representation in the House of Reps.  Not a heartwarming thought.   There has been also suggestions of a hung parliament which would need one side or the other to have the support of the three Independents to govern.

Does anyone know anything much about any of these three?  I'm only familiar with Bob Katter, who, though a bit unusual, is reasonably sensible about many things.  Seeing Tony Windsor interviewed, he seemed thoughtful and considered.  Don't know anything about the other bloke.



> Shame you can't put more than one party as your last preference.



I'm in total agreement with you here.

Re Senate voting:  I'd guess most people vote above the line because of the huge number of candidates standing most of whom we have no clue about.


----------



## Ageo (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Mofra said:


> The Greens have the highest proportion of members who are university-educated out of any major party in Australia.




Im pretty sure they also have the highest rate for smoking cannabis.


----------



## Mofra (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



springhill said:


> A university education doesn't make you free from ignorance, nor does it make you politically savvy.
> There is a difference between smarts and street smarts.



True - but it's a much better measure than ignorant stereotyping


----------



## Knobby22 (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I'm in the seat of Melbourne.

Its nice to be in a swing seat for once. You should see how many leaflets I have got.

I am tempted to go Green though I don't agree with some of their policies I like some of the others. It will be fun to shake the tree a bit. I do like Brown who is pretty centrist and has good attitude to freedom but not many of his collegues who lean towards the nanny state.

By the way, the Greens are supporting this site. Look at the banner above.

If the Greens win Melbourne Austrlia won't go into collapse.
Yes, I think I will vote them. 

Still voting Liberal in the State elections though.


----------



## nioka (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Mofra said:


> The Greens have the highest proportion of members who are university-educated out of any major party in Australia.



 The problem is the fact that they are not educated beyond that university degree. In fact a lot of them are still there or are dropouts and didn't even get that education completed. It is a harder world out there than it is in a sheltered university campas. Give most of them another 10 or 20 years real education  and they will end up being useless like their idol or change their attitude.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

lol gotta love the stereotyping going on in this thread


----------



## nioka (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Ageo said:


> Im pretty sure they also have the highest rate for smoking cannabis.




Particularly in this area and a big percentage on benefits. Struck one recently who was telling me how lucky I was. I asked what they did for a living and was told they were on a disability pension as they were a "recovering drug addict". There are enough of them here to keep a "hippy" council in power in Byron shire so expect a Green support there.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



nioka said:


> The problem is the fact that they are not educated beyond that university degree. In fact a lot of them are still there or are dropouts and didn't even get that education completed. It is a harder world out there than it is in a sheltered university campas. Give most of them another 10 or 20 years real education  and they will end up being useless like their idol or change their attitude.




You don't want to know how many Liberals and Labor members have been party hacks all their lives and never worked a normal job then Nioka. 
I know some. One labor, one Liberal. i wouldn't let them run a toy electric train set much less the country.


----------



## nioka (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



prawn_86 said:


> lol gotta love the stereotyping going on in this thread




A person gets judged by the company they keep.


----------



## choice1 (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

If you go to a university now days you'll be swamped by the socialist trying to push their magazines on you and posters saying 'CLOSE ALL DETENTION CENTRES, STOP THE RACISM' or 'Why Marxism works'... Yes I am the guy who argues with the people who approach me. It's fun to give them complex questions until you realise their whole opinion is summarised in the article they are handing out and that they have no original thoughts on the matter.

I come from a very left wing family and I’ve had my siblings all preaching to me why I should be voting green instead and how the intervention was racist and inhumane etc. Funny how I never see them coming up with any new ideas, only criticising ones that people come up with…


----------



## sinner (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> A: So they can 'affect an economy' but not 'control an economy'.   I'm not sure where you'd draw a dividing line between the two.
> 
> B: No, but they too have a significant effect, viz the multiple and rapid interest rate cuts to prevent economic stress.  This was arguably as important or more important than the government's much lauded stimulus.




A, meet B. 

6 panic interest rate cuts it was Julia, the first one happened in an "emergency meeting" 2 days before the scheduled rate meeting. Ratifies my point exactly though. A month before they were raising rates to supposedly combat inflation and then overnight it switched to combatting deflation. Therein is the difference between influence and control. The RBA does not control rates, it is beholden to global bond markets just like every other Central Bank. Governments and banks are beholden to international markets whether they like it (or deny it!) or not. They can at best introduce temporary inefficiencies to the system which will be rectified by supply/demand forces eventually anyway. See dot-com bubble as perfect example.



> I was simply expressing my disquiet about the Greens ever having any significant say in how taxpayer dollars are spent and gave my reasons.




Yet you don't mind that Liberals or Labor get a significant say in how to spend our tax money? Like the billions that goes to Indonesia for counter terrorism, so they have a vested interest in keeping terrorists around else the money dries up? Or the billions in totally ineffectual subsidies given to companies like Toyota supposedly so they will stick around in our country? 

I would like to see huge portions of the Australian Defence Force totally disbanded (or at the very least our overseas exposure reduced to a much less costly level), and that money saved placed in Indigenous education, health and homelessness. Yet Labor and Liberal get a significant say against this.



> I'm sorry you feel I was patronising you.  That wasn't my intention.  Probably I indulged in a bit of hyperbole when describing life under the Greens, but that just reflects my fears about them.




Considering the Greens have yet to be in Federal power ever, what exactly are your fears founded on, other than the typical hyperbole above? Certainly not on a historical example. Certainly the hyperbole above does not reflect the policy documents from the greens that I have read.



> I stand by my earlier comment that many of those will vote Greens as a protest against the two main parties will do so in ignorance of the potential ramifications of the Greens having the balance of power.




I stand by my earlier comment that those who continue to vote LiberalLabor or LaborLiberal are perpetuating the status quo, wherein big business runs the country for a profit and little guy is just a demographic to be manipulated once every 4 years.



> One scenario I heard put up today was the Greens getting the Melbourne seat that Lindsay Tanner is vacating, giving them their first representation in the House of Reps.  Not a heartwarming thought.   There has been also suggestions of a hung parliament which would need one side or the other to have the support of the three Independents to govern.




I would be just as happy for Independents to have the balance of power as the Greens. If the Greens win in Melbourne it will be Labors own fault and they will have deserved it.



> Does anyone know anything much about any of these three?  I'm only familiar with Bob Katter, who, though a bit unusual, is reasonably sensible about many things.  Seeing Tony Windsor interviewed, he seemed thoughtful and considered.  Don't know anything about the other bloke.




Other bloke is a National Party blacksheep
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Oakeshott

Also part of the re-established Parliamentarians Amnesty International Group, which I view as a good thing.



> I'm in total agreement with you here.
> 
> Re Senate voting:  I'd guess most people vote above the line because of the huge number of candidates standing most of whom we have no clue about.




Please see the above website "belowtheline", very useful.


----------



## Calliope (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Rudd heads to Melbourne to head off the Green plague. Rudd is appealing to "working families" and the homeless, while Brown has more appeal for the wealthy and the indolent.



> Mr Rudd accompanied Ms Bowtell as they met with the homeless, a constituency he embraced as a priority when Labor won government in November 2007.
> 
> But the seat, which was once dominated by blue-collar battlers in public housing estates, has been transformed as property values soar.
> 
> *Labor insiders fear the Greens will sneak over the line in this former heartland on the city's fringe where increasing numbers of well educated and comfortably off voters can afford to embrace socially progressive policies such as climate change, gay marriage and the fate of asylum-seekers*



(my bolds)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-head-off-greens/story-fn59niix-1225907498599


----------



## Mofra (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



nioka said:


> A person gets judged by the company they keep.



That will make it difficult to pidgeon hole those of us that actually have the ability to mix with a wide range of people


----------



## nioka (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Mofra said:


> That will make it difficult to pidgeon hole those of us that actually have the ability to mix with a wide range of people




 Not necessarily. I judge someone like that as broadminded and definitely not one eyed. I'd like to think that I have done just that over a lifetime and continue to do so.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I'm not gay but every time I hear the gay marriage issue mentioned, it does push me toward voting Green.

There's simply no excuse for continuing the hatred and discrimination against minorities that seems to be dominating this election campaign. Nor is there any excuse for allowing the church to hold influence over Australian politics. 

Much as I'm not keen on socialists, there's no way I could vote Liberal this election whilst they remain stuck in the 1850's.


----------



## drsmith (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Mofra said:


> I would argue the opposite - fear and ignorance is the modus operandi for political powerbrokers in the new era (especially the far right).



More so the Greens I feel.

Where's the forecasts of the budget/economic impact of their ideals ?


----------



## springhill (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> I'm not gay but every time I hear the gay marriage issue mentioned, it does push me toward voting Green.
> 
> There's simply no excuse for continuing the hatred and discrimination against minorities that seems to be dominating this election campaign. Nor is there any excuse for allowing the church to hold influence over Australian politics.
> 
> Much as I'm not keen on socialists, there's no way I could vote Liberal this election whilst they remain stuck in the 1850's.




Smurf, i don't think there is hatred and discrimination against minorities in this election, just policies to remind minorities that they are in fact minorities. After all isn't an election decided on majority vote, so why pander to minorities? In that area i think we have gone too far.

The church doesn't hold influence over Australian politics, i think you are putting the cart before the horse. Policies are a reflection of our society and where it is heading. Originally our society was formed based on Christian values, and from there policies evolved to suit our societal needs. Hence they were Christian value based.

You advocate gay marriage, which is inheritantly non-Christian. What next Sharia Law? All things progress to a line which should not be crossed, i think we are at that point now. Time to stop before we become a society that is unrecognisable to people from a generation preceeding ours.


----------



## bellenuit (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



springhill said:


> You advocate gay marriage, which is inheritantly non-Christian. What next Sharia Law?




It seems the only people who want to marry nowadays are gays and priests....


----------



## Julia (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



nioka said:


> The problem is the fact that they are not educated beyond that university degree. In fact a lot of them are still there or are dropouts and didn't even get that education completed. It is a harder world out there than it is in a sheltered university campas. Give most of them another 10 or 20 years real education  and they will end up being useless like their idol or change their attitude.



I can relate to what you're saying here, Nioka, but think it applies to a pretty small minority of people who only feel secure within the cloisters of academia.
If they were forced to go and look for a job in the real world, perhaps some of their views would change, but some would be reinforced, e.g. the evil inequities of the capitalist system.



prawn_86 said:


> lol gotta love the stereotyping going on in this thread



Prawn, stereotypes are like cliches:   They are born from essential truth.




Knobby22 said:


> You don't want to know how many Liberals and Labor members have been party hacks all their lives and never worked a normal job then Nioka.
> I know some. One labor, one Liberal. i wouldn't let them run a toy electric train set much less the country.



Quite true, and we can see many examples of this in government.  But at least they're earning a living of sorts and not just existing on various academic grants ad infinitum.
At the same time, I'm being a bit hypocritical here, because I'd hate to see a society without a strong academic focus.



sinner said:


> A, meet B.
> 
> 6 panic interest rate cuts it was Julia, the first one happened in an "emergency meeting" 2 days before the scheduled rate meeting. Ratifies my point exactly though. A month before they were raising rates to supposedly combat inflation and then overnight it switched to combatting deflation.



What?   Can you outline where the RBA decided to 'combat deflation'?



> Yet you don't mind that Liberals or Labor get a significant say in how to spend our tax money? Like the billions that goes to Indonesia for counter terrorism, so they have a vested interest in keeping terrorists around else the money dries up? Or the billions in totally ineffectual subsidies given to companies like Toyota supposedly so they will stick around in our country?



Where have I ever said that I am happy with Liberal or Labor spending our tax dollars like this?   You are extrapolating from my nervousness about the Greens that I am ipso facto entirely thrilled about everything ever done by Liberal or Labor.  I have repeatedly made clear that I'm very unhappy about both of them, and regard my choice at the ballot box tomorrow as one which represents the least damaging, absolutely not the party which I feel offers any genuine hope for the future of Australians.
So kindly don't misinterpret what I've said or put words into my mouth.




> I would like to see huge portions of the Australian Defence Force totally disbanded (or at the very least our overseas exposure reduced to a much less costly level), and that money saved placed in Indigenous education, health and homelessness. Yet Labor and Liberal get a significant say against this.



I often feel the same way, but I honestly don't know what sort of defence forces are really required for Australia, so can't comment in any intelligent way.  Re funds for indigenous interests, absolutely if we could see any positive outcomes from the very considerable outlay in that direction so far.
I'd be more than interested if you can show us where financial outlay has brought about definitive positive outcomes.

I'd happily hand over the entire indigenous spending to Noel Pearson who seems to understand his people in an objective and non-romantic way.
He is against the continuation of passive welfare which he feels is poisoning aboriginal people.  I agree, and would like to see his ideas applied to welfare across Australia, not just limited to indigenous people.



> Considering the Greens have yet to be in Federal power ever, what exactly are your fears founded on, other than the typical hyperbole above? Certainly not on a historical example. Certainly the hyperbole above does not reflect the policy documents from the greens that I have read.



Oh dear, sinner, give me a break!   How can anyone produce an historical example of something which has never happened.
We can only anticipate what the Greens will want when they have the balance of power based on their policies and their current rhetoric, the latter including such phrases as "when we are in charge.......".



> I stand by my earlier comment that those who continue to vote LiberalLabor or LaborLiberal are perpetuating the status quo, wherein big business runs the country for a profit and little guy is just a demographic to be manipulated once every 4 years.



True enough, no question.  It's a sad thing that most of us will vote for what we consider the least worst option, on the basis of no plausible alternatives.



> I would be just as happy for Independents to have the balance of power as the Greens. If the Greens win in Melbourne it will be Labors own fault and they will have deserved it.



So you are here confirming that you will vote Greens not at all out of any conviction about them and their policies, but simply as a protest against the two major parties.
This is what I'm unhappy about.

Pity the Democrats imploded.  They once would have filled the slot you're looking for, if I'm understanding you correctly, but lacked the extreme, religious zealotry that attaches to the Greens.



drsmith said:


> More so the Greens I feel.
> 
> Where's the forecasts of the budget/economic impact of their ideals ?



I second this question.   It's something the Greens fans refuse to address.


----------



## gav (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



prawn_86 said:


> If there was a truely capitalist party in favour of one flat tax and no restrictions on anything else (save for basic human rights), no lobbyists, no spin, no industries supported or not allowed, no layers of government etc etc A truely laisse faire party I would vote for it in a flash. But there isn't so i can't




Prawn, see Choice1's post:



choice1 said:


> I just did a quick look through all the registered political parties and it seems the Liberal democratic party  fits nearly all of my views on Australia.
> 
> http://www.ldp.org.au/
> 
> In the same respect my vote may be better served with the coalition to stop the LaborSocialistGreens pushing policies down our throat.


----------



## gav (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



choice1 said:


> If you go to a university now days you'll be swamped by the socialist trying to push their magazines on you and posters saying 'CLOSE ALL DETENTION CENTRES, STOP THE RACISM' or 'Why Marxism works'... Yes I am the guy who argues with the people who approach me. It's fun to give them complex questions until you realise their whole opinion is summarised in the article they are handing out and that they have no original thoughts on the matter.




I am so glad I never went to uni...


----------



## springhill (20 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sinner said:


> I stand by my earlier comment that those who continue to vote LiberalLabor or LaborLiberal are perpetuating the status quo, wherein big business runs the country for a profit and little guy is just a demographic to be manipulated once every 4 years.




sinner, hate to intrude on the dialogue between yourself and Julia it's excellent reading, but just a small bone of contention. Yes, big business do run the country for a profit, but most of the big companies are publicly listed entities. The public is not merely a drone population, we ourselves, have the ability through investment to make our own money from these big businesses, hence why this forum exists in the first place. I have no problem with the status quo.


----------



## drsmith (21 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

http://www.ldp.org.au/

Sensible and simple income tax policy. 

From a political standpoint though, some compromise may be required to gain mainstream support. A sudden reduction in benefits from the poorest to fund tax cuts higher up the scale though may be a difficult concept to sell.

Perhaps a tax rate of 35% on incomes above $30k with welfare cutting in at the same rate for incomes below that amount. This would in effect be a middle ground between their current proposal and Henry's proposed income tax rates.


----------



## gav (21 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> http://www.ldp.org.au/
> 
> Sensible and simple income tax policy.
> 
> ...




This is who I'll be voting for.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I myself have never met a Green. What do they look like?

gg


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I myself have never met a Green. What do they look like?
> 
> gg




What! You described them on your "Nationalise the ABC" thread.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



springhill said:


> You advocate gay marriage, which is inheritantly non-Christian.



I am not necessarily advocating gay marriage. What I am against however is the constant use of that particular issue as a form of scare campaign for purely political purposes. A classic case of victimising a minority in order to appeal to the mob.

Nowhere have I seen a truly rational debate on the subject. It simply ends up as a scare campaign - vote for x and they'll legalise gay marriage. The situation is very similar with the asylum seeker and climate change issues which have been dominant themes this election. Very little rational debate, just a lot of dubious claims and a scare campaign.

As for the influence of religion in general, I would agree that it is an unproven point but there are many who suggest that Liberal leader Tony Abbott may indeed be influenced by his religious beliefs should he become PM. I may well be wrong, but indications are that he may turn out to be the stereotypical anti-abortion, anti-gay, no sex before marriage type. Fair enough if he chooses to follow that personally, but it is very clear that a large portion of the Australian population doesn't agree.

In short, I'm simply aginst the incitement of fear and hatred based on race, physical characteristics, gender and the like. The world has seen more than enough of that over the years and it's time to move on.


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> I am not necessarily advocating gay marriage. What I am against however is the constant use of that particular issue as a form of scare campaign for purely political purposes. A classic case of victimising a minority in order to appeal to the mob.




Who is doing the victimising? And what is the "mob"?

What mob is this appealing to?



> I may well be wrong, but indications are that he may turn out to be the stereotypical anti-abortion, anti-gay, no sex before marriage type


----------



## noco (21 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I myself have never met a Green. What do they look like?
> 
> gg




GG they are green outside and  red inside and offer plenty of verbal diarrhoea. They will often cause nausea if you swallow too much of their contents, particualrly relating to too much solar exposure as it can turn the inside quite vile.
Avoid them at all costs if you prefer the better side life.


----------



## IFocus (21 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> I am not necessarily advocating gay marriage. What I am against however is the constant use of that particular issue as a form of scare campaign for purely political purposes. A classic case of victimising a minority in order to appeal to the mob.
> 
> Nowhere have I seen a truly rational debate on the subject. It simply ends up as a scare campaign - vote for x and they'll legalise gay marriage. The situation is very similar with the asylum seeker and climate change issues which have been dominant themes this election. Very little rational debate, just a lot of dubious claims and a scare campaign.
> 
> ...




I would vote for you Smurf  nice post


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> GG they are green outside and  red inside and offer plenty of verbal diarrhoea. They will often cause nausea if you swallow too much of their contents, particualrly relating to too much solar exposure as it can turn the inside quite vile.
> Avoid them at all costs if you prefer the better side life.




I believe I came on two of them in a Toyota Pious that had run out of whatever they run on, just off the Strzelecki Track, last year on my way to the Birdsvlle Races.

They were in a shocking state, I couldn't stop, as I was running late for the races and only had enough fuel in the boot for the Arnage.

I am unable to verify their hue on the inside, but the hawks and eagles were quite interested in them, so as they are carnivores, I guess that would be secondary evidence for them being internally red.

They were green though, and quite dry, on the outside, and waved their arms rather feebly as I drove past. I waved back.

gg


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



IFocus said:


> I would vote for you Smurf  nice post




The kiss of death.


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> GG they are green outside and  red inside and offer plenty of verbal diarrhoea. They will often cause nausea if you swallow too much of their contents, particualrly relating to too much solar exposure as it can turn the inside quite vile.
> Avoid them at all costs if you prefer the better side life.




Peter Hartcher says in the SMH today;



> The Greens are often accused of being a watermelon party - green on the outside but a socialist red in the middle.
> 
> Not true. The party's leader showed yesterday that it's actually more like a tomato, red not just on the outside but all the way to the centre.


----------



## drsmith (21 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I believe I came on two of them in a Toyota Pious that had run out of whatever they run on, just off the Strzelecki Track, last year on my way to the Birdsvlle Races.



They might have been out there surveying the track for a fast train powered by camel dung.


----------



## Julia (21 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> I am not necessarily advocating gay marriage. What I am against however is the constant use of that particular issue as a form of scare campaign for purely political purposes. A classic case of victimising a minority in order to appeal to the mob.
> 
> Nowhere have I seen a truly rational debate on the subject. It simply ends up as a scare campaign - vote for x and they'll legalise gay marriage. The situation is very similar with the asylum seeker and climate change issues which have been dominant themes this election. Very little rational debate, just a lot of dubious claims and a scare campaign.
> 
> ...






Calliope said:


> The kiss of death.



I also liked Smurf's post.   Does this mean I'm also offering the kiss of death along with IFocus?


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> I also liked Smurf's post.   Does this mean I'm also offering the kiss of death along with IFocus?




Praise from somebody like Mr Focus, like the kiss of Judas is a death warrant.



> The kiss of Judas, the origin of the term "Kiss of Death", Judas's betrayal of Jesus with a kiss in the Garden of Gethsemane


----------



## lookout (21 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I'd like to vote for the party that cares about the country's finances and social fabric. I don't want money wasted on first home buyer grants and most of the various stimulus programmes; I don't want money wasted on desalination plants and pipelines to steal water from other areas of the country, rather than recycling water already used in the cities; I do want money spent on disadvantaged kids and communities so that we don't end up like the USA; I do want money spent on developing renewable energy technology rather than subsidising installation of current innefficient technology.

So who do I vote for? None of the parties have the common sense to pursue both financially responsible and socially equitable policies. 

No point picking on the greens alone when the others are just as flawed.


----------



## bobert (22 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

hope Australia lays claim to international waters where the Japanese whale and shut it down.


----------



## noco (22 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I don't think the Greens are as 'rosy' as the party portrays themselves. They have already broken into three factions (not sure whether they are left, right or mddle) and if they do progress to a larger party, they could find themselves in a similar situation to Labor, that is  from moderate to extreme which could spell trouble for the Greens down the track.

The Greens at this stage appear to be more extreme to the left of socialism and don't believe that will benifit this great country of ours.


----------



## Calliope (22 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> The Greens at this stage appear to be more extreme to the left of socialism and don't believe that will benifit this great country of ours.




In future years when historians are looking for the tipping point when Australia started to go backwards I think they will agree that it was 21st August 2010. It is dangerous to put control of the country into the hands of special interest minorities, with very narrow agendas.


----------



## lookout (22 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> In future years when historians are looking for the tipping point when Australia started to go backwards I think they will agree that it was 21st August 2010. It is dangerous to put control of the country into the hands of special interest minorities, with very narrow agendas.




It's been going backwards ever since politicians started promoting the property bubble. All that debt has the country sailing toward an iceberg whenever Europe and the US are forced into submission by their debt ridden economies.


----------



## noco (22 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> In future years when historians are looking for the tipping point when Australia started to go backwards I think they will agree that it was 21st August 2010. It is dangerous to put control of the country into the hands of special interest minorities, with very narrow agendas.




Calliope, IMHO this is the begining of the end of the Labor Party and they will rue the day they got into bed with the Greens. The Greens have virtually taken away the Labor Party power base.

I can even foresee a Green Labor Party in the future, because they do have similar ideologies, except the Greens are far too extreme to the left which is verging on communism. Communsim has  mostly been a failure in the developed world and would be destined  to fail in Australia.


----------



## wayneL (22 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



lookout said:


> It's been going backwards ever since politicians started promoting the property bubble. All that debt has the country sailing toward an iceberg whenever Europe and the US are forced into submission by their debt ridden economies.




I reckon it started in 1972. Sir John tried to stop the rot in '75, God bless him. But is was already too late.


----------



## captain black (22 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> I reckon it started in 1972. Sir John tried to stop the rot in '75, God bless him. But is was already too late.




+1

The root of many of today's problems began with the social engineers back in the 60's and 70's.


----------



## drsmith (22 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

From a tax perspective it was the two world wars.

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/co...l/publications/papers/report/section_4-01.htm

They are prefect illustrations as to why we should not accept a carbon tax or increased resources taxes wothout equal offsets of other taxes. Otherwise the base level of taxation simply increases.

It would be interesting to know the Greens policy position on tax to GDP ratio.


----------



## bellenuit (22 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> It would be interesting to know the Greens policy position on tax to GDP ratio.




110%


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> Who is doing the victimising? And what is the "mob"?
> 
> What mob is this appealing to?



There is a section of the population that, for resons unknown to me, actually seems quite frightened of all sorts of things. Gays and anyone who isn't a "white" person of European descent seem to top the list, but there are plenty of other things too. 

Why this fear I really don't know. But it seems to be based on prejudice and a desire to control others which, unfortunately, some politicians exploit for their own gain.

I have yet to hear any sound arguments that government should control the lives of adults simply due to them preferring a same sex partner or having dark skin. But sadly, it is an underlying theme almost constantly in Australian political debate.

Race is rarely mentioned directly, but take any of these issues and then change the country of origin to "UK" or "USA" and change the race to "White" or "Anglo Saxon" and life status to "Married with children" and all of a sudden the "problems" magically disappear. That's prejudice based on race, origin and personal preferences, something that has caused more than enough strife in the world and which we would be much better off without.

Bob Brown himself is a classic example. Many disagree with him over forests, rivers and all sorts of other things. Sadly, some of them have that view not based on any rational argument, but simply because Bob just happens to be gay. 

As for "the mob", I'm referring to those who don't think for themselves. Plenty of them unfortunately.


----------



## drsmith (22 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

How can the Greens call themselves greens when John Deere uses it on their farm machinery (agricultural green) ?

It's the colour of the Nationals.

The ABC has the Nationals and the Greens as different shades of green with the Greens being the more sickly looking shade.


----------



## IFocus (22 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> From a tax perspective it was the two world wars.
> 
> http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/co...l/publications/papers/report/section_4-01.htm
> 
> They are prefect illustrations as to why we should not accept a carbon tax or increased resources taxes wothout equal offsets of other taxes. Otherwise the base level of taxation simply increases.




Out of interest without changing the base how do you increase services i.e. health and education maintain a modern military, expand infrastructure for productivity gains  etc.

I see many complain now about health and education but with no commentary on how we pay for it.

Given the resources boom shouldn't there be a dividend paided and I base this on the royalties settings decades ago that don't as a % equate to today's pricing some thing that the Liberals are willing to give away.


----------



## drsmith (22 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Is ~30% of GDP as tax not enough to provide welfare and government services ?

If not, then what percentage of GDP is appropriate ?

The net tax from resources needs to be reviewed, but obviously not how the ALP did it. This to me more than anything else is what precipitated Kevin Rudd's downfall and the present electoral outcome for the ALP.


----------



## wayneL (23 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



IFocus said:


> Out of interest without changing the base how do you increase services i.e. health and education maintain a modern military, expand infrastructure for productivity gains  etc.
> 
> *I see many complain now about health and education but with no commentary on how we pay for it.
> *
> Given the resources boom shouldn't there be a dividend paided and I base this on the royalties settings decades ago that don't as a % equate to today's pricing some thing that the Liberals are willing to give away.




IMO the level of funding is not the problem. We all know government bureaucracy is incredibly... obscenely wasteful and inefficient. IME it is wilfully so.

Socialists like to bleat about services and plead for more mountains of cash to fund them, but it just encourages more waste, rather than better services.


----------



## noco (23 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



IFocus said:


> Out of interest without changing the base how do you increase services i.e. health and education maintain a modern military, expand infrastructure for productivity gains  etc.
> 
> I see many complain now about health and education but with no commentary on how we pay for it.
> 
> Given the resources boom shouldn't there be a dividend paided and I base this on the royalties settings decades ago that don't as a % equate to today's pricing some thing that the Liberals are willing to give away.




Simple IF, increase the GST to 12 1/2% or even 15%. The trouble is neither party would have the guts to do it.

Does not matter how the funds are raised, the consumers eventually will have to pay. A super profits tax, a CPRS or an ETS will affect us one way or the other. At least with the GST we do know how much it will cost. Other methods are unknown as we experienced years ago with sales tax. Sales Tax was oftened increased by Governments without the consumer ever knowing.

Hope you get my point.


----------



## Bushman (23 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> IMO the level of funding is not the problem. We all know government bureaucracy is incredibly... obscenely wasteful and inefficient. IME it is wilfully so.
> 
> Socialists like to bleat about services and plead for more mountains of cash to fund them, but it just encourages more waste, rather than better services.




in otherwords, an excercise in government building rather than nation building.


----------



## Julia (23 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



IFocus said:


> Out of interest without changing the base how do you increase services i.e. health and education maintain a modern military, expand infrastructure for productivity gains  etc.



Easy.  By reducing the bloated bureaucracy.  In Qld at least the personnel employed in admin exceed those actually involved in health care.
And by more efficiency, something pretty much unknown to the bureaucrats.


----------



## Calliope (23 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Easy.  By reducing the bloated bureaucracy.  In Qld at least the personnel employed in admin exceed those actually involved in health care.
> And by more efficiency, something pretty much unknown to the bureaucrats.




Yes, billions have been poured into health services and yet they go backwards. It is a bottomless pit.

Excuse my off topic injection of a little satire;


----------



## Mofra (23 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> *Is ~30% of GDP as tax not enough to provide welfare and government services ?*
> If not, then what percentage of GDP is appropriate ?
> 
> The net tax from resources needs to be reviewed, but obviously not how the ALP did it. This to me more than anything else is what precipitated Kevin Rudd's downfall and the present electoral outcome for the ALP.



Depends how much is wasted 

$1.4b on the Seasprite project is a perfect example - all gone on a helicopter that never saw active service, was only pursued because we "maybe" at some time might have pursued a fast Corvette-style vessel development in conjunction with Malaysia, and the hanger on this theoretical vessel may have been too small for a Seahawk. We then took a 1950s airframe, tried to jam if full of ECM gear and top notch avionics, fit it with a Euro missile, and then couldn't get the thing to work properly.


----------



## IFocus (24 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



> Is ~30% of GDP as tax not enough to provide welfare and government services ?
> 
> If not, then what percentage of GDP is appropriate ?




I don't know but neither side address the coming of rapidly increasing health cost's.



> This to me more than anything else is what precipitated Kevin Rudd's downfall and the present electoral outcome for the ALP.




Certainly in WA the scare campaign cut through nicely


----------



## IFocus (24 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> IMO the level of funding is not the problem. We all know government bureaucracy is incredibly... obscenely wasteful and inefficient. IME it is wilfully so.




I have been told by those in the game that health care for the aging population and mental health care costs will rise due to increasing volume.


----------



## IFocus (24 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> Simple IF, increase the GST to 12 1/2% or even 15%. The trouble is neither party would have the guts to do it.




Howard fortunately set it up so all the states have to agree pretty much mission impossible and some I think


----------



## drsmith (24 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



IFocus said:


> Howard fortunately set it up so all the states have to agree pretty much mission impossible and some I think



Fortunate indeed.

Otherwise that goose would be just too easy to pluck.


----------



## noco (24 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



IFocus said:


> Howard fortunately set it up so all the states have to agree pretty much mission impossible and some I think




It all depends how it is explained and whether it can be proved to be a better system to raise revenue for the likes of health care. We and the politicians are not facing reality that health care is costing us more and more each year and additional funds are needed to provde the services we all desire. 

As I stated on another post, no matter which way a Government tries to provide funds in other ways, we the tax payers are going to pay for it one way or the other.


----------



## IFocus (25 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> It all depends how it is explained and whether it can be proved to be a better system to raise revenue for the likes of health care. We and the politicians are not facing reality that health care is costing us more and more each year and additional funds are needed to provde the services we all desire.
> 
> As I stated on another post, no matter which way a Government tries to provide funds in other ways, we the tax payers are going to pay for it one way or the other.




Agree GST is a good way to collect tax's (maybe best) but the problem is we cannot trust any government not to hike for their own greed its just to big a cookie jar.

Australia must be close to setting a record for a country that's introduce a GST and not raised it a couple of % or more after. 

As for rising health care costs and how or if we should pay not sure how this can be tackled but we certainly need the major party's talking about it.


----------



## noco (25 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



IFocus said:


> Agree GST is a good way to collect tax's (maybe best) but the problem is we cannot trust any government not to hike for their own greed its just to big a cookie jar.
> 
> Australia must be close to setting a record for a country that's introduce a GST and not raised it a couple of % or more after.
> 
> As for rising health care costs and how or if we should pay not sure how this can be tackled but we certainly need the major party's talking about it.




Firstly, the GST can only be raised with full agreement by Federal,State and Territory Governments.

If the GST was increased to 12 1/2 % with the proviso that the additional money raised would be injected into health, then I can't see how it would not work.

Don't forget also we have something like 1million tourist coming to Australia each year and they all have to eat, sleep and be merry. All would be contributing to the GST and who would knock back foreign money?


----------



## drsmith (25 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

A few years after the GST is raised to 12.5%.



> If the GST was increased to 15% with the proviso that the additional money raised would be injected into health, then I can't see how it would not work.



It's a slippery slope.


----------



## Julia (25 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> If the GST was increased to 12 1/2 % with the proviso that the additional money raised would be injected into health, then I can't see how it would not work.



Do you really trust State governments (a) to inject this amount into the health budget, and (b) if they did, to use it wisely, rather than create additional levels of bureaucratic nonsense?


----------



## noco (25 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Do you really trust State governments (a) to inject this amount into the health budget, and (b) if they did, to use it wisely, rather than create additional levels of bureaucratic nonsense?




Julia, that would be the proviso and could be audited by the Federal Government to make sure the states honoured their responsibilties.

No reason why the funds could not be controlled by Hospital Boards as Tony Abbott's proposal and so eliminate the bureaucrats. Hospital Boards would know a lot more about their needs than those useless bureaucrats. It worked years ago and it can work again.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> All would be contributing to the GST and who would knock back foreign money?



The word that immediately comes to mind upon reading that is "The Greens".

The entire concept of bringing in foreign money has been at the seat of many battles with the Greens over the years. They seem to place absolutely no value on it whatsoever, arguing that a domestic service economy is a direct substitute.


----------



## drsmith (26 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> Julia, that would be the proviso and could be audited by the Federal Government to make sure the states honoured their responsibilties.
> 
> No reason why the funds could not be controlled by Hospital Boards as Tony Abbott's proposal and so eliminate the bureaucrats. Hospital Boards would know a lot more about their needs than those useless bureaucrats. It worked years ago and it can work again.



States honour their responsibilities ??

The best thing that could be done with the state governments would be to limit their taxing abilities to drivers licences, vehicle registration and chook raffles. The feds should fund the rest.

Never give any government an easy option for collecting more tax, otherwise they will, and what they have in abundance, they are less likely to spend wisely.


----------



## Ageo (26 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I love when i hear people say we need more tax to be able to do more things..... What a load of crap, learn how to manage money 1st before blowing it. I reckon if you went through the whole system and cleaned it up you would find millions upon millions of dollars being misused.

Politician perks is 1 thing i would look at hard..... 1 MP Joe Tripodi (who was my local federal MP before) had racked up over 400k worth of travel in 1 yr! how someone achieves that is beyond me, now times that sorta crap through 95% of every polly in Aus and you would get the picture.

Problem is most polly's think they deserve those perks etc... so all they will expect is more tax to get something done. 

They should have a reward for effort program and the people to be the judge for pay increases.....


----------



## noco (26 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Ageo said:


> I love when i hear people say we need more tax to be able to do more things..... What a load of crap, learn how to manage money 1st before blowing it. I reckon if you went through the whole system and cleaned it up you would find millions upon millions of dollars being misused.
> 
> Politician perks is 1 thing i would look at hard..... 1 MP Joe Tripodi (who was my local federal MP before) had racked up over 400k worth of travel in 1 yr! how someone achieves that is beyond me, now times that sorta crap through 95% of every polly in Aus and you would get the picture.
> 
> ...




You are so right. There must be heaps of savings at all levels of Government. The problem is, it is not their money, so the average bureaucrat could not care less.


----------



## Calliope (26 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

The Greens have a strange policy on taxation. They want to tax the bejesus out of the extractive industries until they are severely weakened or go off-shore. 

And then what?:dunno:


----------



## Mofra (26 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> You are so right. There must be heaps of savings at all levels of Government. The problem is, it is not their money, so the average bureaucrat could not care less.



As someone who has worked closely with (and in) Federal beaurocracy for a number of years, I can assure you that the private sector would fulfil many (most) of the functions of the public service with _much_ greater efficiency. 
What you suspect is the case, I know is the case.


----------



## Julia (26 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Mofra said:


> As someone who has worked closely with (and in) Federal beaurocracy for a number of years, I can assure you that the private sector would fulfil many (most) of the functions of the public service with _much_ greater efficiency.
> What you suspect is the case, I know is the case.



That is so depressing.  And it permeates right down to pissy little local government.  This is just a minor example.
My puppy got hold of a library book and managed to destroy the first page before I saw her with it.  This meant I was responsible and had to replace the book.  OK, fine.  I was given the option of just handing the money over to the library or acquiring the book myself.  The first option would have been $40.

I was able to buy it from the ABC Shop at *full retail price* for $10 less, i.e. 25%.   When I questioned this, suggesting surely the library would have access to cheaper prices via publishers or wholesalers, the response was "well, probably.  I'm not really sure where most of our books come from:  I think quite often we buy them from local booksellers".

What??   Was sufficiently irritated to refer it to my local Councillor, who also was less than interested, and assured me that she felt the library were 'pretty good about containing costs where possible'!
That earned her a very sharply worded reply reminding her of Council's responsibility to spend  ratepayers' money wisely.

Probably, though, I've simply wasted my time.  Grr!


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Having worked in the public service, my opinion is simply this.

"Hands on" government workers are no more and no less efficient, overall, than their private sector counterparts. That is assuming that the bureaucracy lets the workers get on with the job. Some waste occurs in some areas, offset by efficiency in others.

The bureaucracy, on the other hand, is riddled with rules, regulations and policital instructions that preclude any chance of efficient operation. Those who desire to efficiently use the taxpayers' funds eventually get sick of banging their head against a wall.

Private contractors are another story altogether and by far the most expensive way of doing anything. There may well be exceptions, but in general they are damn good at extracting maximum $ from the taxpayer in return for the minimum possible expenditure on actually doing the work.

Consulting services - ask any public servant what really goes on and you'll find out that _most_ consultants are nothing more than glorified typists. They produce some fancy reports but come straight back to the department that hired them the moment some real knowledge or ability is required. There are exceptions of course, but there's a lot of duds out there.

What would I do?

Greater accountability and removal of political interference with the bureaucracy. Government decides _what_, government departments decide _how_.

At the end of present contracts, bring in-house all "hands on" functions of government of an ongoing nature. The fortune being handed to contractors, and the fortune spent trying to administer the contracts and enforce them, is a very large part of what's wrong with the way our taxes are spent. 

There used to be tens of thousands of "hands on" government workers actually doing work, overseen by a relatively modest bureaucracy. It wasn't perfect but the job did get done.

Then some bright spark came up with the idea of handing most of that "hands on" work to contractors, commonly known as "outsourcing". Supposedly they were going to work harder and be more efficient.

Then add the contractor's administration and general running costs.

Then add in profit.

Then make some allowance for the contractor doing the work as cheaply as they can get away with, meaning it doesn't last as long as it should.

Then realise that the bureaucracy has been inflated with all sorts of project managers, accountants, lawyers, contract administrators and the like in an attempt at holding the contractors to account. 

Then realise that the contractor now needs a similar army of their own bureaucrats in order to out maneuver the government's army of bureaucrats.

Now you know where your money is going. Into the pockets of a white collar army in the public service and another white collar army on the contractors' side, each trying to outwit the other. With any luck, a few crumbs fall down to those who actually provide service to the public.

I'm very much in favour of private enterprise when it operates under normal circumstances. But private profit funded by my taxes, at far greater cost to me than if government employed people directly, is an entirely different matter. There's no justification for it other than to increase the profits of a select few. Those who get such contracts presumably do quite nicely (they ought to be - they're being paid plenty) at the expense of every other business and individual who ends up paying for it. 

All that said, there is a role for contractors. But not where they end up as defacto government employees doing ongoing work. Just too wasteful...


----------



## drsmith (26 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> The Greens have a strange policy on taxation. They want to tax the bejesus out of the extractive industries until they are severely weakened or go off-shore.
> 
> And then what?:dunno:



http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Ba'ku

...or so they dream.


----------



## Logique (27 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> Having worked in the public service, my opinion is simply this.
> ........
> The bureaucracy, on the other hand, is riddled with rules, regulations and policital instructions that preclude any chance of efficient operation. Those who desire to efficiently use the taxpayers' funds eventually get sick of banging their head against a wall.
> 
> ...



Here here Smurf! It's a wasteful racket.


----------



## Mofra (27 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> "Hands on" government workers are no more and no less efficient, overall, than their private sector counterparts. That is assuming that the bureaucracy lets the workers get on with the job. Some waste occurs in some areas, offset by efficiency in others.
> 
> The bureaucracy, on the other hand, is riddled with rules, regulations and policital instructions that preclude any chance of efficient operation. Those who desire to efficiently use the taxpayers' funds eventually get sick of banging their head against a wall.



Summed up very well here. There are some brilliant people creating some very good work that goes nowhere because the higher-ups want to play a political game to further their career.


----------



## Knobby22 (27 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I can say that the worst and most inefficient performers in my experience are in private run service monopolies looking after public infrastructure. 

They seem to take the worst of public and private institutions and put them together.


----------



## noco (29 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

If we do have to go back to the polls in the near future, I live in hope the Greens will be exposed to the media as explained below by Cory Benardi.

The Greens Party are a threat to our way of life in the future and should be eliminated. 

 « Tony Abbott Has Put Australia on the Right Path | Main 

25 August 2010
Green’s Global Government Ambitions
 The nature of the Greens’ totalitarian agenda can be seen through a careful examination of their policies and party platform.

Their support for global governance, manifested in the United Nations, includes a "stronger UN capable of dealing with threats to international peace and security." 

Given the Greens oppose every type of conflict except the 'just wars' mounted by radical eco-terrorists like the Sea Shepherd organisation, one must ask what benefit a stronger United Nations would be to their objectives? Unless the UN was entrusted to enforce some of their more interventionist treaties and agreements.

Actually, that's exactly what the Green lobby wanted through the Copenhagen treaty. An unelected, unaccountable body was to be funded through the wealthy Western nations to act as the global policeman, judge and jury determining who could do what, where and when.

Such a process would have almost assuredly resulted in systemic corruption that would have dwarfed the frauds and falsehoods of the UN’s own climate change committee and limited the ability of nations to choose their own path to the benefit of their citizens.

Now the United Nations have many other treaties; including one that trumps parental responsibility with government bureaucrats under the guise of 'children's rights'.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty is part of an international plan to give children a long list of rights. It was implemented in 1989 and most nations, including Australia, are signatories to it.

Some of the clauses in this treaty give rise to some concern.  This includes the rights that give ‘the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.’

Further, children would be able to seek a ‘governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.’

Teaching children Christianity in schools would be banned, as would raising your children in any particular faith. In fact, parents would limited to giving 'advice' to children about religion under this treaty.

According to the United Nations good parenting guide, children would have a right to abortions without parental consent and would have a legally enforceable right to leisure. Exactly what constitutes leisure is left open to interpretation but I feel confident that campaigning for Green causes would meet with UN approval!

Of course, the UN doesn't stop there. Under their treaty it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defence than it does on children's welfare. Who cares that strong nations protect children from tyranny and abuse, or that orderly societies provide a safer environment for children than lawless ones? Such trifling matters should never interfere with the United Nations’ ability to dictate how sovereign nations are allowed to spend their taxpayers’ money. 

At present, although there are reporting obligations by nations that signed the treaty, there are no penalties for failure to comply and nations can opt out of the treaty with little notice. So it is basically another UN motherhood statement that achieves nothing except for providing the UN with the appearance of achievement. 

However, under the Greens’ world view, that could change. They want to empower the UN to have an enforcement role for all existing and future treaties and conventions, which the Greens will unilaterally endorse. Don’t take my word for it, read their policy platform.

This includes the Rights of the Child treaty where an enforced UN treaty could actually direct how parents can raise their children. 

It's alarming enough that a party with a Marxist heart covered by an environmental skin can achieve electoral success and balance of power status without effective scrutiny of their policy positions.

However it is downright scary that they are prepared to effectively outsource aspects of Australian sovereignty to an external organisation and further want to empower that organisation to be the global policeman – directing, amongst other things, how we can raise our children.

Permalink


----------



## drsmith (29 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

The Greens want a viable mining and mineral exploration sector that meets stringent environmental protection standards, or so the say.

They want to cease uranium mining immediately, limit coal to the winding down of existing mines and tax resource profits at 66.5%. I would like to see their modelling of the economic viability of that.


----------



## Julia (29 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> The Greens want a viable mining and mineral exploration sector that meets stringent environmental protection standards, or so the say.
> 
> They want to cease uranium mining immediately, limit coal to the winding down of existing mines and tax resource profits at 66.5%. I would like to see their modelling of the economic viability of that.



So when they get control of the Senate next year, what do you think will happen?   The above is pretty much unthinkable, so is it likely the government and the opposition will vote together on such issues, rendering the Greens irrelevant?


----------



## drsmith (29 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

The Greens have made it clear that the want carbon taxed as suggested by Gaurnet, but some enlightenment on the specifics of the following part of their tax policy would also be of use;



> other ecological taxes and charges at a level sufficient enough that their prices reflect the full environmental cost of their production, use or disposal.




Perhaps someone who supports or voted for the Greens could provide some detail.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Jeez I hope they don't halt Uranium mining. They could not be that thick.

Its the future as regards clean energy.

gg


----------



## drsmith (29 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

They are.

http://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy/nuclear



> _The Australian Greens will:_
> 
> 12.end the exploration for, and the mining and export of, uranium.


----------



## IFocus (29 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> The Greens want a viable mining and mineral exploration sector that meets stringent environmental protection standards, or so the say.
> 
> They want to cease uranium mining immediately, limit coal to the winding down of existing mines and tax resource profits at 66.5%. I would like to see their modelling of the economic viability of that.




Interesting to see how they handle the move from purity to political realism with the increase in power. Also how well they work as a party will be much more difficult with a larger group.


----------



## drsmith (29 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



IFocus said:


> Interesting to see how they handle the move from purity to political realism with the increase in power. Also how well they work as a party will be much more difficult with a larger group.



Interesting segment on Insiders (ABC) today including how they currently compare vote wise to the Democrats at their peak.


----------



## noco (29 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> They are.
> 
> http://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy/nuclear




There are thousands of voters who voted for the Greens who would no have  idea what these people stand for apart from the elimination of uranium and coal mining.

They voted in this manner purely because they were brainwashed into thinking the two major parties were on the nose. So it was purely a protest vote. Their percentage of votes is equivalent to the Democrats back in the 80's and 90's.

I have two friends who voted for the Greens. When I mentioned to them some of  the Greens polocies and their beliefs, they were dumbfounded.

Why in the hell  the Greens were not exposed before and during the election campaign I will never know. 

The Greens have weakened the Labor Party base so much that even Paul Kelly suggested on today's  AM Agenda (Sky News),  we could see a future coalition known as the Green Labor Party.

The Greens will stuff this great country of ours if they ever get into power.


----------



## noco (29 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Jeez I hope they don't halt Uranium mining. They could not be that thick.
> 
> Its the future as regards clean energy.
> 
> gg




Yes GG, there are now over 500 nuclear power plants in operation throughout the world. France alone has 70+.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> The Greens have weakened the Labor Party base so much that even Paul Kelly suggested on today's  AM Agenda (Sky News),  we could see a future coalition known as the Green Labor Party.
> 
> The Greens will stuff this great country of ours if they ever get into power.



Witness the situation in Tasmania, with a Labor-Green government as such (as distinct from a Labor government relying on Green support).

One consequence is that Green ministers in the government are having to implement the policies of the government, not the Greens party, and that seems to be causing a rift between them and those Greens not holding ministerial portfolios.

That said, so far it seems to be working reasonably well. Sure beats having the "doom and gloom" Liberals running the place that's for sure. All they ever do is sell things and run up debt. No thanks... 

Interestingly, in terms of media coverage etc, we have the rather strange situation of having a Labor-Green government with the real opposition being Green backbenchers. Interesting to say the least.

As for them destroying the state and/or country, well the biggest political surprise I've ever had is the Greens seemingly acknowledging that building a new pulp mill in Tas might just be a good idea, provided it's in the right place etc (they remain opposed to the one proposed by Gunns). It's a pity we had to see almost all manufacturing industry in the state wiped out over the past 30 years amidst the wars over dams (power), forests and pollution before we came to some commonsense. But then if you are actually part of the government, retaining a population and employmnet base in the state suddenly becomes important.

What would happen nationally I'm not sure, but I'd have to say that it's working better than expected in Tas so far. So far...


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> Yes GG, there are now over 500 nuclear power plants in operation throughout the world. France alone has 70+.



Much of the fuel for those is coming from weapons dismantling which ends in a few years. Add to that loss of supply the reality that more nuclear reactors are under construction at the moment.

Bottom line - the world needs more uranium mines, not less.

What happens if mine output doesn't increase? In practice, a drop in nuclear output (globally) once weapons supplies run out, a small increase in coal use (most coal plants run flat out anyway, but there are exceptions), an increase in natural gas use in some countries, and an increase in fuel oil use (especially in Japan). In short, more CO2 gets emitted.


----------



## Julia (29 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Jeez I hope they don't halt Uranium mining. They could not be that thick.



Be quite assured that they can.



drsmith said:


> Interesting segment on Insiders (ABC) today including how they currently compare vote wise to the Democrats at their peak.



Can you give a summary for those of us who missed it?



noco said:


> There are thousands of voters who voted for the Greens who would no have  idea what these people stand for apart from the elimination of uranium and coal mining.
> 
> They voted in this manner purely because they were brainwashed into thinking the two major parties were on the nose. So it was purely a protest vote. Their percentage of votes is equivalent to the Democrats back in the 80's and 90's.
> 
> ...



Very simple, noco.  No journalist has taken the trouble to examine the Greens' policies and costings (if any), whilst they have dissected all policies and costings of the two main parties in forensic detail.
The so called professional journalists have hugely let us down in this respect.

So the Greens have joyfully embraced all those protest votes from the people who couldn't be bothered to look beyond their noses.


----------



## noco (30 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Be prepared for electricity charges to increase with the influence of the Greens on Labor. Check out the cost of renewable energy from wind farms compared to coal fired power. 

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai..._feel_is_another_green_promise_no_one_costed/


----------



## Mofra (30 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Very simple, noco.  No journalist has taken the trouble to examine the Greens' policies and costings (if any), whilst they have dissected all policies and costings of the two main parties in forensic detail.
> The so called professional journalists have hugely let us down in this respect.



There was one article in the Hun during the campaign with estimates - surprisingly it wasn't a major attack on the party given the paper's right-wing leanings. 
It wasn't compared to the major parties as it was earlier in the campaign and neither of the majors had fully revealed their policies (nor had them costed) at that stage. 
I don't believe it has been through treasury either.


----------



## Mofra (30 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Their taxation policy is interesting - they are certainly anti-GST which is one of the few major achievements of the Howard government IMO



> Taxation
> 
> 22.reduce inequities in the current personal tax system by:
> reducing tax breaks for high income earners;
> ...


----------



## Mofra (30 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> They are.
> 
> http://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy/nuclear



Looks like they missed Thorium mining in their policy. Whoopsies.
Futurists would consider uranium "old news"


----------



## drsmith (30 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Mofra said:


> Their taxation policy is interesting - they are certainly anti-GST which is one of the few major achievements of the Howard government IMO



I attempted to address the individual point's of the Greens's tax policy this afternoon but something went cactus.

In summery, they don't want to _"implement a gradual and long term shift in the tax system from work based taxes to taxes on natural resources and pollution"_, but rather increase taxes by raising new environmental taxes and increasing income and corportate taxation.

Their measures are riddled with inconsistencies such as simplifying taxation on superannuation, but at the same time introducing progressive tax scales for superannuation contributions. They regard the GST as too regressive and don't understand that to _"eliminate high rates of effective marginal taxation for those on welfare benefits"_, you have to remove effective means testing of these benefits. They have also failed to articulate the impact of _"other ecological taxes and charges at a level sufficient enough that their prices reflect the full environmental cost of their production, use or disposal"._

There's a lot of socialist nonsense in there.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I haven't unlike you guys gone in to the ins and outs of Green policy.

I did engage in cleaning up one of our creeks 2 years ago, and there were very many green people there and they seemed like savvy folk with reasonable arguments.

I am very interested in seeing these views put to the fore in the next parliament.

Lets face it, Mr. and Mrs. Shopping Trolley are 40% Bogan, 40% Committed voters and 20% Pure idiots.

gg


----------



## drsmith (31 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

A carbon tax in the context of not increasing tax or redistributing wealth through tax would be an interesting challenge for the Greens.

Have they, for example, considered replacing the GST with a carbon tax ?


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Lets face it, Mr. and Mrs. Shopping Trolley are 40% Bogan, 40% Committed voters and 20% Pure idiots.
> 
> gg




GG I think you have the proportions seriously messed up there. In research for my thesis on this very topic I have found the proportions entirely different, particularly with regards to the third component.

Will wait for peer review before releasing my findings however.


----------



## Calliope (31 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

The scariest statement that Gillard has made in trying to win over the Independents, is that the Labor party can work better with the Green dominated Senate.


----------



## noco (31 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> The scariest statement that Gillard has made in trying to win over the Independents, is that the Labor party can work better with the Green dominated Senate.




Yes the Greens and Labor are of one colour ie. green outside and red inside. They are too closely associated for my liking.

 Senator Cory Bernardi describes them as a party with a Marxist heart and enviromental skin.


----------



## Mofra (31 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> GG I think you have the proportions seriously messed up there. In research for my thesis on this very topic I have found the proportions entirely different, particularly with regards to the third component.
> 
> Will wait for peer review before releasing my findings however.



I think you'd have most of the site lining up to read it Wayne, regardless of political leaning.


----------



## Julia (31 August 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Mofra said:


> I think you'd have most of the site lining up to read it Wayne, regardless of political leaning.



I agree.  And I'd go so far as to suggest 99% of ASF members would be more than happy to forgo the peer review process in this instance.


----------



## chrisalex (1 September 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

This could be a good outcome if the ALP and the Greens get to 'govern' for the next term. Then Mr. and Mrs. shopping trolley can see just what hell they have unleashed upon themselves. This may awaken a lot of fence sitters.
      Though I really cannot see it lasting three years.


----------



## noco (2 September 2010)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Just watched AM Agenda on sky News where Bob Katter quoted  Al Gore as being the  Patron of the Greem movement world wide.


----------



## wayneL (22 September 2010)

*Greens destroying business*

I mentioned this in the climate thread; this story is all over the blogosphere, but I'm lead to believe it is being ignored by the MSM in WA.

Tyranny: How to destroy a business with environmental red tape

What sort of country allows this to happen. Either allow it or disallow it, but slowly asphyxiating a family business to death with arbitrary red tape is just diabolical bureaucratic bullying IMO

Excerpt:



> Did you know in Australia it’s possible to ruin a business if you don’t like the way it smells? This is a heartbreaking story ”” that a government could effectively ruin a family by slowly strangling them in red tape, and that they would have apparently no protection from the courts or the ombudsman. It eats away at our sense of justice. Can we speak freely? Are we all treated equally under the law, or are some laws only enforced according to a capricious whim?
> 
> This is the price we pay for vague laws where business people can run ventures, do everything to the letter of the law, with best-practice procedures, winning customers and contracts, yet go broke despite all that because of onerous, impossible-to-meet conditions, that are unmeasurable, and change suddenly, with the added bonus of inordinately long delays. At the moment, Janet and Matts farm, Narrogin Beef Producers, lies empty, unstocked, while debts accrue by the minute.
> This is also a story of sovereign risk. Investors in Australian industry beware.
> ...


----------



## explod (22 September 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*

Yep, on the surface it all sounds a bit rough to me.   

And we certainly need the food.


----------



## ghotib (22 September 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*



wayneL said:


> I mentioned this in the climate thread; this story is all over the blogosphere, but I'm lead to believe it is being ignored by the MSM in WA.
> 
> Tyranny: How to destroy a business with environmental red tape
> 
> ...



I saw this on Watts and followed it up as far as I could. As you say, there's not much press on it, but the minister's determination and some of the departmental documents are available. I didn't find enough there to form an opinion about the rights or wrongs of the feedlot itself or the bank's actions. I also couldn't find anything about the piggery.

The other thing I can't find is any reason for your thread title. Are you suggesting that the Greens are responsible for the actions of the WA bureaucracy? Seems unlikely. 

DISCLOSURE:  In 1974 I was bookkeeper for an agricultural enterprise that included a feedlot property which I visited a couple of times. 

Ghoti


----------



## alphaman (22 September 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*

I don't know, blaming bureaucracy and dodgy lawyers on the Greens?


----------



## wayneL (22 September 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*

Clarification:

Greens does not refer to "The Greens" the political party. Perhaps I should have used the term "greenies"?


----------



## Mofra (22 September 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*

Heartbreaking story, but nothing to do with greens or greenies, and everything to do with beaurocracy. A change of government does not lead to a change in state or federal public service staff. It draws parrallels with India's insane levels of beaurocracy that make any reform (be it social or economic) a slow and stunted process. Anyone actually surprised the Commonwealth games are already looming as a huge disaster?


----------



## wayneL (22 September 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*

Most of the bureaucratic impasse is on purported environmental grounds.


----------



## noco (17 November 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*

Kevin Andrews MP recently gave an account of what the Greens really stand for and received no media attention whatsoever. Why is the media giving imunity to this party when in fact they should be exposed. Most of the voters who voted for the Greens at the last election in protest, have little idea what they could do to Australia if they were ever elected to govern.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ange-our-society/story-e6frg6zo-1225954629630


----------



## alphaman (17 November 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*



noco said:


> Kevin Andrews MP recently gave an account of what the Greens really stand for and received no media attention whatsoever.



Rightly so. I mean, would I bother with Gillard's account of what Abbot really stands for, or Hockey's account of Swan? 

I do note Bob Brown's intention to ban banks from raising interest rates above RBA overnight cash rate. That astonishing stupidity is straight from horse's mouth, and that alone is enough to turn me off.


----------



## kotim (17 November 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*

The greens are full of fruit loops and weirdo's, all the sort of people we are letting more and more decide what is best for us all.  Anyway, sooner later all these new fangled ideas on living etc fade away.

Who cares what the greens say and do, take em on and have some fun


----------



## nioka (17 November 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*



alphaman said:


> I do note Bob Brown's intention to ban banks from raising interest rates above RBA overnight cash rate. That astonishing stupidity is straight from horse's mouth, and that alone is enough to turn me off.




I'll bet it gets him more votes than it loses!!!


----------



## wayneL (17 November 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*



nioka said:


> I'll bet it gets him more votes than it loses!!!




Which reminds me of this quote:

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."  --  Winston Churchill


----------



## Julia (17 November 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*



nioka said:


> I'll bet it gets him more votes than it loses!!!



Unfortunately, I bet you're right on this.
He is, however, wasting the parliament's time on this.  The major parties won't consider going along with him.

He must know this, so it would have to be a purely political, vote-grabbing effort on his part.

Pretty funny to see politicians on all sides looking silly now that the Reserve Bank's last minutes have been released, making clear that they considered the banks would have to increase rates more than the RB increase of 25 basis points, due to the increase in their cost of funding.

The politicians will have to pull their heads in now, or risk seeming to insult the RB Board.


----------



## Julia (17 November 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*



wayneL said:


> Which reminds me of this quote:
> 
> "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."  --  Winston Churchill



Indeed.  Does anyone remember a segment "The Chasers" did a few years ago where they went out on the streets and asked ordinary citizens a few pretty ordinary questions relating to current events.   No doubt the responses were edited, but they put up some of the more ridiculous comments with the balloon caption "This Person Votes!!!"


----------



## happytown (17 November 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*



wayneL said:


> Which reminds me of this quote:
> 
> "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."  --  Winston Churchill




which reminds me of this quote:



wayneL said:


> Where does this "far right" thing come from. I don't see any fascists around here.


----------



## wayneL (17 November 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*



happytown said:


> which reminds me of this quote:




Why?


----------



## drsmith (17 November 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*

I love the Greens. 

Don't worry about reading The Australian. Just take a look at their fine policies from their website.

I think I'll go hug a tree in ainticipation it will protect me from the wind and rain.


----------



## drsmith (18 November 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*

I take back what I said above.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s-guts-on-greens/story-e6frg6zo-1225955203217

God bless The Australian.


----------



## Logique (19 November 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*

G'day Dr Zacchary. Interesting article from Sheridan, '..pernicious and extreme..' ha ha. 

I hadn't realized the Vic Libs were going to preference the Greens last. I little doubt they have resisted hierachy pressure from some quarters, so they're showing political courage there.


----------



## Logique (19 November 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/a-breath-of-stale-lies-in-parliament/story-fn6e1lzz-1225955191665
Terry McCrann From: The Daily Telegraph November 18, 2010 
*McCrann: A breath of stale lies* 
'....
...What made her thoroughly dishonest article truly exquisite was the headline: "Carbon price now or we'll pay later"....Except you don't have to. There is a very simple way not to pay more for power today and also not to pay more for power tomorrow.

Don't put a price on "carbon" -- actually, the first and biggest lie, it's carbon dioxide. And I'm still waiting to be told: when does the "price on carbon" extend to your breathing? The so-called price on carbon is a totally artificial construct.

Whichever way it is done, it is an entirely discretionary tax, exactly like the GST. Only far more pervasive -- it will tax everything...'

Picture is from the link. Circling like so many vultures aren't they.


----------



## Buddy (19 November 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*

Yes, they have done a deal of Faustian proportions (was die Welt im Innersten zusammenhÃ¤lt). Will Mephistopheles (read BB) sieze Julia's soul or will the angels intervene? Somehow I doubt the latter given Julia's previous form in that area.


----------



## drsmith (19 November 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*



Logique said:


> G'day Dr Zacchary. Interesting article from Sheridan, '..pernicious and extreme..' ha ha.
> 
> I hadn't realized the Vic Libs were going to preference the Greens last. I little doubt they have resisted hierachy pressure from some quarters, so they're showing political courage there.



The Australian is only "slightly"  biased.

Things Sheridan missed was their proposed 66.5% effective tax take on profit from resource extraction and the cost of air travel taking into account the full emvironmantal impact. Being a public comment piece, I suppose more serious digging into the Greens policies is not required to achieve that objective. Still, from an entertainment perspective, it was a read I enjoyed.

As for the Victorian election I hope the Vic Libs win, if for no other reason than their stance against the Greens.

I note Wayne Swan in that image is still bowing, but who is he bowing to ?
The leader on the left or the leader on the right ?


----------



## Bat_Ears (21 November 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*



wayneL said:


> Which reminds me of this quote:
> 
> "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."  --  Winston Churchill




From America, but still funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouXB-tvUF4w


----------



## Logique (7 December 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*

Mike Taylor was placed in an intolerable position by the Fed govt. His resignation marks him as a man of honour. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/07/3086516.htm?site=newcastle
*Murray-Darling Basin Authority chairman Mike Taylor has resigned* just two months after the authority's release of the controversial plan to restore the health of the ailing river system..

..The authority must follow the provisions of the Water Act in formulating its plan and there had been confusion over how much weight the authority had to give to social and economic impacts when considering environmental needs.

In today's statement, Mr Taylor said he had written to Water Minister Tony Burke about new advice the authority has received about balancing the three areas.

He says *the advice received* by the authority confirms it "*cannot compromise *the minimum level of water required to restore the system's environment *on social or economic grounds*".

Mr Taylor also says balancing the requirements of the Water Act against the social and economic impact on communities will be "a significant challenge".

"The chair, Michael Taylor, stated that a sustainable plan for the Basin would require far more than [just] a decision by the authority on how much water should be transferred from human uses to the environment," the statement says.

Mr Taylor says a successful basin plan needs the Commonwealth and states to work together with relevant stakeholder groups, and while the authority has an important part to play it cannot perform the task alone...


----------



## nioka (7 December 2010)

*Re: Greens destroying business*



Logique said:


> ..The authority must follow the provisions of the Water Act in formulating its plan and there had been confusion over how much weight the authority had to give to social and economic impacts when considering environmental needs.
> 
> In today's statement, Mr Taylor said he had written to Water Minister Tony Burke about new advice the authority has received about balancing the three areas.
> 
> He says *the advice received* by the authority confirms it "*cannot compromise *the minimum level of water required to restore the system's environment *on social or economic grounds*"...




With the current flow into the Murray and the flow that will continue for the next few months I'd say that the Murray has had 10 years worth of allocation. So half to make up for the last 5 years and the other half a credit against the next five years.

Problem fixed.


----------



## drsmith (12 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Green hypocrisy at it's finest. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/12/3111167.htm?section=justin

The donation list itself is also interesting.

http://greens.org.au/donors

Surely, major unions could put members contributions to better use.


----------



## tothemax6 (12 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> Yes the Greens and Labor are of one colour ie. green outside and red inside. They are too closely associated for my liking.
> Senator Cory Bernardi describes them as a party with a Marxist heart and enviromental skin.



But the thing is, anyone who knows anything about politics instantly recognizes that this is the case (that the Greens are watermelons). You only need to hear a Green talk for about 5 minutes to know that they are socialists/communists who pretend to be all about the environment - providing you know what these things are.

The only people who vote for the Greens (and there are many), are those who have no knowledge of history, economics or politics. Alternatively they have some kind of sadism fetish, and get off on the idea of Australia being strangled to death under a Green government.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 January 2011)

*Greens Kill Penguins*

In yet another misguided effort by ultra-conservationists, many poor little penguins are being slaughtered.

Through tagging their flippers with heavy metal bracelets, for research,  they have a 20% less chance of survival, are poor breeders, and feeders of their young, and have 40% less surviving progeny than their peers who escape the green's bracelets. 

When will this incessant gaia-bothering mob of loons stop interfering with mother nature. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ow-survival-rate/story-e6frg6so-1225987372302



> The latest study, published yesterday in the journal Nature, found that king penguins with flipper bands had a 16 per cent lower survival rate and produced 39 per cent fewer chicks during a 10-year period. "These birds have been marked for life," said Yvon Le Maho, an ecologist at the University of Strasbourg and senior author of the study.




Please prevent your local green from starting it's Prius this morning before giving an assurance that this will stop.

gg


----------



## burglar (14 January 2011)

*Re: Greens Kill Penguins*

gg,

It's Ok. It's Ok.

Dead and dying penguins will leave nests vacant!
Untagged, homeless penguins can take them up and slow their housing bubble!

Long term, it'll only be a blip on the market.


----------



## IFocus (14 January 2011)

*Re: Greens Kill Penguins*

GG the greens are to busy fighting for the gay rights of whales to worry about the environment.



> Please prevent your local green from starting it's Prius this morning before giving an assurance that this will stop.




Pure gold


----------



## nioka (14 January 2011)

*Re: Greens Kill Penguins*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Please prevent your local green from starting it's Prius this morning before giving an assurance that this will stop.
> gg




You bust another myth. I thought the true greenie still drove a smokey Vdub. I thought they only wanted everyone else to drive a Prius.


----------



## moXJO (16 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/no-time-for-finger-pointing-over-floods-greens-warned/story-e6frfku9-1225988908215


> Senator Brown says the coal-mining industry should foot the bill for the Queensland reconstruction efforts, claiming their operations are partly responsible for the floods.
> 
> "It's the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now," he said.
> 
> But Resources Minister Martin Ferguson warned Senator Brown that he should remember the floods have affected not only the mining companies, whose Queensland mines have been brought to a halt, but also the workers.




Noticed Bob Brownstain was quick to point the finger. I seem to remember them being up in arms when they were blamed for the deaths of Victorian families killed in the fires due to their stupid policies.
Greens are a nasty little political blight in an all ready scum filled arena.


----------



## sails (16 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



moXJO said:


> http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/no-time-for-finger-pointing-over-floods-greens-warned/story-e6frfku9-1225988908215
> 
> 
> Noticed Bob Brownstain was quick to point the finger. I seem to remember them being up in arms when they were blamed for the deaths of Victorian families killed in the fires due to their stupid policies.
> Greens are a nasty little political blight in an all ready scum filled arena.




Yeah totally agree and he should resign with such stupid statements, IMO.  And to think this man is holding the puppet strings to the Gillard government.

Wonder what he thinks caused the floods in 1893.  These types of floods are a rare event and were occouring long before global warming was thought of to rob the population.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



moXJO said:


> http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/no-time-for-finger-pointing-over-floods-greens-warned/story-e6frfku9-1225988908215
> 
> 
> Noticed Bob Brownstain was quick to point the finger. I seem to remember them being up in arms when they were blamed for the deaths of Victorian families killed in the fires due to their stupid policies.
> Greens are a nasty little political blight in an all ready scum filled arena.



Ah yes, I was waiting for it... 

All that coal we've burnt has finally caused some havoc. The climate is back to being as bad as it was in 1893. It's just was well though, only two years ago coal was apparently causing a drought that would never end in the very same places that are now flooded.

The sad thing is, this sort of nonsense from the Greens will inevitably cause the public to lose interest in _legitimate_ climate research, environmental issues and the like. It's the old "boy who cried wolf" scenario.


----------



## sails (16 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



moXJO said:


> http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/no-time-for-finger-pointing-over-floods-greens-warned/story-e6frfku9-1225988908215
> 
> 
> Noticed Bob Brownstain was quick to point the finger. I seem to remember them being up in arms when they were blamed for the deaths of Victorian families killed in the fires due to their stupid policies.
> Greens are a nasty little political blight in an all ready scum filled arena.




I was thinking that perhaps Bob Brown has decided that attack is the best form of defence.  I understand the greens are opposing any new large scale dams on rivers.  Tell that to some of the people who have lost so much. While dams have their own problems, they should not be scrapped entirely.  Without Wivenhoe many more homes and business would have gone under.

green policies: http://greens.org.au/policies/environment/water-inland-aquatic-environments


> 8. there should be no new large-scale dams on Australian rivers.


----------



## Julia (16 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



moXJO said:


> [
> Greens are a nasty little political blight in an all ready scum filled arena.



What a perfect summary of the political arena.



sails said:


> Yeah totally agree and he should resign with such stupid statements, IMO.  And to think this man is holding the puppet strings to the Gillard government.
> 
> Wonder what he thinks caused the floods in 1893.  These types of floods are a rare event and were occouring long before global warming was thought of to rob the population.



Yes, indeed.  It's such a stupid thing to say that you'd have to think even the most ardent Greens supporter is going to start questioning their loyalties.
But perhaps not, given logic was clearly not their strong suit in the first place.


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> The sad thing is, this sort of nonsense from the Greens will inevitably cause the public to lose interest in _legitimate_ climate research, environmental issues and the like. It's the old "boy who cried wolf" scenario.




That has already happened to a large extent.


----------



## Calliope (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Yes, indeed.  It's such a stupid thing to say that you'd have to think even the most ardent Greens supporter is going to start questioning their loyalties.
> But perhaps not, given logic was clearly not their strong suit in the first place.




Bob Brown supporters should hang their heads in shame for elevating this goose to Senate control. He is a nasty piece of work.

However we know from reading their nonsense that they live in another world, where rational thinking flies out the window.


----------



## SM Junkie (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Shame Shame Shame...how can he say such an illogical statement at a time like this.  For starters I'm not quite sure how he can prove the coal industry are to blame and thereby liable to funds some of the recovery.

I know that the flooding is devastating and the effect long reaching, but at the same time I'm very thankful that the future is brighter for our farmers who now have water in their catchments.  I'm thankful that the Murray River is in flood and will hopefully start to repair itself, something the Government and the Greens have not been able to do.


----------



## drsmith (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

The energy sources that drive human civilisation will be responsible for the extinction of the dinasours before the Greens are through.

Perhaps they would serve us all better by turning themselves to the following aspect of the floods;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...aiting-to-happen/story-e6frg6z6-1225988980919

Labor publically dismiss the rubbish of their political partner, but what's going on behind the scenes ?


----------



## Logique (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Greetings Doctor.

*Vaclav Klaus Blasts Al Gore’s Climate Alarmism*
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=1125



> Czech Republic President VÃ¡clav Klaus (formerly Professor of Finance at the University of Economics, Prague), who is also the new President of the European Union, has recently blasted former Vice President Al Gore for unsubstantiated climate fear-mongering......
> ......The debate over climate change is sadly not really about climate science. It is about a proto-religious (pantheistic), neo-Malthusian, anti-development worldview that seeks to control the peaceful endeavors of people to improve their lives by imposing “environmental” central government planning (eco-corporatism), with plenty of interest groups seeking to use such government power to enrich themselves.
> Feb 3, 2009


----------



## sails (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Logique said:


> Greetings Doctor.
> 
> *Vaclav Klaus Blasts Al Gore’s Climate Alarmism*
> http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=1125




Logique, that's wonderful paragraph expressing this whole debacle so perfectly and eloquently..

Here is is again without the italics to make it easier to read:

".....The debate over climate change is sadly not really about climate science. It is about a proto-religious (pantheistic), neo-Malthusian, anti-development worldview that seeks to control the peaceful endeavors of people to improve their lives by imposing “environmental” central government planning (eco-corporatism), with plenty of interest groups seeking to use such government power to enrich themselves.
Feb 3, 2009"​


----------



## Calliope (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Bob Brown's ardent supporters on this forum are strangely silent on his latest stupidities. I suppose it takes a certain amount of rash courage to admit you are a member of a crazy sect. If it were me, I think I would stay in the closet.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

There exists hidden agendas on both sides of this argument, unfortunately.  That makes proper debate impossible.

Ultimately, most people will argue a case that has their own self-interest at heart, rather than what is real.

Capitalists could be accused of climate change denial because their main interest is in raping the earth for every dollar they can, regardless of the environmental cost.

Greens could be accused of wanting to damage the economy because they have never tasted financial success, and so feel envious.

There's a whole range of possibilities for why people take a stance one way or the other, and mostly these remain hidden.  That means you can't really take anyone at their word.

Our actions and opinions are driven by our unconscious.  The conscious mind does its best to explain what's going on, but really has no idea!  First step is to understand your hidden motivations, and be willing to accept they might be a little unsavoury.

Do you hate wall street bankers with their suits and ties and big bonuses?
Do you secretly hate greens with their dreadlocks and tree hugging?

Come on now, be honest.


----------



## Logique (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Hidden agendas in the science world too GB. You need grants and other funding sources,  and tenure, to do research.

I challenge anyone to go to CSIRO seeking support, moral or financial, with a hypothesis that challenges the contemporary climate change alarmism. You wouldn't get past reception.

But to answer your question: '...Do you hate wall street bankers with their suits and ties and big bonuses?
Do you secretly hate greens with their dreadlocks and tree hugging?...':  No, I certainly don't stereotype either group.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Yes as I said, hidden agendas everywhere.  This is why the decision makers must be free of agendas themselves.  There are not many people like that around - it requires enormous maturity.  Most people hate this or that type of person (or lifestyle) depending on their personal history.  That's where the truth gets obscured by personal concerns, just like on this forum.

If anyone is wondering about my own stance, I don't really have one, because I haven't studied the topic in any depth.


----------



## SM Junkie (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I find your comments a little confusing GB. You seem quite philosophical or showing some spiritual insight into the personality. But in reality we all live and work with our biases everyday and most can accept and apply rational or conscious thought to our actions (called the Parent side of the personality). So please don't lump us all the same and all having hidden agendas. Simply not true.



Gringotts Bank said:


> Yes as I said, hidden agendas everywhere.  This is why the decision makers must be free of agendas themselves.




Now this is a real oxymoron. I could not name one person in the history of Local/State or Federal government that is not in the game for their own agenda.  They go into politics to voice their opinions because they believe so strongly in it.


----------



## Mofra (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



SM Junkie said:


> Now this is a real oxymoron. I could not name one person in the history of Local/State or Federal government that is not in the game for their own agenda.  They go into politics to voice their opinions because they believe so strongly in it.



In a way yes, although many enter politics with the best of intentions, turning their back on mor elucrative opportunities. Sadly, most (if not all) end up playing the political game as it becoem apparent you need to become one of herd of fall by the wayside.

It's a shame Bob Brown made such comments; he really seems to be sounding more and more like a spin-doctor led Lib/Laborite.

If only the LDP as a party would gain some traction


----------



## Gringotts Bank (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Fair enough.  Although I would draw a distinction between:
1. those who have strong beliefs about hows things do or should work, and create their views and policies accordingly, and...
2. those who are so adhered to a particular lifestyle or ideology that they view all opposing views as threatening, and therefore do anything they can to squash them.

The language on here is so aggressive that you can bet there's a lot in the second group.  That's my point.


----------



## SM Junkie (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Gringotts Bank said:


> The language on here is so aggressive that you can bet there's a lot in the second group.  That's my point.




For sure...but that is how the world works. Better not to buy into those arguments, you can never win.

Mofra...I think Peter Garrett is the perfect case example of toeing the party line...absolutely breaks my heart.

Seriously have the Greens got any runs on the table as far as the environment goes?? I hear them supporting the emissions tax, but that is all.  So years are waisted on petty discussions without any real change occurring.  Why don't we get back to basics around enouraging more households to convert to alternative energy consumptions.  Every person who makes a change adds up over time.


----------



## moXJO (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

IMO we would be better off investing more into researching new green technologies that will benefit the whole world. Considering Australia is roughly 30 mill of people I don't think we will put much of a dent in carbon reduction any other way.


----------



## drsmith (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Gringotts Bank said:


> Do you secretly hate greens with their dreadlocks and tree hugging?
> 
> Come on now, be honest.



What I don't like is the idea of Australia being turned into a third world economic backwater.

Below is two examples of policy ideals from the Greens copied from different parts of their website;



> 14.Australia needs to plan for a future that does not rely on coal export and coal fired electricity.
> 
> 16.prepare contingency plans for possible large scale humanitarian migration as a result of climate change.



Fuzzy warm ideals, but what would life be like for ordinary Australians ?

They dare not produce a budget statement from their policies as that would reveal the truth.

Thier policies tend to suggest they think we can have more influence over the world by taking a "so called" moral stand and diminishing our economic standing relative to the rest of the world.


----------



## sinic (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

After the greens absurd announcement I have yet to notice any reporting of the the incident from the Sydney Morning Herald (or the Age)  - bit embarrassing I suppose.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> That has already happened to a large extent.



Judging by the comments I have heard generally since Brown's bit about the Queensland floods, I'd have to agree with you.

Very few people seem to have accepted Bob Brown't comments as having any credibility whatsoever. I was expecting that at least some would support him, but supporters are few and far between if you read the papers etc.


----------



## WaveSurfer (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> Yes GG, there are now over 500 nuclear power plants in operation throughout the world. France alone has 70+.




No need to waste money on nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion is the way of the future. They should have it worked out in the next 10-20 years, maybe a lot less.

Interesting reading all the Green protest voters. Many people that I have spoken to who voted green said the same thing. Can't blame them really. Look at the utter BS we had to deal with leading up to the election. Neither ALP or LNP instilled much confidence in either of themselves.

I stand by my view, none of the above. They're all the same, in one way or another.


----------



## noco (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



WaveSurfer said:


> No need to waste money on nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion is the way of the future. They should have it worked out in the next 10-20 years, maybe a lot less.
> 
> Interesting reading all the Green protest voters. Many people that I have spoken to who voted green said the same thing. Can't blame them really. Look at the utter BS we had to deal with leading up to the election. Neither ALP or LNP instilled much confidence in either of themselves.
> 
> I stand by my view, none of the above. They're all the same, in one way or another.




WaveSurfer, the problem with the majority who voted for the Greens in protest of the two major parties, had no idea what the Greens stand for. I know two of my friends who voted for the Greens had no idea what their poliicies were untill I suggested they check them out on Google. I can tell you they were shocked to learn the details and will never vote Green again.


----------



## WaveSurfer (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> WaveSurfer, the problem with the majority who voted for the Greens in protest of the two major parties, had no idea what the Greens stand for. I know two of my friends who voted for the Greens had no idea what their poliicies were untill I suggested they check them out on Google. I can tell you they were shocked to learn the details and will never vote Green again.




Oh yea mate, undeniably so. I think that the majority of people have no idea what any of the parties really stand for. Other than what they hear on the idiot box.

I don't think it should be left up to people to have to go online and find out themselves (many people can't). All information should be conveyed to us in an unbiased manner through the media so that we (the people) can make a more of an informed decision.


----------



## Julia (17 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Gringotts Bank said:


> Yes as I said, hidden agendas everywhere.  This is why the decision makers must be free of agendas themselves.  There are not many people like that around - it requires enormous maturity.  Most people hate this or that type of person (or lifestyle) depending on their personal history.  That's where the truth gets obscured by personal concerns, just like on this forum.
> 
> If anyone is wondering about my own stance, I don't really have one, because I haven't studied the topic in any depth.



You admit to not having studied the topic in any depth, yet make pronouncements about the biases of pretty much everyone, including suggesting many on this forum are 'aggressive'.  That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Of course we all have our natural biases.   These are hopefully formed after a lifetime of experience and some objective evaluations.

You seem to be suggesting that most people hold irrational and unreasonable biases and are incapable of objectivity.  I disagree.

Certainly a few people (maybe the most passionate Greens?) hold to their views without seeming to have the capacity to evaluate these objectively.

But I'd say overall, your average Australian is a bit smarter than you are suggesting, and I'd certainly consider most ASF members as pretty educated, discerning and able to form opinions from their own experiences.



drsmith said:


> What I don't like is the idea of Australia being turned into a third world economic backwater.



I agree entirely.  But I think many have yet to wake up to this being the result of Greens' policies.  Many are still either (a) ignorant and only voted Greens because they were determined not to support Labor or Liberal, or (b) too absorbed in the warm fuzzy feeling of looking after the planet that they have no clue about how the Greens will ruin the economy if given half a chance.

Julia Gillard has made some crap decisions, but quite the worst imo was to formalise an agreement with the Greens.


----------



## Mofra (18 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



SM Junkie said:


> Mofra...I think Peter Garrett is the perfect case example of toeing the party line...absolutely breaks my heart.



Good point - Garrett, Abbott & Penny Wong all tie in terms of the hypocrasy stakes at the Federal level.

Garrett - former environmental warrier, finds out it's only easy to be idealistic when you don't have a real job.
Abbott - Mr Workchoices abandons it for his politicing at the election, and tries a Mr Niceguy routine despite being the designated Lib headkicker for the past 15 years.
Penny Wong - Openly gay senator who speaks out against gay marraige.

Some would argue we get the politicians we deserve. Australia isn't perfect, but surely we deserve better than this.


----------



## Calliope (18 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Mofra said:


> Penny Wong - Openly gay senator who speaks out against gay marraige.




Actually Penny Wong supports gay marriage.


----------



## Julia (18 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Calliope, I suppose she does support gay marriage on a personal basis.  But I think Mofra's meaning was pretty clear in that - despite her personal situation - she's prepared to compromise her own view to adhere to the party line, hence the hypocrisy.


----------



## Calliope (18 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Not so. Back in November;



> FINANCE Minister Penny Wong has laid down a challenge to Julia Gillard and the federal Labor Party over the legalisation of gay marriage.
> 
> Senator Wong today backed a motion passed at the ALP conference in South Australia for a federal policy change in favour of gay marriage.
> 
> The openly gay senator from South Australia seconded an amended motion by the Florey sub-branch at today's conference.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-on-gay-marriage/story-fn59niix-1225961983913


----------



## Julia (18 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

OK, thanks Calliope.  She has clearly changed her stance since I heard her interviewed on the subject.


----------



## Happy (18 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> ...  She has clearly changed her stance ...



(Included Quote because you love them  )

Simply called: Backflip 

Hard to be engaged, as people in power think one thing, say another and do whatever.


----------



## RandR (18 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> The Greens, who appear to be alingned with communism,
> Between the Greens and Islam I would hate to see what this world of ours will be like in 20 or 30 years time.




Yes ! Damn those evil communists and Muslims eh ! sneaky buggers .... whatever happened to nice white christian god fearing people ? Damn all those people who have concerns that we might be trashing our (one and only) planet eh. Thats just superstitious hippy talk, lets not worry about that, Im sure the good folks of NASA will find us another one soon ......

Noco, could you please make a list things you  believe to be bad/evil about communism/communists/islam ? 

Then make a similar list of things you believe to be bad/evil about capitalism/capitalists/christianity ?

My self I would probably consider to be a democratic socialist, i believe in the power of equality, I believe in the fundamental right of all humans to not be judged on matters of faith. 

just quietly ....  I also think a communist and a muslim would make great neighbours and possibly by combining the two would create the perfect neighbour


----------



## Calliope (18 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> Noco, could you please make a list things you  believe to be bad/evil about communism/communists/islam ?




Do your own research. It's a fertile field.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Labor - not particularly good at running things

Liberal - openly admits they don't know how to run even realtively straightforward things efficiently. In some cases Labor does the exact same, they just do it a bit less often.

Greens - seemingly no intention of running anything in an efficient, sensible manner

Labor seems the best of a bad bunch in my opinion.


----------



## noco (18 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> Do your own research. It's a fertile field.




The Greens for a start are social left and one step behind communism. They have a skin deep enviromental policy and a Marxist heart. 
Senator Croy Bernardi sums up Bob Brown to a tee with his recent hyprocrisy.


http://www.corybernardi.com/2011/01...m_campaign=Feed:+CoryBernardi+(Cory+Bernardi)


----------



## RandR (18 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> The Greens for a start are social left and one step behind communism. They have a skin deep enviromental policy and a Marxist heart.
> Senator Croy Bernardi sums up Bob Brown to a tee with his recent hyprocrisy.
> 
> 
> http://www.corybernardi.com/2011/01...m_campaign=Feed:+CoryBernardi+(Cory+Bernardi)




What do you find wrong with marxism ?


----------



## Sean K (18 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> What do you find wrong with marxism ?



Perfect theory except in execution..

Or, the pigs will be pigs..


----------



## Julia (18 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> just quietly ....  I also think a communist and a muslim would make great neighbours and possibly by combining the two would create the perfect neighbour



Really?  Perhaps you could detail exactly why.



RandR said:


> What do you find wrong with marxism ?



Or alternatively, you could explain what you see as the advantages/benefits of Marxism.

So looking forward to your next post.

With thanks.


----------



## wayneL (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> My self I would probably consider to be a democratic socialist, i believe in the power of equality....




Thanks for that. Going to add your quote to my thesis "The impossibility of objective thought in social democrats" as further evidence.



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> pigs will be pigs




There has never been a truer word said.


----------



## RandR (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Really?  Perhaps you could detail exactly why.
> 
> 
> Or alternatively, you could explain what you see as the advantages/benefits of Marxism.
> ...




Why do i think they'd make the perfect neighbour ? simple ... my personal experience is that people that are practicing muslims tend to be fairly quiet, and respectful. My theory on why a communist would make a perfect neighbour, is again .. simple ... because you'd think anyone who preaches communism would be pretty keen to help out a neighbour when in need, and maybe share some wealth... 

The advantages i see in marxism are .. once again ... simple ... a classless society. (social class to me is disgusting) A society where the poor are lifted up, and the only society where true unadultered  democracy could ever be achieved. A society that would truly, be of the people, and for the people. Tell me why in a country as great as ours, we allow so many people to live in destitution, people to become homeless and live in poverty ? When such a thing occurs in a country as great as Australia i think something is not right ... and i believe ideals involved with, socialism, and marxism, can be an answer. Because its quite obvious to me capitalism is not.

Maybe your opinion of people that are muslims ... or define themselves politically as communists/socialists, is different to mine. Maybe thats because the experience you have lived with people such as this is different to the experience i have had, and thats perfectly fine.

But in a thread titled about a political party in Australia, i would expect to see some good, open debate about actual policy of the party. Not open slather and bigotry directed at people according to the religious idols, or political ideals. Which to my mind is disgusting and a little bit more then just insulting ... and why ive probably been a little bit more provocative in my responses. If any of my posts have seemed a touch (angsty) i apologise.


----------



## noco (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> Why do i think they'd make the perfect neighbour ? simple ... my personal experience is that people that are practicing muslims tend to be fairly quiet, and respectful. My theory on why a communist would make a perfect neighbour, is again .. simple ... because you'd think anyone who preaches communism would be pretty keen to help out a neighbour when in need, and maybe share some wealth...
> 
> The advantages i see in marxism are .. once again ... simple ... a classless society. (social class to me is disgusting) A society where the poor are lifted up, and the only society where true unadultered  democracy could ever be achieved. A society that would truly, be of the people, and for the people. Tell me why in a country as great as ours, we allow so many people to live in destitution, people to become homeless and live in poverty ? When such a thing occurs in a country as great as Australia i think something is not right ... and i believe ideals involved with, socialism, and marxism, can be an answer. Because its quite obvious to me capitalism is not.
> 
> ...




RandR, Communism failed miserably in Russia. Perhaps if you were to live in North Korea, Cuba or even China, you would no doubt change your mind.
Under Communism everything thing is owned by the state. There is no incentive to live in these countries and don't tell me poverty does not exist. If you dare step out of line or protest you could be shot.
I say to you,"GO AND TRY IT OUT".


----------



## Calliope (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Really?  Perhaps you could detail exactly why.
> 
> 
> Or alternatively, you could explain what you see as the advantages/benefits of Marxism.
> ...




And now you've seen it. As you know Julia, clowns come and go on this forum at frequent intervals. I think RandR is simply trolling. No one could be that disingenuous in the real world.


----------



## moXJO (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> Why do i think they'd make the perfect neighbour ? simple ... my personal experience is that people that are practicing muslims tend to be fairly quiet, and respectful. My theory on why a communist would make a perfect neighbour, is again .. simple ... because you'd think anyone who preaches communism would be pretty keen to help out a neighbour when in need, and maybe share some wealth...
> 
> The advantages i see in marxism are .. once again ... simple ... a classless society. (social class to me is disgusting) A society where the poor are lifted up, and the only society where true unadultered  democracy could ever be achieved. A society that would truly, be of the people, and for the people. Tell me why in a country as great as ours, we allow so many people to live in destitution, people to become homeless and live in poverty ? When such a thing occurs in a country as great as Australia i think something is not right ... and i believe ideals involved with, socialism, and marxism, can be an answer. Because its quite obvious to me capitalism is not.
> 
> ...




Yes let’s drag everyone down to poor level...... There is a reason why people are floating out of Cuba in eskys and it's not because they love communism. 

I got to a stage where I was dirt poor and too proud to go on the dole, or ask for handouts (welfare makes you even more prone to stay in your rut imo). It got to a stage where all I had was $100 and an old 250cc motorbike. I rode to another state with the shirt on my back, worked my ar$e off, then started my own business and am now comfortable. So I wouldn’t be interested in changing Australia into a lazy mans paradise ( then subsequent nightmare ) when I know that you can choose what you want to make out of life in this country.  

I'm also a fan of banning all religion in this country. You want to pray; good on ya, do it in your own time. I am sick of religion dictating the political direction. It's a product of a bygone era to control the masses. 

As for Green policy, it's more kissing rainbows then anything substantial. You talk about bigotry well take a very hard look at the Greens



> A society where the poor are lifted up



Makes me want to puke. If you honestly think this is what happens then you are deluded. It's the rest of us that get dragged down, not the poor getting lifted up. 
It doesn't work. 



> Because its quite obvious to me capitalism is not.




I'm sorry but life is very good in this country, even when you are on skid row. Go visit a third world country and see how they have it. Hell, go visit a communist country and check out 'the classless societies' poor.


----------



## derty (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

RandR, communism/Marxism in theory sounds great and if humans lived in hive-like societies and lived purely to advance the society as a whole it would work quite well. However, humans are competitive and greedy and the Marxist utopia will never work while what makes humans human remains.


----------



## RandR (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> RandR, Communism failed miserably in Russia. Perhaps if you were to live in North Korea, Cuba or even China, you would no doubt change your mind.
> Under Communism everything thing is owned by the state. There is no incentive to live in these countries and don't tell me poverty does not exist. If you dare step out of line or protest you could be shot.
> I say to you,"GO AND TRY IT OUT".




*Im not *advocating communism in the sense that your interpreting, im advocating *democratic socialism, and marxist principles *.... if you cant understand that point then maybe were not interpreting each other very well.

Russia, North Korea and China are all excellent examples of *State Capitalism * to say they were ideally marxist is ridiculous. They certainly were not Democratically Socialist ... to suggest so is an oxymoron.

Yes, they borrowed some (keyword is the some) principles from marxism, but fundamentally they were not and could not conceivably be called socialists ... or democrats ... or even marxists, by the very principle of the terminology.

for some reading on this - read here

http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1941/ussr-capitalist.htm

and read here ..

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm


----------



## RandR (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



moXJO said:


> You want to pray; good on ya, do it in your own time. I am sick of religion dictating the political direction. It's a product of a bygone era to control the masses. .




I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment here ... 

What i dont agree with is people being treated unequally or with disdain due to there religous beliefs. Something i feel was done in this thread... 



moXJO said:


> Makes me want to puke. If you honestly think this is what happens then you are deluded. It's the rest of us that get dragged down, not the poor getting lifted up.
> It doesn't work.
> 
> I'm sorry but life is very good in this country, even when you are on skid row. Go visit a third world country and see how they have it. Hell, go visit a communist country and check out 'the classless societies' poor.




Yes .. your right ... we might all have to give upsomething as trivial as our Iphone 4's so the people that are sleeping on park benches in urban areas all around australia ... can be provided with proper shelter and the support that they as Australians deserve ... makes me want to puke too.

Yes, life is good ... in most of this country. But for example i also believe the poverty, and historically poor lack of support of indigenous communities in parts of Australia is a disgrace, and something that i feel a little ashamed of as an Australian. I believe we can improve this, and i believe it can be achieved through some form of socialism. Thats my opinion, if you have a different opinion ... thats cool.


----------



## RandR (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> And now you've seen it. As you know Julia, clowns come and go on this forum at frequent intervals. I think RandR is simply trolling. No one could be that disingenuous in the real world.




Ive posted and explained my views on marxism, and democratic socialism ...

people have responded with ...

- communism is EVIL so marxism must be too
- go live there
- but it will make me poorer
- people are floating out of eskys from cuba

and you think im the one thats trolling ?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment here ...
> 
> What i dont agree with is people being treated unequally or with disdain due to there religous beliefs. Something i feel was done in this thread...
> 
> ...




But how would the people sleeping on park benches be able to access their supplies. 

This needs more working.

gg


----------



## Macquack (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Good on you RandR, nice to see some balance.

Most of the punters around here don't like to hear views that vary much from their right wing ideology.

Talking about how "communism" failed in Russia, have a look at the home of "capitalism", the US is not travelling all that well.


----------



## Sean K (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> *Im not *advocating communism in the sense that your interpreting, im advocating *democratic socialism, and marxist principles *.... if you cant understand that point then maybe were not interpreting each other very well.



So, you're well on the left side of centre still, right?

Like, opposite to the stock market?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Macquack said:


> Good on you RandR, nice to see some balance.
> 
> Most of the punters around here don't like to hear views that vary much from their right wing ideology.
> 
> Taking about how "communism" failed in Russia, have a look at the home of "capitalism", the US is not travelling all that well.




Its because we live in the real world, greyhounds, horses, texasholdem, sp, shares, warrants , options or cfds.

Nothing to do with ideology except D$ckhead Ideology.

gg


----------



## Sean K (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Macquack said:


> Taking about how "communism" failed in Russia, have a look at the home of "capitalism", the US is not travelling all that well.



Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole cyclical thing with capitalism and free market society but I think the boom and bust is actually supposed to happen. Some crashes and booms are bigger than others. 

Personally, I can't think of any better plan but the far left side of centre is NOT it. 

Not until we no longer require locks on doors. 

Or, until the human race is united in an effort against something to save our entire existence.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



kennas said:


> Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole cyclical thing with capitalism and free market society but I think the boom and bust is actually supposed to happen. Some crashes and booms are bigger than others.
> 
> Personally, I can't think of any better plan but the far left side of centre is NOT it.
> 
> ...




Quote Sun Zu 10.14.3

"An army on the move without engagement,that fails to see the folly of the soft camp followers will expire, before it finds a harbour."

gg


----------



## starwars_guy456 (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment here ...
> 
> What i dont agree with is people being treated unequally or with disdain due to there religous beliefs. Something i feel was done in this thread...
> 
> ...




I agree with RandR. We have a pretty good society, sure, but it could be better. We're not going to move forward as a society (morally) until we figure out how to solve the hopelessness and desperation that characterises our indigenous communities and lower income earners.

We just need to keep on chipping away/trying new things until we find something that works.

Regards,
Ed


----------



## RandR (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> But how would the people sleeping on park benches be able to access their supplies.
> 
> This needs more working.
> 
> gg




I respect your views and from reading this forum i have noticed you do make a lot of very good posts, quite a few of which i have been able to learn/pick up a few things from.

But, if you can forgive me for believing in ideals ... i'll forgive you for trivializing them.


----------



## drsmith (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Animal Farm economics does not work as natural selection is a competitive process.


----------



## RandR (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



kennas said:


> So, you're well on the left side of centre still, right?
> 
> Like, opposite to the stock market?




Why would a democratic socialist society be opposed to the idea of free trade ? Or be opposed to an equity market ?

Name me one democratic socialist society that is, then you would be making an actual point .... rather then fishing .... 



> Or, until the human race is united in an effort against something to save our entire existence.




Do you not think we are ? Is not our entire existence not jeopardised by the precarious nature we have placed ourselves in, in terms of sustainability of food production/and its methods, and sustainability of the energy consumption that has fed the rampant population growth in the past century or two ?

What do you see foresee is more likely looking into the next century ?

1. -  technological innovation to solve all our problems ?
2. - Or people uniting and resolving to work for a common goal to work around these problems ?

.. or do you foresee some old fashioned simple 'deflation' of the human population ?


----------



## Sean K (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> Why would a democratic socialist society be opposed to the idea of free trade ? Or be opposed to an equity market ?
> 
> Name me one democratic socialist society that is, then you would be making an actual point .... rather then fishing ....




Not sure what this means? 



RandR said:


> Do you not think we are ? Is not our entire existence not jeopardised by the precarious nature we have placed ourselves in, in terms of sustainability of food production/and its methods, and sustainability of the energy consumption that has fed the rampant population growth in the past century or two ?
> 
> What do you see foresee is more likely looking into the next century ?
> 
> ...



The planet (and then Universe) will find a way eventually. Think bigger picture.

What will develop is what will develop in the next 100 billion years or so. 

Yes, we should hold on for a few more days...

Live life, be happy.


----------



## gav (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Macquack said:


> Talking about how "communism" failed in Russia, have a look at the home of "capitalism", the US is not travelling all that well.




Last time I checked, capitalism let companies fail.  Does this sound like the US to you?


----------



## RandR (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



gav said:


> Last time I checked, capitalism let companies fail.  Does this sound like the US to you?




Your correct. The US isnt a society that practices capitalism, not at the present time anyway, when corporate america is surviving off the generosity of american taxpayers .... bailed out by taxpayer money that ...  doesnt actually exist.

Sounds more like state capitalism then real capitalism to me. Leninism and the Bolshevik revolution introduced state capitalism to the world, funny how times change and Uncle Sam goes down the same path.


----------



## Julia (19 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> Why do i think they'd make the perfect neighbour ? simple ... my personal experience is that people that are practicing muslims tend to be fairly quiet, and respectful. My theory on why a communist would make a perfect neighbour, is again .. simple ... because you'd think anyone who preaches communism would be pretty keen to help out a neighbour when in need, and maybe share some wealth...



Thanks for responding to my questions RandR.
Practising muslims are quiet and respectful?  No doubt many are but so are many Christians.  So are many atheists.  Can't see that quietness and respectfulness has anything to do with religion.

You think communists are going to be likely to "maybe share some wealth".   I've never seen willingness to care or assist others as being offered more by any particular political ideology.  Most people living in communist regimes do so because they have little choice.  Do you really think most North Koreans are happy to be starving so their dear leaders can pour money into nuclear arms?

I understand your idealistic stance.  And yes, of course capitalism is less than perfect.
But it's oh so easy from your comfortable situation here in Australia to idealise what you think would be the great answer of communism.  Not so sure you'd still feel that way after a few years of living with it.



> The advantages i see in marxism are .. once again ... simple ... a classless society. (social class to me is disgusting)



I'm trying to be reasonable here, polite even.  So you think everyone is born equal?
Australia is overall a pretty egalitarian society.  Whether we adequately care for the poor and disadvantaged is a subject for a whole other thread.



> A society where the poor are lifted up, and the only society where true unadultered  democracy could ever be achieved. A society that would truly, be of the people, and for the people. Tell me why in a country as great as ours, we allow so many people to live in destitution, people to become homeless and live in poverty ?



The reasons people become homeless and/or live in poverty are many but are not especially the result of a political system.

It has been shown over and over again that if you gave every member of a society an equal amount of money, at the end of a given period of time, say 20 years, the same small percentage of people will end up controlling the majority of the wealth.

It goes back to your point about a 'classless society'.   Because we all have such different levels of ability, this will never happen.  Some people will always make the most of opportunity and others will waste it.

In the sort of society you seem to be advocating, the people who take responsibility for ensuring they have a decent life would be constantly handing out what they have earned to prop up those who can't be bothered.

This already happens to some extent.

If you really had pure capitalism happening, we'd wipe the welfare state and everyone would have to sink or swim on their own capacity to take responsibility for themselves.



> But in a thread titled about a political party in Australia, i would expect to see some good, open debate about actual policy of the party. Not open slather and bigotry directed at people according to the religious idols, or political ideals. Which to my mind is disgusting and a little bit more then just insulting ... and why ive probably been a little bit more provocative in my responses. If any of my posts have seemed a touch (angsty) i apologise.




I can never quite understand why the Left sees any criticism of their ideals as 'bigotry', never just a different view.

Thanks, however, for stimulating some discussion.


----------



## moXJO (20 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> Yes .. your right ... we might all have to give upsomething as trivial as our Iphone 4's so the people that are sleeping on park benches in urban areas all around australia ... can be provided with proper shelter and the support that they as Australians deserve ... makes me want to puke too.




I would love if your ideals would work in the real world. But there are a million factors that come into play.

Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba (probably tried the hardest at the start) all tried to hold to the ideals but none were pure Marxian societies. Just as the US is not a "pure" capitalist society, in fact they are far from it. And as for Australia we are far from it. In fact we are heavily influenced by socialist/Marxian ideas already. In the end Marxian ideas requires the sacrifice of most freedoms to make life 'fair' for everyone. And greed is part of any society regardless of ideals. Cuba tried to follow as close as they could (at the start) and failed miserably. Soviet Union, China, North Korea all devolved into totalitarian societies and through out tried to enforce Marxism by violent (often lethal) means on their own people.
 All we hear about capitalism is greed; selfishness and dog eat dog lifestyle. It’s always oversimplified to be shown in a negative light by socialists. Probably the same way socialists are treated as well 
Greed will always be a part of every society

Australia imo is socialist enough. You want lack of greed and selfishness, then you only have to look to the goodwill of the people of QLD and the rest of Australia who donated and volunteered their time to help others. My experience has been if you need help in this country and ask, people jump over themselves to lend a hand. We have a heavy mix of socialism and capitalism and I don't like leaning to hard either way. Yes I do lean to the right in views but lean much more to the left when dealing with people in everyday life. But the last thing I want is a Green agenda.



> Yes, life is good ... in most of this country. But for example i also believe the poverty, and historically poor lack of support of indigenous communities in parts of Australia is a disgrace, and something that i feel a little ashamed of as an Australian. I believe we can improve this, and i believe it can be achieved through some form of socialism. Thats my opinion, if you have a different opinion ... thats cool.




I'm indigenous of another country which has similar problems. Handouts destroyed us, thinking what we needed was more handouts destroyed us more. Until the people decide to help themselves, then they will stay where they are no matter how much money is thrown at them. 
But change is happening. There are strong leaders in the Aboriginal community that will pave the way. There is a problem with the remoteness of the communities’ imo and the ease of staying in the rut they are in. But they have more opportunities now then ever before. While education is the key (and they actually received a payment if the went to school everyday) problems still exist with the indigenous communities mindset. The government is trying, business is trying, but it will take years for there to be any flow on effects. There is not an instant solution to this problem. They tried that already by giving them houses, cars, money, medical, education. It is a much more complex problem.


----------



## Julia (20 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Great post moXJO.


----------



## RandR (20 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Great post moXJO.




agreed, fantastic and well considered response moXJO.

Julia ...

You understand my comments about the virtues of a muslim and or communist neighbour were largely tongue in cheek yeah ? I felt that someone needed to take a stand for Islam and communists in this thread because they were being vilified by previous posters. Which i found to be a little off putting.



> But it's oh so easy from your comfortable situation here in Australia to idealise what you think would be the great answer of communism. Not so sure you'd still feel that way after a few years of living with it.




You dont seem to be comprehending what I am advocating ... I am not a communist, i do not advocate communism, and i certainly do not advocate the style of communism that has been practiced in the USSR, China, North Korea.

I am an advocate for democratic socialism, and marxist theory. If your having trouble distinguishing the two from communism, you should probably do some research, because the two are quite contrary to each other.

In case you ask, what sort of political organisation would i consider to be democratic socialists ... heres an example from the 2007 federal election ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator_Online

Just lastly, funnily enough I do not consider myself as a 'leftist'. Because I do not believe anybody should make a decision on any political discourse based on which side of a fence they stand on, I think anyone that comes to a decision based upon whether they consider themselves to be 'left' or 'right' is a moron.

I believe in the ability of informed choices, there are policies i like from the liberals, policies of labour, and policies from the greens that I do like and support there different stances on. In fact i think if i was to reflect upon my votes in previous elections I have probably voted liberal more then anything else


----------



## wayneL (20 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

RandR,

Just going back on something you said earlier, that you believe in the power of equality.

What does equality mean to you?


----------



## Julia (20 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> I felt that someone needed to take a stand for Islam and communists in this thread because they were being vilified by previous posters.



A critical opinion about an ideology is what anyone has the right to express on this forum.  That doesn't necessarily constitute vilification.  Again, we have the pejorative language.  "Bigotry" earlier.



> In case you ask, what sort of political organisation would i consider to be democratic socialists ... heres an example from the 2007 federal election ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator_Online



 From the link you provided:



> Senator Online (Internet Voting Bills/Issues) (abr. SOL) is a registered Australian political party that contested the 2007 Federal election. In the five states the party contested, it received on average 0.06% of the vote (or roughly 6 votes for every 10,000 cast) with the greatest success in Victoria where it received 0.09% of the vote (or roughly 9 votes for every 10,000 cast).
> 
> Senator Online does not have any policies. Instead it has pledged to conduct an online poll for every bill that passes before the Senate. Anyone on the Australian electoral roll who is not a member of another political party would be allowed to register to vote in these polls and will be allowed one vote per bill. The senators would then be required to vote in accordance with the clear majority (70% and more than 100,000 votes). If there is no clear majority the senators will abstain from voting.



Fantastic.  About as realistic as the rest of your ideas.


----------



## FxTrader (20 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Again, we have the pejorative language.  "Bigotry" earlier




Playing the language police woman once again Julia!  Branding any descriptive term you don't like as pejorative doesn't negate it's appropriateness given the views expressed by some in these threads. 

If someone demonstrates a complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own then why is that not bigotry?  You're not going to change the views or opinions of bigots by indulging their intolerance with kind words. Wake up, take the red pill and join the real world.


----------



## noco (20 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Here we go again Julia, the MONOMANIAC is back.

Here is a good description of Bob Brown and his hypocrisy. A real political point scorer. 

http://www.corybernardi.com/2011/01...m_campaign=Feed:+CoryBernardi+(Cory+Bernardi)


----------



## RandR (20 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> A critical opinion about an ideology is what anyone has the right to express on this forum.  That doesn't necessarily constitute vilification.  Again, we have the pejorative language.  "Bigotry" earlier.




bahahaha, Julia ... are you suggesting the below qoute to not be bigoted ? Do you think after reading the quote my use of the term, bigotry, was incorrect ? If it was i apologise unreservedly.



> The Greens, who appear to be alingned with communism,
> Between the Greens and Islam I would hate to see what this world of ours will be like in 20 or 30 years time.






> From the link you provided:
> 
> 
> Fantastic.  About as realistic as the rest of your ideas.




Well, yes, it is realistic because it is and they are real. To be honest i dont really care what you feel for my ideas ... because they are mine, just as you have yours that would probably seem just as silly to someone else.


----------



## RandR (20 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> Here we go again Julia, the MONOMANIAC is back.
> 
> Here is a good description of Bob Brown and his hypocrisy. A real political point scorer.
> 
> http://www.corybernardi.com/2011/01...m_campaign=Feed:+CoryBernardi+(Cory+Bernardi)




I read that blog by Senator Bernardi and he brought up some good points, Senator Brown does seem like a hypocrite. Not really surprising considering he is after all, a politician.


----------



## IFocus (20 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> I read that blog by Senator Bernardi and he brought up some good points, Senator Brown does seem like a hypocrite. Not really surprising considering he is after all, a politician.




Obvious point but apparently only Greens and Labor politicians can be hypocrites, the wrecker is as pure of the snow..........for gods sake man get with the program

BTW like the tone of your posts 90% of which you will have to appreciate will go over the top of most of the Sarah Palin groupies heads here.


----------



## wayneL (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> RandR,
> 
> Just going back on something you said earlier, that you believe in the power of equality.
> 
> What does equality mean to you?




May I have an answer to this question please?


----------



## Calliope (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



IFocus said:


> Obvious point but apparently only Greens and Labor politicians can be hypocrites, the wrecker is as pure of the snow..........for gods sake man get with the program
> 
> BTW like the tone of your posts 90% of which you will have to appreciate will go over the top of most of the Sarah Palin groupies heads here.




Never mind. IslamoMarxists breed like flies. Your day will come when the "wreckers" are in Gulags, where they belong.


----------



## wayneL (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



IFocus said:


> BTW like the tone of your posts 90% of which you will have to appreciate will go over the top of most of the Sarah Palin groupies heads here.




1/ It is a mistake to underestimate your political adversaries, unless of course that was just a gratuitous insult. Either way, all the work you have done on this forum to seem reasonable is now lost.

2/ It is a low probability that people who are not paid up members of the Fabian Society are in fact Palin groupies. 

Socialists fancy themselves as intellectuals yet readily take the low road with pejoratives. How about arguing on the merits of policy rather than casting aspersions. 

*RandR,*

I'm still waiting for an answer.


----------



## RandR (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> May I have an answer to this question please?




Of course you can,

Equality to me is social equality. Things like education/health care/freedom of speech/social security/voting rights/equal rights under the law, and the complete lack of discrimination or slander attributed to race/religion/gender ... etc. I believe the furthering of equality is an important advancement among every nation on this small planet. I believe we've been making good progress, but as yet still have a long way to go.

What does equality mean to you ? Do you believe the furthering of equality is a good thing ? Or not ?


----------



## wayneL (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> Of course you can,
> 
> Equality to me is social equality. Things like education/health care/freedom of speech/social security/voting rights/equal rights under the law, and the complete lack of discrimination or slander attributed to race/religion/gender ... etc. I believe the furthering of equality is an important advancement among every nation on this small planet. I believe we've been making good progress, but as yet still have a long way to go.
> 
> What does equality mean to you ? Do you believe the furthering of equality is a good thing ? Or not ?




OK good answer, but to me those things come under equal opportunity rather than outright equality.

I also believe the furthering of these things is good, but am very uncomfortable about how this is being attempted. However I stop there and don't believe any sort of state enforced equality is a good thing at all.

My observation is that social democratic administrations overstep the goal of equal opportunity and 1/ Try to enforce equality in things that can never be equal 2/ Create unequalnesses(?) in enforcing purported equal opportunity.

The statist approach  always created further imbalances.


----------



## RandR (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> OK good answer, but to me those things come under equal opportunity rather than outright equality.




Opportunity/Equality ... I feel the wording doesnt really matter if they mean they same thing to me or you.



> My observation is that social democratic administrations overstep the goal of equal opportunity and 1/ Try to enforce equality in things that can never be equal 2/ Create unequalnesses(?) in enforcing purported equal opportunity.
> 
> The statist approach  always created further imbalances.




Which social democratic administration have you observed ?

By statist approach are you referring to the state capitalism scenarios of the USSR, China etc ? If so, I agree, these methods (leninism, or maoism etc) do create massive social and societal imbalances. In regards to marxism they are an oxymoron.

 Your right in asserting that there are indeed problems and hurdles involved with any aspect of creating any equitable society. But I believe every hurdle to be eventually surmountable. Just small steps.


----------



## tothemax6 (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> Opportunity/Equality ... I feel the wording doesnt really matter if they mean they same thing to me or you.



It is silly to suggest that equality and equal opportunity are the same. Two equal people might for example be "two men of the same age with the same wealth and same occupation and same appearance and same attractiveness of wife", for instance. Two people with equal opportunities might be "two men who have equal freedoms and equal protection under the law". In the latter case, the men can have any level of success in life, depending on their predetermined characteristics and their choices. 


RandR said:


> By statist approach are you referring to the state capitalism scenarios of the USSR, China etc ? If so, I agree, these methods (leninism, or maoism etc) do create massive social and societal imbalances. In regards to marxism they are an oxymoron.



Ah yes, the old 'the reason the USSR failed was *too much capitalism / too little socialism*'. Kind of like 'my car did not win the race because I did not let *enough* air out of the tires'. It is interesting to note the similarities between socialism and hard-line religions: in either case they both have an infinite burden of disproof, and simultaneously claim to be legitimate belief systems.

RandR, please state the test situation that disproves the superiority of socialism over capitalism, and the test situation that proves the superiority of socialism over capitalism (including definitions of socialism and capitalism).


----------



## wayneL (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> Opportunity/Equality ... I feel the wording doesnt really matter if they mean they same thing to me or you.




There is a huge difference. There is a difference between an equal opportunity to create wealth and the enforced redistribution of wealth for instance.



> Which social democratic administration have you observed ?




Many western nations have embarked on social democratic experiments. Australia and Canada included, but most notably from my perspective the UK prior to Thatcher rescuing her.



> By statist approach are you referring to the state capitalism scenarios of the USSR, China etc ? If so, I agree, these methods (leninism, or maoism etc) do create massive social and societal imbalances. In regards to marxism they are an oxymoron.
> 
> Your right in asserting that there are indeed problems and hurdles involved with any aspect of creating any equitable society. But I believe every hurdle to be eventually surmountable. Just small steps.




The UK and most of Europe are statist, indeed the EU is statist.


----------



## RandR (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



> It is silly to suggest that equality and equal opportunity are the same.




Your right there not the same thing by a literal definition ... but the two are entirely intertwined, you cant have equality without equal opportunity, and you cant have equal opportunity without equality.

 If 1000 people are born equally in every aspect of there lives eg ....education/health care/freedom of speech/social security/voting rights/equal rights under the law, and the complete lack of discrimination or slander attributed to race/religion/gender 


.... is this not equality, and does this not also present equal opportunity ?



wayneL said:


> There is a huge difference. There is a difference between an equal opportunity to create wealth and the enforced redistribution of wealth for instance.




It sounds like your saying the two are not compatible ?

  ... yet we have the two co-existing in this very country. 

Our taxation system is designed in part to be an enforced mode of redistributing wealth.

and it is possible for the majority of people in this country to also have an equal opportunity in regards to acquiring that wealth.

But these are both things i think can be improved upon, and indeed need to be improved upon for us to continue to advance, as a people, nation and society.



> Many western nations have embarked on social democratic experiments. *Australia and Canada included*, but most notably from my perspective the UK prior to Thatcher rescuing her.




Indeed the two bolded i would probably consider the most succesful. Which isnt saying alot at all is it.




> RandR, please state the test situation that disproves the superiority of socialism over capitalism, and the test situation that proves the superiority of socialism over capitalism (including definitions of socialism and capitalism).




Im not going to disprove or establish the superiority of either ... because i believe them to both me compatible. 

In any case i think it would be impossible to provide you with the test situation your asking me to compare, because there is truly not one 'pure' example of either i could provide you with.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I went to a Green meeting before the last election. 

It was full of hairy legged feminists, drongos and lost liberals. 

Not a worker in sight. Full of hormone problems, the males too much testosterone and the females too little oestrogen.

They are not the Full Monty and will disappear as the Dems did.

I've had a Green partner, some years ago, thank god she shaved her legs.

gg


----------



## drsmith (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I challenge the Greens to present a budget from their policies.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> I challenge the Greens to present a budget from their policies.




Hear hear Doc. They know what they are agin, but have no idea where they are going, a bit like a fundamental godbotherer on a nudist beach.

gg


----------



## drsmith (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

It shouldn't be too hard.

In a global currency terms, there wouldn't be too many digits before the decimal piont by the time they're through.


----------



## tothemax6 (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> Your right there not the same thing by a literal definition ... but the two are entirely intertwined, you cant have equality without equal opportunity, and you cant have equal opportunity without equality.



Completely incorrect. 
You cannot have equality *with *equal opportunity. This stems from the fact that people are not the same. Some people are smart, some people are stupid, some people are neither. Some people are strong, some people are weak, some people are neither. From these differences, inequalities stem (if their opportunities are equal). Indeed, the fact that the word 'inequality' is felt to mean something is broken and needs to be fixed, is flawed.
You cannot have equal opportunity *with *enforced equality. Since people have different abilities, the enforcer must logically make life more difficult for the more able, and easier for the less able, in attempt to make the resulting people equal.
You obviously didn't think this through.


RandR said:


> If 1000 people are born equally in every aspect of there lives eg ....education/health care/freedom of speech/social security/voting rights/equal rights under the law, and the complete lack of discrimination or slander attributed to race/religion/gender
> .... is this not equality, and does this not also present equal opportunity ?



Double-speak. You talk of freedom of speech, and then talk of lack of slander. A mans right to make decisions as to who he will associate with and trade with, and who he will not, are at the core of his freedom, and yet this is discrimination - which you say should be banned. You speak of equal opportunity, and yet some will have their education/healthcare/social security provided for them, and some will have to bear the burden of providing it to them - reducing the opportunity for gain for the latter and increasing it for the former. 


RandR said:


> It sounds like your saying the two are not compatible ?



They are not. Capitalism is 'a man may possess property', Socialism is 'a man may not, all items are owned equally'. There is nothing socially, economically, philosophically, or morally compatible about the two. The only reason we exist somewhere in between is a lack of consistency, resulting from a left and right of near equal power. If people were unable to maintain that '2+2 can equal both 4 and 5', as you can, they would have to choose - freedom or state control.


----------



## Julia (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



tothemax6 said:


> It is silly to suggest that equality and equal opportunity are the same. Two equal people might for example be "two men of the same age with the same wealth and same occupation and same appearance and same attractiveness of wife", for instance. Two people with equal opportunities might be "two men who have equal freedoms and equal protection under the law". In the latter case, the men can have any level of success in life, depending on their predetermined characteristics and their choices.






tothemax6 said:


> Completely incorrect.
> You cannot have equality *with *equal opportunity. This stems from the fact that people are not the same. Some people are smart, some people are stupid, some people are neither. Some people are strong, some people are weak, some people are neither. From these differences, inequalities stem (if their opportunities are equal). Indeed, the fact that the word 'inequality' is felt to mean something is broken and needs to be fixed, is flawed.
> You cannot have equal opportunity *with *enforced equality. Since people have different abilities, the enforcer must logically make life more difficult for the more able, and easier for the less able, in attempt to make the resulting people equal.
> You obviously didn't think this through.



Exactly.  tothemax, you've expressed this more adequately than I managed to in my earlier allusion to inherent inequality when asking RandR if he believed all people were created equal, a question he has chosen to ignore.




> Double-speak. You talk of freedom of speech, and then talk of lack of slander. A mans right to make decisions as to who he will associate with and trade with, and who he will not, are at the core of his freedom, and yet this is discrimination - which you say should be banned. You speak of equal opportunity, and yet some will have their education/healthcare/social security provided for them, and some will have to bear the burden of providing it to them - reducing the opportunity for gain for the latter and increasing it for the former.



Again so true.  RandR your rhetoric simply doesn't match reality.



> drsmith said:
> 
> 
> > I challenge the Greens to present a budget from their policies.
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> It shouldn't be too hard.
> 
> In a global currency terms, there wouldn't be too many digits before the decimal *piont* by the time they're through.




Quote of the year , doc, apart from the incohol adduced musspell.

gg


----------



## RandR (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I went to a Green meeting before the last election.
> 
> It was full of hairy legged feminists, drongos and lost liberals.
> 
> ...




Just who are you trying to troll ?



> I challenge the Greens to present a budget from their policies




I think the key thing to consider in relation to Green polices ... is to take them with a pinch of salt ....

They are not designed to ever be implemented. There designed to create debate and awareness.


> You obviously didn't think this through.
> 
> Completely incorrect.
> You cannot have equality with equal opportunity. This stems from the fact that people are not the same. Some people are smart, some people are stupid, some people are neither. Some people are strong, some people are weak, some people are neither. From these differences, inequalities stem (if their opportunities are equal). Indeed, the fact that the word 'inequality' is felt to mean something is broken and needs to be fixed, is flawed.
> ...




Yes, i did think this through. As have you.

Were just contradicting each other, and following two different trains of thought.

 Your theorising (correct me if im wrong) that it is completely and utterly impossible to have equality at all ... on the basis that everybody is different, which is obviously quite true.


Im saying forget that everyone is different, and focus on the fact that it is possible to create social equality ie - education/health care/freedom of speech/social security/voting rights/equal rights under the law, and the complete lack of discrimination or slander attributed to race/religion/gender 

and if you create social equality, its perfectly reasonable to suggest that people in this system have equal opportunity.



> Since people have different abilities, the enforcer must logically make life more difficult for the more able, and easier for the less able, in attempt to make the resulting people equal.




Basically your describing the very system of taxation that we have here in Australia ....



> Double-speak. You talk of freedom of speech, and then talk of lack of slander




The ability to speak freely does not condone the discrimination of anyone, this is not double speak on my behalf, but simple common sense. Not to mention just basically morales that people in this country are taught from pre-school.

Your making a lot of good discussion, dont ruin it by being bringing up crap like that 



> They are not. Capitalism is 'a man may possess property', Socialism is 'a man may not, all items are owned equally'. There is nothing socially, economically, philosophically, or morally compatible about the two. The only reason we exist somewhere in between is a lack of consistency, resulting from a left and right of near equal power. If people were unable to maintain that '2+2 can equal both 4 and 5', as you can, they would have to choose - freedom or state control.




You say they are not compatible ... and yet every nation on this planet has a system of governance that is a hybrid of the two, and so i believe they are compatible, and indeed the only way to progress further is to refine the method in which we do integrate both principles. Because we already know one or the other is a disaster if pursued singularly.



> Capitalism is 'a man may possess property', Socialism is 'a man may not, all items are owned equally'




you know its perfectly reasonable in a socialist sense for man to posses property. Indeed, in a socialist society theres nothing stopping one from accumulating more wealth and property then another. There's merely a greater level of redistribution from that person to those that dont have that same level of wealth.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> I think the key thing to consider in relation to Green polices ... is to take them with a pinch of salt ....
> 
> They are not designed to ever be implemented. There designed to create debate and awareness.




Exactly as said, troller. They can never implement policies. They are without any strategic plan to improve the lot of Australians. And as for implementation, they would spend a month of sundays agreeing on the simplest of policy decisions.

Troll somewhere else mate.

gg


----------



## RandR (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Exactly as said, troller. They can never implement policies. They are without any strategic plan to improve the lot of Australians. And as for implementation, they would spend a month of sundays agreeing on the simplest of policy decisions.
> 
> Troll somewhere else mate.
> 
> gg




Exactly as you said ? bahahahha ..

actually ... you actually said this ...



> I went to a Green meeting before the last election.
> 
> It was full of hairy legged feminists, drongos and lost liberals.
> 
> Not a worker in sight. Full of hormone problems, the males too much testosterone and the females too little oestrogen.




You contributed much to the discussion.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> Exactly as you said ? bahahahha ..
> 
> actually ... you actually said this ...
> 
> ...




I contributed facts, trolley boy, you contribute opinions.

gg


----------



## RandR (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I contributed facts, trolley boy, you contribute opinions.
> 
> gg




During my brief flirtation with journalism, I discovered the importance of distinguising facts from opinion...

... But the beauty is thats all entirely subjective !

Maybe you can dispense some more of your facts ... and i could reply by not utilizing  words at all, and merely post pictures of dinosaurs. Then we'd both be trolling


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> During my brief flirtation with journalism, I discovered the importance of distinguising facts from opinion...
> 
> ... But the beauty is thats all entirely subjective !
> 
> Maybe you can dispense some more of your facts ... and i could reply by not utilizing  words at all, and merely post pictures of dinosaurs. Then we'd both be trolling




A very sensible reply to which I have no cogent answer. I'll move my King to a stale, mate.

gg


----------



## tothemax6 (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> The ability to speak freely does not condone the discrimination of anyone, this is not double speak on my behalf, but simple common sense. Not to mention just basically morales that people in this country are taught from pre-school.
> Your making a lot of good discussion, dont ruin it by being bringing up crap like that



Firstly, to clear something up, my dialog firmly offers zero consideration to RandRs personal taste, whether or not a discussion is in his opinion 'good' or 'ruined', nor does it concern itself with his personal interpretation of 'crap'. Friendly FYI.
Secondly, please explain your understanding of 'speak freely', and 'the situation in which someone has been ''discriminated'' by someone else'. 


RandR said:


> Because we already know one or the other is a disaster if pursued singularly.



Capitalism has no record of causing disaster. Socialism does. As history proves (Koreas, Germanies, West Europe vs East, Japan/HongKong/Singapore/Macau vs China/Cambodia, Latin America vs North America, on and on), the higher the 'percent capitalism', the higher the quality of life. There is no historical record of people being shot trying to leave more capitalist states to enter more socialist states. 


RandR said:


> you know its perfectly reasonable in a socialist sense for man to posses property. Indeed, in a socialist society theres nothing stopping one from accumulating more wealth and property then another. There's merely a greater level of redistribution from that person to those that dont have that same level of wealth.



Please read this over again and tell me if it sounds rational to you. I will simply apply this logic to a non-political example:
"There is nothing stopping a rock rolling up a hill, there is merely gravity". Again, double-speak. 1984 is not a guide, it is a anti-guide.

Socialism is theft rolling around in rhetorical candy-floss.


----------



## tothemax6 (21 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> I challenge the Greens to present a budget from their policies.



Their budget is 'the life of every human'.

Seriously, if one was to be asked 'what is the fastest way we can realize the Greens environmental policies', one would instinctively recognize that it is 'human death, lots of it'.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



tothemax6 said:


> Socialism is theft rolling around in rhetorical candy-floss.




A perfick encapsulation of my views.

Can anyone quote a piece of intended legislation by the Greens.?

gg


----------



## tothemax6 (22 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> A perfick encapsulation of my views.



Feel free to use it. I thought that one up after a fair few Heineken's - and those are the ONLY greens I will let into my house .


----------



## IFocus (22 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> 1/ It is a mistake to underestimate your political adversaries, unless of course that was just a gratuitous insult. Either way, all the work you have done on this forum to seem reasonable is now lost.
> 
> 2/ It is a low probability that people who are not paid up members of the Fabian Society are in fact Palin groupies.
> 
> Socialists fancy themselves as intellectuals yet readily take the low road with pejoratives. How about arguing on the merits of policy rather than casting aspersions.




It was meant to be tongue in cheek............I have no intention of insulting anyone here and if I have then I sincerely apologize. 


But as some one who takes more incoming than most of this forum for my  environment, social and political views often incoming associated with brutal and despotic dictatorships dressed and labeled up as socialism I find your comments puzzling.


----------



## RandR (22 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



tothemax6 said:


> Firstly, to clear something up, my dialog firmly offers zero consideration to RandRs personal taste, whether or not a discussion is in his opinion 'good' or 'ruined', nor does it concern itself with his personal interpretation of 'crap'. Friendly FYI.
> 
> Socialism is theft rolling around in rhetorical candy-floss.




bahahaha. my 'personal taste' is backed up by law ....

your argument is like saying just because you have the right to own a gun, you can shoot somebody with it.

If you believe in the validity of your opinion, try telling an American that because there constitution gives them the right to free speech, they have the right to discriminate against someone. See how far you get .... because in the real world, it doesnt, and any attempt at justifying discrimination or vilification through "its just free speech" will surely end up in a court of law.

The right to free speech, does not condone or give anybody the right to justify discrimination.

If you dont like my interpretation of that, thats fine, but its a pretty common interpretation, and one thats surely upheld by the majority of people and court systems around the world.


----------



## wayneL (22 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> bahahaha. my 'personal taste' is backed up by law ....
> 
> your argument is like saying just because you have the right to own a gun, you can shoot somebody with it.
> 
> ...




Social democracy substitutes one purported type of discrimination (and I'm not arguing there isn't) and replaces it with another. It makes it unlawful to discriminate against some, and lawful to discriminate against another. 

Ironically, it is often on the base of gender, race and religion.

In Anglo Saxon countries, people are free to discriminate against white Europeans, particularly males... often this is institutionalized.

It is fine banging on about equality, a fine ideal (that is impossible in practice), but social democratic ideologues in fact embrace inequality and discrimination in the real world.


----------



## tothemax6 (22 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> bahahaha. my 'personal taste' is backed up by law ....
> your argument is like saying just because you have the right to own a gun, you can shoot somebody with it.



Well, if we are being absurdist:
"Your argument is like saying that because my shoes are made of cheese, the King of Spain lives in Japan."


RandR said:


> If you believe in the validity of your opinion, try telling an American that because there constitution gives them the right to free speech, they have the right to discriminate against someone. See how far you get .... because in the real world, it doesnt, and any attempt at justifying discrimination or vilification through "its just free speech" will surely end up in a court of law.



So by your logic, one can have freedom of speech, and also end up in court for certain statements. So for instance (and tothemax6 will point out he holds the opposite views), if I say "Japanese people are primitive and stupid" - I have discriminated, yes? If I say "I hate Japanese people", I have discriminated, yes? And I should be punished by force, yes? Again, double-speak - the ability to simultaneously hold two views that a mutually contradictory. One either has freedom of speech, or one is banned from a subset of speech. 
Before the term was hijacked by the Left, discrimination was a non-politically-charged word, which merely meant "to make a selective decision based on information". And this is what it is. When a black man chooses not to hire a white man for a job (or the more politically charged opposite), he is making a decision on how to relate to someone, based on the information he has of that person. 
If a man does not have this right he has *NO* freedom whatsoever. He lives in a totalitarian nightmare in which he is not free to make his own decisions as to who he will associate with - but has his relationship decisions decided for him at the point of a gun. It is a vicious dystopia right out of (or worse than) 1984, the USSR etc.

It is Evil.


----------



## IFocus (22 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Limitations on freedom of speech



> According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech* conflicts with other values or rights.*[32]  Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech.[33]  Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.[3







> In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[34]  Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[34]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech


----------



## drsmith (22 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> I think the key thing to consider in relation to Green polices ... is to take them with a pinch of salt ....
> 
> They are not designed to ever be implemented. There designed to create debate and awareness.



Actually, their poicy on coal mining is a watered down version of their idiology.

In the absence of a sensible overall management plan, take them with a pinch of salt and reject them at the ballot box.


----------



## tothemax6 (23 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



			
				IFocus said:
			
		

> Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech.



This is wrong precisely because anything can be declared to be obscene or hateful to a particular viewpoint. To claim that saying certain things violates rights is irrational. By this logic, it is reasonable to jail people for verbal statements. Indeed to claim that there are 'limitations to freedom of X' is again, double-speak. Either something is free, or it is constrained. 2+2 only equals 4.
Any government which initiates force against individuals because of statements that came from their mouth, is full-bore totalitarian. 

To say that freedom of speech should be limited by its capacity to offend is *even worse*, indeed it is monstrous. Any variety of speech can be considered offensive to someone. We would live a horrendous existence worse than that of a soviet citizen, if this ideology was enforced with any kind of strength.


----------



## Julia (23 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

You're right, of course, tothemax6.  But there nevertheless prevails a kind of moral highground which tacitly determines that some commentary is unacceptable.

Viz the pejorative language directed toward anyone who is agnostic about so called climate change.  They are called 'the deniers' and there is no doubt that this description is negative and critical.

Similarly, any objection to any facet of some religions will quickly bring an accusation of bigotry and/or vilification.   

So, yes, we may enjoy freedom of speech in a legal sense, but anyone who goes against the mainstream of opinion is quickly put down.


----------



## sails (23 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Definition of bigotry:



> 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion *that differs from one's own.*
> 
> _””Synonyms _
> 1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.




http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry

It seems that those pointing the finger and accusing others of bigotry should look at where their other three fingers are pointing...


----------



## Mofra (24 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> Definition of bigotry:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is a very broad definition - according to that definition I am bigoted against Nazis, pro-rape and child abuse groups, communists, white supremecists and Carlton supporters. 

I would still be offended to be labelled a bigot as the general understanding of the term bigot in society tends to be someone who hates a particular group because of who they are, rather than simply what they stand for.


----------



## Calliope (24 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> Definition of bigotry:
> 
> 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
> 
> ...




* you should have added -  it is only bigotry when it comes from the right...never from the left.


----------



## sails (24 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Mofra said:


> That is a very broad definition - according to that definition I am bigoted against Nazis, pro-rape and child abuse groups, communists, white supremecists and Carlton supporters.
> 
> I would still be offended to be labelled a bigot as the general understanding of the term bigot in society tends to be someone who hates a particular group because of who they are, rather than simply what they stand for.




I agree, Mofra.  I have found it offensive for those expressing opinions on issues such as the large numbers of boat people without papers to be broadly labelled with such harsh words as a bigot and racist.  It is not a hatred of anyone but a concern for the well known issues.  

Only the other day a young muslim woman was walking into my granddaughter's school as I was walking out with the books for this year.  She look somewhat sad and I made eye contact with her and smiled.  Her face lit up.  Now if that is being racist and a bigot, I'll be blowed. 





Calliope said:


> * you should have added -  it is only bigotry when it comes from the right...never from the left.




Yes, it does seem that way...

I have also noticed that those from the right are more willing to acknowledge faults with their chosen party.  The left seem hell bent on defending even the things that they would probably strongly oppose if it came from the right.  Just an observation...


----------



## Mofra (24 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> I have also noticed that those from the right are more willing to acknowledge faults with their chosen party.  The left seem hell bent on defending even the things that they would probably strongly oppose if it came from the right.  Just an observation...



I'm sure there are plenty who would argue the exact opposite - neither would be a bigoted opinion though


----------



## sails (24 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Mofra said:


> I'm sure there are plenty who would argue the exact opposite - neither would be a bigoted opinion though




Yes, fair enough - I guess we all have our blinkers on at times...


----------



## tothemax6 (24 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> You're right, of course, tothemax6.  But there nevertheless prevails a kind of moral highground which tacitly determines that some commentary is unacceptable.
> 
> Viz the pejorative language directed toward anyone who is agnostic about so called climate change.  They are called 'the deniers' and there is no doubt that this description is negative and critical.
> 
> ...



Well yes the important thing is that ideas and speech are competitively favoured by choice, not by force.


			
				sails said:
			
		

> Definition of bigotry:
> 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.



I don't think that's a very good definition. It should include at the end "_because_ it differs from one's own". I am fully against socialists, for instance, not simply because socialism differed from my views when I first learned about it, but because upon studying it, my objective analysis concluded with "this is great only at doing bad things". And I am unapologetically against bad things. This isn't bigotry, it is judgment.


----------



## Mofra (25 January 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> Yes, fair enough - I guess we all have our blinkers on at times...



Slightly off topic, but at the last election I did have to chuckle when the voting form for the Federal Senate had two different parties with socialist in their name.
Am I the only one who finds that strange? It all seems a bit Monty Python to me.


----------



## drsmith (7 April 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

This could get interesting,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/07/3185157.htm


----------



## Julia (7 April 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

This is from the link you gave drsmith:



> "The speculation in The Australian on this issue about some difference between myself and my fellow senators was false and misled its readers."




How on earth can Bob Brown say this when he appeared on national television and in multiple radio interviews saying he was at odds with the policy of Lee Rhiannon and the NSW Greens, and that he did not share their views about a boycott on Israel???

It beggars belief that at least some of the Greens are being so rabidly anti Israel (note that I have not actually said anti-semitic) when it's the only properly democratic country in the region.

The more I see of Mr Brown, the more I'm convinced that he actually gets away with more than most politicians under the guise of his smiling, ostensibly easygoing persona.

And it's pretty rich for him to suggest "The Australian" has a vendetta against the Greens just because they are one of the few amongst the media to hold the Greens and their policies up to account.
It's about time the rest of the media did likewise, in particular the ABC who might as well be a paid arm of the Greens so intense is their pro-Greens agenda.


----------



## nulla nulla (7 April 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

It seems that Pauline Hanson is within 0.14% of the required number of votes to seize the final seat in the NSW upper house. 

This on the basis of first preference counting. It appears that, with the distribution of "National Party" preferences, Pauline Hanson may jump ahead of the greens candidate to secure the final seat. 

And I thought that she was just in it for the money. Then again, getting a seat may just be an unanticipated plus...for her anyway.


----------



## Julia (8 April 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Interesting, nulla.   I think I detest her marginally less than I detest the Greens.


----------



## nulla nulla (9 April 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Interesting, nulla.   I think I detest her marginally less than I detest the Greens.




I am fairly indifferent to her. My only concern with her is her ability to bring out the redneck element of our society and their lack of tolerance for others. 
I dislike the greens. I suspect they have some hardline agendas hidden behind their facade of purporting to be conservationists.


----------



## Calliope (9 April 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



nulla nulla said:


> I suspect they have some hardline agendas hidden behind their facade of purporting to be conservationists.




There's nothing hidden about their agenda mate;

*TWO founding fathers of the Greens say the split between the old-school environmentalists and the new generation of ideologically driven urban activists now swelling the parliamentary ranks could destabilise the party and alienate voters.
*


> Mr Sanders, 78, said scathingly that the Greens were now "concerned with everything except the environment".
> 
> "*You hear them going on about the tax system, same-sex marriage, adoption, all these social equity issues, but they don't talk about the environment much*," he said. The concerns of two such experienced and respected figures in the green movement will intensify the values debate that was kicked off by the actions of NSW Greens figures Fiona Byrne, a suburban mayor in Sydney who stood unsuccessfully at last month's state election, and senator-elect Lee Rhiannon in backing the campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel over its treatment of the Palestinians.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-on-urban-greens/story-fn59niix-1226035658080


----------



## moXJO (9 April 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



> Senator Brown this week defended the actions of fellow Greens senators Sarah Hanson-Young and Scott Ludlam for appearing at rallies in 2009 where protesters called on Australia to sever ties with Israel.
> 
> "If you're saying there that members of parliament should not take the stage, or be on a rostrum, or be at a rally, or go on Q&A if you are going to be judged by the people you are there with, then we're getting to a very undemocratic path aren't we," Senator Brown told ABC radio.




You have to be kidding me, this after the attacks on Abbott
I know a lot of people that vote the greens just because they have the 'green' tag. I hope they wake up.



> Mr Robb contrasted the comments with Senator Brown's demands last month that Mr Abbott apologise for appearing alongside offensive placards at the March 23 carbon tax rally.
> 
> Mr Robb, who is currently in Jerusalem on a trade mission with the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce, said the Greens disliked being exposed to the same level of scrutiny as the major political parties.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/andrew-robb-lashes-bob-brown-over-double-standards/story-fn59niix-1226036148374


----------



## noco (9 April 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I'm sure Bob Brown would have done better than the Labor party on this one. Yes, of course he could. If he had his way we would all be reading with candles at night with the hope the candles might also offer some warmth.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...mments/column_seeming_green_is_just_all_wind/


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 April 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

It would not surprise me if the Greens were involved in a " Petrov Affair " in relation to their Foreign policy which is at variance to the ideas and wishes of the vast majority of Australian voters.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 April 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> I'm sure Bob Brown would have done better than the Labor party on this one. Yes, of course he could. If he had his way we would all be reading with candles at night with the hope the candles might also offer some warmth.



Candles are made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource that adds CO2 to the air, and are thus not acceptable.:

As for the broader picture with the Greens, I'm glad that there seems to be a few more people waking up to the fact that it goes way beyond a dam or two and some trees.


----------



## sails (9 April 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> Candles are made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource that adds CO2 to the air, and are thus not acceptable.:
> 
> As for the broader picture with the Greens, I'm glad that there seems to be a few more people waking up to the fact that it goes way beyond a dam or two and some trees.




Thanks Smurf - I asked somewhere else today if candles emit CO2.  I didn't think they were innocent.  We are living in a crazy, mixed up world...


----------



## IFocus (9 April 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



nulla nulla said:


> I am fairly indifferent to her. My only concern with her is her ability to bring out the redneck element of our society and their lack of tolerance for others.
> I dislike the greens. I suspect they have some hardline agendas hidden behind their facade of purporting to be conservationists.




Agree Nulla cannot find the article but the founders are having issues with the intercity activism verses the lack of environment support


----------



## drsmith (30 May 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I've generally heard only positive commentary about Martin Ferguson, but not from Bob Brown.


----------



## drsmith (3 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Can Rob Oakshott match this ?

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/time-free...eaks-for-nearly-six-hours-20110603-1fjgn.html


----------



## Logique (5 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Five stars to this blogger. Great quote from CS Lewis. The context was Sen. Hanson-Youngs fumblings on the subject: why are the Greens so silent on the Malaysia refugees deal, worse than anything in the Howard years?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hypocrites/#commentsmore
"...Creepy Bob Brown’s fixation on Murdoch (the “hate press"), Hanson-Young’s outing today as a first class hypocrite and the scary screw-loose eco-fundamentalist ravings of Christine Milne are turning into quite an entertainment. Except that Christine Milne is truly scary - even scarier than her boss PM Brown. 

She the factor that CS Lewis warned us about. Here’s what he said; and it illustrates the danger of green power precisely: 
'Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than omnipotent moral busybodies.The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.' "

[Blogger] Sharper of Mt Lawley
Sun 05 Jun 11


----------



## Knobby22 (5 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I love CS Lewis - great quote! Pretty true. An example of such a tyranny is Iran.

I would rather be run by people who were neither though.


----------



## awg (6 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I dont know whether this has been covered before in this thread, but nothwithstanding any climate change debate about coal mining, what I find puzzling is what the Greens actually mean when they discuss "shutting down coal mining" or similar quotes.

The reason I raise that issue is because some coal companies I held shares in got sold to Chinese state owned companies.

So they mine the coal, export it to China, and keep the profits.

Does anyone have any idea what the Greens are proposing to do about that scenario?

Sure royalties or taxes can be raised, but I would not want to be the person trying to tell China that any serious restriction would be placed on coal extraction (that they need) from Australia by Chinese owned companies.

Good luck with that one


----------



## medicowallet (6 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



awg said:


> I dont know whether this has been covered before in this thread, but nothwithstanding any climate change debate about coal mining, what I find puzzling is what the Greens actually mean when they discuss "shutting down coal mining" or similar quotes.
> 
> The reason I raise that issue is because some coal companies I held shares in got sold to Chinese state owned companies.
> 
> ...




Still annoys me that foreing companies own our resource licences like that.  

I am against a mining tax, but this is the only reason why I am not mad passionate against it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

When all else fails, there's always the option of a blockade to halt whatever it is the Greens are opposed to at the present time. They've done it before and they'll do it again.


----------



## Logique (18 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Speaking of which. They really do want to de-industrialize the world, and little care for the consequences. Enviro-terrorism, and just the start - more dangerous than Al Qaeda.

*Greenpeace chief scales oil rig to protest Arctic drilling * _France 24_ -17 June 2011
http://www.france24.com/en/20110617-greenpeace-chief-scales-oil-rig-protest-arctic-drilling#
"..The head of Greenpeace scaled an oil rig off Greenland to demand a halt to drilling in the Arctic and a copy of the rig owners' oil spill response plan, the environmental group said. AFP -The head of Greenpeace on Friday scaled an oil rig off Greenland to demand a halt to drilling in the Arctic and a copy of the rig owners' oil spill response plan, the environmental group said.."

And last year:
*Greenpeace on drill ship off Shetland 'for a month'*  - BBC News -Noth East, Orkney and Shetland - 22 September 2010  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-11388460
One protester, Leila Deen, said "..We will continue to block risky oil exploration until the government puts a moratorium on new deep sea drilling."


----------



## NewOrder (18 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

The Greens lost me big time when they touted introducing death taxes before the last election.


----------



## SusanW (18 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Kevin Andrews, Federal Member for Menzies, has written one of the best historical exposes of the Greens. 

The Greens Agenda, in their own words

It is fact that the party always had and continue with a Marxist agenda.

Their MO is to focus on large issues like global warming and global poverty/refugees, which they say demand united national and global intervention. This opens the door to larger govt with more control. 

The dignity and the rights of individuals are pushed aside in the process. 
Their MO is to convince individuals to surrender more control of their lives, and the fruits of their labor and toil.

As mentioned above, we end up with ideological do gooders, untiringly driven by conscience, telling us we don't know what we are doing, and need them to do it for us, at a high price.


----------



## bandicoot76 (18 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

the hypocracy of the greens knows no bounds! you only have to look at the position they took on the murray water management investigation, they say that the lower SA lakes (alexadria)section of the river system is dying & needs more 'environmental' flows, to be found at the expense of cutting irrigation allocations, but fail to mention these lakes were originally salt water esturies that were only altered by the building of the massive concrete barrages in 1930s to keep the seawater out of the lakes so as to change them to freshwater lakes.  

the water loss from evaporation of these shallow lakes is 1800 gigs per year (3x sydney harbours) of freshwater, that now comes from upstream sources, that should naturally be seawater. 

this fact is ignored by by the greens who are pushing for a further 900 gig cut to agricultural water allocations, where the 'natural' solution would be to open the barrages and return the area to its natural saltwater  state...

 but that is being conveniently ignored  by them as it doesnt fit the greens agenda, which isnt about real environmental solutions but more about using fear & scaremongering to create a political & social power-base!


----------



## noco (24 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Julia Gillard always talks about "I have a plan for the future of Australia".

The Green/ Labor coalition have a blue print for our economy that drastically cuts it's use of resources and sever lines between growth and prosperity.

Lee Rhiannon's parents founded the Communist Party in Australia and Rhiannon is still brainwashed with Communist ideology. 

Upon reading the link below, it confirms my previous post, of which certain ASF members claimed as rediculus, that Gillard, who is also tarred with the same brush as Rhiannon, want to destroy our ecomony with their policies of more taxes and imported goods to make our mining, farming and industry non profitable.

Communism infiltrated the trade unions in the 50's and 60's to destroy the Australian economy with strikes for higher wages, increased annual leave, leave loading, penalty rates, demarcation of unionist duties, etc.etc. all in the name of increasing costs to make us non-competitive. The Green/Labor coalition aim to do the same thing by using a different method and that is a mining tax and a carbon dioxide tax. The ban on live cattle exports is also a part of their plan. The cost of maintaining the illegal boat people. The hare brain schemes to counter the "GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS" is all part of their plan demolish the Australian economy. 

I hope the link below is enough to kill the critics who insist Gillard would not do it. She and the Greens are doing it and have done so for some time. Glliard is full of deceit, lies and rhetoric and will stop at nothing to sustain her movement. 


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/the-watermelon-party-20100730-10zsb.html


----------



## Purple XS2 (24 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



awg said:


> ... what I find puzzling is what the Greens actually mean when they discuss "shutting down coal mining" or similar quotes.
> 
> ... some coal companies I held shares in got sold to Chinese state owned companies ... they mine the coal, export it to China, and keep the profits.
> ...
> ...




Australia, being the worlds biggest coal exporter, has a little problem: our local efforts to reduce CO2 emission mean diddlie-squat against the fact that we are a major agent in turning carbon in the ground into CO2 in the atmosphere by mining and selling it. Even were political will to arise to curtail coal mining/export; as awg says, there are strategic difficulties that may arise - Australia would be the first piece of real estate to change hands if/when the current geopolitical truce fails

So if greenhouse emissions and climate change is genuine, we're locked in to adding more fuel to the fire: not an enviable position, unless of course the whole greenhouse thing is just some silly hoax which will go away soon (which it isn't, and so it won't).

I'm not too confident about the Greens ability to assess anything in strategic terms, and I try this all the time because _ I'm one of them ..!!!_. Lucky for me that I've got rabid-greenie hating forums like this one to keep me grounded. 

From the inside I can offer the opinion that there's no marxist masonic alien conspiracy happening. Greenies are just a bit limited and narrow-minded: just like everybody else, in fact.

Discl: I am limited
Discl: I am narrow minded
How about you?


----------



## Ferret (25 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Noco,

Stop spouting rubbish.  Communism's day in the sun was half a century ago.  No one takes it seriously any more.


----------



## Logique (25 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



bandicoot76 said:


> ...they say that the lower SA lakes (alexadria)section of the river system is dying....but *fail to mention these lakes were originally salt water esturies that were only altered by the building of the massive concrete barrages in 1930s *to keep the seawater out of the lakes so as to change them to freshwater lakes...the water loss from evaporation of these shallow lakes is 1800 gigs per year (3x sydney harbours) of freshwater, that now comes from upstream sources, that should naturally be seawater...



Very interesting Bandicoot. Concrete barges are hardly natural environment.


----------



## noco (25 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Ferret said:


> Noco,
> 
> Stop spouting rubbish.  Communism's day in the sun was half a century ago.  No one takes it seriously any more.




Ok Ferret, can you explain to me why this Green/Labor government are still borrowing $135,000,000 per day? 

Why is this incompotent Green/Labor government still building Julia Gillard memorial halls and libraries three years after the GFC?  15 schools in Tasmania who received these overpriced buildings are to be closed by the state Green/Labor government next year.

Why is this Green/Labor government still spending tax payers money fixing the now defunct pink bats scheme?

Why is this Green/Labor government hell bent on closing coal mines and coal fired power stations? Don't tell me they are banking on using solar or wind power. That is a NO,NO when it comes to base load power.

Do you really believe the introduction of a Carbon dioxide tax will will have any affect on the climate? 

Do you not believe the Green/Labor carbon dioxide tax will send business overseas, will add to inflation and increase unemployment. 

Labor might be in government, but the Greens hold the power and come the 1st July the Greens will hold the balance of power in the senate.
This Green/Labor government have wasted billions of tax payers money which should  have been invested in better hospitals and infrastructure.

You obviously have not fully read the link provded as the intentions of this Green/Labor government and that is to destroy the economy of this great country of ours.
Do you really believe this Green/Labor government will have the economy back in surplus by 2012/13. If you do you must still believe in Santa Clause.


----------



## Ferret (25 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Sure, Noco.  I can answer all of those questions.

My answer is because they are a hopeless, incompetent government.

And your answer is because they are all communists hell-bent on destroying Australia.  

You haven't actually said why they would want to destroy Australia.  Is it because they are traitors working for some foreign power who they will run back to when the job is done?  Or do you think they are all such twisted individuals that they sought out leadership of the country just so that they could take delight in its destruction?


----------



## Calliope (25 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Ferret said:


> Or do you think they are all such twisted individuals that they sought out leadership of the country just so that they could take delight in its destruction?




I think you have accidently ferretted out the right answer.


----------



## drsmith (25 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Ferret said:


> Or do you think they are all such twisted individuals that they sought out leadership of the country just so that they could take delight in its destruction?



Closer to the truth is that the Greens are pursuing their idiological beliefs at the expense of Australia's economy.

Same for some within Labor, but in relation to power.

Overall though, the Greens though are cleverer. They are using Labor's quest to maintain power to get through their carbon tax. If it gets up, the Greens will have got what they want and it will be Labor who pays electorally.


----------



## noco (25 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Ferret said:


> Sure, Noco.  I can answer all of those questions.
> 
> My answer is because they are a hopeless, incompetent government.
> 
> ...




Ferret, my view is the ideology of Gillard and the Greens is to nationalize banks, mining, farming and manufacturing. It is a hidden agenda which these socialist do not want you to know about. They use the chicanery of the enviroment and grabing as much as they can from the "GREEDY" miners which they preach to the naive that they should have a share of the profits without any investment.

Their modus operandi is to run down the above mentioned to a point where they become unviable to operate. This is when socialist government move to have everything controlled by the state. It has failed in the past because of the lack of incentive for those placed in charge. Whitlam attempted to do it by 'BUYING BACK THE FARM'. He wanted to borrow billions of dollars from the Arabs to do it.

One of the first moves a socialist government makes is the control of communications and the media. This is becoming more evident in the Green/Labor Governments control of the ABC and Gillards clamp on Labor Ministers and back benchers from making statements before being veted by her. Her comrades are given their set lines daily and if they do not adhere to those lines they will be ostracised. Control of the media is a 'MUST' for socialist government. BTW don't forget the NBN and what goes through will eventually be controlled by this socialist government as well. They thrive on what ever propaganda they believe will have a psychological effect on ones mind.

Gillard is a self confessed atheist. Communism and religion are like chalk and cheese; they just don't mix.

All I say is, thanks goodness for our Westminster system which will put a stop to this government whether it be this year, next year or 2013. Fortunately, the majority of voters have seen through this government for what it stands for; just look at the polls!!!!!!! God help this country if ever we became a republic.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...sound-on-economy/story-e6frgd0x-1226081600286


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Ferret said:


> Noco,
> 
> Stop spouting rubbish.  Communism's day in the sun was half a century ago.  No one takes it seriously any more.



The Greens have publicly suggested that the CO2 issue may require a suspension of the democratic process or words to that effect. If that's not advocating communism then it's awfully close...


----------



## noco (25 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> The Greens have publicly suggested that the CO2 issue may require a suspension of the democratic process or words to that effect. If that's not advocating communism then it's awfully close...




I am beginning to believe the Greens have reached their peek and may now be in decline.

At the last federal election there were many naive voters who were dissatisfied with both major parties and without doing some research on the Greens for what they stood for, voted for them as an alternative. IMHO I now believe many of those voters regret their decision having new knowledge of how radical this party really has become.

A large majority of voters are unaware of the Greens connection with the United Nations who are keen to develope a world government and lets not forget Kevin Rudd is a part of that movement via the UN Climate Change committee. I still believe Rudd had ambitions of one day becoming UN Secretary General.


----------



## Calliope (26 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> The Greens have publicly suggested that the CO2 issue may require a suspension of the democratic process or words to that effect. If that's not advocating communism then it's awfully close...




Yes. Clive Hamilton, a leading Victorian Greenie said;



> The implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...or_the_grees_and_for_fear_and_less_democracy/


----------



## drsmith (26 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



> Clive Hamilton, a leading Victorian Greenie.......




He ran for the Federal seet of Higgins as a Green in 2009 when Peter Costello vacated.



> *Political career*
> 
> Hamilton campaigning in the seat of Higgins in 2009
> On 23 October 2009, Hamilton was announced as the Australian Greens candidate for the by-election in the federal seat of Higgins.[14] He ran against nine others for the seat, and came second, receiving 32.40 percent of primary votes and 39.77 percent of preferred votes.[15] The Australian Labor Party did not run a candidate in the election.
> ...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Hamilton


----------



## Aussiejeff (26 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> I am beginning to believe the Greens have reached their peek and *may now be in decline*.




Oh dear. They are just about to get control of the Senate in their own right for the first time in Australian political history and they are "declining" already?

Well, maybe once the Oz hoipoloi see what jiggery-pokery they get up to over the next year or so whilst a rampant senator Bob holds both major parties to ransom, the "real decline" will gather pace...


----------



## Calliope (26 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

If Labor have any survival instincts at all, they will combine with the Coalition to squash the Greens in the Senate. 

I saw Bob Brown on Insiders this morning, I never saw a man more confident of getting Labor to do his bidding. He speaks as though he is also spokesman for Labor


----------



## drsmith (26 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> I saw Bob Brown on Insiders this morning, I never saw a man more confident of getting Labor to do his bidding. He speaks as though he is also spokesman for Labor



With comments like the following, he has perhaps added more coal to the opposition's fire,



> Greens leader Bob Brown says ultimately the carbon price has to result in shutting down the coal industry.




Perhaps Julia Gillard could make the same offer to Bob Brown as she has to Tony Abbott regarding treasury assistance to cost tax policies,



> "I would not figure that in because they are so highly profitable. But, that has to be the outcome ... the coal industry has to be replaced by renewables," he said.




The numbers on how well Australia's economy would run exclusively on renewables would make for interesting reading.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/26/3253701.htm


----------



## Julia (26 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Aussiejeff said:


> Well, maybe once the Oz hoipoloi see what jiggery-pokery they get up to over the next year or so whilst a rampant senator Bob holds both major parties to ransom, the "real decline" will gather pace...






Calliope said:


> If Labor have any survival instincts at all, they will combine with the Coalition to squash the Greens in the Senate.
> 
> I saw Bob Brown on Insiders this morning, I never saw a man more confident of getting Labor to do his bidding. He speaks as though he is also spokesman for Labor



Agree with all remarks above.   I'd be surprised if many of those who either voted Greens or directed preferences to them are not regretting having done this.

Bob Brown is all the more dangerous because of the genial, oh-so-reasonable, calm persona he projects.  He's very successful at hiding his true agenda.

We can only hope the government and the opposition will vote together where necessary to prevent the Greens' whacko stuff holding sway.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

A remark from Larissa Waters, a young green spokesperson, was that ''Australians will have to prepare for a world that will not need our coal in 20 to 30 years''. 

Now that would be a large chunk of Queensland's export income and hundreds of thousands of jobs along with hundreds of businesses gone. There must be plans to go nuke in all the coal importing countries because renewables can't meet demand. 

I wonder what Bobby is scheming behind those shifty eyes?


----------



## explod (26 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Wysiwyg said:


> A remark from Larissa Waters, a young green spokesperson, was that ''Australians will have to prepare for a world that will not need our coal in 20 to 30 years''.
> 
> Now that would be a large chunk of Queensland's export income and hundreds of thousands of jobs along with hundreds of businesses gone. There must be plans to go nuke in all the coal importing countries because renewables can't meet demand.
> 
> I wonder what Bobby is scheming behind those shifty eyes?




Maybe this home self running generator will do the trick for everyone and it is a Qld invention too GG

http://www.magniwork.com/?hop=moneytea


----------



## wayneL (26 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> I saw Bob Brown on Insiders this morning, I never saw a man more confident of getting Labor to do his bidding. He speaks as though he is also spokesman for Labor




More and more I am warming to Paul Keating's comment regarding the Senate... "unrepresentative swill" IIRC.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Maybe this home self running generator will do the trick for everyone and it is a Qld invention too GG
> 
> http://www.magniwork.com/?hop=moneytea



A lack of professionalism is evident with your research. 



> Internet fraudsters are raking in thousands of dollars a day with an elaborate scam selling magnetic perpetual motion machines that are claimed to produce infinite free energy.
> 
> Since spring this year an operation called Magniwork has been selling a $50 DIY guide to building a perpetual motion device at home.




Sorry viewers. Had to clear up that one so let's be back on topic.


----------



## explod (26 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Wysiwyg said:


> A lack of professionalism is evident with your research.
> 
> 
> 
> .




Why?


----------



## Julia (26 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Although it's actually anything but funny, I had to laugh when I heard Bob Brown nominating himself as Treasury Spokesperson for the Greens.
God help us all if he, or any other Greens member for that matter, ever has any material say in the financial concerns of this country.


----------



## moXJO (27 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Although it's actually anything but funny, I had to laugh when I heard Bob Brown nominating himself as Treasury Spokesperson for the Greens.
> God help us all if he, or any other Greens member for that matter, ever has any material say in the financial concerns of this country.




lol the guy that went bankrupt. I don't think he personally has two coins to rub together.


----------



## bellenuit (28 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

*Greens would shut a coal industry worth $60bn in export revenues*

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-export-revenues/story-e6frg8zx-1226083073173


----------



## drsmith (28 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

What's spooked the ABC ?

Yesterday, the ABC reported the following in a news article,



> Greens leader Bob Brown says ultimately the carbon price has to result in shutting down the coal industry.




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20238&p=642037&viewfull=1#post642037

Today, that has been retracted to this,



> Senator Brown says a carbon pricing scheme will only cut "a few percentage points" off coal miners' profits.
> 
> However, he says coal *mines* ultimately have to close and be replaced by renewable energy industries.




plus this,



> Editor's note: An earlier version of this story reported Senator Brown as saying the carbon price would ultimately result in shutting down the coal industry. *Senator Brown says this was a misinterpretation of his comments.* Read the full transcript of his interview with Barrie Cassidy.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/26/3253701.htm

What Bob Brown said, according to The Insiders transcript,



> BOB BROWN: I would not figure that in because they are just so highly profitable.
> 
> But that has to be the outcome. You know the coal *industry* has to be replaced by renewables.




http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2011/s3253713.htm

On the video, he did infact say industry (~9min/20sec into video segment), so he was not misinterpreted in the ABC's original commentary.


----------



## noco (28 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> What's spooked the ABC ?
> 
> Yesterday, the ABC reported the following in a news article,
> 
> ...




As I have stated before, this Green/Labor socialist goverment, which is one step before communism, will always endeavour to control the media. That is a part of their modus operandi.


----------



## Bigukraine (29 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> What's spooked the ABC ?
> 
> Yesterday, the ABC reported the following in a news article,
> 
> ...




I think an article in "the aussie" may explain why..... Tom Albanese Rio Tinto chief exec was none to happy about Bobby boy's call for the coal industry to be shut down and said the statement was extreme.....

A phone call between office's  ...... ???? wouldn't surprise me


----------



## noco (29 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I have been saying for some time now, these Green Radicals, and I should include Rudd and Gillard are part of a world wide movement with the United Nations to form a world government. 
Is it likely to succeed? I hope not, but Bob Brown, who I might add has become very cocky in these last two days, is a strong advocate in this latest link.  

OMG, what are we headed for down the track?

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai..._the_control_the_citizens_will_actually_have/


----------



## bandicoot76 (29 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> I have been saying for some time now, these Green Radicals, and I should include Rudd and Gillard are part of a world wide movement with the United Nations to form a world government.
> Is it likely to succeed? I hope not, but Bob Brown, who I might add has become very cocky in these last two days, is a strong advocate in this latest link.
> 
> OMG, what are we headed for down the track?
> ...




keep your pantry stocked & your powder dry


----------



## Julia (29 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> I have been saying for some time now, these Green Radicals, and I should include Rudd and Gillard are part of a world wide movement with the United Nations to form a world government.
> Is it likely to succeed? I hope not, but Bob Brown, who I might add has become very cocky in these last two days, is a strong advocate in this latest link.
> 
> OMG, what are we headed for down the track?
> ...



 Mr Brown has indeed become very sure of himself as 1st July approaches.   I can't believe that he'd actually come out and state he wanted to see a world government.
Good god, does he have any slight handle on reality about anything!:


----------



## noco (29 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



bandicoot76 said:


> keep your pantry stocked & your powder dry




And your money under the bed.


----------



## noco (29 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Mr Brown has indeed become very sure of himself as 1st July approaches.   I can't believe that he'd actually come out and state he wanted to see a world government.
> Good god, does he have any slight handle on reality about anything!:




This Brown has become very cocky indeed and needs knocking off his high perch.

And make no mistake, Gillard and Rudd are up to their beady eyeballs in it. I just do not believe there is a rift between these two. They put on a good act together.

I still believe Rudd's assassination was a put up job in order to allow him 18 months travelling the world to gain popularity with world leaders. He has followed the same pattern as Ki-Moon did before he became UN Secretary General. Only problem is KI-Moon may seek another 5 year term, hence the reason Rudd is back testing the temperature of the water for a stint at the leadership of the Labor Party.

IMHO it has all back fired on Gillard/Rudd.


----------



## drsmith (29 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Julia Gillard's in office, but who's in power ?


----------



## drsmith (29 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



noco said:


> This Brown has become very cocky indeed and needs knocking off his high perch.
> 
> And make no mistake, Gillard and Rudd are up to their beady eyeballs in it. I just do not believe there is a rift between these two. They put on a good act together.



To me, that's half right. Labor is jumping around with the information release date while Bob Brown is looking in control of the whole process. This to me is very damaging for Labor and the Greens know it.

Labor is dancing like a cat on a hot tin roof and it's the Greens providing the solar power. I suspect Bob Brown knows exactly what he's doing and the Labor leadership are yet to wake up to it.


----------



## ChrisJH (29 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

What's so bad about a world government?


----------



## wayneL (30 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



ChrisJH said:


> What's so bad about a world government?




For a preview - see the EU.


----------



## Ruby (30 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> Julia Gillard's in office, but who's in power ?






drsmith said:


> To me, that's half right. Labor is jumping around with the information release date while Bob Brown is looking in control of the whole process. This to me is very damaging for Labor and the Greens know it.
> 
> Labor is dancing like a cat on a hot tin roof and it's the Greens providing the solar power. I suspect Bob Brown knows exactly what he's doing and the Labor leadership are yet to wake up to it.




Dr S, I agree with you.  Brown is the de facto PM, with a gun in Gillard's back.  That is why he looks so smug all the time.   I think he is starting to suffer from delusions of grandeur.  He wants a world government, led by Australia (if I heard correctly), and I presume that means him.  He wants to shut down coal mines, but we can't have nuclear power.................. he's in a fantasy land


----------



## Bigukraine (30 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I think a JFK moment needs to happen to our political system to pull these clowns into line and show them they can't run around and do as they please and assassinate Australia's industry........

You may think it radical but look at the road these koala's are taking us......cull one and the rest might pull their heads in......

I can't do it ,i have a thing for dumb animals::


----------



## jancha (30 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Bigukraine said:


> I think a JFK moment needs to happen to our political system to pull these clowns into line and show them they can't run around and do as they please and assassinate Australia's industry........
> 
> You may think it radical but look at the road these koala's are taking us......cull one and the rest might pull their heads in......
> 
> I can't do it ,i have a thing for dumb animals::




If you cant do it because you have a thing for dumb animals you'd have to be supporting the ban on cattle export!!!!!!!
 The Government's a joke. Stuff up after stuff up.


----------



## noco (30 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I say to all those who voted for these mongrel GREENS, you will rue the day.

The majority who did vote for the GREENS had no idea what they stood for and there ultimate aim for Australia.

Don't forget the UNITED NATIONS are pro GREEN with a hidden agenda. They have proven absolutely useless over the years.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...l-cost-us-dearly/story-e6frg6zo-1226084437366


----------



## Julia (30 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

With the Greens about to acquire balance of power in the Senate, why are journalists not applying the blowtorch to Greens' policies, with particular emphasis to economic issues?

I can recall just one interview in the whole year so far on 7.30 where Chris Urhlman took a reasonably stringent approach in an interview with Mr Brown.  Mr Brown did not like it at all and was having trouble controlling his discomfort.

Before their delusions of power and grandeur become too overblown, some public scrutiny by the media should be putting them on the spot and demanding answers.
Just one vital question would do for a start: i.e. they want to close down the coal fired power stations and "replace them with renewables".  OK, fine.  Let them provide  a cost benefit analysis of so doing and specific detail of what renewables, where, and to what effect.
Should be a piece of cake.


----------



## trainspotter (30 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I am all for "renewable energy" to solve our problems. Unfortunately we do not have the technology or the efficiency to cut it at the moment. Instead of propping up a crumbling tax regime by penalising the primary producer why don't they invest in the technology to resolve the issue at hand?

Oh wait ....... we tried with the solar scheme ...... FAIL +++++


----------



## drsmith (30 June 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Ruby said:


> Dr S, I agree with you.  Brown is the de facto PM, with a gun in Gillard's back.  That is why he looks so smug all the time.   I think he is starting to suffer from delusions of grandeur.  He wants a world government, led by Australia (if I heard correctly), and I presume that means him.  He wants to shut down coal mines, but we can't have nuclear power.................. he's in a fantasy land



There will be no escape for Labor under the government he leads.


----------



## Bigukraine (1 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



jancha said:


> If you cant do it because you have a thing for dumb animals you'd have to be supporting the ban on cattle export!!!!!!!
> The Government's a joke. Stuff up after stuff up.




just because i can't do it doesn't mean i don't like eating them


----------



## moXJO (1 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

So I noticed Bob Brown is now PM.....

Saw a hardcore labor mate at the bank and mentioned the above. He then began jumping up and down in line telling me how much he hated the Greens and how labor is way off track. Was comical too watch and I was lol in line. The lady in front was looking at him with a kind of stunned look, and the bank manager (who is also a friend) yelled out to him that labor voters have to line up outside. 

Shame elections are so far off


----------



## sails (3 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Looks like labor are not going to help Bob Brown get to the lodge:

From the Age by Farrah Tomazin: Labor to rethink deals with Greens



> LABOR will rethink doing preference deals with the Greens in Victoria, after a review of the Brumby government's election defeat questioned their value.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I just had a vision of Julia sitting in the palm of Bob's hands. You know what I mean.


----------



## tinhat (4 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Love them or loath them, the fact is the Greens are currently the only political party in Australia with a clear philosophy and a leadership possessing conviction.


----------



## Calliope (4 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



tinhat said:


> Love them or loath them, the fact is the Greens are currently the only political party in Australia with a clear philosophy and a leadership possessing conviction.




Quite so. The problem is that their philosophy and conviction are not in Australia's interest.


----------



## sails (4 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



tinhat said:


> Love them or loath them, the fact is the Greens are currently the only political party in Australia with a clear philosophy and a leadership possessing conviction.




To destroy our major industries so there are no jobs left?  To have has go back to the dark ages and have us without reliable power? Yeah, the policies are very clear..

And you might need your tin hat (figuratively speaking) because Aussies are not going to put up with this rubbish.  There is rising anger.  People are talking freely about politics, even strangers.  I don't think I have ever witnessed politics to quickly become the topic of conversation - and apart from a few die-hards on forums - the consensus is that Gillard with her greens and indies have to go ASAP for the sake of the country.


----------



## noco (4 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

The Greens have out smarted those Labor goons and now they are starting to realise their mistake.
Do some research on Lee Rhiannon. She is a communist through and through.


----------



## noco (4 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

OMG, where are we heading to with these radical Greens. The power has gone to their brainless heads already. 

Be  AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID with this radical group of loonies.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/talk-of-power-too-taxing/story-e6frerex-1226086693179


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> And you might need your tin hat (figuratively speaking) because Aussies are not going to put up with this rubbish.  There is rising anger.  People are talking freely about politics, even strangers.  I don't think I have ever witnessed politics to quickly become the topic of conversation - and apart from a few die-hards on forums - the consensus is that Gillard with her greens and indies have to go ASAP for the sake of the country.



It is an unusual time indeed when politics is mainstream conversation just about everywhere as it is right now. And the biggest issue by far is, of course, the carbon tax.

Based on my own observations, I would agree that people are starting to become outright angry toward this government and that is something I don't recall ever seing before on such a scale in this country. It's not at all hard to find blue collar workers completely disillusioned with Labor selling them out. 

As a labourer (long term Labor voter and a union member) said to me today, the next election can't come quickly enough and they will be voting Liberal for the first time ever. As they put it, Liberal may well look after the rich but Labor and the Greens are destroying nationally important industries and that's going to hurt an awful lot of ordinary workers. As another person put it, they are going to completely wreck this country financially and we will not see a recovery in our lifetime.

The only other time I'm aware of this sort of widespread community feeling and outright hatred toward individuals was during the dams debate in Tasmania 30 years ago. Worth mentioning since that was essentially the same issue as the carbon tax (ie power generation) and it's what first put Bob Brown into parliament. The only difference now is that we're talking about the whole country rather than just screwing one state.


----------



## Julia (4 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

The Greens only have the balance of power in the Senate when the government and the opposition do not vote together.

So if the Greens were to fulfil the potential for damage which they're showing already, the government would have to oppose their proposed legislation and hope the Coalition will do likewise, in the national interest.

However, this raises the question of what is going to be the main driver of opposition behaviour from now on.  Will it truly be in the national interest, or rather an attitude toward the government of "you got yourself into this diabolical situation and we will not help you get out of it" even if this means the best interests of Australia and its people are badly served as a result?

i.e. wouldn't it be fairly natural for the Coalition to want to see the government's stakes fall even further as community anger mounts, thus ensuring the electorate views the Coalition as more definitely the saviour?

They're all politicians first, and guardians of the best interests of Australians second, imo.

Interested in how others see this.


----------



## bandicoot76 (4 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> The Greens only have the balance of power in the Senate when the government and the opposition do not vote together.
> 
> So if the Greens were to fulfil the potential for damage which they're showing already, the government would have to oppose their proposed legislation and hope the Coalition will do likewise, in the national interest.
> 
> ...




+1!  spot on post julia! the majority of pollies from both parties are just pigs with their snout in the trough @ our expense!


----------



## Calliope (5 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

The forces of evil. A black day for Australia.


----------



## Calliope (5 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

It makes you wonder about the ethical standards of Green voters when they vote in such a nasty character as Lee Rhiannon to the Senate.



> *New Greens senator Lee Rhiannon continued to attract controversy, with union boss Paul Howes accusing her of misrepresenting his past politics in a weekend interview in an effort to distract attention from her own hardline pro-Moscow communist past.*
> 
> Senator Rhiannon claimed the Australian Workers Union head had shut down the operations of the NSW Treasury as part of an occupation when he was a young Trotskyite activist.
> 
> ...



(my bolds)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-on-carbon-price/story-fn59niix-1226087511787


----------



## drsmith (5 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Sarah Hanson-Young reckons Whyalla can thrive on wind.



> But yesterday, on the day the Australian Greens took the balance of power in the Senate, Senator Hanson-Young declared Whyalla would thrive without the steelworks that has sustained the industrial city since the 1960s.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rah-hanson-young/story-fn59niix-1226087508211


----------



## mexican (5 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> Sarah Hanson-Young reckons Whyalla can thrive on wind.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rah-hanson-young/story-fn59niix-1226087508211




And what material is used to make the wind farms?


----------



## Bigukraine (5 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> Sarah Hanson-Young reckons Whyalla can thrive on wind.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rah-hanson-young/story-fn59niix-1226087508211




I had a good read of the story and must say my jaw dropped.....stupid uni arts degree girl (sorry hope i don't offend and if i did....) so she can back up her comment with the wind data around whyalla over the last 50 years that would back her claim and i bet see doesn't know about the solar array that is being built across the road from one steel, that i have seen and appears to be a renewable project for the area...(can't remember the co or where exact it will be set up but have driven past many times) and why can't there be a transition and assistance to one steel to supplying steel to the renewables....engineering firms could start up and manf. them..... job creation sh%@ what a radical idea that is:twak:


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



mexican said:


> And what material is used to make the wind farms?



Jarrah trees and palm fronds.


----------



## joea (5 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> Sarah Hanson-Young reckons Whyalla can thrive on wind.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rah-hanson-young/story-fn59niix-1226087508211




IMO if you give her a microphone, she will keep a relatively large wind farm in operation!!!
jiea


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> It makes you wonder about the ethical standards of Green voters when they vote in such a nasty character as Lee Rhiannon to the Senate.




Well either there is a large Leninist minority in Oz... or a large "let's save the world" naivette.


----------



## DB008 (5 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

With all this power going to his head (Bob Brown), be careful not to piss him off....

Something like this might happen to you one day....(abuse of powers)

http://www.ianpuddick.com/


----------



## drsmith (5 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



joea said:


> IMO if you give her a microphone, she will keep a relatively large wind farm in operation!!!
> jiea



That's no good as there would be a high concentration of CO2 going past the blades.

Oops,

Sorry,

Greens don't exhale CO2.


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> Greens don't exhale CO2.




Plenty of methane and hydrogen sulphide however.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> Sarah Hanson-Young reckons Whyalla can thrive on wind.



This alone shoots the whole thing to pieces.

Whyalla will thrive on wind (supposedly).

And the steel will be produced overseas instead, meaning that emissions have simply been relocated from one country to another. Add in the extra shipping and the end result is emissions go up, not down.

A fantastic plan to increase emissions. Not even the most ardent coal supporter would go that far...


----------



## drsmith (5 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> Whyalla will thrive on wind (supposedly).



If not, it can always be renamed Brown Town, although it might be a challenge to build a log cabin from local timbers.


----------



## trainspotter (5 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

The wind is coming from the east at about 5 knots per hour and out of Bob Browns @rse at about 20. That should keep the fans spinning for a looooooong time.



> Brown's brimming confidence and new sense of power even inspired him to challenge Queensland Labor's John Hogg for the job of Senate President - a genuinely choice job which includes some of the best digs in Parliament, rooms so palatial they're used by the* Queen when she visits*.




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-labor-look-weak/story-e6frerdf-1226087701411

How fitting.


----------



## Julia (5 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



> Brown's brimming confidence and new sense of power even inspired him to challenge Queensland Labor's John Hogg for the job of Senate President - a genuinely choice job which includes some of the best digs in Parliament, rooms so palatial they're used by the Queen when she visits.



I couldn't believe that when I read it.  Mr Brown is starting to have seriously troubling delusions of grandeur.  It might be a while before he is disabused of this, but oh, how I'm looking forward to it when it happens.


----------



## wayneL (6 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



> Brown's brimming confidence and new sense of power even inspired him to challenge Queensland Labor's John Hogg for the job of Senate President - a genuinely choice job which includes some of the best digs in Parliament, rooms so palatial they're used by the Queen when she visits.




And no doubt with an equally impressive carbon footprint to run it.

Shivering in dark caves doesn't apply to alarmists as we see time and time again.


----------



## Aussiejeff (6 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> And no doubt with an equally impressive carbon footprint to run it.
> 
> Shivering in dark caves doesn't apply to alarmists as we see time and time again.




Apparently alarm calls from Green sentries are devined to echo better from the vantage of Ivory Towers.....


----------



## Calliope (6 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Bob Brown wants to bring our troops back from Afghanistan. Gillard and Stephen Smith both said yesterday that it was in the "national interest"  that they remain there. They don't say, but I suppose the "national interest" is to cozy up to America. 

This does not sit too well with Bob Brown who hates America. I wouldn't bet on us staying the distance.


----------



## noco (8 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I mentioned in one of my previous posts I believed the Greens had reached their peak.

The link below offers some hope these radicals will be eliminated in the next 3 to 4 years.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...es-to-kill-party/story-fn59niix-1226090170951


----------



## Logique (14 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

This deal tells you everything about the Greens. Having relentlessly attacked the logging industry in Tasmania, two Greens now pick up the Triabunna mill - for $6M less than what somebody else was prepared to pay.

Suddenly, the evil mill site is now suitable for '..making way for a wine and tourism development at the prime coastal site, which has a deep harbour suitable for cruise ships..'

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...s-native-forests/story-fn59niix-1226094217303
Logging off: mill deal saves native forests 
Self-made multi-millionaires Jan Cameron and Graeme Wood yesterday bought the Triabunna native forest woodchip export mill on Tasmania's east coast from timber giant Gunns for $10 million.


----------



## explod (14 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

As a former ALP member I got to know dear Mr Newnham.  He is a very right wing upstart who has managed to marginalise a lot of grass roots, particularly rural ALP members, and is one of the reasons many conservative ALP members over the last five years left and joined the Greens.

He is not well liked throughout the ALP and is seen as a self interested opportunist.  I would pay scant attention to his take.

I have recently noted growing support among the very young and older people for the Greens in this very conservative (Liberal) Mornington Peninsula area.  Remember meetings where half a dozen would turn up at the most, now we see up to fifty and we are not in election mode.  That never happened down here for the ALP, maybe 25 just prior to an election.  The Greens are becoming eager and *active*
The noise about the Greens is about the fear that they are indeed gaining a grip on the political landscape in Australia and all the foot stamping (and a lot of it on ASF) is not going to change that.  The ALP and the Liberals have lost the knack of giving people a vision and lead on the changes that are going to be needed in this very fast changing world.

And having worked for many years on polling booths and as a scruitineer I know it would go very much against the grain, regardless of the party ticket, for a Liberal to give labor second preference and vice versa ALP to preference a Lib.

The nature of political allegiance in many cases goes back generations. 

But anyway, wish ya all luck.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Logique said:


> This deal tells you everything about the Greens. Having relentlessly attacked the logging industry in Tasmania, two Greens now pick up the Triabunna mill - for $6M less than what somebody else was prepared to pay.
> 
> Suddenly, the evil mill site is now suitable for '..making way for a wine and tourism development at the prime coastal site, which has a deep harbour suitable for cruise ships..'
> 
> ...



The demise of the Tasmanian paper manufacturing industry, once a world leader, says it all in terms of what the Greens are really about.

Established in 1938, Burnie Mill was the first mill in the world to manufacture high quality paper using eucalypt pulp. The mill was a huge success, and by the 1970's was running 10 production lines employing literally a quarter of the entire population of Burnie. Meanwhile a second plant had been establised at Wesley Vale. At that time and well into the 1980's the mill continued to be a world leader technically.

By the late 1980's it was readily apparent that the original pulping equipment installed at Burnie was near the end of its useful life. In adddition, it was the direct cause of the infamous water and air pollution for which Burnie was well known.

And so the company announced its grand plan. Build a brand new, state of the art pulp production facility at Wesley Vale alongside the paper mill which had been built there in the 70's. Once built, the new pulp mill would supply pulp to both paper mills (Burnie and Wesley Vale) and enable further development of paper manufacturing at Burnie through use of the space then occupied by pulping operations. Wesley Vale's paper production could also then be modernised in due course.

To cut a long story short, Christine Milne got involved and the new pulp mill at Wesley Vale was never built. Due to that, pulping at Burnie continued far longer than it otherwise would, at great cost environmentally, until the late 1990's at which point it had become simply impractical to continue (uneconomic operation, machinery worn out etc). 

Then in 2010 the end finally came. Paper production, which had been running on imported pulp, finally ceased at both Burnie and Wesley Vale and the mills will ultimately be demolished (or at best might be used as a warehouse or something like that). A once nationally important industry gone forever, to be replaced with imports. And of course, no prizes for guessing that North-West Tasmania is an unemployment hot spot...

Amidst all that was the massive expansion of woodchipping. I'm no fan of that industry (a point on which I'll agree with the Greens), but the reasons for that expansion need to be understood. The industry was focused on paper and timber for construction. The state once had 4 pulp mills feeding 3 paper mills (running a total of 14 production lines)  and countless sawmills which provided massive employment using relatively modest amounts of wood. 

Faced with no ability to usefully invest in ongoing paper production, the focus shifted to simply selling wood to overseas mills. But just selling raw wood doesn't bring in a lot of money or employ too many people, hence the massive expansion of logging and destruction of forests - a high volume, low margin strategy. And now that too has become unviable due partly to the Greens and partly because it simply isn't a viable business strategy in the long term now that local manufacturing is gone.

Ultimately, we have swapped a world leading paper manufacturing industry for a simple logging operation and then nothing. The saw mills are nearly all gone. The only paper mill still in operation is the newsprint mill which processes pine. The forests were trashed for low returns as a result, and now we're left with nothing.

Simply continuing with local manufacturing would have been a much better outcome both economically and environmentally. It wasn't what the Greens or Labor wanted however...


----------



## Calliope (15 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> The noise about the Greens is about the fear that they are indeed gaining a grip on the political landscape in Australia and all the foot stamping (and a lot of it on ASF) is not going to change that.  The ALP and the Liberals have lost the knack of giving people a vision and lead on the changes that are going to be needed in this very fast changing world.




There  is no greater enemy to the Australian economy than your party, the Greens. It boggles the mind that anyone with one iota of intelligence cold support a policy hell-bent on destroying  Australia's fossil fuel industry. Without it we would be another Greece. Try to get your head around this argument, put by Greg Sheridan in The Australian.



> If ever there were a single country in the entire world spectacularly unsuited to be the sole imposer of a vast, unprecedented carbon tax, which no other country in the world is remotely duplicating, it is Australia.
> 
> * Isolated from our strategic friends, far distant from our biggest markets, a member of no natural trading bloc or customs union, we have just one serious, competitive advantage in the global economy.
> 
> That is the abundance of our fossil fuel endowments. If ever there were a nation well advised to move slowly and carefully on policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions, we are it.*




*If you can refute this argument be my guest*. In my opinion these economic illiterates, Brown and Milne are a disgrace. They know as well as you should, that the technology doesn't exist that could replace fossil fuels by renewable energy economically.


----------



## Julia (15 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> *If you can refute this argument be my guest*. In my opinion these economic illiterates, Brown and Milne are a disgrace. They know as well as you should, that the technology doesn't exist that could replace fossil fuels by renewable energy economically.



I completely agree.  The media are totally failing us by not insisting on answers from Brown and Milne about exactly where baseload power would come from if coal fired sources were eliminated.  They are being allowed to get away with airy fairy assertions like "oh, there's huge scope for renewables", whereupon the journalist smiles happily and seems to consider his/her job done.  Pathetic.


----------



## sails (15 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> I completely agree.  The media are totally failing us by not insisting on answers from Brown and Milne about exactly where baseload power would come from if coal fired sources were eliminated.  They are being allowed to get away with airy fairy assertions like "oh, there's huge scope for renewables", whereupon the journalist smiles happily and seems to consider his/her job done.  Pathetic.





I think Brown and co are very selective in choosing the media to whom they will speak.  They don't want these hard questions, so it's easier to ignore the ones who might ask hard questions.

It seems that none of them (including ALP MPs) will touch Andrew Bolt's TV show - they seem too scared of being asked some of these questions that desperately need answers.


----------



## springhill (15 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

How's this for a few coconuts short of a hawaiian party?

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/48173

The green *left*? How much further left can they go?

My favourite quote is 'Without Green Left Weekly, freedom of press and public truth-telling in Australia would be gravely ill.' John Pilger.


----------



## RandR (15 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> I completely agree.  The media are totally failing us by not insisting on answers from Brown and Milne *about exactly where baseload power would come from if coal fired sources were eliminated.  They are being allowed to get away with airy fairy assertions like "oh, there's huge scope for renewables", whereupon the journalist smiles happily and seems to consider his/her job done.  Pathetic*.




You mean this plan ?

http://www.zerocarbonplan.org/

Here is a transcript of Liberal Party MP malcolm turnbull endorsing the plan ...

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2953913.htm

Mr Turnbull says a new report shows how the technology exists to move Australia into a zero-carbon future but there needs to be *public and political will to put it into action*.

In fact, Bob Carr and Malcolm Turnbull both spoke at the launch of this plan ... there not greens ...

I bolded the bit above because I think when he talks about public and political will, what he really means specifically is whether or not people are content with paying for it. 

The idea of a non fossil based energy source appeals to the vast majority of people, but the idea of paying for it, does not.


----------



## trainspotter (15 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

We all will be paying for *"it"* in the long run if we don't do something. The carbon tax money should not be compensating the proletariat or the business's who ultimately discharge the stuff. Every cent should be invested in renewable energy resources.


----------



## sails (15 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



RandR said:


> ...Here is a transcript of Liberal Party MP malcolm turnbull endorsing the plan ...
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2953913.htm...




This is interesting from the above link:



> TONY JONES: Well the Federal Government is believed to be finalising its climate policy for release in the immediate future.




RandR, that interview is dated the 14/07/2010 which was only weeks before the federal election in August.  That sounds like Gillard had every intention of bringing this carbon tax in which, if so, makes her famous carbon tax lie a very deliberate lie.

Turnbull also mentions the purchase of "offsets". Obviously banks are going to do well out of this and I guess explains Turnbull's stance on it.

*How on earth does purchasing offsets or abatements from other countries actually reduce the co2 in the earth's atmosphere?*


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



springhill said:


> The green *left*? How much further left can they go



This mob have been around for a long time now. They're nothing new.

Other associated organisations and names used include:

Democratic Socialist Party (DSP)

S11 (September 11, a term used well before 2001 and presumably (?) unrelated to the events of that date)

M1 (May 1) 

Perhaps the most successful activity of the group thus far is to cover every electrical box, rubbish bin, light pole and other surface around capital city centres with S11 / M1 posters. The posters are paper and applied using glue, thus making them virtually impossible to remove. Councils and other authorities used to spend a small fortune dealing with this group back in the 1990's due to this activity.


----------



## Julia (15 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> I think Brown and co are very selective in choosing the media to whom they will speak.  They don't want these hard questions, so it's easier to ignore the ones who might ask hard questions.
> 
> It seems that none of them (including ALP MPs) will touch Andrew Bolt's TV show - they seem too scared of being asked some of these questions that desperately need answers.



Yep, correct, sails.  I'm amused at Ms Gillard labelling some media reporting as "crap" (she is using language to match her shrewish tone of voice and it does not at all become her), and Wayne Swan accusing some of the print media as having unreasonable bias.

I note he has never so castigated the ABC, particularly Radio National, for its oh so obvious Left bias.
That must be, um, 'different'.

They are so pathetic.  If the Murdoch press were to be lauding their ideas, would we be hearing claims of bias?  I don't think so.
Again, the government are giving the electorate far too little credit for basic intelligence and comprehension of their shoddy thinking.


----------



## drsmith (16 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Bob Brown won't be happy when he picks up The Australian today.



> The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will be a lender of last resort to every otherwise financially untenable green scheme Brown and his cronies decide to fund.




Neither will Julia Gillard, but there's too much material in that article to quote.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ng-of-labors-end/story-e6frgd0x-1226095563597


----------



## Logique (25 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Now they're blockading the stores.

http://www.southcoastregister.com.au/news/local/news/general/store-blockaded/2236500.aspx
Store blockaded
25 Jul, 2011 
"*Conservationists blocked Nowra’s Harvey Norman store on Saturday morning as they launched a campaign to stop the retailer using native forests to make furniture*.
Barricades were put in front of the main entrance, with wires connected to a lamp post in the car park from which an activist was suspended......However the protest has been condemned by the Australian Forest Products Association, which said the protestors ignored the facts of Australia’s timber industry. “If these groups were real environmentalists, they would be promoting the use of Australia’s forests and our world’s best practice scientific management,” said AFPA spokesperson Allan Hansard.."


----------



## Logique (25 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Dissent is not tolerated.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ced-over-boycott/story-fn59niix-1226100912806 Greens red-faced over boycott - Leo Shanahan, From: The Australian July 25, 2011

AN attempt by Greens on the Sydney City Council to boycott businesses supporting an anti-carbon-tax campaign has backfired.  Greens councillor Chris Harris was left red-faced after it emerged the council was itself a member of a business chamber he wanted to boycott.......But it has been revealed that the council itself is a member of the NSW Business Chamber, a member of the anti-carbon-tax alliance.

The NSW Business Chamber labelled the move by the Greens as "*political intimidation*".


----------



## Bigukraine (25 July 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Logique said:


> Dissent is not tolerated.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ced-over-boycott/story-fn59niix-1226100912806 Greens red-faced over boycott - Leo Shanahan, From: The Australian July 25, 2011
> 
> ...




typical put mouth in gear and left brain in neutral.......:bonk::bonk:


----------



## drsmith (18 August 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Dear Mr Ferguson,

If you don't like your bed partners, either kick them out or crawl out yourselves.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...power-generation/story-fn59niix-1226117058621


----------



## mexican (18 August 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5f2RMc4e5s


----------



## wayneL (18 August 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



mexican said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5f2RMc4e5s




ROTFL!


----------



## Julia (18 August 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> ROTFL!



 +1.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 September 2011)

*The Greens*

What do they stand for?

Are they Watermelon, red on the inside , green on the outer.

What is their short term agenda?

What is their long term agenda?

I have only known one green and she was a decent person 

I am not impressed by their agenda as portrayed in the left (ABC, The Age) and the right (Australian) media.

Who are they, and what do they stand for?

gg


----------



## Sean K (8 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*

They have only a limited, vague objectives GG.

None of which are long term beneficial to human kind. 

Nice short term warm and fuzzies though.

If we followed green/left wing policies there would be about 500 bil people on the planet scavenging for bits.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*

These are their 4 Core Beliefs

Ecological sustainability
Grassroots participatory democracy
Social justice
Peace and non-violence



gg


----------



## Sean K (8 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> These are their 4 Core Beliefs
> 
> Ecological sustainability
> Grassroots participatory democracy
> ...



Yes, but that is the outcome of what policy?

Their policies may not result in that outcome. 

What is a policy of the Greens that would result in 'peace' for eg?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



kennas said:


> Yes, but that is the outcome of what policy?
> 
> Their policies may not result in that outcome.
> 
> What is a policy of the Greens that would result in 'peace' for eg?




I would agree Kennas,

Their policy on Israel/Palestine for example seems a bit one-eyed.

I have Zionist and Palestinian friends who view their policy with alarm and delight respectively.

gg


----------



## Calliope (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



kennas said:


> Y
> What is a policy of the Greens that would result in 'peace' for eg?




Same sex marriage? Perhaps not. War usually breaks out after the nuptials.


----------



## jimmyizgod (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*

to be fair, what are the policies of the labour or liberal parties, and how do they achieve their goals?
damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## explod (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



> NOTICE OF SPECIAL STATE CONFERENCE
> 11 NOVEMBER TO 10 DECEMBER 2011
> 
> This is official notice to all members of the Australian Greens Victoria (AGV) that there will be a Special State Conference between 11 November and 10 December 2011.  The purpose of the Special State Conference is to vote on proposed amendments to the AGV Constitution presented by the Constitutional Review Panel.




The Greens are now only getting down to tin tacks with membership growing and political representation now at a level where it is possible to contemplate a real place.

I can assure you all that there are growing branches of specialist committees into all facits on social and political fronts.  It all takes time as this party endeavours to repesent the ideas and views of as many members as possible.

By the time of the next normal round of a Federal Election we should see greater clarity.

Interesting to see this subject allowed on the main ASF page, or am I missing something?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



explod said:


> The Greens are now only getting down to tin tacks with membership growing and political representation now at a level where it is possible to contemplate a real place.
> 
> I can assure you all that there are growing branches of specialist committees into all facits on social and political fronts.
> 
> Interesting to see this subject allowed on the main ASF page, or am I missing something?




Perhaps more worrying explod, is that if the Greens ever did gain government, discussion such as this may well not be allowed on ASF, or anywhere else.

1984 beckons.

Be wary of that which you wish for.


gg


----------



## Logique (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*

The simplest way to think of the Greens is as the world's perpetual Year 10 students. Many people, not just Greens, like the teenage years so much that they decide to stay there for the rest of their lives. 

The cliched line is that some of my best friends are..etc, but that is indeed the case with me. I just find their politics bizarre.

Also I think of the Greens as the children of the upper middle class, which they very often are. Run back to Daddy's money afterwards. Too bad for the timber workers, hydro workers and miners, they're out of work.


----------



## sptrawler (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



Logique said:


> The simplest way to think of the Greens is as the world's perpetual Year 10 students. Many people, not just Greens, like the teenage years so much that they decide to stay there for the rest of their lives.
> 
> The cliched line is that some of my best friends are..etc, but that is indeed the case with me. I just find their politics bizarre.
> 
> Also I think of the Greens as the children of the upper middle class, which they very often are. Run back to Daddy's money afterwards. Too bad for the timber workers, hydro workers and miners, they're out of work.




They always want to appear caring, as long as it doesn't affect them. I don't see Bob Brown calling for a detention centre in Tasmania, no lets put them in S.A and W.A.
Tasmania would be an obvious choice for a detention centre it would give employment to a lot of people that the Greens have put out of work.


----------



## medicowallet (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



Logique said:


> The simplest way to think of the Greens is as the world's perpetual Year 10 students. Many people, not just Greens, like the teenage years so much that they decide to stay there for the rest of their lives.
> 
> The cliched line is that some of my best friends are..etc, but that is indeed the case with me. I just find their politics bizarre.
> 
> Also I think of the Greens as the children of the upper middle class, which they very often are. Run back to Daddy's money afterwards. Too bad for the timber workers, hydro workers and miners, they're out of work.




This explains it very very well.

Also explains why the greens and labor get the young person vote, then as people mature and realise that the world is not changeable, they go liberal, because that is the best thing for us and the world.

eg (and hopefully this doesn't go off topic) if we have a great economy, we can afford renewable energy. If we root up the economy for religous or crazy scientist beliefs, we cannot afford renewable energy.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



Logique said:


> Also I think of the Greens as the children of the upper middle class, which they very often are. Run back to Daddy's money afterwards. Too bad for the timber workers, hydro workers and miners, they're out of work.




Kim Beazley Snr. said that the modern Labor Party had the dregs of the middle class, perhaps the Greens have the dregs of the upper class.

An interesting article which explores this dynamic can be found here.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/muehlenberg/2010/08/australia-s-new-class



> His entire article is well worth reading. And keep this in mind: if you think things are now bad in the Labor Party, just wait until its leap into bed with the Greens comes to full fruition. Talk about an oppressive New Class warring against the masses. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet./QUOTE]
> 
> Ho hum.
> 
> gg


----------



## Logique (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*

Great article GG.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/mue...ia-s-new-class
"...Kim Beazley Sr. famously took a strong stance against this madness... '..And what I want to know is when you middle class perverts are going to stop using the Labor Party as a spiritual spitoon.'"


----------



## explod (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Perhaps more worrying explod, is that if the Greens ever did gain government, discussion such as this may well not be allowed on ASF, or anywhere else.
> 
> 1984 beckons.
> 
> ...




Rubbish.  Your scaremongering reminds me of the Liberals under Menzies and that there were commos everywhere, and pray for the conversion of Russia, yet the years that followed saw some of the best for this nation and exports to these so called devils were a big part of it.

How could we ever forget "Pig Ion Bob" who sold material to the Japs so that they could drop bombs on us.

One of the great things about you GG is that you make a lot of noise with little or no substance.

The Greens consist of ordinary Australians looking for better grass roots representation in Government, better education, public transport, public hospitals and non-involvement in the domestic issues of other countries, ie. war to protect the oil and gas fields for the Septic tanks and the production of arms for all sides.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



explod said:


> Rubbish.  Your scaremongering reminds me of the Liberals under Menzies and that there were commos everywhere, and pray for the conversion of Russia, yet the years that followed saw some of the best for this nation and exports to these so called devils were a big part of it.
> 
> How could we ever forget "Pig Ion Bob" who sold material to the Japs so that they could drop bombs on us.
> 
> ...




Good on you explod, your last paragraph would fit well with LNP and ALP dogma, so the Greens do not necessarily have the high ground.

What they do have though are Watermelon Greens, with a different agenda from those with green aspirations. And they are organised. And they will win out at your "peoples forums". 

gg


----------



## medicowallet (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



explod said:


> The Greens consist of ordinary Australians looking for better grass roots representation in Government, better education, public transport, public hospitals and non-involvement in the domestic issues of other countries, ie. war to protect the oil and gas fields for the Septic tanks and the production of arms for all sides.




And if the children pray enough, the earthmother will provide the money to do all of this.


----------



## explod (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> What they do have though are Watermelon Greens, with a different agenda from those with green aspirations. And they are organised. And they will win out at your "peoples forums".
> 
> gg




Care to elaborate on the meaning of "Watermelon Greens" and the distinction of the "green aspera..."nts ?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



explod said:


> Care to elaborate on the meaning of "Watermelon Greens" and the distinction of the "green aspera..."nts ?




No worries.

I am a green. I respect my fellow person, I try not to bump others with my trolley in the supermarket and I leave my trolley back in the trolley bay. I work and I realise that people who don't work did not have the luck or advantage that I had. I have a garden and I try to live a simple life. I enjoy the fruits of modernity and I think the stacks in Mt.Isa are beautiful, providing wealth for me and my kin. 

Watermelon Greens are reds. Red on the inside and green on the outer. They are the same sad sacks who supported Mao, Pol Pot and Brezhnev during the cold war. They have a socio-political agenda which is akin to communism. Somewhat like a religious fervour. They see the green movement as a means to achieve their ends. They will oppose anything that gets in the way of achieving their aims. They see individuals as pawns in a bigger religious game.

gg


----------



## explod (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> No worries.
> 
> I am a green. I respect my fellow person, I try not to bump others with my trolley in the supermarket and I leave my trolley back in the trolley bay. I work and I realise that people who don't work did not have the luck or advantage that I had. I have a garden and I try to live a simple life. I enjoy the fruits of modernity and I think the stacks in Mt.Isa are beautiful, providing wealth for me and my kin.
> 
> ...




That's your opinion and I respect that.

But what a lot of arm chair gas.


----------



## demiser (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*

While in general I can understand and even support some of the greens philosophies and targets, for the most part I think they can be a tad idealistic.

The problem isn't so much some of the targets, but how they plan to get there, and although I believe having more than just the ALP and LNP running the show (i.e. an extra set of eyes / perspective) the thought of having the greens in any sort of position of power scares me.

Although in some respects I can see where they are coming from, I believe that if any or many of their policies are introduced verbatim, my personal level of comfort will definitely be affected.

The other major issue I find is the short sightedness, or hypocritical nature of some of the things they do or say, but this isn't exactly just a green thing either


----------



## Boggo (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*

Accurate depiction ?


----------



## wayneL (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



explod said:


> That's your opinion and I respect that.
> 
> But what a lot of arm chair gas.




Actually, judging by the unnecessary ad hominem in this and your previous post, I don't think you respect GG's opinion at all, even though it is absolutely spot on.


----------



## Happy (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*

http://greens.org.au/



> …
> The agreement to put a price on pollution announced today by the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee directly supports nine out of ten Australian householders, with the most generous support going to the most vulnerable in our community.
> …
> …
> ...





Suppose more and more welfare supported community members vote for Green party.
Why not?
Money to do nothing while others pay carbon tax
Free dental care

Surely there will be more other people money channelled toward worthy causes and above all recipient does not need to lift a finger, just put their hand out and it will be paid for.


----------



## explod (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



Happy said:


> http://greens.org.au/
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Rubbish, one of the policies being considered is education and retraining of persons on welfare, an example, bringing back tram and train conductors, support in education and in many other areas of direct benefit to the overall community.  ALP and Libs in their total support of private enterprise work to reduce labour costs and think they are contributing to private profits.  What about service and profits for all of us.

Libs and Labour are controlled by the wealthy influencial  lobby groups.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



sptrawler said:


> Tasmania would be an obvious choice for a detention centre it would give employment to a lot of people that the Greens have put out of work.



An easy way to understand the Greens' policies at work is to compare Tasmania (birth place of the Greens) relative to the other Australian states prior to their emergence and then do the same comparisson now.

In short, prior to the Greens:

Heavy manufacturing powerhouse, at one point accounting for 23% of Australian energy-intensive industry.

100% reliance on renewable energy for electricity generation.

3% of the national population and an overall economic performance not dissimilar to the rest of the nation. 

Clean air even in Hobart and Launceston.

Now the same comparisson today:

Few remaining manufacturing industries, them having been replaced by large scale production of low value wood products (which has trashed the forests) and service industries (most notably tourism). Both pay low wages and offer a narrow range of careers.

Increasingly reliant on coal-fired electricity imported from Victoria plus local generation using Victorian gas. Electricity prices are heading through the roof, and many can simply no longer afford it.

2.2% of the national population and falling.

Air pollution has been an issue for years, with Launceston at one point being the most polluted city in Australia. Virtually all of this pollution is from domestic wood fires, widespread use of which was a Green idea from the days of the great Hydro dams debate.

On the plus side, we've got an inaccessible river that practically nobody has been anywhere near for the past 30 years and which gets one 25th as many visitors as the Hydro's Gordon Dam not too far away. 

Not everything's doom and gloom in the island state, but Tasmania has clearly declined relative to the mainland on practically any measure under the past few deacades of unelected Greens effectively running the place. (The state has technically had Labor and Liberal governments much of that time, but with the inevitable blockade of any project the Greens don't like, the official government is that in name only - it's the Greens who have the real power despite the vast majority of Tasmanians voting Labor or Liberal).


----------



## drsmith (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*

God bless the Greens.  

My 1.5kW solar panel system generated 9.1 kW of electricity today, most of which fed into the grid at a generous rate. Kaching.

At this rate, it'll pay itself off in under 3 years.

Where do I join ? :nuts:

EDIT: And, God bless Coopers.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



explod said:


> Rubbish, one of the policies being considered is education and retraining of persons on welfare, an example, *bringing back tram and train conductors*, support in education and in many other areas of direct benefit to the overall community.



Tram conductors - a classic example of "creating" a job without creating any wealth to go with it. We could likewise employ thousands of doctors, nurses, road workers and all the rest. Finding work isn't a problem, it's having the money to pay for it that's the issue.

As for education, that's the standard line governments trot out whenever there is no prospect of the masses getting an actual paid job. Stay at school - that way you're not part of the unemployment stats and it makes the government look better.

I have family members who participated in various training schemes. They'd be employed for the duration of the training, and back on the dole queue the day it ended through no fault of thier own. The whole thing is nothing short of a scam - train people for non-existent jobs in order to keep then occupied. Somone might benefit from it, but an awful lot are just wasting their time because there never was any chance of becoming employed despite having some new skill. 

At one point I was a strong Greens (or more correctly, their "Independents" predecessors) suporter. Then I did the maths and saw the problems and went toward Labor. These days I'm somewhere between Labor and Liberal depending on who is running them and what the issues of the day happen to be. You get wiser as you get older...


----------



## sptrawler (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*

I wasn't being funny (well maybe a bit) Tasmania would be the ideal offshore detention centre.
Easy to maintain border security, as it is off shore. 
It can carry a huge amount of people due to its size. 
It isn't used for much else and there is nothing of strategic value that any undercover terrorist can blow up.
The financial benefit would be considerable, not only would you save by not sending money to offshore processing, but you employ Tasmanians currently on the dole.
You will save on pollution due to the greenies not having to travel as far to demonstrate.
It was used a couple of hundred years ago with great success.
Like I said earlier, I'm supprised Bob hasn't jumped on it.


----------



## drsmith (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



Smurf1976 said:


> Finding work isn't a problem, it's having the money to pay for it that's the issue.



Mining tax + carbon tax.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



explod said:


> Libs and Labour are controlled by the wealthy influencial  lobby groups.



The Greens have been absolutely joined at the hip to various lobby groups (most notably TWS) since day 1 so there's little difference really.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



sptrawler said:


> I wasn't being funny (well maybe a bit) Tasmania would be the ideal offshore detention centre.
> Easy to maintain border security, as it is off shore.
> It can carry a huge amount of people due to its size.
> It isn't used for much else and there is nothing of strategic value that any undercover terrorist can blow up.



I actually agree that Tas wouldn't be a bad place for it, though I was thinking more of the Bass Strait islands than the rest of Tas.

There's still three factories of strategic value in Tas, though I doubt anyone escaping a detention centre would actually blow them up.


----------



## drsmith (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



Smurf1976 said:


> I actually agree that Tas wouldn't be a bad place for it, though I was thinking more of the Bass Strait islands than the rest of Tas.



Bugger Tas or the Bass Strait islands.

Send'em down to Davis or Macquarie Island.


----------



## sptrawler (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*

The Greens are absolutely fabulous at stating the obvious and having policy that covers the warm feel good issues.
They have a real problems dealing with the 95% of issues that really matter, as most of them conflict with their ideology.


----------



## sptrawler (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



Smurf1976 said:


> I actually agree that Tas wouldn't be a bad place for it, though I was thinking more of the Bass Strait islands than the rest of Tas.
> 
> There's still three factories of strategic value in Tas, though I doubt anyone escaping a detention centre would actually blow them up.




Or find them. LOL


----------



## drsmith (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



sptrawler said:


> They have a real problems dealing with the 95% of issues that really matter, as most of them conflict with their ideology.



No they don't.

The remaining 5% are the pigs themselves.


----------



## noco (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



drsmith said:


> Bugger Tas or the Bass Strait islands.
> 
> Send'em down to Davis or Macquarie Island.




What a great idea Dr and put Brown and Sarah Hanson-Young in charge.

Problem is there are too many rats there aleady.


----------



## sptrawler (9 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*

What about Mawson.
But on a serious note Tasmania would work, they would freeze their Ar$e off and we could put in place an international airport to move them in and out.
Which could be used at a later date, when Labor have stuffed the country and assylum seekers don't want to come here anymore.
Well Dr Smith it has to be better than Northam.


----------



## Logique (10 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



Happy said:


> http://greens.org.au/...Free dental care...The Greens think long-term and we have great new ideas – like easy access to dental care for all Australians...



Perfect oppportunity with parliamentary numbers to progress this policy, but it appears to have sunk without trace. Through the listing in the manifesto it has perhaps already served the intended purpose?


----------



## Calliope (10 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*

Greens supporters do not have the best interests of Australia at heart. In fact many of the Green's policies are detrimental to Australia's interests.

If their policies on extractive industries succeeded this country would become a banana republic.

If their open door policy on immigration was adopted we would in time have the Islamic problems which are ruining European society. 

They want to pollute the institution of marriage.

They have given no logical reasons for these policies, so I can only assume their motives are to weaken Australian society.  Why?:dunno:


----------



## noco (10 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*

Do we really need a self confessed communist in Senator Lee Rhiannon under the guise of a Greenie in Parliament? 

Please scroll down to  the latter part of this link to read a full account of this unworthy senator.


http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/media-watch-dog/


----------



## Calliope (10 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



noco said:


> Do we really need a self confessed communist in Senator Lee Rhiannon under the guise of a Greenie in Parliament?
> 
> Please scroll down to  the latter part of this link to read a full account of this unworthy senator.
> 
> ...




Rhiannon is a good fit with the Greens with their policy of attracting Muslim immigrants. Nobody should be fooled that the Green's policy to pull out of Afghanistan is over concern for Australian soldiers..


----------



## Logique (10 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens*



noco said:


> Do we really need a self confessed communist in Senator Lee Rhiannon under the guise of a Greenie in Parliament?...http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/media-watch-dog/



Yes I read that Noco. Interesting that she was born Lee Brown. The Rhiannon thing is a deed poll name change.  

When in the NSW Legislative Council, MLC Rhiannon spent a good deal of her time attacking the previous NSW Labor government about political donations from developers.  

But now (according to MWD in that link) it turns out that in the 1970's, when the Communist Party of Australia repudiated Moscow over it's invasion of Czechoslovakia, Rhiannon followed the breakaway Socialist Party of Australia, which not only stayed loyal to Moscow, but received donations from the USSR. 

You may well consider that hypocrisy. I couldn't possibly comment.

As stated by the authors in that link, Senator Rhiannon may well say, that was all a folly of youth. So why then, won't she openly and publicly repudiate the communist ideology she followed for at least two decades of her life?


----------



## drsmith (29 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Bob Brown hasn't taken long to jump on to the idea of a financial transaction tax.

No link yet, heard on ABC radio news.


----------



## IFocus (29 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> +1.




+2 that was funny as hell


----------



## wayneL (29 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Gawd I miss The Chasers!


----------



## LostMyShirt (29 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Oh my Goodness that YT clip was absolutely brilliant!


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> Bob Brown hasn't taken long to jump on to the idea of a financial transaction tax.
> 
> No link yet, heard on ABC radio news.



Sorry to spoil your point but actually it's not a new one. He was pushing it a few years ago, primarily to apply to transactions involving currency exchange (any currencies and for any purpose). "Tobin Tax" he calls it.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I know what the Greens are against, but if they ever got in to government *what would they actually do*, what are their policies for the country.

gg


----------



## Calliope (30 September 2011)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I know what the Greens are against, but if they ever got in to government *what would they actually do*, what are their policies for the country.
> 
> gg




That's easy. They would ruin the economy. They are economic vandals.


----------



## drsmith (13 October 2011)

*The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*

Lacking the courage to put its Malaysian solution to a vote, Labor's latest effort now represents the Greens policies,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...f-asylum-seekers/story-fn59niix-1226166090308



> Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said mandatory detention would be maintained for "health, identity and security checks", but more asylum-seekers would be managed in the community as boat arrivals increased.




Greens Policy,



> 26. grant asylum seekers an asylum application visa (AAV) and assist without delay their move into the community provided medical and security checks are satisfied or after 14 days has passed, whichever occurs first.









> He said bridging visas - currently used by visa overstayers - would be used more regularly for asylum-seekers.
> 
> "Bridging visas generally have work rights," Mr Bowen said.
> 
> "Generally speaking the access to payment support is limited to situations where it is means-tested and it is necessary for someone's ability to continue to live in the community and it is available at 89 per cent of the special benefit."




So, they still get the money.

Greens policy,



> 27. ensure asylum seekers living in the community while their claim is assessed will be granted an AAV which will entitle them to travel, *work, income support *and access to ongoing educational and medical services anywhere within Australia while their claims for asylum are assessed.




http://greens.org.au/policies/care-for-people/immigration-and-refugees

Anything for an extra 5-minutes in office.


----------



## sails (13 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*

And yet, the crazy thing is, that Gillard does not have to bow and scrape to the greens or the indies.  They will want their day in the sun for as long as possble and will do anything to stop the coalition from forming government.

I think Gillard is  fulfilling her fabian dreams.


----------



## noco (14 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*

I would like to know what the Greens hidden agenda is in pushing for this flood of asylum seekers.

More economic ruin???????????


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*



noco said:


> I would like to know what the Greens hidden agenda is in pushing for this flood of asylum seekers.
> 
> More economic ruin???????????




Blind ideology and social disruption, in my opinion. Crash, or crash through.

gg


----------



## drsmith (14 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Blind ideology and social disruption, in my opinion. Crash, or crash through.
> 
> gg



The Greens have never looked happier.

The primary reason, in my view, is what they're doing to Labor.


----------



## LostMyShirt (14 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*

Usually I'd say, "We need a Government change" - then I realize that everyone sucks.... Juliar and her Carbon rorte....


----------



## joea (14 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*

Yep!
just waiting for a cartoon of the puppeteer Bob Brown dangling Gillard over the waters off Christmas Island.
joea


----------



## Julia (14 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*



> Generally speaking the access to payment support is limited to situations where it is means-tested and it is necessary for someone's ability to continue to live in the community and it is available at 89 per cent of the special benefit."



Does anyone know how much these asylum seekers will be paid whilst living in the community and having their claims as refugees assessed?

Michael Raper of the Red Cross was interviewed on Radio National this morning, and was enthusiastic about their capacity to extend their program of finding accommodation for asylum seekers and giving them all the social support they require.

I can't begin to imagine how sickened are those Australians who have through no fault of their own become homeless but have no similar access to such benevolence.

The government should be utterly ashamed.


----------



## sails (14 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*

Julia, I agree.

Our own have to be pretty much living out of their cars before they can get anywhere near the top of the list in housing.

It is shameful and surely the Pacific Solution would not have cost the billions that this government have spent on all their grandiose attempts which have only lured more boats here  and then the cost to this country of thousands more arriving now that the welcome mat has been made even bigger.  And add to that the burden of carbon tax.  Another two years of this is going to be a long time.

Boat smugglers will probably raise the fares now due to heavy demand.


----------



## Eager (16 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*



noco said:


> I would like to know what the Greens hidden agenda is in pushing for this flood of asylum seekers.
> 
> More economic ruin???????????



Flood of asylum seekers? You've got to be joking. 

Fact is, the numbers of boat people arriving towards our shores is a drop in the ocean (or should that be a child thrown overboard in the ocean?) compared to the total immigration levels. Have a read: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/02key.htm

I'd rather share my neighbourhood with an Afghani who had been found to be legit and of good character after being processed, than someone like Puneet Puneet who did a runner with the help of one of his countrymen,
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...im-flee-to-india/story-e6frf7kx-1226008199971 

or the feuding Chaouks and Hadarras who came here 'properly,' 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s-also-shot-dead/story-e6frg6nf-1225904877366

or those scumbag Celts currently doing the rounds as pretend-tradies, ripping off the elderly with promises of home renovations.
http://bayside-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/scam-hits-elderly/

Oh, and a warning to anyone: If you are going to bandy some figures around or otherwise make wild claims, cite your sources!


----------



## sails (16 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*



Eager said:


> Flood of asylum seekers? You've got to be joking.
> 
> Fact is, the numbers of boat people arriving towards our shores is a drop in the ocean (or should that be a child thrown overboard in the ocean?) compared to the total immigration levels. Have a read: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/02key.htm
> 
> ...




Are you the internet police?  I thought most people cite their sources, however, I'm sure a gentle reminder if it has been forgotten would be a neighbourly thing to do...

I think you will find most people don't have a problem with legit refugees as you call them.  Surely, one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to work that out.  Clearly, without strict border policy, it is open to all types who may not be refugees at all.  

I sometimes wonder if genuine refugees can actually afford the large fares charged by smugglers and if they are further displaced because Australia is so busy with the rich ones coming by boat that the poor, genuine refugees don't get a chance?  Any thoughts, Eager?


----------



## Eager (16 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*



sails said:


> I sometimes wonder if genuine refugees can actually afford the large fares charged by smugglers and if they are further displaced because Australia is so busy with the rich ones coming by boat that the poor, genuine refugees don't get a chance?  Any thoughts, Eager?



Yes, you could be right there, though generally speaking I still can't believe the amount of hysterical drivel being written about those arriving by boat. The following is an old article, but no doubt still relevant:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...to-come-by-plane/story-e6frg6nf-1225802705191

Further reading to be had here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/AsylumFacts.pdf

It seem silly to be hung up about boat people now, doesn't it?


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*



sails said:


> Julia, I agree.
> 
> Our own have to be pretty much living out of their cars before they can get anywhere near the top of the list in housing.
> 
> It is shameful and surely the Pacific Solution would not have cost the billions that this government have spent on all their grandiose attempts which have only lured more boats here  and then the cost to this country of thousands more arriving now that the welcome mat has been made even bigger.  And add to that the burden of carbon tax.  Another two years of this is going to be a long time.



And then there's that wonderful idea of "processing" them in Tasmania. 

Meanwhile, ordinary people are being simply removed from the waiting list at the state's largest public hospital given that there's no real prospect of them ever being treated following the latest round of budget cuts. Sad but true according to the media. 

The Green economy is great - as long as you have some personal source of income from outside which enables you to avoid reliance on public services and local employment. But for the majority of the population it's anything but good...


----------



## sptrawler (17 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*

I find it amazing how much mayhem this government has caused in 4 years of office.
As for the illegal immigrants being offered the same conditions as those who arrive by plane. Maybe they could do us the honour of carrying their identification papers the same as those who arrive by plane. So their identity and intent can be confirmed.
I'm all for a central detention centre in Tassie, it would help the unemployment and make it easier for Bob to look after them.


----------



## drsmith (17 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*

http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2011/10/14/3339417.htm

The intro by Jon Faine is a doozie.

He had a second crack at around 5:45 to go.

On an ABC TV news segment, an interviewer went further with Bob Brown, asking him what it's like to be running the country.


----------



## sptrawler (17 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*



drsmith said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2011/10/14/3339417.htm
> 
> The intro by Jon Faine is a doozie.
> 
> ...




I think she is going to have about as much chance selling the message that it is the oppositions fault for onshore proccessing, as she had selling the pink batt fiasco.
She is sounding more like a "dead man walking"all the time.
Actually it is bordering on embarrassing.


----------



## Ruby (17 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*



sptrawler said:


> I think she is going to have about as much chance selling the message that it is the oppositions fault for onshore proccessing, as she had selling the pink batt fiasco.
> She is sounding more like a "dead man walking"all the time.
> Actually it is bordering on embarrassing.




Loved Jon Faine's intro!!  She is so embarrassingly painful to listen to - it makes me cringe.   She won't shut up, will she!  She never metions a word about the Greens - her Coalitions partners - not supporting her asylum seeker policy!  Very quiet about that.


----------



## Calliope (20 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*

Allan Asher, the Commonwealth Ombudsman has resigned as a result of his stupidity for having colluded with the Greens. He won't be missed. He shares the same views with the Greens on the welcoming and treatment of illegal immigrants, 

Of course ther is no guarantee that his replacement won't be a Green's supporter too.


----------



## Logique (21 October 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*

Yet another scalp claimed by the Greens. Like a Medusa's head, don't look you'll be turned to stone.


----------



## Calliope (3 November 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*

GetUP pride themselves in being nasty, however they object to being called Nazis


> *GetUp! demands apology for senator's Nazi youth slur*
> Jessica Wright
> November 3, 2011 - 5:07PM
> 
> ...





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/getu...-youth-slur-20111103-1mx7s.html#ixzz1ccYmuLgw


----------



## nulla nulla (3 November 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*



Logique said:


> Yet another scalp claimed by the Greens. Like a Medusa's head, don't look you'll be turned to stone.




Good post


----------



## tothemax6 (3 November 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*



noco said:


> I would like to know what the Greens hidden agenda is in pushing for this flood of asylum seekers.
> 
> More economic ruin???????????



Same thing as a thug beating his wife, we all scratch our heads trying to comprehend why some people do the things they do, but we forget that we are judging their actions by our own healthy morals. In reality the reason is simple, 
_they like hurting people_.


----------



## Calliope (9 November 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*

Bob Brown is rubbing his hands with glee over the spate of attacks on our soldiers by rogue Afghans. He is putting pressure on the Government for an early pull out. When we do cut and run he will see this as a victory for Green's policy. He now has Gillard wedged, as most electors agree with him, on this one.


----------



## pilots (9 November 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*

This is the ONLY time I have agreed with Nob Brown, we are fighting a war we can NEVER win, bring our boys home.


----------



## dutchie (9 November 2011)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*



Calliope said:


> Bob Brown is rubbing his hands with glee over the spate of attacks on our soldiers by rogue Afghans.




I think that's a bit harsh.


----------



## sinner (18 January 2012)

*An issue on which Farmers and Greens seem to have united*

As a wise ASF poster once said "one day, QLD from the sky is going to be pockmarked with craters like the moon" (sic)


----------



## Logique (19 January 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

With thanks to Miranda Devine, a voice of sanity in NSW, quoting her father Frank Devine http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg.../from_the_vault_the_origins_of_the_green_rot/

"Based on the 10 per cent share [in 2004] of the national vote most opinion polls currently award the Greens, it is reasonable to wonder: As Tasmania has gone, so goes Australia?..

..These were the things Brown and Singer [in 1996] declared the Greens to be against: 
*Cars and highways*: Trains and trams are okay but walking and cycling are best. 
*Dams and irrigation*: The natural flow of rivers needs to be restored. 
*People having more money than the average person needs*: Radical tax reform linked to a “guaranteed adequate income scheme” would fix that. 
*The World Trade Organisation and free trade*: There should be no trade on even terms with countries whose industries sys*tematically damage the environment or which exploit labour. 
*The capitalist free market*: Unregulated, it is a ruthless force “that sweeps aside all traditional ways of living that stand in the path of a relentless drive for profit”. 
*Too much work*: The working day should be of six hours at most, and annual holidays doubled or trebled. This would eliminate unemployment and give everybody time with their families, and time to continue their education, go for walks and grow their gardens. 
*The United States*: It’s a source of evil, from soap operas to greed. 
*Agribusiness*: Keeping chickens and pigs in permanent indoor confinement should be banned, and cattle, sheep and other grazing animals removed from arid and semi*arid regions. 
*Psychotherapy*: Needed now because people don’t believe in God but unnecessary when they embrace Green ethics.."


----------



## drsmith (12 February 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

How the Greens would really like to run the country,

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...-communists-in-port-adelaide-by-election.html

http://sa.greens.org.au/portadelaide/



> On the basis of candidates’ and/or parties’ policies, recent announcements by the ALP, and the values and track record of all candidates, the How-To-Vote card distributed by the Greens on polling day will recommend the following allocation of preferences:
> 
> 1. McARTHUR, Justin - Greens
> 
> 2. BRITON, Bob – Independent Communist Australia


----------



## orr (14 February 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Better look out guys, The Greens in Germany are polling up around 20%, so there's sure to be a flood of reffos from that economic dystopia.
 And what did old Frank Devine have to say about the flooding of Lake Pedder? I'll take it as read, that the above half dozen or so, concur amongst yourselves that it was a fine Idea... and my children thank you.

Have a look at those photos and see what you've lost.

And tell me are Alan Jones, The NAT's, and the Greens, all singing off the same Song Sheet on Coal seam Gas

Is there a more failed project, failed at every level than the 'War Against Drugs'. That continues to pour Billions into the pockets of Organised Crime. To which your 'voice of sanity' Franks little girl, is a rusted on supporter regardless of the weight of evidence. Bob Hawke, asked about Decriminalisation as he was leaving office, his daughter heroin addiction was well reported, noted the Australian electorate lack the maturity.  And to the level of absurdity where we can't even grow industrial Hemp, a fibre Henry Ford was incorporating into his cars in the 1930's for it's weight and fuel saving potential.

In the film 'Children of the Revolution" Judy Davis's characters child, is talked about worryingly by its teacher as "having Ideas"... It's the Ideas that worry you guys isn't it , and your inability to intellectually in-gauge with them, so you label it 'Radical' 'Socialist' so you can put it in a box so it's not so scary.

   'Its just some small lake no one goes to, that some 'long hairs' are kicking up a fuss about, to hold up progress. A good Conservative politician told me so.'


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 February 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



orr said:


> And what did old Frank Devine have to say about the flooding of Lake Pedder?



The single largest source of renewable energy in Australia is the Gordon Power Scheme of which Lake Pedder is a part.

Enough said that the Greens would like to see it drained and more coal burnt as a direct result. That's one of the reasons I just can't take them seriously - who in their right mind would even contemplate dismantling a source of clean, renewable and reliable energy?

There's a reason that even Bob isn't too keen on this one these days. Something about his pro-coal comments back in 1994 and his subsequent being discredited over tourism potential live on the 7:30 Report may best explain this. That interview marked the effective end of "Pedder 2000" and their full on push to drain the lake, although the group does still exist as such.


----------



## IFocus (14 February 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



orr said:


> Better look out guys, The Greens in Germany are polling up around 20%, so there's sure to be a flood of reffos from that economic dystopia.
> And what did old Frank Devine have to say about the flooding of Lake Pedder? I'll take it as read, that the above half dozen or so, concur amongst yourselves that it was a fine Idea... and my children thank you.
> 
> Have a look at those photos and see what you've lost.
> ...





AAhh brother nice post


----------



## Calliope (14 February 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



IFocus said:


> AAhh brother nice post




AAhh I can see a same sex union on the horizon. Good luck to you both. It is the Green's top priority.


----------



## drsmith (14 February 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



orr said:


> In the film 'Children of the Revolution" Judy Davis's characters child, is talked about worryingly by its teacher as "having Ideas"... It's the Ideas that worry you guys isn't it , and your inability to intellectually in-gauge with them, so you label it 'Radical' 'Socialist' so you can put it in a box so it's not so scary.'



I'll suggest another story.

Animal Farm.


----------



## bandicoot76 (16 February 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> I'll suggest another story.
> 
> Animal Farm.




or 1984


----------



## IFocus (16 February 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> I'll suggest another story.
> 
> Animal Farm.






bandicoot76 said:


> or 1984





You gents would be talking about bankers I take it.............


----------



## orr (16 February 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> I'll suggest another story.
> 
> Animal Farm.




Presuming we're talking about the same book/film, Your suggesting that the Australian populace will be incited to violent revolution by an intellectual clique, with the promise of a release from authoritarian persecution, only to end up in a situation as bad if not worst than their current predicament, as the ruling clique become our tyrannical overlords. 
Doctor, I can only hope that your on medication not prescribing it. Paranoid delusions of this scale are in need of treatment 
And just for the record, Nail your colours to the mast and state just so we know, That the flooding of Lake Pedder was a good Idea. Where not talking about the draining of it as Smurf wants to obfuscate.
Because Pedder was important, it was "A Bridge Too Far" 

Oh and that homophobic reflex calliope, It's telling. You might want to sit through 'Romper Stomper" with someone capable of explaining some of that pertinent simple subtext.


----------



## drsmith (16 February 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

No.

Just that socialism/communism doesn't work.

It goes against against our natural competitiveness (natural selection).


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 February 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



orr said:


> That the flooding of Lake Pedder was a good Idea. Where not talking about the draining of it as Smurf wants to obfuscate.
> Because Pedder was important, it was "A Bridge To Far"



Given the efforts of those who want to do exactly that, drain it, over the years I'd say my point is entirely relevant and not obfuscating anything.

You have a group formed to push the cause and which is supported by many of the usual suspects. They have current paid advertising etc. Given that it's already flooded and can't be flooded twice, any current debate about it necessarily focuses on one of three outcomes:

1. Do nothing (leave as part of Gordon power scheme)
2. Drain the lake and construct a pumping scheme from Serpentine Dam, plus a new dam much further down the Huon River.
3. Drain the lake and substitute lost production with, in practice, coal and gas.

Given that those supporting draining it seem generally unwilling to support the construction of _any_ new large dam _anywhere_, option 3 is what they are effectively arguing for. More coal and gas and it's worth noting that Bob Brown himself acknowledged this some years ago, going as far as to defend coal in the process (very widely reported in Tas local media at the time).

Personally, given the choice I would not flood that lake. I would however build a dam lower on the Huon River, divert flow from the Serpentine River into Lake Gordon via a pondage and pumping scheme, and build another dam further down the Gordon within the World Herritage Area but not in any way affecting the Franklin. All up, that would add greatly to energy production plus plus the original Lake Pedder would not be flooded either. An environmental win on two counts and an economic win also.

The trouble is, of course, that the Greens and their predecessors ensured that the WHA was proclaimed specifically so as to encompass every possible dam site, even one that couldn't possibly be regarded as being of conservation value given its close proximity to another dam that's already been built upstream.

For the record, the Hydro itself quite some years ago installed a number of signs which acknowledge the case against damming Pedder. These are on the foreshore of the enlarged lake and are there for the sole purpose of presenting the other side of the argument to visitors. 

Now, please tell me when the Greens have ever acknowledged arguments in favour of dams, mines, mills or anything else they oppose? Just one example will do... I think you'll find there's far more willingness to be objective from those on the other side.

Anyway, now that Tasmania is virtually bankrupt and has little remaining in terms of an economic base I'd like to know what the Greens plan to do about it? They're part of the government after all so it is their problem. Or are they happy to stand aside as the health system disintegrates, roads fall apart, police are sacked (and those that remain have their cars removed etc)? Three decades of effective Green control in Tasmania and the place has ended up a basket case - enough said. 

Perhaps we could put a tax on everyone in Sydney and Melbourne who opposes development in other states without having a clue what is even being proposed? I wonder how many realise that the pulp mill site is next door to two smelters (one of which has been subject to opposition from Greens for the past 40 years), a port, saw mills etc? The Greens with their protests in other states would have people believe that it's being built in some sort of wilderness area or something like that. Clearly that's not the case, but never let the truth get in the way.


----------



## wayneL (17 February 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



orr said:


> Presuming we're talking about the same book/film, Your suggesting that the Australian populace will be incited to violent revolution by an intellectual clique, with the promise of a release from authoritarian persecution, only to end up in a situation as bad if not worst than their current predicament, as the ruling clique become our tyrannical overlords.
> Doctor, I can only hope that your on medication not prescribing it. Paranoid delusions of this scale are in need of treatment
> And just for the record, Nail your colours to the mast and state just so we know, That the flooding of Lake Pedder was a good Idea. Where not talking about the draining of it as Smurf wants to obfuscate.
> Because Pedder was important, it was "A Bridge Too Far"
> ...




When did people decide that smear was an acceptable first choice form of debate?

Steady on there orr, play the ball not the man.


----------



## Calliope (17 February 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



orr said:


> Oh and that homophobic reflex calliope, It's telling. You might want to sit through 'Romper Stomper" with someone capable of explaining some of that pertinent simple subtext.




Sorry. I thought you and Focus were Greenies.:remybussi


----------



## orr (18 March 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

No one wants to have a go at the "bridge to Far" analogy for "lake Pedder".
 It's importance, to the formation of what has become the green movement should be understood by people wanting to contribute anything worthwhile to this thread.
And to you Smurf, I appreciate your contributions. With regards Lake Pedder, It  was an unnecessary defacement of beauty. And it was the prescience of some people in the community who recognized what was being lost and what they were up against that radicalized them. I for one can  understand why they became 'Bolshie' about it. If it ever is drained it won't be done for economic or emissions reasons, It will be done to rectify a wrong, and only because there is a cost. Your punished so you don't make the same mistakes again.

To mr WayneL I was playing the ball, there  was a quip at the man.

To bandi, How are you on "Down and out in Paris & London", anything underlined?

To calliope....why bother


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 March 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



orr said:


> If it ever is drained it won't be done for economic or emissions reasons, It will be done to rectify a wrong, and only because there is a cost. Your punished so you don't make the same mistakes again.



I politely suggest that the 2% of Australians who live in Tasmania have already paid a hugely disproportionate share of the cost of protecting Australia's natural wonders.

Imagine if the gas industry and the iron ore industry had been prevented from any development over the past 30 years in WA? 

Or if no new office buildings had been allowed in Sydney over the same timeframe?

Or no new hotels on the Gold Coast and no new mines in the rest of Qld?

Tasmania has already spent a huge sum on environmental protection, arguably more than all other states combined, to the point that the state no longer has any real source of income other than handouts in one form or another.

If people in NSW, Vic or wherever want Pedder drained then let them pay for it. Either that or start protecting their own environment rather than the "warm and fuzzy" practice of leaving another state to foot the bill whilst NSW and Vic do nothing about their own massive environmental impacts. 

How ironic that you can run certain industries in Vic or NSW with full support, but the very same activities are deemed too environmentally harmful to be carried out in Tasmania. Hmm... This seems to be a lot more about gaining economic advantage than about actually protecting the environment!

It wouldn't be hard to find someone in Tas who is decidedly angry at the situation. Other states develop their resources with scant regard to the environment. Other states have functioning public hospitals. Other states have jobs in productive industries etc. But try to develop any resource in Tas and then the Greens / Canberra gets in the way in order to buy votes in urban electorates in the other states. 

The state is practically broke, literally so judging by the figures being thrown around, and yet still these ******** stand in the way of any and all developments which might actually help the situation. No wonder so many have already been driven out to pursue opportunities elsewhere.  

Shut down the coal, iron ore and LNG industries, actually shut them down and suffer the economic consequences, and then I'll believe that the rest of the country is actually serious about the environment. In the meantime, Tasmania is simply an easy target for political reasons. Everyone gets to feel good about "doing something" whilst 2% of the population are left with an economy in tatters and the big mining states argue that they shouldn't pay the bill for everything that's been stopped in Tas over the past 30 years. 

PS - In principle I'm morally opposed to handouts. But given that there is very little productive industry still remaining in Tas and that Greens have successfully locked up practically every opportunity there is, handouts are all that really remains as an option. If those living in the other states were forced to pay the cost then that would change the politics of the situation real fast.


----------



## AbrasiveCamel (19 March 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> No.
> 
> Just that socialism/communism doesn't work.
> 
> It goes against against our natural competitiveness (natural selection).




Orwell was a radical socialist - both 1984 and Animal Farm were criticisms of the USSR, not socialism in general, and the introductory essay to Animal Farm, which was censored for half a century, basically said that the United Kingdom wasn't greatly different and would continue to head towards a similar authoritarian situation.


----------



## explod (19 March 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Logique said:


> With thanks to Miranda Devine, a voice of sanity in NSW, quoting her father Frank Devine http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg.../from_the_vault_the_origins_of_the_green_rot/
> 
> "Based on the 10 per cent share [in 2004] of the national vote most opinion polls currently award the Greens, it is reasonable to wonder: As Tasmania has gone, so goes Australia?..
> 
> ...





Thanks for posting up and a reminder that these ideas remain reasonable and achievable.

Since then however there is within the party increased emphasis on equality in education and the importance of all Government levels to increase funding in that direction.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (27 March 2012)

*Re: The Greens have flexed their muscle over Gillard Labor, again*

Let's just watch the Greens when Labor is cast adrift by the electorate.

Wth a huge mandate against the carbon tax, the Coalition repeal legislation fails in the Senate, blocked by the Greens and Labor.

Fast forward - double dissolution election based on carbon tax repeal - total decimation (again) for Labor, add Greens remnants to it.

This is harder than it sounds.  Abbotts going to need the courage of, well, an abbott or maybe a Tibetan monk.

How long can they use the Parliament and the Constitution to defy the electorate?


----------



## moXJO (28 March 2012)

*Everyone should support The Greens*

Well in this instance we should support them anyway.


> The rolling cattle and cropping country around Wandoan has become a battleground of the competing interests to produce wealth from mining, food from the land and to abate Australia's greenhouse contribution.
> 
> Caught in the middle are life-long farmers such as Pat Devlin, 61, who last night vowed to stay put after the Queensland Land Court ruled to allow multinational Xstrata to press on with the huge coalmine that will border his property. "We're going to sit it out right here," he said. "If they do start mining, we will be pushing as hard as we can to make sure they meet the environmental conditions . . . they are not going to shut us up."



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/farmers-fight-mine-but-horse-has-bolted/story-e6frg9df-1226311867381

Now I could care less on the carbon side of things, but destroying food producing land that will benefit us long after the coal is gone is crazy. We don't benefit enough from the coal being shipped off overseas to justify destroying farmers rights and it seems like shooting ourselves in the foot when you look at it long term. We seem to be raping whatever land we can to squeeze more coal or ore out of it. Its bad enough we were building housing estates all over prime farmland.
I'm not saying all mining is bad, just that tighter restrictions in some areas should be enforced


----------



## Calliope (28 March 2012)

*Re: Everyone should support the greens*



moXJO said:


> Well in this instance we should support them anyway.




The Greens couldn't give a stuff about protecting arable land. They are manipulating the landholders to push their global warming agenda.



> The case in the Land Court, brought by eight landholders including Mr Devlin and Mr Erbacher and backed by the Friends of the Earth conservation group, turned on the proposition that the mine should be stopped because of its climate change implications



.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1226311867381


----------



## rumpole (28 March 2012)

*Re: Everyone should support The Greens*



> I'm not saying all mining is bad, just that tighter restrictions in some areas should be enforced




Agreed. Farming is forever , mining is eventually just a hole in the ground


----------



## moXJO (28 March 2012)

*Re: Everyone should support the greens*



Calliope said:


> The Greens couldn't give a stuff about protecting arable land. They are manipulating the landholders to push their global warming agenda.
> 
> .
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1226311867381



It's obvious I don't like the greens, support their mantra or encourage anyone to vote for them. But something needs to be done about it and whatever ammo they have to use, so be it. At times you have to look past the political ideology of the group and support something that will in fact benefit the country in the long term. I'm sure even Alan Jones jumped into bed with them on this issue (not sure on that so don't quote me).


----------



## Miss Hale (28 March 2012)

*Re: Everyone should support The Greens*



rumpole said:


> Agreed. Farming is forever , mining is eventually just a hole in the ground




Mining is not forever though and once it is done in an area then the land can (and should) be returned to its former state.  I know in gold mining areas this is the case, the miners have to return the land back to its original state.


----------



## Miss Hale (28 March 2012)

*Re: Everyone should support the greens*



moXJO said:


> It's obvious I don't like the greens, support their mantra or encourage anyone to vote for them. But something needs to be done about it and whatever ammo they have to use, so be it. At times you have to look past the political ideology of the group and support something that will in fact benefit the country in the long term. I'm sure even Alan Jones jumped into bed with them on this issue (not sure on that so don't quote me).




Alan Jones is definitely opposed to coal seam gas as are the Greens.


----------



## rumpole (28 March 2012)

*Re: Everyone should support The Greens*



Miss Hale said:


> Mining is not forever though and once it is done in an area then the land can (and should) be returned to its former state.  I know in gold mining areas this is the case, the miners have to return the land back to its original state.




Assuming they are still in business and haven't reincorporated into another company or cry poor and say it will bankrupt them to restore the land. It's practically very difficult to ensure mining companies restore the land to its original condition. Do they go round filling in underground mines that drain water out of rivers ?


----------



## Julia (28 March 2012)

*Re: Everyone should support The Greens*



Miss Hale said:


> Mining is not forever though and once it is done in an area then the land can (and should) be returned to its former state.  I know in gold mining areas this is the case, the miners have to return the land back to its original state.



I know that's supposed to be the case.   But I can't see that it would ever be the same and in the meantime you've disrupted and destroyed the lives of the people who love their land which has often been in their family for generations.

I'm 100% with MoXJO on this.  The mining companies don't need to take everything in the earth.   I'm also less than keen on so many overseas interests buying up good agricultural land.  Are we really looking after ourselves in allowing this?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (28 March 2012)

*Re: Everyone should support The Greens*

This is just a disgrace.

The world is dangerously overpopulated, we are running out of oil and phosphorous which are crucial to making fertilisers. About 40% of all fertile farmland on Earth is already severely degraded.

To be destroying fertile farmland at this specific point in human history is nothing short of genocide. Fertile farmland must be protected with the strongest legislation possible - nobody should be able so much as to sneeze on it.

Corrupt government crooks!


----------



## Miss Hale (28 March 2012)

*Re: Everyone should support The Greens*



Julia said:


> I know that's supposed to be the case.   But I can't see that it would ever be the same and in the meantime you've disrupted and destroyed the lives of the people who love their land which has often been in their family for generations.
> 
> I'm 100% with MoXJO on this.  The mining companies don't need to take everything in the earth.




I understand what people are saying re this, I think mining should be allowed but there needs to be a balance between mining and agriculture I agree.  Ideally a way to do both over the long term would be good.



> I'm also less than keen on so many overseas interests buying up good agricultural land.  Are we really looking after ourselves in allowing this?




I am totally opposed to this, and even opposed to overseas interests buying residential property too. I agree it is not in our best long term interest.


----------



## Glen48 (28 March 2012)

*Re: Everyone should support The Greens*

Don't worry the Chinese won't let the mining companies do any thing to their farming land as they are smart enough to now food is important to feed the billion's and keep the top brass in office.
 Thats why they are buying any farm land for sale any where.


----------



## rumpole (28 March 2012)

*Re: Everyone should support The Greens*



Miss Hale said:


> I am totally opposed to this, and even opposed to overseas interests buying residential property too. I agree it is not in our best long term interest.




+1 on the residential property.

As to foreign investment in our farmland, it's not a matter of all or nothing, but of degree. Foreign investment up to a point is fine, foreign ownership needs to be subjected to a national interest test, at present I believe purchases under $20,000,000 are not subject to any scrutiny. This should be lowered to around $1,000,000. 

You obviously run into the accusation that the government is telling people what they can or can't do with their own property. If they want to sell their land they obviously should be able to, but we the taxpayer should be prepared to put up the money to buy them if we don't want foreigners to do it.


----------



## drsmith (1 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Bob Brown believes in aliens, well, sort of,



> Here is one sobering possibility for our isolation: maybe life has often evolved to intelligence on other planets with biospheres and every time that intelligence, when it became able to alter its environment, did so with catastrophic consequences. Maybe we have had many predecessors in the Cosmos but all have brought about their own downfall.




*



			That's why they are not communicating with Earth. They have extincted themselves. They have come and gone. And now it's our turn.
		
Click to expand...


*There's also the possibility of a god who created the earth in 6-days and then hava a spell on the 7'th.

http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration


----------



## Calliope (1 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> Bob Brown believes in aliens, well, sort of,




He believes in making it easier for them to illegally come here.


----------



## drsmith (1 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> He believes in making it easier for them to illegally come here.



They could take him away for scientific investigation.


----------



## rumpole (2 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

The Greens are too far Left, even for me.  Their opposition to Hydro power, one of the cleanest forms of energy on the planet annoys me, as does their lack of opposition to large scale immigration which will destroy the environment they so covet if it's allowed to continue.

However they exist because the major parties have both moved to the Right (despite what people here think of Labor), and the notion of the protest vote means they pick up easy votes when there is dissatisfaction with both majors, which is usually the case these days.

If you want to get rid of the Greens, the answer is for both majors to move back towards the Centre.


----------



## sails (2 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



rumpole said:


> ..If you want to get rid of the Greens, the answer is for both majors to move back towards the Centre.




I think Katter's party might attract votes from disgruntled green and alp voters.  Greens are quite possibly on the same way out as alp.

Latest polls show alp primary vote at 27% and that 60% DO NOT WANT CARBON TAX. 

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...27-per-cent-20120401-1w6n7.html#ixzz1qpHQV7v7


----------



## sails (2 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I can't seem to find the thread on mining tax - I thought we had one.  Anyway, the greens want it, so will post this here.

It seems South Africa are excited at their increased competitiveness over Australia's mining tax and that they should "strike while the iron is hot"  Here is an article explaining it:

Here is the first paragraph:



> The Australians’ decision to introduce a new mining tax presents a rare opportunity for SA to claw back market share in iron ore and coal, but Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan needs to strike while the iron is hot





Chance for SA in new Australian mining tax


----------



## rumpole (2 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> I can't seem to find the thread on mining tax - I thought we had one.  Anyway, the greens want it, so will post this here.
> 
> It seems South Africa are excited at their increased competitiveness over Australia's mining tax and that they should "strike while the iron is hot"  Here is an article explaining it:
> 
> ...




Looks like the SA gov't is looking to put on a mining tax themselves. The return to the government would be greater than not imposing new taxes and hoping for increased investment.


----------



## Logique (3 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Watching Q&A from Tasmania last night, the audience reported as 19.5% Greens, 29% Labor, and 43% Coalition. I thought Tasmanians, you poor b---ards.  

The Greens are going to grind that state down into a third world province. The new currency will be vodka and candles. Approximately 40 percent of Tasmania is protected in World Heritage wilderness areas, in national parks or in other reserves - www.tchange.com.au/resources/forests.html - the Greens won't stop until it's 95%.

All my schoolmates left said one panellist. Go figure. But the Greens have followed them, we're next.


----------



## Sitar (3 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

So, it sounds as if Tassie has a bright future for tourism.  It may be one of the last places left on earth with some of the only old growth forests.

Go Greens!


----------



## Logique (3 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Sitar said:


> So, it sounds as if Tassie has a bright future for tourism.  It may be one of the last places left on earth with some of the only old growth forests.
> Go Greens!



Thank you for illustrating my point with your thoroughly researched answer.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Sitar said:


> So, it sounds as if Tassie has a bright future for tourism.  It may be one of the last places left on earth with some of the only old growth forests.
> 
> Go Greens!



WHEN are these tourists going to turn up?

We've been promised that tourists will come to see the wilderness for 30 years now and still they haven't turned up. And those that do turn up, aren't prepared to pay the serious $ it would take to support the state's economy this way.

I'll stand corrected if they ever do turn up, but 30 years is a rather long time for someone to be waiting for a job I would think. Hence so many have left and the state has stagnated over that time.


----------



## wayneL (4 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I would have thought if people want to look at trees, they'll go some place warm and cheap.


----------



## Logique (4 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

In this state, if you want to find the highest unemployment rates, go to the tourism meccas. Same with south-east QLD.


----------



## Calliope (4 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> I would have thought if people want to look at trees, they'll go some place warm and cheap.




As Ronajd Reagan once said;

"If you've seen one redwood, you've seen them all."


----------



## rumpole (4 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> As Ronajd Reagan once said;
> 
> "If you've seen one redwood, you've seen them all."




Ronnie Raygun also said "I don't worry about the budget deficit, it's big enough to look after itself"


----------



## sails (4 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Sitar said:


> So, it sounds as if Tassie has a bright future for tourism.  It may be one of the last places left on earth with some of the only old growth forests.




Greens seem to want to replace the landscape with ugly looking windmills.  Spoils natural beauty, imo.

I don't think greens actually are tree huggers like we thought they were...


----------



## explod (5 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Logique said:


> In this state, if you want to find the highest unemployment rates, go to the tourism meccas. Same with south-east QLD.




Do you have some figures on that?

Unemployment seems to be high in our industrial areas here, like Geelong and Dandenong.  Understand West Sydney is not too good either.


----------



## explod (5 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> Greens seem to want to replace the landscape with ugly looking windmills.  Spoils natural beauty,




So do motor cars, free way's and skyscrapers if we are going to discuss aesthetics.


----------



## explod (5 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> I would have thought if people want to look at trees, they'll go some place warm and cheap.




The trees just need to be left alone to provide the oxygen the planet needs for long term survival.

So keep out tourists as well as woodchippers.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> Greens seem to want to replace the landscape with ugly looking windmills.  Spoils natural beauty, imo.
> 
> I don't think greens actually are tree huggers like we thought they were...




They are undisguised communists, some of their reps have communist lineage. Stalin and Mao starved their people causing massive famine and loss of life, for an ideology.

The Greens are even more dangerous than the ALP. The latter are merely incompetent.

The Greens are ideologues.

Watch them.

Watch them very carefully.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Do you have some figures on that?
> 
> Unemployment seems to be high in our industrial areas here, like Geelong and Dandenong.  Understand West Sydney is not too good either.



The real problem with tourism is that the actual jobs it creates are largely low paid "dead end" jobs which do not provide a decent standard of living, at least not without working ridiculously long hours.

Such is the problem in Tasmania, best illustrated by the hundreds of people who turn up trying to get even the lowest level of factory job at the zinc works etc. It's a job and no matter how harsh the physical conditions (if you've never been in a cell room then let's just say it's not a nice environment physically) it's still better than being stuck in tourism or a call centre. The pay is better too, even at the lowest level, and the same goes for practically any industrial job anywhere.

Many people (everywhere) take low wage service industry jobs whilst at school or uni so as to earn some $. The trouble is, the Greens see those jobs as being suitable for 40 year olds with kids to raise and a mortgage to pay. It just doesn't work.


----------



## explod (5 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> They are undisguised communists, some of their reps have communist lineage. Stalin and Mao starved their people causing massive famine and loss of life, for an ideology.
> 
> The Greens are even more dangerous than the ALP. The latter are merely incompetent.
> 
> ...




Too right, were a comin.


----------



## wayneL (5 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Too right, were a comin.




To quote the ubiquitous beer ad here in NZ:

"Yeah right" 

Once people work out the Green is only a thin veneer, a subterfuge to disguise totalitarian communism, your party is a dead duck.


----------



## explod (5 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> To quote the ubiquitous beer ad here in NZ:
> 
> "Yeah right"
> 
> Once people work out the Green is only a thin veneer, a subterfuge to disguise totalitarian communism, your party is a dead duck.




That is very bad misinterpretation of fact.

The ole Bob Menzie cry of * communism* was hot air swallowed by people in fear due to warmongering.  Was good for selling arms and making money for the rich though.

Totalitarianism is in fact the exact opposite of the consensus government as espoused by the modern Greens Constitution.  Though the icon he maybe, Bob Brown is but a small part of the growing greens movement today.

Time you got into the modern real world ole pal.

But I must say ole Bob taught many of you well, he'd have use the term tree huggers too.  Pretty harmless really.


----------



## Julia (5 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



> Pretty harmless really.




On the contrary, they are anything but harmless.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> That is very bad misinterpretation of fact.
> 
> The ole Bob Menzie cry of * communism* was hot air swallowed by people in fear due to warmongering.  Was good for selling arms and making money for the rich though.
> 
> ...




Bob ( not Menzies, but Brown ) said,



> Fellow Earthians,
> 
> Never before has the Universe unfolded such a flower as our collective human intelligence, so far as we know.
> 
> ...




What a load of utter self indulgent crap.

He needs to think about pregnancies, newborn, kids, adolescents, youth, young families, parents, workers, and the aged.

He is an ideologue. If the Greens ever get in government, more than they are now, it will be totalitarianism all over again.


gg


----------



## explod (5 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Bob ( not Menzies, but Brown ) said,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Youth, young families and particularly education are far and above some of the most important aspects of our constitution and actions.  And the issues go on across the spectrum as required for complete and proper governance.

You completely ignore my statement that Bob Brown is but a small cog in the workings of the greens today.  And that is as it should be, time and age takes us all from the stage and the new generation and its more educated and technically savvy younger ones take us forward hopefully to an improved world.

Anyone can dig and find a quote to suit a purpose but time and context makes it superfluous.

Have another drink.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Youth, young families and particularly education are far and above some of the most important aspects of our constitution and actions.  And the issues go on across the spectrum as required for complete and proper governance.
> 
> You completely ignore my statement that Bob Brown is but a small cog in the workings of the greens today.  And that is as it should be, time and age takes us all from the stage and the new generation and its more educated and technically savvy younger ones take us forward hopefully to an improved world.
> 
> ...




Unfortunately cold stone sober, and keep it civil mate.

The Greens are more than loonie, they are dangerous.

gg


----------



## drsmith (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

This too might be up Bob Brown's alley,



> They suggest humans could be modified to be smaller, dislike eating meat, have fewer children and be more willing to co-operate with social goals.




http://www.smh.com.au/world/science...ate-policy--remake-humans-20120405-1wfo6.html


----------



## wayneL (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> That is very bad misinterpretation of fact.
> 
> The ole Bob Menzie cry of * communism* was hot air swallowed by people in fear due to warmongering.  Was good for selling arms and making money for the rich though.
> 
> ...



Time to get into the modern world? What sort of imbecilic aspersion is that? 

The Greens only seek the consensus of those who agree with them. They want acolytes and would ultimately be prepared to gaol, murder, medicate or genetically modify any dissenters. This theme is appearing more and more in Green literature on the world scale.

The 'modern' world is replete with totalitarian governments and those who seek to implement them. Where do you think these people are lurking Mr Plod? Most are in the Green movement.

Take a look at your own motives, I would bet my bottom dollar you would be prepared to force your ideals by any means necessary, if you had the power.

This is the essence of totalitarianism. The Green's 'consensus' is nothing of the sort.


----------



## Logique (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Problem, a suit is brought against you for defaming an industry or a company. Solution, get the government to change the law. That's not totalitarian at all.



> http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3464006.htm
> Terry Edwards, Forest Industry Association on Q&A, Hobart 2 April:
> 
> I also talked about making environmental organisations subjected to exactly the same laws that apply to everyone else in the community, things like the Trade Practices Act, the Australian Competition and Consumer Act, truth in advertising laws, *all of which environmental organisations are exempt from* and exploit on a daily basis in a completely unfair way that creates a non level playing field that we are required to play on but we are kicking uphill every single quarter and it is becoming quite difficult. Now, we can't fight back against the campaigns.
> ...


----------



## Logique (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Australia Government DEEWR current website: http://www.deewr.gov.au/lmip/default.aspx?LMIP/LFR/Tas/MerseyLyell
And bearing in mind that Tasmania's overall unemployment rate has blown out to 6.6%, the worst in the nation. Three different regional areas below, respectively Tas 9.3%, NSW 9.1%, and QLD 7.1% unemployment.


----------



## orr (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

It must be galling to many of those here that even Alan Jones after falling into the ideologically empty dust bin of Drug prohibition and banging his twisted stick against its clanging walls, in a loosing battle to drown out those making sense on the issue ever since he started spitting his shrill tones to the airwaves, Has now moved to align him self with Green Policy on the subject. One Day guys... you to may even catch up.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ics-on-the-road-to-reform-20120405-1wfep.html

on the Brown "Earthians" to get anything that resembles a rational perspective, this needs to be read from Guy Rundle;
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/04/05...artoon-schooling-gerard-pressure-on-murdochs/

Rational perspective? what am I thinking.


----------



## explod (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



orr said:


> It must be galling to many of those here that even Alan Jones after falling into the ideologically empty dust bin of Drug prohibition and banging his twisted stick against its clanging walls, in a loosing battle to drown out those making sense on the issue ever since he started spitting his shrill tones to the airwaves, Has now moved to align him self with Green Policy on the subject. One Day guys... you to may even catch up.
> 
> http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/04/05...artoon-schooling-gerard-pressure-on-murdochs/
> 
> Rational perspective? what am I thinking.




Yes this last link nails a lot of it.


----------



## wayneL (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

What does it nail?


----------



## orr (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> What does it nail?




Yeh sorry my mistake, I made the presumption that because someone read the article, that they would understand it.


----------



## wayneL (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



orr said:


> Yeh sorry my mistake, I made the presumption that because someone read the article, that they would understand it.




I understand what the attempt was, but what does it 'nail'?

In your own words orr.


----------



## explod (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> What does it nail?






> It’s hard to know which is more bizarre about Gerard’s self-gotcha ”” his total lack of understanding of Green politics, or the fact that he’s never heard the “two more earths”, which has been around for years. Here’s the first page of Google results  ”” or, as you know it Gerard, The Google ””   for a search on “we would need two more Earths”:




Depends in the way one grows up and the influences of ones life I suppose.

Need "to be in it to understand it" could perhaps be the only answer and there is not much chance of that across the divide.

So each to his own voyage and the mix in our democracy is where we will go.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Logique said:


> And bearing in mind that Tasmania's overall unemployment rate has blown out to 6.6%, the worst in the nation. Three different regional areas below, respectively Tas 9.3%, NSW 9.1%, and QLD 7.1% unemployment.



Now consider that of those in Mersey-Lyell who do actually have a job, how many are working things propped up by government?

This region has by far the best roads in the state as everyone knows. They were built to create work.

This region has not one, but TWO major public hospitals to serve it's small population.

The other ports in the state have been practically closed, in order to direct all freight through Burnie's port so as to create employment in a town where, with one exception, every other significant employer has closed at the hands of the Greens. This freight shuffling exercise is supported by a loss-making railway to move goods to and from Burnie to the other now largely unused (by ships) ports.

If you look at the portion of jobs there which in some way depend on government, then I'd speculate that it's in the order of 50%. Government shipping. Government ports. Government railways. Two government hospitals. 

About the only thing happening which might create a few (temporary) jobs up there is that 53 of the 58 buildings which comprised The Pulp (aka APPM, the Burnie Mill, Papermakers, Australian Paper, Tas Paper and a few others) are about to be knocked down and a hardware store built on part of the site. With so many buildings, it will presumably take a while to knock them all down thus creating some work. But in the long term, a few jobs in a national chain hardware store is a far cry from the thousands who once worked at The Pulp, and that's the problem.

And can anyone seriously tell me that paper produced from Indonesian rainforests in Third World factories is any less harmful to the environment than production in the later years at Burnie? That really is the crux of it. Had the company been allowed to undertake planned major investment in a complete new pulping line (which would have fed all the paper machines at both sites including a brand new paper machine as well), instead of being blocked by the Australian Government following a Greens campaign, those mills would still be running today and would be doing so primarily on plantation timber. Instead we log rainforests overseas and dump the waste where nobody's looking whilst trying to find ways to keep locals employed.


----------



## orr (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> I understand what the attempt was, but what does it 'nail'?
> 
> In your own words orr.





 How's your understanding of DAAS Capital , To help you It was prescient in it's prediction of the configuration that we know as WW1. Now replace Resources Today With Colonies in The 19th century. Bob Browns push toward broader international democratic resolve is to lesson chances of a direct route to conflict. 
There was a bloke named Adam Smith,  look across His work 'Theory of Moral Sentiments'. It's important that this understood in parallel, echos are there in nearly every thing Brown Says. It May sparking in you to a deeper reading of it. It's impossible to think from reading your past comments that you have ever turned a page of it.
This is the trouble with arguing with people who know so little. Both Smith and Marx were urging a path toward the greatest good for greatest number, each to their means, needs and abilities. But you wont here that from your 1% today or Hendeson, he's done the reading, just not understood it or forgotten it.
So you have to understand the history to understand Browns self lampoon and so the aside to Swifts 'A modest proposal'.
What it nails is your ill-educated hyperbole

I hope I've helped


----------



## Julia (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Bob ( not Menzies, but Brown ) said,
> gg



 Are you making this up?  Did he really actually say that?  If so, we're in even more trouble than I'd thought.


explod said:


> Depends in the way one grows up and the influences of ones life I suppose.
> 
> Need "to be in it to understand it" could perhaps be the only answer and there is not much chance of that across the divide.
> 
> So each to his own voyage and the mix in our democracy is where we will go.



May I respectfully suggest the above post should more appropriately reside in your "Gobbeldygook" thread?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Are you making this up?  Did he really actually say that?  If so, we're in even more trouble than I'd thought.





Unfortunately Bob Brown did say this, and this is the bloke who is sharing the Prime ministership of Australia with Julia Gillard, imposing taxes and policy on an unwilling population for an ideology.

Here it is Julia, from the original galactic source, my fellow ASF earthian.

http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration

gg


----------



## drsmith (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



orr said:


> I hope I've helped



What does all that have to do with Bob Brown's aliens dear fellow Earthian ?


----------



## wayneL (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



orr said:


> How's your understanding of DAAS Capital , To help you It was prescient in it's prediction of the configuration that we know as WW1. Now replace Resources Today With Colonies in The 19th century. Bob Browns push toward broader international democratic resolve is to lesson chances of a direct route to conflict.
> There was a bloke named Adam Smith,  look across His work 'Theory of Moral Sentiments'. It's important that this understood in parallel, echos are there in nearly every thing Brown Says. It May sparking in you to a deeper reading of it. It's impossible to think from reading your past comments that you have ever turned a page of it.
> This is the trouble with arguing with people who know so little. Both Smith and Marx were urging a path toward the greatest good for greatest number, each to their means, needs and abilities. But you wont here that from your 1% today or Hendeson, he's done the reading, just not understood it or forgotten it.
> So you have to understand the history to understand Browns self lampoon and so the aside to Swifts 'A modest proposal'.
> ...




Thanks orr. You did not disappoint with the de rigueur leftist ad hom. 

Unfortunately, despite your apparently best efforts to impress with use of language, it fell well short and only served to obfuscate. I expected better.

It did amuse me at your expense however.

I'm sure Adam Smith would not be amused by equating him with Bob Brown though; odds on he is turning in his grave as we speak.


----------



## sails (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> Thanks orr. You did not disappoint with the de rigueur leftist ad hom.
> 
> Unfortunately, despite your apparently best efforts to impress with use of language, it fell well short and only served to obfuscate. I expected better.
> 
> ...




And spelling in Orr's post...

"here" used instead of "hear" !!

Little tip (helps the grandkids with their spelling) - "hear" has the word "ear" in it...

But, I must confess, I didn't read all Orr's post.  The "here" word jumped out...

Oh, and I thought Gillard changed the spelling of "hyperbole' to "hyperbowl"...still laughing


----------



## explod (6 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Unfortunately Bob Brown did say this, and this is the bloke who is sharing the Prime ministership of Australia with Julia Gillard, imposing taxes and policy on an unwilling population for an ideology.
> 
> Here it is Julia, from the original galactic source, my fellow ASF earthian.
> 
> ...




What a great visionary.  If read objectively this is a magnificent manifesto for saving the planet and its people.

Stalin's rise and the fall of Paris to the Commune are examples of revolt when the people are pushed to the limit.  This is already occurring in many countries today and unless we listen to and provide for all of the people in a fair manner, it will not be me or the Greens causing the spill it will be the anger of the underdogs.

Let us hope that common sense does prevail and that the changes required to overcome the growing problems of overpopulation, deforestation and pollution occur by democratic choice and equal participation.

We can do it financially (big he he here) through the IMF, G7 and G20, so why not on the concerns of justice and the environment.  

Plenty of Justice, as pointed out by Bob, if a country is sitting on oil of course.  

And;  if of course anyone thinks the mess Irak has been left in is justice, yagottabejoking.


----------



## explod (7 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Following on from my post above Richard Wilkinson spells out succinctly what inequality does.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html


----------



## Logique (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

God help us.



> Bob Brown resigns as Greens leader and Senator - April 13, 2012 - 11:44AM.
> 
> ....Greens deputy leader Christine Milne has just tweeted that she had been elected as the new leader. "I'm honoured & excited to have been elected leader," Senator Milne wrote.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...and-senator-20120413-1wxoz.html#ixzz1rsgdZWPX


----------



## dutchie (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Prime Minister resigns - new Prime Minister elected.


----------



## drsmith (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



dutchie said:


> Prime Minister resigns - new Prime Minister elected.



The King is dead. Long live the........., no, perhaps not.

Was he pushed ?

Has he come home to find others in the Australian Greens don't share his views on aliens ?

From the link above;



> "I'm well aware of the size of this decision," he said, noting that he had been discussing his decision since returning from the Greens global conference in Africa earlier this month.


----------



## Knobby22 (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

He is getting old and doesn't want to contest the next election. Fair enough.

And the Greens will miss him terribly. He was a true Green in that he was on about the environment and generally pushed against his increasingly socialist base of the party.

Without him at the helm they will push socialism harder and I predict will lose massive support as a result. This is what happened to the Democrats under Natasha Party Destroyer.

I didn't always agree with Bob but as an honest person with clear priorities I always thought he was a good guy and respected him

Said my bit, you can go back to making glib comments.


----------



## drsmith (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

He might have made a good Minister for Westerly Winds.

I wonder if he was starting to lose his marbles.

The following assessment is an interesting read.

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...ments/fellow_earthians_the_planet_will_go_on/


----------



## Calliope (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Knobby22 said:


> Said my bit, you can go back to making glib comments




Thanks for your permission Knobby.  One consolation of Brown's departure is that Christine Milne and Sarah Hanson-Young hate each other guts. With a bit of luck they will destroy themselves and their party. 
Perhaps Lee Rhiannon the Stalinist, will institute a purge.:twak:


----------



## bellenuit (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Knobby22 said:


> I didn't always agree with Bob but as an honest person with clear priorities I always thought he was a good guy and respected him




I agree. At least he behaved like an adult unlike 90% of the rest of them (both sides) who act like schoolchildren.


----------



## Miss Hale (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Knobby22 said:


> He is getting old and doesn't want to contest the next election. Fair enough.




Yes, and because of this I'm not that surprised.  I expected he would resign in the not too distant future wasn't sure when of course.

Also, apart from his alien comments , I thought that lately he looked and sounded quite old all of a sudden and didn't see as sharp in interviews etc. 



> And the Greens will miss him terribly. He was a true Green in that he was on about the environment and generally pushed against his increasingly socialist base of the party.
> 
> Without him at the helm they will push socialism harder and I predict will lose massive support as a result. This is what happened to the Democrats under Natasha Party Destroyer.
> 
> ...




Yes, they will miss him and I don't think they will have anywhere near the success they have had without him (fortunately IMO).


----------



## drsmith (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



bellenuit said:


> At least he behaved like an adult........



Martin Ferguson might disagree with that.


----------



## Julia (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Knobby22 said:


> He is getting old and doesn't want to contest the next election. Fair enough.



Yes, and perhaps his mental acuity has been deteriorating (viz recent nutty ramblings) and he is being sensible enough to know when to go.



> And the Greens will miss him terribly. He was a true Green in that he was on about the environment and generally pushed against his increasingly socialist base of the party.
> 
> Without him at the helm they will push socialism harder and I predict will lose massive support as a result. This is what happened to the Democrats under Natasha Party Destroyer.



Agree. He had a level of charisma to Greens voters which is completely lacking in the shrill, combative Christine Milne.
In some ways, Bob Brown was the consummate politician with his calm manner often obscuring the wackiness of his policies. 


drsmith said:


> The following assessment is an interesting read.
> 
> http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...ments/fellow_earthians_the_planet_will_go_on/



That's an astute comment from Chris Kenny, especially this:


> In the end Brown’s political career must be judged on how he has impeded economic progress rather than how he has enlivened a fringe protest movement.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Knobby22 said:


> He is getting old and doesn't want to contest the next election. Fair enough.
> 
> And the Greens will miss him terribly. He was a true Green in that he was on about the environment and generally pushed against his increasingly socialist base of the party.




lol, lapping from the "Green" bowl again Knobby. Good to see people such as this leave, especially when they openly admit using the "environmental" crusade to push a socialist world government.

If you really believe in this man, then North Korea must be your utopia.


----------



## Calliope (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Miss Hale said:


> Also, apart from his alien comments , I thought that lately he looked and sounded quite old all of a sudden and didn't see as sharp in interviews etc.




Dementia probably. His partner probably put pressure on him to go before he made a complete fool of himself. I think he will now be in seclusion.


----------



## Miss Hale (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> Dementia probably. His partner probably put pressure on him to go before he made a complete fool of himself. I think he will now be in seclusion.




I did wonder that, there was one interview where he seemed to be struggling a bit to find the right words.


----------



## noco (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



OzWaveGuy said:


> lol, lapping from the "Green" bowl again Knobby. Good to see people such as this leave, especially when they openly admit using the "environmental" crusade to push a socialist world government.
> 
> If you really believe in this man, then North Korea must be your utopia.




Brown has been cunning with his enviromental issues to suck in the younger generation when all along he has had this hidden agenda for socialism as you say OWG.


----------



## macca (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

While I am not a green supporter I do agree with the comments that he has seemed to be struggling of late, I thought it quite noticeable in the past few months.

I don't agree with his politics but he is/was a clever politician, I do believe it will be like Don Chipp and the Democrats, the Greens will now self implode.

The QLD election was their first step backwards, the CO2 tax will wipe them out at the next federal election  IMO


----------



## iRod (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Brown stepping down, Assange says he wants to enter politics? mmm... just a coincidence? BB did say he was welcomed to join the Greens, didn't he?? And Carr set the precedent for an outsider to enter the Senate. You read it here first folks!

Nevertheless, last federal election both the Libs & Labor gave their preferences to the Greens.... oops... they won't do that again. Maybe Brownie realises the Greens  have peaked & he can bow out now gracefully.


----------



## joea (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Well I reckon Sarah-Hanson-Young's bottom lip has been dragging on the ground since the resignation. She will need some savlon on that tonight. Should be OK by Monday.
She has been passed over for deputy.
Wonder why? Oops that's right, she challenged Milne for her job.(I think!)

Well get ready for a Green campaign from the new leader every time a camera is pointed at her.
The one comment I can make is, that Bob was generally well composed in front of the Media. Plenty of practice I guess.
joea


----------



## Miss Hale (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



joea said:


> Well I reckon Sarah-Hanson-Young's bottom lip has been dragging on the ground since the resignation. She will need some savlon on that tonight. Should be OK by Monday.
> She has been passed over for deputy.




Who is to be Milne's deputy?


----------



## StumpyPhantom (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> Thanks for your permission Knobby.  One consolation of Brown's departure is that Christine Milne and Sarah Hanson-Young hate each other guts. With a bit of luck they will destroy themselves and their party.
> Perhaps Lee Rhiannon the Stalinist, will institute a purge.:twak:




Yeah! I'm salivating at this prospect.  The last time a minor party had a little henfight (remember Cheryl, Natasha etc?), it precipitated total disintegration only a handful of years later.

Now that Christine Milne is in the spotlight, I think another factor leading to disintegration will be at play.

If the public don't like Gillard's manners, they're going to despise Milne.  So Julia's going to end up joining Christine, Sarah and Lee in the dogfight.  Nobody wins this one, except maybe if you're a bloke and your name is Tony or maybe Tim (who may enjoy watching)!


----------



## wayneL (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Knobby22 said:


> ...you can go back to making glib comments.




Good riddance. :

~~~~~~~~~~

Just youtubed Christine Milne. The Greens are screwed as per noted similarities with the Australian Dumbocrats.


----------



## moXJO (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> Good riddance. :
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> .




You beat me to it.


----------



## joea (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Miss Hale said:


> Who is to be Milne's deputy?




Adam Bandt
I think he maybe in to stop infighting between NSW and Tasmania.
joea


----------



## Logique (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> ..The following assessment is an interesting read..
> http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...ments/fellow_earthians_the_planet_will_go_on/



Essentially correct from Chris Kenny. They won't have the same cut-through without him.


----------



## explod (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Youth, young families and particularly education are far and above some of the most important aspects of our constitution and actions.  And the issues go on across the spectrum as required for complete and proper governance.
> 
> You completely ignore my statement that Bob Brown is but a small cog in the workings of the greens today.  And that is as it should be, time and age takes us all from the stage and the new generation and its more educated and technically savvy younger ones take us forward hopefully to an improved world.
> 
> ...




Posted a few days back.

He has done what we all with the wisdom of our experience and age do, hand over the reins.

Having done his job remarkably well and sown the seeds of immortality by his outstanding example he will inspire generations to come.  Abbot spare me, who could only say on the telly tonight "I think the Greens are in for a turbulent time" what a waste of space, you badly need a new leader in the Libs.

It is a good day (Friday the 13th) of hope for the future.   And I am certain that in retirement his influence will continue to shape a better world.


----------



## explod (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> Good riddance. :
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Just youtubed Christine Milne. The Greens are screwed as per noted similarities with the Australian Dumbocrats.




Why,? and give us some substance.


----------



## wayneL (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Why,? and give us some substance.




Knobby specifically requested _glib_ comment. Gettest thou a dictionary.


----------



## IFocus (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Knobby22 said:


> He is getting old and doesn't want to contest the next election. Fair enough.
> 
> And the Greens will miss him terribly. He was a true Green in that he was on about the environment and generally pushed against his increasingly socialist base of the party.
> 
> ...




Bob was a polarizing figure for the simple fact that he was with out doubt that at any level personal or other wise the only honest and credible politician in any parliament in Australia who practiced what he preached.

As a result the viper vitriol poured forth from all those who could never rise to the same level..............no body.

Given the small political base clearly Brown had the biggest impact of any politician in recent Australian history and out politic-ted both sides of the parliament with ease.

The Australian political landscape will be far poorer for his retirement.


----------



## explod (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> Knobby specifically requested _glib_ comment. Gettest thou a dictionary.




You accuse me of telling lies ?


----------



## nulla nulla (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> Good riddance. :
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Just youtubed Christine Milne. The Greens are screwed as per noted similarities with the Australian Dumbocrats.




Yeah, I kind of agree with this. The greens will now dwindle and pass into obscurity like the Democarats without Don Chip.


----------



## explod (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



nulla nulla said:


> Yeah, I kind of agree with this. The greens will now dwindle and pass into obscurity like the Democarats without Don Chip.




As a Green on the inside I can assure you that that is a very immature and uninformed comment.

Get used to it Pal, the Greens are here to stay, and because we think outside the square for all we will save the planet, if of course it is not too late already.

Wake up.


----------



## joea (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Posted a few days back.
> 
> He has done what we all with the wisdom of our experience and age do, hand over the reins.




I will pay that. He has done the one thing John Howard would not!!
joea


----------



## wayneL (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> You accuse me of telling lies ?




No.

I accuse you of not understanding the English language.


----------



## explod (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> No.
> 
> I accuse you of not understanding the English language.




Of course, that's for the Pom's (and I do have some very good English friends by the way)  I am a fourth generation Australian.

You need to come out of the mist and stop talking, in laugh up your sleeve at those who see things in another way, shorthand.

And we are both off topic.


----------



## Calliope (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Having done his job remarkably well and sown the seeds of immortality by his outstanding example he will inspire generations to come.




How sickening. This is his real legacy; 



> *And finally, let us not forget that Brown’s real legacy is a very bad one for the nation. He has used his influence to impose a carbon tax, waste massive amounts of taxpayers’ money on inefficient and ineffective green energy schemes, and to impose a ridiculous media inquiry among a range of other policy distractions. The Greens have been anti-development, anti-business and constantly disruptive when it comes to intelligent discussion of foreign policy and other issues. In the end Brown’s political career must be judged on how he has impeded economic progress rather than how he has enlivened a fringe protest movement*.




And this is the piece of work you claim as your messiah.

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...ments/fellow_earthians_the_planet_will_go_on/ ;


----------



## explod (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> How sickening. This is his real legacy;
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It had to start somewhere.

It has you upset to the extent that you and your ilk are sitting up taking notice and are right into the debate.  I am pleased with that and to be a part of it with you.

This and the many the other debates on this subject will identify the flaws of the carbon system and from here we will begin to gradually find new ways to alternative energy that is cleaner and more efficient and then to a better world with exiting opportunities for the creative.

Bob's legacay will be that he had another ways of looking at things that will prove to be better in my view for all of us.


----------



## Miss Hale (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I had to laugh when Cristine Milne said something about improving the Greens standing in 'the bush'.  Having lived in the country for many years all I can say is good luck with that  .  She might start with not referring to it as 'the bush' which is not looked upon kindly by those that live in regional areas 



explod said:


> Bob's legacay will be that he had another ways of looking at things that will prove to be better in my view for all of us.




Yes, other totally impractical ways.


----------



## sails (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> ...  Abbot spare me, who could only say on the telly tonight "I think the Greens are in for a turbulent time" what a waste of space, you badly need a new leader in the Libs....





 Can't handle the truth from Abbott?  I suspect he is spot on with his comments.  Time will tell.

And I've never heard you call Gillard a waste of space despite some painfully repetitive comments and badly pronounced words.


----------



## explod (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Miss Hale said:


> I had to laugh when Cristine Milne said something about improving the Greens standing in 'the bush'.  Having lived in the country for many years all I can say is good luck with that  .  She might start with not referring to it as 'the bush' which is not looked upon kindly by those that live in regional areas
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, other totally impractical ways.




Was born and bred in the bush myself on a farm and have stayed in touch with it for my entire 66 years.  Many farmers today are in the greens as they can see by direct observation what is going on with season's and the climate.

Many politicians use that ordinary term so what.

Those in regional areas call us in town "city slikers". who cares

Getting back to Bob, real good change comes from just that accepting and making change.  Having worked for five years in a research and development department of a large organisation for five years I learned that the good ideas come from about 10 or more outlandish stupid ones. A bit like share trading trends as I do, for every one good trade there is about four duds but with a good stop system you gain more on those good ones for overall profit.  In research you learn that the real breakthroughs come at the philosophical level, often as a way out idea first which it is filtered with debate and handed down till developed into its practical application.

Bob was a philosophical visionary through which some of the ideas will continue to be distilled into ways for practical application.

Hope that he enjoys the good retirement that is deserved for his contribution and pleased that he has left us with so much in which we can work on for a better world.


----------



## explod (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> Can't handle the truth from Abbott?  I suspect he is spot on with his comments.  Time will tell.
> 
> And I've never heard you call Gillard a waste of space despite some painfully repetitive comments and badly pronounced words.




Not only is she a waste of space, she and the ALP are a liability.

And Abbot........., thank goodness we have the Greens coming onto the scene


----------



## wayneL (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Bob was a philosophical visionary through which some of the ideas will continue to be distilled into ways for practical application.




I never credited you as having a sense of humour Plod... that was very funny.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Bob was a philosophical visionary through which some of the ideas will continue to be distilled into ways for practical application.




Water is a plentiful liquid through which with some barley and yeast will continue to be distilled into ways for practical malt whisky.

Bob was all water, no barley and no yeast. His ideas are all in the negative and anti-worker and farmer.

gg


----------



## StumpyPhantom (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Having done his job remarkably well and sown the seeds of immortality by his outstanding example he will inspire generations to come.  Abbot spare me, who could only say on the telly tonight "I think the Greens are in for a turbulent time" what a waste of space, you badly need a new leader in the Libs.




WOW - Explod - you're a real Bob fan!  I have nothing against dreamers and visionaries (most of us were at one time).  The real question which most of us are concerned about is how much damage you do in the process.  I suspect your comments are also acknowledging that, conceding he's had a few corny turns.

Bob was in the place where he did the most damage, as defacto PM, and his legacy will be trashed as a result.  He needed to be like Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Confucius, and (dare I say it) your good self.  Enact change from the ground up.  There's so much pie in the sky dreaming involved in thinking that we could save the world by giving up a polluting industry and not think that some 3rd world country will double or triple that by making the same widget.  Anyway, enough from me - Explod - I expect you will do just that (Explode) in response now.

Regarding Bob's retirement, let me be completely cynical and say Bob's a man who knows a climax when he sees/feels one, and the passing of the carbon tax was a huge climax.  He's also a man who knows that he can't climax twice, so going now is his best chance to preserve his legacy.  How much wit and intelligence would it take for Milne to block any Act to repeal the carbon tax?  She already reminds me of  bulldog on a meat truck.

Just stand in the middle of the crop circle Bob.  Your work on Earth is done, and your time is up.  It's time for us to bring you home.  "Beam him up, Scotty"


----------



## So_Cynical (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I don't visit this thread a lot (try to avoid the extremes of the ASF right) but have to say that reading over today posts leaves me with a most unpleasant feeling.

Amazing how the Loony right can take such joy in the departure of a "true believer" perhaps its because the right has no such talent and dedication to the cause....i pity the sad and pathetic posters that want to twist and spin the gracious exit of a peoples champion and seek to turn it into something else.

He's 67 FFS and seeks to have a life after politics...unlike Johnny Howard who didnt know when it was time.  WD BB and thanks for your contribution.


----------



## drsmith (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I take joy in his departure because of the policies his party represents.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



So_Cynical said:


> Amazing how the Loony right can take such joy in the departure of a "true believer" perhaps its because the right has no such talent and dedication to the cause....i pity the sad and pathetic posters that want to twist and spin the gracious exit of a peoples champion and seek to turn it into something else.




That's the problem with "true believers" - they can do so much damage because it's all an article of faith.

I dunno about joy at Bob's departure, I really wanted him to stick around to see the damage.

But I suspect we'll hear more about Bob's "gracious exit" in days and weeks to come...


----------



## Calliope (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



So_Cynical said:


> Amazing how the Loony right can take such joy in the departure of a "true believer" perhaps its because the right has no such talent and dedication to the cause....i pity the sad and pathetic posters that want to twist and spin the gracious exit of a peoples champion and seek to turn it into something else.




Wow!!! How did So_Cynical become So_ Gullible?


----------



## So_Cynical (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> I take joy in his departure because of the policies his party represents.




No you take joy in his departure because your a right wing zealot with the political vision and insight of a feather and down pillow.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



So_Cynical said:


> No you take joy in his departure because your a right wing zealot with the political vision and insight of a feather and down pillow.




Now now SC - there's no need to get so personal.  I need my feather and down pillow for a good night's sleep!

You're (note the spelling!) attacking because you know the truth.  We're all dreamers, but in private.

This man's wreaked havoc which we're all going to pay for, and this includes your impressive win/loss ratio on the stock market.

I bet that record hasn't come from investing in "green" stocks, and there's at least a mild sprinkling or energy, resource and exploration companies in there?


----------



## Miss Hale (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Was born and bred in the bush myself on a farm and have stayed in touch with it for my entire 66 years.  Many farmers today are in the greens as they can see by direct observation what is going on with season's and the climate.




Well that has not been my experience at all, I can't think of one farmer I know that is in the Greens as as for climate change, they know from experience that droughts and floods come and go there is no such thing as man induced climate change.  I do know a few Green Party members living in the country but they were not farmers, more tree changers.



> Many politicians use that ordinary term so what.




Sure but I wouldn't use it if I was trying to curry favour/win over regional voters.



> Those in regional areas call us in town "city slikers". who cares




Again, if you were wanting to improve relations with those living in the city you wouldn't start by calling them city slickers


----------



## StumpyPhantom (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Miss Hale said:


> Again, if you were wanting to improve relations with those living in the city you wouldn't start by calling them city slickers




Very perceptive Miss Hale - I think you've exposed Explod as one of those Green -apologist - inner city urbanites posing as a country bumpkin to try and win over the rural folk.

Aint gonna happen - country people are much too practical.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

This will cause a significant decrease in the Green vote. It will be interesting to see where it goes.

Unlikely to the ALP, possibly to Katter or Independents.

The Greens are quite riven between the commos and the conservationists. Brown kept them under control, but now the divisions will be out.

gg


----------



## OzWaveGuy (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

An observation on resignations/retirees from high level positions.There's been several reports of large numbers of resignations occurring in the past few months, it'll be interesting if this trend continues and if we'll see a trend here.

According to American Kabuki, because of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, all publicly traded companies must report to the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) whenever certain officers or board members resign from their post. This publication is made via the database known as EDGAR.

American Kabuki states that, after investigating the database (Form 8-K, Item 5.02), they were able to search terms such as “Resigns” or “Resignation.” The figures reported by the blog as a result of this search are interesting to say the least.

Take a look at the figures presented by American Kabuki below:​


----------



## So_Cynical (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



StumpyPhantom said:


> Now now SC - there's no need to get so personal.  I need my feather and down pillow for a good night's sleep!
> 
> You're (note the spelling!) attacking because you know the truth.  We're all dreamers, but in private.
> 
> ...




Its all personal...some of us dream about a beautiful world, some of us dream about a right wing nightmare, and some of us dream about a world of perfect spelling and punctuation....sorry to disappoint.

The "havoc" reaped by BB is an inevitable consequence of a carbon fuelled life...and yes  i have profited from it because that's one of my markets edges, the ability to see what's coming, regardless of my personally political beliefs.

I have watched many green stocks and only ever invested in one for a break even result....i continue to watch and wait for the inevitable....lots of easy money to be made from investing in the inevitable. 

--------------------



Garpal Gumnut said:


> This will cause a significant decrease in the Green vote. It will be interesting to see where it goes.
> 
> Unlikely to the ALP, possibly to *Katter* or Independents.




Oh FFS GG get a grip.

Extreme left votes going to the extreme right...lol.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



So_Cynical said:


> --------------------
> 
> 
> 
> ...





The extreme left and the extreme right have more in common with each other than the more moderate parties.

Look at the CMFMEU and Katter.

they attract the same voters.

History is replet with a coalition of loonie left and hard line right. I will not quote those from the early years of WW2 lest I inflame this debate.

gg


----------



## Uncle Festivus (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> I learned that the good ideas come from about 10 or more outlandish stupid ones.




I think Labor has that philosophy too, but still looking for the 1 good idea to materialise, so their ratio is still 10 stupid to 0 good 

Why doesn't some one simply ask the Greens how replacing the several 100 thousand people and regions who make a living from coal mining are apparently, overnight, suddenly convert to renewable energy manufacturers? If the Germans can't compete with cheap Chinese solar panels then we have no hope. 

The Greens will be annihilated at the next election.

Kevin Rudd was applauded for his Australian Afternoon tea blend, but I think Julia still prefers Green tea.....


----------



## joea (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

GG.

I am wondering about that announcement(to happen) you mentioned.
Has it happened yet! was on another thread.

I am losing sleep wondering what it was.

Please put me out of my misery.

joea


----------



## Tink (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I dont think the Greens will be the same without him, which suits me fine.
I dont agree with their policies.


----------



## wayneL (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

A sudden and noticeable increase in invective from the ASF Looney Left could only mean they have come to the stark realization that their tenuous grip on their day in the sun is slipping away into a dark and stormy sunset.

ROTFL


----------



## Calliope (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I think gay support will drop off from the Greens now that their charismatic idol has been replaced by the the distinctly uncharismatic Christine Milne with her strident whining drone which makes Gillard seem like a polished orator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lAdKMmwyq8&feature=player_detailpage


----------



## sails (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> A sudden and noticeable increase in invective from the ASF Looney Left could only mean they have come to the stark realization that their tenuous grip on their day in the sun is slipping away into a dark and stormy sunset.
> 
> ROTFL





And the funny thing is they are calling those who would normally vote labor "right wing zealots"...

However, this minority government is no "normal" brand of labor and it seems that many from the left cannot stomach it anymore.  I wonder how they feel with the likes of So-Gullible calling them names and trying to put them into right wing extremism which is a long way from where the majority of Australian voters who do not want this government sit. 

This anti labor sentiment is more to do with anti Fabian, anti carbon tax, anti open borders, anti the three independents who have failed to represent the majority in their electorates and anti Gillard, imo.

And, name calling usually has the opposite effect. It tends to get the bristles up and actually puts a bigger dividing line.  Problem for So-Gullible is that he is on the side that is steadily shrinking.


----------



## craft (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I have paddled the Franklin River quite a few times. Whatever you think of Bob Browns politics the Franklin is an awesome legacy he leaves behind and I’m eternally grateful.  I have met him a few times when returning from a bush walk that starts and finishes at the Liffey property he has now donated to the Bush Heritage Fund. I found him a thoroughly decent bloke. Always offers you a cuppa and his is the only property that I have ever seen the sign “Trespassers welcome”. 

This guy has been persecuted more than most for trying to do something about the things he’s passionate about, generally by people who do nothing about what they are passionate about except sling insults from their armchairs.

I reckon he will enjoy his time out of the firing line and rest easily with his legacy.


Salute. Bob Brown.


----------



## Calliope (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



craft said:


> I reckon he will enjoy his time out of the firing line and rest easily with his legacy.




Now that he has retired, his partner wants him to assume more of the housewifely duties - like washing up.


----------



## craft (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> Now that he has retired, his partner wants him to assume more of the housewifely duties - like washing up.




That’s the sort of crap I'm sure he won't miss. Your post says much more about you than him.


----------



## So_Cynical (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> And the funny thing is they are calling those who would normally vote labor "right wing zealots"...
> 
> However, this minority government is no "normal" brand of labor and it seems that many from the left cannot stomach it anymore.  I wonder how they feel with the likes of So-Gullible calling them names and trying to put them into right wing extremism which is a long way from where the majority of Australian voters who do not want this government sit.
> 
> ...




As i said.



So_Cynical said:


> I don't visit this thread a lot (try to avoid the extremes of the ASF right)


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



So_Cynical said:


> No you take joy in his departure because your a right wing zealot with the political vision and insight of a feather and down pillow.



No, I take joy in his departure because of the policies his party represents.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



So_Cynical said:


> Its all personal...some of us dream about a beautiful world, some of us dream about a right wing nightmare, and some of us dream about a world of perfect spelling and punctuation....sorry to disappoint.
> 
> The "havoc" reaped by BB is an inevitable consequence of a carbon fuelled life...and yes  i have profited from it because that's one of my markets edges, the ability to see what's coming, regardless of my personally political beliefs.
> 
> ...




Great Post SC!  You're my hero.  I too have those dreams.  Except that I'm 50 right now and I need a high-growth economy to get me through the next 10 years (max - hopefully) no more to complete my children's education and get me a good retirement nest egg.

I suspect at that time I'll start thinking about legacy issues, when my daily existence is no longer tied to the economy, and whether my descendants will have a world to inhabit in 50 years' time.

I have faith in our scientists' ability to innovate though, and I think it's inevitable "the nuclear powered clean energy future" penny will drop soon


----------



## IFocus (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Miss Hale said:


> I had to laugh when Cristine Milne said something about improving the Greens standing in 'the bush'.  Having lived in the country for many years all I can say is good luck with that  .  She might start with not referring to it as 'the bush' which is not looked upon kindly by those that live in regional areas




Fracing in the farm heart land might well change that.

The proposed coal mine in Margret River moved many to the Greens in the region.


Keep rolling those eyes..........


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



craft said:


> I have paddled the Franklin River quite a few times. Whatever you think of Bob Browns politics the Franklin is an awesome legacy he leaves behind and I’m eternally grateful.  I have met him a few times when returning from a bush walk that starts and finishes at the Liffey property he has now donated to the Bush Heritage Fund. I found him a thoroughly decent bloke. Always offers you a cuppa and his is the only property that I have ever seen the sign “Trespassers welcome”.



Somewhat strangely, I actually agree on that point. It _is_ a magnificent river that's for sure.

Where I strongly disagree is that the decision to save that river was used to prevent the construction of not only that dam but of practically any other large dam on any other river in the state.

There's a need for balance in this and any other debate. Stopping that dam was arguably the correct decision from a conservation perspective. But stopping the construction of other dams which had absolutely nothing to do with that river is hard to accept as a reasonable position, especially not given the consequences for other environmental issues (ie fossil fuel use) and the wellbeing of humans (particularly those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale).

I have a lot of respect for Bob in some ways, but he is unfortunately a master of appearing reasonable whilst actually implementing a somewhat extreme agenda. 

No flooding of the lower third of the Franklin? Fair enough. No dams anywhere on any other rivers, including those already dammed upstream? That's extreme to say the least but it's what actually occurred and this was intentional at the time.


----------



## Calliope (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



craft said:


> That’s the sort of crap I'm sure he won't miss. Your post says much more about you than him.




No need to take a hissy fit. This is Paul Thomas's "crap." He  said yesterday:



> "I am also looking forward to him perhaps sharing a greater load of the household tasks at home and also just having time to share as a couple in the things that couples do," he said at a press conference where the Australian Greens leader announced his retirement.
> 
> "Here comes the washing up," Senator Brown quipped.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



craft said:


> That’s the sort of crap I'm sure he won't miss. Your post says much more about you than him.



Much as I disagree with many of Bob's political views, his private life and sexuality is irrelevant so far as I am concerned and is not a relevant point of debate.


----------



## Miss Hale (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



IFocus said:


> Fracing in the farm heart land might well change that.
> 
> The proposed coal mine in Margret River moved many to the Greens in the region.




I never said there would be no issues that both the Greens and people in regional areas might have the same view on but the reality is that most people in regional areas do not subscribe to the ideals, philosophy etc. of the Greens and recognise that the Greens do not represent their best interests, there is another party that does that called The Nationals. Milne, therefore, will have a huge task to win over 'the bush' as she put it and not one I think she can ever achieve (withour major policy changes).




> Keep rolling those eyes..........




Will do, with the Greens around it's not hard


----------



## Calliope (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> Much as I disagree with many of Bob's political views, his private life and sexuality is irrelevant so far as I am concerned and is not a relevant point of debate.




I wasn't debating anything. I was commenting on a news item. And are you saying that his sexual preferences and advocacy for same sex marriage did not attract the gay vote? In that respect it is highly relevant. Milne will struggle to keep them.


----------



## Julia (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> but he is unfortunately a master of appearing reasonable whilst actually implementing a somewhat extreme agenda.



Yes, this is his most distinguishing characteristic imo:  the avuncular, genial, pleasant demeanour which masks some immensely damaging policies.


----------



## joea (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Well I think Bob had a little bit of influence on all of us, no doubt some will not agree.
There has been many things changed to the better in Agriculture because of a push that originated by Bob.(even if it was to have a pause to think).
I think that many area's of research were wallowing for support, and the greens did gather that support that supplied the funds to continue in the right direction.
e.g. Cane farmers in my area decided to just drop the fertilizer on top of the trash blanket.
You guessed it, the rain would push it out to sea. It is now put back under the surface.
I have read "Back from the Brink", and "Beyond the Brink". They were and eye opener to me, although they are not linked to the Greens.
I now use every weed without a seed and reapply it to my garden. (through a chipper)

What I firmly believe is, that we should concentrate more on the positives from people, than beating up the bad things they may have or may not have suggested.

Finally I never saw Bob in the Senate say "Bring it on"!!!
I think Bob opened a chapter in Australia that we had to have.
I am not a Green.
And as Forrest said, " that's all I got to say about that".
joea


----------



## joea (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Well I had a little think!

"Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator and change has its enemies."
Robert Kennedy 1925 - 1968.

joea


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> I wasn't debating anything. I was commenting on a news item. And are you saying that his sexual preferences and advocacy for same sex marriage did not attract the gay vote? In that respect it is highly relevant. Milne will struggle to keep them.



I have attended many development versus environment debates, rallies etc and addressed some of them myself. Suffice to say that I have lost count of the number of times that I've heard spiteful comments about Bob's sexuality in those situations.

For a time I became an advocate for gay rights as a direct result of this. I also took to wearing a pink shirt to all such environment / development debates and rallies for the sake of making at least a few people think.

Yes, he has attracted the gay vote to some extent and I see no problem with that. I do however see a problem when opponents seek to discredit his environmental or other views on the basis of his sexuality, which is clearly an unrelated matter.

For the record, I am heterosexual and always have been. But there's a principle here. 

With regard to Bob himself, I will simply say this. Can anyone think of a more influential Australian politician over the past 30 years? Love him or hate him, he has undoubtedly had a major influence first in Tasmania and more recently at the national level.


----------



## Calliope (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> For a time I became an advocate for gay rights as a direct result of this. I also took to wearing a pink shirt to all such environment / development debates and rallies for the sake of making at least a few people think.




I apologise if I have offended your sensibilities. However your implication that I made a spiteful remark is just a cheap shot. I now understand why you feel so protective of Bob Brown. He, however doesn't need you protection. He came out of the closet years ago and is proud of his sexual orientation.

By the way do you associate pink shirts with gay men? Stereotyping? And how would you wearing one make "a few people think"?


----------



## craft (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> Where I strongly disagree is that the decision to save that river was used to prevent the construction of not only that dam but of practically any other large dam on any other river in the state.




I'm not acroos this well enought to have an opinion



Smurf1976 said:


> There's a need for balance in this and any other debate.



 This I totally agree with, however I dispear that that is achievable - just look at this thread as a microcosm of our society. The lack of respect for different views just builds so many barriers.

Are you a fellow Tasmanian?


----------



## craft (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> No need to take a hissy fit.




*IF* you motivations were innocent - I apologise.


----------



## Calliope (14 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



craft said:


> *IF* you motivations were innocent - I apologise.




What do you mean by "IF"? And what "motivations" are you talking about? Are you just having another cheap shot?

*IF* your apology was sincere I would accept it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> I apologise if I have offended your sensibilities. However your implication that I made a spiteful remark is just a cheap shot. I now understand why you feel so protective of Bob Brown. He, however doesn't need you protection. He came out of the closet years ago and is proud of his sexual orientation.
> 
> By the way do you associate pink shirts with gay men? Stereotyping? And how would you wearing one make "a few people think"?



I am personally not offended, not in the slightest. My point is aimed at anyone (not specifically you) and is "play the ball, not the man".

I would make a comparable comment to those who observe that US President Obama is black. Yes he is, and that's completely irrelevant in the context of US policy on just about anything. I've no doubt that the fact would have been mentioned many times in certain circles however, and the undertone is clear.  

Pink shirts? Well to be honest sometimes it takes a brick and that's one way of doing it. Walk into a room full of people who hate Brown dressed in anything that raises even the slightest question regarding sexuality and I can assure you that eyebrows will be raised. Such is the extent to which many choose to mix completely separate issues - I've even heard plenty of others who "would vote Green if Bob wasn't gay".

Sadly, some people see the private life of others as a major issue. Go back to the 1990's and homosexuality was actually illegal. And of course there were those bumper stickers too, many of them a thinly veiled shot at Brown being displayed by people angry over his views on dams and forestry but who really didn't care about homosexuality itself as an issue.


----------



## Sitar (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

i've met bob brown on many occasions and often heard him speak.  i have the greatest of admiration for bob - he is a true gentleman in the best sense of the word. i wish him continued success for his future.

and congratulations to christine milne too. she is a very capable and wise woman and the greens are lucky to have her!

This is an interesting comment from an article in today's SMH:

_“The party's performance under his (bob brown's) leadership has been impressive: "The Greens have increased their share of the vote at five federal elections in a row," says the Herald's pollster, Nielsen's John Stirton. "It's something no party has ever done before." _

I see this trend continuing with christine m. as the greens leader.  As we continue to pollute our environment and overpopulate the planet, the greens' policies will become increasingly imperative if our species wants to survive ........except for those people with a death wish who want to cling to the values of the old, dying industrial age, and who have no regard for future generations.

i'll keep voting green. 

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/greens-sustainable-future-20120413-1wyux.\
html


----------



## rumpole (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Sitar said:


> i've met bob brown on many occasions and often heard him speak.  i have the greatest of admiration for bob - he is a true gentleman in the best sense of the word. i wish him continued success for his future.
> 
> and congratulations to christine milne too. she is a very capable and wise woman and the greens are lucky to have her!
> 
> ...




It has been good to hear an alternative voice to the "lets plunder the country then retire to the Bahamas" brigade, and you are right, Bob Brown has always been a gentleman who focussed on policy issues, not personal attacks.

There have been some blind spots in their policies imo, opposition to hydro power one of the cleanest forms of energy on the planet, and their lack of opposition to increased migration and population growth which will spoil the environment faster than anything else. 

Bob will be hard to replace. Christine Milne has always sounded a bit shrill and strident to me, unlike Bob's relaxed and thoughtful approach, but good luck to her.


----------



## drsmith (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



rumpole said:


> There have been some blind spots in their policies imo, opposition to hydro power one of the cleanest forms of energy on the planet, and their lack of opposition to increased migration and population growth which will spoil the environment faster than anything else.



The latter would be related to the fact, as recently revealed by Bob Brown himself, that he does not have Australia's sovereign interest at heart.


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> .My point is aimed at anyone (not specifically you) and is "play the ball, not the man".




Of course it was made *specifically* at me in support of crafts's nasty remark.



> Pink shirts? Well to be honest sometimes it takes a brick and that's one way of doing it. Walk into a room full of people who hate Brown dressed in anything that raises even the slightest question regarding sexuality and I can assure you that eyebrows will be raised. Such is the extent to which many choose to mix completely separate issues - I've even heard plenty of others who "would vote Green if Bob wasn't gay".




What you don't realise is that the world has moved on since your pink shirt, eyebrow raising dabble into the gay world. *Gays are fully capable of looking after their own interests,* and the idea of do-gooders like you and craft trying to cocoon them from the nasty homophobic world is very condescending.

However as far as I am concerned it is all water under the bridge. 

Revenons Ã  nos moutons.


----------



## Miss Hale (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Yes, this is his most distinguishing characteristic imo:  the avuncular, genial, pleasant demeanour which masks some immensely damaging policies.





Agree, he came across as completely benign but his policies are nothing of the sort.  Kudos to him for being able to do this. I can't see Milne however being as skilled as Brown was at this.


----------



## Logique (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Miss Hale said:


> ...that most people in regional areas do not subscribe to the ideals, philosophy etc. of the Greens and recognise that the Greens do not represent their best interests, there is another party that does that called The Nationals. Milne, therefore, will have a huge task to win over 'the bush' as she put it and not one I think she can ever achieve (withour major policy changes)...



Indeed. The Greens put the cleaners through the bush a long time ago. A string of easy victories, over soft targets. The carbon tax runs in a direct line back to the barricades at forests and dams. Country folks were the canaries in the figurative coalmine, but nobody heard.

They'd be advised to have the police riot squad in attendance if they go back looking for friends. People don't forget. 

The inner city is their patch, and what they know best.


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

The future as decreed by Milne. She leaves us in little doubt that she is running the political agenda.



> Tasmanian MP elected as Bob Brown's replacement on Friday
> Describes Tony Abbott as "absolutely pathetic"
> Has a dream of a ''decarbonised'' economy by 2050






> GREENS leader Christine Milne has described Tony Abbott as ''absolutely pathetic'' warning her party would block any future Coalition attempts to scrap the carbon tax.
> And she warned Julia Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan the budget surplus was not sacrosanct predicting the Greens would not deliver blanket support for budget cuts that hurt families.
> 
> The Tasmanian MP who was elected as Senator Bob Brown's replacement on Friday said the Greens would never rollover on abolishing the carbon tax under any future Abbott government.
> ...



.

http://www.news.com.au/national/ton...-christine-milne/story-e6frfkvr-1226326823688


----------



## explod (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> The latter would be related to the fact, as recently revealed by Bob Brown himself, that he does not have Australia's sovereign interest at heart.




Interesting.  

A lot of new immigrants are encourage to provide abundant and cheaper labour in a land that is becoming dominant with an ageing population.

A fair number of new arrivals are directed to seasonal work particularly in fruit growing and vegetable producing areas.

Only a stepping stone away we have teeming millions in South East Asia eyeing us off so we do need to grow our numbers from a future defence point of view as well.


----------



## drsmith (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

You're off on a tangent there Explod.

I was referring to Bob Brown's dream of one world government from his fellow earthians speech.


----------



## explod (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> You're off on a tangent there Explod.
> 
> I was referring to Bob Brown's dream of one world government from his fellow earthians speech.




Migration was definitely a part of your caption from the previous poster and one which is a prime target of misinformation.


----------



## drsmith (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I'm not against migration.

What I'm critical of is the Greens and their former leader's motives.


----------



## Julia (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> The future as decreed by Milne. She leaves us in little doubt that she is running the political agenda.



I'll be surprised if she doesn't alienate some of the people who voted Greens essentially because of the sense that Bob Brown was calm and apparently reasonable.
The same cannot be said of Christine Milne who is quasi hysterical and shrill at times.
She's also from the outset taking a combative stance rather than indicating a willingness to negotiate and compromise.

Hard to see this going down well with either the government or the opposition.

My best fantasy is that the Greens are much reduced at the next election and at least that they lose control of the Senate.  I've read some journalistic commentary that suggests this may not be fantasy at all.



.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> My best fantasy is that the Greens are much reduced at the next election and at least that they lose control of the Senate.  I've read some journalistic commentary that suggests this may not be fantasy at all.
> 
> 
> .




I've read that commentary too, suggesting that the Coalition will not need to go to a double dissolution election to get rid of the carbon tax.  Although listening to Christopher Pyne on Insiders this morning, he's salivating at the prospect of a DD after the election he describes as a 'referendum on the carbon tax'.

He knows that the DD will be based on Labor bloc of votes in the Senate rejecting the repeal and so he's looking forward to a further (perhaps fatal) decimation of Labor in the DD election.  Looks like the post-Gillard mind games have started already...


----------



## AbrasiveCamel (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Interesting.
> 
> A lot of new immigrants are encourage to provide abundant and cheaper labour in a land that is becoming dominant with an ageing population.
> 
> ...




LOL

Yeah all those well educated SE-Asian peasants are eyeing us off, and, as a collective are plotting to row down here and take over... oh wait what isn't right about that? Oh, reality and not being a moron stuck in the 'yellow peril' era.


----------



## explod (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



AbrasiveCamel said:


> LOL
> 
> Yeah all those well educated SE-Asian peasants are eyeing us off, and, as a collective are plotting to row down here and take over... oh wait what isn't right about that? Oh, reality and not being a moron stuck in the 'yellow peril' era.




Yep, heard the same call and alarm in the 50's and 60's over the huge influx of Italians and Greeks.  Then a decade of so on with Indians, Pakistanis and "gulp" Vietnamese.  In later times a lot of Chinese (In fact we gained a lot on the gold fields in the 1850"s)

And what did we gain, as the Children and Grandchildren of those immigrants grew up we became an extraordinarily rich and diverse society.

Yes, the world is changing very quickly and we have to go with it or be blown over.


----------



## startrader (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Yep, heard the same call and alarm in the 50's and 60's over the huge influx of Italians and Greeks.  Then a decade of so on with Indians, Pakistanis and "gulp" Vietnamese.  In later times a lot of Chinese (In fact we gained a lot on the gold fields in the 1850"s)
> 
> And what did we gain, as the Children and Grandchildren of those immigrants grew up we became an extraordinarily rich and diverse society.
> 
> Yes, the world is changing very quickly and we have to go with it or be blown over.




It might be a really good idea for you to re-read Abrasive Camel's post as it looks like you have completely missed his point!


----------



## explod (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



startrader said:


> It might be a really good idea for you to re-read Abrasive Camel's post as it looks like you have completely missed his point!




Of course, never too sure of the language of you younger ones.  

I do know that most of the immigrants that have come over the last 60 years have been hard working and the children educated to many of the higher positions of technology and medicine.

Our higher faculty hospitals are full of them and is one of the reasons we lead the world at research level.


----------



## joea (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Well it has started already. Milne is blaming Abbott for Labor having to pull a surplus at the budget.
We all know that if there is a surplus, it will be a surplus on "paper only".

So what has Bob achieved? He now has two women opposing Abbott and not one.
God help Tony!

joea


----------



## dutchie (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Everyone is saying the Greens are doomed, especially with Milne in charge.

I think they have got that right, with Milne blaming Abbott for Labors surplus push. 

What a joke she is!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rplus-imperative/story-fn59niix-1226326997717


----------



## explod (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Well Milne is quite correct.  The modern world is built on debt, debt is being used to hold up the Dow, to hold Greece et. al together and it has been a prime part of the huge expansion of our home market for the last thirty years.

Of course I do not agree with this Thatcher approach and I feel that most of the pollies either coming from a legal or union background would not have a clue as to the real economics taking place.

Government aiming for a surplus is ridiculous, it is supposed to be a zero sum game, income equals expenditure.  Costello and Howard got onto the idea that a surplus is the go and it is b...@#t.   Gillard does have the idea that having changed her mind on the carbon issue she cannot do so any more. (as said a few pages back, she has lost the plot) As Milne says, times have changed and people are losing jobs and hurting, it is time to try to stimulate, and having a surplace will not do that at this time.

I think that as the dust settles in a few months Milne will finally prove to be the *woman* up to the real task of today's tough political scene.

Only time will tell, second guessing rubbish will not.


----------



## MrBurns (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



dutchie said:


> Everyone is saying the Greens are doomed, especially with Milne in charge.
> 
> I think they have got that right, with Milne blaming Abbott for Labors surplus push.
> 
> ...




Yes I saw that Greens voters will think again, what a ratbag Brown is running in the face of defeat.


----------



## MrBurns (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Well Milne is quite correct.  The modern world is built on debt, debt is being used to hold up the Dow, to hold Greece et. al together and it has been a prime part of the huge expansion of our home market for the last thirty years.
> 
> Of course I do not agree with this Thatcher approach and I feel that most of the pollies either coming from a legal or union background would not have a clue as to the real economics taking place.
> 
> ...




Yes she's right about the surplus but blaming Abbott is very weak/pathetic.


----------



## IFocus (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Miss Hale said:


> I never said there would be no issues that both the Greens and people in regional areas might have the same view on but the reality is that most people in regional areas do not subscribe to the ideals, philosophy etc. of the Greens and recognise that the Greens do not represent their best interests, there is *another party that does that called The Nationals.* Milne, therefore, will have a huge task to win over 'the bush' as she put it and not one I think she can ever achieve (withour major policy changes).




In WA state politics thats true in Federal politics highly debatable fact is the Nats tow the Liberal line kicking and screaming Katter is the proof of that.


----------



## explod (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



MrBurns said:


> Yes I saw that Greens voters will think again, what a ratbag Brown is running in the face of defeat.




Not too sure I can get that.  At the last National election they did better than ever so until that's tested again they are still on the rise.

Anecdotally many young people I know are talking Greens for them and regardless of what many on these forums hope they are very conscious and concerned for the environment and the fact that many elders do not seem to care.  

Last State election (since the last Fed) here in Victoria we gained our first lower house member.

Many greens are gaining ascendency in Council elections of late as well.

Bob did his job well and has departed at the right time to enjoy some life of his own.


----------



## Julia (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Well Milne is quite correct.  The modern world is built on debt, debt is being used to hold up the Dow, to hold Greece et. al together and it has been a prime part of the huge expansion of our home market for the last thirty years.
> 
> Of course I do not agree with this Thatcher approach and I feel that most of the pollies either coming from a legal or union background would not have a clue as to the real economics taking place.



Can you explain why you are describing the escalation of debt as a "Thatcher approach"?


----------



## StumpyPhantom (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Not too sure I can get that.  At the last National election they did better than ever so until that's tested again they are still on the rise.
> 
> Anecdotally many young people I know are talking Greens for them and regardless of what many on these forums hope they are very conscious and concerned for the environment and the fact that many elders do not seem to care.
> 
> ...




I'm interested in the Greens' voter base, Explod. You seem to know. Is it drawn from the idealistic young and the elderly or rich who can now afford to think of the planet when voting? The rest of us who rely on GDP growth to earn money and who are having trouble paying bills don't seem too Green


----------



## Julia (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Anecdotally many young people I know are talking Greens for them and regardless of what many on these forums hope they are very conscious and concerned for the environment and the fact that many elders do not seem to care.



You are missing the underlying motive of the Greens which has nothing to do with the environment.  It's about the redistribution of wealth and a regulated society which essentially eliminates the free market and freedom of choice for individuals in the quest for that great socialist heaven.

You are just made for The Greens, Explod, with your romantic but completely impractical  notion of how the world could work.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> You are missing the underlying motive of the Greens which has nothing to do with the environment.  It's about the redistribution of wealth and a regulated society which essentially eliminates the free market and freedom of choice for individuals in the quest for that great socialist heaven.
> 
> You are just made for The Greens, Explod, with your romantic but completely impractical  notion of how the world could work.




Is that a "conscious" underlying motive? Do they discuss that in their party room meetings? Analogy (only one I can think of-sorry!) where Hitler exhorts Germanic racial superiority with the underlying motive being the elimination of the Jews.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> What you don't realise is that the world has moved on since your pink shirt, eyebrow raising dabble into the gay world. *Gays are fully capable of looking after their own interests,* and the idea of do-gooders like you and craft trying to cocoon them from the nasty homophobic world is very condescending.



The entire purpose of a public political rally or meeting of that sort is to (1) produce a show of strength for the media etc and (2) bring like minds together for the "real" meeting (for the 1 - 2% who will be interested) which takes place sometime later.

I chose not to encourage or be part of a show of strength against homosexuality when the issue in question was unrelated. I could have easily ignored it as most would, but chose to encourage people to question their prejudices and leave anyone's private life right out of it.

My decision to do so came from having been to quite a few development versus conservation type meetings previously, as well as other discussion, and becoming fed up with hearing the "gay" argument raised. I was, to be blunt, simply fed up with people assuming that because I was expressing a pro-development view, that I would also be morally conservative.   

I'm very sure that Bob, or gays in general, don't need protecting from homophobia. I do however have a right to express support for one cause, without also expressing support for an unrelated issue that many chose to attach to it by virtue of their own prejudices.

As for the pink shirts, well that's a pretty tame way of dropping the hint I thought. It's not as though all, or even most, people who dress like that are gay. But in a room full of blokes arguing the virtues of logging and/or damming the lot it was sufficient.

The same could be said of those who simply went bush walking during some of these debates. Someone sees someone dressed like that, and automatically assumes they hold a certain view. Not a particularly good situation if you find that just about everyone else in a small town disagrees. This situation was well known at the time.

In short, just because I am of the opinion that hydro is a more sustainable power source than coal and that building with timber is environmentally better than building with steel does not mean that I am also against gays, abortion or the opening of shops after 12 o'clock on Saturday (all of which were issues around the same time).

Anyway, I think the Green side does see the humor in the 40 year environment versus development debate better than their opponents. Gotta love TWS putting up Christmas lights in the Styx a few years ago - I know they saw the irony but I suspect the other side missed it completely and probably still does.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Of course, never too sure of the language of you younger ones.
> 
> I do know that most of the immigrants that have come over the last 60 years have been hard working and the children educated to many of the higher positions of technology and medicine.
> 
> Our higher faculty hospitals are full of them and is one of the reasons we lead the world at research level.



It's not about the virtues of immigrants as individuals but about the absolute incompatibility between "population growth" and "sustainability".


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> I chose not to encourage or be part of a show of strength against homosexuality when the issue in question was unrelated.* I could have easily ignored it as most would*, but chose to encourage people to question their prejudices and leave anyone's private life right out of it.



Easily ignored what? I'm not interested in your excuses. Next time just don't use me as an excuse for your moralising.

I have a brother who incidentally is gay. For the past week or so he and his partner have been staying with me. When I showed them your snide attack on me for making an innocuous comment, and your pink shirt episode, they were highly amused. One of them said '"well Tasmania *is* a backwater."


----------



## Macquack (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> I have a brother who incidentally is gay.




You're  not Bob Katter are you, Calliope?


----------



## Glen48 (15 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

‘Dumb Law’ Blocking Promising New Fuel Source

A new technology that could revolutionize the fuel industry is being curtailed by a federal regulation that Forbes magazine calls a “dumb law.”

At issue is the production of ethanol, which is added to gasoline purportedly to reduce pollution and reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil.

This year Americans will use 14 billion gallons of ethanol, made from 5 billion bushels of corn ”” one third of the total U.S. crop ”” grown on 33 million acres of farmland. And since 2005, when Congress required that ethanol be added to gasoline, U.S. corn prices have tripled, according to Forbes, contributing to higher food prices across the board.

The Dallas-based chemicals company Celanese has developed the technology to produce ethanol by tearing apart and recombining hydrocarbons found in America’s plentiful supplies of natural gas and coal.

“The problem isn’t science. It’s Washington,” Forbes observes. “Thanks to the 2007 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) law, gasoline refiners are mandated to blend so much plant-based or renewable ethanol into the gas supply that it prevents Celanese or any other fossil-fuel-based ethanols from even competing for the market.”

Now 13 congressmen led by Pete Olson, whose Houston-area district is home to Celanese’s largest plant, have introduced a bill allowing ethanol made from natural gas to substitute for some corn-based ethanol mandated by the RFS law.

“We would prefer not to have the RFS at all,” an Olson spokesperson told Forbes, “but this is a step in the right direction.”

Meanwhile Celanese is building a plant in Texas designed to produce less than 6 million gallons of ethanol a year. The company is also building a plant capable of producing 80 million gallons a year ”” in Nanjing, China.


----------



## So_Cynical (16 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



StumpyPhantom said:


> The rest of us who rely on GDP growth to earn money and who are having trouble paying bills don't seem too Green




Oh you mean the people who don't have a clue?


----------



## Calliope (16 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Macquack said:


> You're  not Bob Katter are you, Calliope?




Typical inane Macquack post.


----------



## wayneL (16 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



So_Cynical said:


> Oh you mean the people who don't have a clue?




So what's worse SC? People who don't have a clue, or the holier than thou schmucks who preach it and don't live it; like basilio, Al Bore. James Hansen etc etc etc et al.

Just like most pompous and hypocritical Greens.


----------



## Tink (16 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

After the 2009 Victorian Bushfires, I didnt see one Green member come out and make a comment
Quiet for quite a while.

Their policies are too dangerous in every direction.


----------



## joea (16 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> I think that as the dust settles in a few months Milne will finally prove to be the *woman* up to the real task of today's tough political scene.
> 
> Only time will tell, second guessing rubbish will not.




No doubt if she is given (100 days like Newman), we may see what she has got.
No doubt she will require at least 10 of those days to sort out Sarah-Hanson-Young.

There is one thing that I am sure about, and that is I will not be listening to any media exposure she may get. She sound like a "jet engine with a squeaky bearing."

joea


----------



## joea (16 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Glen48 said:


> ‘Dumb Law’ Blocking Promising New Fuel Source
> 
> A new technology that could revolutionize the fuel industry is being curtailed by a federal regulation that Forbes magazine calls a “dumb law.”
> 
> At issue is the production of ethanol, which is added to gasoline purportedly to reduce pollution and reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil.




When one starts to discuss Ethanol, a number of issues have to be resolved.
1 Energy source. The plant can be operated by Low Pressure Steam (14psi), so if linked to a primary source such as a sugar mill it can use exhaust steam.
If it is not linked in such a way, it is 1 step forward and 2 backwards in the energy cycle.

2 The dunder produced has be  dealt with and can be treated to produce a fertilizer.

3 Depending on the source of fuel and primary product, the transport costs of primary product, dunder and final product have to be evaluated. So when you have a "carbon tax", which has a moving target of costs, you would be a very brave person to proceed with ethanol production.
In other words what you are trying to achieve in the project, will be lost in the supply chain.

4. The percentage blend in say fuel, has to be associated with vehicles that have been designed to use that blend. So a 20% blend needs specific parts produced that come into contact with the blend. If you go to a low percentage blend, once again you are defeating the purpose of what you set out to achieve.

5 The size of the plant has to be evaluated. So as you increase the size of the plant to make it become viable, you run out of the primary source.
Anyway that what we found when we evaluated the process to add to the sugar mill in which I had a career. But we did not have the results of the new technology from USA at that point in time. 
The american's have come up with a new 'enzyme" technology that improves the output of the process. So that is a positive point for ethanol.

The big unknown for ethanol in Australia is Labor's Carbon Tax. It would be like trying to hit a moving target with an unknown direction.
joea


----------



## Calliope (16 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

To look at Milne's grim visage you might think she doesn't have a sense of humour. Wrong!!!



> Senator Milne said Labor had boxed itself in to delivering a budget surplus *and blamed the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, for painting Ms Gillard as a liar*.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...it-of-brown-20120415-1x1n5.html#ixzz1s9eCRTnm


----------



## Glen48 (16 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Joea, the thing that is over looked is the cost to produce the crop, fuel etc to get the seeds there , planting , harvesting, transport and producing I am sure the cost is not worth it  but is a good feeling for the greens.


----------



## joea (16 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Glen48 said:


> Joea, the thing that is over looked is the cost to produce the crop, fuel etc to get the seeds there , planting , harvesting, transport and producing I am sure the cost is not worth it  but is a good feeling for the greens.




Glen48
When you look at the sugar industry, molasses and bagasse are by products.
The Low Pressure steam can be made available by economies is the prime movers.
But like you say anything that is connected to diesel. Well we have a problem balancing the piggy bank.
I do not know if the voters fully understand, that in Queensland the mills could provide a fair amount of the extra electricity in the crushing period(which is through winter), but the electricity "big wigs" would not pay an acceptable price to make the installations viable. 
The sugar industry exports power to control its excess bagasse stocks.
joea ....over and out.


----------



## joea (16 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

When the media edits articles, some make available a comment area.
As i read articles of interest, I also check some of the comments to gauge which way the wind is blowing.
It is interesting to note that Milne is under attack from some Green voters already.

I think there will be interesting times ahead.

Meanwhile with the Green Leader handover taking all the news, the worlds famous treasurer is busy compiling the budget with no fan fair what so ever.
joea


----------



## Calliope (16 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

On 3 February _The Australian_ with much fanfare, proclaimed Bob Brown to be the most influential person in Canberra.

From top rooster to feather duster in 10 weeks.

Milne, of course did not make the top 50. Nor would she now.


----------



## notting (17 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Will definitely go the way of the democrats, now.  
Rightly or wrongly.
Brown had a very clear vision, and intellect. I  don't think there is much in his wake!
Climate change will become more mainstream and integrated into major party policies as they attempt to manage it
Looks like we will be putting up with Laurel and Hardy with a massive majority for at least 3 years.


----------



## moXJO (18 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Noticed Christine Milne having a go at our involvement in Afghanistan. So we can take refugees no sweat, but God forbid we try and help to fix their country. Gutless greens



> Afghanistan's ambassador in Canberra, Nasir Andisha, also strongly rejected Senator Milne's description of the coalition's involvement, saying progress on education alone was a remarkable turnaround.
> 
> "We had zero girls going to school in 2001 and now we have almost three million girls going to school," he said. "Two million girls, educated women, will be an army enough to fight the Taliban, insurgents and extremists."






> Australian Hazara Federation spokesman Hassan Ghulam likened life in Afghanistan before 2001, when the US-led coalition invaded, to Year Zero, a reference to Pol Pot's "killing fields" reign in Cambodia.
> 
> "Life was horrible, there were no human rights, there was no government - they (the Taliban) closed all the schools, there were no hospitals, there was no economy," Mr Ghulam said.
> 
> ...


----------



## explod (18 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



moXJO said:


> Noticed Christine Milne having a go at our involvement in Afghanistan. So we can take refugees no sweat, but God forbid we try and help to fix their country. Gutless greens




There has been 33 years of outside military interference in Afghanistan to no avail.

Much better to take genuine refugees directly and cut down on the corrupt illegal boats.

Aid such as education is the only way to allow the people to grow above their draconian beliefs and the enslavement of women in those parts of the world.

Guns and aggression has never worked.  Bring back the concepts of the "Colombo Plan".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombo_Plan

Milne is on the right track on this in my view.


----------



## moXJO (18 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> There has been 33 years of outside military interference in Afghanistan to no avail.
> 
> Much better to take genuine refugees directly and cut down on the corrupt illegal boats.
> 
> ...



Maybe you missed this.


> Afghanistan's ambassador in Canberra, Nasir Andisha, also strongly rejected Senator Milne's description of the coalition's involvement, saying progress on education alone was a remarkable turnaround.
> 
> "We had zero girls going to school in 2001 and now we have almost three million girls going to school," he said. "Two million girls, educated women, will be an army enough to fight the Taliban, insurgents and extremists."




Exactly how were the greens or you going to bring education to Afghanistan with the taliban in control? What do you think happens to the aid in these countries?
Maybe long distance online learning is the answer for the greens when it comes to these situations


----------



## AbrasiveCamel (18 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



moXJO said:


> Noticed Christine Milne having a go at our involvement in Afghanistan. So we can take refugees no sweat, but God forbid we try and help to fix their country. Gutless greens




Yeah and all those magical things our "involvement" has brought will surely hold on up when we leave, so those count. We are only trying to "help to fix" Afghanistan right?  We are so noble.


----------



## explod (18 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



notting said:


> Will definitely go the way of the democrats, now.
> Rightly or wrongly.
> Brown had a very clear vision, and intellect. I  don't think there is much in his wake!
> Climate change will become more mainstream and integrated into major party policies as they attempt to manage it
> Looks like we will be putting up with Laurel and Hardy with a massive majority for at least 3 years.




The support base and number in the Senate go way beyond that ever achieved by the Democrats.

Don Chips idea was more of a revolt than a the Green's philosophy which has evolved over many years.

The Greens


----------



## moXJO (18 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



AbrasiveCamel said:


> Yeah and all those magical things our "involvement" has brought will surely hold on up when we leave, so those count. We are only trying to "help to fix" Afghanistan right?  We are so noble.



 Yeah better we stand back and let it happen


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 April 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



AbrasiveCamel said:


> Yeah and all those magical things our "involvement" has brought will surely hold on up when we leave, so those count. We are only trying to "help to fix" Afghanistan right?  We are so noble.




Blame your ALP/Green Minister for Defence, Stephen Smith, mate.

He doesn't like the military and he sets the terms of engagement.

Do not blame our diggers, blame the politicians.

gg


----------



## Calliope (4 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

WINEMAKER Peter Whish-Wilson has been chosen by the Greens to replace Bob Brown in the Senate. 

I love the name. If Peter Whish-Wilson cohabited with Sarah Hanson-Young then their offspring would have a surname of Whish-Wilson-Hanson-Young.


----------



## Glen48 (4 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

You wish.

First time I have seen text with a hare lip.


----------



## Logique (4 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> WINEMAKER Peter Whish-Wilson has been chosen by the Greens to replace Bob Brown in the Senate...



Why is someone from his background with the Greens. Not sure this will end well. For now the Greens are useful to keep stinky pulp mill smells away his vines, but..what then? Can't quite picture him sitting alongside Lee Rhiannon in the caucus room.

In the wish I'd said that stakes, one blogger said '..who better to understand the chardonnay socialists..'


----------



## explod (4 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Logique said:


> Why is someone from his background with the Greens. Not sure this will end well. For now the Greens are useful to keep stinky pulp mill smells away his vines, but..what then? Can't quite picture him sitting alongside Lee Rhiannon in the caucus room.
> 
> In the wish I'd said that stakes, one blogger said '..who better to understand the chardonnay socialists..'




You certainly do not know too much about the Greens.  It has moved a long way from the tree hugger days (so labelled) I can assure you.

But I have found trying to get that through to the extreme and blind right here is a waste of time and is why I rarely post any more.  My time  is better spent within the organisation itself.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> You certainly do not know too much about the Greens.  It has moved a long way from the tree hugger days (so labelled) I can assure you.



What has been the single biggest area of Green activity at the national level recently? I think most would agree that it has been energy, in particular electricity generation. 

Which Australian state has the longest running and most divisive battle over a specific project at present? Tasmania.

What is that project? A pulp mill.

Now, the predecessors of the Australian Greens, the somewhat inappropriately named United Tasmania Group, was originally formed over the specific issue of electricity generation. And the next big issue, the one which put Christine Milne into politics, was a pulp mill (the lack of which is directly responsible for the closure of two paper mills and the more recent proposal for a new pulp mill at an alternative site).

I acknowledge that the Greens have broadened their focus but they are clearly still very firmly attached to the very same issues with which they started and which lead directly to the "tree hugger" tag. The only real change with those "core" issues is that the electricity one has become national rather than Tasmanian, although pulp mills are still really only opposed in Tas (there's quite a few in the other states but hardly a word is said about them).


----------



## StumpyPhantom (4 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> You certainly do not know too much about the Greens.  It has moved a long way from the tree hugger days (so labelled) I can assure you.
> 
> But I have found trying to get that through to the extreme and blind right here is a waste of time and is why I rarely post any more.  My time  is better spent within the organisation itself.




Good luck with that Explod - and that's meant sincerely.  The problem, if I may say, with the Greens is that their "tree hugger" days (so labelled) were their simplest and clearest.

And a very large proportion of their voter base identify with that, BUT the problem is that the Greens are so vacuous away from their tree-hugging (so labelled) that they're being invaded by all sorts of extremists who sense an opportunity to get on the tree-hugging (so labelled) bandwagon.

Therein lies the problem.  But it's not unique to the Greens, judging by what's happening to Australia's oldest political party (Labor) - remember Gillard's "We are US" speech".

So good luck Explod.  And don't leave this forum - please.  Tell us what you personally stand for on a range of matters.  It may one day be on the Greens party platform.


----------



## wayneL (5 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> You certainly do not know too much about the Greens.  It has moved a long way from the tree hugger days (so labelled) I can assure you.
> 
> But I have found trying to get that through to the extreme and blind right here is a waste of time and is why I rarely post any more.



The so-called 'right' here are neither extreme, nor blind.

A quick read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics will highlight what a asinine, disingenuous and totally objectionable accusation you and others of the left on this forum make when you use the term 'extreme' right.

As the very title of this thread indicates, people are very aware of the transmogrification of The Greens from 'tree huggers' to a more encompassing agenda. Yes indeed, most members of the center and center/right are well aware of the economic, social and other agendas of The Greens.

As more of the center center/left become aware of this, you will lose support, only really keeping a core of socialist riff-raff lifted from the left of the Labor party and bona fide communists. It may require The Greens to be responsible for a more fully ~~~~ed up Oz economy for a broad awakening of what the Green manifesto contains however.

Which is why...



> My time  is better spent within the organisation itself.




...you will come to change your mind and realize that you are wasting your time. That is unless you like hanging out with a tiny minority of socialist riff-raff and bona fide communists. 

Ozzies may be able to be bribed into temporary dalliances with the authoritarian left, disguised as they are with a green tinge and disgracefully obfuscated offers of something for nothing, but Ozzies are a liberty loving and entrepreneurial people and will not tolerate totalitarians for long.


----------



## breaker (5 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Well done Wayne


----------



## explod (5 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



breaker said:


> Well done Wayne




I have been a member of the Greens for 15 years and well know what is developing.

As 4 W, I will be back in a day or so when time permits.


----------



## Logique (5 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Wayne saved me some time with his response.  

Explod, my experience with Greens is that the more locally engaged they are, the more sense they make. It's when you move up the hierachy that the doubts creep in on the broader policy settings. 

I think for an economics graduate and manager of a business, for presumptive Senator Whish-Wilson, an OMG moment is inevitable.


----------



## DB008 (5 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Logique said:


> Wayne saved me some time with his response.
> 
> Explod, my experience with Greens is that the more locally engaged they are, the more sense they make. It's when you move up the hierachy that the doubts creep in on the broader policy settings.




They aren't called the 'watermelons' for nothing.
Green on the outside
Red on the inside


----------



## So_Cynical (5 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> The so-called 'right' here are neither extreme, nor blind.




That's your opinion and coincidently the opinion of some other members of the ASF right...there are however others on this forum that don't quite see it that way.


----------



## wayneL (5 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



So_Cynical said:


> That's your opinion and coincidently the opinion of some other members of the ASF right...there are however others on this forum that don't quite see it that way.




My view is cited. Maybe only Wiki, but challenge that to the peril of your withering credibility.

As for those who "don't quite see it that way", I'd like to see that backed up with at least a modicum of logical argument, otherwise it's just a jaundiced view from the socialist riff-raff and bona fide communists.


----------



## MrBurns (5 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

My only view of the Greens is that they are a waste of space and get in the way of people who actually want to work to achieve something instead of just being obstructive with idealistic policies.


----------



## sails (5 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



So_Cynical said:


> That's your opinion and coincidently the opinion of some other members of the ASF right...there are however others on this forum that don't quite see it that way.





SC - it is your right to see things however you wish, however, it seems to be yet another labor propaganda tactic to label anyone who isn't happy with this current brand of labor as "extreme right".  In fact, some of those labelled "extreme right" are actually disgruntled labor voters.  How rude is that?

And most here are not extreme right.  It is insulting and only inflames other posters.  Eager's use of "redneck" is another derogatory term used by lefties which is totally uncalled for, imo.

It seems that the left's only weapon now is to discredit others and use extreme terms in an effort to play with people's minds.

I think Aussies are waking up to these tactics.  The mud slinging Bligh did to Newman and his family ended up backfiring.  But, amazingly, the left continue with these unsavoury propaganda tactics.

Propaganda definition from a google search:



> Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.


----------



## IFocus (6 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> The so-called 'right' here are neither extreme, nor blind.
> 
> A quick read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics will highlight what a asinine, disingenuous and totally objectionable accusation you and others of the left on this forum make when you use the term 'extreme' right.
> 
> ...






wayneL said:


> My view is cited. Maybe only Wiki, but challenge that to the peril of your withering credibility.
> 
> As for those who "don't quite see it that way", I'd like to see that backed up with at least a modicum of logical argument, otherwise it's just a jaundiced view from the socialist riff-raff and bona fide communists.




Oh the irony............


----------



## wayneL (6 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



IFocus said:


> Oh the irony............




Not at all. It would be ironic if my characterization of the core of Greens was not accurate and/or exaggerated.

It isn't.


----------



## Sitar (7 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I joined the UK Greens when I lived in London in 1982, and continued my membership when I returned here some years later, living in Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane at various times.  

I'm still a member and am certainly not (nor ever have been) "socialist riff-raff and bona fide communists" as someone here proclaimed.

Over these many years I've met other Green members from many countries, and continue to be proud to be a member of this great, world-wide movement together with other progressive people.


----------



## wayneL (7 May 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Sitar said:


> I joined the UK Greens when I lived in London in 1982, and continued my membership when I returned here some years later, living in Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane at various times.
> 
> I'm still a member and am certainly not (nor ever have been) "socialist riff-raff and bona fide communists" as someone here proclaimed.
> 
> Over these many years I've met other Green members from many countries, and continue to be proud to be a member of this great, world-wide movement together with other progressive people.




Perhaps you could detail your personal social and economic beliefs so we can judge for ourselves.


----------



## bullet21 (7 August 2012)

*Even the Indigenous community have had enough of the greens*

http://www.news.com.au/business/com...usader-bob-brown/story-fnda1bsz-1226444934302

Take that Commissar Brown you watermelon(green on the outside, red on the inside).


----------



## burglar (7 August 2012)

*Re: Even the Indigenous community have had enough of the greens.*



bullet21 said:


> http://www.news.com.au/business/com...usader-bob-brown/story-fnda1bsz-1226444934302
> 
> Take that Commissar Brown you watermelon(green on the outside, red on the inside).




Did not see the letter as political, or sleighting the do-gooder.
Just a plea for sanity!


----------



## Julia (7 August 2012)

*Re: Even the Indigenous community have had enough of the greens*



bullet21 said:


> http://www.news.com.au/business/com...usader-bob-brown/story-fnda1bsz-1226444934302
> 
> Take that Commissar Brown you watermelon(green on the outside, red on the inside).




What a great letter from aboriginal elder, Rita Augustine.  Let's hope the patronising, paternalistic Greens take note of Ms Augustine's dignified request for them to respect the decisions made by aboriginal people themselves.


----------



## sptrawler (7 August 2012)

*Re: Even the Indigenous community have had enough of the greens*



Julia said:


> What a great letter from aboriginal elder, Rita Augustine.  Let's hope the patronising, paternalistic Greens take note of Ms Augustine's dignified request for them to respect the decisions made by aboriginal people themselves.




IMO It is probably more about Bob trying to make hay, while he still has some public relevance.
Lets not forget his tax free pension, doesn't preclude him from making a killing on the green junket.
Go Bob, you milked the labor party beautifully, just need another host. 
Great operator, achieved more as a fringe party leader, than the incumbent leader could deliver. 
Funnily enough, down the track he will be seen as a bit of a legend, like Don Chipp.
Shame Gillard and the goon show won't be seen in the same light.


----------



## drsmith (14 August 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Finally, the humanitarians who believe people should die in order to satisfy their idiologial objectives find themselves out in the cold over asylum seekers.

Hopefully enough within Labor now realise just how toxic they are to both themselves as a party and to the country as a whole.


----------



## DB008 (23 August 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Not sure if these have been posted. I haven't gone through the past 35 pages...


----------



## drsmith (4 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Christine Milne's world of fantasy,



> GREENS Leader Christine Milne says she's disappointed in the party's three-point slump in the latest Newspoll, declaring voters may have "misunderstood" the party's asylum-seeker policies.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...understood-milne/story-fn59niix-1226464906281


----------



## sails (4 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> Christine Milne's world of fantasy,
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...understood-milne/story-fn59niix-1226464906281





I think voters clearly understand green's asylum-seeker policies.  They want what the majority of voter's don't...


----------



## Calliope (8 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> I think voters clearly understand green's asylum-seeker policies.  They want what the majority of voter's don't...




Yes, their extreme asylum seeker policies would open the floodgates for an influx of mainly Muslims from Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East. Milne even thinks we should seek them out in Indonesia to save them taking to the boats.

And this crazy woman has the hide to criticise the Catholic Church for not supporting her lunatic policies. Perhaps it is her hatred of the church that makes flooding the country with Muslims so attractive to her.



> GREENS leader Christine Milne has launched a scathing attack on the Catholic Church, accusing it of being more concerned about cash for its schools than about social justice and of falling short on environmental issues.
> 
> The criticisms provoked a stinging rebuke from the Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, who suggested the Greens were anti-Christian and Senator Milne was part of a "bizarre green bandwagon".
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-christine-milne/story-fn59niix-1226467722987


----------



## Julia (8 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> And this crazy woman has the hide to criticise the Catholic Church for not supporting her lunatic policies. Perhaps it is her hatred of the church that makes flooding the country with Muslims so attractive to her.



Most of the churches, very much including the Catholic St Vinnies, do more for the community than Ms Milne and her colleagues can imagine.


----------



## drsmith (8 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Me thinks Christine is just looking for a scrap with someone to keep herself in public view.


----------



## sails (9 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

NSW council elections:



> THE Greens suffered a voter backlash across the state yesterday, with swings of between 10 and 15 per cent against the party in most parts of NSW.




Read more from the Daily Telegraph: Urban voters dump Greens


----------



## Julia (9 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Thanks for that, sails.  There's precious little good news politically these days, but that certainly is.


----------



## explod (18 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



> Hello James,
> 
> You are invited to have your say on the final batch of national Greens policies that will be reviewed and amended at National Conference in November.
> 
> After an initial round of consultation and drafting, the following policy proposals have been released: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People; Arts and Culture; Children and Young People; Community Participation in Government; Constitutional Reform and Democracy; Corporate Governance; Drugs, Substance Abuse and Addiction; Education; Health; Housing; Immigration and refugees; Justice; Media and Communications; Multiculturalism; Older People; Social Services; Sport and Physical Recreation; Sustainable Agriculture; and Women.




Received this in my inbox tonight.  You will not see any other political party reaching out to all of its members to have their say in setting policy and changes to the constitution.  The Greens are growing strong because they listen to all the people equally.


----------



## drsmith (18 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> The Greens are growing strong because they listen to all the people equally.



They didn't listen to Julia Gillard when she said there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads.

Congratulations on being a member btw.


----------



## Calliope (18 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Received this in my inbox tonight.  You will not see any other political party reaching out to all of its members to have their say in setting policy and changes to the constitution.  The Greens are growing strong because they listen to all the people equally.




The problem James Explod, is that they are reaching out to idiots.


----------



## explod (18 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> They didn't listen to Julia Gillard when she said there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads.
> 
> Congratulations on being a member btw.




She was obviously not a sufficient part of the consensus.


----------



## drsmith (18 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> She was obviously not a sufficient part of the consensus.



Some are more equal than others.


----------



## explod (18 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> The problem James Explod, is that they are reaching out to idiots.




Interesting that you can differentiate; 

and would be most interested in your qualification of the assertion.


----------



## explod (18 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> Some are more equal than others.




In "Animal Farm" they were purported to be kicking the same way.  Gillard doesn't even know where to kick let alone be instep with Green ideals.


----------



## drsmith (18 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> In "Animal Farm" they were purported to be kicking the same way.  Gillard doesn't even know where to kick let alone be instep with Green ideals.



Gillard represented those who voted for Labor. 

The few with Green ideals were therefore became more equal than the vast majority of Australian voters.


----------



## explod (18 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> Gillard represented those who voted for Labor.
> 
> The few with Green ideals were therefore became more equal than the vast majority of Australian voters.




Was that the Greens fault?


----------



## sails (18 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Was that the Greens fault?




Nope, it was labor's fault for pandering to them rather than doing their job of democratically representing the majority of voters, imo.


----------



## drsmith (18 September 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Was that the Greens fault?



They didn't pull the trigger, but they provided the bullets.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 December 2012)

*Greens Endorse Consumerism, Losing Ethic*

I rode my bicycle sans helmet up to Myer in Stocklands Townsville today.

The usual Crisco moisturised matrons were in attendance buying up bling they would never use.

I saw four comrades commit crimes against Myer, one a well proportioned lass who walked out with a divine Wedding Dress. Perhaps her resemblance to the bouncers saved her from time.

From Jenny Hill Mayor of Townsville ( A Green, don't ask )



> Mayor Jenny Hill said Townsville had been crying out for a major department store to set up shop in the city.
> 
> "It's fantastic Jennifer Hawkins will be making the trip up to open Myer's new store," she said.
> 
> ...




The Greens now endorse consumerism.

What a mob of losers

gg


----------



## cynic (27 December 2012)

*Re: Greens Endorse Consumerism, Losing Ethic*

It's great to see that I'm not the only one up at this early hour of morning, GG. 

Much as I despise the hypocrisy of certain idealistic movements, I do sometimes think that it pays to encourage the more conciliatory pursuits in the hope that the more antagonistic agendas gradually dissipate.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 December 2012)

*Re: Greens Endorse Consumerism, Losing Ethic*



cynic said:


> It's great to see that I'm not the only one up at this early hour of morning, GG.
> 
> Much as I despise the hypocrisy of certain idealistic movements, I do sometimes think that it pays to encourage the more conciliatory pursuits in the hope that the more antagonistic agendas gradually dissipate.




I'm doing night fill at Myer with a posse of Afghani's.

$194 ph, whose complaining.

Watermelon Greens are evil.

gg

from a cracked ipad mini.

gg


----------



## cynic (27 December 2012)

*Re: Greens Endorse Consumerism, Losing Ethic*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I'm doing night fill at Myer with a posse of Afghani's.
> 
> ...Watermelon Greens are evil.
> 
> gg...




+1

I'm all for the open expression of political ideals even those which I find disagreeable, but I share your abhorrence of anyone engaging in acts of misrepresentation in the pursuance of their hidden agendas (i.e. using environmental concern as an excuse for the sabotage of private industry).

In effect such people know that the public would reject them if their true intentions were known, hence the deception. This in itself is something that I find decidedly sinister. Unfortunately, it happens to be prevalent in today's society. 

The sooner the voting populace become more discerning the better, because like yourself, I'm growing tired of seeing Australians continue to be hoodwinked.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 December 2012)

*Re: Greens Endorse Consumerism, Losing Ethic*



cynic said:


> +1
> 
> I'm all for the open expression of political ideals even those which I find disagreeable, but I share your abhorrence of anyone engaging in acts of misrepresentation in the pursuance of their hidden agendas (i.e. using environmental concern as an excuse for the sabotage of private industry).
> 
> ...




+1

gg

Sorry my Afghani posse are trying to flee south, and my $194 ph may be at risk, I do pay them the minimum wage, some folk don't show couth.

Watch out for misplaced Large and XL in the morn, at Myer Townsville.

Yours with concern for the Watermelon Green Agenda , big business, and Garpal Gumnut Inc's best interests .



gg

sent from a cracked ipad

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 December 2012)

*Re: Greens Endorse Consumerism, Losing Ethic*



cynic said:


> I'm all for the open expression of political ideals even those which I find disagreeable, but I share your abhorrence of anyone engaging in acts of misrepresentation in the pursuance of their hidden agendas (i.e. using environmental concern as an excuse for the sabotage of private industry).
> 
> In effect such people know that the public would reject them if their true intentions were known, hence the deception.



Probably the most accurate statement I've ever read on the whole issue.

It never was about a dam which was built (which is the issue which lead to the formation of what is now the Greens) and it wasn't really about the next dam (which wasn't built) either. 

Nor was it really about a power station in the suburbs of Melbourne (that one had more to do with union issues than the environment). And nor was it really about the outfall from a pulp mill that was never built and it's not really about a mine today.

The Greens oppose the economic system as it stands. Period. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, just that that's what it is. 

Liberal is essentially a party of (mostly) conservatives who are pro-capitalist. They rely heavily in induced fear surrounding social issues to gain support, backed by a "we'll keep the economy strong" line.

Labor is essentially a party of unionists with a finger in the capitalist pie and a moderately progressive social agenda. They rely heavily on induced fear or unrestrained capitalism to gain support, aided by a somewhat progressive social agenda.

Greens is essentially a party which opposes the economic system as it stands. They rely on induced fear surrounding the environmental effects of specific development proposals, particularly those located in Tasmania, as the primary driver of support, at times aided by a social agenda which is essentially the reverse of the Liberals.

My own view is "do your own research" before taking a firm view on any of this. Most Australians live within a fairly easy drive of dams, power stations, big factories etc - you can easily go there and verify whether or not there's pollution etc yourself. Likewise most could join a union if they wanted to find out what they're about as well. And there's plenty of available resources to learn about capitalism, religion etc too.

Do your own research.


----------



## DB008 (28 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Piers Akerman has a great article on 'the greens' in todays Sydney Herald. Page 13.


----------



## Calliope (28 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



DB008 said:


> Piers Akerman has a great article on 'the greens' in todays Sydney Herald. Page 13.




The article is in the Daily Telegraph.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...nts/green_turning_red_in_watermelon_politics/


----------



## DB008 (28 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> The article is in the Daily Telegraph.




oops....


----------



## noco (28 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> The article is in the Daily Telegraph.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...nts/green_turning_red_in_watermelon_politics/




Yes Calliope it is very true in every word.

I have stated a couple of times on this forum as to how far socialist left the Greens are and that in my mind is near enough to communism. Communism was rife in the 50's and 60's in Australia and I personally observed the damage they did through the various unions. Their aim has always been to wreck the economy of a counrty and to create discontent with workers. Their aim of course is to have all industries run by a dictatorship Government whereby the Governemnt claims ownership to all business. It failed badly in Russia, Cuba, North Korea and in modern day China there is a gradual shift away from communism.

I have also stated a couple of times I believe the Greens have reached thier peak and are now in decline.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

It's not the Greens per se but near enough. 

All sounds very exciting. If you know nothing about the issue, and have never protested before, then come along and we'll show you how. The only thing that's changed over the past few decades is the target industry it seems.

For those not aware, most of the timber industry in Tas has already been shut down. The chip mills are shut. The Burnie and Wesley Vale paper mills are being physically demolished. What this is about is trying to shut down that little bit which remains, the veneer industry (something that environmentalists once advocated by the way, but that's another story).

So that's the timber industry pretty much finished it seems and of course hydro-electric development and heavy industry was halted in its' tracks years ago. No prizes for guessing that the next target has already been announced - it's the mining industry (hardly surprising since there's not much else left that they could target). 

Meanwhile we import $ billions worth of timber each year, much of it from environmentally very dubious sources. That problem is in someone else's backyard however.....


----------



## Julia (29 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Smurf, is that a real advertisement or a cartoon?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Smurf, is that a real advertisement or a cartoon?




It's real Julia.

Entry is via a watermelon donation.

The door prize is who can guess Senator Lee Rhiannon's real name and what party she belonged to in the 70's.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I'm not sure how widely they'll be running it, but it's a "real" advertisement poster put out by HVEC (Huon Valley Environment Centre). I note that it also mentions a number of other groups as well.

HVEC is a specific anti-forestry group, somewhat more narrowly focused than The Wilderness Society (TWS, which historically is to the Greens what unions are to Labor) or the more mainstream ones such as the Australian Conservation Foundation etc.

There has been a change of tactics in recent times. Historically, going right back to the dams debates and the blockade, there was always a main central group running the show. TWS were never far from the scene and for most of that time the likes of Bob Brown etc weren't far away either. 

TWS was for most of the past 30 years effectively the defacto "direct action" arm of the Greens and their predecessors. One side focused on getting elected to parliament. The other arm focused on things like the blockade, protest rallies, chaining themselves to trees and/or equipment and so on.

In more recent times there has been a change of direction with the formation of issue-specific groups. Examples include HVEC and the similarly named Tamar Valley Environment Centre (TVEC). The latter was formed to oppose construction of a pulp mill at Bell Bay. By inference (and public comments) it also opposes the continued operation of TEMCO, Pacific Aluminium and various other factories at Bell Bay. 

If you look at the big environmental battles of the past 30+ years then a disproportionate number of the big actions have taken place over Summer. One side will say this is due to the weather (it's hard to protest on a flooded river or a boggy forest during Winter). The other side will say that it's easier to get uni students and supporters from other states ("rent a crowd") if the protests are during Summer holidays.

Not associated with any of these is a more extreme element. They're the ones who put spikes in trees (intended to cause injury to forest workers) and who once planned to blow up (literally) a power station. To the best of my knowledge they never really had support from the non-terrorist inclined groups such as TWS or the Greens. They never did blow up the power station in question although tree spiking certainly has been done (mostly not in Tas however).

One step down from that and not really attributed to anyone specific are the lesser acts of vandalism and the hoaxes. Among those over the years include sabotaging / burning out logging equipment (very recently), the attempted blowing up of a railway bridge in the 1990's (ultimately a hoax) and the infamous addition of abrasives to the sump oil of construction machinery many years ago (which blows the engine). To be fair however, both sides have played this game to varying extent over the years.

People do have a right to express their opinion of course and I wouldn't want to prevent that. Much as I disagree with the Greens on many things, I do see their point over some things. They have a right to express their opinion provided that they do not harm others in doing so.


----------



## Julia (29 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Thanks gg and Smurf.  I honestly found it hard to credit that that was a real advertisement.

I've long thought that there is an element of our society which, for reasons known only to themselves, want to grab at any opportunity to be socially disruptive about anything.

The "rent a crowd" bunch.   They love being radical, going against the mainstream, and above all the opportunity to draw attention to themselves.  

****ing tossers.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

They have a Facebook page set up specifically for the January Justice campaign.

It's quite openly being mentioned that people "should" travel between states to participate in the various protests etc. Apparently there's something of a similar nature organised for East Gippsland (Vic) as well. There's also mention of a big party - not sure what that's about.


----------



## Ves (29 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Thanks gg and Smurf.  I honestly found it hard to credit that that was a real advertisement.



I don't really have anything to add other than it looks like a poster advertising an alt-rock band festival. Which probably makes sense in terms of their target audience.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Ves said:


> I don't really have anything to add other than it looks like a poster advertising an alt-rock band festival. Which probably makes sense in terms of their target audience.



What they are offering is sort of a competitor to such things.

Some people go to Falls for the 3 days. Some people go to BDO, Future Music, Soundwave etc for the day. Others would rather watch the cricket, car racing or whatever. And some would prefer a 9 day trip to Tas with some fun and games in the forests.

Seriously, they're basically marketing it as a summertime activity rather than the political movement that it is.

The Mercury (News Ltd) has picked up on it too I see. http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2012/12/29/369256_tasmania-news.html


----------



## explod (30 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> They have a Facebook page set up specifically for the January Justice campaign.
> 
> It's quite openly being mentioned that people "should" travel between states to participate in the various protests etc. Apparently there's something of a similar nature organised for East Gippsland (Vic) as well. There's also mention of a big party - not sure what that's about.




We are thirty years old.

Actually 20 I think, so a  celebration.  I've only been active for 15 of them.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> We are thirty years old.
> 
> Actually 20 I think, so a  celebration.  I've only been active for 15 of them.




As a person I respect you explod.

But the Greens are finished.

gg


----------



## wayneL (30 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> But the Greens are finished.
> 
> gg




If the aren't, Australia is finished.


----------



## Logique (30 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> As a person I respect you explod.
> But the Greens are finished.
> gg



I second that endorsement of Explod. 

Federally, the Greens will find it difficult apres Bob Brown, and a conservative trend among global electors. 

I disagree with most of the Greens federal platform. However at a local level, where policy isn't so doctrinaire, there are some excellent community based Greens reps. That 's certainly the case where I live.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> We are thirty years old.
> 
> Actually 20 I think, so a  celebration.  I've only been active for 15 of them.






Garpal Gumnut said:


> As a person I respect you explod.
> 
> But the Greens are finished.
> 
> gg






wayneL said:


> If the aren't, Australia is finished.






Logique said:


> I second that endorsement of Explod.
> 
> Federally, the Greens will find it difficult apres Bob Brown, and a conservative trend among global electors.
> 
> I disagree with most of the Greens federal platform. However at a local level, where policy isn't so doctrinaire, there are some excellent community based Greens reps. That 's certainly the case where I live.




You were overtaken by the commies, like Lee Rhiannon, and have lost local support.

There is not a local Green I know with whom I would disagree on local matters.

Communists have buggered you, as they have generations before you.

The Greens are finished.

gg


----------



## explod (30 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Unless you are in the Party you will not have any idea of what is going on.

The press only pick up on the bits they want for denigration.  

I have stated this on the forums here recently so I am repeating myself.

But in short, there is full (I mean full) consultation of all members on the reshaping of the constitution and the ongoing formulation of policy.   Try that with ms G and mr T.   I can assure you all that it is moving a long way from just the environment.  Education and welfare it right up there as the most important.

Anyhow, just nice to see you all just puddlin along on a Sundy evenin.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Unless you are in the Party you will not have any idea of what is going on.
> 
> The press only pick up on the bits they want for denigration.
> 
> ...




Just trying to help you explod.

The ALP will cannibalise your base on a Watermelon advertising blitz.

And you don't deserve that.

And bugger "reshaping" , "formulation" , "constitution" etc., the commos have been doing the numbers for 100 years and will beat poor amateur local bastards like you hands down.

Just ask Lee Rhiannon, or whoever she was before she changed her name, and whatever party she belonged to in the '70's.

And this will just help the ALP so I'm not saying this out of self interest,  only because I think you are a good person and need to watch these commos.

gg


----------



## Calliope (30 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Unless you are in the Party you will not have any idea of what is going on.
> 
> The press only pick up on the bits they want for denigration.





Never mind. The ABC loves you. They go to those two clowns Milne and Hanson-Young for their opinions on all things on the loony left.


----------



## explod (30 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Calliope said:


> Never mind. The ABC loves you. They go to those two clowns Milne and Hanson-Young for their opinions on all things on the loony left.




Yes it is interesting, the press go for what they want (loaded by the right IMV), and not necessarily what the party wants to portray though.  

I think the press is actually more for the Gillard camp.   Instinctive probably as the guvmint pays the ABC's way.


----------



## Julia (30 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



wayneL said:


> If the aren't, Australia is finished.



+1.  Let's not, however, fail to attribute some blame for their erstwhile prominence to 
Federal Labor who sycophantically sucked up to them in order to take government.

Let's also attribute some blame to the media for failing to adequately question their spokespeople (is there such a politically correct word?) on what their real policies are, thus failing to inform the Australian electorate of their absolute socialist agenda.


----------



## wayneL (30 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> +1.  Let's not, however, fail to attribute some blame for their erstwhile prominence to
> Federal Labor who sycophantically sucked up to them in order to take government.
> 
> Let's also attribute some blame to the media for failing to adequately question their spokespeople (is there such a politically correct word?) on what their real policies are, thus failing to inform the Australian electorate of their absolute socialist agenda.



Yeppers

Such failures lead me to deduce that they (the media) do not wish to inform of their agenda.


----------



## explod (30 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

What do we define as a Socialist? 

Or Julia, a Socialist Agenda?

As clearly distinct from Communism and/or the totalitarianism of Stalin for example.  He was just a crook and any system is only as good as those in charge of it.  In socialism, the concept of Marks and Engel's in their Manifesto, was "that it is for and by the people themselves"  

I saw first hand the Socialist system working very well when I was over in Sweden studying, many years ago now (1976) so has probably changed a lot since then.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> +1.  Let's not, however, fail to attribute some blame for their erstwhile prominence to
> Federal Labor who sycophantically sucked up to them in order to take government.
> 
> Let's also attribute some blame to the media for failing to adequately question their spokespeople (is there such a politically correct word?) on what their real policies are, thus failing to inform the Australian electorate of their absolute socialist agenda.



1. Greens raise the issue.

2. Labor campaigns on a promise to fix it if elected, thus gaining preferences.

It's been that way for at least 30 years so not likely to change anytime soon. Politically, it works as long as whoever loses (due to scrapping of whatever the Greens want scrapped) isn't a politically important electorate and/or can be bought off via handouts.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> What do we define as a Socialist?
> 
> Or Julia, a Socialist Agenda?



Actual definition I'm not sure but I'd say that prioritising wealth redistribution rather than wealth generation is a defining characteristic of most (all?) socialist governments.

In Australia it seems that all the major parties are somewhat to the Left. The Liberals would be closest to the center, but they're still very much into redistribution and middle class welfare. Labor a bit more and Greens a bit more again.


----------



## Julia (31 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Explod, see Smurf's answer.
Thanks, Smurf.


----------



## white_goodman (31 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> I saw first hand the Socialist system working very well when I was over in Sweden studying, many years ago now (1976) so has probably changed a lot since then.




might not be the model of socialism that you hold dear..

http://www.libera.fi/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Libera_The-Swedish-model.pdf


----------



## McLovin (31 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> I saw first hand the Socialist system working very well when I was over in Sweden studying, many years ago now (1976) so has probably changed a lot since then.




Sweden ain't socialist.


----------



## explod (31 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



McLovin said:


> Sweden ain't socialist.




It certainly was,  the Government controlled everything, private enterprise to a degree was allowed but very controlled, no advertising or billboards on shops, everyone had a home, controlled and owned by the state.  All land is public but leased where it can be afforded.

What is your idea of Socialist?


----------



## McLovin (31 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> What is your idea of Socialist?




No private enterprise; The means of production are owned by the state. That's not my idea, that is socialism. Sweden has some of the world's most successful private enterprises (Erickson, Volvo, Electrolux, Smeg, ABB, Scania, Akzo Nobel). It also has a relatively low corporate tax rate (lower than both Australia and the US), which is not what you'd ordinarily associate with socialism.

It's almost embarrassing to see how many household names a small frozen country create through high tech manufacturing while we run around with shovels digging up the ground, worried about the socialist bogeyman.


----------



## sptrawler (31 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

As we get closer to the election, it is interesting the greens are softening their policies.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...sroads-20121230-2c1bz.html?rand=1356872291516

Or are they just taking a leaf out of Gillards book and saying what the electorate want to hear. 
Then if or when, they obtain some clout they just do as they wish anyway. The voters have been conned once, it will be interesting  to see if they can pull it off again.


----------



## Calliope (31 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sptrawler said:


> As we get closer to the election, it is interesting the greens are softening their policies.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...sroads-20121230-2c1bz.html?rand=1356872291516
> 
> ...




As the article states, dropping their ratbag policies will make it harder for their followers to distinguish them from the Labor mob. The more "moderates" will revert to Labor, leaving only the rusted-on rump of Plods. The curtain will then fall on the Greens.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 December 2012)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



McLovin said:


> It's almost embarrassing to see how many household names a small frozen country create through high tech manufacturing while we run around with shovels digging up the ground, worried about the socialist bogeyman.



I'd certainly agree that Australia focuses far too much on low-tech things where we could be value adding.

In the context of the thread however, it must be said that the Greens have certainly made it harder to value add in this country and pushed things toward the "extract here and process elsewhere" approach. That's the inevitable, and intended, outcome of higher energy costs brought about by opposition to the cheaper means of power generation. 

Directly targeting the paper industry did much the same for forestry. We moved from making paper to selling woodchips until that ultimately fell in a heap (as it was always destined to do, a point that both sides understood long ago).

Selling iron ore and coal, so that someone else can make steel, is a bit ridiculous really. Likewise selling bauxite, woodchips, LNG and so on. It's even worse when you realise that Australia is an importer of paper and that we even import steel. 

In all of my involvement in these issues over the years, the most consistent theme from the pro-development side is that of wanting to add value to materials extracted in Australia. Make paper rather than selling the wood. Make aluminium rather than selling bauxite. Manufacture things generally. 

That's the main point of disagreement with the Greens. Saving some wild areas - fine with me and with most. Social agenda - not an issue in this context. It's the putting roadblocks in the way of processing and manufacturing that is the issue.


----------



## white_goodman (3 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> It certainly was,  the Government controlled everything, private enterprise to a degree was allowed but very controlled, no advertising or billboards on shops, everyone had a home, controlled and owned by the state.  All land is public but leased where it can be afforded.
> 
> What is your idea of Socialist?




read the paper 2 posts above, or are you allergic?


----------



## bellenuit (8 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

I don't know if this warrants its own separate thread, but decided to put it here. It reflects, IMO, the support given by some on the Left and the Greens in particular to feely good type policies when those policies often have no rational underlying logic other than being in opposition to anything coming from the West or from business.

*Longtime Opponent of Biotech Crops Says Movement is "Anti-Science"*

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/longtime-opponent-biotech-crops-says-movement-anti-science


----------



## wayneL (8 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> It certainly was,  the Government controlled everything, private enterprise to a degree was allowed but very controlled, no advertising or billboards on shops, everyone had a home, controlled and owned by the state.  All land is public but leased where it can be afforded.
> 
> What is your idea of Socialist?




Sweden has never been anything but a social democracy in the post war period, never truly socialist and even less so in recent years.

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3752


----------



## DB008 (9 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

There was an article in one of Sydney's newspapers today regarding the Greens policy down in Tasmania and how it contributed to the bushfires - lack of back burning - only 20% carried out. More fuel for the fire.

Now, if this can be believed, it's crazy. These nut jobs should never be allowed into office. If they do (which would be highly unlikely), I would literally sell everything and ship myself out.


----------



## Some Dude (9 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



DB008 said:


> There was an article in one of Sydney's newspapers today regarding the Greens policy down in Tasmania and how it contributed to the bushfires - lack of back burning - only 20% carried out. More fuel for the fire.
> 
> Now, if this can be believed, it's crazy. These nut jobs should never be allowed into office. If they do (which would be highly unlikely), I would literally sell everything and ship myself out.




How strange. According to their website they state their environmental principles which includes:



> 7. Climate change will increase the intensity and frequency of bushfires; scientifically-based, ecologically appropriate use of fire is an important means to protect biodiversity and manage habitat effectively.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




I wonder where the paper got their information from?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



DB008 said:


> There was an article in one of Sydney's newspapers today regarding the Greens policy down in Tasmania and how it contributed to the bushfires - lack of back burning - only 20% carried out. More fuel for the fire.
> 
> Now, if this can be believed, it's crazy. These nut jobs should never be allowed into office. If they do (which would be highly unlikely), I would literally sell everything and ship myself out.




+1

gg


----------



## MrBurns (9 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



DB008 said:


> There was an article in one of Sydney's newspapers today regarding the Greens policy down in Tasmania and how it contributed to the bushfires - lack of back burning - only 20% carried out. More fuel for the fire.
> 
> Now, if this can be believed, it's crazy. These nut jobs should never be allowed into office. If they do (which would be highly unlikely), I would literally sell everything and ship myself out.




I saw a Facebook post recently where a guy was searching through the rubble of his house for photos of his family that died in a bushfire after the Greens denied the locals the right to clear their land, can't find it now but it must have been from Black Saturday. Very emotive and may have been contrived but it's not hard to imagine that this could really be the conseqences of their actions.


----------



## Some Dude (9 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



MrBurns said:


> I saw a Facebook post recently where a guy was searching through the rubble of his house for photos of his family that died in a bushfire after the Greens denied the locals the right to clear their land, can't find it now but it must have been from Black Saturday. Very emotive and may have been contrived but it's not hard to imagine that this could really be the conseqences of their actions.




One could be forgiven for thinking that the greens might be feeling like Abbott and his supporters at the moment with regard to politically charged emotive attacks.


----------



## MrBurns (9 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Some Dude said:


> One could be forgiven for thinking that the greens might be feeling like Abbott and his supporters at the moment with regard to politically charged emotive attacks.




You dont think they deserve it ? 
They don't even try to hide their dangerous radical nature now, they're nuts and proud of it.



> Greens back anti-coal activist after media hoax
> 
> Greens leader Christine Milne has backed an anti-coal activist whose actions temporarily wiped more than $300 million from the value of Whitehaven Coal, arguing it was part of a "long and proud history" of civil disobedience.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-09/greens-back-anti-coal-activist-after-media-hoax/4458272


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



MrBurns said:


> I saw a Facebook post recently where a guy was searching through the rubble of his house for photos of his family that died in a bushfire after the Greens denied the locals the right to clear their land, can't find it now but it must have been from Black Saturday. Very emotive and may have been contrived but it's not hard to imagine that this could really be the conseqences of their actions.




The true Greens like myself and Roger Scruton 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Scruton

Believe that it is each and every person's responsibility to look after the environment, as owners of property.

The Watermelon Greens who control the party in Australia believe this should be achieved by government control, property governance devolved to bogan crusties and destabilisation of the sharemarket, as occurred with the Whitehaven attempt recently.

gg


----------



## Some Dude (9 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



MrBurns said:


> You dont think they deserve it ?




I don't think they deserved to be accused of being responsible for people's houses burning down because they opposed back burning when their website very plainly states that they support it.


----------



## drsmith (9 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



MrBurns said:


> You dont think they deserve it ?
> They don't even try to hide their dangerous radical nature now, they're nuts and proud of it.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-09/greens-back-anti-coal-activist-after-media-hoax/4458272



Onya Christine.

You're showing your party's true colours and highlighting Labor's stupidity.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Some Dude said:


> I don't think they deserved to be accused of being responsible for people's houses burning down because they opposed back burning when their website very plainly states that they support it.



Back burning or burning off?

Back burning = a technique used to prevent the spread of an existing fire into new areas.

Burning off = starting a fire, at a time when it is unlikely to get out of control, for the specific purpose of getting rid of undergrowth and thus reducing the fuel load of an area.

The Greens complain strongly about burning off when done by the forestry industry and have done so for quite some years. I am not sure whether they support it in general or not, but the general perception seems to be that they don't (due to their opposing it when done by forestry).


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> Back burning or burning off?
> 
> Back burning = a technique used to prevent the spread of an existing fire into new areas.
> 
> ...




+1

gg


----------



## Some Dude (9 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Smurf1976 said:


> Back burning or burning off?
> 
> Back burning = a technique used to prevent the spread of an existing fire into new areas.
> 
> ...




Bad choice of phrase on my behalf. As I found when I checked their website, they say:



> 7. Climate change will increase the intensity and frequency of bushfires; scientifically-based, ecologically appropriate use of fire is an important means to protect biodiversity and manage habitat effectively.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




I'm sure plenty of other discussion can be had about whether people agree with how it is implemented but I am trying to reconcile how that is any different to decisions made by "normal" government departments and organisations.


----------



## Julia (9 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Some Dude said:


> How strange. According to their website they state their environmental principles which includes:



The Greens recently received quite some media attention, at least on ABC Radio, for their statement that comments on their website did not necessarily indicate *policy* but were rather generalised aims.
(I am paraphrasing here.)
I cannot see anything in what you have quoted from their website which specifically indicates they support back burning or whatever other terms might reasonably be understood by people in the fire fighting environment as appropriate to reduce fuel for potential bushfires.

Over some years, Smurf, who is on the spot with having observed the Greens' policies in Tasmania, has had a bit to say about how the Greens have disadvantaged Tasmanians in so many respects.  If they were ever to have even more power than they have (via their friends the Labor Party) now, I shudder to think of the future for Australia.



Some Dude said:


> I don't think they deserved to be accused of being responsible for people's houses burning down because they opposed back burning when their website very plainly states that they support it.



Awaiting your explanation as to how exactly their website plainly states they support back burning, bearing in mind my comment above which goes to the Greens explaining that anything on their website represents a generalised aspiration rather than a firm policy.


----------



## Some Dude (9 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> Awaiting your explanation as to how exactly their website plainly states they support back burning, bearing in mind my comment above which goes to the Greens explaining that anything on their website represents a generalised aspiration rather than a firm policy.




Yeah, Smurf noted that the term back burning was different and that was my error utilising the phrase from the original poster.

That said, as Smurf noted, burning off is the more pertinent topic and my reading of "fuel-reduction" is burning off?

Noted that what the say on their website may not necessarily be what happens but that was my starting point for asking other for where they are getting their information.


----------



## moXJO (9 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Some Dude said:


> Yeah, Smurf noted that the term back burning was different and that was my error utilising the phrase from the original poster.
> 
> That said, as Smurf noted, burning off is the more pertinent topic and my reading of "fuel-reduction" is burning off?
> 
> Noted that what the say on their website may not necessarily be what happens but that was my starting point for asking other for where they are getting their information.




I had problems with green council their fire reduction seems to involve not being in the house during a bush fire so you don't add fuel. Prior the greens were against backburning but they caught a lot of flack after the Vic fires so more than likely mask their policy on their website


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Julia said:


> The Greens recently received quite some media attention, at least on ABC Radio, for their statement that comments on their website did not necessarily indicate *policy* but were rather generalised aims.
> (I am paraphrasing here.)
> I cannot see anything in what you have quoted from their website which specifically indicates they support back burning or whatever other terms might reasonably be understood by people in the fire fighting environment as appropriate to reduce fuel for potential bushfires.
> 
> ...






moXJO said:


> I had problems with green council their fire reduction seems to involve not being in the house during a bush fire so you don't add fuel. Prior the greens were against backburning but they caught a lot of flack after the Vic fires so more than likely mask their policy on their website




I believe there was a political party in the UK, called the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, who garnered as many votes percentage wise as the Australian Greens now do.

These times will pass.

Do not worry.

For the Greens , as Churchill said about the Nazis end, for the Greens this is the "Jumping the Shark Moment",



> Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.




gg


----------



## Crom (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

There is a tremendous article in the Australian today by Janet Albrechtsen, on the dangers of voting Green.  I have written to thank her and asked whether we can have copies placed on the tables of inner city cafe's, universities and TAFE's!


----------



## MrBurns (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Crom said:


> There is a tremendous article in the Australian today by Janet Albrechtsen, on the dangers of voting Green.  I have written to thank her and asked whether we can have copies placed on the tables of inner city cafe's, universities and TAFE's!




Would anyone who buys The Australian be a Greens voter ?


----------



## Ijustnewit (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Is it just me ? or does Milne come across as " I told you so and now you must pay for your sins ". Nice comfort for those that have homes and properties gone. And just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water... "dangerous climate change and climate emergency ". 
Article below


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-...n-of-climate-change-milne/4464402?section=tas


----------



## drsmith (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Crom said:


> There is a tremendous article in the Australian today by Janet Albrechtsen, on the dangers of voting Green.  I have written to thank her and asked whether we can have copies placed on the tables of inner city cafe's, universities and TAFE's!



Amd Labor has sunk to sharing their bed with them for little more than the spoils of office.



Ijustnewit said:


> Is it just me ? or does Milne come across as " I told you so and now you must pay for your sins ". Nice comfort for those that have homes and properties gone. And just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water... "dangerous climate change and climate emergency ".
> Article below
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-...n-of-climate-change-milne/4464402?section=tas



She simply sees it as another opportunity to push their radical and pointless agenda.


----------



## noco (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



Crom said:


> There is a tremendous article in the Australian today by Janet Albrechtsen, on the dangers of voting Green.  I have written to thank her and asked whether we can have copies placed on the tables of inner city cafe's, universities and TAFE's!




Here is the link to Jant Albreechtsen.

Yes the Water Melon Party appropriately named. Green outside and totally RED inside

Communism under a different name.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...genda-is-exposed/story-e6frg7bo-1226554651368


----------



## urgalzmine (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

HI Guys and Girls,

Re: Fuel Reuction burn, ie Burning off

I do not usually read this type of chat nor am I a Greens voter, but according to the Tasmanian Greens leader Mr Nick McnKim *"The Greens, in all the history of our political party, have never opposed a fuel-reduction burn, ever,"* 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...-and-stereotypes/story-fngw0i02-1226552340463


----------



## Logique (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



urgalzmine said:


> HI Guys and Girls,
> Re: Fuel Reuction burn, ie Burning off
> I do not usually read this type of chat nor am I a Greens voter, but according to the Tasmanian Greens leader Mr Nick McnKim *"The Greens, in all the history of our political party, have never opposed a fuel-reduction burn, ever,"* http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...-and-stereotypes/story-fngw0i02-1226552340463



Thanks Urgalzmine. Nick M's claim is laughable. We Greens support fuel reduction, they say, but here's 100 pages of green tape you must wade through first, and by the way, here's a map of all the vulnerable plants and animals you must not harm in the process.  

Utterly disingenuous. The Greens can demonstrate their support for fuel reduction by ceasing their surreptitious backroom undermining of it.  If anybody thinks I'm making this up, go and ask any volunteer rural fire brigade member.


----------



## DB008 (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



urgalzmine said:


> HI Guys and Girls,
> 
> Re: Fuel Reuction burn, ie Burning off
> 
> ...




Counter argument



> *Burn-off ban to protect habitats fires up farmers*
> 
> ANGRY farmers have accused the Tasmanian Labor-Greens government and its Environment Department of stopping them burning bush undergrowth during cool months, a move that might have slowed or stopped the ferocious fires that roared through the state's southeast last weekend.
> 
> ...




and 



> Ms Davis said she had been inundated with calls from farmers complaining that after the past two wet winters, they had not been granted burn-off permits by local councils or the government and had now lost stock, homes, woolsheds, machinery and pastures to the fires.
> 
> She said that, in other cases, permits had been issued by the government, but in such a slow or delayed time frame that the "window of opportunity" for safe burning-off on farms had passed by the time they were granted. Ms Davis said there was a "lack of understanding in the community, and that includes our bureaucracy, about the way the Australian environment functions".
> 
> "They think burning-off is destructive and unnecessary and farmers are repeatedly being told they can't do it, when in practice cool burns and fuel reduction must be part of any robust fire management system."




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/bushfires/burn-off-ban-to-protect-habitats-fires-up-farmers/story-fngw0i02-1226551587643


----------



## sails (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



urgalzmine said:


> HI Guys and Girls,
> 
> Re: Fuel Reuction burn, ie Burning off
> 
> ...




If it's not the greens, then who is hindering the fuel-reduction burns?

An excerpt from Miranda Devine issued as part of an update to address the very claim you mention.  If you go to the link and scroll down to the first update, she has embedded many links into this same paragraph to substantiate her claim:



> In the comments below, on twitter and on Facebook, various readers have been attempting to run the line that Greens are not opposed to hazard reduction.
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...




http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...raph/comments/green_arrogance_burns_fiercely/


----------



## drsmith (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

This differs a little from their policy header on controlled burns,



> “Research by Prof Bowman and Menzies Research Institute Tasmania research fellow Fay Johnston found that pollution from landscape fires contributed to 339,000 deaths worldwide between 1997 and 2006. That includes Tasmania, and the Greens strongly believe Tasmania must free itself from this smoke taint and end commercial forestry burn offs.”






> “We’re all better off when this Neanderthal practice stops and disposing of forest by-products is done far more responsibly. The future’s bright without forestry’s smoke pollution,” said Mr Morris.




http://mps.tas.greens.org.au/2012/0...aydena-residents’-furious-at-smoke-pollution/


----------



## explod (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> If it's not the greens, then who is hindering the fuel-reduction burns?
> 
> An excerpt from Miranda Devine issued as part of an update to address the very claim you mention.  If you go to the link and scroll down to the first update, she has embedded many links into this same paragraph to substantiate her claim:
> 
> ...



]

Having had a bit to do with Local Government in a previous life it is more often the higher up the scale wealthy (right wingers) who want their nice trees to stay put.

But it's easier if you do not know to just green bash.


----------



## PinguPingu (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

Latest newspoll has them at 9% I think, down 3? This certainly isnt going to help them.


----------



## sails (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> ]
> 
> Having had a bit to do with Local Government in a previous life it is more often the higher up the scale wealthy (right wingers) who want their nice trees to stay put.
> 
> But it's easier if you do not know to just green bash.





Can you substantiate those statements?


----------



## sails (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> Can you substantiate those statements?




Here are the links from the paragraph I posted fro  Miranda Devine - I guess you didn't read them, Explod?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/07/1052280321826.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-...tical-kickstart/2006/11/05/1162340090516.html

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/green-ideas-must-take-blame-for-deaths-20090211-84mk.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-...1169788740783.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/05/08/1019441520631.html

http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/you-cant-see-the-danger-for-the-trees-20090516-b6jn.html

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/felled-by-an-invidious-green-plot-20100818-12f2r.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...iend-of-the-bush/story-e6frfhqf-1226326602622


----------



## explod (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



sails said:


> Here are the links from the paragraph I posted fro  Miranda Devine - I guess you didn't read them, Explod?
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/07/1052280321826.html
> 
> ...




I scanned my way all through those links and not one substantiates the activities of the Greens.  Plenty of off the cuff statements and mostly from CFA members which I will get back to in a sec.

First, in no instance are the Greens in any sort of Government power.  As said, easy to just off hand bash the Greens but there is no substance to it.

CFA  members from my interactions from childhood till the present are more often than not blue and white collar Liberal voters.   A bit like the indoctrinated Jackaroo s on the big Stations in Queensland on very few dollars to the hour working in bad conditions for wealthy graziers and on polling days demanding to only have a Country Party how to vote card.  Totally programmed and no idea of seeking better conditions.  Crooked ole Joe got away with it all under that paradigm.

CFA, as a plod used to meet some overenthusiastic odds and sods in that crowd.  As well as the firebugs mentioned here the other day.

But how the Greens can be blamed for so much and not be in power is beyond me.


----------



## drsmith (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> First, in no instance are the Greens in any sort of Government power.



The carbon tax we wern't going to have under a government Julia Gillard leads and the flow of asylum boats both suggest otherwise.


----------



## explod (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> The carbon tax we wern't going to have under a government Julia Gillard leads and the flow of asylum boats both suggest otherwise.




Surely you are not suggesting that these two things are significant.

The carbon tax goes no where near far enough but at least with it though we have people thinking and debating the issue which will in turn will gradually lead to improvements and perhaps better ways to have society change in these directions.

On the boat people, little has really changed here at all.  We need to let them all in and under strict supervision and put to work(as I have discussed on these threads in the past) to protect our northern borders.


----------



## dutchie (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> Surely you are not suggesting that these two things are significant.
> 
> The carbon tax goes no where near far enough but at least with it though we have people thinking and debating the issue which will in turn will gradually lead to improvements and perhaps better ways to have society change in these directions.
> 
> On the boat people, little has really changed here at all.  We need to let them all in and under strict supervision and put to work(as I have discussed on these threads in the past) to protect our northern borders.




explod

I see that you think that "We need to let them all in under strict supervision...."

There are are about 15 million refugees at the moment (UNHCR figures). How many of those should we let in?
All of them?
How many a year should we let in (say, x)? If more than x arrive in boats in the first month of the year, then what should we do with the ones that arrive in the following 11 months?  

There are a lot of people with good intentions that offer this type of solution, but have no practical sense of what happens in the real world. I am not accusing you of being one but I would be interested in your practical implementation of "letting them all in".


----------



## Happy (16 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*

In theory especially sitting on high horse, everybody should have what they want.

In practice it is difficult (read: impossible), as proverbial blanket is too short.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> But how the Greens can be blamed for so much and not be in power is beyond me.



Last time I checked, which was today, there is a Labor-Green government in Tasmania right at this moment. 

This is the third time we've had the Greens sharing power. Twice with Labor and once with Liberal. This time, the Greens hold ministerial positions - they are part of the government just as Labor is part of the government.

In a broader (non-fire related) sense it could be argued that the Greens have effectively been running the place since 1983. It's a familiar story - if you can't win the argument locally then just get the Australian Government (assuming it's Labor at the time) to intervene and stop whatever they want stopped. It works politically since it's an effective means of buying votes in Sydney and Melbourne versus the relative few that could possibly be lost in Tas (given the population difference).

It's a trick that's been used numerous times. A group of concerned citizens, of which I was one, threatened to take the Australian Government to the UN back in 1995 over a denial of *any* local representation regarding a particular issue as per UN guidelines. We got our rep and the Greens lost that little debate.

I could also add that the whole country is under a degree of Green influence at present. Not in power? That's a bit like saying Coles and Woolies don't have a monopoly on supermarkets. Technically correct, but for practical purposes it may as well be.


----------



## sails (17 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



explod said:


> ...But how the Greens can be blamed for so much and not be in power is beyond me.




Labor manages to blame Tony Abbott for seemingly everything  and yet he is not in power and doesn't even hold the balance of power like the greens...

That's really bizarre...


----------



## So_Cynical (17 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



drsmith said:


> The carbon tax we wern't going to have under a government Julia Gillard leads and the flow of asylum boats both suggest otherwise.




Your confusing influence and power...quite common for noalition supporters.


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



So_Cynical said:


> *Your* confusing influence and power...quite common for noalition supporters.




I think you are confusing power with *in* power.

I clearly remember the 'government of one', when Senator Harradine virtually had the power of veto over all legislation. I also clearly remember the Australian Dumbocrats changing the face of GST.

To suggest that the Greens do not exert what power they have is naive.

You are also confusing your and you're.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



dutchie said:


> explod
> 
> I see that you think that "We need to let them all in under strict supervision...."
> 
> ...




+1

gg


----------



## drsmith (17 January 2013)

*Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*



So_Cynical said:


> Your confusing influence and power...quite common for noalition supporters.



You'll soon enough be able to share the political bunker with IF and exchange tales of woe.


----------



## drsmith (19 February 2013)

*The Greens quit on Labor, Andrew Wilkie style*

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...effectively-over/story-fn59niix-1226581102969

The Greens have effectively taken a Labor lifeboat and jumped in. The do however remain firmly teathered to the listing ALP vessel with a long line and don't intend to cut it until the good ship ALP finally sinks.

Their hope to be far enough away from the wash as to not be swamped themselves when Labor finally goes under having raided Labor's support base for as many votes as possible.


----------



## wayneL (19 February 2013)

*Re: The Greens quit on Labor, Andrew Wilkie style*

Closet communists just like the Dumbocrats. The end result will be similar once good inten tioned folk twig


----------



## drsmith (20 February 2013)

*Re: The Greens quit on Labor, Andrew Wilkie style*



wayneL said:


> Closet communists just like the Dumbocrats. The end result will be similar once good inten tioned folk twig



I gave up on them when they mutilated John Howard's GST. Then of course there was Natasha Stott Degoodsort. She was better suited to the Greens.


----------



## sptrawler (20 February 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*

It seems that Tasmania thinks it's o.k to shut down most of its industry, in the name of conservation.
But they don't like it when people point out they are a welfare state, of their own choice.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/16194422/wa-crying-poor-over-gst/

If all the states shut down viable industry, to try and make themselves look virtuous, we would end up in a real mess.
Thankfully there are people like Barnett who have the b@lls to call it as he sees it.


----------



## sptrawler (20 February 2013)

*Re: The Greens quit on Labor, Andrew Wilkie style*



drsmith said:


> I gave up on them when they mutilated John Howard's GST. Then of course there was Natasha Stott Degoodsort. She was better suited to the Greens.




Ah yes, the democrats, born out of Don Chipp a man with principles. We will keep the b@stards honest, nice guy, true Australian.
Then along came Cheryl Kernot, what a difference a day makes, she led them from 93 to 97, then as all good losers do, joined the Labor party. They apparently intimated she was a whinger and poor performer so they dumped her.
The highlight of her career from my memories, was the fact she snubbed Don Chipp at a democrat get together.
She didn't invite him, said we have moved on from his era, then she moved on.

Funny how history repeats, it will be happening to a couple of our current political parties soon.IMO


----------



## sptrawler (20 February 2013)

*Re: The Greens quit on Labor, Andrew Wilkie style*

I am really interested in seeing the swing, against or for the three independents. I think that will be more of a true reflection of how this government has performed.


----------



## dutchie (21 February 2013)

*Re: The Greens quit on Labor, Andrew Wilkie style*

When is a non alliance an alliance, when its a Green's non alliance.

The Greens are more stupid and hypocritical than Labor (if that's possible)!


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2013)

*Re: The Greens quit on Labor, Andrew Wilkie style*



dutchie said:


> When is a non alliance an alliance, when its a Green's non alliance.
> 
> The Greens are more stupid and hypocritical than Labor (if that's possible)!




The Greens have ditched Labor because Labor if not moving quickly enough to destroy the mining industry, which incidentally, provides 500,000 jobs.



> OPEN hostility has broken out between Julia Gillard and Christine Milne following the breaking of their alliance, with Labor and the Greens entering a new phase of fierce political rivalry in a crucial struggle for votes.
> 
> The Prime Minister yesterday accused the Greens of abandoning Australian jobs in a riposte to Senator Milne's claim Labor had neglected the environment and sold out to the mining industry.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...lp-greens-stoush/story-e6frgd26-1226582247689


----------



## explod (21 February 2013)

*Re: The Greens*



> We have to stop the export of coal. Set an example, then Indonesia, Africa and all the other coal producing companies will follow.
> 
> We need to have lights out when the sun goes down and we will all have a better rest and work harder in the vegie fields. No puter either. Stop a few probs here on ASF




Okay, on orders from Calliope I have moved to the correct thread.  He pasted my above quote of a few days back.

Now the mining jobs will go to;

more food production, back to our own abattoirs, they were a huge support to country towns years back;

the planting of trees everywhere, 

the creation of huge communities along all of our northern borders, in this we will use boat people to help and eventually become part of our defence up there too;

And once settled in I bet some of them boat people will be able to help us to work out a way to stop the boat people.  Fighting fire with fire.

the building of more efficient homes and for everyone too, subsidised by redeployed labour.

Setting up our communities and transport so that we can reduce the use of motor cars. Starting to see a few of those three wheeler pedal electric bicycles around Bendigo.  A lady on one yesterday, you pedal as much as you can, but do not have to and the down hills with pedalling puts power back in making them very efficient indeed.

None of my statements/assertions should be read or be construed as having anything to do with Official Greens Policy.


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2013)

*Re: The Greens*



explod said:


> Okay, on orders from Calliope I have moved to the correct thread.  He pasted my above quote of a few days back.




Wrong again. The thread Joe started is "Australian Greens Discussion". It is interesting to see that you are refusing to be drafted into the "correct thread", in spite of your support for the changes.


----------



## explod (21 February 2013)

*Re: The Greens*



Calliope said:


> Wrong again. The thread Joe started is "Australian Greens Discussion". It is interesting to see that you are refusing to be drafted into the "correct thread", in spite of your support for the changes.




You are correct again Calliope and thank you for your supervision in these very critical matters.

Perhaps this will be a test of the system and see if it is transferred to the correct one.

Of course as partners in crime ole pal we were way off topic anyhow.  Should catch a fish or two soon though.


----------



## Joe Blow (21 February 2013)

*Re: The Greens*

There is no guarantee that the new threads I started earlier in the week will remain with their current titles.

There *will* be some political thread consolidation going on, I just haven't decided on the scale of it.

For the moment I kindly request that people continue to post in the threads that they are used to posting in.

I will get to work on the thread consolidation over the weekend after I have reached a final decision.


----------



## Purple XS2 (21 February 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*

I've been wondering a bit about the Aust Greens lately, by the way, ever tried shortening that to "Aussie Greens"? Somehow it just doesn't roll off the tongue.

Now that the good senator Brown has retired, there's a chance for the party to redefine itself. Senator Milne can't run for all that many miles more, and I see much substance in the current crop of elected representitives, so the question is: what next?

I disclose membership thereof. Haven't turned up to any branch meetings or other events for a while.

Rather than bag the (#@P! out of them which believe me, would be easier for me to do than most of youse, dear readers, I would point out the following:

yes, they're elitist, cliquey, up-themselves and utterly disinterested in the Australian mainstream. Just tell me again how that makes them different from the political class in general? Except that the established parties are better at pretending otherwise?

for all their faults, they are the only party for which the concept of "the future" is part of their fabric. Tell me again, what is "the future" like in the eyes of the Lib-Lab-Nats?

somewhere in their ranks I think, are people for whom gay rights is not the most important item on the national agenda. I look forward to meeting one such, one day. I don't expect to meet anyone (else) in the party who thinks much of the gay rights agenda is a load of self-righteous and non-sensical hogwash.


rant, rant; mutter mutter.

P.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 February 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*



sptrawler said:


> It seems that Tasmania thinks it's o.k to shut down most of its industry, in the name of conservation.
> But they don't like it when people point out they are a welfare state, of their own choice.



There has been a significant degree of population churn which brings this about.

Go back a generation and Tasmanians were very much in favour of development and much was happening. Go back even further and you'll find that quite a few "firsts" for Australian cities were did in fact occur in Hobart or Launceston.

But if you look at the past third of a century or so, Tas has essentially stagnated to the point that it is now pretty much accepted as reality. Those in favour of development today, are about as quiet as those opposed to it were at one time. "No" has become the new normal. 

Meanwhile people seeking employment have left the state to pursue opportunities elsewhere meanwhile the state has become a magnet for those of the opposite view. Tasmania has thus transformed from having a larger industrial base than either WA or Qld in the 1960's to the point where a recent major controversy erupted over (quite literally) some awnings on an old bank building. Some of the former pillars of development still stand, many are gone, and all are virtually silent.

Perhaps the most worrying of all is to look at how many Tasmanians are actually employed in a business that is not either run directly by government, has government as its' major customer, or government as its' major supplier. Something like half the population depends directly on government, and it's even higher once you count the various private businesses which are merely an outsourced part of the public service, having little if any revenue from anyone other than government.

To be honest and trying to be reasonably objective, Tasmania is about as close as you'll find to a centrally planned economy in a Western country. It's hard to find _anything_ that government doesn't have a role in somewhere. 

To some extent there was always an element of this. Engineers were the defacto central planners previously, and pretty much officially so for 50 years. All that's really changed is that environmentalists / Greens have become the new central planners. Engineers built engineering things, most notably hydro-electric dams and heavy processing and manufacturing industries (especially those which use lots of power). In contrast the conservationists conserve things, most notably rivers and trees (especially trees in areas that also have dammable rivers or minerals).

Both have similar passion but have an entirely different view of how the world ought to be. Perhaps strangely, the dominance of the Greens has effectively turned the engineers into capitalists. Where once their objective was to break even financially whilst creating employment, now there is blatant pursuit of profit. Greens are also somewhat more profit motivated than you might expect, much of their opposition to some activities officially being based on lack of profit as key (or in some cases only) concern.

It won't change until there's a sufficient event to force it. In all seriousness, over the past year or so I've started to think that the Tasmanian Government might literally end up going bankrupt at some point. Seriously, it's not something I'd previously considered as a possibility but I do think it's at least possible going forward from this point. I won't say too much, but I'm absolutely certain that unsustainably high revenues are being received from some government businesses and yet still there's a budget deficit. Once those excess revenues fall in a heap, and that they will is virtually certain, well that's when I think things could turn nasty in a big way.

The Greens will have their era, especially in Tasmania, just as everything else before it has also had its' era. It's hard to predict the future, but conservation itself is now hitting the limits of constant growth.


----------



## noco (21 February 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*



Purple XS2 said:


> I've been wondering a bit about the Aust Greens lately, by the way, ever tried shortening that to "Aussie Greens"? Somehow it just doesn't roll off the tongue.
> 
> Now that the good senator Brown has retired, there's a chance for the party to redefine itself. Senator Milne can't run for all that many miles more, and I see much substance in the current crop of elected representitives, so the question is: what next?
> 
> ...




It is hardly worth while responding to you as you are so naive about the Greens agenda and idiology.

Have you ever wondered why they are called the "WATER MELON PARTY"?

You will see that they are green on the outside but very RED in the middle and RED stands for COMMUNISM.

They now have Tasmainia almost bankrupt and are relying on a bigger slice of the GST cake to keepthem afloat.

Communism stands for nationalising everything that is owned by busness and private individuals. Is that what you want?

If you like living under the communist banner, I suggest you migrate to Cuba, North Korea, China or Russia. You will soon want to come back to good old Australia.


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*



noco said:


> It is hardly worth while responding to you as you are so naive about the Greens agenda and idiology.




You are a bit hard on him noco. It was a courageous decision for him to come out of the closet.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 February 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*

I never understood what was behind Milne's decision to separate from the ALP until today.

Richo's article in The Australian hits the nail on the head.



> The Greens have walked out on her as well. Christine Milne is showing all the signs of this becoming one of those infamously vicious divorces. Who knows what the Greens will choose to endorse when legislation is brought forward to the Senate. Already the aforementioned billion dollar program is under threat and a hostile Senate is the last thing a desperate PM trying to demonstrate stability really needs. It is hard to imagine the government was getting worse but that now appears to be a certainty.




My guess is they will oppose any further ALP legislation and make the parliament further unworkable with the ALP unable to pass some of it's vote catching legislation.

The ALP are really between a rock and a hard place now.

And Newspoll comes next week again.

gg


----------



## drsmith (22 February 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> My guess is they will oppose any further ALP legislation and make the parliament further unworkable with the ALP unable to pass some of it's vote catching legislation.



They'll haggle with Labor as they have done throughout this term. It's now just done under the bed instead of in it.  It's less comfortable for sure, but they'll still try and milk what they can out of Labor's remaining time in office.

The next Newspoll will hopefully be the final nail in Julia Gillard's prime ministership.


----------



## Country Lad (22 February 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> My guess is they will oppose any further ALP legislation and make the parliament further unworkable with the ALP unable to pass some of it's vote catching legislation.




That poses some interesting situations.  Labor can't get a couple of pieces of legislation through the Senate.  To show she is still in charge, Gillard threatens a double dissolution.

Then there will be some interesting decisions to be made.  

Will Labor, out of political spite, go ahead with the double dissolution which will end in tears for them?

Will the Greens back down knowing that if they don't, they will then lose the balance of power?

Will Abbott be able to stop smiling?

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## drsmith (22 February 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*



Country Lad said:


> Will Labor, out of political spite, go ahead with the double dissolution which will end in tears for them?



Not with Julia Gillard continuing to lead the circus.

For an extra 5-minutes in office, she'll be on her knees to Christine Milne as she was to Bob Brown and the independents over the carbon tax.



> Senator Milne said she had told Ms Gillard "the Government had broken its agreement with the Greens" and there was "no point" in continuing to have regular weekly private meetings.
> 
> But she said her door would remain open to discuss specific legislation.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...f-faith-in-labor/story-e6frg6n6-1226581505299


----------



## Julia (22 February 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*



drsmith said:


> The next Newspoll will hopefully be the final nail in Julia Gillard's prime ministership.



I'm not sure why you're hoping for this?  Gillard as PM gives the Coalition a much better chance of winning than would Kevin Rudd who seems to the the only other option they're canvassing.

I can't see them reinstating Rudd for several reasons:

1.  Most of them can't stand him and simply couldn't work with him especially given the hubris he would
     display if they begged him to come back as saviour.

2.  The Coalition would have perfect ready made advertising from the grabs taken from his colleagues as they
     sought to justify knifing him with their assertions that he was a control freak, the government was totally
     dysfunctional etc etc. 

3.  They would look more pathetic than they do now.

4.  The electorate would quickly be reminded of why they disliked him when they again experienced him
     as leader and his 61% preferred leader would diminish.

Richo was saying this morning that Mr Rudd thinks he can win the election for Labor.  Richo did not agree.
PS With loyal acolytes like Richo utterly dissing the Labor Party, they don't need the input of the Opposition.


----------



## Calliope (22 February 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*



Julia said:


> With loyal acolytes like Richo utterly dissing the Labor Party, they don't need the input of the Opposition.




*Enter*.....*the drover's dog*.


----------



## drsmith (22 February 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*



Julia said:


> I'm not sure why you're hoping for this?  Gillard as PM gives the Coalition a much better chance of winning than would Kevin Rudd who seems to the the only other option they're canvassing.



Anyone, anything please.

It might bring about an earlier election.


----------



## noco (22 February 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*



drsmith said:


> Anyone, anything please.
> 
> It might bring about an earlier election.




+ 1 Doc. One just has to use a calculator on $100,000,000 borrowed each day until the 14th September plus the interest owing on it.

An early election please.


----------



## Julia (22 February 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*



drsmith said:


> Anyone, anything please.
> 
> It might bring about an earlier election.






noco said:


> + 1 Doc.
> 
> 
> An early election please.



And if there were to be an early election with Kevin Rudd as Leader, and Labor were to win it (remember that many voters have failed to warm to Mr Abbott), how would you feel then?

We have endured the government for two and a half years.  Another few months, with Ms Gillard as Leader, should not be beyond the tolerance of any of us if the result is a defining defeat for Labor.



> One just has to use a calculator on $100,000,000 borrowed each day until the 14th September plus the interest owing on it.




Having the Coalition elected to government isn't going to magically make Australia's financial obligations disappear.


----------



## drsmith (22 February 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*



Julia said:


> And if there were to be an early election with Kevin Rudd as Leader, and Labor were to win it (remember that many voters have failed to warm to Mr Abbott), how would you feel then?



What's on the nose with Labor is not only Julia Gillard, it's also the brand.

Whether it's Kevin Rudd or anyone else, a leadership change would be about minimising the damage to labor itself, not winning the election. That may not be the thinking in Kevin Rudd's head, but it is the reality.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 February 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*



drsmith said:


> What's on the nose with Labor is not only Julia Gillard, it's also the brand.
> 
> Whether it's Kevin Rudd or anyone else, a leadership change would be about minimising the damage to labor itself, not winning the election. That may not be the thinking in Kevin Rudd's head, but it is the reality.




Rudd's numbers have fallen in caucus in the last 24 hours.

He will need more than a miracle to get up.

Meanwhile the Greens can white ant the left of politics by blocking ALP legislation.

How life pans out.

gg


----------



## drsmith (8 April 2013)

*Re: Australian Greens discussion*

The Greens foreign worker campaign, 



> ACT Greens Senate candidate Simon Sheikh today denied seeking cut price foreign campaign workers, but The Australian can reveal the letter in which the appeal was made.
> 
> Mr Sheikh, the former head of the GetUp! activist group, claimed on Twitter today that a story about the letter was wrong and attacked the journalist who wrote it, The Australian's Troy Bramston.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...olunteer-workers/story-fn59niix-1226614929023

The letter,

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2013/04/08/1226614/944319-simon-sheik-email.pdf


----------



## sails (8 April 2013)

And now the Greens want 16 year olds to vote.  Goodness most of them are more interested in facebook and parties than understanding both sides of politics, imo.



> TASMANIA'S Greens are moving to get 16-year-olds the vote in time for the state's next election.
> 
> Greens leader Nick McKim will table a motion in parliament this week that would allow those aged 16 and 17 to volunteer to vote.




Read more from the Daily Telegraph: Tas Greens move to let 16-year-olds vote


----------



## chops_a_must (8 April 2013)

sails said:


> And now the Greens want 16 year olds to vote.  Goodness most of them are more interested in facebook and parties than understanding both sides of politics, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more from the Daily Telegraph: Tas Greens move to let 16-year-olds vote




What's the problem?

They don't get a say for the most part about policies relating to their future or higher education. 

I can remember doing how to vote cards at 16, and wondering why other people are allowed to vote when they don't even know who is in what party.

Anyone over 16 should have to pass a test to be able to vote IMO.


----------



## drsmith (15 April 2013)

What Christine Milne thinks of democracy,



> Greens leader Christine Milne said her party would do “whatever it takes” to get the reforms through parliament before the election, either by sitting later or through extra sitting weeks.
> 
> The worst thing that could happen would be if the school funding changes were taken to the election, which opinion polls showed was likely to be won by the Coalition.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ptember-election/story-fn59nlz9-1226620567657

At least she's resigned herself to the inevitable.


----------



## Calliope (3 July 2013)

Malcolm Fraser...Senility?



> FORMER Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser will campaign with the Greens to prevent Tony Abbott gaining control of the Senate, should he win the upcoming federal election.
> 
> Fairfax reports that Mr Fraser will campaign with Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who is competing against the Liberal Party for the sixth and last Senate spot in South Australia.
> 
> ...



.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...aign-with-greens/story-fn3dxiwe-1226673490752


----------



## sptrawler (3 July 2013)

Old Malcolm is probly trying to make himself feel better, after being the nastiest, anti worker P.M ever. 
I would actually rank him above Gillard in my list of worst P.M. 
Hard to forget the wages freeze, without the prices freeze years under him. 

Anyway back to the greens. 
IMO they will be hammered in the election also, there is no way people want a hung parliament again.


----------



## Logique (26 September 2013)

They were always going to miss the messianic Brown. Sen SHY no doubt watching on in the wings.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...eadership-of-the-greens-is-in-no-doub/4981448

Christine Milne says her Greens leadership is not in doubt after six staff quit

VIDEO: Christine Milne says leadership not in doubt after staff quit (Lateline)

Greens leader Christine Milne has denied her leadership is in doubt after revelations that six of her senior staff have quit.



> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...eadership-of-the-greens-is-in-no-doub/4981448
> ..."I think the differences were more about how we ran the office," she said.
> 
> "I have a view about a fairly flat administrative structure.
> ...


----------



## noco (26 September 2013)

Logique said:


> They were always going to miss the messianic Brown. Sen SHY no doubt watching on in the wings.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...eadership-of-the-greens-is-in-no-doub/4981448
> 
> ...




I remarked some 18 months ago, the Greens had reached their peak and are well and truly in decline.

IMHO I believe they will finish up in the same way as the Democrtes after Don Chipp pulled out they went down hill very fast.


----------



## drsmith (29 September 2013)

The roots might have been jostling below ground level for space for some time, but the weeds are now also competing for the declining sunlight above.



> On her way out of the party-room meeting that returned Christine Milne as Greens leader on Monday morning, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young walked past a table of journalists at Aussies Cafe at Parliament House.
> 
> To their bewilderment, Senator Hanson-Young matter-of-factly announced that her party had just returned a leader that would see the party ''marching to a slow death''




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-slow-death-20130928-2ulgp.html#ixzz2gDoRBNrA


----------



## bellenuit (7 October 2013)

Let's see if I have got this correct.

Three West Papuan activists scale the walls of the Australian consulate in Bali to promote their political cause. Apparently they also wanted to seek refuge, though they were not under any threat from Indonesian authorities prior to this act. However, the very act of breaking into the consulate would now make them subject to arrest should Australian officials involve Indonesian Police. 

Their primary intention was to highlight their political cause, something which had nothing to do with Australia, by creating an embarrassing situation for Australia when the world media was focussed on Bali because of the APEC summit. It could easily create a diplomatic situation with Indonesia just a week after the successful meeting between Abbott and other parliamentarians and their Indonesian counterparts.

Australian consular officials diffuse the situation by "persuading" the activists to leave before any political damage is done or the activists themselves put in danger.

Instead of complementing the consular officials on a job well done, The Greens are demanding enquiries into the incident. What would they have done if they were in charge. Embarrass Indonesia in front of the world stage on Australian property? Destroy Australia's newly cemented relationship with Indonesia. 

Why do The Greens always take the side of those who are out to do damage to or abuse the generosity of Australia. Whether it is East Timor in gas negotiations, illegal refugees who come though unofficial channels or West Papuan activists who want to damage our international relations. For The Greens, Australia is always wrong and everyone else is right.


----------



## drsmith (17 October 2013)

Nothing is above politics for the Greens including turning weather into climate.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...-centre-speaking-to-real-people.html#comments


----------



## Tink (18 October 2013)

Very sad to hear about the bushfires in NSW, my heart goes out to those people that lost their homes. Hopefully no lives lost.

On the Greens, I still remember when we had the bushfires here in Victoria, we didnt hear a word from them with all the restrictions on backburning etc.

I also remember a story about a guy who was fined $50,000 for cutting a tree close to his home, it was in the paper, his house didnt burn and he got his $50,000 back after the bushfires.

I dont think they can talk..


----------



## drsmith (19 October 2013)

Larry Pickering's take on Adam Bandt's comments,

http://pickeringpost.com/story/dear-mr-bandt-/2175


----------



## DB008 (23 October 2013)

Tink said:


> Very sad to hear about the bushfires in NSW, my heart goes out to those people that lost their homes. Hopefully no lives lost.
> 
> On the Greens, I still remember when we had the bushfires here in Victoria, we didnt hear a word from them with all the restrictions on backburning etc.
> 
> ...




Tink, you are after this guy - Liam Sheahan.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090211-84sw.html



> THEY were labelled law breakers, fined $50,000 and left emotionally and financially drained.
> But seven years after the Sheahans bulldozed trees to make a fire break ”” an act that got them dragged before a magistrate and penalised ”” they feel vindicated. Their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek still standing.
> 
> Anger at government policies stopping residents from cutting down trees and clearing scrub to protect their properties is already apparent. "We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down,"
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 October 2013)

Greens are now 89% Watermelon.

gg


----------



## drsmith (24 October 2013)

The remaining 11% is the skin.


----------



## Ijustnewit (13 November 2013)

I wondered how long the radical Greens would take to start blaming and linking Abbott's abolishing of the Carbon Tax to Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines.
Not long radical Greens leader Milne has now branded Abbott " Typhoon Tony" and tried to link the event to climate change and abolishing the Carbon Tax. 
So my question to Milne is the Carbon Tax is currently in place , so why didn't it stop this naturally occurring disaster ?                                                                                                                                                                 It is another sick and low act by the Greens , just as we saw during the recent NSW bushfires.


----------



## MrBurns (13 November 2013)

Ijustnewit said:


> It is another sick and low act by the Greens , just as we saw during the recent NSW bushfires.




Disgraceful, what an insult to the Filipinos.


----------



## basilio (13 November 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Disgraceful, what an insult to the Filipinos.




Small problem of course is that the Filipino government *is absolutely screaming mad about CC and the effect it is having on their environment. *  They desperately want all of us to take strong action ASAP.  No insult there Mr Burns just reality.

I posted the appropriate comments on the CC forum.


----------



## drsmith (1 February 2014)

The very worst of SHY

Proudly brought to us by the legacy of the previous government's border security ideology.

Episode 1: Shock and horror. Drama series on TV are not real.


----------



## noco (1 February 2014)

drsmith said:


> The very worst of SHY
> 
> Proudly brought to us by the legacy of the previous government's border security ideology.
> 
> Episode 1: Shock and horror. Drama series on TV are not real.





Sarah Hanson "WATER MELON" Young is so desperate to discredit the OSB in trying to relate it to the TV show 'BORDER CNTROL"........She is one very mixed up young lady.

Minister Morrison should ask her "is she not happy that we have stopped the boats and perhaps saved many lives in doing so".....Is she not happy that 4 detention centres have already been closed with a saving of $88 million to the tax payers.......what on earth is she trying to prove?


----------



## drsmith (1 February 2014)

noco said:


> what on earth is she trying to prove?



She's trying to prove OSB is dead. That after all was her proclamation after the Indonesian spying accusations surfaced.

Even though it's more alive than ever, she through her ideology can't resist prodding it. The more she does, the harder it will kick her in return.


----------



## AAA (1 February 2014)

noco said:


> Sarah Hanson "WATER MELON" Young is so desperate to discredit the OSB in trying to relate it to the TV show 'BORDER CNTROL"........She is one very mixed up young lady.
> 
> Minister Morrison should ask her "is she not happy that we have stopped the boats and perhaps saved many lives in doing so".....Is she not happy that 4 detention centres have already been closed with a saving of $88 million to the tax payers.......what on earth is she trying to prove?




Yep. Should put it to her like this. ' We saw you sobbing in parliament over people drowning at sea trying to get to Australia. Why aren't you now openly celebrating the lack of recent drownings. Why are you not supporting the policies that have stopped the drownings.'


----------



## drsmith (1 February 2014)

AAA said:


> Why are you not supporting the policies that have stopped the drownings.'



If video exists and can be posted, that will be Episode 2: Accidents happen.


----------



## DB008 (13 February 2014)

*Greens to move motion to remove Lord's Prayer in favour of 'silent reflection'*




> The Lord's Prayer will be put on the parliamentary chopping block on Thursday and replaced with silent reflection, if the Greens have their way.
> 
> Greens spokesman on multiculturalism, Richard Di Natale, will move a motion in the upper house on Thursday morning to refer the prayer to the Senate's Procedure Committee.
> 
> ...




http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greens-to-move-motion-to-remove-lords-prayer-in-favour-of-silent-reflection-20140213-32j55.html


----------



## Tink (13 February 2014)

That was rejected today in the Senate, DB


----------



## Chris45 (13 February 2014)

Tink said:


> That was rejected today in the Senate, DB



There's hope for us yet!


----------



## DB008 (13 February 2014)

Tink said:


> That was rejected today in the Senate, DB




Thanks Tink.

I just got home from work, and was reading headlines....


----------



## noco (1 May 2014)

With all that has been going on with Abbott and his broken promises, Shorten and his trying to break away from the union hold and Clive Palmer out poaching LNP members of parliament, the Greens are sitting back thankful they are not in the lime light.

However, they may regret speaking out about how cruel Abbott is in taxing the rich when in recent times Christine Milne and Adam Brandt have been advocating a bigger hit on the rich.......What pair of hypocrites. 



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...er_tax_on_the_rich_because_abbott_proposed_it


----------



## sptrawler (12 May 2014)

noco said:


> With all that has been going on with Abbott and his broken promises, Shorten and his trying to break away from the union hold and Clive Palmer out poaching LNP members of parliament, the Greens are sitting back thankful they are not in the lime light.
> 
> However, they may regret speaking out about how cruel Abbott is in taxing the rich when in recent times Christine Milne and Adam Brandt have been advocating a bigger hit on the rich.......What pair of hypocrites.
> 
> ...




Yes poor old Christine is starting to send mixed messages.
First she wants higher taxes on the wealthy, why didn't she introduce them when in power with Labor?

Now Abbott wants a levy on the wealthy, she is going to oppose it, because it should be a permanent tax increase. She is looking stupid.IMO

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...ose-debt-levy-on-the-rich-20140512-zrakt.html


----------



## FxTrader (13 May 2014)

DB008 said:


> *Greens to move motion to remove Lord's Prayer in favour of 'silent reflection'*



One of the few good ideas the Greens have put forward of late.  Compelling parliamentarians to listen to such a recital is a useless religious ritual that does not seem to improve their behaviour in parliament and of course it never will.


----------



## drsmith (13 May 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Yes poor old Christine is starting to send mixed messages.
> First she wants higher taxes on the wealthy, why didn't she introduce them when in power with Labor?
> 
> Now Abbott wants a levy on the wealthy, she is going to oppose it, because it should be a permanent tax increase. She is looking stupid.IMO
> ...



The passage of the deficit levy is being hand-balled by the Greens to Bill Shorten and Labor. It's their constituency from which the Greens attract most of their votes.

The Australian is now firmly has the deficit levy commencing at an annual income of $180k.


----------



## drsmith (13 May 2014)

drsmith said:


> The Australian is now firmly has the deficit levy commencing at an annual income of $180k.



Listening to Chris Bowen on ABC, Labor will let this one through. 

The GP visit co-payment of $7 and fuel levy indexation is a different story. With the latter, I can see the government pounding them over the carbon tax.


----------



## sptrawler (13 May 2014)

drsmith said:


> Listening to Chris Bowen on ABC, Labor will let this one through.
> 
> The GP visit co-payment of $7 and fuel levy indexation is a different story. With the latter, I can see the government pounding them over the carbon tax.




Yes, with the carbon tax, it was going to be applied to fuel this year, from memory.


----------



## Julia (13 May 2014)

drsmith said:


> The GP visit co-payment of $7 and fuel levy indexation is a different story.



Surely with the revelation this evening that the $7 fee for previously bulk billed consultations will partly fund a medical research fund, the opposition to this should be at least partly resolved.
I think it's a great idea.


----------



## sptrawler (13 May 2014)

Julia said:


> Surely with the revelation this evening that the $7 fee for previously bulk billed consultations will partly fund a medical research fund, the opposition to this should be at least partly resolved.
> I think it's a great idea.




IMO, Abbott and Hockey have set a bit of a trap for Labor, they will look like the children in opposition. Just being able to poke their tonques out and say, you broke  a promise, isn't going to cut it, they will look foolish.

Clever budget,IMO


----------



## chode84 (13 May 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Just being able to poke their tonques out and say, you broke  a promise, isn't going to cut it, they will look foolish.




Ha, sounds familiar.


----------



## Bintang (5 September 2014)

It must be very galling for the Green's to watch Palmer and his PUPS getting so much media publicity these days.
Even when it's bad publicity for Palmer it still keeps the Greens out of the 'limelight'. Collectively the Greens must be experiencing a version of ADD - Attention Deprivation Disorder. That might explain how they finally managed to get themselves onto the front page of The Australian with this:


----------



## noco (22 September 2014)

Where are the Greens?

Why aren't they out there protesting about the loss of bird life to these useless ugly win farms?

You can bet your boots if the Government considered a dam in the area, the Greens would be out there protesting about the rare green frogs Rf the furry red nosed wombats will be lost.

OMG....WHAT A MOB OF HYPOCRITES..


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...on-birds-of-prey/story-e6frg6nf-1227065860153


----------



## drsmith (9 November 2014)

The latest environment saving tip from the Greens,

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...comments/new_greens_policy_pee_in_the_shower/


----------



## noco (9 November 2014)

drsmith said:


> The latest environment saving tip from the Greens,
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...comments/new_greens_policy_pee_in_the_shower/




Yes, what a joke, not that it makes any difference whether you do or you don't.....I would say 90% of people do it and have been doing it since they were born.


----------



## Calliope (9 November 2014)

noco said:


> Yes, what a joke, not that it makes any difference whether you do or you don't.....I would say 90% of people do it and have been doing it since they were born.




Senator Waters if probably attracted to the idea that in the shower she can tinkle standing up. This is a further step towards equality with men.

On the other hand;



> You may not want to know this – and it would be sensible to wait until after breakfast before reading any further – but, apparently, lots of German men nowadays routinely sit down to pee. From quite early on, so it is claimed, German sons are taught that being a *Sitzpinkler* – translate it yourself – is the done thing and that being a *Stehpinkler* is simply antisocial.




http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/21/unthinkable-having-a-sit-down


----------



## Tisme (11 December 2014)

I was just looking at the Green's site and was rather amused at the selective pics on the home page.

http://greens.org.au/policy

and I took a random look at the plethora of policies and saw this :

"Landlords will be offered a package worth $500 per property to help them make upgrades and meet the new national standard" 


Wow, I'm voting for them next time if they are going to splash huge sums around like that about


----------



## SirRumpole (11 December 2014)

Tisme said:


> "Landlords will be offered a package worth $500 per property to help them make upgrades and meet the new national standard"




The new standard is that all properties be painted green.


----------



## Tisme (11 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The new standard is that all properties be painted green.




Can I choose Lincoln Green, wear some crotch hugging tights and carry a bow and arrow?


----------



## noco (11 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The new standard is that all properties be painted green.




And RED inside.


----------



## explod (11 December 2014)

noco said:


> And RED inside.




Rubbish noco,  a large percentage of membership are defecting from the Liberals and the Country Party. 

Anyway,  explain your version of "Red"?


----------



## So_Cynical (31 January 2015)

The Greens have spoken in QLD and the red necks are on the run...Brilliant.


----------



## Tisme (1 February 2015)

noco said:


> And RED inside.




Must have been a lot of REDS hiding in the LNP here in QLD over the last 3 years .


----------



## drsmith (1 February 2015)

So_Cynical said:


> The Greens have spoken in QLD and the red necks are on the run...Brilliant.



The Greens increased their vote by just 0.9% to 8.4%.

The Green tail can't wag the Labor dog as they did with the Gillard government as the didn't win a seat let alone balance of power.


----------



## Craton (6 May 2015)

Christine Milne resigns.

http://www.news.com.au/national/chr...as-greens-leader/story-fncynjr2-1227338254396


CHRISTINE Milne has resigned from her position as leader of the Greens party.  

In a Twitter post she announced that she would not be contesting the 2016 election and would therefore resign as leader of the Australian Greens.

“Feeling optimistic, proud & sad to announce I’m not contesting 2016 election, and so I resign as Leader of Australian Greens,” she wrote.

A leadership ballot for the position will be held at 11.30am.

The shock announcement caught media and political veterans by surprise.

“I’ve just stepped out of a meeting with my Party Room colleagues to send you this note. They are 10 of the best politicians I have ever known. And so, it is with a mix of optimism, pride and sadness that I am letting you know that, at that meeting, I resigned my position as Leader of the Australian Greens,” Senator Milne said.

“After 3 years as leader, 10 years as a senator, and 25 years in politics, the time has come.”


----------



## Tink (6 May 2015)

And looks like Adam Bandt has been dropped too.

_THE new Greens leader Richard Di Natale has pushed aside suggestions that Adam Bandt had been “shafted” during the ballot, as he signalled a new direction for the party.

Senator Di Natale was elected unopposed as leader today after the shock resignation of Christine Milne.

In a surprising move, senators Scott Ludlam of Western Australia and Larissa Waters of Queensland, were also elected unopposed as co-deputies in a party of just 11 members.

In doing so the party dumped Bandt, the only Green in the House of Representatives, as deputy. Mr Bandt took to Twitter to explain that he was handing over the position to focus on a new baby and winning further lower house seats.

But in a press conference after the vote Senator Milne refused to comment on questions from the media about whether she had tipped off some party members ahead of her resignation, in order to “shaft” Mr Bandt._


----------



## sptrawler (6 May 2015)

Craton said:


> Christine Milne resigns.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/chr...as-greens-leader/story-fncynjr2-1227338254396
> 
> ...




Maybe the 'looney tune' foundation of their policies, has finally sunk in.

You just have to read about the absolute mess Broome W.A is in, to realise, the Greens opposition to development is crazy. 

Onshore processing of LNG and 10,000 jobs stopped, now we have front page news of rampant criminal behaviour.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/27652499/teen-gang-on-rampage-in-broome/

Yes good old Bob Brown, was at the fore front of protesters, in his retirement.

Shame they can't spend as much time, fixing up the chaos they leave behind, on their blind crusades.

Milne may have realised, the senseless agenda, they are peddling.IMO

All these refugees trying to escape third world nations, while the Greens are trying to make us a third world nation.lol


----------



## noco (7 May 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe the 'looney tune' foundation of their policies, has finally sunk in.
> 
> You just have to read about the absolute mess Broome W.A is in, to realise, the Greens opposition to development is crazy.
> 
> ...




The Greens all belong to the Fabian society (communism)...It is very clear....This GREEN charade is just a cover up....It the Greens contested an election as communists, they would not get within a bulls roar of being elected...Shame on them.


----------



## noco (22 August 2015)

Well, I must say the Greens have had an arm chair ride during all the diversion and distraction by the Labor Party.

Same sex marriage....a new flag.....talk again of a republic.....the TURC.

But nobody really wants to talk about how the Green (Watermelon) Party are interfering with important developments like the Adani coal project......The Greens are holding up some 10,000 jobs through their stupidity and  Bill Shorten is backing them...I mean what sort of a future Prime Minister would this Shorten make....I has no gutz to stand up to the Greens and the unions. 

The link below is a letter written to the editor of the Townsville Daily Bulletin. 


http://www.ewenjones.com.au/news2.php?newsid=357

I gave a speech in Parliament last week on the Government’s support for small business. I spoke about the challenges confronting small business and business confidence. In our first year as government we repealed over 50,000 pages of legislation; in excess of 75,000 rules and regulations; and a bottom line saving to the business community of over $2 billion. Yet, not one person noticed. That shows you how much work we have to do to get off the back of small business.



For Townsville, the Adani development is not about India or the Mining Sector. It is not about big business at all. It is not about how we look to the world as a trade and investment destination. It is all about the chance for our region’s small businesses to grow and prosper as part of the chain to develop and supply. It is about the roads and bridges which must be built. It is about the concreters, the truck drivers, the car and truck dealerships, the boiler makers, home and commercial builders, the quarry operators, the department and corner stores, all the way through to pie vans which would prosper as we develop our region from Townsville’s Port to the Carmichael Mine and to Abbot Point.



*I am in absolute lock step with the Attorney-General, George Brandis, when he says that we are seeing political arguments played out in the courts to stymie projects about which some hold political opposition. Instead of arguing the decision in Parliament, they take to the courts and use tenuous legal argument to delay vital projects. The recent attack on Adani is a case in point. The two endangered species were noted in all the outcomes and their welfare and protection were in the conditions outlined by the Minister for the Environment. But, because they were not specifically named in a briefing paper, that was reason enough to launch the challenge. This is especially annoying because this first happened when Labor’s Tony Burke was Environment Minister. We offered then to close this loophole but that was rejected by Labor in Government and now again in opposition.*



Business confidence is low in our city and region. Employment opportunities are tight. When decisions like these are handed down, it hurts us all. It hurts even more when it could and should have been avoided. We are moving as quickly as we can to support this venture and give confidence to the community and small business sector. Let us hope that Labor will back these changes.



The use of public funds to finance these challenges must be addressed. I see people in my office with real problems who are unable to gain support from Legal Aid or other support areas. Imagine if we could free up the funds used in this kind of “Environmental Lawfare” and put them to use for people trying to get their families supported.



Everything we do impacts our environment, everything. How we manage those impacts is the most important thing.



Ewen Jones

Federal Member for Herbert


----------



## SirRumpole (22 August 2015)

Propaganda noco

Read a few facts

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...governments-myths-busted-20150819-gj2u2o.html


----------



## noco (23 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Propaganda noco
> 
> Read a few facts
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...governments-myths-busted-20150819-gj2u2o.html




I have noted with interest your claim that Ewen Jone's letter to the Townsville Bulletin was just a piece of propaganda...

.So I decided to do a little sleuth work on Lisa Cox and checked dozens of articles she had written over the past couple of years and I came to the conclusion that her posts were very anti Abbott and she did on most occasions do her best to discredit Abbott in a very subtle way.....Never did she ever at any time mention the rotten corrupt unions or your fearless leader of the Labor Party who accepted $40,000 for his own personal use.

So I had no alternative but to come to the conclusion that Lisa Cox is a supporter of the left and to place credence on her postings would, in the average persons mind, leave much to be desired.

Thanks to Labors comrades in the Watermelon Party, who are intent in destroying jobs, this project looks like being delayed until 2017 in which time $20 billion could well be the true figure....There is now also a case of Aboriginal land rites which no doubt will be financed by the Greens who have their bank accounts well topped up by the unions.

Lisa Cox criticized the 10,000 jobs which will be lost to a figure of some 1600 but she has not taken into consideration the jobs which would be let out on contract to companies here in Townsville and Mackay as per the insert below.

*For Townsville, the Adani development is not about India or the Mining Sector. It is not about big business at all. It is not about how we look to the world as a trade and investment destination. It is all about the chance for our region’s small businesses to grow and prosper as part of the chain to develop and supply. It is about the roads and bridges which must be built. It is about the concreters, the truck drivers, the car and truck dealerships, the boiler makers, home and commercial builders, the quarry operators, the department and corner stores, all the way through to pie vans which would prosper as we develop our region from Townsville’s Port to the Carmichael Mine and to Abbot Point.*

There was also no mention of the rail line to be built which would be creating more jobs.

You know Bill Shorten and the Labor Party are always sprouting about creating jobs and you lefties carry on deranged school kids about where are the jobs coming from......If Shorten was fair dinkum about creating jobs why doesn't he stand up to the Greens and the unions and show some leadership....Shorten is destroying job opportunities...He even diddled the workers in the Chiquita and Clearvent companies....Shorten is not interested in Australian workers...Shorten is only interested in point scoring. 
 [/B]


----------



## SirRumpole (23 August 2015)

> So I had no alternative but to come to the conclusion that Lisa Cox is a supporter of the left and to place credence on her postings would, in the average persons mind, leave much to be desired.




Well, that makes us even. You don't believe anything I post, and I don't believe anything you post, so I really can't see any benefit in continuing any discussion with you at all on any subject.

Anyone who does not mindlessly echo the type of stuff you quote from extreme Right Wing people or organisations is a creature of the Left according to you and therefore to be disregarded, even when they supply facts or statistics to support their case.

Sorry matey, but you are a "rusted on" Right Winger, and therefore not capable of accepting viewpoints outside your preconceived views, and accordingly it's pointless trying to have a rational discussion with you, however I wish you all the best of health and good fortune in the future.


----------



## noco (23 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, that makes us even. You don't believe anything I post, and I don't believe anything you post, so I really can't see any benefit in continuing any discussion with you at all on any subject.
> 
> Anyone who does not mindlessly echo the type of stuff you quote from extreme Right Wing people or organisations is a creature of the Left according to you and therefore to be disregarded, even when they supply facts or statistics to support their case.
> 
> Sorry matey, but you are a "rusted on" Right Winger, and therefore not capable of accepting viewpoints outside your preconceived views, and accordingly it's pointless trying to have a rational discussion with you, however I wish you all the best of health and good fortune in the future.




I guess we will have to agree to disagree but the fact is there are so many lies coming from the lefties to brainwash the naive just like the the adds that the ETU keep coming up with about the Chinese FTA will take away jobs from Australians....That is an absolute lie and you know it....The unions use 457 visas to bring in 41 overseas staff when I am sure those jobs could have been filled by Australians

What ever political persuasion I may have is irrelevant to the fact and I will always stand up for what I believe in 
and socialism (communism) will never play a part of my political beliefs.....If you want to see socialism in this country then vote for the Green/Labor left wing socialist...That is your prerogative and God help the country then if it ever happens.

Perhaps you should be reminded that this Forum is about freedom of speech, opinions and facts as we see and observe and no one has the right to attempt to close down someone who does not agree with you.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 August 2015)

noco said:


> Perhaps you should be reminded that this Forum is about freedom of speech, opinions and facts as we see and observe and no one has the right to attempt to close down someone who does not agree with you.




I have never tried to "close you down" , just saying that responding to your cherry picked Right Wing propaganda is pointless.


----------



## noco (23 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I have never tried to "close you down" , just saying that responding to your cherry picked Right Wing propaganda is pointless.




You and your lefties have tried to close me down by character assassinations and don't try to deny it.

Please give me an example of cherry picking as you say and I will endeavor to defend it.

Responding is pointless?????????????....You obviously don't have the answers.


----------



## Knobby22 (23 November 2015)

Greens want a utopian society where no one says anything they disagree with or else they get fined or thrown in jail (ISIS style of freedom)  hence they are now suing the Catholic Church for opposing gay marriage. In Tassy there is no freedom of speech hence the capability to sue.

A complaint that the Catholic Church has offended and humiliated gay, lesbian and transgender Australians by distributing a *booklet supporting traditional marriage is looming as a test case for freedom of speech and religion ahead of the national same-sex marriage plebiscite.

The Archbishop of Hobart, *Julian Porteus, is preparing to fight the complaint to Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commission on the grounds of religious freedom.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...549711732?sv=cb53bceaae2e58d753cfc70acf2ed164


----------



## noco (23 November 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Greens want a utopian society where no one says anything they disagree with or else they get fined or thrown in jail (ISIS style of freedom) .
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...549711732?sv=cb53bceaae2e58d753cfc70acf2ed164




More like Fabian style...Communism.


----------



## Logique (23 November 2015)

Going off on a tangent here,

if the Greens have any sort of political antennae, they'll realize that current federal politics provides a tailor made opportunity for them.

Don't want to vote for Shorten, don't like Turnbull...then here they are, your friends the Greens.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 November 2015)

Logique said:


> Going off on a tangent here,
> 
> if the Greens have any sort of political antennae, they'll realize that current federal politics provides a tailor made opportunity for them.
> 
> Don't want to vote for Shorten, don't like Turnbull...then here they are, your friends the Greens.




They have a better chance of doing that since Milne's departure. de Natalie comes across as a much more moderate leader.


----------



## chops_a_must (23 November 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> They have a better chance of doing that since Milne's departure. de Natalie comes across as a much more moderate leader.




That is their strategy.

They are the only party of the left in Australia.

The ALP is at war with its own left faction and has been haemorrhaging that voter base for a long long time.

Hence the internal battles with hard line Greens candidates that don't have a wider voting appeal. Because they will eventually take over the ALP left faction in its entirety.


----------



## noco (23 November 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> They have a better chance of doing that since Milne's departure. de Natalie comes across as a much more moderate leader.




If he walks  like a duck and quacks like a duck then he is a duck....still a Green commo.


----------



## drsmith (23 November 2015)

noco said:


> If he walks  like a duck and quacks like a duck then he is a duck....still a Green commo.



He comes across better than Christine Milne but until there's significant policy change, they're still in my view economic vandals and don't respect our sovereignty as a nation.


----------



## Tink (24 November 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Greens want a utopian society where no one says anything they disagree with or else they get fined or thrown in jail (ISIS style of freedom)  hence they are now suing the Catholic Church for opposing gay marriage. In Tassy there is no freedom of speech hence the capability to sue.
> 
> A complaint that the Catholic Church has offended and humiliated gay, lesbian and transgender Australians by distributing a *booklet supporting traditional marriage is looming as a test case for freedom of speech and religion ahead of the national same-sex marriage plebiscite.
> 
> ...




Well said, Knobby.

The new terrorists, that call out tolerance, but are the most intolerant of all.


----------



## Tisme (24 November 2015)

Tink said:


> Well said, Knobby.
> 
> The new terrorists, that call out tolerance, but are the most intolerant of all.




They are the political equivalent of particle swarm optimisation = flock of human birds. They are a leaderless flock with only reactive control agents that obey the Ordo Ab Chao rules.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 November 2015)

Tink said:


> Well said, Knobby.
> 
> The new terrorists, that call out tolerance, but are the most intolerant of all.




Yes, they would be a hard dictatorship to live under if they ever got control. A bit like Pol Pot.
Their intolerance ruins their cause.


----------



## dutchie (24 November 2015)

The Australian Greens- so out of touch.

They make even Bill look good.


----------



## noco (26 March 2016)

explod said:


> No you did not noco.
> 
> Lets try another way.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-12/the_ideological_drive_behind_the_greens/41010

Plod, if you need any more info on the Greens and their association with Marxism, there is plenty more where this came from......Remember....they are "WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING".....Green outside and red inside......Thta is why they are called the "watermelons".

*While the Greens appeal to an alliance of young, tertiary educated students and professionals, the party has increasingly been infiltrated at the parliamentary level by members of the hard left. Let me take two examples. New South Wales senator-elect, Lee Rhiannon, is a former member of the Moscow-aligned Socialist Party of Australia. Her parents were prominent members of the Communist Party.

The new Member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, was a radical student activist. He once attacked the Greens as a “bourgeois” party. Writing on a Marxist website in the 1990s, Mr Bandt attacked capitalism, arguing that ideological purity was paramount. It is clear from his 1995 comments - “Communists can’t fetishise alternative political parties, but should always make some kind of materially based assessment about the effectiveness of any given strategy come election time” - that Bandt views the Greens as a vehicle for his ideological pursuits.*

*Ecological Marxism

There are many descriptions that could be applied to the Greens, but none seems more accurate than Jack Mundey’s own description of “ecological Marxism”. This description sums up the two core beliefs of the Greens. First, the environment or the ecology is to be placed before all else. This is spelt out in the first principle in the Greens Global Charter:

“We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.” [vi]

Secondly, the Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism when applied as a political movement.  By totalitarian, I mean the subordination of the individual and the impulse to rid society of all elements that, in the eyes of the adherent, mar its perfection.*

*Faith and belief

For many Greens supporters, environmentalism is ultimately an article of faith and belief. This is no better illustrated than in the controversy surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has become increasingly clear that the process of “establishing” human-caused global warming has been manipulated by a small group of people, using mutual peer processes, and claiming to speak for many more scientists who had little input and no real opportunity to review the final documents. The closed-shop nature of the process is counter the scientific empiricism of the enlightenment, and marks another significant break with traditional western culture.

To Greens believers, this is of little consequence. Ultimately, global warming is a matter of faith.

Similarly Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps one of the most dramatic scenes in the film is the depiction of an ice-wall collapsing. Viewers are led to believe that they are watching footage of an actual collapse. The truth, however, is that the scene was taken from the opening credits of a Hollywood movie, The day after tomorrow. [xxix]

Despite the fact that a British court found the film contained significant errors, [xxx] many environmentalists continue to believe it is true.  For these environmentalists, the errors are merely inconvenient mistakes that fail to negate the Armageddon the world faces unless drastic measures are taken. Again, this is an example of belief, rather than reason. “Evidence” can be manufactured. Scientific empiricism is a vehicle to be manipulated for a political cause. Worse still, the film is now being proposed for the National Curriculum in Australian schools.

The Greens belief in their environmental nirvana manifests itself in a new coercive utopianism.

Unless we understand the ideological foundations of the Greens, we will fail to effectively address the challenge of their revolution. We will be left debating instrumental outcomes, as if they are based on the same cultural and philosophical foundations that underpin western civilisation. What the Greens present is the cutting edge of a clash within western civilization itself. [xxxi] *


----------



## SirRumpole (26 March 2016)

Rave as much as you like noco, but I believe that under de Natalie the Greens are pretty firmly in the centre of politics now, and even if they are a bit left I think its good to have a counter balance to the hard Right now espoused by Morrison and others in the Libs.


----------



## noco (26 March 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Rave as much as you like noco, but I believe that under de Natalie the Greens are pretty firmly in the centre of politics now, and even if they are a bit left I think its good to have a counter balance to the hard Right now espoused by Morrison and others in the Libs.




I guess we will just have to wait and see how good your predictions are re-guarding the Greens.....He still has quite a few Marxist in the Green Party which he has to deal with including Lee Rhiannon, Adam Brandt, Larrisa ?, Sarah Hanson-Young and another fellow I think his name is Ludeman or Ludman or something like that name.

Di Natalie may be showing a little bit of deception in his approach to a more moderate center party having leaned some support to Malcolm Tunrbull to look more attractive than the Labor Party...Di Natalie's real aim is to steal votes from the Labor Party to become the second major party....I really don't think you could say he will veer away from The Greens ideology as I have out lined.


----------



## Logique (28 April 2016)

If as Greens leader Richard Di Natale said this week, the Greens are going to run on cancelling the Private Health insurance rebate - I think it's electoral suicide. Pushing people off resultantly unaffordable health cover.

To me it seems pure ideology from the Greens. Everything must be provided by the state, i.e. in an already swamped public system. 

The private health system can do it efficiently and well, while taking pressure off the public system. 

The Greens should not deny consumers this choice by cancelling the private insurance rebate.

Labor needs to speak out against this if they want my vote.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 April 2016)

Logique said:


> If as Greens leader Richard Di Natale said this week, the Greens are going to run on cancelling the Private Health insurance rebate - I think it's electoral suicide. Pushing people off resultantly unaffordable health cover.
> 
> To me it seems pure ideology from the Greens. Everything must be provided by the state, i.e. in an already swamped public system.
> 
> ...




Bit of a cleft stick isn't it ?

Health insurance rates are getting prohibitively expensive already, cutting the rebate will definitely force a lot of people to drop private insurance. If they spend the savings on the public health system then that will compensate.

Personally I can see the benefits of two competing systems trying to give the customer the best service, but it's false competition if one "company" has to subsidise the other all the time.


----------



## drsmith (28 April 2016)

The combination of Lifetime Health Cover, Medicare surcharge and the private health insurance rebate makes private health insurance an attractive financial choice to many almost regardless of the level of service provided. 

This combination of carrot and stick is in my view results in an absurd situation where the private health insurance providers don't have to provide much value for service and as a consequence, they don't. 

The private health funding model needs to be reviewed from scratch.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 April 2016)

drsmith said:


> The combination of Lifetime Health Cover, Medicare surcharge and the private health insurance rebate makes private health insurance an attractive financial choice to many almost regardless of the level of service provided.
> 
> This combination of carrot and stick is in my view results in an absurd situation where the private health insurance providers don't have to provide much value for service and as a consequence, they don't.
> 
> The private health funding model needs to be reviewed from scratch.




+1

I don't know the situation in other states but certainly in Tas if you have a serious life threatening medical problem then you'll almost certainly end up at a public hospital no matter how much you've spent on private cover.

The private hospitals basically "cherry pick" what's profitable and leave the rest to the public system. If you call an ambulance and ask to be taken to a private hospital then the first thing they'll do is check to see if the private hospital will actually accept you as a patient and if not then you'll be taken to the public hospital with or without private insurance. And if you're unconscious then it's straight to the public hospital without question.

Thankfully I've only found myself in hospital twice as an adult. Once for a planned operation in the public system and once as an emergency patient in the private system. The emergency doctors in the private hospital looked after me well, and it was straight in with zero wait, but the specialist who dealt with me spends much of their time working in the public hospital next door. So I got a nice room and probably better food but no difference at all when it came to actual medical care - exact same specialist doctor in either case.

Having private cover didn't even result in no waiting list for the subsequent surgery and that was a bit of a surprise. It was still several months for that to be done so I don't think I gained anything at all from a pure medical perspective by having private cover. At most, maybe it saved waiting a while (in a massive amount of pain) when first admitted but zero difference after that.

I can see that there's a definite problem with funding to the public hospitals but I'm not sure that the present model of private health cover is the best way to address it. For every $ spent on private cover and the associated government incentives, how much is actually saved on treating patients in the public system? By the time the incentives are taken into account and then all the overheads of administering the whole system of private health insurance, it seems a pretty inefficient way of freeing up resources in the public hospitals especially given that they end up treating a lot of patients with private cover anyway.


----------



## drsmith (29 June 2016)

Richard Di Natale in spruiking a minority government with Labor in the event of a hung parliament got himself into a bit of bother over offshore asylum processing today,



> The future of offshore detention would be central to any post-election negotiations with the ALP in the event of a hung parliament, Greens leader Richard Di Natale has said.
> 
> But he would not say if any deal would be dependent on the closure of offshore detention centres during a press conference with his inner-Melbourne candidates and local MP Adam Bandt.
> 
> ...






> He later moved to clarify on social media, tweeting: "Greens position is non-negotiable. We want to see an end to offshore detention & will do everything we can to close the camps."




I'd suggest that forces within the Greens party that are less pragmatic than Richard pulled him into line.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-says-richard-di-natale-20160629-gpuiv1.html


----------



## noco (30 June 2016)

drsmith said:


> Richard Di Natale in spruiking a minority government with Labor in the event of a hung parliament got himself into a bit of bother over offshore asylum processing today,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Doc, I don't think I will be the most popular boy amongst the Greens today after posting #8148 on the CLIMATE HYSTERIA THREAD.

They will most likely still persist that our CO2 emissions on Earth has caused the Sun to blink....ROFL.


----------



## noco (30 July 2016)

Bob Brown has risen from the ashes showing concern for the party he founded.

The Greens are in decline and have not done as well as they expected with their new leader Di Natalie.

They failed to gain another seat in the lower house and will lose one and maybe two in the Senate.

It is now a proven fact the Greens are far removed from their environmental shadow and their hidden agenda is now being exposed for what they really stand for and it is not good..

Lee Rhiannon is a communist ..Is now and always will be.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...l/news-story/563be56cdd875ef418717eae68b04212

*In the July 2 election the Greens did not do as well as they hoped. They suffered a swing in the Senate that has cost them one of their 10 spots and put another at risk. In the lower house they lifted their primary vote, but the inner-city seats they targeted — such as Grayndler in NSW and Batman in Victoria — proved beyond their grasp, leaving Adam Bandt as their sole member.

This was not what was supposed to happen under the new, more pragmatic party leader, Richard Di Natale. His hope was that rising electoral support could be parlayed into a seat at the table of government.

What the Greens do about their lacklustre election result is in the final analysis a matter for them, but they cannot lightly dismiss the verdict of party co-founder Bob Brown.

“They need a clean-out in NSW,” Mr Brown is quoted as saying in the August edition of The Monthly. “The people who have been for decades running the NSW Greens need to do what I did: retire and make way for new blood and people more in tune with the electorate in 2016.”

In NSW, Lee Rhiannon is associated with the Left faction known as the Eastern Bloc (she used to be a member of the pro-Soviet Socialist Party of Australia).

There is a leftist strain in the Greens that is deeply ambivalent about democratic politics. It looks to extra-parliamentary activism as the force for radical change in line with utopian aims. This shows in some party preselections. Part of the problem is a failure to come to grips with the record of communism as one of the bloodiest failures in history. Senator Rhiannon tells The Monthly that those in the old Communist Party “made a great contribution to this country”. She’s serious.

Most voters are aware that the policy of the Greens extends beyond the environment. But their big-spending magic pudding economic policy has to go. We cannot afford public sector largesse when the budget is in deep structural deficit. It is an immoral impost on future generations. And it so happens that bringing the budget back into surplus is a precondition for the free market prosperity that can help underwrite environmental protection and remediation.

*


----------



## Knobby22 (31 July 2016)

Saw Bob Brown on TV saying the Green NSW  leadership should resign. Didnt argue with the critiscism that they were watermelons. Green skin but red on the inside.


----------



## wayneL (31 July 2016)

Knobby22 said:


> Saw Bob Brown on TV saying the Green NSW  leadership should resign. Didnt argue with the critiscism that they were watermelons. Green skin but red on the inside.




I don't think watermelons is appropriate.

They are so blarently red, the small green patchescare simply there to further and facilitate the ideology. More like tomatoes these days


----------



## SirRumpole (31 July 2016)

wayneL said:


> I don't think watermelons is appropriate.
> 
> They are so blarently red, the small green patchescare simply there to further and facilitate the ideology. More like tomatoes these days




I wouldn't call de Natalie a tomato, or even a watermelon. He's more switched on to reality than the last leader Milne.

Maybe that's why he lost some votes of the loony Left.


----------



## Knobby22 (31 July 2016)

Bob didn't attack de Nataile. He was attacking the people running NSW.


----------



## noco (31 July 2016)

Knobby22 said:


> Bob didn't attack de Nataile. He was attacking the people running NSW.




Yeah...The REDS under the bed.


----------



## Logique (31 July 2016)

What the Greens need most of all, is a root and branch review of all their policies. 

I think they need to be more Centrist, and believe Di Natale was a good appointment.  

Bob Brown is probably right about NSW.  Everyone knows where Lee Rhiannon sits in the policy spectrum, I can't see how it adds the electability of the party.


----------



## noco (31 July 2016)

Logique said:


> What the Greens need most of all, is a root and branch review of all their policies.
> 
> I think they need to be more Centrist, and believe Di Natale was a good appointment.
> 
> Bob Brown is probably right about NSW.  Everyone knows where Lee Rhiannon sits in the policy spectrum, I can't see how it adds the electability of the party.




But Lee Rhiannon is not the only communist in the Greens' Party...It is riddled with them as I have said on many occasions........Their agenda is Socialism.


----------



## Tink (1 August 2016)

Agree, they are so far left they have fallen off the cliff.

Anti achievement, anti western culture, big on PC

There is no freedom when it comes to their ideology, we all have to walk the plank of destruction.


----------



## Tisme (1 August 2016)

noco said:


> There is a leftist strain in the Greens that is deeply ambivalent about democratic politics.




What?!!  I can't fathom the logic of one proposition supporting the other?


----------



## Tisme (1 August 2016)

Tink said:


> Agree, they are so far left they have fallen off the cliff.
> 
> Anti achievement, anti western culture, big on PC
> 
> There is no freedom when it comes to their ideology, we all have to walk the plank of destruction.




I would suspect the if we eliminated the protest Lib/Lab voters, there would be insufficient numbers of hipsters and tie dyes to get the Greens close to sitting in the house of reps.

I'm surprised the stalwarts haven't changed their names to Malachi, Esau, Edom etc. and started  wearing finger cymbals.


----------



## noco (1 August 2016)

Tisme said:


> What?!!  I can't fathom the logic of one proposition supporting the other?




They are not my words......That is from a report by the Australian Newspaper.


----------



## Tisme (1 August 2016)

noco said:


> They are not my words......That is from a report by the Australian Newspaper.




Yes they seem ambivalent to good journalism.


----------



## McLovin (1 August 2016)

Knobby22 said:


> Saw Bob Brown on TV saying the Green NSW  leadership should resign. Didnt argue with the critiscism that they were watermelons. Green skin but red on the inside.




The Greens in NSW have always been tinged with Communism much more than the Greens nationally. Lee Rhiannon is as red as they get in Australian politics. Or to put it another way, you'll never see Lee chained to a tree because an endangered bandicoot is faced with habitat destruction.


----------



## noco (12 October 2016)

When will the Green Party owned up to their dud predictions of Global Warming and the "BAD" effects of CO2?

All their predictions over the years have been proven wrong time and time again.

The grass and the trees around coal fired power stations are greener due to CO2 emissions.

The Greens have conned the Labor Party into ramping up renewable energy which is unreliable and inefficient in comparison to coal fired power stations which are 35% efficient in comparison to renewables at 15%...Coal fired power is there 24/7 .

Two new coal mines are about to open in Queensland ....The Adami mine being the biggest ever undertaken with thousands of job to be available including the construction of a new rail line.

So why all this talk about coal being out-dated?......Science will develop a method of clean coal and there will be a come back as more and more renewables are proven unreliable.  


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...s/news-story/f1b571cb398be98435fa31006090d2a7



King coal returns




October 11, 2016 6:12am




*Global warmists predicted the rains would dry. The dams would drain. The cyclones would grow. The crops would fail. The islands would drown. All false, of course. 

And they swore that wicked coal - the cause of it all - would be worthless. Check their predictions - and what's now happened.


 ABC’s Four Corners, June 16 last year:

With the price of coal plummeting and our biggest customers turning to renewable energy, is Australia backing a loser?

Ross Gittins, The Sydney Morning Herald, October 14 last year:

In a nutshell … coal’s days are numbered. The rapidly falling price of renewable energy such as wind and solar, combined with the growing resolve of China, the US and others to reduce their emissions, put a dark cloud over the future of coal.

ABC business editor Ian Verrender, The Drum, December 28 last year:

Prices have collapsed and global demand is waning, in the oft-repeated boom-bust cycle of the resource world … Rather than a mere cyclical downturn, coal appears to be in structural decline.

Paul Cleary, The Monthly, October last year:

Not only are coal prices down by around two-thirds from their peak in late 2011, but the financial underpinnings of the entire industry are crumbling. Investors in Australia and around the world have been stampeding out of coal stocks for both financial and ethical reasons.

Ah yes, about that. The Australian, yesterday:

Australian coking coal spot prices have surged 155 per cent since the start of June to a four-year high of $US213 per tonne as China cracked down on mining overcapacity at the same time that government stimulus fired the housing market, while rain and derailments hit Australian supply. The price is now more than double the still-standing September quarter contract price of $US92.50...

When - finally -will reality force warmists to revisit the assumption behind their astonishing record of dud predictions? When will they ask themselves why they have been so wrong so often, and always on the alarmist side?*


----------



## explod (3 December 2016)

The Greens seem to be the only Brains left in politics these days.  A good end note for the year:



> This week in politics was all about the major parties trying to leave a lasting impression with voters before the long summer break.
> 
> But it’s likely no-one would have predicted the Greens would be the ones to outsmart not only the Government and Opposition but also the try-hards on the Senate crossbench by getting the highest media profile.
> 
> ...


----------



## noco (3 December 2016)

explod said:


> The Greens seem to be the only Brains left in politics these days.  A good end note for the year:




LMAO......I could not help ROFL.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2016)

explod said:


> The Greens seem to be the only Brains left in politics these days.  A good end note for the year:




Explod, could you give a link when you quote someone, or at least say who wrote the piece.

Thanks


----------



## noco (3 December 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Explod, could you give a link when you quote someone, or at least say who wrote the piece.
> 
> Thanks




Don't worry SR...Joe will probably send him a PM.


----------



## Boggo (3 December 2016)

explod said:


> The Greens seem to be the only Brains left in politics these days.  A good end note for the year:




!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## noco (3 December 2016)

Boggo said:


> !!!!!!!!!!




More burning of fossil fuels in wood fires to cook our dinner......Smoke pouring out of chimneys on roof tops......Strain you eyes at night trying reading by candle  light....No Sun at night and the wind ain't blowing.

Back to the 18th century....

What a joke.


----------



## Boggo (3 December 2016)

One of their supporters...


----------



## explod (3 December 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Explod, could you give a link when you quote someone, or at least say who wrote the piece.
> 
> Thanks




Apologies for that usually do, came in on Facebook but cant locate atm.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2016)

Tink said:


> Agree, they are so far left they have fallen off the cliff.
> 
> Anti achievement, anti western culture, big on PC
> 
> There is no freedom when it comes to their ideology, we all have to walk the plank of destruction.




I think the Greens are an important piece of the political landscape. We need a variety of  views to pick from in order to properly express our level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the current government.

So we have the two old warhorses Liberal and Labor, barely distinguishable these days,  the "sensible" centre aka NXT, the Left of Centre Greens and Right of Centre Hanson, plus a few Independents, loony or not. Plenty of fertile ground in which to express our opinions and keep all sides on their toes.

That's democracy and I'd prefer to have a variety of choice than have to vote for the same old lot every time.


----------



## noco (3 December 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I think the Greens are an important piece of the political landscape. We need a variety of  views to pick from in order to properly express our level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the current government.
> 
> So we have the two old warhorses Liberal and Labor, barely distinguishable these days,  the "sensible" centre aka NXT, the Left of Centre Greens and Right of Centre Hanson, plus a few Independents, loony or not. Plenty of fertile ground in which to express our opinions and keep all sides on their toes.
> 
> That's democracy and I'd prefer to have a variety of choice than have to vote for the same old lot every time.




Hey Rumpy, you left out the  Fabian Socialists....How dare you....Down with Labor and Liberal up with real Fabian socialism.....Like we need with a hole in the head.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2016)

noco said:


> Hey Rumpy, you left out the  Fabian Socialists....How dare you....Down with Labor and Liberal up with real Fabian socialism.....Like we need with a hole in the head.




All right, I'll do you a deal. You get rid of the Greens and I'll get rid of Hanson. Deal ?


----------



## noco (3 December 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> All right, I'll do you a deal. You get rid of the Greens and I'll get rid of Hanson. Deal ?




Sorry..I don't horse trade.


----------



## drsmith (4 December 2016)

explod said:


> Apologies for that usually do, came in on Facebook but cant locate atm.



Your quoted text is an extract from a longer article by Paula Matthewson for The New Daily. Locating the source article can be done within seconds using a sentence from the quote you posted and doing a Google search.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2016/12/02/greens-final-week-politics/

Richard Di Natale with his pragmatism played his political cards very well in relation to the backpacker tax issue.  His support however for the protesters that disrupted parliament however shows how little respect the Greens have not only for our sovereignty but now also for the democratic process.

They're all still watermelons.


----------



## PharmBBs (4 December 2016)

The appeal that the Greens have for me is their recent adoption of social justice policies. It's like every other party has a mish mash of policies that I like and don't like. But the greens just tick so many boxes. I agree with nearly all of their policies. I don't really care about saving the environment, but they have been pro marriage equality right from the start even when labour wasn't. 
The only policy I don't agree with is their nuclear policy. Honestly I don't see what's so bad about nuclear, it's cleaner than coal and it provides a high yield baseload. As for the issue of meltdowns, well we have plenty of desert, we can just put the plant there and if it does meltdown then nobody will be effected. But a new plant wouldn't meltdown anyway, safety has come a long way.

And ftr I don't think you need to worry about the greens being dirty commies and turning Australia red. Their leadership are all well educated upper middle class ( or higher). They won't dismantle capitalism; they benefit way too much from the system to try and do that.


----------



## orr (4 December 2016)

PharmBBs said:


> The only policy I don't agree with is their nuclear policy. Honestly I don't see what's so bad about nuclear, it's cleaner than coal and it provides a high yield baseload
> .




You need broader based literacy and understanding of the science... Just the concept of 1V Generation fast breeder sodium reactors is an anathema to more than 98% of the population.

To help get us there ex-_Murde_'doch lacky, and now ABC MD Guthrie axes half the science journalists in the country by taking 'Catalyst' off the air...


----------



## SirRumpole (4 December 2016)

orr said:


> You need broader based literacy and understanding of the science... Just the concept of 1V Generation fast breeder sodium reactors is an anathema to more than 98% of the population.




Why so ?

I don't think the cost benefit ratio of nuclear stacks up for Australia with all our reserves of sun, wind, wave, tidal and geothermal power, but we shouldn't rule out nuclear to the point where we never consider it for all time.

If a genuine nuclear design comes along that can produce baseload at competitive rates, then it should be on the table for discussion.


----------



## noco (4 December 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Why so ?
> 
> I don't think the cost benefit ratio of nuclear stacks up for Australia with all our reserves of sun, wind, wave, tidal and geothermal power, but we shouldn't rule out nuclear to the point where we never consider it for all time.
> 
> If a genuine nuclear design comes along that can produce baseload at competitive rates, then it should be on the table for discussion.




 And don't forget we have an abundance of cheap coal....They say coal fired power stations are a reliable source of base load cheap power.

You gotta get the balance right Rumpy.


----------



## explod (4 December 2016)

noco said:


> And don't forget we have an abundance of cheap coal....They say coal fired power stations are a reliable source of base load cheap power.
> 
> You gotta get the balance right Rumpy.




Wind and sunshine is absolutely free, and clean.


----------



## noco (4 December 2016)

explod said:


> Wind and sunshine is absolutely free, and clean.





Yeah...Yeah....what happens when the Sun don't shine and the wind doesn't blow or it is blowing too hard..

Do some thinking Plod......Just watch what will happen in Victoria and SA after March...

Yep...you got it.....no guarantee of supply.....more black outs..more loss of business in SA ..more job loses...I really thought the Green/Labor socialist left wing coalition were always the ones saying how they always guard the workers interests.


----------



## explod (4 December 2016)

Currently, as I recently posted, some countries are running on solar alone with batteries holding three days for very dull days.  Power still comes through cloud it's just reduced.

And the technology is improving at an almost exponential rate with new lithium batteries next year to double in capacity for your phone.   
http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/0...twice-capacity-expect-ready-smartphones-2017/

You can bet the bigger batteries will not be far behind.  And then there is wind to fill gaps.

The millions being thrown at Adarnie will soon be a waste and a thinking Guvmint should be putting it into what most people want for a cleaner healthier future.


----------



## qldfrog (5 December 2016)

explod said:


> The millions being thrown at Adarnie will soon be a waste and a thinking Guvmint should be putting it into what most people want for a cleaner healthier future.



2 billion loan actually, trouble is that you should not be green to oppose that, just economically sensible; yet..labour or LNP, the lobbies win and you and I pay


----------



## Tisme (5 December 2016)

noco said:


> Back to the 18th century....
> 
> .




Time move slow for some, very slow ....... thank goodness for DeLoreans


----------



## McLovin (22 December 2016)

McLovin said:


> The Greens in NSW have always been tinged with Communism much more than the Greens nationally. Lee Rhiannon is as red as they get in Australian politics. Or to put it another way, you'll never see Lee chained to a tree because an endangered bandicoot is faced with habitat destruction.




Like I said, tinged with Communism...



> Internal tensions within the Greens have boiled over, with members of the hard-left of the party grouped around NSW Senator Lee Rhiannon forming their own faction dedicated to the "fight to bring about the end of capitalism".
> 
> The formation of the group calling itself "Left Renewal" is an escalation of an ongoing battle between the so-called eastern bloc of the Greens and the group they dismiss as "tree Tories".
> 
> ...




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...aiming-to-end-capitalism-20161222-gtghf9.html

It's got a real sort of O-week feel to it, when girls who don't shave their armpits bombard you with Party pamphlets.


----------



## wayneL (22 December 2016)

In the spirit od Voltairian apocrypha, I support their right of the Rhianninite faction to express their opinion; in fact I encourage it.

We need to be fully aware the type of people within the Greens.

From the naive and misinformed true greenies like Plod, to the subversive totalitarian Stalinists like Rhiannon.

Speak up Greens, speak up.


----------



## noco (22 December 2016)

wayneL said:


> In the spirit od Voltairian apocrypha, I support their right of the Rhianninite faction to express their opinion; in fact I encourage it.
> 
> We need to be fully aware the type of people within the Greens.
> 
> ...




Wayne, there are lot more Marxists in the Green camp like Lee Rhiannon....A lot more than people realize.....They are true Fabians and their motto is "WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING"....They use this Greening stunt as a shadow to cover their real agenda.


----------



## explod (22 December 2016)

noco said:


> Wayne, there are lot more Marxists in the Green camp like Lee Rhiannon....A lot more than people realize.....They are true Fabians and their motto is "WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING"....They use this Greening stunt as a shadow to cover their real agenda.



You are both so out of touch with reality that it is a waste of time trying to talk common sense. 

If all else fails try to discredit by attacking the individual. 

Have a good festive.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 December 2016)

noco said:


> *They* use this Greening stunt as a shadow to cover their real agenda.




Tarring all Greens with one brush...invalid.


De Natalie is a doctor and a farmer. I think he would have experience what it's like to run a business so I doubt if he's a gung-ho commo.


----------



## McLovin (22 December 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Tarring all Greens with one brush...invalid.
> 
> 
> De Natalie is a doctor and a farmer. I think he would have experience what it's like to run a business so I doubt if he's a gung-ho commo.




I don't think every Greens member is a Commo, but Lee is a genuine Soviet relic. To the Greens discredit, they allowed her to enter the Parliament. She's about 40 years past her use by date.

Seriously, the number of Greens voters who are socialists, let alone Communists, would be small. From what I've observed they're upwardly mobile middle-class inner city types who worry more about the environment and social issues than who owns the means of production.


----------



## wayneL (22 December 2016)

McLovin said:


> I don't think every Greens member is a Commo, but Lee is a genuine Soviet relic. To the Greens discredit, they allowed her to enter the Parliament. She's about 40 years past her use by date.
> 
> Seriously, the number of Greens voters who are socialists, let alone Communists, would be small. From what I've observed they're upwardly mobile middle-class inner city types who worry more about the environment and social issues than who owns the means of production.




They are leftists in the mold of Bernie Sanders. Feelgood politics, pathologically virtuous without thought of economic and social implications, ignorant of the law of unintended consequences and absolutely bereft of critical thinking.

It is these that will push the rest to the extreme right, as is starting to happen in Europe.

Very bad mojo.


----------



## noco (16 March 2017)

Di Natalie, you know the doctor come farmer come politician, Di Natalie the one who underpaid workers on his farm......Di Natalie, the one who forgot to declare his assets.

Now he wants Aussie workers to work less hours......A 4 day week....Does that mean workers will get 20% less pay for taking one day out of their week.....The majority of workers want to work longer hours.

What a dumb a$$.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/34659258/greens-open-debate-on-four-day-week/#page1


----------



## SirRumpole (16 March 2017)

noco said:


> The majority of workers want to work longer hours.




How do you know that ? Source ?


----------



## noco (16 March 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> How do you know that ? Source ?




Read the link FFS ...You might just learn something about people wanting to work longer hours not shorter hours.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/34659258/greens-open-debate-on-four-day-week/#page1


----------



## SirRumpole (16 March 2017)

noco said:


> Read the link FFS ...You might just learn something about people wanting to work longer hours not shorter hours.
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/34659258/greens-open-debate-on-four-day-week/#page1




Did YOU read the link FFS ?

_"We rightly talk about the *16 per cent of people who want to work more hours*, but we never hear about the more than one-in-four Australians who want to work less," he told the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday.

Since when does 16 percent mean* most *? _


----------



## noco (16 March 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Did YOU read the link FFS ?
> 
> _"We rightly talk about the *16 per cent of people who want to work more hours*, but we never hear about the more than one-in-four Australians who want to work less," he told the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday.
> 
> Since when does 16 percent mean* most *? _




So do you think workers will be happy to accept 20% less in their wages on a 4 day  working week?


----------



## luutzu (16 March 2017)

noco said:


> Read the link FFS ...You might just learn something about people wanting to work longer hours not shorter hours.
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/34659258/greens-open-debate-on-four-day-week/#page1




Are those wanting to work more hours currently not working enough hours? i.e. they're part-time workers.

Or do they want more hours because their already long hours aren't paying enough to cover their cost of living?

Working 50 to 70 hours a week. fark! An 8 hour day, at 5 days is 40 hours. 

So there are people who work 6 to 7 days equivalent. 

And they should work more? 

There's this Uber exec in the US who praise an Uber driver who works real hard, so hard that she have to take a last drive to earn a few dollars _while she was in labour!_ You know, in pain, about to give birth but life is so tough that she drop off a customer just before she drop herself off at the hospital to deliver her baby.

Isn't that great? A heart warming story of hard working people who's being screwed.


----------



## OmegaTrader (16 March 2017)

I like some of what the greens say but alot of it is not practical. Also they don't avoid the brush that tars all politicians in my mind and many others in the community. 

I think they provide a balancing view although in my opinion Australia is a bit too far left in most areas and too right in a few areas but not as much. Interesting to also see that primary vote as been hovering around the 10% mark for a while.I think this is due to the extremity on many issues, if this extremity was lessens by a shift in society or by policy that could take alot of the votes from labor.

I like:

- Political donation reform
- Multinational company taxation reform 
- Competition in the banking sector
- Removing subsidies on carbon intensive energy

I don't like

- Welfare increase and availability
- Subsidising green technology and other areas
-Increasing taxation to pay for increased spending
-Spending on non productive arts projects

The four day work week is an interesting discussion by I feel that alot of areas are legislated unfairly. I think penalty rates and opening hours is a classic example. If I want to open my shop, that is my shop I should be allowed to open it. If I want to pay someone penalty rates I can but that is my choice. If no one works then I will pay more. Workers are still protected by unfair dismissal and harassment and minimum wage, which even in the supermarket, the wage was higher that that. etc 

Sometimes on sunday there would be hardly anyone working and I would get paid $40-50 an hour but other people would miss out. Also shops were closed early if open at all which was ridiculous.


I think discussion is good but legislating by force is a step to far although given the advance of technology it will come up more often as labour is replaced by robots and eventually in a time far far away. Hardly anyone will work at all. That is my prediction


----------



## noco (16 March 2017)

luutzu said:


> Are those wanting to work more hours currently not working enough hours? i.e. they're part-time workers.
> 
> Or do they want more hours because their already long hours aren't paying enough to cover their cost of living?
> 
> ...




Many young people over stretch then selves when buying a house on a mortgaga and and buying house hold goods on HP just to keep up with Jones next door....They also have to have a car, most likely on time payment, so  this some of the reasons they have to take a second job and on top of that they probably want to have kids as well.......In my day, you could borrow money for a house on 25% deposit but if you did not have the money to buy house hold stuff you did with out until you could afford it......The problem today is money is too easy and young couples wonder why they get into financial trouble.

Now back to Richard Di Natalie and his 4 day week....None of you lefties are saying it is OK to drop the wages 20% if one day a week is taken away to give people  a more balanced life style.

WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER WITHOUT BEATING AROUND THE BUSH WITH MORE DIVERSIONS?


----------



## bellenuit (16 March 2017)

noco said:


> Di Natalie, you know the doctor come farmer come politician, Di Natalie the one who underpaid workers on his farm......Di Natalie, the one who forgot to declare his assets.
> 
> Now he wants Aussie workers to work less hours......A 4 day week....Does that mean workers will get 20% less pay for taking one day out of their week.....The majority of workers want to work longer hours.
> 
> ...




It's not so dumb as it seems at first sight. In fact it may be the only way we can have a balanced society as more jobs get lost to automation in the future as we are being warned about.

This is just a generalisation, but consider the following.

If everyone worked 20% less per week, then potentially we could employ 20% more to make up the difference eliminating involuntary unemployment and under-employment.

People's salaries should be reduced 20% so that there isn't an extra cost to manufacture or to provide services.

But will people have 20% less take home pay? Probably not and possibly they may have as much as they do currently.

If taxation no longer has to cater for all those currently on unemployment benefits and other welfare benefits (that come with unemployment), there will be a huge drop in tax requirements. Also, when one considers some of the other attributes of high unemployment such as crime levels, petty vandalism, medical related issues (alcoholism, depression), other social issues, etc., there could be considerable additional tax savings. If the saved tax leads to a significant reduction in tax rates for individuals, it is possible that people may end up with a comparable take home pay even though working 20% less hours.

I know the above is a generalisation and one can think of exceptions to everything, but there is nothing sacrosanct about a 5 day working week that requires it to be the norm forever.

Many often bring up the fact that increased automation has not led to increased leisure time for the population as it should do. But the increased leisure time is there, it is just that it is distributed wrongly. Instead of full employment being maintained and everyone getting more leisure time by working less hours, we allocate 100% of the additional leisure time to just 20% (say) of the population in the form of full unemployment or part unemployment (which requires increased taxes as described above) and 0% to the other 80% (who are worse off as they have to pay the increased taxes needed to cater for the 20% unemployed).

It is certainly an idea worth exploring. That and the idea of a minimum fixed income for everyone (I think Finland are trialing that). The latter has many advantages too in relation to maintaining an incentive to work to earn additional income (whereas unemployment benefits often discourage people seeking work) and potentially reducing so many social ills.

I have normally little time for The Greens, but this is certainly an issue worth exploring, particularly as we seem to be on the cusp of a robotic explosion.


----------



## luutzu (16 March 2017)

noco said:


> Many young people over stretch then selves when buying a house on a mortgaga and and buying house hold goods on HP just to keep up with Jones next door....They also have to have a car, most likely on time payment, so  this some of the reasons they have to take a second job and on top of that they probably want to have kids as well.......In my day, you could borrow money for a house on 25% deposit but if you did not have the money to buy house hold stuff you did with out until you could afford it......The problem today is money is too easy and young couples wonder why they get into financial trouble.
> 
> Now back to Richard Di Natalie and his 4 day week....None of you lefties are saying it is OK to drop the wages 20% if one day a week is taken away to give people  a more balanced life style.
> 
> WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER WITHOUT BEATING AROUND THE BUSH WITH MORE DIVERSIONS?




Why wouldn't it be OK to drop wages when people work less hours? 

Though that does not mean their hourly wages ought to be drop too, does it? 

People are working longer hours mainly because their hourly rate can't cover their living costs. Why is it a great thing when business owners earn more and more at the expense of workers getting less and less pay?

Right wing people do work too right? 

-------------

Yea I know right? Dam young hippies... wanting a car to drive around like the train can't take them to work anywhere or something. Then wanting a stable home with proper roof over their heads... and also starting a family! 

What have they been smoking. Dream on.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 March 2017)

bellenuit said:


> I have normally little time for The Greens, but this is certainly an issue worth exploring, particularly as we seem to be on the cusp of a robotic explosion.




Very good post , I agree.

Company profits are going up, wages are going down. We need to redistribute some of the cash flow so that consumers can continue spending and keep the companies in business.


----------



## noco (16 March 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Very good post , I agree.
> 
> Company profits are going up, wages are going down. We need to redistribute some of the cash flow so that consumers can continue spending and keep the companies in business.




Typical leftie approach....The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer but you don't mention the number of those who have gone bankrupt trying to make a dollar.
You don't think of the effort a business owner put into that business with long hours of work...You don't hear too much about the suicides as a result of a business failure.

You who have never been in business sit in your glass houses and look out and think to yourselves, thank goodness I worked for the PS and now living on my fat PS pension as do politicians..

 Have a read  and say to yourself, I am pleased I have not been in business to tolerate employee complaints, worry about green tape, red tape, pay roll tax, GST, income tax, the long working hours many of us have to endure after the workers have gone home to their families at 5 pm when sometimes I would get home for dinner at 8 or 9 o'clock at night. and all the other crap one has to put up with...Having had 4 business of my own and managing one for 28 years, I believe I can speak with some authority....I made money, I lost money and made money again with plenty of grey hairs to prove it.

So next time you say company profits are up and wages are down and WE need to redistribute some of those profits, think hard again......Who in the hell are WE?.....you and the unions?

http://www.smh.com.au/business/rising-number-of-australian-companies-going-bust-20160705-gpywr4.html


----------



## SirRumpole (16 March 2017)

luutzu said:


> Isn't that great? A heart warming story of hard working people who's being screwed.




As she was about to give birth I would say you got that right.


----------



## moXJO (17 March 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Very good post , I agree.
> 
> Company profits are going up, wages are going down. We need to redistribute some of the cash flow so that consumers can continue spending and keep the companies in business.



Yeah buy shares if you want some profit sharing.
We have some of the richest and well paid employees on the planet.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 March 2017)

moXJO said:


> Yeah buy shares if you want some profit sharing.
> We have some of the richest and well paid employees on the planet.




They are becoming less rich and more unemployed all the time.


----------



## luutzu (17 March 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> As she was about to give birth I would say you got that right.




She got screwed, in a nice way I'm assuming, 9 months ago.

To have to still be out picking up passengers while heavily pregnant, and literally holding in labour pain to drop off one last passenger before heading over to a hospital to delivery your baby.... then to receive a congrats and a smile from Uber for being so loyal and hardworking... a lot of things are wrong with that picture.

There's another case I heard where some rich douche got an Uber ride then tweet about how awesome America is and how amazing its people are because the guy who drove him is homeless, sleeping in his own car and drive with Uber to earn a few bucks for food.

Some people just weren't raised right.


----------



## luutzu (17 March 2017)

moXJO said:


> Yeah buy shares if you want some profit sharing.
> We have some of the richest and well paid employees on the planet.




All Third World countries also have "some of the richest and well paid employees on the planet".

Fair enough there are people who managed to be well paid and rich, not sure that alone is a good measure of how the country is doing.


----------



## moXJO (17 March 2017)

luutzu said:


> All Third World countries also have "some of the richest and well paid employees on the planet".
> 
> Fair enough there are people who managed to be well paid and rich, not sure that alone is a good measure of how the country is doing.



Our median wage price is well above others if not then you have the dole to fall back on. Yes I know " higher cost of living". But you would have to be pretty unfortunate to die in this country from hunger. 

Guys I know that are year 9 dropouts regularly change jobs labouring and earning good money. $1000- $2500 a week. There has never been an easier time to become a multi millionaire. Or open up alternative streams of income.


----------



## luutzu (17 March 2017)

moXJO said:


> Our median wage price is well above others if not then you have the dole to fall back on. Yes I know " higher cost of living". But you would have to be pretty unfortunate to die in this country from hunger.
> 
> Guys I know that are year 9 dropouts regularly change jobs labouring and earning good money. $1000- $2500 a week. There has never been an easier time to become a multi millionaire. Or open up alternative streams of income.




If we're to only count our blessings, then yea, we're having it pretty great here in Australia. 

But by the look of things, it's declining and some of the safety net and fortune for toil might not remain that way for too long.

There's the finite resources that is the backbone of our economy being pumped and shipped offshore. I mean, we're in a literally LNG glut but somehow our politicians let all eastern states be in an "energy security" problem. Yea, by 2020, we might not have enough "cheap" gas to power our home and offices if something isn't done - something like letting Santos and friends frack the heck out of our other reserves because the ones they've fracked are shipped off.

Then there's the taxing the poor more, shifting it to the rich and their corporations. Then come the cries of "can't afford anything" so we better flog it off to private investors who will look after us better.

So we better be careful and have our eyes wide open. 

People in the third world still managed to not die of hunger, but they have to work 14 hour day and have tin shed for a home.


----------



## moXJO (18 March 2017)

luutzu said:


> If we're to only count our blessings, then yea, we're having it pretty great here in Australia.
> 
> But by the look of things, it's declining and some of the safety net and fortune for toil might not remain that way for too long.
> 
> ...



Age old story luutzu..... Greed
And everyone is guilty to some degree in this country.


----------



## luutzu (18 March 2017)

moXJO said:


> Age old story luutzu..... Greed
> And everyone is guilty to some degree in this country.




I guess we're all greedy and want material things. 

I mean we all want a decent sized house, close to good amenities; we all want our kids to be well fed and clothed, have some good education to prepare them.

To some degree, I guess we can call that being greedy. But I'm not so sure whether that's greed or just having a basic, good, standard of living.

On the other hand, say a person earn millions a year, have a few mansions, lots of property and assets for the extra income... Then purposely lobbied for tax cuts, more tax "incentives" going towards their corporations; lobby to have income redefined as "income" or "capital gains"... taxing labour income at higher rates but other income at half price, etc. etc.

So there's the normal human desire to work in a safe environment, earn a fair wage, not be exploited, afford a reasonable standard of living their labour (fairly paid) afford.

Then there's the desire to have what they call "fark you money". Earned not fairly or honestly, earned not through providing great value but earned through mere rent-seeking and manipulation of the market.


Saw a recent lecture by Chris Hedges where he described how back in the early days of British industrialisation, women and children were used in coal mine. 

They're down there in the tunnels, digging and hauling coals... they can't use donkeys because donkeys pee and that would generate deadly gas when it hit the coal etc. 

No air was pumped down, people work til they fall over and die. And no pee break.

So women, working so hard in difficult position mean their pelvic was twisted. Can't have kids.
The kids that they do have die young.

The captain of industry then realised that with declining birth rate [dropped by 1/3] and young cheap labour dying too early would mean no work force... so they regulate against child labour, some sort of work safety etc. etc.

Our current generation of industrialists and bankers doesn't seem to be thinking too much about not killing their labour and beggaring their potential consumer. I guess there's no need to worry about that when the world's open to your exploitation and you can always ship your goods to the very richest around the world.


----------



## noco (18 March 2017)

luutzu said:


> I guess we're all greedy and want material things.
> 
> I mean we all want a decent sized house, close to good amenities; we all want our kids to be well fed and clothed, have some good education to prepare them.
> 
> ...




Luu, that is very well in theory if you are a thrifty person like most of us, but you also have those earning good money who pi$$ it up against the wall, smoke, do drugs, spend time on the pokies and knock around with bad women.

At the end of the day they are at the Salvation Army bumming a feed.

I have witnessed this at our bowls club...they are social members known as bar flies......they drink grog for 3 or 4 hours...they smoke in the DOSA and play the poker machines.

Then there is 70 year old leftie cry, "THE RICH ARE GETTING RICHER AND THE POOR ARE GETTING POORER".


----------



## luutzu (18 March 2017)

noco said:


> Luu, that is very well in theory if you are a thrifty person like most of us, but you also have those earning good money who pi$$ it up against the wall, smoke, do drugs, spend time on the pokies and knock around with bad women.
> 
> At the end of the day they are at the Salvation Army bumming a feed.
> 
> ...




You ever seen how rich people spent their money noco? It's not all about working their money harder to make more money; not about working smarter either.

I've seen documentary where a private chef hired by some Russian/Middle Eastern oligarch describes how obscene the waste and debauchery he witness on a daily basis. The guy didn't hate the rich or anything, just he thought there's better thing to do with his life than spending it serving these kind of nonsense.

There's those thousand dollar bottle of champagne; thousand dollar per small jar of dragon's caviar; the yacht, the drug, the parties.. there's some kid who chartered a private jet from London to South Africa to pick up her dog - only her dog - for some 20K pound. 

So yes, there are poor people who are irresponsible; the rich aren't all responsible and frugal hardworking entrepreneurs noco. 

Often, people can afford to waste money because their mummy and daddy know how to properly fleece the state treasury and get away with it.


----------



## moXJO (19 March 2017)

luutzu said:


> You ever seen how rich people spent their money noco? It's not all about working their money harder to make more money; not about working smarter either.
> 
> I've seen documentary where a private chef hired by some Russian/Middle Eastern oligarch describes how obscene the waste and debauchery he witness on a daily basis. The guy didn't hate the rich or anything, just he thought there's better thing to do with his life than spending it serving these kind of nonsense.
> 
> ...




They can spend it how they like.

Im more pi$$ed over public servants wasting billions of dollars pushing paper round in circles.


----------



## noco (19 March 2017)

This anarchy at its best...Absolutely disgraceful and what are our dumb half wit politicians doing about it......Just turning a blind eye to it......Where is Bill Shorten, Richard DiNatalie and Malcolm Turnbull? 

A senator  attending a domestic terror training camp!!!!!!!!........She is a traitor and should be expelled from the senate.

https://antifaterrorwatch.wordpress...or-training-camp-preventing-police-from-raid/


----------



## SirRumpole (19 March 2017)

moXJO said:


> They can spend it how they like.
> 
> Im more pi$$ed over public servants wasting billions of dollars pushing paper round in circles.




I though Joe Hockey got rid of them ?


----------



## moXJO (19 March 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I though Joe Hockey got rid of them ?



Well entrenched in the system. Left and Right have their rorts


----------



## luutzu (19 March 2017)

moXJO said:


> They can spend it how they like.
> 
> Im more pi$$ed over public servants wasting billions of dollars pushing paper round in circles.




The guys at CentreLink or the Honorables in Canberra and other high places?


----------



## moXJO (20 March 2017)

luutzu said:


> The guys at CentreLink or the Honorables in Canberra and other high places?



Canberra....


----------



## luutzu (20 March 2017)

moXJO said:


> Canberra....




True.

Rich people can do whatever they want with their money - I wasn't complaining about that. Just pointing out that some rich and some poor people do waste their money; it's not all about frugality and hard work with the rich, and lazy drunkenness with the poor.

As to the "public servants" in Canberra... 

Heard some gentleman at a John Pilger Q&A after his "The Coming War on China" at Riverside recently where he said that the Turnbull gov't has slated an extra $48Billion on Australian armament over the next 10 years. 

Pilger was saying how we don't even have an enemy. But we're eager to spend it to please Washington and go fight its wars at our expense.

If we're not careful, we'd turn out to be one of those colony that's "encouraged" to forget about investment in future industry and innovation, but to focus on our "competitive advantage" use that cash to buy whatever else we need... until the cash runs out.

It happened before when England still rule the waves. It encourages its colonies in the Americas to stick to timber, selling badgers' skin and whatever else backward farmers sell. Leave the cotton and manufacturing to mother England.

The yanks at the time was a lot smarter and didn't listen. 

Not so sure about our own representatives. Haven't seen that "innovation boom" happening.


----------



## dutchie (10 April 2017)

Why we need to expose the extremism of the Greens


http://www.xyz.net.au/need-expose-extremism-greens/


----------



## explod (10 April 2017)

A very biased right wing take. 

In fact Rhiannon and some of her followers were identified and are being gradually removed from influence within the Greens. 

The Party is increasingly attracting new members from both right and left due to our growing support and action for unemployed and disadvantaged. 

In the last two years here at Bendigo our local Branch has been particularly involved in the approval of a religeous Mosque against a great deal of right wing opposition at times being violent in expressing thier selfish stance.


----------



## wayneL (10 April 2017)

explod said:


> A very biased right wing take.
> 
> In fact Rhiannon and some of her followers were identified and are being gradually removed from influence within the Greens.
> 
> ...



On the one hand denying extremist tendencies, then immediately boasting the opposite. 

Extrenist Islam is not the greatest danger to our culture, the greatest danger is within, our very own leftists/Greens


----------



## SirRumpole (10 April 2017)

wayneL said:


> Extrenist Islam is not the greatest danger to our culture, the greatest danger is within, our very own leftists/Greens




That's a bit platitudinous Wayne. No doubt the Greens are Leftist, but under the current leadership I don't think that provides a danger. De Natalie seems pretty sensible to me.


----------



## Tisme (10 April 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a bit platitudinous Wayne. No doubt the Greens are Leftist, but under the current leadership I don't think that provides a danger. De Natalie seems pretty sensible to me.




 Apparently 41% of the ABC staff are Green voters, 13% of the SBS are homosexuals and the boss of SBS is one too. That's taking equal opportunity to the extremes.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 April 2017)

Tisme said:


> Apparently 41% of the ABC staff are Green voters




I wonder how many of Uncle Rupie's staff vote Greens ?


----------



## noco (10 April 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder how many of Uncle Rupie's staff vote Greens ?



 I mentioned that figure in several posts  in the past along with 32% Left wing socialist Labor.......Now you are starting to get the picture why the ABC are so biased and  bloody minded towards the Liberals and One Nation.......Anyway why do we need the ABC with so many other paid and and unpaid channels and radio network?


----------



## noco (16 April 2017)

More fake news from the Greens......The Greens have well and truly been caught out with their lies.


http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.a...s/news-story/bdeac2cd3b14070742946e0eb1290c5c


----------



## explod (17 April 2017)

No information in that link to those not subscribed noco.

Its probably rubbish for the headline.


----------



## noco (17 April 2017)

explod said:


> No information in that link to those not subscribed noco.
> 
> Its probably rubbish for the headline.




I am not a subscriber and I had  no trouble opening up the link.

*Abbot Point ‘coal spill’ pictures rubbished by experts
John McCarthy, The Courier-Mail
April 14, 2017 10:00pm
Subscriber only*

PM blasts opposition to Adani loan
Adani’s loan bid a clever strategy
*GREEN groups have again been caught out using misleading images to mount a scare campaign about pollution at Adani’s Abbot Point terminal.

The pictures, widely shared and published this week, show black deposits on beaches near the terminal.

But claims by environmentalists of a “coal spill” at Abbot Point have been rubbished by locals and experts, including scientists from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection.

Whitsunday Mayor Andrew Willcox said the blackened sand (above) was caused by a natural mineral called magnetite. He said pollution claims were “silly rot” and causing economic damage to a region suffering from cyclone damage.

Mr Willcox visited the site yesterday with a magnet to make sure the pictures showed magnetite.

“It’s definitely magnetite. Coal isn’t attracted to a magnet,’’ he said. “As long as I can remember, it has had magnetite there.”

Federal Minister for Natural Resources Matthew Canavan slammed green groups trying to bring down the Adani projects, saying “nothing that these green activists say can now be trusted.”

DEHP said that it had no immediate concerns regarding the images showing black deposits. “Regional shorelines are known for regular depositions of minerals in sand,’’ the department said.

“Nevertheless, the department is undertaking sampling to confirm that it is mineral sand.

“There is nothing to show that is connected to the Caley Valley Wetlands issue.”

The wetlands adjoin the Abbot Point terminal and after Cyclone Debbie tore through, the area satellite images showed black run-off from the coal stockpiles into Caley Valley.

But DEHP said that has been done under government approval.

The Australian Marine Conservation Society said this week that the beach “appears to be scattered with lumps of coal”.

Originally published as Green groups accused of ‘dirty trick’*


----------



## Tisme (19 April 2017)

I'm wondering if there is a correlation between hard nosed opponents of cleaner environment living with smoking, littering, dishevelled appearance, indolence, etc

So which one or more of the seven deadly sins are you :


*Pride *
*Envy *
*Gluttony *
Lust
*Anger *
*Greed *
*Sloth*


----------



## SirRumpole (19 April 2017)

Tisme said:


> I'm wondering if there is a correlation between hard nosed opponents of cleaner environment living with smoking, littering, dishevelled appearance, indolence, etc
> So which one or more of the seven deadly sins are you :
> 
> 
> ...




All of the above plus Malice.


----------



## Tink (14 May 2017)

I was glad to see the 'death cult' Greens were knocked back in states for full term pregnancy abortions and sex selection.


----------



## noco (31 May 2017)

This Richard Di Natalie is a disgrace to the community. 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4551214/Greens-leader-slammed-Ramadan-tribute-video.html


----------



## basilio (31 May 2017)

noco said:


> This Richard Di Natalie is a disgrace to the community.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4551214/Greens-leader-slammed-Ramadan-tribute-video.html



I think it's pretty rough conflating an entire religion and 1.5 billion people with ISIS .

Who do you think is suffering most in the ISIS attacks around the world ? Who do you think have the most to lose if, as a collective, the world can't get on top of this extremism? The overwhelming number of terrorist attacks are targetted at Islamic counties to destabilise the current leaders. IMO they need our respect and support.


----------



## noco (31 May 2017)

basilio said:


> I think it's pretty rough conflating an entire religion and 1.5 billion people with ISIS .
> 
> Who do you think is suffering most in the ISIS attacks around the world ? Who do you think have the most to lose if, as a collective, the world can't get on top of this extremism? The overwhelming number of terrorist attacks are targetted at Islamic counties to destabilise the current leaders. IMO they need our respect and support.




Good onya Mr. Green.......Nice to see Richard has at least one friend.


----------



## Ves (31 May 2017)

noco said:


> This Richard Di Natalie is a disgrace to the community.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4551214/Greens-leader-slammed-Ramadan-tribute-video.html



That article is stupid.

It's like saying no one should celebrate Easter because it's disrespectful to the little boys who got abused by priests.

You people seem to get offended just as easily as your 'lefty' counterparts.


----------



## McLovin (31 May 2017)

Ves said:


> That article is stupid.




It's in the Daily Mail. 

Anyway I clicked on the link and got distracted by this "news" in the side banner.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4557186/MAFS-Cheryl-Maitland-flaunts-curves-beach.html


----------



## SirRumpole (31 May 2017)

McLovin said:


> It's in the Daily Mail.
> 
> Anyway I clicked on the link and got distracted by this "news" in the side banner.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4557186/MAFS-Cheryl-Maitland-flaunts-curves-beach.html




Very nice !


----------



## Ves (31 May 2017)

McLovin said:


> It's in the Daily Mail.
> 
> Anyway I clicked on the link and got distracted by this "news" in the side banner.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4557186/MAFS-Cheryl-Maitland-flaunts-curves-beach.html



Lol,  do you think Noco was looking at the MAFS article and got distracted by the Greens?


----------



## McLovin (31 May 2017)

Ves said:


> Lol,  do you think Noco was looking at the MAFS article and got distracted by the Greens?




Possibly. He's always on the look out for the Commies pushing their agenda. Cheryl can wait!


----------



## noco (31 May 2017)

Ves said:


> Lol,  do you think Noco was looking at the MAFS article and got distracted by the Greens?




Actually I was more concerned of the Muslim suicides at sighting near naked women....Must admit they did have nice bodies....The eye is always in the beholder no matter what age you are.


----------



## drsmith (18 July 2017)

First Scott Ludlum, now Larissa Waters.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-...esigns-senate-over-citizenship-bungle/8720066


----------



## Tisme (18 July 2017)

Apparently being a member of the Commonwealth of Nations doesn't translate as having the same dual citizenship privileges the UK members have in Australia's parliament.

There are 24 members of parliament who weren't born here.


----------



## McLovin (18 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> Apparently being a member of the Commonwealth of Nations doesn't translate as having the same dual citizenship privileges the UK members have in Australia's parliament.




Which parliamentarians have dual UK/AU citizenship?


----------



## SirRumpole (18 July 2017)

McLovin said:


> Which parliamentarians have dual UK/AU citizenship?




Tony Abbott ?


----------



## McLovin (18 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Tony Abbott ?




Renounced in 1993, before he entered Parliament. Gillard did the same.

Personally, I think that section of the Constitution is outdated.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 July 2017)

McLovin said:


> Personally, I think that section of the Constitution is outdated.




I don't think it is, it's up to the candidates to abide by the Constitution, ignorance is no excuse.

However, in cases like Waters when she was born overseas to Australian citizens and returned to Australia when she was a baby (and Canada changed their legislation a week after she left), it's a pretty tough deal. 

I hope they don't go after her for her pay.


----------



## McLovin (18 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't think it is, it's up to the candidates to abide by the Constitution, ignorance is no excuse.




I'm not suggesting they shouldn't abide by the Constitution, just that the document is 117 years old and dual nationality wasn't a thing back then (Australian nationality didn't even exist – so the UK was not a foreign power in 1901, but in 1998 was considered a foreign power by the High Court). Citizenship acquired by birth shouldn't be a sackable offence unless the person knew or should have reasonably known they had that citizenship. As she had never been to Canada after leaving as an infant and the laws were apparently changed, her assertion that she had no knowledge of her Canadian citizenship seems reasonable and the penalty seems unreasonable, imo.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 July 2017)

McLovin said:


> her assertion that she had no knowledge of her Canadian citizenship seems reasonable and the penalty seems unreasonable, imo.




Yes, I agree, but the law is the law and presumably she can now rectify her status and return at a later date.


----------



## Boggo (18 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't think it is,* it's up to the candidates to abide by the Constitution, ignorance is no excuse.*


----------



## McLovin (18 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, I agree, but the law is the law and presumably she can now rectify her status and return at a later date.




Oh, I totally agree with you that she has to go.

The AEC needs to be a bit more thorough in background checking candidates. Four senators ruled invalid is unacceptable.


----------



## qldfrog (18 July 2017)

McLovin said:


> Oh, I totally agree with you that she has to go.
> 
> The AEC needs to be a bit more thorough in background checking candidates. Four senators ruled invalid is unacceptable.



I would have assumed that checks should be done on candidates, to avoid revoting etc.it is not such a big number


----------



## Tisme (19 July 2017)

I seem to recall citizenship by decent in the empire/commonwealth countries applied for first gens born overseas and negated citizenship of country of birth if taken up.

The idea was to accommodate overseas postings, vacations etc to third world countries . e.g India, New Zealand, .......


----------



## Knobby22 (19 July 2017)

McLovin said:


> Oh, I totally agree with you that she has to go.
> 
> The AEC needs to be a bit more thorough in background checking candidates. Four senators ruled invalid is unacceptable.



Must be a self reporting system.


----------



## Tisme (19 July 2017)

McLovin said:


> Oh, I totally agree with you that she has to go.
> 
> The AEC needs to be a bit more thorough in background checking candidates. Four senators ruled invalid is unacceptable.




Apparently there is a fifth polly, but a Member this time.


----------



## Boggo (19 July 2017)

The loonies shouldn't have upset the commie...

http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...n/news-story/d800454ca5d8741594455573d8cd73ab


----------



## drsmith (19 July 2017)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...e/news-story/2e4e57e14f0868d269cb865c5826522a


----------



## Boggo (19 July 2017)

Link to the pdf manual that all new candidates are supposed to read.
Page 14 has the info but the loonies must have got confused before that !

www.aec.gov.au/*Elections*/candidates/files/candidates-handbook.pdf


----------



## Tink (20 July 2017)

That's it, Boggo.

They would have had to read it and sign it.


----------



## Tisme (20 July 2017)

Tink said:


> That's it, Boggo.
> 
> They would have had to read it and sign it.





Lawyers don't sign anything if they can help it.


----------



## dutchie (21 July 2017)

They say that the Greens are like watermelons, green on the outside and red on the inside.
I think they are more like green balloons, green on the outside and nothing in the inside.


----------



## Boggo (21 July 2017)

dutchie said:


> They say that the Greens are like watermelons, green on the outside *and red on the inside*.
> I think they are more like green balloons, green on the outside and nothing in the inside.




This is an extract from Lee Rhiannon's Wikipedia page...

Rhiannon was born *Lee Brown*, the daughter of Bill and Freda Brown, who were long-term members of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) and later the Soviet-loyal Socialist Party of Australia (SPA).[1] Her parents' membership of the CPA and Lee's membership of the CPA's youth league led to documentation of her life by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) from as early as the age of seven.[2][3] She joined the SPA around 1973.[4]


----------



## SirRumpole (21 July 2017)

Boggo said:


> This is an extract from Lee Rhiannon's Wikipedia page...
> 
> Rhiannon was born *Lee Brown*, the daughter of Bill and Freda Brown, who were long-term members of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) and later the Soviet-loyal Socialist Party of Australia (SPA).[1] Her parents' membership of the CPA and Lee's membership of the CPA's youth league led to documentation of her life by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) from as early as the age of seven.[2][3] She joined the SPA around 1973.[4]




We all know where Lee Rhiannon comes from, but the fact that she is on the Outer with the mainstream Greens indicates that they don't share her political philosophy and shouldn't be painted with the same brush.


----------



## McLovin (21 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> We all know where Lee Rhiannon comes from, but the fact that she is on the Outer with the mainstream Greens indicates that they don't share her political philosophy and shouldn't be painted with the same brush.




The NSW Greens have always been more communist than conservationist. That a Soviet relic like Lee Rhiannon got preselected in NSW says a lot about the NSW Greens.



> Political commentator David Burchell from Western Sydney University told 7.30 there is an authoritarian tendency in the NSW branch of the party:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-20/duffy-inside-the-secret-civil-war-of-the-nsw-greens/7525874


----------



## Logique (30 July 2017)

Just to troll Bas and a few others







> July 21, 2014 - Weekend Must-Read: Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist
> By Danusha V. Goska
> American Thinker:  http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/07/ten_reasons_i_am_no_longer_a_leftist.html#ixzz4oH3WMeNz
> Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
> ...


----------



## pixel (30 July 2017)

Logique said:


> Just to troll Bas and a few others





> I needed to leave the left, I realized, when I decided that I wanted to spend time with people building, cultivating, and establishing, something that they loved.



... and that is achieved by voting for Trump (or Abbott, Conradi, Hanson...) ??? 
Dream on, mate! Lunatics are lunatics, no matter what side of the spectrum they're on.


----------



## Tisme (4 September 2017)

Hanson Vs Hanson

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/904456008709226496/vid/640x360/5zYPChpqZmv_q0w7.mp4


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2017)

Interesting that some still deny this is the goal.


----------



## cynic (20 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Interesting that some still deny this is the goal.



Since they like communism so much, why aren't these imbeciles emigrating to one of those "fair society" communist countries?


----------



## moXJO (20 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Interesting that some still deny this is the goal.



Probably the nsw greens out of 'left renewal'.
They ain't shy of their goals


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Since they like communism so much, why aren't these imbeciles emigrating to one of those "fair society" communist countries?



These people don't wake up one day thinking so. The seeds are planted by mouths elsewhere and the repeater types do the rest. Independent thinking involving research is not usual.


----------



## PZ99 (20 September 2017)

moXJO said:


> Probably the nsw greens out of 'left renewal'.
> They ain't shy of their goals



Now I know why my Greenslip is so expensive ☺


----------



## Tisme (20 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Since they like communism so much, why aren't these imbeciles emigrating to one of those "fair society" communist countries?





I think she's taking the pii5. The screenhot looks like the original and she's doctored it to inflame the Greens?


----------



## bellenuit (20 September 2017)

This seems to be quite old. I did a Google image search and came up with these results. I am not sure the original source or whether it is genuine or not.

Google search results:

https://www.google.com.au/search?hl...3A8P48gWu5r_gCg&start=0&sa=N&biw=1313&bih=711

This link seems to indicate that it comes from Australia First, setting up a straw man argument. Scroll down until you see the picture.

https://theemergencestartsnow.wordp...drop-of-the-2016-australian-federal-election/


----------



## Boggo (21 September 2017)

They seem to be in more **** than the first settlers 

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/party-room-boil-over-as-greens-mps-walk-out-20170919-gyklcj.html


----------



## Tink (23 September 2017)

100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution

https://life.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/as-the-left-surges-back-marxisms-bloody-legacy-is-covered-up/


----------



## Tisme (23 September 2017)

> One thing we should surely learn from the Russian revolution is that resentment is always on the lookout for the theories that will justify it.




So true and all too prevalent in our once unique culture these days.


----------



## luutzu (23 September 2017)

Tink said:


> 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution
> 
> https://life.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/as-the-left-surges-back-marxisms-bloody-legacy-is-covered-up/




We better pray to that invisible hand the Left surges back. If they failed, the kind of fake Leftist/Marxist ideology that was Leninism/Communism will take over and that guillotine will be brought back again.

Nobody ever blame their poverty on a neighbour with a house they've worked all their life to pay off; or blame their dire situation on that neighbour who can find work to feed their family.

So the article describing Marxism and Lefties as hating that kind of Capitalism... let's just say it's more of the author's own opinion than fact.

Who the poor and desperate masses will blame though is, first, the minorities and the aliens. Once they solved that but still their life isn't getting any better... then they start to take the heads off the top, then work their way down.

Just saw the first part of an interview with the author of "The American Way of Poverty...". This guy got a $1/hr raise from his auto-mechanic job [?] so the system define his family's income as "too rich". So they kick him off of medicaid.

Problem was his medical insurance with the new raise didn't kick in until x date... but his wife somehow got sick about a week before the insurance starts and that send his entire family broke. 

Socialism didn't do that to him. The US is not a Communist country either. And it's not the Muslims or the Latinos that did it.


----------



## Logique (26 September 2017)

The Grunes (sic) only got 8.9% in Germany, and 5.8% in NZ.

In Germany, the Grunes were thumped by Alternative for Deutschland on 13.7%


----------



## wayneL (26 September 2017)

Logique said:


> The Grunes (sic) only got 8.9% in Germany, and 5.8% in NZ.
> 
> In Germany, the Grunes were thumped by Alternative for Deutschland on 13.7%



Blind freddy could've seen that coming...  Le Penn in France ect, among other "unexpected" results  , brexit, trump and others. 

Us of the center / center right do not want to see this any more than you useful idiots of the left.

But it is your fault, congratulations.


----------



## Logique (26 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Blind freddy could've seen that coming...  Le Penn in France ect, among other "unexpected" results  , brexit, trump and others.
> Us of the center / center right do not want to see this any more than *you useful idiots of the left*.
> But it is your fault, congratulations.



Please revisit this assessment Wayne


----------



## SirRumpole (26 September 2017)

De Natalie needs to find a way to get rid of Rhiannon. She will drag him down every chance she gets.


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Blind freddy could've seen that coming...  Le Penn in France ect, among other "unexpected" results  , brexit, trump and others.
> 
> Us of the center / center right do not want to see this any more than you useful idiots of the left.
> 
> But it is your fault, congratulations.




You do realise that practically all Western democracies since at least the past 30 years are run by those of the centre/Right, right Sifu?

There haven't been any "Leftist" gov't since Lyndon Johnson, or maybe Richard Nixon.

I know, I know... there's Labor, there's the Democrats, there's Merkel and her love for refugees, there's Europe and its "socialism" driving it broke.

That's all just branding.

Got to check the ingredients of their policies to see what they implemented. It's not leftist ideologies that's for dam sure.

A perfect example would be the US ObamaCare. It's not a leftist idea. It's a Republican plan [they've had it since the 80s or so], cooked up by the right wing Heritage Foundation or such.

It weren't dreamt up by Obama or his comrades but written by the insurance industry.

Then there's privatisation of everything. Price hike on roads, in car parks, power, utilities, food, drink, waste.


----------



## dutchie (27 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> De Natalie needs to find a way to get rid of Rhiannon. She will drag him down every chance she gets.



He will have to get rid of Sarah "Accidents happen" Hanson Young for the same reason. (watch her on Q&A).
I'm not sure who the biggest fruitcake is between the two of them.
Actually the whole party is made up of fruitcakes........ so it really doesn't matter.


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2017)

dutchie said:


> He will have to get rid of Sarah "Accidents happen" Hanson Young for the same reason. (watch her on Q&A).
> I'm not sure who the biggest fruitcake is between the two of them.
> Actually the whole party is made up of fruitcakes........ so it really doesn't matter.




The Greens is a bastard child of The Guardian and The Drum isn't it?


----------



## dutchie (27 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> The Greens is a bastard child of The Guardian and The Drum isn't it?



Not sure.
But you can't call them children. Isn't that politically incorrect? Someone's sure to be offended!


----------



## PZ99 (27 September 2017)

Yeah, you can't call them children. Bastard - yes. Children? No way


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 October 2017)

Saw Richard Di Natale on Q&A last night and he appeared wound up like a two bob on coal and homosexuals. Displays criteria of a partially deranged being. They ruin the platform given them by a small percentage of Australians by being radical, desperate, loud, angry, divisive and irrational. Maybe the people that voted for them like that performance.


----------



## PZ99 (10 October 2017)

Worked OK for Donald Trump


----------



## Tink (14 October 2017)

The former Moreland councillor who moved a controversial motion to abandon Australia Day celebrations has been appointed the new leader of the Victorian Greens.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-...rian-greens/9042790?WT.ac=localnews_melbourne


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 October 2017)

One to keep an eye on after already displaying anti Australian views.


----------



## Macquack (14 October 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> One to keep an eye on after already displaying anti Australian views.



Don't worry, you wont lose your public holiday. We are just going to move it to another day, like the day we won the a
America's Cup or something.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 October 2017)

Macquack said:


> Don't worry, you wont lose your public holiday. We are just going to move it to another day, like the day we won the a
> America's Cup or something.



There is no reason to change the recorded day of colonisation.


----------



## Macquack (15 October 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> There is no reason to change the recorded day of colonisation.



We are moving on from our roots as a convict colony.


----------



## wayneL (16 October 2017)

Macquack said:


> We are moving on from our roots as a convict colony.



Ahhhh, good ol' revision of history. The left's favourite hobby.

That'll bite you on the bum mate.


----------



## Tisme (16 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> Ahhhh, good ol' revision of history. The left's favourite hobby.
> 
> That'll bite you on the bum mate.




Seguing on that, the crop of pollies snared in the foreign citizenship legal challenge are using the excuse that the founders couldn't have known a nation with such a high proportion of migrants. Hello what do they think Oz was populating itself with upto 1900 ....


----------



## Macquack (16 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> Ahhhh, good ol' revision of history. The left's favourite hobby.
> 
> That'll bite you on the bum mate.



OK, give us your version of the purpose of the First Fleet arriving in Australia.


----------



## luutzu (16 October 2017)

Macquack said:


> OK, give us your version of the purpose of the First Fleet arriving in Australia.




It was empty land and God taught us to waste not, want not?

It was barely used by the savages and in great need of that awesome civilisation thingy? So sending soldiers and convicted criminals is the way to do it?

If England don't take it, other European powers will... then there'll be unnecessary wars between them for the place. So it was taken to keep the peace?

I could go on...


----------



## luutzu (17 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Seguing on that, the crop of pollies snared in the foreign citizenship legal challenge are using the excuse that the founders couldn't have known a nation with such a high proportion of migrants. Hello what do they think Oz was populating itself with upto 1900 ....




They might have a point though. The place was made (almost) blank. And we all know that those who blank it, owns it.


----------



## Tink (17 October 2017)




----------



## Wysiwyg (17 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> It was empty land and God taught us to waste not, want not?
> 
> It was barely used by the savages and in great need of that awesome civilisation thingy? So sending soldiers and convicted criminals is the way to do it?
> 
> ...



Surely you jest? I don't see any claims of compensation being made by one tribe over another after being defeated in battle prior to European "civilisation" arriving. Tribal battle before European arrival is conveniently forgotten as if the only warring party were the Europeans at the time.


----------



## luutzu (17 October 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Surely you jest? I don't see any claims of compensation being made by one tribe over another after being defeated in battle prior to European "civilisation" arriving. Tribal battle before European arrival is conveniently forgotten as if the only warring party were the Europeans at the time.




That was actual history, it did happened right?

Yes, wars between tribes, factions, brothers and foreigners all took place. 

I'm not saying imperialism is a Western thing. As we all know, Western things are only the good stuff; the bad stuff are those rare bad apples who strains then break under the pressure to do good 

In all seriousness... it was a tragic history, but it was the past. Now... the Aborigines that are living today, the White and multimix aussies that are also living today... that's not history and wrongs can still be corrected, right?

I was watching an interview with a pretty dam smart Canadian human rights lawyer/activist. She was responding to Canada's Trudeau's speech at the UN about the suffering of Canada's natives - "all was because of Colonialism" and its tragedies. 

Yea, yea, that's all fine and good. But, she was saying, those policies *are *still being carried out today, Justin. 

Back to our own backyard, where the Aborigines mostly live... highest infant mortality, drug misuse, death in custody etc. etc.

Maybe something can be done about that, today, beside telling them to forget the past, and the past also had them doing bad stuff to each other too - hence, fair game. Hate the game not the player.


------------

In line what the argument that other races and culture have also done war, imperialism and genocide too... Yes that is true. But we can't stop at that fact of history.

Leaving it at that historical fact leave much wiggle room and justification for genocide, imperialism and ethnic cleansing - otherwise known as Liberation - that is/are/might-be carried out today.

It excuse, or allow us to shrug off, ethnic cleansing and genocide by such friends as Myanmar's "Buddhists"; Israel' "Jews"; American "Christian" freedom fighters; and soon enough, Chinese "Asian people's liberation army" marching and sailing all over the place.


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> Back to our own backyard, where the Aborigines mostly live... highest infant mortality, drug misuse, death in custody etc. etc.
> 
> *Maybe something can be done about that*, today, beside telling them to forget the past, and the past also had them doing bad stuff to each other too - hence, fair game. Hate the game not the player.



Australia is in the top 10 of nations most giving. I think you will find people in Australia want the best for Aboriginal people and want them to join in. More and more doors are being opened regarding education and employment. The sportsmen and women bring enjoyment to millions of people. Can't change the past and I myself won't be apologising for something I did not participate in or condone. If people want to recall the stupidity and fears and angers and injustices of the past then do so but don't try to impart blame onto the present Australians.


----------



## luutzu (18 October 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Australia is in the top 10 of nations most giving. I think you will find people in Australia want the best for Aboriginal people and want them to join in. More and more doors are being opened regarding education and employment. The sportsmen and women bring enjoyment to millions of people. Can't change the past and I myself won't be apologising for something I did not participate in or condone. If people want to recall the stupidity and fears and angers and injustices of the past then do so but don't try to impart blame onto the present Australians.
> 
> View attachment 73036




Australians are, in general, quite generous. 

I'm not talking about the people. Talking about policies at the highest level.

There are some programmes and yea, we've come a long way from setting up Missions... we now hand out CentreLink cards to them (and soon to all on welfare) to purchase food only - at recognised outlets like Woolies and Coles, of course... screw Aldi and IGA 

Beside a handful of idiots who goes all out against discrimination by suing a uni for an Aborigine-only computing room... I mean, don't we all have laptops at home, all the necessities, all equally? Why are the Abo being favoured, right?

Anyway, no one is saying the present generation should apologise and take the blame for past crimes and civilising effort. Just be informed citizen and not shrugged off the current policies that, as Abbott put it: move into town and cities will ya. We know the gov't pushed your ancestors to the desert, by the rubbish tips and all... but that's long ago. Why not now forgive and forget, move in among us, get that nice office job, or pick up a trade, then a mortgage just like everybody else.

Yah... just like that.

-----------------

As to which country (civilisation?) is more generous from that graph there... maybe people who has a bit more money tend to give a bit more. It's hard to give a buck when you don't have two to rub against.

That and we should be mindful about history and its genocides. Again, to say that others have done it, this country would have done it if that country didn't... While all that is true, that doesn't make it right or acceptable.

And that kind of history aren't historical and aren't all in the past. There are genocides, wars and liberation still happening all over the place.

If we in the West are involved in such wars, or our leaders sent our soldiers and taxdollars there... we're paying for it in that first instance, then pay again through our individual generosity. 

You know, maybe other people don't want handouts, don't need their country being bombed (even if it's for their own good).


----------



## sptrawler (20 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> There are some programmes and yea, we've come a long way from setting up Missions... we now hand out CentreLink cards to them (and soon to all on welfare) to purchase food only - at recognised outlets like Woolies and Coles, of course... screw Aldi and IGA
> .




That's an interesting statement, in some remote towns where the welfare cards operate, they only have an IGA supermarket.
So I wonder how the card works in those places?


----------



## SirRumpole (20 October 2017)

sptrawler said:


> That's an interesting statement, in some remote towns where the welfare cards operate, they only have an IGA supermarket.
> So I wonder how the card works in those places?




Maybe it doesn't and they just go and steal what they need.


----------



## sptrawler (20 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe it doesn't and they just go and steal what they need.




I actually saw that with my own eyes recently. 
I was in a shop with my wife when a young indigenous couple started walking out, they were challenged at the door by a young girl attendant, they told her to FF off and walked out.
I will be interesting to see how society ends up, in 10-20 years, drugs and a don't give a $hit attitude, is becoming the norm. IMO


----------



## luutzu (22 October 2017)

sptrawler said:


> That's an interesting statement, in some remote towns where the welfare cards operate, they only have an IGA supermarket.
> So I wonder how the card works in those places?




I implied that such cards were done as welfare payment to Coles and Woolies. I guess in remote places where the big boys don't care for, people gotta eat so an IGA would be permitted by the directors at them bargain fresh food places.

Discussed a while back... experts in this area have said that the vast majority of those on welfare do not spend their welfare on drugs or alcohol. But of course the gov't can't say that, it'll just encourage people to want a few cents of their tax dollars being given back to them in hard times, or being given to other people during hardship. 

You know, tax collection is a must; tax return is discretionary and to be avoided at all cost. 

How to do that? Shame the heck out of those needing help. Then send the message to decent human beings that no, their gov't isn't being mean and nasty... the losers deserve it... why else do you think the nanny state goes to the trouble of issuing such cards if there's no epidemic problems? Right?


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> How to do that? Shame the heck out of those needing help. Then send the message to decent human beings that no, their gov't isn't being mean and nasty... the losers deserve it... why else do you think the nanny state goes to the trouble of issuing such cards if there's no epidemic problems? Right?



Wrong! This quote is exactly the truth.


> "At the end of the day it's not their money, it's taxpayers' money which is being provided for the basics — accommodation, food, transportation, education.



This is in response to widespread abuse of "unemployment" (yes you get the money to help you in between jobs) and family payments by particularly mothers who pokie the whole lot.This is great news because if you are bludging on the dole then this is an incentive to get off ur ass and get a job and for mothers to provide a better upbringing for their children. Last quote by the minister ..


> "You can opt out of it [the card] by getting a job."


----------



## SirRumpole (23 October 2017)

> "You can opt out of it [the card] by getting a job."




If it was that easy everyone would be doing it.

We have been conditioned to think that 5.5% unemployment is good, when really 3% is what is usually considered "full" employment, with the others between jobs.

The employment landscape has changed. New technology is taking over and we had better just realise that there aren't enough jobs to go around anymore.

This is basically why we have low wage growth and low fertility rates.


----------



## luutzu (23 October 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Wrong! This quote is exactly the truth.
> 
> This is in response to widespread abuse of "unemployment" (yes you get the money to help you in between jobs) and family payments by particularly mothers who pokie the whole lot.This is great news because if you are bludging on the dole then this is an incentive to get off ur ass and get a job and for mothers to provide a better upbringing for their children. Last quote by the minister ..




Should punch up, no? More fun. 

And what do you mean it's not "their" money? 

It's a Commonwealth. Common Weal. Belong to the Common. Not CBA Limited commonwealth.

Say you and I have been working since HS, paid our taxes as good little boys and girls. We never need any Austudy or welfare or concession... Still we pay our taxes. 

Then you get injured, sick, fired... tough titties then?


Sure there are parents on welfare who aren't responsible. Are all rich parents responsible now? Rich parents don't get welfare, no tax cuts and such?

Personal responsibilities, incentives, lifting oneself by one's own bootstrap etc. etc.... yea that's all fine and good. Just shouldn't demonise and blame people who are, by and large, victims of society and circumstances more than just personal irresponsibility or handicaps. 

We talk of incentives, free market, rise at our own strength and talent... what bs. 

Who got bailed out during the GFC? Who always get the biggest tax cuts? Who always get diddly or actually pay more in taxes.. if not taxes directly then higher costs from increased in consumption tax, reduction in penalty rates, reduced or removal of concessions etc. etc.

I mean, if we're serious about personal/corporate responsibilities, just about every bank in the world would have disappeared 9 years ago.  


Yes, just get off the couch and go to work. 
There's plenty of jobs for anyone who wants it right?
The pay's plenty over after childcare and all that.


----------



## luutzu (23 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> If it was that easy everyone would be doing it.
> 
> We have been conditioned to think that 5.5% unemployment is good, when really 3% is what is usually considered "full" employment, with the others between jobs.
> 
> ...




It's not technology that's causing unemployment. It's the way technology is being used that causes unemployment and redundancies.

Unemployment are made high by design.

Technology is neutral. If a company or business want, they can use technology to help their workforce become more productive, safer, work better and could earn more. 

Instead, most investment in technologies are aimed at replacing labour. The jobs are broken down to small pieces, workers are trained to stand in those conveyor belt... then soon enough, investment are made to automate those jobs and get rid of labour.

Does that mean the technology is more efficient? Yes if you measure it in term of replacing the labourer. But it's an absolute no if, instead of investing in tech to replace labour, the business invest in tech that permit their labourer to be more creative.. they might even improve the production line, create new industries.

But the way most investments are made, it's just to reduce costs of doing the same old crap. It's a very effective way of doing incremental change to products and services whose market you've cornered... that and keep the annoying plebs on notice if they ever think of asking for higher paid and better conditions.


----------



## sptrawler (23 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> I implied that such cards were done as welfare payment to Coles and Woolies. I guess in remote places where the big boys don't care for, people gotta eat so an IGA would be permitted by the directors at them bargain fresh food places.
> 
> Discussed a while back... experts in this area have said that the vast majority of those on welfare do not spend their welfare on drugs or alcohol. But of course the gov't can't say that, it'll just encourage people to want a few cents of their tax dollars being given back to them in hard times, or being given to other people during hardship.
> 
> ...



My guess is, everyone will end up on a welfare card.
Lets be honest, we will probably have  cashless system within 10 years


----------



## dutchie (6 November 2017)

Racism, hypocrisy , but mainly comedy, all in the one video.

The Greens are a joke!


----------



## wayneL (6 November 2017)

Aboriginal? 

Hmmm


----------



## basilio (6 November 2017)

wayneL said:


> Aboriginal?
> 
> Hmmm




And the problem is ?  Doesn't she look quite "black" enough ?  I'm sure the usual suspects will be beating the tom toms on that theme. 

It will be an interesting election however. Can certainly see significant support for her. It will be fascinating to see who the Murdoch Press support for the seat - Labour or The Greens.

http://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-new...indigenous-woman-elected-victorian-parliament


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 November 2017)

wayneL said:


> Aboriginal?
> 
> Hmmm



It happens. Work mate's dad is dark skinned Aboriginal and my mate's near white as me. Had the mixed parents. Good fella but it is hard to believe it unless you see his dad. I know what you mean about auto default from generations ago. Like me defaulting to Great British or Italian from way back. *I am Australian*.


----------



## Tink (7 November 2017)

Yes, we are Australian, and, imv, in Australia, we are called

*Ladies and Gentlemen *

no matter if you are black or white.

----------------------------------



-----------------------------
_
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/freedom-of-speech-and-protest.31657/

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/the-lunatic-left.31648/_


----------



## explod (19 November 2017)

A great win to the Greens in Northcote yesterday.   A swing of more than 10%.

Both the ALP and the LIB/NATS do not understand the real and growing concern amongst the general community for envioronmental deterioration,  the need for more equitable education and housing for the poorer classes and in particular for jobs.   For every job there are eighteen people to trying to get a job. 

The right wing press painstakingly avoid passing on current Green policies in particular the Murdoch Press.   Well keep turning the other cheek and new honest regimes will be taking over as people are seeing through the crapola such as Turnbull's "jobs and growth,  jobs and growth,  jobs and growth"  with no content or any delivery. 

And Sir,  Madarm and other formalities measure about ziltch.   And religeon is a concoction created by the rich to control the poor anyway,  but today its more the football and the TAB of course.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 November 2017)

explod said:


> A great win to the Greens in Northcote yesterday. A swing of more than 10%.




Good to see a protest vote not going to PHON.

Big worry for Labor though.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 November 2017)

Northcote has become an extremely wealthy area of people who are very interested in green issues unaffected by the concerns of the working class combined with mainly wealthy renters who are of the socialist left equation. Just living their gives kudos as being trendy and left. This is the area where people weren't getting vaccinated

Labor tried hard by getting through some progressive policies such as injecting rooms and allowing renters to have pets but this had no influence. They need to concentrate on the working class. The richer inner city seats will fall to the Greens in Melbourne. Next state election they should have at least four seats. As the older Italian immigrants die out and their houses go to the wealthy the seats will only go further green. Note, one of those seats that will be lost to the Greens will be Liberal.


----------



## wayneL (20 November 2017)

Knobby22 said:


> Northcote has become an extremely wealthy area of people who are very interested in green issues unaffected by the concerns of the working class combined with mainly wealthy renters who are of the socialist left equation. Just living their gives kudos as being trendy and left. This is the area where people weren't getting vaccinated
> 
> Labor tried hard by getting through some progressive policies such as injecting rooms and allowing renters to have pets but this had no influence. They need to concentrate on the working class. The richer inner city seats will fall to the Greens in Melbourne. Next state election they should have at least four seats. As the older Italian immigrants die out and their houses go to the wealthy the seats will only go further green. Note, one of those seats that will be lost to the Greens will be Liberal.



That may change once the reality the Greens want to appropriate their wealth,  bites.


----------



## Tisme (20 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Good to see a protest vote not going to PHON.
> 
> Big worry for Labor though.





They need to reposition themselves into the battler electorates instead of trying to win gentrified hipster suburbs rising out of the old migrant enclaves.


----------



## dutchie (23 November 2017)

The Greens do not believe in free speech. You are only allowed to say what they approve.

The loopy SHY strikes again.

EXCLUSIVE: 'Why is Parliament House hosting a white supremacist?' Leaked emails reveals Greens senator is trying to have right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos BANNED
*
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ants-Milo-Yiannopoulos-ban.html#ixzz4zEqBQtb9 *


----------



## wayneL (23 November 2017)

dutchie said:


> The Greens do not believe in free speech. You are only allowed to say what they approve.
> 
> The loopy SHY strikes again.
> 
> ...




This is what really gives me the shits about the left and particularly the Greens.

While Milo himself would admit to being a right-wing provocatuer, but a white supremicist?

Puuuullleeeeze.

I have been having discussions with my local greens candidate... what a lying bastid. 

Very sly.


----------



## explod (23 November 2017)

Yianopoulos in my view is a disgrace and anyone trying to use this example as an indicator of "The Greens"  shows the sort of ingnorance that is making the Greens prosper.   The community have much more sense,  insight and integrity than is realised by Lib/nat and Labour.


----------



## IFocus (23 November 2017)

Yiannopoulos earlier this year resigned from the American right-wing Breitbart News website, where he was technology editor, after video of him surfaced that appeared to suggest he was condoning paedophilia.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ants-Milo-Yiannopoulos-ban.html#ixzz4zFndIN1H 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Smells like a dog.


----------



## dutchie (23 November 2017)

explod said:


> The community have much more sense,  insight and integrity than is realised by Lib/nat and Labour.




The "community" being one *very* small section of Melbourne.


----------



## sptrawler (24 November 2017)

Where is Bob Brown these days?
Last time I saw him, he was marching against processing LNG, onshore at Broome.
The good thing was, he helped bringing down the prices of houses in Broome and increased the unemployment IMO.lol


----------



## wayneL (24 November 2017)

Whatever Yiannopoulos is, he is not a white supremicist. He is married to a black man ferchrissake! SHY, as usual, is completely off the mark and way out of order.


----------



## explod (24 November 2017)

dutchie said:


> The "community" being one *very* small section of Melbourne.



Not so,  in fact at the last federal election Melbourne Ports almost went to the Greens.  This seat is the other side of the city to the area of Northcote.   A continuation of the current trend will see four to five seats in the inner metro to the greens,  another will be border line at Geelong and Sydney also another one or two. 

With six seats almost certain to the greens federally in the lower house in two years the tide will turn as people will start recognise the integrity and value to all sections of a party not bound by the corporates.


----------



## wayneL (24 November 2017)

explod said:


> Not so,  in fact at the last federal election Melbourne Ports almost went to the Greens.  This seat is the other side of the city to the area of Northcote.   A continuation of the current trend will see four to five seats in the inner metro to the greens,  another will be border line at Geelong and Sydney also another one or two.
> 
> With six seats almost certain to the greens federally in the lower house in two years the tide will turn as people will start recognise the integrity and value to all sections of a party not bound by the corporates.



wait til people find out the Green's even more sinister allegiances.

It'll be game over, bro.


----------



## explod (24 November 2017)

wayneL said:


> wait til people find out the Green's even more sinister allegiances.
> 
> It'll be game over, bro.



You're just not on the ground ole pal. 

 Greens campaigning in Brisbane currently tonight are discussing action to provide homes for the poor.  Who else gives a fig for these real issues,  or even know.  Average across Australia,  1 job to 18 trying to get that job.


----------



## Macquack (24 November 2017)

wayneL said:


> wait til people find out the Green's even more sinister allegiances.
> 
> It'll be game over, bro.



Care to give us the heads up. Also, why are you dealing with a "Greens" candidate?


----------



## wayneL (24 November 2017)

explod said:


> You're just not on the ground ole pal.
> 
> Greens campaigning in Brisbane currently tonight are discussing action to provide homes for the poor.  Who else gives a fig for these real issues,  or even know.  Average across Australia,  1 job to 18 trying to get that job.



Dude, I've been trying to engage my local candidate since the election was called. 

He won't even tell me Greens basic ideological platform.  all i can get from him is propaganda,  and various iterations of "let's stall from the productive to give to the non productive."

My questions are fair,  but the evadiveness is telling,


----------



## wayneL (24 November 2017)

Macquack said:


> Care to give us the heads up. Also, why are you dealing with a "Greens" candidate?



Ive been talking to all four candidates in my electorate. As they're was no viable protest Candidate,  I was interested in the Greens for that purpose. 

It didn't take long for me to work out that it is the Greens that I want to protest against most of all.


----------



## explod (24 November 2017)

wayneL said:


> Dude, I've been trying to engage my local candidate since the election was called.
> 
> He won't even tell me Greens basic ideological platform.  all i can get from him is propaganda,  and various iterations of "let's stall from the productive to give to the non productive."
> 
> My questions are fair,  but the evadiveness is telling,



That's your story of course and I have no doubts as to your integrity and its how you see things.

Ive been an active Green for eighteen years and often consulted when constitutional matters are revised or renewed.  No one can tie feet to the ground and democratically individuals will often express views which are not nescessarily the party line.  So what,  that is freedom of speach.  However,  having been invloved in my career at a senior level with Government members of both sides I have a good grip still on the political climate.  Corruption via self interest has destroyed labour and the libs.  Some members may seem strange to you but the Greens are sincere and not tied to promises for position.


----------



## wayneL (24 November 2017)

well maybe you can tell me what none of the candidates seem to be able to tell me Mr plod.

What is the Greens basic ideological platform?


----------



## explod (24 November 2017)

wayneL said:


> well maybe you can tell me what none of the candidates seem to be able to tell me Mr plod.
> 
> What is the Greens basic ideological platform?



If thats not pretty obvious I'm not sure what is.   But in fairness ill do a bit of resesch and see if it can be stated in short simple terms.

However,  whilst I'm doing that,  and I see you wayneL as a Lib,    so,  what is their basic ideological platform?   And from these replies we'll see if we can work out a technique of real comparison and measurement.


----------



## explod (24 November 2017)

For wayneL,  go to "green.org.au/about"  then hit Charter.  

Opens up pretty well on some of my recent discussions on attending to poverty and living standards.


----------



## wayneL (24 November 2017)

Okay cheers Plod.

No, I am not a lib.


----------



## Macquack (26 November 2017)

wayneL said:


> Ive been talking to all four candidates in my electorate.



You must have too much time on your hands?

I have always been suspect of people meeting with politicians,  are you proposing a property development or something?


----------



## Tisme (17 January 2018)

Calliope said:


> *Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists*
> 
> When I started this thread I thought it would be an opportunity for Greens supporters to rally to the cause to defend their beloved party. Only one, explod, has put his hand up because he thinks voting Green would provide a better lifestyle for his nine grandchildren.
> 
> ...




I think people who are drawn to the greens should be aware of it's roots = Marxist and rabid unionist Jack Mundey. The membership were the "doctor's wives, tertiary students and academics", et al who were the litter of the ALP at the time. 

These days I observe they are much the same, with keyboard warriors at the vanguard evangalising the gospel of individualism and destruction of the tribe in pursuit of magic puddings that can sustain humans without having to put any hard work into actually doing anything constructive. 

 Don's Party socialists would be pleased.


----------



## explod (17 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> I think people who are drawn to the greens should be aware of it's roots = Marxist and rabid unionist Jack Mundey. The membership were the "doctor's wives, tertiary students and academics", et al who were the litter of the ALP at the time.
> 
> These days I observe they are much the same, with keyboard warriors at the vanguard evangalising the gospel of individualism and destruction of the tribe in pursuit of magic puddings that can sustain humans without having to put any hard work into actually doing anything constructive.
> 
> Don's Party socialists would be pleased.



And where do you observe all this?

In the news today "to the Senate Select Committee the Minerals Council has conceded that it makes political donations to access parliamentarians"   

So just maybe it is time to move away from the extreme self centred corruption of the current major parties.


----------



## Tisme (17 January 2018)

explod said:


> And where do you observe all this?
> 
> In the news today "to the Senate Select Committee the Minerals Council has conceded that it makes political donations to access parliamentarians"
> 
> So just maybe it is time to move away from the extreme self centred corruption of the current major parties.




Keeping the b4st4rd's honest is a good trait and political, not social engineering. The rest is official manifesto


----------



## Tisme (18 January 2018)

Greens Masthead reads:

"Well behaved women rarely make history"

They advocate women misbehave to make their mark, which of course does not apply to males who would be outed on social media as monsters.


----------



## explod (9 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> Greens Masthead reads:
> 
> "Well behaved women rarely make history"
> 
> They advocate women misbehave to make their mark, which of course does not apply to males who would be outed on social media as monsters.



I think Barnaby could be immune


----------



## explod (9 February 2018)

Its time to let you know what is going on within the Greens from time to time.   A message I recieved from Sarah Hanson-Young today:-

"
*Any day now, the Senate’s going to vote on what to do with 70 gigalitres of water from the Northern Basin of the Murray-Darling *-- whether it should go to big irrigators, or to the environment.

The evidence here is clear. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has spelled out the stakes in black and white: if the Liberals get their way, it will be a huge win for big corporate irrigators and donors, and the health of the river and all the communities that rely on it will be left to suffer the consequences.

The Greens will never vote for watering down our water plan, and compromising on the commitment that was made to delivering the plan on time and in full.

We will continue to fight for South Australia, and won’t be held ransom by upstream states and the Turnbull Government. They care more about feathering the nests of greedy corporate irrigators than making sure the millions of us who rely on the Murray have access to a healthy, flourishing river.

The environment isn’t a passive player in the water wars. *It needs you to be its voice in this fight.* This Plan is the difference between having water in our rivers, or salt.

Representatives of the upstream irrigators have come out swinging. They want the vote to go down, so that they get more water at the expense of the environment, downstream floodplain graziers and the people of South Australia.

We’re seriously concerned that the Federal Labor Party is about to sell South Australia short, and that the Nick Xenophon Team senators aren’t rock solid in their commitment to the Murray. And just this morning there are reports that Labor is trying to horse-trade on the Plan.

*Don't let that happen. Here's what you can do:.... "*


----------



## SirRumpole (9 February 2018)

explod said:


> *Any day now, the Senate’s going to vote on what to do with 70 gigalitres of water from the Northern Basin of the Murray-Darling *-- whether it should go to big irrigators, or to the environment.




Good to see that the Greens are still aware of big issues , rather than just pushing the change Australia Day trivia.


----------



## Tisme (8 March 2018)




----------



## DB008 (16 March 2018)

Honestly, what are the Greens smoking?

Helping out people who are now targeted/genocide in SA, and Di Natale now turns it into a racial agenda.



*Peter Dutton labelled 'racist' by Richard Di Natale over call to bring white South African farmers to Australia*​Bringing white South African farmers to Australia as part of a special humanitarian program would be a return to the White Australia policy, Greens leader Richard Di Natale has said.
Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton said white South African farmers are being persecuted and need to be brought to safety in Australia.

Senator Di Natale called that racist.

"There's no debate as far as I'm concerned, the bloke is an out-and-out racist," Senator Di Natale said.

"According to Peter Dutton, if you're a white South African farmer you are going to make a great contribution, you're not going to bludge on welfare.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-...ogy-from-dutton-over-farmers-comments/9554340​


----------



## wayneL (16 March 2018)

I hope Dutton and all sensible people tell Di Natali to go and..... ......


----------



## SirRumpole (16 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> I hope Dutton and all sensible people tell Di Natali to go and..... ......




So why isn't Dutton holding out the welcome mat to Syrian farmers ?

If people want to come here they can apply in the normal way and have their applications judged on their merits.


----------



## moXJO (16 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So why isn't Dutton holding out the welcome mat to Syrian farmers ?
> 
> If people want to come here they can apply in the normal way and have their applications judged on their merits.



Did you check out immigration numbers last year?


----------



## SirRumpole (16 March 2018)

moXJO said:


> Did you check out immigration numbers last year?




That's different to Dutton promising to fast track applications of a certain group.


----------



## moXJO (16 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That's different to Dutton promising to fast track applications of a certain group.



We took in Syrian Christians and I never heard anyone biatching. 
But saving whitey makes you a nazi.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 March 2018)

moXJO said:


> We took in Syrian Christians and I never heard anyone biatching.
> But saving whitey makes you a nazi.




The point was more about insulting a foreign country that we are trying to get on with (cricket aside).

He called them uncivilised which didn't go down too well with the Foreign Department.


----------



## Tisme (16 March 2018)

The sponsored Somali Christians worked out well


----------



## wayneL (16 March 2018)

My wife's family came here from Kenya in similar circumstances. If youre willing to listen,  I can tell you some stories of what was going on then. It ain't pretty mate. 

They are as much refugees as from any country. Additionally, they are culturally congruent and would not burden our welfare system.

Playing the racism card is a disgrace and typical divisionary identidy politics of the cultural Marxists.

No,  the Greens can go straight to hell and stay there.


----------



## Tisme (16 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> My wife's family came here from Kenya in similar circumstances. If youre willing to listen,  I can tell you some stories of what was going on then. It ain't pretty mate.
> 
> They are as much refugees as from any country. Additionally, they are culturally congruent and would not burden our welfare system.
> 
> ...




I wonder how they would behave if the farmers joined the Greens Party first?


----------



## moXJO (16 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> The point was more about insulting a foreign country that we are trying to get on with (cricket aside).
> 
> He called them uncivilised which didn't go down too well with the Foreign Department.



Pointing out that people are being chopped up, or under attack and that violence is uncivilised -is insulting ? 

 Damn,  we better apologize to Myanmar then.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 March 2018)

moXJO said:


> Pointing out that people are being chopped up, or under attack and that violence is uncivilised -is insulting ?




He actually implied that the whole country was uncivilised.

_
"Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has caused a diplomatic row with South Africa after declaring white farmers in the country were facing "horrific circumstances" and needed protection from a "civilised country".
_
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-...ican-farmers-resettlement-gaining-mom/9556098


----------



## wayneL (16 March 2018)

South Africa is a bloody mess, Horace. And it ain't  racist to make that observation...  Just like Zimbabwe. 

I don't see any particular race mentioned,  merely the politics.

Stop pandering to those you have spoken against in this forum.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> South Africa is a bloody mess, Horace. And it ain't  racist to make that observation...  Just like Zimbabwe.
> 
> I don't see any particular race mentioned,  merely the politics.
> 
> Stop pandering to those you have spoken against in this forum.




I have no objection to the farmers coming here Wayne, but Dutton is a bit of a clumsy oaf in more ways than one.


----------



## moXJO (16 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> He actually implied that the whole country was uncivilised.
> 
> _
> "Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has caused a diplomatic row with South Africa after declaring white farmers in the country were facing "horrific circumstances" and needed protection from a "civilised country".
> ...



They have one of the highest rates of violent crimes. 53 murdered a day. People in government anc  who would sing "kill the boers".

Doesn't really matter if we offend them. Go search up white farmer deaths check out the pics and get back to me on "civilised".


----------



## SirRumpole (16 March 2018)

moXJO said:


> They have one of the highest rates of violent crimes. 53 murdered a day. People in government anc  who would sing "kill the boers".
> 
> Doesn't really matter if we offend them. Go search up white farmer deaths check out the pics and get back to me on "civilised".




Plenty of violent places around the world, you want to take the whole lot in ?

People should be sorting out their own problems instead of us getting dumped with the results of lousy government.


----------



## wayneL (17 March 2018)

Every other race in the world favours their own people, yet someone mentions white farmers and we're the racist pigs. 

We really have to stop vandalising ourselves and tell the virtue signallers where to get off. Its not racism,  it's bloody survival.


----------



## Tisme (17 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Plenty of violent places around the world, you want to take the whole lot in ?
> 
> People should be sorting out their own problems instead of us getting dumped with the results of lousy government.




I wonder if it's asking too much of a culture who, until ~200 years ago were tribal kingdoms with no history of representative governance.


----------



## Tisme (17 March 2018)

So the Labor Party come up with a real lefty policy on franking and the Greens go hunting Batman by election Liberal Votes using the bogeyman evil of lefty policies ...... really !!!!!

e.g. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...es-from-labor-s-tax-plan-20180314-p4z4bc.html


----------



## Tisme (18 March 2018)

The Greens have gotta be pissed they lost an unlosable byelection in the quinoa salad electorate of Batman. 

Our excellent posts on the destructive poison that is the sheeple based Greens must be getting out there. Well done fellow party agnostics ... <chant> we shall not, we shall not be moved .....>\chant>


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 March 2018)

Richard (I'm a hot head) De Natali.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 March 2018)

According to the ABC certain Greens were ringing older people and telling them they don't have to vote. 
I reckon it was the smugness that lost it for them. The bike with the gaffe latte style guy riding around. The smell of lawyers and wealth is a turn off for the working man. They got away with it in my seat of Melbourne but there are a lot more blue collar workers in Batman.


----------



## Purple XS2 (18 March 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> According to the ABC certain Greens were ringing older people and telling them they don't have to vote.....




I am unaware that the ABC attributed such calls to the Greens, or to anyone specific.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-...lection-with-seniors-told-not-to-vote/9559418
The article does say that the ALP responded with a counter-blitz, txting or ringing constituents. Hooray for the ALP; Batman vs the Penguin?

A dirty game, whoever's playing it.

As for the Greens' defeat in Batman, couple of different reasons: previous ALP contestant Feeney had some bad press leading up to the 2016 poll: in retrospect it's arguable that the ALP vote was therefore much lower in 2016, and that a credible candidate in Kearney restored the ALP vote to its natural level.

And it also may be due to the hypothesis that the Greens don't like mainstream Australia: the feeling is mutual and getting mutualer (sic).

Whatever the reason, it's not a right-wing vote-manipulation conspiracy: Senator De Natale's comments to that effect shoud be understood as a standard reaction, like saying "ouch".

(sigh) It's not easy being Green. I speak from experience.

Regards,
P


----------



## Knobby22 (19 March 2018)

Some


Purple XS2 said:


> .
> 
> And it also may be due to the hypothesis that the Greens don't like mainstream Australia: the feeling is mutual and getting mutualer (sic).
> 
> ...




The far left have infiltrated the Greens and are over exuberant and petty.
Spray painting the Labor posters, telling old people not to vote, trying to get rid of the genuine Greens and replace them with their own.
To Di Natale's credit, he stated they are looking into what happened and will purge the party members involved. I think he realises the seriousness of this.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 March 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> To Di Natale's credit, he stated they are looking into what happened and will purge the party members involved. I think he realises the seriousness of this.




Yep, get rid of Lee Rhiannon and her comrades.


----------



## Logique (19 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> Every other race in the world favours their own people, yet someone mentions white farmers and we're the racist pigs.
> We really have to stop vandalising ourselves and tell the virtue signallers where to get off. Its not racism,  it's bloody survival.



Dutton has done nothing wrong but speak up for an oppressed minority. We saw what happened in Zimbabwe, and who doesn't believe it can't happen in South Africa? SA farmers face the theft of generational assets, and risk to life and limb.


----------



## Humid (19 March 2018)

Logique said:


> Dutton has done nothing wrong but speak up for an oppressed minority. We saw what happened in Zimbabwe, and who doesn't believe it can't happen in South Africa? SA farmers face the theft of generational assets, and risk to life and limb.




That would probably depend on how many generations you want to go back.

Another Terra Nullius perhaps


----------



## wayneL (19 March 2018)

Humid said:


> That would probably depend on how many generations you want to go back.
> 
> Another Terra Nullius perhaps



 yeah right let's keep going back. We're all in the s*** then, murder incest adultery blasphemy....

Dammit I want to go back to England and claim land rights.


----------



## Humid (19 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> yeah right let's keep going back. We're all in the s*** then, murder incest adultery blasphemy....
> 
> Dammit I want to go back to England and claim land rights.




So what’s your cut off date for “generational assets” ?


----------



## Knobby22 (19 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> yeah right let's keep going back. We're all in the s*** then, murder incest adultery blasphemy....
> 
> Dammit I want to go back to England and claim land rights.



Yes, the English drove my ancestors off my various potato farms in Ireland (I think) and conquered some other ancestors in Scotland.  Sure they all left in 1840 or in the goldrush but that was because economic conditions were so poor and we were so oppressed!


----------



## Tisme (19 March 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Yes, the English drove my ancestors off my various potato farms in Ireland (I think) and conquered some other ancestors in Scotland.  Sure they all left in 1840 or in the goldrush but that was because economic conditions were so poor and we were so oppressed!




Who's we whiteman!!


----------



## Tisme (19 March 2018)

Logique said:


> Dutton has done nothing wrong but speak up for an oppressed minority. We saw what happened in Zimbabwe, and who doesn't believe it can't happen in South Africa? SA farmers face the theft of generational assets, and risk to life and limb.





Being the owners of all things fair, the Greens will make sure there is no repeat of this in SA:


----------



## Logique (21 March 2018)

Humid said:


> That would probably depend on how many generations you want to go back. Another Terra Nullius perhaps



Your moral relativism is inappropriate. South African farmers are being murdered







> 2018... “Something like 400 white farmers have been murdered — brutally murdered — over the last 12 months,” said Mr Abbott.
> “Now just imagine the reaction here in Australia if a comparable number of farmers had been brutally murdered by squatters intent on driving them off their land.
> “We would say this is a crisis — a national crisis — so a very serious situation is developing in South Africa.”...
> http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...s/news-story/c136be201a4ff98bcda6673ac41cceb1


----------



## dutchie (12 April 2018)

The Greens have announced that they will build a solar powered railway line around the Australian girt.
They are currently unaware where the funds to build it will come from, but Mr  Di Natale has announced that he will be planting a number of money trees in his backyard.


----------



## Tisme (12 April 2018)

dutchie said:


> The Greens have announced that they will build a solar powered railway line around the Australian girt.
> They are currently unaware where the funds to build it will come from, but Mr  Di Natale has announced that he will be planting a number of money trees in his backyard.




lol


----------



## Tisme (17 April 2018)

Greens advocating cannabis on the basis that criminal networks will be hamstrung. Sales would be through retail outlets, the product in plain packaging and trained professionals giving over the counter advice and screening.

So if the retailer won't sell guess where users will go .......

And with all these things, the ratchet principal applies i.e. ice moves down as the first order poison which the predisposed then consider a more acceptable risk.

I'm fairly sure the thrill of doing something sneaky and naughty is a significant driver in drug use and just as with group smoking on the sidewalk, the camaraderie is addictive too.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> Greens advocating cannabis on the basis that criminal networks will be hamstrung. Sales would be through retail outlets, the product in plain packaging and trained professionals giving over the counter advice and screening.
> 
> So if the retailer won't sell guess where users will go .......
> 
> ...




The argument seems to be "alcohol causes more deaths and that's legal".

So we add more deaths or psychoses without doing anything about the alcohol problem.

There is a place for medical cannabis, but not general use imo.


----------



## PZ99 (17 April 2018)

Let's put the Codeine back on the shelves first imo.


----------



## fiftyeight (17 April 2018)

Disappointed, I came on to ASF specifically for a laugh at your comments on this matter Tisme but you have remained relatively restrained. Incorrect but surprisingly restrained.

Lets pretend that we are the first country ever to run the experiment of legalising weed. Lets say it runs for 10 years. What variables would you (or anyone else) like to test and what would it take for you to conclude that legalising weed does have its draw backs but overall it is a net benefit to society and it should remain legal for the next 10 years


----------



## Joules MM1 (17 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> Disappointed, I came on to ASF specifically for a laugh at your comments on this matter Tisme but you have remained relatively restrained. Incorrect but surprisingly restrained.
> 
> Lets pretend that we are the first country ever to run the experiment of legalising weed. Lets say it runs for 10 years. What variables would you (or anyone else) like to test and what would it take for you to conclude that legalising weed does have its draw backs but overall it is a net benefit to society and it should remain legal for the next 10 years



the only way to know this is to hold a substantial participated placebo controlled double blind study that would require a very long time period as there are already clear signs of lung disease (from smoking only) and cognitive decline and (time dependent) addiction  based on long term use and the study, of course, the time period and the study themselves cannot be neutral due to the other factors that contaminate the data, hence a correct clinical study needs to be done
everything else is subjective jibberjabber


a starting point for
peer reviewed studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4827335/


----------



## Tisme (17 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> The argument seems to be "alcohol causes more deaths and that's legal".
> 
> So we add more deaths or psychoses without doing anything about the alcohol problem.
> 
> There is a place for medical cannabis, but not general use imo.





I'm sure if they knew the downsides back then it wouldn't be legal now = grandfather clauses


----------



## Tisme (17 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> Disappointed, I came on to ASF specifically for a laugh at your comments on this matter Tisme but you have remained relatively restrained. Incorrect but surprisingly restrained.
> 
> Lets pretend that we are the first country ever to run the experiment of legalising weed. Lets say it runs for 10 years. What variables would you (or anyone else) like to test and what would it take for you to conclude that legalising weed does have its draw backs but overall it is a net benefit to society and it should remain legal for the next 10 years





You'd have to up your game if you think your opening sentence even resembles a flame.

On the basis you are close minded trolling I won't bother responding until you prove you are wearing long trousers.

I do appreciate you are trying to get a "I was thrashed by Tisme" accolades, but you need to give me more to go on, rather than made up fantastic net benefits.


----------



## Tisme (17 April 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Let's put the Codeine back on the shelves first imo.




I had morphine once ..... very effective at pain relief.


----------



## explod (17 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> Greens advocating cannabis on the basis that criminal networks will be hamstrung...
> 
> ...I'm fairly sure the thrill of doing something sneaky and naughty is a significant driver in drug use and just as with group smoking on the sidewalk, the camaraderie is addictive too.




On the nail Tisme.  The sneaky and naughty bit in particular.

Having had 28 years working the streets I and many others in law enforcement concluded at the end of our careers that the legalisation of all drugs would serve the community much better and remove a really huge sector of criminality.  This could free up resources to work on the sociological side as was done in the 90's till Kennet arrived on the scene in Victoria.

Many of the ice users today are the growing number of unemployed who see no future for themselves and therefore seek relief by switching out. 

Off topic but a big cause; they say employment is up, in fact part time jobs are up, full time are down and and a person working a few hours a week at three jobs is counted to appear as three full time jobs in the stats.


----------



## fiftyeight (17 April 2018)

Joules MM1 said:


> the only way to know this is to hold a substantial participated placebo controlled double blind study that would require a very long time period as there are already clear signs of lung disease (from smoking only) and cognitive decline and (time dependent) addiction  based on long term use and the study, of course, the time period and the study themselves cannot be neutral due to the other factors that contaminate the data, hence a correct clinical study needs to be done
> everything else is subjective jibberjabber
> 
> 
> ...





I agree with everything said above. Weed is not harmless and does have long term side effects.

The questions I am interested in include, does the legality affect the number of weed users? Does the legality affect the number of teen users? Does the legality affect the number of users of harder drugs? Does the legality affect crime, prison numbers, net tax collected, alcohol use, car accidents attributed to THC etc...

None of the above in isolation would sway my decision but I would like to see how the experiment played out. I am of course bias, so I do come in to this thinking weed is not that bad therefore I would be in favour of a 10 or 20 year change in law with a review before making the final decision.

Note weed is not my drug of choice so the decision has little effect on me, or maybe it will and I turn in to a stoner if is so easy to access


----------



## fiftyeight (17 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> You'd have to up your game if you think your opening sentence even resembles a flame.
> 
> On the basis you are close minded trolling I won't bother responding until you prove you are wearing long trousers.
> 
> I do appreciate you are trying to get a "I was thrashed by Tisme" accolades, but you need to give me more to go on, rather than made up fantastic net benefits.




I cannot say this with out it sounding like another failed attempt at trolling, but I legit checked out ASF for the reason I out lined above. Surely someone as wise as yourself must realise that some tree hugging hippies like myself find your posts hilarious?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (17 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> I had morphine once ..... very effective at pain relief.




Re:morphine.  I would wonder how many chemists or doctors would know about this.  Such important research findings and yet virutally unheard of.


----------



## Tisme (18 April 2018)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Re:morphine.  I would wonder how many chemists or doctors would know about this.  Such important research findings and yet virutally unheard of.






I think most of us have a sense of that and why the general lack of sympathy for addicts crying foul.

Similarly there isn't much merit put in people who have smoke damage trying to put a case to smoke damage others... it's like the lunatics in charge of the asylum.


----------



## Tisme (18 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> I cannot say this with out it sounding like another failed attempt at trolling, but I legit checked out ASF for the reason I out lined above. Surely someone as wise as yourself must realise that some tree hugging hippies like myself find your posts hilarious?




Well I can either take that as meaning you have an appreciation of irony posts (something that eludes many), or you are trying to mock me; the latter being hard to take seriously when brain damage due to drug dependency is involved in the eqtn.

I'll give you the benefit of the former, coz I am not anything if I'm not empathetic.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (18 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> I think most of us have a sense of that and why the general lack of sympathy for addicts crying foul.




I think the idea of the video is that people who use, use for a reason.  They are self-medicating for psychic pain (poor parenting, abuse, neglect etc).  The other point was that given a good upbringing and social network, there'd be no need for it - no need in a purely chemical sense.  I think it was one of the most amazing pieces of research I've ever seen, given the scourge of drug use in Australia.


----------



## fiftyeight (18 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> Well I can either take that as meaning you have an appreciation of irony posts (something that eludes many), or you are trying to mock me; the latter being hard to take seriously when brain damage due to drug dependency is involved in the eqtn.
> 
> I'll give you the benefit of the former, coz I am not anything if I'm not empathetic.




A little of column A - A little from column B



I am sure you will love a Simpsons quote.

And you are most likely correct as usual, I probably have sustained some kind of impairment due to my choice of recreational actives in my teens and early twenties. Oh well damage is done now, might as well indulge once or twice a year when I feel the urge.

Bringing it back to my original post, were there detrimental side effects due to my choice of recreational activities, most likely. Do I regret it, nope. For me the pros out weighed the cons. Each to their own!!!!


----------



## Tisme (18 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> A little of column A - A little from column B
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Truth is you probably aren't firing all cylinders if you have damaged it with THCs etc. Perhaps your early lead has been closed a bit or even pushed back to the pack?


----------



## fiftyeight (18 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> Truth is you probably aren't firing all cylinders if you have damaged it with THCs etc. Perhaps your early lead has been closed a bit or even pushed back to the pack?




Nah as I said before, THC was never my drug of choice. It stinks. I just do not have an issue with what other people choose to do with their life and therefor support the legalization of weed until/if it is proven to be a net negative for society.

I won the birth jackpot by being in born in white, male and in Australia. This is my biggest advantage in life and that has not changed. If I did have any genetic advantage my marks as child and early teen would suggest that it was a minimal advantage at best. The bell curve is nice and fat in the middle so a bit of wobble either side of average should not make too much of an impact on my life out comes


----------



## Tisme (18 April 2018)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I think the idea of the video is that people who use, use for a reason.  They are self-medicating for psychic pain (poor parenting, abuse, neglect etc).  The other point was that given a good upbringing and social network, there'd be no need for it - no need in a purely chemical sense.  I think it was one of the most amazing pieces of research I've ever seen, given the scourge of drug use in Australia.




Try convincing someone on the other side of the fence of that. The favourite excuse from their lips are things like "it's harmless", "other (insert poison) is legal", "it medicinal", "*everyone *does it", "I self medicate", "safer than", et al.

I imagine the first thing most "*everyone*" parents do is softly raise their new born baby in their arms , peer into their eyes and gently whisper "I'm going to make sure you a wonderful life being drug f$%ked"... it's only fair they should enjoy the advantages too.


----------



## fiftyeight (18 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> Try convincing someone on the other side of the fence of that. The favourite excuse from their lips are things like "it's harmless", "other (insert poison) is legal", "it medicinal", "*everyone *does it", "I self medicate", "safer than", et al.
> 
> I imagine the first thing most "*everyone*" parents do is softly raise their new born baby in their arms , peer into their eyes and gently whisper "I'm going to make sure you a wonderful life being drug f$%ked"... it's only fair they should enjoy the advantages too.




You forgot the most common by far reason/excuse.....IT IS FUN

Do you consume alcohol Tisme?


----------



## Tisme (18 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> You forgot the most common by far reason/excuse.....IT IS FUN
> 
> Do you consume alcohol Tisme?




1. Yeah but you don't hear that as an excuse.
2. do you?


----------



## fiftyeight (18 April 2018)

1. Yup, hence why I said it is the most common?
2. Yes. Again do you?


----------



## Tisme (18 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> 1. Yup, hence why I said it is the most common?
> 2. Yes. Again do you?




Yes, but usually go for weeks even months between sips


----------



## fiftyeight (18 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> Yes, but usually go for weeks even months between sips




This where I got lost in this debate. How is you partaking in your drug of choice at a frequency you see fit acceptable and lawful but I cannot partake in my drug of choice at a frequency that suits me without fear of arrest and prosecution.

If you were arguing for the total ban of all recreational drugs, I would politely disagree while acknowledging the argument has a sound moral footing and logic behind it, all drugs have negative effects on society.

The contradiction in position boggles my mind. It boggles my mind that a rational thinker such as yourself could legitimately argue against all recreational drugs except one (major) one.....which happens to be your own.

Hmmm this is starting to have shades of theism argument, all gods are false profits except one.....my own he/she is legit 100% I wonder if there is any correlation?

You are yet to set out a bunch of testable variables that given the correct result could change your opinion on the legality of weed?


----------



## Tisme (18 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> This where I got lost in this debate. How is you partaking in your drug of choice at a frequency you see fit acceptable and lawful but I cannot partake in my drug of choice at a frequency that suits me without fear of arrest and prosecution.
> 
> If you were arguing for the total ban of all recreational drugs, I would politely disagree while acknowledging the argument has a sound moral footing and logic behind it, all drugs have negative effects on society.
> 
> ...




I was hoping you were going to surprise me by not being so predictably transparent. You know, something clever rather than hackneyed.

I have done this same dance to death with people with pedigree.  You want to act all amateur Sherlock Holmes, go for it, but you ain't playing in the right league and I ain't relegating myself. You would probably be better just playing house and pinafores with bas or satanfsh... more your peers than mine.


----------



## cynic (18 April 2018)




----------



## fiftyeight (19 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> I was hoping you were going to surprise me by not being so predictably transparent. You know, something clever rather than hackneyed.
> 
> I have done this same dance to death with people with pedigree.  You want to act all amateur Sherlock Holmes, go for it, but you ain't playing in the right league and I ain't relegating myself. You would probably be better just playing house and pinafores with bas or satanfsh... more your peers than mine.




I have been see-through from the start? My bias, motives and question were stated in my first post/posts. I was never trying to surprise anyone.

I have refrained from using TRANS-parent as I do not want offend







I am honoured you see me as a pedigree, even if it is a substandard pedigree. I would of described myself more as a mut named Toby. I could be described as an "ugly long haired, lop-eared creature, half spaniel and half lurcher, brown and white in colour, with a very clumsy waddling gait"






Throw some catnip in my pipe and away I go searching for the ever elusive Satan fish. What a great book "The adventure of the tree hugging hippy"


----------



## Tisme (19 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> I have been see-through from the start? My bias, motives and question were stated in my first post/posts. I was never trying to surprise anyone.




I think it's fairly obvious what your agenda was from the get go:
1. to troll me as a means to:
2. contrast a fallacious picture of your being Mr Happy because of recreational drugs abuse.

I see no need to apologise for not needing mind altering drugs to cope with life.


----------



## fiftyeight (19 April 2018)

Nah not trolling, I have not even started yet. Just a bit of friendly banter. 7,539 posts de-railing constructive conversations, I assumed you would not have an issue with a bit of banter.

You seem quite inept at interpreting what others are trying to convey. I lead a happy and productive life in spite of my drug abuse, just as you do…I think


----------



## moXJO (19 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> Nah not trolling, I have not even started yet. Just a bit of friendly banter. 7,539 posts de-railing constructive conversations, I assumed you would not have an issue with a bit of banter.
> 
> You seem quite inept at interpreting what others are trying to convey. I lead a happy and productive life in spite of my drug abuse, just as you do…I think



What drug?  
Ice,  xtc,  hammer,  pot.

I was surrounded by it at a young age and saw the deaths it created. 

Alcohol is probably the worst. You look at Thailand and the men there have been severely affected. Same with indigenous in Aust and NZ.
Just because you can use it safely doesn't mean the rest can. Those that abuse it cost society greatly. 
I'm all for freedom but I have come to realize that to greater portion of the population is too stupid to truly be free.

You can get drugs already. So enjoy.


----------



## fiftyeight (19 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> What drug?
> Ice,  xtc,  hammer,  pot.
> 
> I was surrounded by it at a young age and saw the deaths it created.
> ...




I agree with everything you have said here. Drugs do cause great harm to society. They always have done and most likely always will do.


----------



## Tisme (19 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> Nah not trolling, I have not even started yet. Just a bit of friendly banter. 7,539 posts de-railing constructive conversations, I assumed you would not have an issue with a bit of banter.
> 
> You seem quite inept at interpreting what others are trying to convey. I lead a happy and productive life in spite of my drug abuse, just as you do…I think




Then you need to write so we can comprehend succinctly what you are trying say.


----------



## fiftyeight (19 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> Then you need to write so we can comprehend succinctly what you are trying say.




Haha, thanks for the laughs Tisme!!!!


----------



## SirRumpole (19 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> The contradiction in position boggles my mind. It boggles my mind that a rational thinker such as yourself could legitimately argue against all recreational drugs except one (major) one.....which happens to be your own.




That's a fair point. Another point is that we have learned our lesson from alcohol abuse and we don't want more drugs stuffing up the majority of the populace so we marginalise cannabis users and treat them as criminals so the majority don't get out of hand.


----------



## fiftyeight (19 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a fair point. Another point is that we have learned our lesson from alcohol abuse and we don't want more drugs stuffing up the majority of the populace so we marginalise cannabis users and treat them as criminals so the majority don't get out of hand.




Agree, that argument definitely has merit. Following this logic, then the next logical step would be to make alcohol illegal to further marginalise all drug takers serve as a warning?

Another better option following this logic could possibly be to make alcohol illegal and legalise weed. If as others have argued and making a drug illegal reduces use, we would reduce the amount of damage caused by alcohol. We would still have damage to society caused by legalising weed but there is a high likelihood it would be much less. 

This would not change my life much, instead of buying a 6 pack from the bottle shop I would just have to buy it from sketchy Al Capone dude. Upside, maybe the gangsters and dealers would start dressing like the gangsters from the 20's


----------



## basilio (19 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> Agree, that argument definitely has merit. Following this logic, then the next logical step would be to make alcohol illegal to further marginalise all drug takers serve as a warning?
> 
> Another better option following this logic could possibly be to make alcohol illegal and legalise weed. If as others have argued and making a drug illegal reduces use, we would reduce the amount of damage caused by alcohol. We would still have damage to society caused by legalising weed but there is a high likelihood it would be much less.
> 
> This would not change my life much, instead of buying a 6 pack from the bottle shop I would just have to buy it from sketchy Al Capone dude. Upside, maybe the gangsters and dealers would start dressing like the gangsters from the 20's




Dangerously logical... Now what happened in the US between 1919 and 1932 ?? Ah so.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> Another better option following this logic could possibly be to make alcohol illegal and legalise weed.




Why do we have to replace alcohol with weed ?

A better way is just cut down on alcohol consumption. Don't let supermarkets sell it, have volumetric taxation, shut pubs at midnight etc.


----------



## fiftyeight (19 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Why do we have to replace alcohol with weed ?
> 
> A better way is just cut down on alcohol consumption. Don't let supermarkets sell it, have volumetric taxation, shut pubs at midnight etc.




Definitely no need to replace alcohol with weed, we can make all recreational drugs illegal.


But if we are going to make just one drug legal it makes much more sense to make it the least damaging. Out of the widely used recreational drugs weed would be a strong contender as the least damaging to society.


As I said before, I do not smoke weed but I do have a few beers every other weekend. Legalising weed and making alcohol illegal this would be a massive inconvenience for me. I don’t believe making a drug illegal would reduce use, but I could be wrong. If making a drug illegal does reduce usage and as a society we choose to make just one drug legal I feel it should be the least damaging.


----------



## fiftyeight (22 April 2018)

Prohibition working well!!

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...s/news-story/9aa7cef2d62eac70a50c03e5d785d276


----------



## Tisme (22 April 2018)

When weed is legalised here buy shares in CSR plaster products. The repairing of holes caused by fists should skyrocket. And lockup cages, where parents can place their belongings in safety while their child runs amok in one of the regular psychosis fits.

I'd also recommend an endowment fund from birth that you can draw down on to pay for the psychiatric bills of your smoke damaged zombies.

Finally Epilim for the seizures that will last a lifetime...a gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## fiftyeight (22 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> When weed is legalised here buy shares in CSR plaster products. The repairing of holes caused by fists should skyrocket. And lockup cages, where parents can place their belongings in safety while their child runs amok in one of the regular psychosis fits.
> 
> I'd also recommend an endowment fund from birth that you can draw down on to pay for the psychiatric bills of your smoke damaged zombies.
> 
> Finally Epilim for the seizures that will last a lifetime...a gift that keeps on giving.




What kind of parent would let their kids smoke weed? Not sure of your parenting style, but I know I would not let my kids drink alcohol or smoke weed regardless of legality.

Evidence would suggest the opposite, but since when did trolls need evidence 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country


----------



## Humid (22 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> When weed is legalised here buy shares in CSR plaster products. The repairing of holes caused by fists should skyrocket. And lockup cages, where parents can place their belongings in safety while their child runs amok in one of the regular psychosis fits.
> 
> I'd also recommend an endowment fund from birth that you can draw down on to pay for the psychiatric bills of your smoke damaged zombies.
> 
> Finally Epilim for the seizures that will last a lifetime...a gift that keeps on giving.




Give it a rest Pops your generation had their turn and it’s failed miserably.
Michael Jackson 
Tom Petty
Heath Ledger
Whitney the list goes on and on and these are the legal drugs.
The war on drugs is lost
Drugs won


----------



## moXJO (22 April 2018)

When I was young,  all I knew was weed users. I tried it and it was never for me. I have  family members who have used it for over 50 plus years.

Couple of observations:

If long time users don't get access to weed they get irritable/aggressive. Aggression levels depend on the person.

Schizophrenia development does happen in heavy users. Apparently its if your prone to it already. But an awful lot of my older mates ended up with it. Some people have full on mental meltdowns on it where they no longer can function.

The claim "weed doesn’t have a single death" is only partly true. Medically you won't OD. But the amount of guys that died due to the onset of depression/schizophrenia  due to, or in combination with weed use is staggering. The amount of guys I cut down, or found stuffed in vehicles gassed is ridiculous.
They were from a wide cross section of society with heavy marijuana use the common factor.

Some guys can use it with no effects for years. As far as the toll on your body physically is concerned,  then I think its one of the safer of the illicit drugs. You do get some random stuff. One guy I knew became allergic to everything, but it would be hard to pin pot on that. Bong cough is about the worst most get.

Its addictive. Some of my sons friends are out of control on this stuff. Most users can't stop using.

I have friends that are big time advocates. They have been on the "730 report" and other media extolling weeds values. I've watched their lives for upwards of 20 years plus. And if anything, pot held them back.

I remember when "skunk" came out in the 90s. A super strong strain of weed,  mainly hydro. Don't quote me, but I think it was in the 5-12% thc range. Now we have stuff nudging, or over 30% thc. People put to much faith in, or over exaggerating the benefits of weed. Old studies on bush weed should be made redundant.  They were in the 5% range.

It may have a lot of legitimate uses but I don't think its safe mentally, physically, or ambition wise.


----------



## Humid (22 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> When I was young,  all I knew was weed users. I tried it and it was never for me. I have  family members who have used it for over 50 plus years.
> 
> Couple of observations:
> 
> ...




And all that time it was illegal 
So maybe a it’s time for a different approach


----------



## moXJO (22 April 2018)

Humid said:


> And all that time it was illegal
> So maybe a it’s time for a different approach



It was everywhere. Every second house was a dispenser. It was more widely accessible then ever.
The US model they are breeding  higher level of thc in plants. Monsanto is going to breed mutant plants with dna changes. Corporations in on the act and you think it gets better?
How did cigarettes and alcohol go when that happened....


----------



## Humid (22 April 2018)

You know plenty of people smoke weed part time and I haven’t seen anything of the scale your talking.
The weekend joint type people are doin fine you take it to the extreme which you can do with any substance.
I saw plenty of drug use growing up most smokers I know or knew from teens either:
Stopped got married had kids and the occasional puff
Gave it away due to work testing 
Got on harder drugs 
A few with some mental issues but a very small percentage 
Heroin is what pucked them
Even the ones that beat the addiction are now dying in 40/50s of other things mainly cancer.
Not sure if it’s connected but it’s happening a lot


----------



## Humid (22 April 2018)

D


moXJO said:


> It was everywhere. Every second house was a dispenser. It was more widely accessible then ever.
> The US model they are breeding  higher level of thc in plants. Monsanto is going to breed mutant plants with dna changes. Corporations in on the act and you think it gets better?
> How did cigarettes and alcohol go when that happened....





I was in Amsterdam way before any of that happened and seriously it was only a big deal to the tourists.


----------



## moXJO (22 April 2018)

Humid said:


> D
> 
> 
> 
> I was in Amsterdam way before any of that happened and seriously it was only a big deal to the tourists.



They changed the laws there, I thought. All the drug users would lay around in the parks all day. The stronger drugs were pushed in back alleys.


----------



## Humid (22 April 2018)

I’ve worked offshore construction mining for the last 20 years I know lots of young people...lots
You work 12 hour days 7 days a week
You talk a lot of **** to break the boredom 
Young people don’t smoke dope anymore 
Not with money anyway


----------



## moXJO (22 April 2018)

Humid said:


> You know plenty of people smoke weed part time and I haven’t seen anything of the scale your talking.
> The weekend joint type people are doin fine you take it to the extreme which you can do with any substance.
> I saw plenty of drug use growing up most smokers I know or knew from teens either:
> Stopped got married had kids and the occasional puff
> ...



Thats the problem. The current supply cycle is based on the weed growing cycle. Plant around fathers day,  and its harvest time probably this week actually. So its majority bush. Bush bud isn’t too much of a problem. Thc levels are lower compared to hydro (same genetics due to weathering of resin glands) and it takes a lot more to get stoned.

We also go through dry periods round the November to April periods as the pot runs out. So it gives a lot of users time to get off it or get out of their system.

With hydro and large scale hydro farms or imports then its high potency all year round. Chronics can get their fill all day -every day.

I'm not taking it to the extreme either. I could care less if some weekend smoker can't score a joint. Truth is my reality is the one thats actually playing out. One joint a weekend yeah its safe. But the young guys pulling cones in a circle ain't.

I saw and still see the same usage of weed today.

Yeah I  saw the worst of the heroin and now the ice. Ice is the one breaking through the social classes.


----------



## moXJO (22 April 2018)

Humid said:


> I’ve worked offshore construction mining for the last 20 years I know lots of young people...lots
> You work 12 hour days 7 days a week
> You talk a lot of **** to break the boredom
> Young people don’t smoke dope anymore
> Not with money anyway



My son knows plenty of hardcore smokers, girls and boys in school and trades.one was recently hospitalized. It was out of fashion for years. But now its coming back. Last years pot festival was one of the biggest ever.


----------



## Humid (22 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> My son knows plenty of hardcore smokers, girls and boys in school and trades.one was recently hospitalized. It was out of fashion for years. But now its coming back. Last years pot festival was one of the biggest ever.




So how’s the prohibition working for you then?


----------



## Humid (22 April 2018)

I agree it’s not for young people with developing brains
But a fully grown adult who wants to have a choof on the weekend is a criminal...cmon
I don’t know where you grew up or where you live now but have you thought about moving.


----------



## Humid (22 April 2018)

Anyway it’s going to be legalised or decriminalised eventually so you lot might want to get your head around it


----------



## moXJO (22 April 2018)

Humid said:


> I agree it’s not for young people with developing brains
> But a fully grown adult who wants to have a choof on the weekend is a criminal...cmon
> I don’t know where you grew up or where you live now but have you thought about moving.



Yeah I moved a long time ago into a richer area its still there. Maybe you just don't see the underbelly of Australia.  
Same with alcohol everyone ignores the soccer mums knocking back two bottles of red every afternoon. Or the binge drinkers,  pack a day smokers etc so long as it doesn't affect them. 
It's not the area I'm in. 

I think it should be decriminalized. But thats about it. I think alcohol is way worse but we are already stuck with it. 

If I  asked you "are you willing to give up your weekend drink by banning alcohol" what do you think the common response would be? 
For you it might not be a problem. But for millions across the world its killing and destroying families. People have major problems with it. Thats what people refuse to see.


----------



## moXJO (22 April 2018)

Humid said:


> Anyway it’s going to be legalised or decriminalised eventually so you lot might want to get your head around it



I  believe in freedom of choice. So majority rules. Just want both sides examined.


----------



## fiftyeight (23 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> Schizophrenia development does happen in heavy users. Apparently its if your prone to it already. But an awful lot of my older mates ended up with it. Some people have full on mental meltdowns on it where they no longer can function.
> 
> The amount of guys I cut down, or found stuffed in vehicles gassed is ridiculous.
> They were from a wide cross section of society with heavy marijuana use the common factor.
> ...




Yes weed does have many issues, but it is possible the people who ended up with an addiction always had an underlying issue. If weed did not exist they would medicate with something else.

I have been around many heavy drug users of hard drugs and through FB have some idea how most of end up years later. Only in my 30s but I have not seen a single one commit suicide. Not saying drugs are good, I am saying that I think your experience of cutting so many mates is extreme.

My point is much like others, yes drugs are bad. They do have devastating impacts on society. But the war drugs has been an abject failure so lets try a new approach. If that does not work lets try something else? I think we will up end finding it is case of, what is the least worst approach? as it is the human condition that drugs will always ruin a portion of the population.


----------



## Tisme (23 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> When I was young,  all I knew was weed users. I tried it and it was never for me. I have  family members who have used it for over 50 plus years.
> 
> Couple of observations:
> 
> ...




That post is far to sensible for some here. 

I too watched my once ambitious and clever mates launch their lives to the bottom of their ability.

Show me a frequent pot user and within three feet I'll generally smell: washing powder in unrinsed clothes, weed smoke and faint wafting of rotting food. Attention to domestic hygiene seems of secondary importance to many.

I understand many who don't give a shite and even use alcohol abuse and smoking as some kind of excuse to allow even more state sanctioned poisoning of the population. I don't suffer fools well so I tend not to socialise with those kind of people, so it's hard for me to quantify the perverse logic behind their need to globalise their own miserable existence or lack of intestinal fortitude to defend the weak in society from themselves.


----------



## Tisme (23 April 2018)

Humid said:


> You know plenty of people smoke weed part time and I haven’t seen anything of the scale your talking.
> The weekend joint type people are doin fine you take it to the extreme which you can do with any substance.
> I saw plenty of drug use growing up most smokers I know or knew from teens either:
> Stopped got married had kids and the occasional puff
> ...




I'd guess you haven't really taken time out to visit the places where the addicts end up. Perhaps taking the blinkers off and first stop the local mental ward at the hospital and then branch out from there.

Want to promote something other than narcotics? Get involved in a charity and try to destroy it by eliminating the need for it.


----------



## Tisme (23 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> Yes weed does have many issues, but it is possible the people who ended up with an addiction always had an underlying issue. If weed did not exist they would medicate with something else..




What proof do you have that predisposition and availability of self medicating alternatives? You are parroting unsubstantiated myths, trying to leave wiggle room by using "possible" as an get of jail free card. 

You've been back peddling ever since you realised your early posts in this thread, trying to use e.g. me as a stooge, were tantamount to promotion of drug dependency and narcobots.




fiftyeight said:


> I have been around many heavy drug users of hard drugs and through FB have some idea how most of end up years later. Only in my 30s but I have not seen a single one commit suicide. Not saying drugs are good, I am saying that I think your experience of cutting so many mates is extreme.
> 
> .




Not many people would get to "see" suicide. But I can tell you two of my son's friends did just that while high on pot..... jumping off buildings seems to be choice. Then there's the some kids who ended up on Bali death row by betting their lives on trafficking weed.

And yes by implication of promoting even a lesser evil you are saying "drugs are good".

How much will it take for you to stop thinking you are the voice of reason and actually imbed yourself into the groups who have to handle the **** of society ... get your hands dirty in weed compost as it were. That would be a far better use of your advocacy energy, instead of trying to find narcotically modified internet friends.


----------



## moXJO (23 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> Yes weed does have many issues, but it is possible the people who ended up with an addiction always had an underlying issue. If weed did not exist they would medicate with something else.
> 
> I have been around many heavy drug users of hard drugs and through FB have some idea how most of end up years later. Only in my 30s but I have not seen a single one commit suicide. Not saying drugs are good, I am saying that I think your experience of cutting so many mates is extreme.
> 
> My point is much like others, yes drugs are bad. They do have devastating impacts on society. But the war drugs has been an abject failure so lets try a new approach. If that does not work lets try something else? I think we will up end finding it is case of, what is the least worst approach? as it is the human condition that drugs will always ruin a portion of the population.



Right now weed is in the hands of the people. Those that want it can get it. Its not available to a lot of the weak minded.
Once the govt and corporations get a hold of it,  then it all changes. 

Think of the early days of alcohol and cigarettes. We already have the propaganda of weed being a miracle cure all. Its big business, and a rush for stronger strains that are always available. 

And yes,  some people have addictive tendencies. Thats the problem. They cost society, family and the health system.  They are the ones you target to turn a profit. 
Alcohol is a problem for society.
Tobacco is a problem for society. It's only just now we are getting a handle on it after billions spent.
Not sure that adding weed is a great idea.


----------



## Humid (23 April 2018)

Starring Tisme....

Didn’t I read somewhere that you weren’t a crusader or is my mind fading due to substance abuse?
So you’ve gone from not a crusader even though your sons friends episodes?
You might pick up a scent around pot smokers and I pick up a scent around people like you...
Bull....


----------



## Tisme (23 April 2018)

Humid said:


> Starring Tisme....
> 
> Didn’t I read somewhere that you weren’t a crusader or is my mind fading due to substance abuse?
> So you’ve gone from not a crusader even though your sons friends episodes?
> ...




As I suggested, try using your vast talent and intellect trying stop the disease, enrol in charitable work and use that energy doing something constructive rather than socially destructive.

I know it's hard on quick mouths and lazy motivation, but I have faith in you and think of how many young minds you could save from a lifetime of meh.

As soon as you resort to vulgar personal insults you have declared your status and inability to communicate effectively


----------



## Humid (23 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> Right now weed is in the hands of the people. Those that want it can get it. Its not available to a lot of the weak minded.
> Once the govt and corporations get a hold of it,  then it all changes.
> 
> Think of the early days of alcohol and cigarettes. We already have the propaganda of weed being a miracle cure all. Its big business, and a rush for stronger strains that are always available.
> ...




I think cigarette smoking in young people has declined in what I’ve seen.
Regulation and education seems to be working don’t you think?


----------



## moXJO (23 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> My point is much like others, yes drugs are bad. They do have devastating impacts on society. But the war drugs has been an abject failure so lets try a new approach. If that does not work lets try something else? I think we will up end finding it is case of, what is the least worst approach? as it is the human condition that drugs will always ruin a portion of the population.




Has it been a failure?  
Alcohol problem is widespread because its accepted. I could name suburbs of people that abuse it. I could name doctors, lawyers,  politicians. I could name countries where almost every man has destroyed themselves on alcohol.
Cigarettes are the same. 

It's not foolproof but it stemmed the tide. Ice is ravaging the community but its currently within a certain portion of the population. Its not accepted. God forbid if a drug that can make you have sex non stop were to become accepted.

I was in Sydney hospital with a doctor where an ice addict had used so much over his life he had destroyed his brain and could only make moaning and growling sounds. Doctor said he didn't have much longer. But I also knew people that used it for a bit then moved on. You just don't know who it will destroy.

I accept people can use things safely. But not all people can. And once things are legal, we expose more people to the dangers.


----------



## Humid (23 April 2018)

I do remember some young people jumping off buildings high on SYNTHETICS
Which come about through the illegality of marijuana


----------



## moXJO (23 April 2018)

Humid said:


> I think cigarette smoking in young people has declined in what I’ve seen.
> Regulation and education seems to be working don’t you think?



Yes it has. Plenty of young women still taking it up. We basically had to make it as close to illegal while still managing to get a tax revenue.


----------



## Tisme (23 April 2018)

Humid said:


> I do remember some young people jumping off buildings high on SYNTHETICS
> Which come about through the illegality of marijuana




So people jumped off buildings in protest of their use of narcotics? That's a very long bow to draw and smacks of desperation to bulletin board points score on the back of a tragedy.

Narcosis drives irrational behaviour, it also leaves a legacy of its victims trying to persuade good people to conjoin the ranks as a way of mitigating the guilt of being a weak minded drone who needs to be high to fit in.

Some of us are confident enough to respect the few who have no need to permanently destroy their frontal lobes for popularity.


----------



## Humid (23 April 2018)

Did you not hear about Kronic?


What I see is someone who cherry picks the internet,personalises it and uses it to forward their agenda
Sound familiar


----------



## Tisme (23 April 2018)

Humid said:


> Did you not hear about Kronic?
> 
> 
> What I see is someone who cherry picks the internet,personalises it and uses it to forward their agenda
> Sound familiar




Yes it does. It sounds like you have discovered introspection as a tool. This might be good for you in the long run and I, for one, would welcome the opportunity to have a mature discussion once you have come out the other side, healed.

Glad I could have been of assistance.


----------



## Humid (23 April 2018)

Cool.....since we’re getting along drop in for some cones


----------



## fiftyeight (23 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> As soon as you resort to vulgar personal insults you have declared your status and inability to communicate effectively




Haha coming from one of the most abusive members on ASF


----------



## fiftyeight (23 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> You've been back peddling ever since you realised your early posts in this thread, trying to use e.g. me as a stooge, were tantamount to promotion of drug dependency and narcobots.




Tisme's idea of engaging in debate 101


----------



## fiftyeight (23 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> I accept people can use things safely. But not all people can. And once things are legal, we expose more people to the dangers.




I am not debating if drugs are harmful or not. The only debate I am trying to have is if prohibition reduces consumption vs legalising and spending the money saved on law enforcement and prisons on social services for drug abusers.

We both have the same goal of reducing the number of people who abuse drugs.


----------



## Tisme (23 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> I am not debating if drugs are harmful or not. The only debate I am trying to have is if prohibition reduces consumption vs legalising and spending the money saved on law enforcement and prisons on social services for drug abusers.
> 
> We both have the same goal of reducing the number of people who abuse drugs.




Consumption has gone through the roof in the US and recruits has to. Of course the weed heads have been running around trying to debunk the facts.

I'm sure you guys will too

When people start dying on roads because of an unnecessary state sanctioned drug, we'll all just have to satisfy ourselves that alcohol is worse,  US blacks were once slaves, so we aren't responsible.

http://www.dontdecriminalize.org/wp.../RockyMountHIghColoradoCannabisReport2017.pdf


----------



## Tisme (23 April 2018)

Augmentation rather than substitution ... who wooda thunk it ...doh

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/06/marijuana-legalization-college-students/530607/


----------



## moXJO (23 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> I am not debating if drugs are harmful or not. The only debate I am trying to have is if prohibition reduces consumption vs legalising and spending the money saved on law enforcement and prisons on social services for drug abusers.
> 
> We both have the same goal of reducing the number of people who abuse drugs.




I'm not sure social services work that well. Generational education probably works better, as with tobacco. You look at alcohol and I'm not sure it works that well, drink driving etc. Even with AA people have a life long battle. Rehab fails a lot. Is keeping the majority away from it safer in the long run?

I'm honestly not up to scratch on all the stats and would have to review. Its twenty years down the track when we have a problem with most substances as the health issues become known.


----------



## fiftyeight (23 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> I'm not sure social services work that well. Generational education probably works better, as with tobacco. You look at alcohol and I'm not sure it works that well, drink driving etc. Even with AA people have a life long battle. Rehab fails a lot. Is keeping the majority away from it safer in the long run?
> 
> I'm honestly not up to scratch on all the stats and would have to review. Its twenty years down the track when we have a problem with most substances as the health issues become known.




Agree, poor choice of words. Public education, early intervention.....like with everything it requires a layered or network response and some people will fall through.

The people battling with it will have a life long battle regardless of the legality, they will always find a way to get it. I don't think we do keep the majority away from it in the long run. I went to 3 high schools, 1 in a low socio-economic area and 2 at the upper end. The kids who wanted to try weed at all 3 had more than enough access to experiment.

There has been easy access to weed for a lot longer than 20 years?


----------



## fiftyeight (23 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> Consumption has gone through the roof in the US and recruits has to. Of course the weed heads have been running around trying to debunk the facts.
> 
> I'm sure you guys will too
> 
> ...




Haha more quality trolling 

dontdecriminalize.org  haha


----------



## moXJO (23 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> Agree, poor choice of words. Public education, early intervention.....like with everything it requires a layered or network response and some people will fall through.
> 
> The people battling with it will have a life long battle regardless of the legality, they will always find a way to get it. I don't think we do keep the majority away from it in the long run. I went to 3 high schools, 1 in a low socio-economic area and 2 at the upper end. The kids who wanted to try weed at all 3 had more than enough access to experiment.
> 
> There has been easy access to weed for a lot longer than 20 years?



 Its probably been easy access since the 60s.
It tends to get left behind in high school for a lot of kids. And like I said before, you are restricted by the grow cycle to some degree. When it goes dry it gives people a chance to quit. 
If its illegal a lot of people won't try due to the loser stigma. More open acceptance will change that.

You also get varying degrees of strength currently. Not the hydro potent strains day in day out if it were legal.

 But then you have issues with pgrs and mould in badly cured buds( with the illegal stuff). So its a toss up.


----------



## moXJO (23 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> There has been easy access to weed for a lot longer than 20 years?



Just to expand - the weed today is a lot more potent. Probably triple what it was in the 90s and god knows how much since the 60s. Different growing methods as well.

Old studies would no longer be relevant.


----------



## fiftyeight (23 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> Its probably been easy access since the 60s.
> It tends to get left behind in high school for a lot of kids. And like I said before, you are restricted by the grow cycle to some degree. When it goes dry it gives people a chance to quit.
> *If its illegal a lot of people won't try due to the loser stigma. More open acceptance will change that.*
> 
> ...




Hydro has been around as long as I have so that must be 20 years +. By regulating weed the potency could be regulated.

Strongly disagree with this one, tobacco and Portugal suggest otherwise.

https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-...-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.iuXJVm4TX


----------



## moXJO (23 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> Hydro has been around as long as I have so that must be 20 years +. By regulating weed the potency could be regulated.
> 
> Strongly disagree with this one, tobacco and Portugal suggest otherwise.
> 
> https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-...-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.iuXJVm4TX



Its been decriminalised. I'm for that, not legalisation.


----------



## fiftyeight (23 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> Its been decriminalised. I'm for that, not legalisation.




Apologies I read it as you were for keeping it illegal


----------



## Tisme (23 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> Haha more quality trolling
> 
> dontdecriminalize.org  haha





Umm govt report. Reading 101.

I'm guessing your scruples went out the door when you invested in someone like Bruce Linton?


----------



## Humid (23 April 2018)

https://www.healio.com/psychiatry/s...aws-do-not-boost-recreational-use-among-teens


----------



## fiftyeight (23 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> Umm govt report. Reading 101.
> 
> I'm guessing your scruples went out the door when you invested in someone like Bruce Linton?




Haha I don't have time to read links from posters I don't respect. You are not blocked because you are good for a laugh!!!

Note: I do read links from the opposing side of the argument from most posters


----------



## Humid (23 April 2018)

http://www.newsweek.com/marijuana-u...005-not-because-legislation-study-says-663826


----------



## moXJO (23 April 2018)

Humid said:


> https://www.healio.com/psychiatry/substance-use-disorders/news/online/{935f06c2-7295-45c2-a406-6d9d05578869}/medical-marijuana-laws-do-not-boost-recreational-use-among-teens



They used meta-analysis in this study which isn't that hard on conclusions and themselves said "more research into this area needs to be done".


> The results showed no significant increases or decreases in adolescent recreational use following the legalization of medical marijuana. Meta-analysis revealed that none of the studies demonstrated significant changes in marijuana use prevalence among teens pre-post enactment of medical marijuana laws compared with simultaneous changes in states without medical marijuana laws (standardized mean difference = –0.003).
> 
> “While medical marijuana laws did not increase the risk for marijuana use in teens so far, that does not diminish the potential seriousness of regular or heavy early use, which requires clinical attention in states with and without medical marijuana laws,” Hasin told _Healio Psychiatry_.
> 
> ...



More adults are using and they want to triple the market. This is also for medical marijuana use- not legalised recreational marijuana use.


----------



## Humid (23 April 2018)

Do you realise how easy it is to get medical pot in the states


----------



## Humid (23 April 2018)

Humid said:


> http://www.newsweek.com/marijuana-u...005-not-because-legislation-study-says-663826



Why not quote this then?


----------



## moXJO (23 April 2018)

Humid said:


> Do you realise how easy it is to get medical pot in the states



Yeah I do. But theres a bigger time lag on commercialization of weed as the safety barriers are broken down and greed hits its stride.


----------



## moXJO (23 April 2018)

Humid said:


> Why not quote this then?



That article was basically "People like weed". 
Was there a specific part of the article?


----------



## fiftyeight (24 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> Yeah I do. But theres a bigger time lag on commercialization of weed as the safety barriers are broken down and *greed hits its stride*.




Definitely a major concern


----------



## Tisme (24 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> Haha I don't have time to read links from posters I don't respect. You are not blocked because you are good for a laugh!!!
> 
> Note: I do read links from the opposing side of the argument from most posters




Are you saying you aren't role playing Forrest Gump! If I'd known ......


----------



## Humid (24 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> That article was basically "People like weed".
> Was there a specific part of the article?




No
You seem to be getting it
It’s not the side effects or dangerous health issues it’s the fear of getting caught.
People who abuse drugs are already doing it what’s wrong with educated adults having the occasional choof without everyone ending up in the nut house like old mate would have you believe.
The non crusader bloke


----------



## Humid (24 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> Yeah I do. But theres a bigger time lag on commercialization of weed as the safety barriers are broken down and greed hits its stride.



So we let the bikies and crooks reap the rewards?


----------



## Tisme (24 April 2018)

When you strip away the silly logic (non sequiturs) of using alcohol, tobacco, black civil rights, etc as justification for smoking weed and just admitting it's a narcotic that f$#ks with your brain, the real problem is that it is not good for you.

Dismissing the downside facts just because it doesn't gel with a utopian sheeple mentality and preferring rather to believe in fiction won't magically make the bad things go away.

Obviously debating with people who already damaged their brains from weed is a waste of time, as witnessed in this very thread. I don't begrudge these guys lowering their IQs voluntarily, I just don't think they should be infecting young minds with similar ideas because eventually there won't be anyone to have an intelligent head to head with in the open domain... the conversations will probably centre around high brow issues like munchies and brownies.

So concentrating on the actual facts, without the troll nonsense from the dynamic dud duo, the issue is The Greens and their promotion of weed:

Dental Consequences:

an interesting "fact" about weed is that it dries out the mouth. And that is the reason you see pot users with higher incidences of decay, gum disease, tooth loss and plaque. Enamel loss is high as is relatively early loss of teeth even up against tobacco smokers.

There's also a change to the mouth cavity walls which leads to propensity of cannabis stomatitis and cancer risk.

Pot smokers should not use mouth washes.

Because weed impedes bone production, dental implants are less likely to be successful.

If the dentist has to administer epinephrine and your THC levels are high you are at high risk of never seeing the sun again. I guess if you are susceptible to anaphylaxis you are pretty much kaput.


----------



## Humid (24 April 2018)

7392 posts in 3 1/2 years and comments on my mental health lol
Can I call you Neville?


----------



## moXJO (24 April 2018)

Humid said:


> So we let the bikies and crooks reap the rewards?



Or we let corporate crooks make billions expanding the market.They want to triple the medical market in the above article. In the medical marijuana thread in the 4 corners video,  they mentioned the recreational market being 10 times as big.
Crooks are limited to who their market is. Like I said before its kept to certain people.

This is one of Canadas weed companies that is already lobbying our government 
https://www.tweedmainstreet.com/#

Slick advertising, snoop dog affiliated, and professional. They aim at growing the market by making "weed" cool. Sound familiar?

Listen to the language of the spruikers of the companies that are set up in Aus
"Huge profits"
"Massive Returns"
"Biggest investment returns since dot com"
It's about the money. Those here that were advocates are now making mega bucks and pushing to flood the market.

Wait for legitimate thorough studies out of Canada and the US first.


----------



## Tisme (24 April 2018)

IQ Consequences:

A 38 year longitudinal study from cradle, revealed the habits of those who went onto be pot users:

long term users, when tested sober had an 8 point reduction in IQ, lowered memory retention, lowered attention spans than initial.

Emotional intelligence tends to grind to a halt in early adopters.


----------



## fiftyeight (24 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> Slick advertising, snoop dog affiliated, and professional. They aim at growing the market by making "weed" cool. Sound familiar?
> 
> Wait for legitimate thorough studies out of Canada and the US first.




I would think advertising would be tightly regulated, tobacco would be a model to draw good ideas from

I think waiting for legitimate thorough studies out of Canada and the US is a fair argument. What about studies that have come out of the Netherlands?


----------



## Tisme (24 April 2018)

Humid said:


> 7392 posts in 3 1/2 years and comments on my mental health lol
> Can I call you Neville?




Well I was thinking about asking you along to our travelling salvation show as a stage prop,  a real life display to the bethren the results of narcotic abuse, but I'm starting to think you might be up to it.


----------



## Humid (24 April 2018)

I’m in
Bring your mobile device so you can keep the posting average up between shows.
Don’t want you going through withdrawals on the road!


----------



## Humid (24 April 2018)

You may end up in those hospitals you seem to frequent


----------



## Tisme (24 April 2018)

Humid said:


> I’m in
> Bring your mobile device so you can keep the posting average up between shows.
> Don’t want you going through withdrawals on the road!




Cool. I'll charge a shilling for you and sixpence for the monkey.


----------



## Tisme (24 April 2018)

Heh I just had a better thought, if you and your cobber 58 can manage a pairing I reckon I could  convince management to supply a sideshow tent all of your own where you can showoff you talents and we could charge a florin and you get all the bananas you can eat. Yeah?


----------



## Humid (24 April 2018)

Cmon Pops it’s drugs man we use Bitcoin....


----------



## moXJO (24 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> I think waiting for legitimate thorough studies out of Canada and the US is a fair argument. What about studies that have come out of the Netherlands?



We are closer to the US in binge culture and monetization of substance abuse.


----------



## moXJO (24 April 2018)

Humid said:


> Cmon Pops it’s drugs man we use Bitcoin....



Monero and Dash my man.
Bitcoin you have to put through a washer


----------



## explod (24 April 2018)

Have to laugh at all this discussion on the "Greens thread".  Probably in the 80's it was the tree hugging lefties who started the movement and they smoked dope, but today our concerns are primarily housing, employment and the deteriorating environment.

I'm a member also of The Australian Unemployed Workers Union and we are working directly on the ground with those hurting.  Those of you in front of the tellie have no idea.


----------



## Tisme (25 April 2018)

explod said:


> Have to laugh at all this discussion on the "Greens thread".  Probably in the 80's it was the tree hugging lefties who started the movement and they smoked dope, but today our concerns are primarily housing, employment and the deteriorating environment.
> 
> I'm a member also of The Australian Unemployed Workers Union and we are working directly on the ground with those hurting.  Those of you in front of the tellie have no idea.




Yes a lot of banter is obviously s4its and giggles.


----------



## fiftyeight (26 April 2018)

https://www.sciencealert.com/cannabis-marijuana-psychosis-risk-mental-health

Relevant to the recent discussion


----------



## Tisme (26 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> https://www.sciencealert.com/cannabis-marijuana-psychosis-risk-mental-health
> 
> Relevant to the recent discussion





Supplementing an already psychotic nation on prescription anti-depressants & anti-psychotics: In USA  mental disability pensions increased 250% 1987 and 2007 = 1 in 76 people.

There was a 4000% increase in bipolar disorder drug treatment for adolescents between 1994 and 2003.

Putting trust in whoever is providing oversight of public health might be a bit optimistic.


----------



## Tisme (26 April 2018)

When the Greens succeed in getting pot legalised, will a grandfather clause mean the current dealers can continue on without having a Cert 4 in drug pushing?


----------



## explod (26 April 2018)

Nah, wouldn't suit the corporate oil system.  Like solar, wind and wave combinations for power, not enough in it for the big end of town.


----------



## bellenuit (26 April 2018)

explod said:


> Nah, wouldn't suit the corporate oil system.  Like solar, wind and wave combinations for power, not enough in it for the big end of town.




That degradation rate is obviously just when buried in soil I would think? Are degradation rates available for when stored on a shelf containing some product? That would indicate what type of products it would be suitable for.


----------



## explod (26 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> That degradation rate is obviously just when buried in soil I would think? Are degradation rates available for when stored on a shelf containing some product? That would indicate what type of products it would be suitable for.



http://www.hempplastic.com/


----------



## fiftyeight (27 April 2018)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-...roved-for-groovin-the-moo-in-canberra/9700720

The gates are being opened to de-criminalisation?


----------



## Tisme (27 April 2018)

explod said:


> Nah, wouldn't suit the corporate oil system.  Like solar, wind and wave combinations for power, not enough in it for the big end of town.





The animals just have learn to hold off strangulation for 28 days


----------



## Tisme (27 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-...roved-for-groovin-the-moo-in-canberra/9700720
> 
> The gates are being opened to de-criminalisation?




Half of NSW will storm the borders ... how good will that be for the territory economy!


----------



## Tink (27 April 2018)

I will stick to the LIGHT and the TRUTH.

*Faith, Family, Truth, Freedom.*


----------



## PZ99 (27 April 2018)

*Freedom* is exactly what de-criminalisation offers.


----------



## Tink (27 April 2018)

The Greens are the most dangerous of all, imv.

As I have said, I call them the death cult.


----------



## PZ99 (27 April 2018)

That's your choice. In that case I reserve the right to call the Coalition the death cult given their involvement in the Woalition of the Killing where thousands were killed from indiscriminate bombing for the sake of WMD's that didn't exist. That's the price they paid for not sharing our "faith"

Pretty sure the Greens were against it


----------



## Tink (27 April 2018)

Here is Jordan Peterson just to remind you of what Melbourne has become..



--------------

_https://jordanbpeterson.com/_


----------



## fiftyeight (27 April 2018)

Tink said:


> I will stick to the LIGHT and the TRUTH.
> 
> *Faith, Family, Truth, Freedom.*




No one is trying to take these away from you


----------



## Tisme (27 April 2018)

PZ99 said:


> That's your choice. In that case I reserve the right to call the Coalition the death cult given their involvement in the Woalition of the Killing where thousands were killed from indiscriminate bombing for the sake of WMD's that didn't exist. That's the price they paid for not sharing our "faith"
> 
> Pretty sure the Greens were against it




Greens were bit players back then.





> *Iraq: Kim Beazley's position*
> PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
> *The World Today Archive - Friday, 21 March , 2003  12:40:29*
> *Reporter: Alexandra Kirk*
> ...


----------



## Tisme (27 April 2018)

Response from the intractable right on Greens



> *GREG SHERIDAN*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## explod (27 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> Response from the intractable right on Greens



Could not find my way into this Tisme, 

would you be kind enough to paste it in.


----------



## Tisme (27 April 2018)

explod said:


> Could not find my way into this Tisme,
> 
> would you be kind enough to paste it in.




It is a paste. You need to click the down arrow to expand.


----------



## fiftyeight (28 April 2018)

Tink said:


> Here is Jordan Peterson just to remind you of what Melbourne has become..
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Not sure why you posted this?

Might want to go to the 10 min mark of the video you posted, insert Melbourne/Australia instead of Amsterdam.

You do realise that left leaning libertarian atheists like JP as well?


----------



## noirua (28 April 2018)

*Australian Greens*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Greens


----------



## noirua (28 April 2018)




----------



## TikoMike (28 April 2018)

noirua said:


> *Australian Greens*
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Greens




Communism sounds great on paper, but ends up killing millions as history has taunt us.


----------



## moXJO (28 April 2018)

Greens are scum. There are very good people at the grassroots level. But the political ideology running in the background deserves all the derision one can muster.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> Greens are scum. There are very good people at the grassroots level. But the political ideology running in the background deserves all the derision one can muster.




Scum ? I doubt it. Idealists yes.

Lee Rhiannon and her lot should either depart voluntarily or get kicked out so that the Greens can return to what they were like under Bob Brown, conservationists without a Marxist agenda.


----------



## wayneL (28 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Scum ? I doubt it. Idealists yes.
> 
> Lee Rhiannon and her lot should either depart voluntarily or get kicked out so that the Greens can return to what they were like under Bob Brown, conservationists without a Marxist agenda.



 You'd have to just about kick the whole lot of them out,  Horace. 

The truth is the party is irretrievable from the extreme left now.


----------



## wayneL (28 April 2018)

noirua said:


> *Australian Greens*
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Greens




Vision? 

That was more like basilios art of the pitch. Not a word on the ugly reality of post modern Marxism they espouse.


----------



## moXJO (28 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Scum ? I doubt it. Idealists yes.
> 
> .



Scum is apt.
I'm going with that.


----------



## fiftyeight (28 April 2018)

I know I am a drug taking left leaning brain damaged idiot BUT surely this is a bad idea.

All the "perceived" deterrents have failed, all the policing has failed, the billions spent on the "war on drugs" has failed, the lives lost on the war on drugs have failed. These YOUNG adults have still chosen to attend an event and risk prosecution by smuggling drugs in to the event. 

Is sending in the dogs the best idea after they have had a few drinks, and possibly some of their contraband??? To catch a few small time dealers and a few users???

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/t...ug-overdose-at-big-day-out-20090202-7v9v.html


----------



## explod (28 April 2018)

wayneL said:


> Vision?
> 
> That was more like basilios art of the pitch. Not a word on the ugly reality of post modern Marxism they espouse.




How about an explanation of   "the ugly reality... (your gobbledygook)...they espouse"


----------



## moXJO (28 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> I know I am a drug taking left leaning brain damaged idiot BUT surely this is a bad idea.
> 
> All the "perceived" deterrents have failed, all the policing has failed, the billions spent on the "war on drugs" has failed, the lives lost on the war on drugs have failed. These YOUNG adults have still chosen to attend an event and risk prosecution by smuggling drugs in to the event.
> 
> ...



Wow carl cox is still going?


----------



## Tink (29 April 2018)

Fifty eight, do you agree with David Leyonhjelm?

https://twitter.com/DavidLeyonhjelm?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author


----------



## fiftyeight (29 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> Wow carl cox is still going?




He has finished his residency in Ibiza, still touring


----------



## fiftyeight (29 April 2018)

Tink said:


> Fifty eight, do you agree with David Leyonhjelm?
> 
> https://twitter.com/DavidLeyonhjelm?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author




On which topic? I think he has some good ideas and some bad ideas


----------



## Tisme (29 April 2018)

wayneL said:


> You'd have to just about kick the whole lot of them out,  Horace.
> 
> The truth is the party is irretrievable from the extreme left now.




Insane asylum run by the inmates?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 April 2018)

moXJO said:


> Scum is apt.
> I'm going with that.




I just think they are going in the wrong direction.

Almost everyone can agree with environmental conservation, but by pushing fringe issues like refugees, drug legalisation, "social equality" they are losing a lot of people who may otherwise be conservative but want to protect the environment as well.


----------



## moXJO (29 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I just think they are going in the wrong direction.
> 
> Almost everyone can agree with environmental conservation, but by pushing fringe issues like refugees, drug legalisation, "social equality" they are losing a lot of people who may otherwise be conservative but want to protect the environment as well.



The grassroots members are being sold identity politics  and class warfare, under the guise of environmental conservation.
The same bs Russia used, then locked up- or killed  those not with the program.

Its diseased thinking. Their attacks on Molan were telling.  They should be called out for being marxists zealots.


----------



## moXJO (29 April 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> On which topic? I think he has some good ideas and some bad ideas



I think he has some very good ideas. But the price of freedom brings along a lot of bad as well unfortunately.


----------



## Tisme (29 April 2018)

Primarily taxpayer purse sucking "professions"

Top ten


----------



## explod (30 April 2018)

universities
*"Australia should follow NZ and make three-year uni degrees free, Greens say"*

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...d-make-three-year-uni-degrees-free-greens-say


"Australia should follow New Zealand in making three-year university degrees free in response to increasing employer demand for bachelor-level qualifications and to help reduce inequality, the Greens say.

Following the New Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, pledged to introduce three years of free tertiary education by 2024 as part of her election campaign last year, the Greens’ education spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young commissioned modelling to measure the cost of introducing the policy here.

Compiled by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office, the modelling shows the policy would cost the budget $4.8bn across the forward estimates and $27bn over the next decade."

But nothing compared to the 50 billion to be wasted on what will be outdated submarines.


----------



## Tisme (30 April 2018)

explod said:


> But nothing compared to the 50 billion to be wasted on what will be outdated submarines.




The Collins Class came in for some stick, but I'm told by those who should know, they are extremely formidable with the latest and greatest tech.


----------



## Darc Knight (30 April 2018)

A retired General or something was saying they sunk some U.S. Subs or Ships in war games. He was singing their praises.


----------



## Tisme (30 April 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> A retired General or something was saying they sunk some U.S. Subs or Ships in war games. He was singing their praises.




I recall the Sheehan took out the then pride of the US sub fleet Olympia in war games when the experts were all saying the Collins class should be junked.

It has long range travel ability too.

more recently:


----------



## moXJO (30 April 2018)

explod said:


> universities
> *"Australia should follow NZ and make three-year uni degrees free, Greens say"*
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...d-make-three-year-uni-degrees-free-greens-say
> ...



She is going about education the wrong way, its outdated policy that belongs in the 50s. Those from better off families still benefit more. Also the hecs debt has it about right.

 Education needs a total revamp.  Not to mention that jobs will be drying up over the next 50 years.
In saying that,  its still better than nothing.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 May 2018)

You couldn't expect them to be "conservative" could you ?


*Super profits tax for miners and 'Buffett rule' on Greens' tax agenda *

*https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-miners-and-buffett-rule-on-greens-tax-agenda*


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2018)

Great news for the Greens, Lee Rhiannon is retiring.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-25/greens-senator-lee-rhiannon-to-resign-within-months/9799348


----------



## wayneL (25 May 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Great news for the Greens, Lee Rhiannon is retiring.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-25/greens-senator-lee-rhiannon-to-resign-within-months/9799348



Great news. 

Mind you it would be better if the rest of the lunatics in the party joined her... Di Natali,  Bandt,  SHY,  et al.


----------



## Tink (26 May 2018)

Who pays for this?

*Plans for female signals at pedestrian crossings slammed*

_LITTLE green men could be ripped out at pedestrian crossings as part of a gender quality campaign which has been met with fury._

_http://www.news.com.au/national/vic...d/news-story/362be22bdbd123d0d3b8842f82f97641

-----------

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/i-dislike-daniel-andrews-intensely.32824/page-7_


----------



## SirRumpole (26 May 2018)

Tink said:


> Who pays for this?
> 
> *Plans for female signals at pedestrian crossings slammed*
> 
> ...





I'm just speechless.

What a load of rubbish.


----------



## explod (26 May 2018)

A quote from that article of Madam Tink indicates a reasonable justification in my view and I'm a bloke.  In the bigger scheme a minor issue and Green Councils do not reflect overall Greens policy so should have its own thread perhaps.

"However, Brimbank Mayor Margaret Giudice told the _Herald Sun_ the change would “show women and girls that they are important and valued in our community”.

“We know that improving gender equity leads to very positive outcomes for organisations and for our community ... research shows societies with greater gender equity have lower rates of violence towards women and children,” she told the newspaper.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 May 2018)

explod said:


> "However, Brimbank Mayor Margaret Giudice told the _Herald Sun_ the change would “show women and girls that they are important and valued in our community”.




And men and boys aren't ?

If they really want to change a long standing tradition, maybe just make everything gender neutral so no one can complain.


----------



## explod (26 May 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> And men and boys aren't ?
> 
> If they really want to change a long standing tradition, maybe just make everything gender neutral so no one can complain.



Agree, in fact the current signs cold be both.  Most women wear trousers about these days.

Councils are in strife all over the place for irresponsible spending and bad decisions.  Greens cop it in press and media because they threaten the corporate controlled ALP and LNP.


----------



## TikoMike (26 May 2018)

Why not just have huge words saying "WALK" (in green) and "DON'T WALK" (in red)? Even if a person doesn't know English, the colour isn't that hard to tell whether to walk or not walk.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 May 2018)

TikoMike said:


> Why not just have huge words saying "WALK" (in green) and "DON'T WALK" (in red)? Even if a person doesn't know English, the colour isn't that hard to tell whether to walk or not walk.




Except you would have to accomodate non English speaking AND colour blind people.


----------



## Knobby22 (27 May 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Except you would have to accomodate non English speaking AND colour blind people.




We could have red as male and green as female representing the goodness of females and the enforce the negativity of males. [emoji19]


----------



## wayneL (27 May 2018)

explod said:


> Greens cop it in press and media because they threaten the corporate controlled ALP and LNP.



They also threaten our economy, liberty  and culture.


----------



## explod (5 June 2018)

From a post on my Facebook overnight, Micheale (from Bendigo Branch) consents to my share on this.  We are now very far from just tree huggers and our rise on a real fair go for all is detested by the major parties.


----------



## wayneL (5 June 2018)

explod said:


> From a post on my Facebook overnight, Micheale (from Bendigo Branch) consents to my share on this.  We are now very far from just tree huggers and our rise on a real fair go for all is detested by the major parties.



Oh it's clear you are no longer just tree huggers,  post modernist neo Marxists comes straight to mind as well.


----------



## basilio (5 June 2018)

wayneL said:


> Oh it's clear you are no longer just tree huggers, post modernist neo Marxists comes straight to mind as well.




My God you are a first xrse troll Wayne !  "Post modernist neo Marxists.."


----------



## wayneL (5 June 2018)

basilio said:


> My God you are a first xrse troll Wayne !  "Post modernist neo Marxists.."



I'm a troll for making a pretty accurate observation?


----------



## SirRumpole (5 June 2018)

The Greens will stay a minority Party unless they change their stand on refugees.

They have the moral high ground, but the practical effects of there policies will be to restart the boats and more deaths at sea.

Heads have to win over hearts on occasions.


----------



## Tink (29 June 2018)

The Greens yet again push to remove the Lord's Prayer from parliament.

_Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
thy will be done;
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
the power and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen._

imv, the Greens are anti life, anti family, anti children.


----------



## Tisme (29 June 2018)

Tink said:


> The Greens yet again push to remove the Lord's Prayer from parliament.
> 
> _Our Father, who art in heaven,
> hallowed be thy name;
> ...




This is the in vogue version :
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Lead us not into temptation
but deliver us from evil.

For the kingdom, the power,
and the glory are yours
now and for ever.
Amen.


----------



## Tink (29 June 2018)

The Lord's Prayer is connected to our country, our public holidays and our foundations.


----------



## fiftyeight (29 June 2018)

Tink said:


> The Greens yet again push to remove the Lord's Prayer from parliament.
> 
> _Our Father, who art in heaven,
> hallowed be thy name;
> ...




Of course it should be removed. It is an embarrassment that it is still included. 

The Green's are not removing anyone's personal religious freedom with this push. No one should be forced to listen to that dribble in their place of work.

imv the church sanction pedophiles


----------



## Humid (29 June 2018)

I like the holidays and penalties but that’s where religion ends with me!


----------



## Tink (29 June 2018)

_Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. _

Ronald Reagan


----------



## PZ99 (29 June 2018)

Religion was forced down my throat in primary school - social engineering at its best.

Broke my chains when the real world affected my way of thinking. I woke up.

Running it in parliament today seems rather self defeating amid calls of religious freedom IMO.

Independence is the go.


----------



## Tink (29 June 2018)

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson


----------



## PZ99 (29 June 2018)

Please consider donating to Prager_U_ at the cost of your fellow taxpayers... LOL


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2018)

Tink said:


> https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson





I like most of that, but the inference that China's economy has "failed" is a big call. It's created the world's largest middle class, albeit encumbered by authoritaism and fear.


----------



## explod (29 June 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> Of course it should be removed. It is an embarrassment that it is still included.
> 
> The Green's are not removing anyone's personal religious freedom with this push. No one should be forced to listen to that dribble in their place of work.
> 
> imv the church sanction pedophiles



In fact the Greens supported the people seeking to build a Mosque at Bendigo a few years back.

Very much against it were the right wing standovers, particularly the catholics.

The grounding of the bible is to ensure the people follow and not think.  Unfortunately social media is doing that today also.


----------



## explod (29 June 2018)

Tisme said:


> This is the in vogue version :
> Our Father in heaven,
> hallowed be your name,
> your kingdom come,
> ...



And so we should, God is a myth within the indoctrinated heads.  We should not be teaching and promoting lies.  It's about control and why the ancient village chiefs created witch doctors.  The people behaved in fear of the bad spirits.


----------



## fiftyeight (29 June 2018)

Tink said:


> _Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. _
> 
> Ronald Reagan




HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## wayneL (30 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I like most of that, but the inference that China's economy has "failed" is a big call. It's created the world's largest middle class, albeit encumbered by authoritaism and fear.



Under Mao it was failing there was mass starvation in China in those years.

China can no longer be considered a Marxist economy, it is their form of capitalism that is in fact created the huge increase in wealth and huge rise in the middle class


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2018)

wayneL said:


> China can no longer be considered a Marxist economy, it is their form of capitalism that is in fact created the huge increase in wealth and huge rise in the middle class




China's economy is underpinned by the Chinese Communist Party. While the leaders of these companies are *allowed *to get rich, a number of them have been executed for corruption, and ultimately the government owns these companies.


----------



## wayneL (30 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> China's economy is underpinned by the Chinese Communist Party. While the leaders of these companies are *allowed *to get rich, a number of them have been executed for corruption, and ultimately the government owns these companies.



 that is certainly true Horace, but there still can be no circumstance that China currently could be called a Marxist economy as it once was. 

More like a state capitalism


----------



## Darc Knight (30 June 2018)

I'm not usually a Greens supporter but the removal of the Lord's Prayer and the replacement of it with "_Senators, let us in silence pray or reflect upon our responsibilities to all people of Australia and to future generations”, _seems alright to me.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2018)

wayneL said:


> More like a state capitalism




Yes, that's an appropriate description.


----------



## cynic (30 June 2018)

explod said:


> And so we should, God is a myth within the indoctrinated heads.  We should not be teaching and promoting lies.  It's about control and why the ancient village chiefs created witch doctors.  The people behaved in fear of the bad spirits.



So, promotion of a heavenly state of earthly affairs, attendant with delivery from evil, and compassion for all humanity, holds no appeal for the Greens! (Why am I unsurprised at this news?!)

The fact that the Greens are putting such effort, into the trashing of one of the more benign, and virtuous, offerings from a long standing religious tradition, says one heck of a lot about the "values" underlying the tenets of the Green's religion.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2018)

cynic said:


> So, promotion of a heavenly state of earthly affairs, attendant with delivery from evil, and compassion for all humanity, holds no appeal for the Greens! (Why am I unsurprised at this news?!)
> 
> The fact that the Greens are putting such effort, into the trashing of one of the more benign, and virtuous, offerings from a long standing religious tradition, says one heck of a lot about the "values" underlying the tenets of the Green's religion.




If the Catholic church practised what they preached instead of abusing children and covering it up, then they may have more respect from the public.


----------



## fiftyeight (30 June 2018)

cynic said:


> So, promotion of a heavenly state of earthly affairs, attendant with delivery from evil, and *compassion for all humanity*, holds no appeal for the Greens! (Why am I unsurprised at this news?!)
> 
> The fact that the Greens are putting such effort, into the trashing of one of the more benign, and virtuous, offerings from a long standing religious tradition, says one heck of a lot about the "values" underlying the tenets of the Green's religion.




Nope, not what the Greens are saying at all. 

What is wrong with 



Darc Knight said:


> "_Senators, let us in silence pray or reflect upon our responsibilities to all people of Australia and to future generations”_




Again, no one is stopping you or anyone personally praying


----------



## TikoMike (30 June 2018)

The Greens are a bunch of disgusting deplorables.


----------



## cynic (30 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> If the Catholic church practised what they preached instead of abusing children and covering it up, then they may have more respect from the public.



What does Christ's prayer have to do with the sodomisation and raping of children?
What does Christ's prayer have to do with hypocrisy?

Now the Green's, on the other hand, seem to have a problem with a prayer promoting lofty values akin  to harmony, compassion, prosperity and temperance.

Whether or not one believes in the authorship, is irrelevant to the beneficent virtues it promotes.

The fact that the Greens have chosen to take issue with it, suggests to me that they hold to a conflicting set of values. (One only needs to note various agendas that have been actively promoted in recent times, in order to corroborate this opinion.)


----------



## cynic (30 June 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> Nope, not what the Greens are saying at all.
> 
> What is wrong with
> 
> "_Senators, let us in silence pray or reflect upon our responsibilities to all people of Australia and to future generations”_



Perhaps, if one were to take the time to think about what happens when a group of people regularly affirm, in vocal concert, their commitment to a beneficial set of values, one might realise just how little is being offered by the proposed substitution.


----------



## fiftyeight (30 June 2018)

cynic said:


> What does *your* Christ's prayer have to do with the sodomisation and raping of children?
> What does *your* Christ's prayer have to do with hypocrisy?




What does *your *savior have to do with politics?



> Now the Green's, on the other hand, seem to have a problem with a prayer promoting lofty values akin  to harmony, compassion, prosperity and temperance.




The Greens have no issue with lofty goals. That is completely misrepresenting the Green's position which I am sure you are aware of.



> Whether or not one believes in the authorship, is irrelevant to the beneficent virtues it promotes.




If it is irrelevant why argue against changing it?


----------



## fiftyeight (30 June 2018)

cynic said:


> Perhaps, if one were to take the time to think about what happens when a group of people regularly affirm, in vocal concert, their commitment to a beneficial set of values, one might realise just how little is being offered by the proposed substitution.




If one needs this kind of attempted brain washing to be moral they should not be in parliament.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2018)

cynic said:


> What does Christ's prayer have to do with the sodomisation and raping of children?
> What does Christ's prayer have to do with hypocrisy?




Most churchgoers think that they have to go to church to follow the teachings of Christ.


That's not true, but it's the myth that the churches like to spread.


----------



## cynic (30 June 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> What does *your *savior have to do with politics?



This is not about the author, it is about the values being promoted!


> The Greens have no issue with lofty goals. That is completely misrepresenting the Green's position which I am sure you are aware of.



On the contrary, I judge the Green's position based upon their "walk", not their "talk" (i.e. "actions speak louder than words")! On this basis, I consider my assessment to be well justified.


> If it is irrelevant why argue against changing it?



Who said it is irrelevant? I certainly didn't, and the Greens clearly don't!


----------



## cynic (30 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Most churchgoers think that they have to go to church to follow the teachings of Christ.
> 
> 
> That's not true, but it's the myth that the churches like to spread.



Yes, it is an unfortunate thing, that some do mistakenly confuse the qualities of the conveyance, for the qualities of that which is conveyed.


----------



## cynic (30 June 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> If one needs this kind of attempted brain washing to be moral they should not be in parliament.



Wouldn't that be wonderful?!! Moral politicians!!(Sadly,such a rare species!!!)

Why would anyone, valuing the importance of morality in parliament, support a political party that engages in the active promotion of postmodernist ideals?


----------



## explod (30 June 2018)

cynic said:


> So, promotion of a heavenly state of earthly affairs, attendant with delivery from evil, and compassion for all humanity, holds no appeal for the Greens! (Why am I unsurprised at this news?!)
> 
> The fact that the Greens are putting such effort, into the trashing of one of the more benign, and virtuous, offerings from a long standing religious tradition, says one heck of a lot about the "values" underlying the tenets of the Green's religion.



As usual you only read the bits that fit your nut.  The greens are not against religion and we vehemently support the freedom of all to believe or follow as they wish. 

You obviously did not read all of or understand my posts.


----------



## cynic (30 June 2018)

explod said:


> As usual you only read the bits that fit your nut.  The greens are not against religion and we vehemently support the freedom of all to believe or follow as they wish.



Of course!
How silly of me to overlook the blatantly liberal inclusivity of the equalitarian policies!!
Everyone has complete freedom to dress themselves in their favourite colour - provided it's the colour Green!


> You obviously did not read all of or understand my posts.



How much time did you spend, and care did you take, with your reading of my day's posts to this thread, before arriving at that conclusion?
And,
How is the levelling of such a bold accusation, helpful in progressing this discussion?


----------



## So_Cynical (1 July 2018)

I will vote green for the very first time at the next election based purely on their pot policy...


----------



## Tink (1 July 2018)

explod, we are all entitled to our views.

Have you forgotten Archbishop Julian Porteous?

For what reason do they want this prayer removed?


----------



## fiftyeight (1 July 2018)

Tink said:


> explod, we are all entitled to our views.
> 
> Have you forgotten Archbishop Julian Porteous?
> 
> For what reason do they want this prayer removed?




We are all entitled to our views. We are not entitled to force our views on others.

The lords prayer panders to one set of beliefs


----------



## Tink (1 July 2018)

_Lord's Prayer.

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
thy will be done;
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
but deliver us from evil.

Amen._

-------------

What view is that forcing on you?

As I have said, our country was built on our Christian heritage.


----------



## Darc Knight (1 July 2018)

I agree that Christian values were great for us as a Society but our Society is no longer based on Christianity. We are moving to a more pragmatic rather than religious based value system.
Secondly, our desire to acknowledge every liqourice allsort group means the Lord's Prayer discriminates against those liquorice allsorts groups.
We need to be more inclusive of liquorice allsorts.


----------



## cynic (1 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> I agree that Christian values were great for us as a Society but our Society is no longer based on Christianity. We are moving to a more pragmatic rather than religious based value system.
> Secondly, our desire to acknowledge every liqourice allsort group means the Lord's Prayer discriminates against those liquorice allsorts groups.
> We need to be more inclusive of liquorice allsorts.



You seem to be making a number of claims about Christianity and the Lord's prayer here. It might be helpful to see some substantiation of those claims.

Which particular, licorice allsorts groups, do you believe to have been discriminated against, by that prayer?

What leads you to believe that Christianity lacks pragmatism?


----------



## Darc Knight (1 July 2018)

cynic said:


> Which particular, licorice allsorts groups, do you believe to have been discriminated against, by that prayer?




Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Devil Worshippers etc. Probably some Feminists (Sarah Hanson Young) object to it, God having a Male persona and all.



cynic said:


> What leads you to believe that Christianity lacks pragmatism?




The Old Testament is based on some ancient ideals.


----------



## cynic (1 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Devil Worshippers etc. Probably some Feminists (Sarah Hanson Young) object to it, God having a Male persona and all.
> 
> 
> 
> The Old Testament is based on some ancient ideals.



The Lord's prayer isn't from the Old Testament. Efforts to twist Christianity, into something other than that which it actually is, are disengenuous.

With the possible exception of Devil Worshippers, how does that actual prayer exclude, or otherwise discriminate, against those groups you mention?


----------



## Darc Knight (1 July 2018)

cynic said:


> The Lord's prayer isn't from the Old Testament! Efforts to twist it into something other than that which it actually is, are disengenuous.
> 
> With the possible exception of Devil Worshippers, how does that actual prayer exclude, or otherwise discriminate, against those groups you mention?




I didn't say the Lord's Prayer is from the Old Testament. I said the Old Testament is based on some ancient ideals ie. Homosexuality etc. etc.

Do Hindu, Muslims, Buddhists, Devil Worshippers and Feminists use the Lord's Prayer - no. Maybe some should is a topic for another time.
Pretty sure some Senators are of different faiths other than Christianity.


----------



## Darc Knight (1 July 2018)

Isn't Sarah Hanson Young a devil worshipper? We need to be inclusive of all, so I'm told.


----------



## cynic (1 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> I didn't say the Lord's Prayer is from the Old Testament. I said the Old Testament is based on some ancient ideals ie. Homosexuality etc. etc.



The Old Testament was from before Christ's time. This discussion is centred around the Green's opposition to use of the Lord's prayer in parliament. Stop trying to twist it into something else!!


> Do Hindu, Muslims, Buddhists, Devil Worshippers and Feminists use the Lord's Prayer - no. Maybe some should is a topic for another time.
> Pretty sure some Senators are of different faiths other than Christianity.



Apart from the Satanist whose motto is "Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law!" , how are the values, advocated by the Lord's prayer, discriminatory, or otherwise problematic, for non Christians?


----------



## Darc Knight (1 July 2018)

cynic said:


> The Old Testament was from before Christ's time. This discussion is centred around the Green's opposition to use of the Lord's prayer in parliament. Stop trying to twist it into something else!!
> 
> Apart from the Satanist whose motto is "Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law!" , how are the values, advocated by the Lord's prayer, discriminatory, or otherwise problematic, for non Christians?




Because it's a Christian prayer. We need something which is neither Christian, Hindu, Muslim or any other religion otherwise it doesn't cater for all religions and all people.


----------



## fiftyeight (1 July 2018)

Tink said:


> _Lord's Prayer.
> 
> Our Father, who art in heaven,
> hallowed be thy name;
> ...




Just a couple of quick ones.

He is not my father. Heaven does not exist. I earn my own food. I am not asking for forgiveness. I do not need anyone/thing to stop me from doing bad. I will avoid evil myself.

Our country was built in spite of Christian heritage not because of it. Even if it was built on Christian heritage, so what? Christians have long sanctioned slavery, "with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 KJV) should we reinstate slavery? Just because it “might” have been that way in the past is NO reason for it to continue.


----------



## cynic (1 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Because it's a Christian prayer. We need something which is neither Christian, Hindu, Muslim or any other religion otherwise it doesn't cater for all religions and all people.



Is that it?!

That's the reasoning?!

The complaint is about the authorship , rather than the content, of the prayer itself?!!

If so, how is such behaviour justifiable, when content is vetoed based solely upon authorship considerations?

How could anyone, behaving in such a manner, continue with their feigned concern for equality and inclusiveness, whilst retaining any semblance of credibility?

Also, if you exclude every wise offering of every religious tradition, irrespective of its virtues (or absence thereof), what then remains for inclusion?(I would surmise that the true answer to this particular question, would be precious little, if anything at all!)


----------



## fiftyeight (1 July 2018)

cynic said:


> Is that it?!
> 
> Also, if you exclude every wise offering of every religious tradition




Prayer is 100% not a wise offering



> The complaint is about the authorship , rather than the content, of the prayer itself?!!




If authorship means so little why keep fighting to keep it even if there is a risk it excludes some and offends others?


----------



## cynic (1 July 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> Prayer is 100% not a wise offering



And your basis for asserting this opinion in such a manner is ... what exactly?


> If authorship means so little why keep fighting to keep it even if there is a risk it excludes some and offends others?



Because it's the content that matters!

I am still awaiting an explanation about how that content is problematic for those seeking to live in a prosperous, compassionate and well behaved, human society!


----------



## Darc Knight (1 July 2018)

cynic said:


> Is that it?!
> 
> That's the reasoning?!
> 
> ...




I'm not sure why the Greens do a lot things, except maybe coz there's some pretty good smoko available in Nimbin, but I assumed that to be the case due to their proposed phrase of "let us in silence pray or reflect upon our duty ....   ".

Anyways, I'm going to have to tap out of this little debate. You have a good evening.


----------



## Tisme (1 July 2018)

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...e/news-story/b2f80821b2ff27e97e89f90cf0c2f03e

Wow man that's good schit


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...e/news-story/b2f80821b2ff27e97e89f90cf0c2f03e
> 
> Wow man that's good schit




Yes, that's good Murdoch shite allright.


----------



## luutzu (1 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Most churchgoers think that they have to go to church to follow the teachings of Christ.
> 
> 
> That's not true, but it's the myth that the churches like to spread.




We should be thankful that they don't learn by the Church's examples. 

The Church seem to be taking advantage of people's generosity. From Churchgoers volunteering their time and money; to Catholic school teachers and parents having to fork out more time and money to help the kids. It's a bit screwed up.

I heard of a Catholic school principal having to turn up during school holidays to fix furniture, paint rails etc. because there's no budget for it. 

There are parents volunteering to help kids with reading so they can catch up. 

School fees haven't gone down though. The Church still get their cut as usual. What a racket.


----------



## Tink (1 July 2018)

I am thankful we have choice in this country, Luutzu.

You can go public or private, be it schools, hospitals etc.


----------



## luutzu (1 July 2018)

Tink said:


> I am thankful we have choice in this country, Luutzu.
> 
> You can go public or private, be it schools, hospitals etc.




Having variety is not necessarily a choice though. But that's another topic.

The way I see it, organised anything tend to bring out the worst in people at the top. Seems that once you're up there, everyone and everything is just a number, and if it's the financial number, it has to grow.

There are things that shouldn't be run for a profit, not financial profit anyway. Schools being one of them. But apparently it does with religious schools... I know Catholic ones so I'm using it as an example. Not saying it doesn't happen in other religious schools.

It's quite incredible the ways they force schools to increase the costs while cutting back on services that teachers or parents either have to step up or watch their students and kids fall behind.

Nice cathedrals though.


----------



## fiftyeight (1 July 2018)

cynic said:


> And your basis for asserting this opinion in such a manner is ... what exactly?




I meditate (poorly) most days, the thought of taking time to better understand myself to then give it up to someone/thing is dumb tbh



> Because it's the content that matters!
> 
> I am still awaiting an explanation about how that content is problematic for those seeking to live in a prosperous, compassionate and well behaved, human society!




Of course content matters??? No one is arguing that. But why does content have to be wrapped to suit you.

As stated previously I dislike the content, but even if it was acceptable I still see no need to wrap it up in your beliefs.

I am sure you will disagree with but I will say it anyway 

I am not forcing my views or my propaganda on anyone. I am advocating for a pause in proceedings in which ALL (including christians) can reflect as they wish. 

You are advocating for your personal view/prayer/propaganda to be heard by everyone. The onus is on you to tell why how this is better than the alternative.

PS

Just re-reading some posts, nothing I can quote but I get the feeling you are not christian?


----------



## fiftyeight (1 July 2018)

Tink said:


> I am thankful we have choice in this country, Luutzu




We finally agree on something!!!

BUT

Tax payer $$$ should not be used to prop up such organisations, be it through tax breaks or state/federal funding


----------



## Tink (1 July 2018)

TikoMike said:


> The Greens are a bunch of disgusting deplorables.



Do you agree with this?


----------



## Tink (1 July 2018)

That is taxpayer funded, fifty eight.


----------



## cynic (2 July 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> I meditate (poorly) most days, the thought of taking time to better understand myself to then give it up to someone/thing is dumb tbh



Bravo! Regular meditation is a most worthwhile and commendable practice (even when poorly performed).
Perhaps you are already aware, that some have achieved states of ecstasy/euphoria, consequent to their engagement in meditative practices.
Which is hardly surprising as the parallels between the goals of meditation and the goals of religious prayer, suggest that this may well be a common goal, namely manifesting heaven on earth!


> Of course content matters??? No one is arguing that. But why does content have to be wrapped to suit you.



I am arguing for the preservation of the valuable content, not its wrapping!


> As stated previously I dislike the content, but even if it was acceptable I still see no need to wrap it up in your beliefs.



If it was wrapped in my beliefs, the wording would be different, but the values would remain present.



> I am sure you will disagree with but I will say it anyway
> 
> I am not forcing my views or my propaganda on anyone. I am advocating for a pause in proceedings in which ALL (including christians) can reflect as they wish.
> 
> You are advocating for your personal view/prayer/propaganda to be heard by everyone. The onus is on you to tell why how this is better than the alternative.



On the contrary, the onus lies on those pushing for the proposed change to demonstrate their case! The Greens have done naught more than demonise the prayer, claiming that it is somehow discriminatory!
Before supporting the Greens efforts to 'fix' something, would it not first be appropriate for the Greens to demonstrate that it is actually broken, before considering their proposed remedy?


> PS
> 
> Just re-reading some posts, nothing I can quote but I get the feeling you are not christian?



That would depend upon one's definition of Christian.

I subscribe to the view that "there is no religion higher than truth",  and that none of mankind's contemporary endeavours, can rightly justify claims to monopolisation of truth. However, that fact, doesn't prevent zealous fanatics (secular and non secular) from attempting to assert otherwise.


----------



## cynic (2 July 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> We finally agree on something!!!
> 
> BUT
> 
> Tax payer $$$ should not be used to prop up such organisations, be it through tax breaks or state/federal funding



So religious schools, hospitals and welfare service providers, no longer merit financial recognition for their easing of the burden on publically funded institutions?!! 
How is that not discrimination?


----------



## fiftyeight (2 July 2018)

Tink said:


> Do you agree with this?




Onsite with patchy internet and cannot get the video to load but I did read the transcript this morning. Have you watched or read?

It mostly explains peoples rights, the law and where to find help if you feel under pressure. BUT if you still want to do it then it suggest cropping to minimise potential harm if you regret it later.

My wife is pregnant with our first child, that is 100% the kind of advise I will be giving.


----------



## fiftyeight (2 July 2018)

> Which is hardly surprising as the parallels between the goals of meditation and the goals of religious prayer, suggest that this may well be a common goal, namely manifesting heaven on earth!




With enough practice I hope to achieve ecstasy

I can only speak for myself, but my goals have nothing to do with a higher power. It is to bring myself back to the present, appreciate myself and my mind. I have not once tried to manifest heaven on earth nor do I intend to.



> On the contrary, the onus lies on those pushing for the proposed change to demonstrate their case! The Greens have done naught more than demonise the prayer, claiming that it is somehow discriminatory!
> Before supporting the Greens efforts to 'fix' something, would it not first be appropriate for the Greens to demonstrate that it is actually broken, before considering their proposed remedy?




How can it not be discriminatory? The first line is discriminatory.
"Our father, who art in heaven"

The prayer starts by professing a core religious belief that god is our heavenly father. He is not mine.

1st commandment, “I am the lord thy god, thou shalt not have any strange gods before me.”

1st line of the prayer and the 1st commandment exclude everyone but christians. I don't believe in a god so I am already farked. If you believe in another god you are farked. The content is now irrelevant as I am pondering what hell is like rather than any message for good it may contain.

If our goal here is for members of parliament to take a minute to reflect on the massive responsibility that they hold it has failed at the first line.

I seriously cannot get my head around why christians are so hell bent on others hearing this prayer. No one is wanting to stop you from reciting internally. No one is disagreeing it is a good idea for parliamentarians to take a moment to reflect or not if they choose. Just dont make us listen to something we may truely dislike hearing.

I dislike hearing it so at a minimum it is excluding one Australian.



> I subscribe to the view that "there is no religion higher than truth",  and that none of mankind's contemporary endeavours, can rightly justify claims to monopolisation of truth. However, that fact, doesn't prevent zealous fanatics (secular and non secular) from attempting to assert otherwise.




All (dangerous making sweeping comments I know) claim to have a monopolism truth. Science is merely seeking the truth.


----------



## fiftyeight (2 July 2018)

cynic said:


> So religious schools, hospitals and welfare service providers, no longer merit financial recognition for their easing of the burden on publically funded institutions?!!
> How is that not discrimination?




Another rabbit hole I should not have opened. Lets keep this one closed for another day. I have to get some work done today


----------



## Humid (2 July 2018)

Humid said:


> I like the holidays and penalties but that’s where religion ends with me!




Whoops forgot the chocolate eggs,presents and nitrate free leg ham!


----------



## Humid (2 July 2018)

So_Cynical said:


> I will vote green for the very first time at the next election based purely on their pot policy...




Prohibition isn’t working by the looks of it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-...-of-australias-illegal-cannabis-trade/9889304


----------



## cynic (2 July 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> With enough practice I hope to achieve ecstasy
> 
> I can only speak for myself, but my goals have nothing to do with a higher power. It is to bring myself back to the present, appreciate myself and my mind. I have not once tried to manifest heaven on earth nor do I intend to.



Would it be fair to say that the aims of meditation typically include the *exaltation* of human consciousness?
If so, how could repetition of such practice, fail to deliver an *elevated* level of awareness?


> How can it not be discriminatory? The first line is discriminatory.
> "Our father, who art in heaven"



Yes! I eagerly await an explanation of why this phrase is deemed discriminatorily offensive!


> The prayer starts by professing a core religious belief that god is our heavenly father. He is not mine.
> 
> 1st commandment, “I am the lord thy god, thou shalt not have any strange gods before me.”



Exactly how many times does the word "god" feature in the Lord's prayer?
The last time I checked, it didn't feature at all, not even once!


> 1st line of the prayer and the 1st commandment exclude everyone but christians. I don't believe in a god so I am already farked. If you believe in another god you are farked. The content is now irrelevant as I am pondering what hell is like rather than any message for good it may contain.



 The ten commandments debuted centuries before Christ was born.
Please also note that the words "god" and "hell", don't feature within the Lord's prayer. Furthermore, nothing about its content, suggests the insertion of exclusivity into a peace seeking populace. (Those seeking something other than peace, might perceive their chaotic intentions as being excluded.)

From my literal understanding of your postings, your discomfort seems to largely centre around references to "heaven", and a "heavenly" (or "heaven" dwelling) "father", alongside your interpretation of same. So I ask you, does your disbelief in the concept of humanity, as a divine manifestation, somehow preclude the pursuit of the beneficent values, subsequently advocated, within that prayer?
And why should any profession to belief, in the existence of an inherently magnificent aspect, to all mankind, be seen as cause for offense? Shouldn't that be seen as a compliment to humanity?


> If our goal here is for members of parliament to take a minute to reflect on the massive responsibility that they hold it has failed at the first line.



The goals are contained within the prayer, and, contrary to popular misconstruance, those goals do not exclude the interests of any person truly seeking to live in a harmonious and prosperous society.


> I seriously cannot get my head around why christians are so hell bent on others hearing this prayer. No one is wanting to stop you from reciting internally. No one is disagreeing it is a good idea for parliamentarians to take a moment to reflect or not if they choose. Just dont make us listen to something we may truely dislike hearing.



Did you fail to notice that a beneficent prayer, advocating for virtuous qualities, and much admired by many, many, (past and present) members of the human populace, has now been demonised in a very public manner?
And yet, you somehow claim, to be amongst those concerned about causing offence?!


> I dislike hearing it so at a minimum it is excluding one Australian.



So, it now appears that one has *chosen* to identify oneself as a potential victim of persecution, via naught more than, audible recital of another's prayer!!
How can hearing somebody praying beneficently, cause such angst?


> All (dangerous making sweeping comments I know) claim to have a monopolism truth.



I am a little unclear on what it is you are trying to say here, as I cannot claim to know all the things you know! Also there exists an ambiguity in your bracketed statement, rendering your intended meaning uncertain.


> Science is merely seeking the truth.



The same can be rightly said of many religions. The science religion does not hold a monopoly over truthseeking.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2018)

cynic said:


> Yes! I eagerly await an explanation of why this phrase is deemed discriminatorily offensive!




Atheists would think it offensive since they don't believe in Heaven, as I'm sure Christians would find "Our Flying Spaghetti Monster who art in Meatballs". 

Not that I'm an atheist myself, but you could argue about " thy will be done" in regards to a lot of terrible things he commanded in the OT.


----------



## fiftyeight (2 July 2018)

Apologies if this is more of a ramble than usual, I had to squeeze the reply in between meetings. 



> Would it be fair to say that the aims of meditation typically include the *exaltation* of human consciousness?
> If so, how could repetition of such practice, fail to deliver an *elevated* level of awareness?




I would not want to assume anything re the reasons why individuals meditate. It is an extremely personal thing.

Elevated SELF awareness why I meditate.




> Exactly how many times does the word "god" feature in the Lord's prayer?




I said he is not my father?




> The ten commandments debuted centuries before Christ was born.




Maybe this is the issue. To a lay person such as myself and large portion of the population, it is a Christian prayer and the first commandment implies to a lay person I am going to hell.



> The goals are contained within the prayer, and, contrary to popular misconstruance, those goals do not exclude the interests of any person truly seeking to live in a harmonious and prosperous society.




Still not sure what these lofty goals are and why they need to be wrapped in Christianity.



> Did you fail to notice that a beneficent prayer, advocating for virtuous qualities, and much admired by many, many, (past and present) members of the human populace, has now been demonised in a very public manner?




Nope not demonising, just don’t want to hear it.



> o, it now appears that one has *chosen* to identify oneself as a potential victim of persecution, via naught more than, audible recital of another's prayer!!
> How can hearing somebody praying beneficently, cause such angst?




Everyone else utilises being offend to make a point these days I thought I would get on the bandwagon.




> The same can be rightly said of many religions.




If religions were seeking the truth they would not be so opposed to change when new information is made available.


You either are much faster at forming well-constructed sentences (I do not write well at all unfortunately) and faster typer than I am or have a lot more time than myself.


You are clearly much more educated on religion than myself and a smart dude/dudette, maybe this hinders your ability to see it from a lay persons point of view. I do find it disappointing that you cannot see how people like myself would prefer an alternative to the lords prayer but alas I will also have to bow out of this conversation


----------



## fiftyeight (2 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Atheists would think it offensive since they don't believe in Heaven, as I'm sure Christians would find "Our Flying Spaghetti Monster who art in Meatballs".
> 
> Not that I'm an atheist myself, but you could argue about " thy will be done" in regards to a lot of terrible things he commanded in the OT.




Much better response than mine!!!


----------



## bellenuit (2 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Not that I'm an atheist myself, but you could argue about " thy will be done" in regards to a lot of terrible things he commanded in the OT.




Not to forget the fact that the purpose of parliament is to do the will of the people, not that of a particular deity who didn't partake in the elections.


----------



## cynic (2 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Atheists would think it offensive since they don't believe in Heaven, as I'm sure Christians would find "Our Flying Spaghetti Monster who art in Meatballs".



I fail to understand why any Christian should have a problem respecting the right of others to engage in the practice of Pastafarianism!


> Not that I'm an atheist myself, but you could argue about " thy will be done" in regards to a lot of terrible things he commanded in the OT.



And you could rightly counter argue, that those "terrible things" are not only incompatible with the context of the prayer, they are also incompatible with Christ's teachings, and therefore, cannot be reasonably presumed to be present.


----------



## cynic (2 July 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Not to forget the fact that the purpose of parliament is to do the will of the people, not that of a particular deity who didn't partake in the elections.



Are the wishes of that particular prayer ,out of accord with the wishes of the people?
If so, how so?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2018)

cynic said:


> And you could rightly counter argue, that those "terrible things" are not only incompatible with the context of the prayer, they are also incompatible with Christ's teachings, and therefore, cannot be reasonably presumed to be present.




A bit of selective editing there I think.

It seems to me that if you want people to follow the word of Christ then you should not be endorsing things that go against those words.

The question is, is "Our Father" God or Jesus ? If it's God then we should not be endorsing his evils by repeating a prayer dedicated to him.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2018)

Libertariansm vs PC ?

Personally I think Lleyonhjelm crossed the line and should apologise.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-...fuses-to-apologise-sarah-hanson-young/9931386


----------



## cynic (2 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> ...The question is, is "Our Father" God or Jesus ? If it's God then we should not be endorsing his evils by repeating a prayer dedicated to him.



How is recital of that prayer, capable of endorsing "evils"?
Who are/were the perpetrators of these "evils", men or god/s? 
And how are those "evils" compatible with the values extolled by that prayer?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2018)

cynic said:


> How is recital of that prayer, capable of endorsing "evils"?




So define God's will as you understand it.


----------



## cynic (2 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So define God's will as you understand it.



Truth in all things, and all things in Truth.


----------



## wayneL (2 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Libertariansm vs PC ?
> 
> Personally I think Lleyonhjelm crossed the line and should apologise.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-...fuses-to-apologise-sarah-hanson-young/9931386



 Absolutely not. The line in the sand was completely erased by the suggestion that all males are rapists. It is Sarah Hanson Young and the Greens who should be apologizing to men.


----------



## bellenuit (2 July 2018)

cynic said:


> Are the wishes of that particular prayer ,out of accord with the wishes of the people?
> If so, how so?




Because it requests the will of that particular deity be satisfied. What is your deity's will regarding Gay Marriage for a start? Some of his supporters here are adamant that he is opposed to it. Also, his will is that we are to obey the God of the OT only. That is also out of accord with the wishes of the people. Does one need to go on?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2018)

cynic said:


> Truth in all things, and all things in Truth.




Much of the Bible is historically inaccurate or cannot be confirmed.

The Great Flood, the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, the walls of Jericho being blown down, even Jesus walking on water cannot be proven, so you want people to obey myths ?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2018)

wayneL said:


> The line in the sand was completely erased by the suggestion that all males are rapists.




What words did she use to say that ?


----------



## cynic (2 July 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Because it requests the will of that particular deity be satisfied.



It seeks alignment with creation's purpose. How is that a problem?!! 


> What is your deity's will regarding Gay Marriage for a start? Some of his supporters here are adamant that he is opposed to it.



 Why are you asking me?!! My deity happens to be female! 


> Also, his will is that we are to obey the God of the OT only. That is also out of accord with the wishes of the people. Does one need to go on?



Whoa!! Where in the Lord's prayer, did you get that idea, and what do you mean "God of the OTonly"?
(You wouldn't perchance be talking of a jealous, vengeful, deity that favours one race of humanity, above all others, would you?!)


----------



## cynic (2 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Much of the Bible is historically inaccurate or cannot be confirmed.
> 
> The Great Flood, the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, the walls of Jericho being blown down, even Jesus walking on water cannot be proven, so you want people to obey myths ?



I do not understand, how such observations, and/or opinions, about historical acurracy (or lack thereof), are relevant to my response:


cynic said:


> Truth in all things, and all things in Truth.



How does such a statement, constitute wanting "people to obey myths"?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2018)

cynic said:


> I do not understand, how such observations, and/or opinions, about historical acurracy (or lack thereof), are relevant to my response:
> 
> How does such a statement, constitute wanting "people to obey myths"?




Well if you don't understand a simple concept of truth vs myth then there is really no point going on.


----------



## explod (2 July 2018)

wayneL said:


> Absolutely not. The line in the sand was completely erased by the suggestion that all males are rapists. It is Sarah Hanson Young and the Greens who should be apologizing to men.



The following would indicate that Sarah Hanson Young did not state "that all men are rapists", this was the description/interpretation of Senator Leyonhjelm, biased at best imhv.

"The senator argues he was responding to Senator Hanson-Young, who was shouting comments across the chamber during last week's debate.

"She has said words to the effect that all men are rapists and that would seem to me to be a double standard when she is obviously a normal woman who likes men," he told the ABC.

"She's perfectly entitled to like men, but to also at the same time hold the view that they are collectively responsible for violence and sexual assault cases would seem to me to be a double standard."

Senator Hanson-Young denies she made those comments.

"I did not say those words, I did not infer them and I do not believe them. To suggest so is simply a lie," she said."

I think you are trying to ride over two many grasshoppers ole Pal.


----------



## bellenuit (2 July 2018)

cynic said:


> It seeks alignment with creation's purpose. How is that a problem?!




That is not what you asked. You asked "_Are the wishes of that particular prayer ,out of accord with the wishes of the people? If so, how so?_". 



> Whoa!! Where in the Lord's prayer, did you get that idea, and what do you mean "God of the OT only"?
> (You wouldn't perchance be talking of a jealous, vengeful, deity that favours one race of humanity, above all others, would you?!)




The first of the 10 commandments. Are you suggesting that the Father in the Lord's Prayer is different to the God who made the 10 commandments and his will does not want us to obey said commandments? And if you are saying that it really is a different God completely, then obviously you are out of tune with those who want to keep the Lord's Prayer who see the Father in the prayer as also being the God who set the 10 commandments.

If we are talking about your own personal God with unspecified expectations, then I shall stop wasting time arguing with you.


----------



## PZ99 (2 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Libertariansm vs PC ?
> 
> Personally I think Lleyonhjelm crossed the line and should apologise.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-...fuses-to-apologise-sarah-hanson-young/9931386



When David Leyonhjelm told Sarah Hanson-Young to "stop shagging men" her best response should've been "stop shagging men yourself".

That would've been the end of it


----------



## moXJO (2 July 2018)

PZ99 said:


> When David Leyonhjelm told Sarah Hanson-Young to "stop shagging men" her best response should've been "stop shagging men yourself".
> 
> That would've been the end of it



Its a sht fight now. Here come the lawyers. Interesting comment from corey



There must be video evidence.


----------



## cynic (2 July 2018)

bellenuit said:


> That is not what you asked. You asked "_Are the wishes of that particular prayer ,out of accord with the wishes of the people? If so, how so?_".



Quite true! And your response seemed to be an immediate conflation of, references to a heavenly parental figure, with a vindictive, jealous, racist deity. So another question was aked in the hope of alerting readers to the existence of an interpretation that is both benign, and reasonable.


> The first of the 10 commandments. Are you suggesting that the Father in the Lord's Prayer is different to the God who made the 10 commandments and his will does not want us to obey said commandments? And if you are saying that it really is a different God completely, then obviously you are out of tune with those who want to keep the Lord's Prayer who see the Father in the prayer as also being the God who set the 10 commandments.



 I am confident that you will recall, the author of that prayer, being presented with a similar challenge. He responded, by providing a revised set of commandments. Let me know if you need any help looking them up!
Now, bearing the aforesaid in mind, how does the actual content of the prayer truly seem? Does it sound at all like someone promoting the worship of a racist, jealous and vindictive, deity? Or does it sound more akin to someone advocating for the betterment of all mankind?!!







> If we are talking about your own personal God with unspecified expectations, then I shall stop wasting time arguing with you.



Entertaining concepts of god, specifically filtered for the primary purpose, of contesting the merits of theism, does seem a bit.....

So if that is the truth of one's intent, then discontinuance is a commendable choice.


----------



## cynic (2 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Well if you don't understand a simple concept of truth vs myth



Was this intended as an insult?
If so, then you are correct when saying:


> then there is really no point going on.


----------



## explod (3 July 2018)

cynic said:


> Was this intended as an insult?
> If so, then you are correct when saying:



Pretty sure no insult by SirR intended.

Only trying to get into a skull that what we can see, feel, smell and hear is real and exists.  What is imagined or believed that cannot be seen, felt, heard or smelt is myth unless the physical evidence can be put before us.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2018)

cynic said:


> Was this intended as an insult?




No, you say your religion is Truth, but I really can't see much truth in the Lord's Prayer.


----------



## DB008 (3 July 2018)

It's gone viral...


*David Leyonhjelm 'slut shaming me' with 'stop shagging men' remark, Sarah Hanson-Young says*​
Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young says Senator David Leyonhjelm was "slut shaming me" when he told her to "stop shagging men"during a parliamentary debate about violence against women.

Senator Leyonhjelm could face a parliamentary censure for derogatory remarks made about Senator Hanson-Young.

He has refused to apologise to her, telling 7.30: "I'm also entitled to call out double standards."

"You don't, because you're losing a political argument, reduce the discussion or the debate down to sexist slurs and sexual innuendo, and that's what David Leyonhjelm has done," Senator Hanson-Young told RN Breakfast this morning.

"That's why I confronted him in the chamber on the day that it first occurred.

"I decided at that moment I'd had enough of men in that place using sexism and sexist slurs, sexual innuendo as part of their intimidation and bullying on the floor of the Parliament."

Senator Hanson-Young said she had a responsibility to call out Senator Leyonhjelm's behaviour.

"David Leyonhjelm is suggesting, because he can't win an argument, he wants to bully, that I am sexually promiscuous," she said.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-...anson-young-slut-shaming-shagging-men/9934114​


----------



## sptrawler (3 July 2018)

Yes DB008, it has all the hallmarks of another Gillard moment, the newspapers will run with it.


----------



## moXJO (3 July 2018)

Just so we are clear on who the headcase is.


----------



## cynic (3 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> No, you say your religion is Truth, but I really can't see much truth in the Lord's Prayer.



Thanks for clarifying your position.

Not much truth to be seen, you say?!!

Consider a recent spat in which accusations and counter accusations are being levelled. Now consider how different that situation could be, if just one, of the participants, were to allow certain virtues to inform,  his or her, actions. (And if both had been operating, from the outset, in accordance with such truth, the dispute would never have eventuated.)

The valuable time and energy, freed up, could then be spent, in attention to their "responsibilities to all people of Australia and to future generations".

To my understanding, recognition of the validity of the aforementioned observations, and/or opinion, does not require subscription to belief in anything beyond the scope of applied logic.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2018)

cynic said:


> Consider a recent spat in which accusations and counter accusations are being levelled. Now consider how different that situation could be, if just one, of the participants, were to allow certain virtues to inform, his or her, actions. And even better, if both had been operating, from the outset, in accordance with such truth, the dispute would never have eventuated.




Application of the Golden Rule would achieve the same thing, but little is mentioned of this in the Lord's Prayer. It's mostly about God's power and is recited merely by tradition, whereas other meditations could bear more on the practicalities of life.


----------



## cynic (3 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Application of the Golden Rule would achieve the same thing, but little is mentioned of this in the Lord's Prayer. It's mostly about God's power and is recited merely by tradition, whereas other meditations could bear more on the practicalities of life.



"forgive us ...as we forgive" (Golden Rule?!!)
"this day, our daily bread" (practicalities of life?!!)


----------



## wayneL (3 July 2018)




----------



## sptrawler (3 July 2018)

Jeez WayneL how dare you post something like that, you aren't following the script, you're obviously one of those who can't help but prove women wrong.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 July 2018)

Tink said:


> Ronald Reagan



Given how many of the Western world's present issues stem from what happened during the Reagan and Thatcher era I won't take anything said by either too seriously.


----------



## wayneL (3 July 2018)

What issues would they be Smurf?


----------



## TikoMike (3 July 2018)

Here's the unedited version of wayneL's post. Yep she says *ALL* men have control issues and should stop acting like "morons" and "pigs" as a result of Eurydice Dixon's death. The left really annoy me with how they always play the victim card after they are caught out in the wrong.


----------



## fiftyeight (3 July 2018)

wayneL said:


> What issues would they be Smurf?




"We're taking down the surrender flag that has flown over so many drug efforts; we're running up a battle flag."

Hows that war on drugs going?


----------



## Darc Knight (3 July 2018)

She says "men have control issues". She doesn't understand or make the distinction that the Rapists and Murderers are not "all Men" but rather deranged socio/psychopaths.
Everyone, Male or Female can still have eerie feelings walking home at night. I grew up in a roughish neighbourhood, but Women were probably safer walking home due to being a protected species.


----------



## Logique (3 July 2018)

moXJO said:


> Just so we are clear on who the headcase is.



[_SHY] viciously attacks him as a "*middle aged white man*". According to Marxist PC rules that is ageist, sexist & racist...The Redbaiter._

If that is indeed what SHY said, then how is that alright?  SHY may garner a few PC brownie points out of all this, but she will lose a lot of political credibility.


----------



## sptrawler (3 July 2018)

Logique said:


> [_SHY] viciously attacks him as a "*middle aged white man*". According to Marxist PC rules that is ageist, sexist & racist...The Redbaiter._
> 
> If that is indeed what SHY said, then how is that alright?  SHY may garner a few PC brownie points out of all this, but she will lose a lot of political credibility.




Just another Gillard grandstand moment, how the media present this with an obvious bias, is just another step down the social engineering path. IMO


----------



## cynic (3 July 2018)

TikoMike said:


> Here's the unedited version of wayneL's post. Yep she says *ALL* men have control issues and should stop acting like "morons" and "pigs" as a result of Eurydice Dixon's death. The left really annoy me with how they always play the victim card after they are caught out in the wrong.




Thanks for providing a fuller version, Tiko.

In relation to a number of her comments, there seems to be some ambiguity in her use of the word "men", making it unclear as to whether her comment extended to all men, or only to those that misbehave.

Some other comments, particularly those pertaining to the rearing of boys, are indicative of a strong prejudice against masculinity, and I find it disturbing that she isn't being called out for her sexist behaviour.


----------



## TikoMike (3 July 2018)

cynic said:


> Thanks for providing a fuller version, Tiko.
> 
> In relation to a number of her comments, there seems to be some ambiguity in her use of the word "men", making it unclear as to whether her comment extended to all men, or only to those that misbehave.
> 
> Some other comments, particularly those pertaining to the rearing of boys, are indicative of a strong prejudice against masculinity, and I find it disturbing that she isn't being called out for her sexist behaviour.



If it was just to men that misbehave then she wouldn't be telling us to train our male children better in the same video.

She also isn't being called out for her sexist behavior for the same reason Clementine Ford still has a job at Fairfax. Funny how it works that way, we can criticise males based on their gender but as soon as we do it to a female, even sometimes when the criticism isn't gender specific, the media goes crazy. I think there is a word for that: Gynocentrism.


----------



## explod (3 July 2018)

TikoMike said:


> If it was just to men that misbehave then she wouldn't be telling us to train our male children better in the same video.
> 
> She also isn't being called out for her sexist behavior for the same reason Clementine Ford still has a job at Fairfax. Funny how it works that way, we can criticise males based on their gender but as soon as we do it to a female, even sometimes when the criticism isn't gender specific, the media goes crazy. I think there is a word for that: Gynocentrism.



What "sexist behavior" on her part?


----------



## TikoMike (3 July 2018)

explod said:


> What "sexist behavior" on her part?



Have you been paying attention? Read the last two posts


----------



## sptrawler (3 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> She says "men have control issues". She doesn't understand or make the distinction that the Rapists and Murderers are not "all Men" but rather deranged socio/psychopaths.
> Everyone, Male or Female can still have eerie feelings walking home at night. I grew up in a roughish neighbourhood, but Women were probably safer walking home due to being a protected species.




Talking about violent crimes, here's one in today's paper.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-03/woman-arrested-on-suspicion-of-murdering-eight-babies/9936702


----------



## explod (3 July 2018)

In the interview she states that "its time for men to behave normally..." etc.   Her statements are general and at no time does she say "all men" for example.

A lot of word twisting from the right to cover the wrong IMHO


----------



## explod (3 July 2018)

TikoMike said:


> Have you been paying attention? Read the last two posts



Of course I've read it and listened to it all, I ask again, and specifically what was or is her sexist behaviour?

tell me


----------



## TikoMike (3 July 2018)

explod said:


> Of course I've read it and listened to it all, I ask again, and specifically what was or is her sexist behaviour?
> 
> tell me



Well if you can't see the generalisation of her comments about men then I can't help you. You're an adult, and I shouldn't have to spell it out to you like you're a child. Read cynic's and my post again and then try again.


----------



## explod (3 July 2018)

The drivel are quotes from others, and their interpretations at that.  Having had a lot of professional experience in law and interpretation I can assure you that I do understand.

You have not answered my question, WHAT is her so described sexist behaviour ?

What she states has nothing to do with her sexist behaviour bt does describe her view of men.  So have a re look at my question


----------



## TikoMike (3 July 2018)

explod said:


> The drivel are quotes from others, and their interpretations at that.  Having had a lot of professional experience in law and interpretation I can assure you that I do understand.
> 
> You have not answered my question, WHAT is her so described sexist behaviour ?
> 
> What she states has nothing to do with her sexist behaviour bt does describe her view of men.  So have a re look at my question



I don't give a **** about your "law" background. You're asking me to repeat myself and spell it out to you like you're a child. Grow up and argue the point or **** off. ******* annoying I swear


----------



## cynic (3 July 2018)

explod said:


> The drivel are quotes from others, and their interpretations at that.  Having had a lot of professional experience in law and interpretation I can assure you that I do understand.
> 
> You have not answered my question, WHAT is her so described sexist behaviour ?
> 
> What she states has nothing to do with her sexist behaviour bt does describe her view of men.  So have a re look at my question



I presume you watched that video, Tiko linked.
A number of her expressed views come across as being very sexist, however, an ambiguity in her usage of the term "men", leaves an opening for a less malign interpretation.
Having said that, it is nigh on impossible, to overlook the blatantly sexist attitude conveyed by "...as parents we need to teach our sons and our boys in our families to respect girls and women."


----------



## moXJO (3 July 2018)

explod said:


> What "sexist behavior" on her part?



Her middle aged white men rant was bigoted imo.
I went through racial discrimination and to see a white woman, that has never felt the barbs of racism throwing out this kind of language is disgusting.

I don't want to see it used on anyone. Its not friken payback time ever. Its not attacking an ideology its targeting specific male whites as if their opinions shouldn't matter.

She used it before in relation to her taxpayer funded whale watching trip:



> Senator Hanson-Young on Tuesday hit out at criticism of her for taking her daughter on a work whale-watching trip, saying she wasn’t going to be lectured by old “white men.”


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2018)

TikoMike said:


> If it was just to men that misbehave then she wouldn't be telling us to train our male children better in the same video.




There is a shortage of male teachers in the education system now apparently, which means that it's women doing most of the teaching.

Not doing a great job are they ?

https://theconversation.com/male-teachers-are-an-endangered-species-in-australia-new-research-83464

So it looks like women will have to admit that male role models are necessary for bringing up boys and they can't do it by themselves.


----------



## sptrawler (3 July 2018)

cynic said:


> Having said that, it is nigh on impossible, to overlook the blatantly sexist attitude conveyed by "...as parents we need to teach our sons and our boys in our families to respect girls and women."




Yes the good old days, when you were taught to respect your elders, respect your superiors, respect the police, respect your teacher, respect women, don't swear in front of women. There are many more social etiquettes, we have lost in the pusuit of a more equitable society.

The new social norm seems to have lost a lot of those old phrases, now it seems respect has to be earned, according to the younger generation it isn't bestowed.

These days, the young have just as much right as the elderly to a seat, they are just as important, so the elderly and everyone else can get stuffed.
Women are equal, so in today's world, they get spoken to the same as a couple of blokes in a workshop, speak to each other.
It amazes me, the way young people swear in mixed company, these days.
But maybe this is the result of the social changes, we are forcing on society, it is difficult to micro manage etiquette.
Sarah is right, it starts with teaching our kids show respect, but the left stopped that 20years ago.

Another weird thing is, how can politicians ask people to show respect, when acting as they do in Parliament. Weird double standard IMO


----------



## sptrawler (3 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> There is a shortage of male teachers in the education system now apparently, which means that it's women doing most of the teaching.




Would you go into teaching?


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 July 2018)

wayneL said:


> What issues would they be Smurf?



The increased divide between rich and poor, the “user pays” society and the loss or hollowing out of everything from technical standards to entire industries in countries such as Australia all have their roots in the “economic rationalism” championed by Reagan and Thatcher so far as I can determine. Likewise general selfishness and a “me first” attitude.

I’m no socialist but something’s wrong when simply being in charge of a company owned by others brings celebrity-like status and earnings meanwhile there supposedly isn’t enough money to pay ordinary workers a cent more.

I’m also none too keen on the hollowing out of technical things amidst all this which seems to have reduced the inherent resilience, robustness and safety of everything from electricty to theme parks. We can’t even measure the railway tunnels and build (or buy from someone overseas) trains which fit through them it would seem.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 July 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Would you go into teaching?




No, would you ?

But I had some very good male teachers when I went to school 50 years ago.

I wonder what happened since then ?


----------



## fiftyeight (4 July 2018)

It is pretty clear which side of politics. The current rhetoric by some on the left around feminism and demonising men has been less than ideal and not something I support. Using a tail event such a murder or rape to call out poor behaviour in the workplace or wolf whistling for example seem minimises both arguments.


On the flip side, I wonder if this is how muslims in Australia feel when the media use a tail event such as terrorism to judge all muslims?


----------



## Darc Knight (4 July 2018)

Sexist is defined as relating to or characterized by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination. S.H.Y. is certainly stereotyping all Men by her non specific language in saying "men have control issues". All Feminists show prejudice as they are pro Women. I would also say I feel discriminated against by these Feminists - try being around a number of them. They are like Hyenas.
So yes, S.H.Y. is sexist imo.


----------



## Humid (4 July 2018)

“The worst mistake you can make about Sky News and *David Leyonhjelm’s*smear of *Sarah Hanson-Young* is to think it was some sort of inadvertent ‘line crossing’, that a boundary had been overstepped in a robust exchange of ideas. Both Leyonhjelm and Sky News are in the same business, of selling the status of victimhood to aggrieved elites, and dressing it up as ideology to disguise the naked self-interest that motivates it.”

Bernard Keane


----------



## explod (4 July 2018)

In thinking of the word "men",

"Man", "men", "some men", "most men" or "all men".   Hanson-Young stated "men" but of course the extremists have stretched it to the endth tidbit.


----------



## Darc Knight (4 July 2018)

explod said:


> In thinking of the word "men",
> 
> "Man", "men", "some men", "most men" or "all men".   Hanson-Young stated "men" but of course the extremists have stretch it to the endth tidbit.




Still stereotyping. Her desire to throw an insult at Men in general shows a bias, a prejudice and a sexist attitude.


----------



## Darc Knight (4 July 2018)

I'm no Rapist or Murderer. Neither are 99.9 percent of the Male population.


----------



## explod (4 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Still stereotyping. Her desire to throw an insult at Men in general shows a bias, a prejudice and a sexist attitude.



Maybe, but in the past having worked over the years as a junior and later a senior officer on establishments with up to 100 personnel working close together in stressful conditions the typical behavior (and common discussion) of many more senior male members was disgusting.

A very high percentage of female members back then departed after suffering breakdowns from innuendo and harrasement.   I can well imagine the instinctive cultural male authoritarianism around the halls of parliament.  

I take my hat off to Sarah for trying to level the playing field.  And I'm a bloke.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 July 2018)

explod said:


> Maybe, but in the past having worked over the years as a junior and later a senior officer on establishments with up to 100 personnel working close together in stressful conditions the typical behavior (and common discussion) of many more senior male members was disgusting.
> 
> A very high percentage of female members back then departed after suffering breakdowns from innuendo and harrasement.   I can well imagine the instinctive cultural male authoritarianism around the halls of parliament.
> 
> I take my hat off to Sarah for trying to level the playing field.  And I'm a bloke.




Yep, we can't blame it all on the feminists.

Police, army and other male dominated workplaces have been sexists for a long time. Time they learned a few manners.


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2018)

Well the saga rolls on.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-04/david-leyonhjelm-defends-comments-sarah-hanson-young/9938138

He has got a point, when he says anyone can say what they like, as long as it is directed at a man.
The same goes for lots of sections of our society, there are areas where it is taboo to say anything derogatory, yet their counterpart is free game.


----------



## Tisme (4 July 2018)

wayneL said:


>





I guess you haven't seen the vid of Virginia Trioli wiping the floor with David L? I'm still looking for it myself, but only get the one where she failed to bully him into saying what she wanted him to say.


----------



## Tisme (4 July 2018)

TikoMike said:


> Here's the unedited version of wayneL's post. Yep she says *ALL* men have control issues and should stop acting like "morons" and "pigs" as a result of Eurydice Dixon's death. The left really annoy me with how they always play the victim card after they are caught out in the wrong.





So men are sexist, but women aren't when they talk about men, even going so far to insult individual men by lumping them into a tribal pot.


----------



## Tisme (4 July 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Talking about violent crimes, here's one in today's paper.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-03/woman-arrested-on-suspicion-of-murdering-eight-babies/9936702




They'll find a male line manager to blame


----------



## Tisme (4 July 2018)




----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2018)

You must had had a seniors moment, Tisme. LOL


----------



## wayneL (4 July 2018)

explod said:


> Maybe, but in the past having worked over the years as a junior and later a senior officer on establishments with up to 100 personnel working close together in stressful conditions the typical behavior (and common discussion) of many more senior male members was disgusting.
> 
> A very high percentage of female members back then departed after suffering breakdowns from innuendo and harrasement.   I can well imagine the instinctive cultural male authoritarianism around the halls of parliament.
> 
> I take my hat off to Sarah for trying to level the playing field.  And I'm a bloke.



The thing that the political left fail to mention is the sexual objectification of men by women.  Women I know claim women are worse than men,  only less obvious.

....and that is without the overt sexual display...  makeup and thrusting breasts.

I am not advocating for women to cover up,  but an awareness of the sometimes mixed messages and duplicitous debate.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 July 2018)

wayneL said:


> I am not advocating for women to cover up, but an awareness of the sometimes mixed messages and duplicitous debate.




Absolutely. Some women like sexualising themselves at every opportunity. Low cut and short dresses, short shorts etc. They like to appeal to men's lust but then raise a stink if the lust goes a bit far.

The media like it too and so it gets spread.


----------



## explod (4 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Absolutely. Some women like sexualising themselves at every opportunity. Low cut and short dresses, short shorts etc. They like to appeal to men's lust but then raise a stink if the lust goes a bit far.
> 
> The media like it too and so it gets spread.



And the huge money making fashion industry.  Women have become an object to please men and appear to be for the taking. 

And in all this we are breaching evolutionary instinct, women were happy controlling the cave whilst the men loved the hunt.  Somehow, like halting the birthrate we need to address these imbalances within our psychie.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 July 2018)

One example of gratuitous sexualisation.

https://www.news-mail.com.au/news/bundys-own-dr-who-cyberman-brushes-shoulders-with-/3448916/


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2018)

explod said:


> And the huge money making fashion industry.  Women have become an object to please men and appear to be for the taking.




You make it sound as though,men are dressing them up, putting them on the street and then hunting them down.
Women have become an object to please men? what in olden days they didn't please men?




explod said:


> And in all this we are breaching evolutionary instinct, women were happy controlling the cave whilst the men loved the hunt.  Somehow, like halting the birthrate we need to address these imbalances within our psychie.




I agree, but at the moment, it appears the door only swings one way.
We now want women to control the cave(home) and go out hunting(affirmative action in job placement).

There is one thing for sure, the social engineering going on at the moment, is causing more problems than it is fixing. IMO


----------



## explod (4 July 2018)

Sptrawler
"Women have become an object to please men? what in olden days they didn't please men?"

Yeh, more driven by the fashion industry I suppose.

And men please women also.


----------



## Tisme (4 July 2018)

sptrawler said:


> You must had had a seniors moment, Tisme. LOL



 I guess so


----------



## SirRumpole (4 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> I guess so




Or was it written in invisible ink ?


----------



## PZ99 (4 July 2018)

Was it this? Farcebook linky thingy


----------



## Tisme (4 July 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Was it this? Farcebook linky thingy




yep that's the one


----------



## TikoMike (4 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> So men are sexist, but women aren't when they talk about men, even going so far to insult individual men by lumping them into a tribal pot.



When were women being "sexist"?

tell me


----------



## Tisme (5 July 2018)

TikoMike said:


> When were women being "sexist"?
> 
> tell me




As soon as they wear and talk the stereotypical mantrap lures in their teens. 

Woman can't help themselves because nature outwits nurture for most when it comes to the procreation stages. That's why they have the same gender identity hairdo's, wear the same gender identity clothes, talk the same gender identity talk, etc. ...sexist through and through and even the few pugnacious women who elect themselves of champions of a sexist cause they created and nurture, do the same role modelling, but can't see it.


----------



## Darc Knight (5 July 2018)

Where's @basilio in all of this. We may not agree on a lot of things but always good to hear an alternative view


----------



## sptrawler (5 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Where's @basilio in all of this. We may not agree on a lot of things but always good to hear an alternative view




He's probably chained to bulldozer somewhere in the forest.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2018)

It's always good to have variety though.

I'm sure he'll be back.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> Woman can't help themselves because nature outwits nurture for most when it comes to the procreation stages. That's why they have the same gender identity hairdo's, wear the same gender identity clothes, talk the same gender identity talk, etc. ...sexist through and through and even the few pugnacious women who elect themselves of champions of a sexist cause they created and nurture, do the same role modelling, but can't see it.



I do think it's rather odd that some women spend big $ and many hours in front of the mirror so as to present themselves in a manner specifically intended to attract the opposite sex and then wonder why they do indeed attract such attention.

It's akin to leaving $10,000 cash in clear view on the dashboard of a parked car and wondering why it was broken into. 

Regardless of ethics or laws saying what should occur in those situations, anyone with a shred of intelligence ought to be able to foresee what will quite likely occur in practice. Keep asking for trouble and sooner or later you'll get it. Welcome to life.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Regardless of ethics or laws saying what should occur in those situations, anyone with a shred of intelligence ought to be able to foresee what will quite likely occur in practice. Keep asking for trouble and sooner or later you'll get it. Welcome to life.




You are quite right, but that is victim blaming according to the feminists.


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2018)

sptrawler said:


> He's probably chained to bulldozer somewhere in the forest.



No I think *she is in the process of sueing Senator Leyonhjelm.


----------



## Tisme (5 July 2018)

wayneL said:


> No I think *she is in the process of sueing Senator Leyonhjelm.




 funny


----------



## Macquack (5 July 2018)

sptrawler said:


> You must had had a seniors moment, Tisme. LOL



Yeah, he lost his thesaurus and became speechless.


----------



## Darc Knight (5 July 2018)

Someone should set up a Go Fund Me page for David Leyonhjelm. This has gone too far now IMO.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ensation-or-face-lawsuit-20180705-p4zpmd.html


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2018)

Truth is the perfect defense,  she hasn't got a hope of success.


----------



## Tisme (6 July 2018)

Macquack said:


> Yeah, he lost his thesaurus and became speechless.




I'll let you look up epicene ...cheaper than a mirror.


----------



## Tisme (6 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Someone should set up a Go Fund Me page for David Leyonhjelm. This has gone too far now IMO.
> 
> https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ensation-or-face-lawsuit-20180705-p4zpmd.html




The usual ABC suspects are getting aggravated David won't do as he's told.


----------



## wayneL (6 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> The usual ABC suspects are getting aggravated David won't do as he's told.



Perhaps Senator "Lionheart" has signalled the end of the ludicrous and egregious apology culture.


----------



## Darc Knight (9 July 2018)

Interesting article on the history of Politicians sueing for Defamation. Some dodgey ones in there

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-...n-young-david-leyonhjelm-sexual-slurs/9935244


----------



## SirRumpole (9 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Interesting article on the history of Politicians sueing for Defamation. Some dodgey ones in there
> 
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-...n-young-david-leyonhjelm-sexual-slurs/9935244




No doubt that politicians use the defamation proceedings to shut down discussion, but I still think that there needs to be a deterrent to fake news and false allegations made for political purposes.


----------



## Tink (9 July 2018)

Here is another one, the Greens

https://www.themercury.com.au/news/...t/news-story/d8d9079bf932526b27e5f094e57dbe84


----------



## sptrawler (9 July 2018)

Well this takes the cake, shout your mouth off, then ask everyone to fund your call. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-09/hanson-young-crowdfunding-leyonhjelm-defamation-action/9960540

From what I've read, he insinuated, that if she hated men so much stop shagging them.
She was the one who cranked it up to "slut shaming", from what I can gather. 
Now she may have had legal advice, it will be interesting to see it unfold, or unravel whichever the case.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 July 2018)

Tink said:


> Here is another one, the Greens



Whilst I do not generally agree with churches and especially not on the subject of gay marriage, they most certainly do have a right to put their point of view forward so far as I am concerned.

Simply stating an opinion which differs from that of someone else is not valid grounds for defamation so far as I am concerned and is simply an unwarranted attack on free speech which diminishes all involved.


----------



## Darc Knight (10 July 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Well this takes the cake, shout your mouth off, then ask everyone to fund your call.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-09/hanson-young-crowdfunding-leyonhjelm-defamation-action/9960540
> 
> ...




_" She has now sent an email to supporters, asking for $20 donations.

"A crowdfunding campaign has been set up thanks to Emeritus Professor Simon Chapman AO and author Jane Caro, to help cover legal costs," the email states."
_
Sure he may have gone a bit far, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. She deserved it.  Shame on Jane Caro and Simon Chapman for supporting such an unworthy cause.

Females are so much better at gaming the system and society. Men maybe physically stronger, but Women are much more cunning and manipulative.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Females are so much better at gaming the system and society. Men maybe physically stronger, but Women are much more cunning and manipulative.




They are pretty good at playing the defenceless weaker sex card when it suits them.


----------



## Darc Knight (10 July 2018)

Sarah Hanson Young earns $200,000 a year from Taxpayers and won't pay her own legal fees.


----------



## Tisme (10 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> _" She has now sent an email to supporters, asking for $20 donations.
> 
> "A crowdfunding campaign has been set up thanks to Emeritus Professor Simon Chapman AO and author Jane Caro, to help cover legal costs," the email states."
> _
> ...




Getup is also spam mailing me for support of a forced apology from David. It must be wonderful for them all, to have something, ex SSM, to get all indignant about.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Sarah Hanson Young earns $200,000 a year from Taxpayers and won't pay her own legal fees.




So what is she actually suing for ?

Does she deny she shags men ? She is divorced with a child, so she obviously does shag men, and even if she "puts it about" a bit, that's no big deal.

It's not as if she is being accused of doing anything vile.


----------



## wayneL (10 July 2018)

If she is sueing for damage to reputation,  she should really be sueing herself. 

On the other hand,  Leyonhjelm should thank her for the lift in profile, most of my mates now want to vote LD


----------



## Darc Knight (10 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So what is she actually suing for ?
> 
> Does she deny she shags men ? She is divorced with a child, so she obviously does shag men, and even if she "puts it about" a bit, that's no big deal.
> 
> It's not as if she is being accused of doing anything vile.




Its Feminism gone too far again, gone to domination. She's a bully! 
Didn't she and her Daughter have a tax funded vacation awhile ago. Claimed it as work related coz they went on a Whale watching cruise at one stage. When pulled up on it she claimed she wouldn't be told what to do by white middle aged Men. Sounds like a rort with a Sexist response when pulled up on it.


----------



## Tisme (10 July 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Its Feminism gone too far again, gone to domination. She's a bully!
> Didn't she and her Daughter have a tax funded vacation awhile ago. Claimed it as work related coz they went on a Whale watching cruise at one stage. When pulled up on it she claimed she wouldn't be told what to do by white middle aged Men. Sounds like a rort with a Sexist response when pulled up on it.





What it does do is ...reinforce the belief that women aren't up to the task of being equal to men. Men don't run off to mummy when someone gives them an insult in parliament (well maybe some wilting flowers do, but defamation suits because of course lingo...really?)

Of course the counter is that men need to modify their behaviour and become more civilised like...well like Sarah is.


----------



## Logique (11 July 2018)

I understand SHY doesn't mind dishing it out in parliament.  Equality has to be all the time, not just when it suits, such as when a politician of modest achievements seeks a little publicity, and a career path post-Senate


----------



## Tink (22 August 2018)

If you believe in -

LIFE - FAMILY - CHILDREN

Vote the Greens OUT!


----------



## Tisme (22 August 2018)

Tink said:


> If you believe in -
> 
> LIFE - FAMILY - CHILDREN
> 
> Vote the Greens OUT!




Greens popularity is in decline. They'll go the way of Don Chip, et al.

I still enjoy the press barking about Pauline as being a flash in the pan, but she would be an elder by now compared to the bums on seats around her.


----------



## sptrawler (22 August 2018)

They are certainly keeping a low profile ATM, still no one can blame them, much more fun to watch from the sidelines.


----------



## bigdog (16 January 2019)

Richardo Luiji Di Natale. The Greens party leader who loves to tell us Aussies that we live on stolen land and our nation isn’t legitimate and that we should give it all back to the 

Richardo Luiji Di Natale Owns a 50 acres of “stolen land” in Victoria's Otway Ranges. Not only does he own it. He failed to declare that he owned it when he entered politics. And he is required by law to declare it.
He claimed that he’d forgotten that he’d purchased his 2.3 million dollar property!
Like putting spare change in a draw, I suppose.

This “champion of human rights” and especially the rights of foreigners in Australia. Had two au pairs on his property. An au pair is a young foreign person, typically a woman, who helps with housework or childcare in exchange for food, a room, and some pocket money.

And Greens party leader. Richardo Luiji Di Natale. The champion of humanity, in his own mind, paid them a massive $3.75 an hour to help with his family. Mind you on top of Richardo Luiji Di Natale’s $283,632 plus bonuses and quirks per year from the tax payer.

He would also claim that massive $3.75 per hour for his nannies back on tax as he’s a mobile politician.
His ad for the au pair read …..
            “family of four is looking for an extra pair of hands around the place to entertain the lads                 [the couple have two boys] and help with cooking and general domestic duties".
            "Will take couples but weekly wage remains the same."
That’s $150 a week for two people. Or $1.88 an hour each.


----------



## Darc Knight (17 January 2019)

Can't find anything via Google just yet but Wow
 Always thought he was a loose cannon but this looks pretty bad. If true you'd think he has to resign as Leader.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2019)

bigdog said:


> "Will take couples but weekly wage remains the same."
> That’s $150 a week for two people. Or $1.88 an hour each.




Live in , ie no rent or house payments, free food, power, light, use of family car ?

How much would all that add up to ?


----------



## Darc Knight (17 January 2019)

Oops just found it. From May 2016. Still interesting.

https://amp.smh.com.au/politics/fed...e-pays-au-pairs-low-wage-20160519-goywxq.html


----------



## PZ99 (17 January 2019)

The Greens should secede their “stolen land” from Australia and become a micro nation where their realm of fiction has more relevancy. It's a "novel" approach but it might just work


----------



## explod (18 January 2019)

A relevant link and quote from the Guardian:

A spokesman for Senator Di Natale’s told Fairfax: “the farm was listed as a business interest from the time Richard was elected” and that by declaring income from the farm, he had met the requirements for declaring property in the register of senators’ interests.

https://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/adj-1693/


----------



## Darc Knight (18 January 2019)

If you read the link the Au Pair was only asked to work 25 hours per week, not 40. So not as bad as it looked.


----------



## Darc Knight (9 February 2019)

Apparently SHY wants to build a Railway from Australia to the United States. She also wants to phase out the internal combustion engine within 10 years. Well thats what 2GB/4BC were saying yesterday.


----------



## basilio (9 February 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Apparently SHY wants to build a Railway from Australia to the United States. She also wants to phase out the internal combustion engine within 10 years. Well thats what 2GB/4BC were saying yesterday.




Really ? And you believe it ? 
Such an honest and reliable information source.. not


----------



## Darc Knight (9 February 2019)

basilio said:


> Really ? And you believe it ?
> Such an honest and reliable information source.. not




Yes, I was fishing to find out if it were true or not. The Google didn't confirm it either. It was on that Chris Kenny's segment. Such a fine and unbiased Journalist is Chris Kenny - worked for John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull and is now an alleged Journalist. Some of them are a disgrace.

Back to SHY. Anyone know if SHY did propose a Railway from Oz to USA or not?


----------



## SirRumpole (9 February 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Back to SHY. Anyone know if SHY did propose a Railway from Oz to USA or not?




If she did I think it would have been sarcasm, probably in reference to the Adani rail line.


----------



## Tink (9 February 2019)

Does this belong here?

*Father fumes over “politically correct” change to passport forms*

A father is furious after learning he had to re-complete his child’s passport form.

The problem? The box he ticked “father” is no longer valid.

The forms have recently replaced “Mother and Father” with “Parent 1 and Parent 2”.

“Why’s my right to tick mother or father?” he said.

https://www.3aw.com.au/father-fumes-over-politically-correct-change-to-passport-forms/


----------



## explod (9 February 2019)

She probably meant; 

"you need to take the train to Fairy Land to meet Donald Duck"

Her main concern is the environment and the Great Southern Ocean area from fracking etc.  But they detest a woman having a say.


----------



## explod (9 February 2019)

Tink said:


> Does this belong here?
> 
> *Father fumes over “politically correct” change to passport forms*
> 
> ...



Well the Libs are in Government so they are the ones to go crook at


----------



## SirRumpole (9 February 2019)

Tink said:


> Father fumes over “politically correct” change to passport forms





That's to be socially inclusive of all the gay/lesbian parent xyz's.


----------



## wayneL (9 February 2019)

SHY = AOC

just sayin'


----------



## jbocker (9 February 2019)

Tink said:


> Does this belong here?
> 
> *Father fumes over “politically correct” change to passport forms*
> 
> ...



That ain't nothing! Wait and see what happens if *he* ticks Parent *1*


----------



## bellenuit (9 February 2019)

wayneL said:


> SHY = AOC
> 
> just sayin'



No way. AOC is smart.


----------



## explod (9 February 2019)

bellenuit said:


> No way. AOC is smart.



It is an acronym with about 100 meanings.  The ole Pal (Possum) just loves you falling asleep whilst your deciphering.  

https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AOC


----------



## bellenuit (9 February 2019)

explod said:


> It is an acronym with about 100 meanings.


----------



## basilio (9 February 2019)

Tink said:


> Does this belong here?
> 
> *Father fumes over “politically correct” change to passport forms*
> 
> ...




And this is a problem? 
In 2019 we now recognise families (married or not) as having a man and women,  single parent - just a man or just a woman, possibly two men, possibly two women.

Why not be simple and practical and ask for Parent 1 and Parent 2 ? Why start a culture war over such a simple, elegant, practical solution to what is now a more complex situation ? 

This isn't "politically correct".  It's just practical common sense.


----------



## basilio (9 February 2019)

bellenuit said:


>





*THIS IS PRICELESS. *
Absolutely nails the current US political system. Absolute must to view.

Perhaps more significantly it is a breathtaking insight into how sharp AOC is and well she can cut to point in a way will make many other politicians  - particularly the current Liar/Thief/BS in Chief clown give pause for thought.

I think I can see a bus coming...


----------



## basilio (9 February 2019)

xxx


----------



## Tink (10 February 2019)

You are preaching to the wrong person, basilio, to remove mother and father.

Children have a mother and father.


----------



## wayneL (11 February 2019)

AOC smart? You're dreamin lads... Gaff city so far and busted for both stupidity and dishonesty for trying to cover up the Green Deal gaff.

Big liability for the Dems, apart from vacuous millenials.


----------



## explod (11 February 2019)

I know who is self centred Possum, and that's short for Grasshopper by the way.


----------



## wayneL (11 February 2019)

Here is my prediction Mr Plod,  The Greens will go the way way of the Australian Democrats.... and the self destruction has already commenced.


----------



## Darc Knight (11 February 2019)

wayneL said:


> Here is my prediction Mr Plod,  The Greens will go the way way of the Australian Democrats.... and the self destruction has already commenced.




Not sure about that Wayne. Quite a lot of difference between the Greens and the old Aus Dems.
Unless another environment group forms and takes over there will always be a "market" for a green group.  Aus Dems coulda been replaced by anyone.


----------



## explod (12 February 2019)

The Greens have been around for thirty years and I've been a member for 20 years.  The Democrats were and gone in a flash.  75% of our new members are women between 20 and 40 years and that influence on their children will continue to stimulate it's growth.


----------



## explod (12 February 2019)

Anyway, a message from a friend today,

"
I’ve just come from the House of Representatives, where we *passed a bill to bring sick refugees to Australia for medical treatment. Share this momentous news far and wide now.*









After a day of intense negotiations, we convinced Labor to back down from their position that could have made it harder to get sick refugees medical attention. *This is following months of pushing to get refugees the medical treatment they deserve. That they desperately need.*

James, I want you to know that there was a point there where Labor’s proposed amendments could in fact have *made it harder for sick refugees to get the help they need.*

*But the Greens joining with crossbench independents and the community were resolute to ensure that human rights and people came before politics. *

*And we succeeded. Share this extraordinary result far and wide.*

Sometimes, keeping the faith in politics is hard. *But this result shows what happens when you have Greens in Parliament. *Today, *the Greens constructively held Labor to account and produced an incredible outcome.*

Your vote is powerful. Today, your vote has ensured refugees can get the help they need.

*Today, we’ve shown that, working together with the community, strong independent voices in the Parliament can get outcomes.*

With excitement and relief,

Adam."


----------



## qldfrog (12 February 2019)

Would it not be great if the Greens were interested in the environment and the well being of this planet?
I could even have carried on voting for them..But as they say in Germany : Greens are watermelon
green in the outside, red in the inside..There is a place for communists /far left in society; people can be young, idealistic and blissfully ignorant but never more than 10pc unless they are played by a bigger brother..happens everywhere..good luck


----------



## jbocker (12 February 2019)

explod said:


> Anyway, a message from a friend today,
> 
> "
> I’ve just come from the House of Representatives, where we *passed a bill to bring sick refugees to Australia for medical treatment. Share this momentous news far and wide now.*
> ...




Gday Explod. Was not familiar with this. Sounds like a good win for humanitarian outcomes. What happens when the refugee gets better? What were Labor holding out on?


----------



## sptrawler (12 February 2019)

jbocker said:


> What were Labor holding out on?



They were obviously waiting for the Greens to give them guidance, as happened last time round.


----------



## explod (12 February 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Would it not be great if the Greens were interested in the environment and the well being of this planet?
> I could even have carried on voting for them..But as they say in Germany : Greens are watermelon
> green in the outside, red in the inside..There is a place for communists /far left in society; people can be young, idealistic and blissfully ignorant but never more than 10pc unless they are played by a bigger brother..happens everywhere..good luck




You certainly do not know much about the Greens.  Our main internal discussion is about protecting the environment and ways to try and save our planet.   Not reported and avoided by the media we have blockades and demonstrations everyday to stop logging in our natural crown land forests and animal habitats.  Privately, I am a vegan, do not buy products which have plastic wrappers etc, tear all cardboard and paper up and break down into a worm farm which then feeds my vegetable garden.  Try not to use my car.  All of my peers in my age group do the same and we most certainly walk the talk.  In the few cases where this is not the case the big business controlled press (and ABC now directed but the Libs) jump on and blow it out of proportion to make it seem otherwise.

However the community are now becoming very concerned at current global warming trends and fast releasing because you cannot hide away half a million cattle that were just drowned in northern Australia, the huge loss of homes in Townsville, the fire damage in Tassie, wild sudden downpours in Sydney and Melbourne in the last few weeks.  And that's just in Australia


----------



## Darc Knight (12 February 2019)

Plod beat me to it.

Thinking the whole tree hugging, sharing caring nature is just a front for installing Communism seems a bit distorted.


----------



## wayneL (12 February 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Plod beat me to it.
> 
> Thinking the whole tree hugging, sharing caring nature is just a front for installing Communism seems a bit distorted.



Read their economic policy then.

As for saving the planet,  every person you bring from the third world,  to developed countries, radically increases their environmental footprint, including their carbon dioxide footprint. 

Green policies and social justice policies in dire conflict with each other,  with SJ policies winning out,  hands down. 

Want me to go on, Bruce?


----------



## qldfrog (12 February 2019)

If you were caring for the planet,you would build a wall around australia..i do compost, gardening beekeeping am self sufficient water, power,and food wise but sorry no BS about vegan, or thinking than we can solve or even are trying to solve GW.
I travel the world and put things in perspective.you should try ..is quite formative
every economic emigrant accepted in the west is an incentive to ever more overpopulation and a lessening of human standards to the lowest denominator..i do not see any future in that model for the planet.


----------



## Darc Knight (12 February 2019)

wayneL said:


> Read their economic policy then.
> 
> As for saving the planet,  every person you bring from the third world,  to developed countries, radically increases their environmental footprint, including their carbon dioxide footprint.
> 
> ...




I understand what you're getting at, the whole "fair and equitable distribution of global wealth', but it's not Communism. It's just like your lovely overly kindhearted Grandma running things.

https://greens.org.au/policies/global-economics


----------



## explod (12 February 2019)

qldfrog said:


> If you were caring for the planet,you would build a wall around australia..i do compost, gardening beekeeping am self sufficient water, power,and food wise but sorry no BS about vegan, or thinking than we can solve or even are trying to solve GW.
> I travel the world and put things in perspective.you should try ..is quite formative
> every economic emigrant accepted in the west is an incentive to ever more overpopulation and a lessening of human standards to the lowest denominator..i do not see any future in that model for the planet.



Walls will not stop the overflow of people soon anywhere.  And the footprint here, there or anywhere is still a footprint.  No one asked to be born but once here deserve the same as everyone else.

We need to radically do something about population increasing.  Birth control across the planet, get rid of Churches and the God crap.  This is not a policy but it should be.  We do have a policy of siding with different religions with the idea that we can influence the free education of the offspring away from religion.  Real democracy can only come from true open education for all and equally.


----------



## qldfrog (12 February 2019)

explod said:


> Walls will not stop the overflow of people soon anywhere.  And the footprint here, there or anywhere is still a footprint.  No one asked to be born but once here deserve the same as everyone else.
> 
> We need to radically do something about population increasing.  Birth control across the planet, get rid of Churches and the God crap.  This is not a policy but it should be.  We do have a policy of siding with different religions with the idea that we can influence the free education of the offspring away from religion.  Real democracy can only come from true open education for all and equally.



See how weak we have become, you can not even envision that a wall could stop a flood of people..of course it can, it can between haiti and the dominican republic or even better between china and north korea.army have been build first to protect a country from invasion.
Not to bring invaders safely to port
But in the west we are not even prepared to loose an invader life to protect our own nations, so think about the chances to protect earth.
Every migrants means more kids and future migrants supported and birn in the original country..that is the way for Africa at least with Europe, not even considering the extra population in the west...
We are faning the demographic fire and the death if the planet with every new migrant accepted..be it in the west, or Indonesians moving into west papoua..same principle


----------



## explod (13 February 2019)

qldfrog said:


> See how weak we have become, you can not even envision that a wall could stop a flood of people..of course it can, it can between haiti and the dominican republic or even better between china and north korea.army have been build first to protect a country from invasion.
> Not to bring invaders safely to port
> But in the west we are not even prepared to loose an invader life to protect our own nations, so think about the chances to protect earth.
> Every migrants means more kids and future migrants supported and birn in the original country..that is the way for Africa at least with Europe, not even considering the extra population in the west...
> We are faning the demographic fire and the death if the planet with every new migrant accepted..be it in the west, or Indonesians moving into west papoua..same principle



Rubbish, with the drone like flying machines being developed now they will be dropping out of the sky.  Population growth has to be stopped on a world wide scale/scheme or we are stuffed.

The submarines we just signed for, what a bloody waste.  Did someone say 2050 before they deliver, absolutely obsolete means of anything by then.  The brains in Parliament must be chewed up by some illuminati insect as they sign up and walk in.


----------



## qldfrog (13 February 2019)

Fully agree about submarines.obsolete technilogy before being build
Army should be nuclear tactical as a last defence meaning 5 or 6 enough to ensure China army or other does not walk in and "refugee" style invasion protection aka machine guns and surveillance.can be very cheap with current technology and a sea around us


----------



## Tink (13 February 2019)

Of course the Greens want Churches closed down and no mention of God.

Just ask Julian Porteous.

The Greens are communists, imv.

-----

Jordan Peterson

_I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.

I have been studying authoritarianism on the right and the left for 35 years. I wrote a book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, on the topic, which explores how ideologies hijack language and belief. As a result of my studies, I have come to believe that Marxism is a murderous ideology. I believe its practitioners in modern universities should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to promote such vicious, untenable and anti-human ideas, and for indoctrinating their students with these beliefs. I am therefore not going to mouth Marxist words. That would make me a puppet of the radical left, and that is not going to happen. Period_


----------



## basilio (4 March 2019)

First dog on the Moon on The Greens


*If the Greens don’t do something radical they will be on 10% primary vote UNTIL THE END OF EARTH *




First Dog on the Moon
How hard could it be to provide a socialist, socially just, environmentally coherent lefty alternative?
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-be-on-10-primary-vote-until-the-end-of-earth


----------



## wayneL (4 March 2019)

basilio said:


> First dog on the Moon on The Greens
> 
> 
> *If the Greens don’t do something radical they will be on 10% primary vote UNTIL THE END OF EARTH *
> ...



Something radical? 

Even more radical you mean? 

Yes,  let's hope so,  they will make themselves even more irrelevant to the mainstream and commit political suicide. 

Bring it on!


----------



## explod (4 March 2019)

From Sarah today:

"
By 2050, there could be more plastic in the ocean than fish. It’s a harrowing statistic that we can’t let play out. That’s why *The Greens have a plan to phase out single-use plastics and clean up our oceans.* 

Yesterday I spent the day at Brighton Beach for Clean-Up Australia Day. There were so many people pitching in to scour the beach for rubbish and make sure it doesn’t cause harm to our marine life. The same day, the results of the State Government plastics survey came out showing a whopping 97% of South Australians want the Government to do more to tackle plastic pollution.

*The Greens’ Bill will help clean up Australia every day. Share the news!*

The Product Stewardship Amendment (Packaging and Certain Plastics) Bill 2019 responds to the twin problems of the recycling crisis and marine plastic pollution that’s clogging our environment and putting our native species and marine life at risk.

Our Bill will establish a mandatory product stewardship scheme that:


introduces a ban on particular single-use plastics by 2025;
introduces a ban on microbeads and lightweight plastic bags by 2021;
introduces a national container deposit scheme at 20 cents per container by 2021; and
adopts the recycling targets from the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation’s 2025 National Packaging Targets.
You can read all the details by clicking here and *take action now by sharing the news.*

We need the Federal Government to act urgently on the recycling crisis and marine plastic pollution if Australia if we are to do our bit to stop the ocean from turning into a plastic soup.

People in our communities are already playing their part, but it is frustrating that politicians aren’t doing their share of the heavy lifting.

With strong Greens representation in the Senate, we can introduce these new laws into the next Parliament, to clean up our oceans and keep our beaches beautiful.
*You can help us by spreading the news* and so long as we are in the Parliament, we’ll put pressure on the Government to clean-up Australia every day. Help us spread the news, and The Greens will put pressure on the Government to clean-up Australia every day.



Best regards,

Sarah"

She never stops working on real issues every day.


----------



## explod (4 March 2019)

And from our active younger members:-

"
*Australian Green Memes for Actually Progressive Teensshared a post.*
Yesterday at 12:14 PM · 
former politicians earning $500 a day to do absolutely nothing while those without a job have to live below the poverty line





Australian Young Greens
Yesterday at 11:14 AM · 
This is a disgrace."

And most on ASF would agree


----------



## explod (4 March 2019)

Tink said:


> Of course the Greens want Churches closed down and no mention of God.
> 
> Just ask Julian Porteous.
> 
> ...



That is absolutely incorrect.  You need to check or policies on that.

"
*Principles*
The Australian Greens believe that:


Australia's cultural plurality is a part of the nation's identity and should be recognised as such.
People have the right to celebrate and express their cultural heritage within universally accepted human rights.
All people — regardless of culture, ethnicity, religion, language, place of birth or citizenship status — should have equal rights and the right to participate equally in social, economic and cultural life.
Australia is a culturally diverse society and this should be fully reflected in Australia's social, business and political institutions.
The Australian Greens should represent the cultural diversity of Australian society in its own organisation, and in all of its policies, processes and activities, in Parliament and in the community.
Racism in all forms is unacceptable and the Australian government should combat racial and religious prejudice in all its forms.
There is diversity within each of Australia's multicultural communities."


----------



## cynic (4 March 2019)

explod said:


> That is absolutely incorrect.  You need to check or policies on that.
> 
> "
> *Principles*
> ...



A number of those principles seem highly subjective, and potentially contradictory, particularly 2,3 and 6. 

Depending upon interpretation, actions pursuant to these principles could easily infringe upon the religious freedoms of others.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 March 2019)

explod said:


> and the Australian government should combat racial and religious prejudice in all its forms.




What is religious prejudice ?

Prejudice *against* religions, or prejudice *by* religions ?


----------



## explod (4 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> What is religious prejudice ?
> 
> Prejudice *against* religions, or prejudice *by* religions ?



Prejudice against religions, freedom to choose your own pathway in life.  If you want to follow a God or be an atheist then so be it.  However I am personally against the indoctrination of children, however the parents will dictate this so that's a hard one.  But religion taught at schools, no way in my view.  However Greens policy would not interfere with the Catholic school system as one example.


----------



## qldfrog (5 March 2019)

All people — regardless of culture, ethnicity, religion, language, place of birth or citizenship status — should have equal rights and the right to participate equally in social, economic and cultural life.

So clearly every of the 8 billions on earth are able/allowed to come here, and demand access to centerlink services, voting rights,  pensions,benefit or the right to work..
Considering billions are on 1 or 2 usd a day, even youth allowance looks like millionaire life.
All that on the name of our planet.
And this is the official platform, when brain and commonsense leaves the room
And the worse is, Explod, you will think i am the idiot to put a mild word


----------



## explod (5 March 2019)

Support from honest, thinking and concerned people grows:-

"



Julian Burnside - Public
1 hr · 
In the past, I've said I wasn’t interested in running for parliament. But it’s clear to me that things need to change, and that has motivated me to run for The Australian Greens in my home seat of Kooyong, where I've lived my entire life.

The Greens’ policies are centred around people: caring about how people are treated, about the opportunities we have throughout our lives, the world we live in and the world we hand on to those who come after us.

Climate change is the biggest single issue we all face, and it too is about people, about humanity.

The current member for Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg, has consistently been in a position to deliver action on climate change - but he has consistently disappointed us.

Of course, advocacy for refugees is another issue of great importance to me. To their great shame, the Liberals and Labor have spent decades using people seeking safety as a political tool.

In my career, the cases I am proudest of are those where I have worked to protect people or remedy the injustice they’ve faced by attacks from big corporate interests or from cruel and craven government actions.

That’s the challenge we are all facing right now: big corporate donors dictate terms to politicians who care more about their own jobs, and about looking after their mates, than they do about the people they’re elected to represent.

This is the challenge the Greens are facing up to, a challenge the Greens are ready for. And that’s why I’m running.

Learn more about our campaign at https://burnside.greens.org.au"


qldfrog said:


> All people — regardless of culture, ethnicity, religion, language, place of birth or citizenship status — should have equal rights and the right to participate equally in social, economic and cultural life.
> 
> So clearly every of the 8 billions on earth are able/allowed to come here, and demand access to centerlink services, voting rights,  pensions,benefit or the right to work..
> Considering billions are on 1 or 2 usd a day, even youth allowance looks like millionaire life.
> ...


----------



## explod (5 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> All people — regardless of culture, ethnicity, religion, language, place of birth or citizenship status — should have equal rights and the right to participate equally in social, economic and cultural life.
> 
> So clearly every of the 8 billions on earth are able/allowed to come here, and demand access to centerlink services, voting rights,  pensions,benefit or the right to work..
> Considering billions are on 1 or 2 usd a day, even youth allowance looks like millionaire life.
> ...



Not at all, you are an intelligent contributor here on ASF.

However most people are selfish because they did not experience a life that taught them to appreciate and seek the best out of all people.  I am grateful now to my early hard road and traumatic later life experience as it's motivated my actions for the downtrodden and particularly our ill treated unemployed unemployed.


----------



## qldfrog (5 March 2019)

explod said:


> Not at all, you are an intelligent contributor here on ASF.
> 
> However most people are selfish because they did not experience a life that taught them to appreciate and seek the best out of all people.  I am grateful now to my early hard road and traumatic later life experience as it's motivated my actions for the downtrodden and particularly our ill treated unemployed unemployed.



Do not take me wrong, i have a leftist in the true sense background as you know by now i have travelled the world and lived/worked in many places. I spent months living in housing estates, now no law zones, met a lot of working poors, some of my near family can be classed so ,while others are upper upper middle class
I brushed with billionaires too
So i would help the genuinely downtrodden but i hate welfare as such, the kind where people on minimum wages are worse off than the rorting cheats, where human will is annihilated by a system
Welfare like this is keeping people in a zoo, on a feed of **** food and cheap movies now social media

I also believe in nations with strict boundaries as i saw the effects of the type of generous discourses of the Greens on people.
whatever crap you are told, the pie is finite and human growth a plague.
you can take on half of Africa tomorrow and you will face the same problem there in 20y
In the meantime, your own citizens who you have a duty of care in my opinion are facing unemployment, tribal war, crime and sexual assault , a society change and probably a radical islamism future.
Great for feminists or LGBT i can tell you
No mardi gras in european suburbs /ghetto
Not based on news ltd, based on experience.
Redoing the same mistake twice is stupidity, not altruism
And while most people can be good, some are rotten to the core and evil..not in the religious sense, I am Atheist
Worse, once in group or tribe or following ideology, be it nazi, fascism or nowaday anti trump or even vegan, humans can display the worst.
Keep your own independent thinking,
Make your own decision.
If the greens are the most matching to your conviction, be it but when i see "Sarah whatever," i know hate is not a right wing privileged.
Remember Stalin, Pol pot, or even Mao.for the best of the people
Do not be one of their foot soldier


----------



## SirRumpole (5 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Welfare like this is keeping people in a zoo, on a feed of **** food and cheap movies now social media




Interesting table here. Australia ranks 22 in social welfare spending per GDP, even lower than the US, that paragon of free enterprise and everyone for themselves. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending

I wonder if this includes generous tax deductions like Family Tax Benefits.


----------



## explod (5 March 2019)

And on housing we should get in step, remember Maslow's Laws we learnt at Business school.  Good one Janet:-

"
Senator Janet Rice
February 26 at 4:29 PM · 

Here’s the proof a 'Housing First' approach works.

The Greens' commitment of $500 million each year to crisis services and transitional housing will work to end homelessness just like it has in Finland.

Every person should have a roof over their heads.






About this website

BBC.COM

The city with no homeless on its streets
What can UK cities learn from Finland, where the number of rough sleepers has fallen dramatically?"


----------



## bellenuit (5 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Interesting table here. Australia ranks 22 in social welfare spending per GDP, even lower than the US, that paragon of free enterprise and everyone for themselves.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending




I can't see how the figure on its own is that meaningful. The US, for instance, is (from what I have read) more inequitable than Australia, so one would expect more of its people to be in need of assistance.

If there were no inequity of any sort, one should technically have no social welfare need.


----------



## wayneL (5 March 2019)

bellenuit said:


> If there were no inequity of any sort, one should technically have no social welfare need.




Just an army and a secret police to enforce this  "equity", like all other precious attempts (and failures).


----------



## bellenuit (5 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> All people — regardless of culture, ethnicity, religion, language, place of birth or citizenship status — should have equal rights and the right to participate equally in social, economic and cultural life.
> 
> So clearly every of the 8 billions on earth are able/allowed to come here, and demand access to centerlink services, voting rights,  pensions,benefit or the right to work..
> Considering billions are on 1 or 2 usd a day, even youth allowance looks like millionaire life.
> ...




That is pretty damning. A no borders free for all. I notice there seems to be nothing about responsibilities to contribute to Australian society.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 March 2019)

bellenuit said:


> If there were no inequity of any sort, one should technically have no social welfare need.




In a closed society that may be true but what about inequity brought about by transferring of jobs offshore, tax avoidance by companies etc ?

Maybe societies that pay more welfare are just covering those needs, if so we are still a lucky country if we don't have a big welfare bill in the face of globalisation. It's pretty obvious to me that our mining and agricultural exports are propping us up. If those decline then we might start rising up the welfare scale.


----------



## ghotib (5 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> All people — regardless of culture, ethnicity, religion, language, place of birth or citizenship status — should have equal rights and the right to participate equally in social, economic and cultural life.
> 
> So clearly every of the 8 billions on earth are able/allowed to come here, and demand access to centerlink services, voting rights,  pensions,benefit or the right to work..
> Considering billions are on 1 or 2 usd a day, even youth allowance looks like millionaire life.
> ...



Where does it say that all people are able/allowed to come here in order to have equal rights? Seems to me the interpretation is either all people in all places should have equal rights, or all people who are living here should have equal rights. That doesn't mean open borders. It does mean equal criteria for entry. 

Plod?


----------



## moXJO (5 March 2019)

Plod, do you lean to the "tree tories" or the "communists"?


----------



## bellenuit (5 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> In a closed society that may be true but what about inequity brought about by transferring of jobs offshore, tax avoidance by companies etc ?
> 
> Maybe societies that pay more welfare are just covering those needs, if so we are still a lucky country if we don't have a big welfare bill in the face of globalisation. It's pretty obvious to me that our mining and agricultural exports are propping us up. If those decline then we might start rising up the welfare scale.




But that is exactly my point. If we are relatively well off due to the exploitation of our natural resources and don't need to spend as much on welfare as otherwise, then the % of GDP spent on welfare compared to other countries is not a very meaningful figure. It cannot be looked at in isolation, but needs one or more other metrics to give it meaning. 



> If those decline then we might start rising up the welfare scale.




But would us rising up on the welfare scale for that very reason be viewed as good, when in fact it is bad, as it means more welfare is required than before. This is why I don't think that table means anything and why being less than an other country means we are not as good as them in taking care of our citizens.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 March 2019)

bellenuit said:


> But that is exactly my point. If we are relatively well off due to the exploitation of our natural resources and don't need to spend as much on welfare as otherwise, then the % of GDP spent on welfare compared to other countries is not a very meaningful figure. It cannot be looked at in isolation, but needs one or more other metrics to give it meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> But would us rising up on the welfare scale for that very reason be viewed as good, when in fact it is bad, as it means more welfare is required than before. This is why I don't think that table means anything and why being less than an other country means we are not as good as them in taking care of our citizens.




Others mentioned that they thought we were a "welfare society", but the facts prove otherwise.

That's all I was trying to show, the why's and wherefore's are a different matter.

Certainly one bit of data is not conclusive of anything but it's relevant to the discussion imo.


----------



## explod (5 March 2019)

ghotib said:


> Where does it say that all people are able/allowed to come here in order to have equal rights? Seems to me the interpretation is either all people in all places should have equal rights, or all people who are living here should have equal rights. That doesn't mean open borders. It does mean equal criteria for entry.
> 
> Plod?



Our Party is called,   The Australian Greens.


----------



## bellenuit (5 March 2019)

ghotib said:


> Where does it say that all people are able/allowed to come here in order to have equal rights? Seems to me the interpretation is either all people in all places should have equal rights, or all people who are living here should have equal rights. That doesn't mean open borders. It does mean equal criteria for entry.




Specifically again (sorry the numbering got screwed up during copy and paste): 

All people — regardless of culture, ethnicity, religion, language, *place of birth* or *citizenship status* — should have equal rights and the right to participate equally in social, economic and cultural life.
If that was written into Australian Law, then anyone who has gained entry into Australia by any means, would be entitled to all the rights of anyone else living here. There is no mention of criteria for entry. 

Do The Greens state anywhere what their criteria are for entry into Australia. They certainly have shown that they regard anyone who has attempted to reach Australia should be assisted in reaching Australia, not sent back or held in offshore detention.

Taking that statement literally could be a disaster for Australia. The fact that you might attribute "conditions" to it that are not stated anywhere has no bearing. If The Greens do think that the statement is conditional, then they should expressly state what those conditions are due to the gravity of the statement when taken at face value. However, their actions and statements in regards to boat arrivals suggest that they do believe in open borders.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 March 2019)

bellenuit said:


> Do The Greens state anywhere what their criteria are for entry into Australia. They certainly have shown that they regard anyone who has attempted to reach Australia should be assisted in reaching Australia, not sent back or held in offshore detention.




I think permanent visas should be cancelled.

5 year visas that are reviewed after expiration, and if you are on welfare for more than 6 months in that period or have committed a crime then you are out.

Maybe after 20 years people can stay.


----------



## explod (5 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> Plod, do you lean to the "tree tories" or the "communists"?



I regard myself as a Socialist but seek a more level playing field for the common people.

However, as in all parties there is a wide mix from tree huggers, mardi gra assemblers and et al.  However most are school teachers, nurses and emergency service personnel who have experienced the cutting edge.


----------



## bellenuit (5 March 2019)

Following on from my previous post, looking at The Greens refugee policy it would appear that almost everyone arriving in Australia by any means would have grounds for claiming refugee status, but even so, the statement under discussion does not require having refugee status to avail of full rights.

Some of their policies regarding refugees (numbering not correct):

_Access to Australia’s migration programs, including the family migration program, to not discriminate on the basis of economic circumstances_
_The elimination of mandatory and indefinite detention, and the abolition of offshore processing (where a person seeking asylum, refugee or special category visa holder is returned from Australian territory to another nation to be assessed) and other forms of punitive or discriminatory treatment._
_Once initial health, security and identity checks are completed within a maximum of seven days, people seeking asylum who arrive without a valid visa or travel documents to be accommodated in the community, unless otherwise ordered by a court, with periodic judicial review thereafter._
_All people found to be refugees, but given negative security assessments, to be given the reasons for such assessment, access to legal representation and the opportunity to challenge this in the appropriate forum. They are only to be detained as individually required by court order, with periodic judicial review_
_Australia to recognise people escaping gender violence and violence on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status, as refugees belonging to a ‘particular social group’ under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees._
The wording of their full refugee status is so wishy washy that it is hard to see how anyone could be proved not to be a refugee.


----------



## bellenuit (5 March 2019)

explod said:


> However most are school teachers, nurses and emergency service personnel who have experienced the cutting edge.




Experienced the cutting edge or are just plain stupid?

I have a friend who is a professor and whose wife is a nurse and both are Greens. They swore black and blue that the refugees on Manus Island are held 24/7 in detention and not allowed out. I explained that they are allowed out and the kids attend local schools and many of the adults have in fact set up businesses on the island or are otherwise gainfully employed. This is not secret knowledge but in fact widely known. As proof of his view, he said that he had a friend who was a doctor and worked on the island and that he would vouch for the fact that they are in 24/7 detention. Greens just don't want to know.

A few weeks back on one of the ABC's talkback radio channels, some listener also stated that the refugees are in 24/7 detention and this was torture. When another listener stated the facts regarding those there being free to roam and work on the island, the ABC compere acknowledged that to be correct, but then added "the fact that they cannot join the rest of their family is a form of torture".


----------



## explod (5 March 2019)

bellenuit said:


> Experienced the cutting edge or are just plain stupid?
> 
> I have a friend who is a professor and whose wife is a nurse and both are Greens. They swore black and blue that the refugees on Manus Island are held 24/7 in detention and not allowed out. I explained that they are allowed out and the kids attend local schools and many of the adults have in fact set up businesses on the island or are otherwise gainfully employed. This is not secret knowledge but in fact widely known. As proof of his view, he said that he had a friend who was a doctor and worked on the island and that he would vouch for the fact that they are in 24/7 detention. Greens just don't want to know.
> 
> A few weeks back on one of the ABC's talkback radio channels, some listener also stated that the refugees are in 24/7 detention and this was torture. When another listener stated the facts regarding those there being free to roam and work on the island, the ABC compere acknowledged that to be correct, but then added "the fact that they cannot join the rest of their family is a form of torture".



So I take you have been there to see that for yourself?


----------



## bellenuit (5 March 2019)

explod said:


> So I take you have been there to see that for yourself?




I haven't seen for  myself, but that is irrelevant. It has been reported by many different sources that many have jobs and businesses on the island. There is no denial of that by The Greens, ABC or SBS, but often there is omission to state it when it is relevant. Undoubtably there is razor wire on some fences on the island, but filming a child on the other side of a razor wired fence while not putting the scene in context, though not lying, is highly misleading. Unfortunately many will gullibly take the bait.

Have you been on Manus? If so, can you confirm or deny whether those there (apart form perhaps a few dangerous detainees) are allowed to roam and work outside their accomodation centres. If not, do you believe that to be the case and if not, what is your source for that belief?


----------



## explod (5 March 2019)

bellenuit said:


> I haven't seen for  myself, but that is irrelevant. It has been reported by many different sources that many have jobs and businesses on the island. There is no denial of that by The Greens, ABC or SBS, but often there is omission to state it when it is relevant. Undoubtably there is razor wire on some fences on the island, but filming a child on the other side of a razor wired fence while not putting the scene in context, though not lying, is highly misleading. Unfortunately many will gullibly take the bait.
> 
> Have you been on Manus? If so, can you confirm or deny whether those there (apart form perhaps a few dangerous detainees) are allowed to roam and work outside their accomodation centres. If not, do you believe that to be the case and if not, what is your source for that belief?



No I have not and this really has little overall to do with the Greens in my view  The press not only has little to do with us but take every opportunity to put us down.


----------



## qldfrog (5 March 2019)

explod said:


> No I have not and this really has little overall to do with the Greens in my view  The press not only has little to do with us but take every opportunity to put us down.



Are you kidding us?
The abc is a green hive...

As for tgt press, who would ever even attack a labour idea...


----------



## wayneL (6 March 2019)

Plod,  you say you are a socialist.  It seems to be a term that is very loosely applied , or without understanding of its full implications. 

Can you define your understanding of socialism ad you desire it,  and also The Greens goals in this regard,  should it ever gain power.


----------



## explod (6 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Are you kidding us?
> The abc is a green hive...
> 
> As for tgt press, who would ever even attack a labour idea...



I do not see this, some examples please.


----------



## explod (6 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> Plod,  you say you are a socialist.  It seems to be a term that is very loosely applied , or without understanding of its full implications.
> 
> Can you define your understanding of socialism ad you desire it,  and also The Greens goals in this regard,  should it ever gain power.



I spent time studying in Scandinavia, particularly Sweden years back.  Then, 1970's was the ideal.  Sweden has in recent times moved to the right but Norway, Denmark and Finland have maintained a very fair socialist system.  In fact here in Australia our system was very fair prior to privatisation (Thatcherism).  Private utilities controlling essential services such as power, and in particular now universities is down hill.  Recently we see private car parks emerging at Public hospitals charging around $10 per hour.  

Socialism just means "a fair go".  However it has been tagged otherwise by the money making system because it threatens their ideals of money over everything else.


----------



## bigdog (6 March 2019)

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...g/news-story/abca7d5e4506e6e5f6de774ff91ef51b

*Julian Burnside eyes Kooyong, targets wealthy with death taxes*





Human rights and refugee lawyer and advocate Julian Burnside. Picture: Supplied

“That makes a whole lot of sense when you think about it. We used to have death duties and then Joh Bjelke-Petersen got rid of them and then all the other states fell into line,” he told ABC Melbourne radio this morning.

“We’ve got a spectacular budget deficit and I really think we need to take the world a bit more seriously.”

The support for death duties could hurt Mr Burnside’s push in the leafy suburbs of Camberwell and Hawthorn, but these were also places that swung to the left in the last Victorian election.

Labor ended up winning the state seat of Hawthorn, but Mr Burnside today said he could not “easily” help the ALP gain the federal seat by sending them preferences.

“I think the Liberals are hopeless and you can’t believe anything they say, but you know, Bill Shorten, nice guy, but I’m not sure that he’s, I don’t think the Labor Party is all that good,” he told ABC News.

“I’m not sure that preferencing the Labor Party would be something that I would do easily.”

Mr Burnside has reinvented himself as a refugee rights advocate in recent years and said he has only joined the Greens at the last minute because they are now a “mature party.”

“The Greens are now a mature party. Our policies on any number of things are policies that most people would agree with,” he told ABC News.

“It’s come of age. It’s not the bunch of environmentalists it was thought to be when it was established in the early 90s.

“(I joined) only in the past week or two weeks because I spent my entire life not being a member of any political party. But I’m persuaded this election that it’s really important to give the Greens a proper voice.”

*Burnside takes on Frydenberg*

Mr Burnside, in confirming his candidacy last night with _The Australian_, said he was targeting the Treasurer’s Melbourne seat of Kooyong.

But he declined to comment on what his priorities would be for constituents in the electorate once held by Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies.

Just days ago, Mr Burnside likened the government’s border protection policies implemented by Scott Morrison to the tactics employed by Nazi Germany in a controversial tweet quoting Hermann Goering at Nuremberg in 1946.

“Prediction: #Scomo will send a whisper to the Navy to let a couple of asylum seeker boats through before the election. Then he will try to terrify the nation that we are under attack.

Could he be that dishonest? Don’t fall for it: read the attached comment,” he tweeted.

Mr Burnside then posted a quote from Goering, stating: “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country”.

Mr Frydenberg is also facing another challenge from former Liberal Party member and renewable energy champion, Oliver Yates, who headed up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation under the former Labor government.

Mr Burnside’s candidacy is likely to drain votes away from Mr Yates, who is running as an independent.

It is understood Mr Burnside decided to enter the race as Mr Yates was struggling to gain traction within the electorate.

Mr Frydenberg, who was elected the Liberals deputy leader last year, holds Kooyong on a margin of 12.8 per cent after a redistribution. He first won the seat in 2010 and has increased his vote in subsequent elections.

Mr Yates, who clashed with Mr Frydenberg over the Coalition’s national energy guarantee, was ejected from a $10,000-a-table Victorian Liberal fundraiser in late 2017 after objecting when senator Jane Hume presented Scott Morrison with a fake lump of coal — a reference to the then treasurer’s move to bring a sample of the fossil fuel into the House of Representatives. Mr Yates, son of former Liberal MP William Yates, said it was “not a laughing matter”. He later described the government’s energy policies as immoral and warned the Liberals had been hijacked by the far-right and had drifted from their core values.

*‘He makes a lot of noise’*

Scott Morrison said Mr Burnside, a thorn in his side during his time as Immigration Minister, “makes a lot of noise” and attacked his inability to protect Kooyong voters from Labor tax policies.

“He makes a lot of noise. Julian Burnside won’t be able to prevent retirees getting taxed $5 billion a year,” he said in Canberra today.

“A vote for Julian Burnside won’t be able to do that. He won’t be able to stop Labor’s tax attack on the electors of Kooyong.

“There is only one person who can stop that and that is the Treasurer. He is not only going to stop it for the Kooyong electors, he will stop it for the entire country.”

There has been some analysis that a split in the anti-Liberal vote between Mr Burnside and independent candidate Oliver Yates would ultimately help Mr Frydenberg.

Mr Yates, a former head of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, said he welcomed Mr Burnside’s decision to run.

“I have long shared Mr Burnside’s concerns for the treatment of refugees in Australia’s inhumane and expensive offshore detention camps. I also share Mr Burnside’s desire for a more just society,” he said.

“I welcome Mr Burnside to the campaign and look forward to seeing him campaigning and meeting the voters of Kooyong, as I have been doing over the past several weeks.

“We will work together across the campaign to ensure representation of Kooyong is better aligned with the concerns of our electorate.”


----------



## qldfrog (6 March 2019)

What did i say: tax income then tax assets
Communism:
You work , you are taxed, then whatever you saved after taxtax taxed again..
This is called levelling by the bottom
Men are not stupid and inherently lazy so
Do not save, do not work be s parasite please visit France as a model on how socialism work when you remove citizenship from the equation.and do the same in sweden in 10 y after they opened the floodgate to migration recently


----------



## explod (6 March 2019)




----------



## wayneL (6 March 2019)

explod said:


> I spent time studying in Scandinavia, particularly Sweden years back.  Then, 1970's was the ideal.  Sweden has in recent times moved to the right but Norway, Denmark and Finland have maintained a very fair socialist system.  In fact here in Australia our system was very fair prior to privatisation (Thatcherism).  Private utilities controlling essential services such as power, and in particular now universities is down hill.  Recently we see private car parks emerging at Public hospitals charging around $10 per hour.
> 
> Socialism just means "a fair go".  However it has been tagged otherwise by the money making system because it threatens their ideals of money over everything else.



Ah, well, those are really social democracies will social programs of various degrees,  encapsulated within market capitalism. 

They are not really socialist economies. 

I this regard,  I could rightly call myself a socialist because I favour public ownership of utilities and public transport,  universal health, ans a functional safety net. (but I don't call myself a socialist)

It's a broad church and I really don't think the term "socialism" is being used in the correct context currently.


----------



## wayneL (6 March 2019)

The Greens as party however,  as epitomised by SHY, Di Natalie,  Bandt,  and the egregious tosser mentioned above, go way too far in this regard. 

The social program aspect of their platform become a parasitic, malignant and terminal cancer upon enterprise. 

I believe there is a virtuous mix somewhere in there,  but none of the parties are anywhere near to what that might be. 

IMO


----------



## explod (7 March 2019)

Sorry Possum, but you are either under the spirits or its creators the illuminati 



Dr. Robert Holian for Bendigo 2019
1 hr ·


----------



## qldfrog (7 March 2019)

FFS,
So we stop building and mining, close the power companies and banks all these evils companies who might even make profit to do what?
Ussr without primary production?
Who will pay your ipad or power it, who will give you houses for the 4billions who would move here if they could..as per your program would allow them
Parties receiving money outside membership not good , ok ,but look at the garbage surrounding that info.
this is where collective communism and its hundreds of millions of death points its head.this is scary more than ridiculous


----------



## basilio (7 March 2019)

bigdog said:


> a quote from Goering, stating: “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country”.




Classic propaganda.  You could replace Goering with Caesar, Churchill, Stalin,  Howard or Trump and the intent  is exactly the same - the best way to pull the people in line is with a _Call to Patriotism to defend the Fatherland/Empire/ USA._


----------



## SirRumpole (7 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Who will pay your ipad or power it, who will give you houses for the 4billions who would move here if they could..as per your program would allow them




State run power companies kept the lights on and prices low for decades.

Sometimes we just have to recognise that there are situations where capitalism is worse than the alternative.


----------



## qldfrog (7 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> State run power companies kept the lights on and prices low for decades.
> 
> Sometimes we just have to recognise that there are situations where capitalism is worse than the alternative.



How many wind farms in Australia are public?
You will find that as the socialism increases and the money get wasted, there is nothing left to build any infrastructure so in europe, even socialist governments sell assets ower telco, roads because they end up broke and the state bureaucracy becomes so heavy
For me socialism is not only labour: as explained before, when competition is for the lower denominator, most center right government turns socialist to have a chance of winning.
"I give you if i win....."

Obvious consequence:budget deficit for decades, welfare mentality, real business can only survive with their own welfare: monopoly, regulation, hand out, the down spiral
Welcome Argentina down under...
But it is ok we are different....


----------



## qldfrog (7 March 2019)

Yes of course, in my opinion power and utilities, roads should be public
This is what we are supposed to pay taxes for, not ndis or 50 billions of rusting sea watercans


----------



## moXJO (7 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> State run power companies kept the lights on and prices low for decades.
> 
> Sometimes we just have to recognise that there are situations where capitalism is worse than the alternative.



I like the idea of government run utilities. But then they are held victim to unions. 80s were a nightmare for that kind of thing. Privatization of power seems to be gouging at the other end. 
But I often wonder if there is any going back to cheap power, or high prices the new reality?


----------



## qldfrog (7 March 2019)

But we are already too far down the drain and no, electricity companies are not evil, they run a business where our politicians have been unable to give proper direction (their job)
We should all remember that the greens are the ones who prevented a carbon tax in their time
Was not enough for them.look at the results
Green and responsability?
Does not match, only feel good and #trend does


----------



## moXJO (7 March 2019)

Nsw- the tree tories and the commies are battling it out. I dare say the latte sippers and rank and file are also clashing heads. My observation, if you were not uni educated you were in the pleb file. They are just as cut throat and aggressive as other parties.

There was talk of a split.


----------



## qldfrog (7 March 2019)

I have a current hate against the green .as i believe they are a fake party hijacking the environment and good nature of people to promote a far left agenda.i am sure there are environment caring people among them but they have no angst putting a radical left political agenda in front of the environment, often against it and with no respect whatever for realism, or measured decisions
I once voted green, and feel cheated.
I am living like a perfect tree hugger, got my cob oven, own food water electricity , created a 400acres Nature refuge, live in a land for wildlife property
 but as a 50y old male hetero,not living on welfare and paying taxes i am a relentless target by the same  dimwits who will petition to save a tree yet, will add 500000 people a year in a blink of an eye and blame developers for expensive housing
Here in SEQld, how many new migrants do we trade for each koala diseappearing..cause it is as simple as that.
They will have my unreserved vote the day they will really fight for the environment, but while far left radicals, i will fight them as much as i can
Democracy is not a given, and we should fight for it


----------



## qldfrog (7 March 2019)

Going back to my fencing!


----------



## Junior (7 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> But we are already too far down the drain and no, electricity companies are not evil, they run a business where our politicians have been unable to give proper direction (their job)




They are primarily ASX-listed companies, so unfortunately, like the banks, they have held shareholders as their top priority.....which means finding ways within the confines of regulation to extract as much profit as possible from their customers.  More Government intervention is required.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> I have a current hate against the green .as i believe they are a fake party hijacking the environment and good nature of people to promote a far left agenda.i am sure there are environment caring people among them but they have no angst putting a radical left political agenda in front of the environment, often against it and with no respect whatever for realism, or measured decisions
> I once voted green, and feel cheated.
> I am living like a perfect tree hugger, got my cob oven, own food water electricity , created a 400acres Nature refuge, live in a land for wildlife property
> but as a 50y old male hetero,not living on welfare and paying taxes i am a relentless target by the same  dimwits who will petition to save a tree yet, will add 500000 people a year in a blink of an eye and blame developers for expensive housing
> ...




I agree to a fair extent.

If the Greens were pro environment they would have a stronger anti immigration agenda; more people always means less nature , it's a simple binary.

The extent of land clearing in this country is outrageous and yet the Greens seem more concerned with refugees or legalising pot. They are not focussed on the big issues in my view.

At least Lee Rhiannon is gone, she was a toxic Marxist influence in the Greens, I hope they can recover in her absence.


----------



## explod (7 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I agree to a fair extent.
> 
> If the Greens were pro environment they would have a stronger anti immigration agenda; more people always means less nature , it's a simple binary.
> 
> ...



We are onto this every day all over the country but the right wing press just stay away:-
*Samantha Dunn*
2 hrs · 
Way back in 2007, the then DSE ran the Wood and Water project as part of the Our Water Our Future statement. Part of that assessment work included a forest management regime that included "ceasing timber harvesting in Melbourne's catchments in 2009/10". What was extraordinary about this was that it disappeared as an option. At the start of 2007 ceasing timber harvesting was an option, by the end of 2007 there was no reference at all.

As a way to divert attention the excuse cited in 2008 "the option of immediate cessation of harvesting is not available to government as it can not be done without affecting existing timber supply commitments" even though there was also acknowledgement that the ceasing logging option would "mean a gradual increase up to 5% per annum additional water supply...".

It's been a long time that government's have known of the impact of logging on water supply in our catchments but sadly the odds have always been stacked against our forests and their important role in securing Melbourne's water.

If you're not happy about this, let your local member know. Squandering our forests, risking water supply, accelerating climate change, trashing biodiversity are the best of many reasons to stop logging in our water catchments.


----------



## explod (7 March 2019)

Very important action happening now but you wont see it in the media:-
"
*Steph Hodgins-May*
3 hrs · 
While the Coalition froths at the prospect of new coal fired power stations in NSW, these incredible young people are saying cut the crap or move out of the way. Help us make this the climate election » stephhodginsmay.org.au/get-involved


----------



## qldfrog (7 March 2019)

yes and no, this is typical green, you can harvest decently, limit erosion, have a living forest growing, capturing c02 and providing wood as a return to earn its economic worth, but by being radical, you end up with a black and white view and stupid policies.
I can not legally cut a tree on my 40+ acre block, even the ones I planted!!!!!  unless immediate danger to property, so do I go and buy my logs at bunnings to do fencing, with the extra carbon cost, extra chemicals and $ cost, these coming from a pine plantation with clear cutting to harvest, and probably plantation closed as soon as green are in power and replaced by canadian or us imports..
yet the same block next door is subdivided, and once done, the buldozers came and on some 5 acres block not a single tree is left,
In the process, the creek is now dead water..but all legal whereas each post I harvest on my block for own local use is illegal.

This is great , all the koalas are at home now..because they have nowhere left to go to, then the houses are completed and the vegan anti vaccs nature lovers come, each with 2 dogs wiping out the remaining wallabies and koalas within 3 to 5 years.and I do not say anything about the snakes or goannas who could hurt their "would hurt no one barking machines
What would you do in my shoes...

How many places around the country where this happens, how many stupid legislation like that?

There are excesses sure but the offer of the greens is more green tape and no real actions where it counts
Last example
Plastic bag bans in supermarkets whereas it is a given proven fact that it will results in more plastic used overall, and extra profit for the retailers...
And everyone knows that the plastic in the oceans do not come from inland Australian but it is not PC to advertise the origin of the crap clogging the whales stomachs

Stop the dump actions, fight for the real causes, not instagrams
Stop pretending
Rant over


----------



## explod (7 March 2019)

The Greens have been working and pushing against this AGL development for 12 months, again no one sees the many demonstrations on mainstream news.




Save Westernport No AGL gas
February 26 at 3:53 PM
Come and ask AGL about their proposal to import gas at Crib Point and find out about their new research at their meetings this week.
Save Westernport will be there with suggestions for questions to ask. or just come say hello, sign our petition to Parliament to STOP the proposal, or just pick up some Save Westernport and No AGL Stickers, signs and postcards.

Cowes and Crib Point were held earlier in the week. Here are the remaining AGL sessions this week. 
Saturday will be a hot day, but we’re hoping for an especially BIG turn-out at Hastings, to really demonstrate how strong the local opposition to this plan.

Wednesday 27 February, 7pm – 9pm
Officer Public Hall 16-18 Tivendale Road, Officer 3809

Thursday 28 February, 7pm – 9pm
Pearcedale Community Centre 710 Baxter-Tooradin Rd, Pearcedale 3912

Saturday 2 March, 12pm – 2pm
Hastings Community Hub 1973 Frankston - Flinders Road, Hastings 3915

And here's the link to the Environment Effects Statement process AGL are required to undertake:

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/…/brow…/projects/crib-point…


----------



## explod (7 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> yes and no, this is typical green, you can harvest decently, limit erosion, have a living forest growing, capturing c02 and providing wood as a return to earn its economic worth, but by being radical, you end up with a black and white view and stupid policies.
> I can not legally cut a tree on my 40+ acre block, even the ones I planted!!!!!  unless immediate danger to property, so do I go and buy my logs at bunnings to do fencing, with the extra carbon cost, extra chemicals and $ cost, these coming from a pine plantation with clear cutting to harvest, and probably plantation closed as soon as green are in power and replaced by canadian or us imports..
> yet the same block next door is subdivided, and once done, the buldozers came and on some 5 acres block not a single tree is left,
> In the process, the creek is now dead water..but all legal whereas each post I harvest on my block for own local use is illegal.
> ...



Plastic bag use by customers at supermarkets has dropped 80% in the last 12 months.


----------



## greggles (7 March 2019)

explod said:


> Plastic bag use by customers at supermarkets has dropped 80% in the last 12 months.




Unfortunately this is a misleading statistic. I used those very thin Woolworths single use bags as garbage bags. Now I am forced to buy much larger, thicker garbage bags to dispose of my household waste. I am pretty sure that I'm not the only person who did used supermarket plastic bags in this way. My use of plastic bags has actually increased since the ban.

I doubt that the use of plastic bags has decreased much, if at all, as a result of the supermarket ban.


----------



## explod (7 March 2019)

greggles said:


> Unfortunately this is a misleading statistic. I used those very thin Woolworths single use bags as garbage bags. Now I am forced to buy much larger, thicker garbage bags to dispose of my household waste. I am pretty sure that I'm not the only person who did used supermarket plastic bags in this way. My use of plastic bags has actually increased since the ban.
> 
> I doubt that the use of plastic bags has decreased much, if at all, as a result of the supermarket ban.



I do not use a bag for my rubbish at all.  My inside bin I lightly rinse after each empty and put all my rubbish loose in the collection bin.  My rubbish has reduced enormously since I now tear paper and cardboard into strips, soak with my vegetable scraps and feed it into worm farms I have developed and my veggies now grow like rockets.  As a vegetarian no meat to worry about.  I'll try to find the source of that 80% as it is a fact.


----------



## Darc Knight (7 March 2019)

Plastic bucket with a sealable lid gtg


----------



## explod (7 March 2019)

Drop in plastic bag use:-

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/r...t/news-story/678f21eb838fb6706baa370bc3b3ec29


----------



## greggles (7 March 2019)

explod said:


> Drop in plastic bag use:-
> 
> https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/r...t/news-story/678f21eb838fb6706baa370bc3b3ec29




I have no doubt that they've dropped at the point of sale. But I bet the sales in the garbage bag section of the supermarket have gone up dramatically. My experience is that they have.

Anyway, I'm bowing out of the discussion. I should never have posted in the first place. These general chat threads are the worst thing about ASF.


----------



## qldfrog (8 March 2019)

explod said:


> Plastic bag use by customers at supermarkets has dropped 80% in the last 12 months.



Total plastic consumption!
During that fiasco, the abc gad an article on a research based on similar bans.
It was clear overall plastic consumption increase with one off bags replaced with thicker bags which are not used long enough to compensate for the extra material, moreover, being thicker they decomposed less and are a bigger hazard.
If genuine, do your search.no time for that was abc  online 
The usual green sh*t
Unthought feel good simple but headless solutions


----------



## qldfrog (8 March 2019)

There is it Explod
We have successfully increased not only plastic consumption but cost for consumers and profit for the retailers
A clear win the right would never have been to achieve
Thanks the greens
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/9874474
If you fill people's head with propaganda BS, you end up with Bs results


----------



## qldfrog (8 March 2019)

I leave you to it, life is too short but you are a good person Explod.
Sort thru the crap, propaganda and hidden facts are not always on the other side
And i know you even believe the abc does not treat you fairly so how can i change your view and open your eyes.all the best.i am out


----------



## explod (9 March 2019)

Can see why Mr Rabbit is now seriously considering CC:-

LONDON — A huge student protest movement led almost exclusively by teenage girls and young women is sweeping Europe, and it's on the brink of breaking through in the US.

So far this year, tens of thousands of high school–age students in Belgium, Germany, and Sweden have boycotted class and protested against climate change. The loose movement’s inspiration, a 16-year-old girl who began a solitary picket last year outside the Swedish Parliament in Stockholm, has compared the protests to the March for Our Lives movement organized by the Parkland teens in the wake of a shooting at their school that left 17 dead.

In the latest mass climate strikes, large crowds took to the streets in The Hague on Thursday, in the largest such protest in the Netherlands so far. The teens leading the climate strike across the border in Belgium were in Leuven, the country’s eighth-largest city, where they told BuzzFeed News they had 12,000 people on the streets in one of many actions across the country.

A climate march last weekend in the Belgian capital, Brussels, drew more than 100,000 people, and one of the country’s environment ministers resigned this week after falsely claiming intelligence services had told her the protests were a plot against her.

The protests are injecting a new urgency into the debate around climate change, and calling attention to a lack of action by governments. They are also a sign of the new political power of young women, especially in Europe. Climate strikes have also been organized by students in Australia, and US organizers are planning to participate in an international day of action on March 15.

Jamie Margolin, the 17-year-old founder and executive director of Zero Hour, a group working on the March 15 protest in the US, told BuzzFeed News that climate activism has given young women like her a chance to be heard.

“There aren’t very many spaces that I can be in charge of, and what I’m going to say is going to be heard,” Margolin said. Her group is led largely by young women of color, which she said should come as no surprise, because people who are already vulnerable are going to be disproportionately hit by climate change. A 2014 report by the World Health Organization outlined that women are more likely to be harmed in the kinds of natural disasters made more likely by global warming, bear greater responsibility for getting access to water, energy, and other basics of domestic life, and often are shut out of opportunities when resources decline."

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...kO1fiswqdn8ce01MdvPA4uHz3muVwtPCs1gT4xwYfJCsc


----------



## wayneL (9 March 2019)

They protest,  yet take no responsibility themselves. Just diabolically hypocritical and downright stupid.

Plod you are still the only Green I know of, that lives what you preach; the rest are fools, especially these silly little girls.


----------



## explod (11 March 2019)

Regardless of religion or background we the Greens are strong on this.  None of us asked to be born so we should therefore be treated equally.



Senator Nick McKim


----------



## explod (20 March 2019)

Dr. Robert Holian for Bendigo 2019


----------



## SirRumpole (20 March 2019)

explod said:


> Dr. Robert Holian for Bendigo 2019




Didn't they used to be called Building Societies or Credit Unions ?


----------



## wayneL (20 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Didn't they used to be called Building Societies or Credit Unions ?



I was about to make the same point.


----------



## explod (20 March 2019)

No State Bank of Victoria was a peoples bank.  I think before Thatcherism most banks were public.  Just like SEC, PMG and Universities to name a few.

The *State Bank* of *Victoria* was an Australian *bank*that existed from 1842 until 1990 when it was taken over by the Commonwealth *Bank*. It was *owned* by the *State* of *Victoria*.
*State Bank of Victoria - Wikipedia*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Bank_of_Victoria


----------



## cynic (20 March 2019)

explod said:


> No State Bank of Victoria was a peoples bank.  I think before Thatcherism most banks were public.  Just like SEC, PMG and Universities to name a few.



If that is so, then why the FTSE, did SBV have exemption from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act?


----------



## explod (20 March 2019)

cynic said:


> If that is so, then why the FTSE, did SBV have exemption from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act?



Was not aware of that, I worked in the FOI office administering applications for Vicpol for a couple of years so would be pleased if you could elaborate.


----------



## cynic (20 March 2019)

explod said:


> Was not aware of that, I worked in the FOI office administering applications for Vicpol for a couple of years so would be pleased if you could elaborate.



I worked for SBV back in the late 80's. The revelations from its collapse in 1990 , spoke volumes about the issues surrounding the lack of transparency and accountability.


----------



## explod (20 March 2019)

cynic said:


> I worked for SBV back in the late 80's. The revelations from its collapse in 1990 , spoke volumes about the issues surrounding the lack of transparency and accountability.



Fair enough, those things creep in over time.  In fact the governments began to remove a lot of checks and balances then, other things also, safety officers and health inspectors etc., as privatisation began the Guvmints became more concerned with cutting public costs.  However from it's beginning in the 1840s it served well

The reason I was called to the FOI office was due to an overload when a number of high ranking cops took flights with a new airline at 90% discounts. 1985, Continental Airline affair.


----------



## wayneL (21 March 2019)

@SirRumpole apologies for the rude emoticon above.  I didn't have my glasses on and thought it was a thumbs up, completely unintentional. I have deleted the emoticon.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> @SirRumpole apologies for the rude emoticon above.  I didn't have my glasses on and thought it was a thumbs up, completely unintentional. I have deleted the emoticon.




No problem wayne.


----------



## Darc Knight (22 March 2019)

Let me see which Green in SEQld has the smallest margin. Turn the other cheek says Jesus. Sorry Jesus - I ain't a Christian and I do travel and have wide spread resources.


----------



## wayneL (22 March 2019)

Thoughts on Bolt/Di Natalie interview? 

I thought Di Natalie got pwned,  but may be biased. I thought his position was unconscionable.


----------



## Darc Knight (22 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> Thoughts on Bolt/Di Natalie interview?
> 
> I thought Di Natalie got pwned,  but may be biased. I thought his position was unconscionable.




Got a link pls?


----------



## rederob (22 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> They protest,  yet take no responsibility themselves. Just diabolically hypocritical and downright stupid.
> Plod you are still the only Green I know of, that lives what you preach; the rest are fools, especially these silly little girls.



They are protesting because they have no other voice.
Your claim that they take no responsibility themselves is utterly baseless, which seems the norm from you.
Your other comments are equally worthless.


----------



## wayneL (22 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Got a link pls?





Link to full interview therein.


----------



## wayneL (22 March 2019)

rederob said:


> They are protesting because they have no other voice.
> Your claim that they take no responsibility themselves is utterly baseless, which seems the norm from you.
> Your other comments are equally worthless.



P1ss off Rob,  you are boring.


----------



## rederob (22 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> P1ss off Rob,  you are boring.



Please retract that Wayne.
You are welcome to your views, but not to disparage.


----------



## wayneL (22 March 2019)

It is hilarious that you don't see the irony in what you just posted. I stand by my comments and refrain from further, more deserved disparagement.

Unbelievable


----------



## rederob (22 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> It is hilarious that you don't see the irony in what you just posted. I stand by my comments and refrain from further, more deserved disparagement.
> Unbelievable



The forum has a code of conduct.
Maybe try to abide by it.
I let a lot of your commentary pass as it seldom adds anything meaningful to threads.
More often than not it is something to do with your penchant for "labels", perhaps because you are not capable of better contributions.
With regard to your remark on *irony*, the difference is that I can show that each element of your post was without merit.


----------



## rederob (22 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> My comment on your post are in *blue*.



They protest,  yet take no responsibility themselves. *Where is your evidence for this claim?*
*By protesting they are in fact taking taking some responsibility.*
Just diabolically hypocritical and downright stupid. *What are your grounds for that comment?  The scientific community are clear on the potential for a rate of warming which can be calamitous if nothing is done soon.  You seem to be making another claim which has no apparent justification.*
Plod you are still the only Green I know of, that lives what you preach; *the rest are fools*, - *where is your evidence for this claim?  It seems an unsubstantiated idea you have  *especially *these silly little girls*.  *Are they members of the "greens"? You seem to have confused senses here.*


----------



## wayneL (22 March 2019)

zzzz...zzzz....zzzzz 

Wake me up when you decide to discontinue your disparagement of me and want to have a reasonable debate


----------



## basilio (22 March 2019)

Rederob are you finding it challenging to understand Wayne's POV ?
Perhaps you should check out the places he uses to inform his  views.


----------



## Darc Knight (22 March 2019)

basilio said:


> Perhaps you should check out the places he uses to inform his  views.




Jeez Bas. Pot Kettle Black and all that!


----------



## rederob (22 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> zzzz...zzzz....zzzzz
> Wake me up when you decide to discontinue your disparagement of me and want to have a reasonable debate



I respond to what you write.
You, personally, are only relevant to me to the extent you present something worthy of comment.
As I said above, I see little from you here that is worth bothering about.


basilio said:


> Rederob are you finding it challenging to understand Wayne's POV ?



 No. 
Only hard to find "content".


----------



## basilio (22 March 2019)

Just to be clear. The posting I made from Alternative View Ireland was orginally Wayne's post in another thread.


----------



## wayneL (22 March 2019)

basilio said:


> Rederob are you finding it challenging to understand Wayne's POV ?
> Perhaps you should check out the places he uses to inform his  views.





So you support the Senegalese immigrant attempting to burn 51 children alive ?

Its easy to disingenuously reframe stuff hey bas? Thanks for confirming my acronymonious (sic) categorisation of you Komrade.


----------



## wayneL (22 March 2019)

basilio said:


> Just to be clear. The posting I made from Alternative View Ireland was orginally Wayne's post in another thread.




Smear smear

And FYI, it was a convenient retweet that appeared on my feed; convenient because your statist,  agendised MSM had not reported it. I don't follow that entity.


----------



## Darc Knight (22 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> Smear smear
> 
> And FYI, it was a convenient retweet that appeared on my feed; convenient because your statist,  agendised MSM had not reported it. I don't follow that entity.




MSN gets paid by some dubious sites geez. Some of the crap links this morning.


----------



## rederob (22 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> And FYI, it was a convenient retweet that appeared on my feed; convenient because your statist,  agendised *MSM had not reported it*. I don't follow that entity.



It was reported by by the New York Times the evening before the tweeted link.
Looks like some people are living in an alternative universe.


----------



## wayneL (22 March 2019)

rederob said:


> It was reported by by the New York Times the evening before the tweeted link.
> Looks like some people are living in an alternative universe.



Did I say this was the first iteration of reportage? 

No, I didn't, merely a convenient link.

Looks like some people have zero critical thinking skills.

Rob,  you *know* this has been under reported, so stick your failing narrative in the memory hole cesspit , where it belongs.


----------



## rederob (22 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> Did I say this was the first iteration of reportage?
> No, I didn't, merely a convenient link.
> Looks like some people have zero critical thinking skills.
> Rob,  you *know* this has been under reported, so stick your failing narrative in the memory hole cesspit , where it belongs.



Honestly Wayne, your comments are nothing other than clutching at straws.
I read this in the *New York Times*, before the tweeted time in the link.  
Your claim was exactly this, "...convenient because your statist, agendised *MSM had not reported it...."*
Is it your claim the *New York Times *is not the mainstream media? 
If so, what does constitute *your *version of the MSM?
*
*


----------



## IFocus (22 March 2019)

"P1ss off Rob, you are boring."

When you don't have an argument that stands up..........personal attacks look really really ugly Wayne your in that hole again stop digging.


----------



## wayneL (22 March 2019)

rederob said:


> Honestly Wayne, your comments are nothing other than clutching at straws.
> I read this in the *New York Times*, before the tweeted time in the link.
> Your claim was exactly this, "...convenient because your statist, agendised *MSM had not reported it...."*
> Is it your claim the *New York Times *is not the mainstream media?
> If so, what does constitute *your *version of the MSM?



Nothing of your speciousness here repudiates the substance of my above points, Rob.

Stop the juvenile hair splitting and debate the major points at hand.


----------



## rederob (22 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> Nothing of your speciousness here repudiates the substance of my above points, Rob.
> Stop the juvenile hair splitting and debate the major points at hand.



I asked a question of you seeing that you seem to have a view that the *New York Times* is not MSM.
And you respond in the usual manner - ie. avoid the issue.
At what point will you make a claim of substance as distinct from indulging id superfluous language?


----------



## rederob (22 March 2019)

IFocus said:


> "P1ss off Rob, you are boring."
> When you don't have an argument that stands up..........personal attacks look really really ugly Wayne your in that hole again stop digging.



I keep looking for an "argument" per se.
I see from Wayne lots of words that seldom make sense.  It is possible he does not know what he is actually stating.


----------



## Darc Knight (22 March 2019)

Geez, stop your arguing. Damm vegans


----------



## wayneL (22 March 2019)

I love having my comments vindicated. 

When you lot are ready to be adults,  I'm here for you.


----------



## rederob (22 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> I love having my comments vindicated.
> When you lot are ready to be adults,  I'm here for you.



Not sure your word salad cuts the mustard.
You certainly have poured on the dressing, but keep overlooking the principal ingredients.


----------



## wayneL (22 March 2019)

Okay,  let's play then Rob. 

Happy to start from scratch if you want.


----------



## rederob (22 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> Okay,  let's play then Rob.
> Happy to start from scratch if you want.



You have had many chances already, but chose to take other paths.
I will try to keep my comments relevant to threads, and in response to issues raised therein.


----------



## explod (22 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> Okay,  let's play then Rob.
> 
> Happy to start from scratch if you want.



I suppose with an empty room bereft of meaning it's a bit hard on the other party.  But I suppose that is how one rules, keep em in the dark and stay on top.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> Okay,  let's play then Rob.
> 
> Happy to start from scratch if you want.




You could start by explaining why you think the Christchurch killer is a Lefty.

I haven't been able to work that one out.


----------



## explod (22 March 2019)

Resist The MSM
Yesterday at 5:23 PM ·
On our Greens website a short time ago.  We support  all people and denominations.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 March 2019)

explod said:


> On our Greens website a short time ago. We support all people and denominations.




Did you see Richard de Natalie's interview with Andrew Bolt ?

I thought Bolt went well over the top as he usually does.


----------



## explod (22 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Did you see Richard de Natalie's interview with Andrew Bolt ?
> 
> I thought Bolt went well over the top as he usually does.



As we'd expect, no did not see it but he made an excellent speech a few days back, put the others misunderstandings to shame in my view.


----------



## Logique (23 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Did you see Richard de Natalie's interview with Andrew Bolt ?
> I thought Bolt went well over the top as he usually does.



In the context of the interview perhaps, but then _he_ is the one being beaten up on the streets of Melbourne, and receiving threats of violence to his family, requiring police protection.  
I doubt white supremacists are the source of that.


----------



## explod (23 March 2019)

Dr. Robert Holian for Bendigo 2019
3 hrs · 


Fewer than half of the people who seek treatment for alcohol and drug (AOD) dependence aren't able to access the help they need.

This issue destroys families, tears apart relationships, and kills thousands of Australians every year. As a nation, we need to up our game.


----------



## wayneL (29 March 2019)

A party of racists.


----------



## explod (29 March 2019)

Like to elaborate there Wayne

Racists ?


----------



## qldfrog (30 March 2019)

explod said:


> Like to elaborate there Wayne
> 
> Racists ?



White able bodied Men
And do you genuinely ask?
The colour has no place here.if you do not realise or admit that, no need to carry conversation
I would let go with "men" as it could have been used..i doubt .as generic term
The above tweet is one our society should be ashamed of, not celebrating


----------



## rederob (30 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> White able bodied Men
> And do you genuinely ask?
> The colour has no place here.if you do not realise or admit that, no need to carry conversation
> I would let go with "men" as it could have been used..i doubt .as generic term
> The above tweet is one our society should be ashamed of, not celebrating



You need to watch his address, or at least read it before shooting off at the mouth.
Neither you  nor Wayne seem capable of sensible discussion.
Had you taken the opportunity to understand the context of Jordan's speech you would have realised he articulated a narrative against racism and hate which we should all aspire to - at least those with the values and qualities of *leadership,* which was the theme of his award.


----------



## wayneL (30 March 2019)

You are boring me again REDerob, and yes I did listen to the whole thing, the statement is racist etc.

You seem to have no argument other that cast inaccurate aspersions, you are a bitter, nasty POS, so not interested in interacting with you.


----------



## rederob (30 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> You are boring me again REDerob, and yes I did listen to the whole thing, the statement is racist etc.
> 
> You seem to have no argument other that cast inaccurate aspersions, you are a bitter, nasty POS, so not interested in interacting with you.



Meanwhile you just toss out comments without justification, and deliberately choose to take out of context Jordan's remarks.
How about presenting a reasoned argument for your claims so all can see its merits or otherwise.


----------



## moXJO (30 March 2019)

rederob said:


> You need to watch his address, or at least read it before shooting off at the mouth.
> Neither you  nor Wayne seem capable of sensible discussion.
> Had you taken the opportunity to understand the context of Jordan's speech you would have realised he articulated a narrative against racism and hate which we should all aspire to - at least those with the values and qualities of *leadership,* which was the theme of his award.



You sure you want to decipher the "context" of anymore speeches?


----------



## cynic (30 March 2019)

Well, the Greens concept of leadership would probably serve very well for migratory lemmings.


----------



## Knobby22 (30 March 2019)

cynic said:


> Well, the Greens concept of leadership would probably serve very well for migratory lemmings.



Unlike Labor and Liberal. 
Rudd, Gillard, Rudd, Abbott,Turnbull,Scomo.

At least the Nationals, oh wait,[emoji16] 
(by the way, those lemmings were pushed by Disney Corp for the film, check it out).


----------



## cynic (30 March 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> ...
> (by the way, those lemmings were pushed by Disney Corp for the film, check it out).



Aha!!

So those reluctant lemmings (obviously deniers) had to be forced to comply with the will of a governing power!

Doubtless this oppressive action will be justified by the joy, it will undoubtedly bring, to so many grandchildren (present and future), from all corners of the globe, in the years to come.

It would seem that Green ideology is by no means unique to the Greens.


----------



## rederob (30 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> You sure you want to decipher the "context" of anymore speeches?



Given that you and others are prone to create a narrative from thin air to realise what you prefer to believe, I will continue to stick with what was actually stated. 
In a previous case of yours it was necessary for you to use not what was stated in the film, but what was an actor's personal preference, so that you could make a point.  That's called a straw man argument and does not wash with me.


wayneL said:


> You seem to have no argument other that cast inaccurate aspersions, you are a bitter, nasty POS, so not interested in interacting with you.



You say on one hand you are "Happy to start [an argument] from scratch", but when twice asked to elaborate on your claim of "racism" you take the cowards path.
So here's the real point:
Had you appreciated the context of Jordan's speech you would have worked out that it is people like you who cannot show they have a reasoned case that are truly the peddlers of racism.  When called out you do a Pauline Hanson on us - and convince yourselves that in fact it is not you who are the problem.  As per usual your credibility is in tatters.


----------



## rederob (30 March 2019)

Jordan's speech can be found at this link.
Jordan's specific references to racism and hate speech can be located at 47:50 and 50:25.
And here is the verbatim record of Jordan's speech which immediately led to Wayne's claim of "*racism*":
*"And until we see a parliament as diverse and as vibrant as the community in which it is sent to represent, it will never be able to do its job.  We must end a situation in which we are governed by people which bear no life experience to us."*​


----------



## cynic (31 March 2019)

Racism,sexism, nondisableism and ageism - all encapsulated within a single speech!

Could someone please explain, how such divisive sentiments, are rationally reconcilable with policies that purport to promote love,compassion, tolerance and inclusivity?


----------



## moXJO (31 March 2019)

rederob said:


> Given that you and others are prone to create a narrative from thin air to realise what you prefer to believe, I will continue to stick with what was actually stated.
> In a previous case of yours it was necessary for you to use not what was stated in the film, but what was an actor's personal preference, so that you could make a point.  That's called a straw man argument and does not wash with me.



Na... He directly quoted his question and Gandhis answer in his speech. He was a known pacifist. 

But keep telling yourself you ain't grasping at air. Jesus,  you brought what to the table again?  Hot air? 

At least the stuff I posted is verifiable as apposed to "I thinks it is, cause its a war movie".


----------



## wayneL (31 March 2019)

Are you actually Titania McGrath, Rederob? Its the only explanation.


----------



## rederob (31 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> At least the stuff I posted is verifiable as apposed to "I thinks it is, cause its a war movie".



Why not read what I said again and stop it with your pathetic straw man arguments - just another outright lie from you because you never liked "being told".


----------



## rederob (31 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> Are you actually Titania McGrath, Rederob? Its the only explanation.



You could have attempted what was asked of you, Wayne, seeing you believe you made a valid point.
But it seems that each time you are challenged you limp away.
We are getting used to that here, so you are at least consistent..


----------



## moXJO (31 March 2019)

rederob said:


> Why not read what I said again and stop it with your pathetic straw man arguments - just another outright lie from you because you never liked "being told".



Why would I need to. Scratch the surface on your posts and its a wayneL insult backed up with nothing.


----------



## rederob (31 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> Why would I need to. Scratch the surface on your posts and its a wayneL insult backed up with nothing.



I can and do back up what I post.
Your claim that Chaplin being a pacifist meant he could not say what he did in a movie role is a bit like saying that Rock Hudson could not play it straight in a movie role.
Meanwhile Wayne has had to dip into repeated adhominems while he tries (or perhaps does not) to work out his next meaningful post.


----------



## moXJO (31 March 2019)

rederob said:


> I can and do back up what I post.
> Your claim that Chaplin being a pacifist meant he could not say what he did in a movie role is a bit like saying that Rock Hudson could not play it straight in a movie role.



He directly quoted Gandhi from his meeting. 
You misunderstood the context of the speech. Possibly the point of the character he played as well.
 He spent months writing and rewriting that speech to get the message right. Thats not a throwaway movie speech.

So no, you are on flimsy ground.


----------



## rederob (31 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> He directly quoted Gandhi from his meeting.
> You misunderstood the context of the speech. Possibly the point of the character he played as well.
> He spent months writing and rewriting that speech to get the message right. Thats not a throwaway movie speech.
> So no, you are on flimsy ground.



You persist in straw man arguments.
At least you will win those.


----------



## moXJO (31 March 2019)

rederob said:


> You persist in straw man arguments.
> At least you will win those.



And your arguments are routinely backed up by nothing.


----------



## wayneL (31 March 2019)

No I don't limp anywhere Red. Its just think it's futile argueing with monodimensional, "woke", ideologues.

I'm here primarily for the entertainment


----------



## moXJO (31 March 2019)

rederob said:


> You persist in straw man arguments.
> .



Pointing out you are wrong isn't a strawman argument either.

My "soldiers are the ones who fought for freedom" hook post was.
Yes I do love a good strawman to bring someone in.

Lets talk about Jordans speech. But lets also get something clear.I support his support on a lot of issues. The #aabill being one of them.

"The era of white able bodied men is over"

Using white in a derogatory dig (even if regarding over representation in parliament) comes across wrong. And sends the wrong message to their idiot extreme  supporters that its ok to do.

Out of that speech this is what was tweeted in this instance.

“The era of white able bodied men is over,” he said."

How about "the era of under representation is over"?
Instead of racist dribbling to "woke" up a speech by including color.


----------



## rederob (31 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> No I don't limp anywhere Red. Its just think it's futile argueing with monodimensional, "woke", ideologues.
> I'm here primarily for the entertainment



Where is your argument?
You have been asked many times now.
That aside, you appear to be the entertainment, so well done.


----------



## rederob (31 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> Lets talk about Jordans speech. But lets also get something clear.I support his support on a lot of issues. The #aabill being one of them.
> "The era of white able bodied men is over"
> Using white in a derogatory dig (even if regarding over representation in parliament) comes across wrong. And sends the wrong message to their idiot extreme supporters that its ok to do.



Please describe how Jordan's comment is derogatory, and also place your explanation in the context of his speech, overall.


----------



## moXJO (31 March 2019)

rederob said:


> Please describe how Jordan's comment is derogatory, and also place your explanation in the context of his speech, overall.



Pointing out color as a problem in representing the community.
The need to include "white" as a point of difference in an otherwise rational speech.
Being "white" was included,  instead of using "we need greater representation". 

Including "white" in the line of attack that being one color or another means you are less able to serve the community.

I agree with needing greater representation so long as it is indeed made to serve the community and not niche groups.
I also agree that politicians are out of step on many levels.
But there is no need to include "white" in  the way it was used in the argument.
It would have been perfectly fine and got the message across without setting a division.

As an observation; attacking whites is the current flavor.


----------



## rederob (31 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> My comments are in *blue*.



Pointing out color as a problem in representing the community.* So it began as "racism", then was "derogatory", and now is just "a problem"?*
The need to include "white" as a point of difference in an otherwise rational speech.  *Except that white men numerically dominate each house of Parliament.  Stating a fact, and aspiring to change the representation through greater diversity was the context of his commentary.  You missed that, apparently.*
Being "white" was included,  instead of using "we need greater representation". *Again, you clearly missed the context of Jordan's speech, viz "We must end a situation in which we are governed by people which bear no life experience to us." Prior to that sentence he clearly made the point that "...until we see a parliament as diverse and as vibrant as the community in which it is sent to represent, it will never be able to do its job."*
Including "white" in the line of attack that being one color or another means you are less able to serve the community.  *A statement of fact is definitely nothing close to a "line of attack". And again I point out that the context was about the need for Parliament to reflect the diversity* *of the community if it is to be able to do its job properly - we supposedly have a House of Representatives!.*
I agree with needing greater representation so long as it is indeed made to serve the community and not niche groups.  *Who are these so-called "niche groups"?*
I also agree that politicians are out of step on many levels.  *Which was what Jordan was saying, except that he expressed it in terms of people whose life experience and diversity were lacking.*
But there is no need to include "white" in  the way it was used in the argument.  *Jordan needed to point out what was necessary to be changed if his aspirations of a diverse and properly representative Parliament was to be met.  It's a bit hard to leave out the part that is not performing in the representative role it was elected to fulfil*
It would have been perfectly fine and got the message across without setting a division.  *Except that it is you who has created a false narrative through utterly failing to appreciate the context of Jordan's speech in order to create " a division".*
As an observation; attacking whites is the current flavor.  *I suspect that your eyes would find a reason to believe that whenever it suited you.*
*The above aside, it seems that aside from your opinion, there was nothing racist you could point to, nor derogatory.  But there definitely was a problem, and that was your inability to incorporate "context" in your reply.*
*That said, I respect what you did, and thank you.*


----------



## SirRumpole (31 March 2019)

rederob said:


> We must end a situation in which we are governed by people which bear no life experience to us.




That cuts both ways wouldn't you agree ?

Just how does Mr St John expect to achieve this aim ?


----------



## rederob (31 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> That cuts both ways wouldn't you agree ?
> Just how does Mr St John expect to achieve this aim ?



I don't know what you mean, so please elaborate.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 March 2019)

If Mr St John is planning on a takeover of Parliament by people with a disability I don't think he's thinking clearly.


----------



## moXJO (31 March 2019)

*So it began as "racism", then was "derogatory", and now is just "a problem"?*

Color was used in a derogatory fashion which is why it was racist.

*Except that white men numerically dominate each house of Parliament.  Stating a fact, and aspiring to change the representation through greater diversity was the context of his commentary.  You missed that, apparently.*
Ummm no, I didn't  miss jack. "White men"  make up the majority of the country as well. And its reflected in parliament. He clearly used "white" in the context that being that color some how diminishes the role they were voted in to do by the people.
*Again, you clearly missed the context of Jordan's speech, viz "**We must end a situation in which we are governed by people which bear no life experience to us.**" Prior to that sentence he clearly made the point that "...until we see a parliament as diverse and as vibrant as the community in which it is sent to represent, it will never be able to do its job."*
That was not the part I had a problem with.

*A statement of fact is definitely nothing close to a "line of attack". And again I point out that the context was about the need for Parliament to reflect the diversity* *of the community if it is to be able to do its job properly - we supposedly have a House of Representatives!.*

Using being white as a problem in representing the wider community is worse imo.

*Who are these so-called "niche groups"?*

Any group that represents just the interests of their identity groups rather then the wider community.

*Which was what Jordan was saying, except that he expressed it in terms of people whose life experience and diversity were lacking.*
*Jordan needed to point out what was necessary to be changed if his aspirations of a diverse and properly representative Parliament was to be met.  It's a bit hard to leave out the part that is not performing in the representative role it was elected to fulfil*
*Except that it is you who has created a false narrative through utterly failing to appreciate the context of Jordan's speech in order to create " a division".**I suspect that your eyes would find a reason to believe that whenever it suited you.*
*The above aside, it seems that aside from your opinion, there was nothing racist you could point to, nor derogatory.  But there definitely was a problem, and that was your inability to incorporate "context" in your reply.*
*That said, I respect what you did, and thank you.*
The rest of your stuff is what I'd expect.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 March 2019)

rederob said:


> Pointing out color as a problem in representing the community.* So it began as "racism", then was "derogatory", and now is just "a problem"?*
> The need to include "white" as a point of difference in an otherwise rational speech.  *Except that white men numerically dominate each house of Parliament.  Stating a fact, and aspiring to change the representation through greater diversity was the context of his commentary.  You missed that, apparently.*
> Being "white" was included,  instead of using "we need greater representation". *Again, you clearly missed the context of Jordan's speech, viz "We must end a situation in which we are governed by people which bear no life experience to us." Prior to that sentence he clearly made the point that "...until we see a parliament as diverse and as vibrant as the community in which it is sent to represent, it will never be able to do its job."*
> Including "white" in the line of attack that being one color or another means you are less able to serve the community.  *A statement of fact is definitely nothing close to a "line of attack". And again I point out that the context was about the need for Parliament to reflect the diversity* *of the community if it is to be able to do its job properly - we supposedly have a House of Representatives!.*
> ...




I do wish you would cease posting polemics in blue, longer, brighter and in bold,  than the original authors'.

It makes no sense, it is distracting and not in the spirit of rational argument. 

gg


----------



## cynic (31 March 2019)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I do wish you would cease posting polemics in blue, longer, brighter and in bold,  than the original authors'.
> 
> It makes no sense, it is distracting and not in the spirit of rational argument.
> 
> gg



What bold colouring might one prefer? Surely bolded blue is preferable to the proliferation of watermelon green!


----------



## explod (31 March 2019)

Anyway back here on earth things of concern are being measured by the Greens, the only party who really cares about all of humankind equally:-

"









_Activists for a Fossil Free Africa on World Water Day. Photo: 350 Africa_

Dear James,

In the last edition of Fossil Free News I wondered whether we’d reach 1 million people taking part in school strikes. The answer was a resounding YES, with over 1.6 million young people leaving school to demand climate action on March 15. It was the *largest ever global day of climate mobilization* – so far.

We have been so inspired by the Climate Strike this past week, but also filled with deep sorrow as we learned that Cyclone Idai had hit Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe with deadly force. As the flood waters start to recede in southern Africa, the struggle for life only intensifies for the hundreds of thousands of families displaced and left without access to water, food or shelter.

We explore how you can help below, and reflect on how the fight for a safe climate future is intimately connected with the fight for justice and against racism and hatred in all its forms. It's why the school strikers’ pleas for action are so urgent -- the climate crisis hits those who’ve done the least to cause it the hardest.

Onwards, to more action, together,

Nicole "
My first name happens to be James


----------



## moXJO (31 March 2019)

explod said:


> Anyway back here on earth



As a greens voter, you gave up the right to say that plod...


----------



## explod (31 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> As a greens voter, you gave up the right to say that plod...



As a greens voter I am free to think, feel and say as I like.

And you are free to go back to your closed cave ole Pal.  Though a bit of real life experience could be a big help.


----------



## moXJO (31 March 2019)

explod said:


> As a greens voter I am free to think, feel and say as I like.



Just busting your chops plod.


But bring that above statement up in the city nsw branches. They seem to have forgotten.


----------



## explod (31 March 2019)

There are parts of all parties all over the place, just look at Nat Libs the last few years and dear Pauline's party just this last week.

Yep, you are in Fairy Land alright.


----------



## moXJO (31 March 2019)

explod said:


> Yep, you are in Fairy Land alright.



Not to the point I'd vote for the Greens though.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 March 2019)

explod said:


> As a greens voter I am free to think, feel and say as I like.
> 
> And you are free to go back to your closed cave ole Pal.  Though a bit of real life experience could be a big help.




I must admit explod that the Greens are passionate about their policies.

Probably more so than the mainstream parties. 

Unfortunately many I have met, and I do not include you, are as mad as, overly focussed on one or two ideas each and unable to work as a party for change. This leads to a grab bag of policies which remain on the agenda "but are not being taken to this election" as Larissa Waters managed to snow the ABC reporter with earlier this week. 

I mean let's be fair dinkum. 

I'd never join the Greens as a result.

gg


----------



## SirRumpole (31 March 2019)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I'd never join the Greens as a result.




Unlike the Libs whose factionalism has toppled 2 Prime Ministers.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Unlike the Libs whose factionalism has toppled 2 Prime Ministers.




This thread is about the Greens. 

Start one on the Libs lest you go off topic.

gg


----------



## explod (31 March 2019)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I must admit explod that the Greens are passionate about their policies.
> 
> Probably more so than the mainstream parties.
> 
> ...



Good points GG however the Greens hold only a small number of seats and in many respects are only still forming, so disparity across the country is a big issue and I'm the first to admit we may never make it to the front line.

However as we do focus on important new topics they are now more often taken up by the major parties which is giving some value to our existence.


----------



## qldfrog (31 March 2019)

Maybe the watermelon party could split between a relabelled communist party and a real green focussed on the environment
That could allow both parties to have sensible policies
The red one encouraging immigrants, playing the anti white male platform  without giving a dam about the environment and being consistent
And a real green caring about GW, starting protest against Chinese embassies, stopping migration, acting for world population control and free of prejudice on race and sex
The green would gather a fair amount of votes in my opinion and would be able to influence policies
From both majors by being ready to form coalition with either
Just my 2c
Real greens would get my vote


----------



## explod (1 April 2019)




----------



## wayneL (1 April 2019)

Great, can you get SHY to detail how they would additionally punish productive members of society, so then the policy would be complete.


----------



## qldfrog (1 April 2019)

Explod, i am sure you would not expect less from Wayne but i had no knowledge of SHY a year ago but the more i learnt about her lately her speeches her cabale against the luberal democrat guy etc
The more i think she is a despicable human piece of sh.t
She can keep her hate speeches for herself.please save yourself some respect and avoid her quotes
 while i disagree often with di Natale or others, she is worse than the  Pauline  Hanson of the left, and far less sincere


----------



## rederob (1 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> Color was used in a derogatory fashion which is why it was racist.



The principal composition of Parliament was used and it is a mere statement of fact that it is not representative of the broader Australian community.
You are of the opinion that a mere description of a group is derogatory and therefore racist.  In the learned community that concept does not exist.  


moXJO said:


> Using being white as a problem in representing the wider community is worse imo.



You create a false narrative yet again to please your own warped sense of reality.  Jordan notes that the group is not representative.  They could have been any colour or gender, but the context of his speech in this case was about being representative of the broader Australian community.


moXJO said:


> Any group that represents just the interests of their identity groups rather then the wider community.



So *white *men are part of your niche - an own goal.


moXJO said:


> The rest of your stuff is what I'd expect.



Yes, it dealt in detail with the context of his speech which you might recall was what I had asked that you incorporate in your reply, but you failed completely.  Instead you created a false narrative to turn a colour into a *problem* - without any corroboration as to how it could be so - just to create in your mind what you prefer to believe.


----------



## rederob (1 April 2019)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> *I do wish you would cease posting polemics in blue, longer, brighter and in bold,  than the original authors'.*
> *It makes no sense, it is distracting and not in the spirit of rational argument.*
> *gg*



Your first wish is granted.
Second, buy a dictionary and learn what words mean.
Finally, there would need to be a *rational *argument, so when you can point to one I will again oblige.


----------



## basilio (1 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Finally, there would need to be a *rational *argument, so when you can point to one I will again oblige.




Really ! Truly ?  Wouldn't that be a bit of an oxy moron these days ? I thought rationality and fact based analysis died when Elvis departed.


----------



## explod (1 April 2019)

At the next election, the Greens will be championing big, evidence-based solutions to solve the major problems facing our community today, like growing economic inequality, increasing cost of living, environmental destruction and climate change.

We’re right on track to elect more Greens to parliament, to champion our values and realise our vision of a more compassionate, more future-focused Australia.

We can’t wait to tell you more about these plans, and we’d love to share these plans with your friends and family as well.

People power matters in elections. Can you help build our movement and take on the major parties, by forwarding this email to five friends?

Like you, they can sign up to hear more from us this election at *www.greens.org.au/election*

For a future for all of us,

Richard Di Natale


----------



## SirRumpole (1 April 2019)

explod said:


> At the next election, the Greens will be championing big, evidence-based solutions to solve the major problems facing our community today, like growing economic inequality, increasing cost of living, environmental destruction and climate change.




The Greens could have had a ets in place for 10 years but they knocked it back. "Do it our way or don't do it at all".

Sorry plod but that's just extremism. They should have taken Rudd's plan as a start, voted it in then argued for more. They put us 10 years behind where we should have been in carbon reduction.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> As an observation; attacking whites is the current flavor.



To the extent that is true it is racism. 

It is not "reverse racism", it is just racism.

A point that I feel many fail to grasp. Racism by its very nature doesn't have a "reverse" mode or position. Either someone or something is racist or it isn't, there's no reverse about it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The Greens could have had a ets in place for 10 years but they knocked it back. "Do it our way or don't do it at all"



I can recall that broad situation arising with things concerning the environment for close to the past 40 years and it has never been helpful in my view.

Just because running is out of the question doesn't mean you shouldn't walk. It beats sitting around going nowhere.


----------



## moXJO (2 April 2019)

rederob said:


> The principal composition of Parliament was used and it is a mere statement of fact that it is not representative of the broader Australian community.
> You are of the opinion that a mere description of a group is derogatory and therefore racist.  In the learned community that concept does not exist.
> You create a false narrative yet again to please your own warped sense of reality.  Jordan notes that the group is not representative.  They could have been any colour or gender, but the context of his speech in this case was about being representative of the broader Australian community.
> So *white *men are part of your niche - an own goal.
> Yes, it dealt in detail with the context of his speech which you might recall was what I had asked that you incorporate in your reply, but you failed completely.  Instead you created a false narrative to turn a colour into a *problem* - without any corroboration as to how it could be so - just to create in your mind what you prefer to believe.



“The era of white able bodied men is over"
That is not being used as a mere statement that parliament is majority white. 
I'll go one step further and say not only is it racist, but its inflammatory and self serving as well.
It's an identity politics dog whistle designed as a headline grabber.   It feeds into the divisive culture wars and raises his profile. It was intentional and deliberate.



> The Guardian Australian senator says 'the era of the dominant, white, able-bodied ... 1 day ago




And I wonder why the Guardian would run with just that part of the speech.
Or the numerous tweets.
Alt news.
Youtube vids.
Greens supporters
They all ran with that line.

I guess I'm not the only one with a "warped sense of reality".
And the truth is that was the talking point of the speech. Its the headliner. If that one line was removed from the speech, no one would have even bothered.



> So white men are part of your niche - an own goal.



Are you asking if I am white? or if all white men in parliament serve only white people needs?  Care to clear that up.
I'm black by the way.



> Yes, it dealt in detail with the context of his speech which you might recall was what I had asked that you incorporate in your reply, but you failed completely.




No you prattled on too much about nothing. If there was something that could be referenced from a previous post then go back and reread it not misread it.

Once again this line: “The era of white able bodied men is over" did not need to be included.

If he left out the above and the below was the headline:
'Australia is in desperate need of a parliament as diverse and as vibrant and as energetic as the community it is sent to represent'
Maybe then it would be run as creating a diverse parliament and breaking the "monopoly".

But he didn't. He used deliberate language. Thats being used as a further wedge across forums. So it is a divise rhetoric dog whistle.
Oh and racist.
Pure politics at play to his base.



> you might recall was what I had asked that you incorporate in your reply, but you failed completely.



You can ask what you like. Your minds already made. I'm not trying to convince you of my point.



> In the learned community



Now thats value.


----------



## TikoMike (2 April 2019)

"The white able-bodied male era is over" says the Greens senator. Would it be false equivalency if I said it sounds similar to Hitler's speech on the Jews?


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> “The era of white able bodied men is over"
> That is not being used as a mere statement that parliament is majority white.



In fact it  is the sole context, but you want to create your own reality which is just delusion.
Can you show that most in Parliament are not white men?


moXJO said:


> I'll go one step further and say not only is it racist, but its inflammatory and self serving as well.
> It's an identity politics dog whistle designed as a headline grabber. It feeds into the divisive culture wars and raises his profile. It was intentional and deliberate.



Only people who think like you draw conclusions from false narratives.
Never yet have you put the statement into its context, which shows the ineptitude of your commentary.
Worse, because you are not good at parsing, you at *no time* showed how, definitionally, you had any case at all.


moXJO said:


> Are you asking if I am white? or if all white men in parliament serve only white people needs? Care to clear that up.
> I'm black by the way.



Yet another of your straw man arguments - you have nothing better to offer.


moXJO said:


> Once again this line: “The era of white able bodied men is over" did not need to be included.



You keep saying this, and it cements your inability to appreciate how it was wholly contextual to the speech. 


moXJO said:


> But he didn't. He used deliberate language.



Indeed he did, because this is the *exact* group which does not represent the broader community.
It's sad that you lack the ability to work this out.


moXJO said:


> You can ask what you like. Your minds already made. I'm not trying to convince you of my point.



To make a point you need to understand what happened.  Instead, you recreated in your mind what you wanted to believe, and have consistently worked from your delusions.


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

TikoMike said:


> "The white able-bodied male era is over" says the Greens senator. Would it be false equivalency if I said it sounds similar to Hitler's speech on the Jews?



No, it would show you were unable to understand "meaning" which exists through context.
The mistake that moXJO consistently makes is to assume that it reasonable to take a single sentence in isolation and draw conclusions from it.  Except that moXJO is also of the unusual view that referencing a statement of fact can be construed as racist.  People of sound mind know that just mentioning a race does not of itself constitute *racism*.  Racism demands that certain qualities entail, in particular the notion that there is a superiority/inferiority divide.  Jordan made no comments which were divisive or derogatory.  His reference was about what was needed to better represent the broader community.


----------



## wayneL (2 April 2019)

basilio said:


> Really ! Truly ?  Wouldn't that be a bit of an oxy moron these days ? I thought rationality and fact based analysis died when Elvis departed.



Yeah, like arguing that biological gender is a social construct, then discrimination base on gender, like arguing for racial equality, then discriminating based on race, like arguing against labelling in the political continuum, then demonizing "the right"?


----------



## wayneL (2 April 2019)

rederob said:


> No, it would show you were unable to understand "meaning" which exists through context.
> The mistake that moXJO consistently makes is to assume that it reasonable to take a single sentence in isolation and draw conclusions from it.  Except that moXJO is also of the unusual view that referencing a statement of fact can be construed as racist.  People of sound mind know that just mentioning a race does not of itself constitute *racism*.  Racism demands that certain qualities entail, in particular the notion that there is a superiority/inferiority divide.  Jordan made no comments which were divisive or derogatory.  His reference was about what was needed to better represent the broader community.



You seem to be making the ludicrous implication in your power spiel that therefore, there cannot be white racism.

Additionally, the actual construction of that particular sentence disagrees with your argument, as someone above pointed out. 

The left love to invoke the "dog whistle" cliche. Well that was even audible to the human ear, Rederob. It was overtly racist.


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> You seem to be making the ludicrous implication in your power spiel that therefore, there cannot be white racism.



The notion of *evidence *seems foreign to you, Wayne.
It is also the case that you and moXJO have a habit of creating straw men so you can be seen to win arguments which never existed.


wayneL said:


> Additionally, the actual construction of that particular sentence disagrees with your argument, as someone above pointed out.



And you fail on *context *as badly as moXJO.


wayneL said:


> The left love to invoke the "dog whistle" cliche. Well that was even audible to the human ear, Rederob. It was overtly racist.



And again, like moXJO you say this and utterly fail to show how it can be.


----------



## moXJO (2 April 2019)

rederob said:


> In fact it  is the sole context, but you want to create your own reality which is just delusion.
> Can you show that most in Parliament are not white men?
> Only people who think like you draw conclusions from false narratives.
> Never yet have you put the statement into its context, which shows the ineptitude of your commentary.
> ...



Oh Rob....
Your argument is one long "no its not".
The comment he made was a dog whistle.  And now you're grasping at straws through passive aggressive digs.
As I said the social/media grasped on to the one line. Why was that rob?




> Can you show that most in Parliament are not white men?



Now who is strawmaning. 
Can you tell me why that voted white representatives need to be removed for diversity. As competent members come through diversity will grow. But one group does not need to be removed for another. 



> Racism demands that certain qualities entail, in particular the notion that there is a superiority/inferiority divide. Jordan made no comments which were divisive or derogatory. His reference was about what was needed to better represent the broader community.



 “The era of white able bodied men is over".
Is a dog whistle, even in the "context" of his speech. And it played out online as such. Its also a profile raiser for shtbag politicians. Why add it, because its clearly a hook.
Color or diversity  does not help in "better serving the community" just for the sake of it.  The goal is to govern for all regardless of color. Its
“The era of white able bodied men is over"
Is a direct statement to whites to move over. Why? The goal is to represent your community concerns. Not just part of your community. 
And in him making that statement he infers that whites in parliament are not able to effectively operate for all and only govern for whites.
And thats putting aside the fact they were voted in.



> To make a point you need to understand what happened.  Instead, you recreated in your mind what you wanted to believe, and have consistently worked from your delusions.



Oh I understand what happened. 
I'm living rent free with wayne.


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> The comment he made was a dog whistle.



You keep saying that but have yet to show how it can be so.


moXJO said:


> As I said the social/media grasped on to the one line. Why was that rob?



I have no care for what is not germaine.


moXJO said:


> Can you tell me why that voted white representatives need to be removed for diversity.



At what point will you realise that Jordan never called for that to happen.  You abound in straw man statements.


moXJO said:


> Color or diversity does not help in "better serving the community" just for the sake of it. The goal is to govern for all regardless of color.



The issue is of *representation *alone.  But you keep overlooking this fact.


moXJO said:


> Is a direct statement to whites to move over.



No, it was clear that Jordan considers this group to *not be* representative.  
If you want to prove that point you must show where this was apparent.


moXJO said:


> And in him making that statement he infers that whites in parliament are not able to effectively operate for all and only govern for whites.



Whereas he never makes that point. You keep adding your delusions to your claims and see what is not there.
Please provide a case for your views based on the actual speech and stop arguing points which cannot be reasonably drawn from it.
It is clear you have a limited grasp of the meaning of words and consistently fail to show how your senses can be credible.


----------



## wayneL (2 April 2019)

Context has the same meaning whether in normal print or *bold,* Rederob.

Here's a simplified look at the context - I'm not a racist, in fact all racism should be eviscerated, however all white men are ####s.

I must congratulate you on your inventiveness though Rob, having created a brand new , hitherto unobserved logical fallacy.

The Straw man Straw Man fallacy, the accusation of a straw man fallacy when there is none, thereby creating a brand new straw man fallacy about the accusation of a straw man fallacy.

Nice one


----------



## moXJO (2 April 2019)

rederob said:


> You keep saying that but have yet to show how it can be so.
> I have no care for what is not germaine.
> At what point will you realise that Jordan never called for that to happen.



Umm, the fact that media ran with the "white men" in their headlines. Greens supporters tweeted it and offended on social media told him to punch it.
Jordan exactly called for it by framing it the way he did.
He knew exactly the effect it would have. Or he wouldn't have used it. I think the only one delusional in the naivety  (but probably just pissed) is you robbie boy.

Hey rob I noticed you can't go one post without an insult now.
Does the red in your name imply anger issues? 
Should we talk about something a bit more calming like pacifism?


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Here's a simplified look at the context - I'm not a racist, in fact all racism should be eviscerated, however all white men are ####s.



That may be a statement of fact.
It certainly fails to meet the requirements commonly associated with *racism*.


wayneL said:


> I must congratulate you on your inventiveness though Rob, having created a brand new , hitherto unobserved logical fallacy.



You seldom provide evidence to support your claims.  So why not give that one a try.
I found no statements from moXJO using the language from Jordan's speech, and he has never yet offered up any.  His claims are wholly based on his delusions.


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> Umm, the fact that media ran with the "white men" in their headlines.



So your case is now based on what others are claiming?
What are *you* offering that supports your contentions and which is in the context of Jordan's speech?


moXJO said:


> Hey rob I noticed you can't go one post without an insult now.



Please show where I have insulted you.
You cannot show how Jordan's comments are *racist*, unless you delude yourself into believing the false narrative you create.  
I consistently point out that you have made claims which do not exist in Jordan's speech, and you never address these.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2019)

The simplest test to find out whether you're dealing with racism or sexism is to change the input and see if the output changes. 

Swap "white" for "black" or swap "man" for "woman" and see what happens. 

Assuming it's some sort of decision making process and we're not talking purely about biology then if the output changes there's racism or sexism involved somewhere yes. Because if there's no racism then changing the "race" input produces no difference in the decision. Likewise gender.

It's all very straightforward if you take it back to basics. 

Where it gets complicated is when someone wants to implement racism or sexism whilst pretending to do otherwise. That's common in practice and no amount of politely dressing it up changes what it is.


----------



## moXJO (2 April 2019)

rederob said:


> So your case is now based on what others are claiming?
> What are *you* offering that supports your contentions and which is in the context of Jordan's speech?
> Please show where I have insulted you.
> You cannot show how Jordan's comments are *racist*, unless you delude yourself into believing the false narrative you create.
> I consistently point out that you have made claims which do not exist in Jordan's speech, and you never address these.



Oh robbie boy, "others claiming"was to show the intended consequence in pushing that particular statement. It indeed did have an effect in pushing culture wars, grabbing headlines, and dividing opinion.
And that I'm not the only one honing in on the statement in my "delusions".

Its hardly a false narrative when a person's color suddenly becomes relevant and the need for them to be "swapped out" for diversity.
 Its not a claim, its in the speech.


“The era of white able bodied men is over"
A statement thats going to get a reaction. Well placed to play to their base. It was clearly intended to be used in this manner. And it got a reaction as far as the US.

It did not need to be added to the speech. 
It was a political dog whistle and it played out as intended.


----------



## moXJO (2 April 2019)

Rob why do you think that particular line needed to be added?


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> The simplest test to find out whether you're dealing with racism or sexism is to change the input and see if the output changes.
> Swap "white" for "black" or swap "man" for "woman" and see what happens.
> Assuming it's some sort of decision making process and we're not talking purely about biology then if the output changes there's racism or sexism involved somewhere yes. Because if there's no racism then changing the "race" input produces no difference in the decision. Likewise gender.
> It's all very straightforward if you take it back to basics.
> Where it gets complicated is when someone wants to implement racism or sexism whilst pretending to do otherwise. That's common in practice and no amount of politely dressing it up changes what it is.



Given that there is a definition of racism. if the conditions of that definition are not met then what you say is not at all relevant.
If most people elected to Parliament are white men, what makes that input racist/sexist?
The basics you need to apply would relate to what it means for a statement to be racist/sexist.


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> Its hardly a false narrative when a person's color suddenly becomes relevant and the need for them to be "swapped out" for diversity.



At what point do you concede that most people elected to Parliament are *white men*?
If this group is representative of the broader community, show how it is.
You refuse to address the context of Jordan's speech and continue to make claims which are wholly inconsistent with what words and phrases mean.
For example, your claims of *dog whistling* cannot be valid in that white men are clearly identified by Jordan as a group not representative of the broader community.  If you believe I am incorrect, please present a definition of dog whistling from a credible source.
Your claim of *racism *relies merely on the fact that the word "white" was used.  Again, please provide a definition of racism from a credible source which supports your claim.


----------



## sptrawler (2 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Given that there is a definition of racism. if the conditions of that definition are not met then what you say is not at all relevant.



The problem is the journalistic licence people use, when applying a definition, as with most things definitions can be applied subjectively.
Just the application of affirmative action, warps the application of racism, as it is applied differently to one group as opposed to another.
As with most things in life, it is they who hold the stage, who dictate what is acceptable and or the norm.
The rest feel unable to voice their concerns, for fear of retribution and bullying. As was very apparent, during the gay marriage period, Margaret Court a case in point. IMO
She didn't agree with their definition of marriage, but those with her view of the definition, didn't have the stage.
Now the definition has been changed, to conform with those who hold the stage, life goes on.


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The problem is the journalistic licence people use, when applying the definition, as with most things definitions can be applied subjectively.



Given *racism *has been used many times in this thread, the issue is what makes "white" a racist term in the absence of evidence that it could be construed that way from Jordan's speech?


----------



## sptrawler (2 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Given *racism *has been used many times in this thread, the issue is what makes "white" a racist term in the absence of evidence that it could be construed that way from Jordan's speech?



My apologies, I didn't read that far back, I will remove my foot.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 April 2019)

So , is it ok to be a white , anglo saxon , heterosexual male these days ?


----------



## sptrawler (2 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So , is it ok to be a white , anglo saxon , heterosexual male these days ?



Of course, as long as you keep it to yourself and don't tell anyone.
If you say anything you are a smug racist, homophobe who came from a wealthy sheltered background.
Not only that, you also can't jump.
Which brings me to another point, what would happen if a film came out, called "black men can't swim"?


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So , is it ok to be a white , anglo saxon , heterosexual male these days ?



Or a black, Asian, lesbian woman.
And everything in between, or in top of, in addition to etc..


----------



## moXJO (2 April 2019)

rederob said:


> At what point do you concede that most people elected to Parliament are *white men*?



Why does it matter what color they are? 
And they were elected by their communities to represent the whole of their communities. It doesn't matter what color they are and I already made this point before. As a community grows it will no doubt elect who they want.
 Unless he is advocating for quotas based solely on skin color, which is a whole other thing.

If an American Indian was elected is the argument  "They are way too small of a minority to represent the community"
suddenly acceptable? 

Rob why do you think that particular line needed to be added to the speech?


----------



## Ann (2 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So , is it ok to be a white , anglo saxon , heterosexual male these days ?




Of course it is Rumpy, we need someone on which to focus our hate and loathing. After all a feminist won't attack a transgender, a lesbian won't attack a vegan, a vegan won't attack a climate changer a homosexual won't attack a person with disabilities and none of the preceding will attack any of the others. Who is left to attack?

Humans always need to find a common enemy because we don't have any natural predators.  Guess what Rumpy, you are the lucky one, a white heterosexual male, you are now the hated target. God help you if you don't accept CC , love to eat steak or vote for anyone other than the greens. You, to put it in the vernacular are fcuked!


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2019)

rederob said:


> the issue is what makes "white" a racist term



It would be racist if it were used as a criteria for making a decision except in circumstances where clear and obvious reasons exist.

If you need an actor to play the role of a real person who happens to be a black man then obviously you would not employ a white female actor to play that role. Commonsense there and nobody would sensibly take issue with that.

If the question is who can be appointed Commissioner of Police or CEO of xyz corporation then using race or gender as part of the selection process would be racist / sexist since there is no reason someone of any race or gender with a suitable career background and experience could not perform the role.


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> Why does it matter what color they are?



For the umteenth time, they belong a group which which clearly is not representative of the broader community and I believe that to be a fact.  Jordan's vision is for a Parliament which *is*.
Before Jordan spoke, Penney Wong spoke.  In accepting their respective prizes for outstanding political leadership both spoke out strongly against racism and hate speech.  Neither could be described as able bodied white men, yet it is this group which leads the principal parties - despite their being better alternatives imho.  
To construe *white *in a pejorative manner, as distinct from a matter of fact, would require that Jordan somewhere said they were inferior/superior and included prejudicial comments.  He made no such remarks.  Instead, his theme was of the need for people in Parliament to be representative of the broader community.  In that context it is reasonable to identify what needs to change for Jordan's vision to be realised.
Issues of who is ultimately elected and their responsibility to their constituents are quite separate from the value of  diversity on the floors of the respective Houses.  That diversity brings new perspectives into debate and policy formulation.  
Jordan is 24 years old, spoke without notes, and was passionate about what democracy can achieve with the values he enunciated as fundamental to leadership.


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> It would be racist if it were used as a criteria for making a decision except in circumstances where clear and obvious reasons exist.



*?*
I won't open up a new line of argument here, but your statement implies that it is ok to restrict how first peoples spend newstart allowances, but not everyone else.


Smurf1976 said:


> If you need an actor to play the role of a real person who happens to be a black man then obviously you would not employ a white female actor to play that role. Commonsense there and nobody would sensibly take issue with that.



They are actors and can, do and will play various roles as different rules apply.  Watch Cloud Atlas for the most number of people playing multiple roles. More here.


Smurf1976 said:


> If the question is who can be appointed Commissioner of Police or CEO of xyz corporation then using race or gender as part of the selection process would be racist / sexist since there is no reason someone of any race or gender with a suitable career background and experience could not perform the role.



That's actually "*discrimination*".


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2019)

rederob said:


> his theme was of the need for people in Parliament to be representative of the broader community.  In that context it is reasonable to identify what needs to change for Jordan's vision to be realised.
> Issues of who is ultimately elected and their responsibility to their constituents are quite separate from the value of  diversity on the floors of the respective Houses.  That diversity brings new perspectives into debate and policy formulation.




I see the point being made about diversity but I question whether race is the biggest concern there?

Is someone with dark skin fundamentally different to someone with white skin in any way other than appearance? I thought the whole argument there was that "we are all the same"?

In contrast it would be hard to argue that our parliament isn't outright stacked full of lawyers and unionists compared to the numbers of such people in the rest of society. If the proportion of lawyers in parliament reflected that in the community then we'd have one, yes one, member in federal parliament (lower house) with a legal background. We'd also have one former police officer, one plumber, two medical practitioners and so on.

I would think that someone's life experience, which to considerable extent is influenced by their occupation, would be far more relevant than race.


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I see the point being made about diversity but I question whether race is the biggest concern there?



How do you identify the group which is not representative unless you say who they are?  In saying that, there are few alternatives to describing them other than them being *white men*.


Smurf1976 said:


> Is someone with dark skin fundamentally different to someone with white skin in any way other than appearance? I thought the whole argument there was that "we are all the same"?



I thought everyone was to be treated as an *equal*.


Smurf1976 said:


> I would think that someone's life experience, which to considerable extent is influenced by their occupation, would be far more relevant than race.



Yes, but the diversity of occupation, ability, ethnicity and gender are poorly reflected in Parliament.  I hope you watched both Penny and Jordan speak as these themes are borne out.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2019)

rederob said:


> *?*
> I won't open up a new line of argument here, but your statement implies that it is ok to restrict how first peoples spend newstart allowances, but not everyone else.




I fail to see any reasoning on the basis of biology as to why you'd have different rules for spending welfare payments.

What those rules, if any, actually are is another question.



> They are actors and can, do and will play various roles as different rules apply.  Watch Cloud Atlas for the most number of people playing multiple roles. More here.




Plenty of films have been made over the years in which actors play the role of a real person either alive or dead.

For a recent example well it's no surprise that the actor playing the role of Freddie Mercury in the film Bohemian Rhapsody looks very much like Freddie did. Not perfect but as close as could be expected. Surely nobody would suggest that a black female would be cast in the role?



> That's actually "*discrimination*".




Any selection process, for anything, will involve some sort of discrimination since that's the whole point of it. Progressively apply more and more criteria until you've excluded all except one person.

Discrimination itself isn't a problem. It's discrimination on the basis of race which is the issue here since with few exceptions there is no rational reason for doing so.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2019)

rederob said:


> How do you identify the group which is not representative unless you say who they are?  In saying that, there are few alternatives to describing them other than them being *white men*.






> I thought everyone was to be treated as an *equal*.




The issue is the notion that white men and "others" are not equal.

It's obvious that a farmer, plumber or someone who served in the military will have different life experiences through their occupation to a lawyer or dentist. That is obvious.

I don't however follow the argument that someone who is black is fundamentally different to someone who is white unless by virtue of their life experiences, in which case it is the life experience not race which is the difference.

In other words, I do not see "black" versus "white" as a legitimate basis for discrimination in 99.9% of circumstances. The other 0.1% = actors playing the role of a real person, medical research looking at a specific section of the population, etc.


----------



## wayneL (2 April 2019)

The C grade sophistry from Red here is like watching Neighbors, irritatingly amateurish and bloody unbearable.

I'm off to the pub for a XXXX or 17 with people who livein the real world.

A diverse group down at the local, with whom I've been trying to score intersectional oppression points for being the only tatoo-less, yet sesquipedalian bogun in the whole suburb.

They seem to believe I have scar privilege however.


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Discrimination itself isn't a problem. It's discrimination on the basis of race which is the issue here since with few exceptions there is no rational reason for doing so.



*Racism *and *discrimination *are conceptually very different.  The point you made was the opposite.


----------



## moXJO (2 April 2019)

rederob said:


> For the umteenth time, they belong a group which which clearly is not representative of the broader community and I believe that to be a fact.  Jordan's vision is for a Parliament which *is*.
> Before Jordan spoke, Penney Wong spoke.  In accepting their respective prizes for outstanding political leadership both spoke out strongly against racism and hate speech.  Neither could be described as able bodied white men, yet it is this group which leads the principal parties - despite their being better alternatives imho.
> To construe *white *in a pejorative manner, as distinct from a matter of fact, would require that Jordan somewhere said they were inferior/superior and included prejudicial comments.  He made no such remarks.  Instead, his theme was of the need for people in Parliament to be representative of the broader community.  In that context it is reasonable to identify what needs to change for Jordan's vision to be realised.
> Issues of who is ultimately elected and their responsibility to their constituents are quite separate from the value of  diversity on the floors of the respective Houses.  That diversity brings new perspectives into debate and policy formulation.
> Jordan is 24 years old, spoke without notes, and was passionate about what democracy can achieve with the values he enunciated as fundamental to leadership.



Is what his speech was if he didn't include his hook line. 

Did you think that particular line needed to be added to the speech to convey that message?


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> The issue is the notion that white men and "others" are not equal.



Where is that an issue? 
Jordan never makes such a point.


Smurf1976 said:


> I don't however follow the argument that someone who is black is fundamentally different to someone who is white unless by virtue of their life experiences, in which case it is the life experience not race which is the difference.



There is no such argument that I am aware.  From where do you derive that idea?


----------



## explod (2 April 2019)

Instigated by the Greens again.  We are leading from behind:-

_The PM has announced a Royal Commission into the violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect of disabled people. This has been a long time coming, but finally there is some justice. Share this news with friends and family now._

Hi James
Together, we did it! *There will be a Royal Commission into the violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect of disabled people.*






Thank you to everyone who shared your stories, raised your voices, rang the PM, rang state and territory Premiers, wrote letters, wrote emails, talked to family and friends and kept fighting through years of abuse, neglect and violence so that future generations can live free of such things. *I am overjoyed with what we have achieved together. *

SHARE THIS AMAZING NEWS

*Our Greens movement has been working with disability rights advocates to make this day a reality since the very beginning.* We established and led the 2014 Senate investigation which revealed the widespread and systematic abuse experienced by disabled Australians everyday. We immediately called for a Royal Commission and continued to push for urgent action, despite the fact that the major parties didn't seem to care.

*Because of our movement and the incredible advocates we have worked alongside, disabled Australians will now have an opportunity for justice that once seemed impossible.*

This is not the end of the fight. In the months ahead we will need to *make sure that the commission we get is the commission we need - not the one major party politicians want to give us.*

But just for a moment let us take a breath. We won, we are powerful and when we come together change really is possible.

Thank you now, more than ever, for your support. 

Yours in hope,








*Senator Jordon Steele-John*
_Greens spokesperson for disability services_


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2019)

For the record I agree with much of what he said. Our parliament comes nowhere close to representing the people but that is not a function of gender or race but rather, of life experience.



rederob said:


> Where is that an issue?
> Jordan never makes such a point.




How else does one interpret a specific group defined by race and gender being mentioned in the context of "it's over".

The comment sounds like an attack on "able bodied white men" as though this group is somehow a problem that needs to be dealt with.



> There is no such argument that I am aware.  From where do you derive that idea?




From the fact that he chose to focus on race, gender and the lack of any physical disability to define the group and in doing so referenced approximately 40% of the population.

That's an incredibly broad statement. Might as well cite one example of a Greens supporter doing something silly and say "Greens supporters" as though it applies to the whole lot. Etc.

To the actual issue, a Google search finds that so far as the background of our politicians are concerned:

25% - Executives, managers, directors etc.

14% - Political consultants, advisers, lobbyists

13% - Barristers, lawyers etc

10% - Party and union administrators

6% - Party and union officials

6% - Previously a state politician

4% - Public servants

4% - Other administrators and consultants

4% - Farmers etc

4% - Researchers, electorate officers etc

2% - Teachers of various sorts

2% - Medical profession

1% - Local government officials

5% - Other

Now of that lot the vast majority fit into the category of "elites" in that their occupation is either very highly paid, carries a high social status and/or is part of the political arena. This in no way could be considered as being even slightly representative of the average Australian who isn't a company director, union official, lobbyist, lawyer, state politician and so on.

Now, if he wanted to make a point then "The era of directors, lawyers, union bosses and career politicians controlling the parliament is over" would be hitting the nail a lot more firmly on the head I'd think.

Race isn't the issue so there was no need to mention it.


----------



## explod (2 April 2019)

And further to our policies:-

"
Only the Greens have a comprehensive plan to take real action on climate change! ✅





Amy Gregorovich - Greens for La Trobe
37 mins · 
Greens:
‍ 170,000+ jobs 
 $84 billion better off for the economy 
 100% renewables by 2030"


----------



## moXJO (2 April 2019)

Talking about steele:



> A Greens senator was tonight forced to make an embarrassing public apology after telling The West Australian columnist Gemma Tognini to “shut the f… up” and calling her a “right wing nut job” for her article saying students skipping school to protest for action on climate change were being used as political pawns. Senator Jordon Steele-John, who Tognini said she had never spoke to, lashed out at the writer on Twitter today. The article, Kids are being used as pawns in climate wars, said politicians were “weaponising kids for political leverage” and used today’s School Strike 4 Climate as an example. In response, Senator Steele-John tweeted that Tognini should “Support us (the kids) or STFU (shut the f... up)”.  “Oh look, another #RWNJ who thinks young people have no agency.
> The Greens have been long-standing supporters of gender equality and female empowerment. The first principle on the party’s website says “women have the right to equal respect.”
> 
> Senator Steele-John’s tweet has since been removed, but Tognini said she was so shocked by its message she took a screen shot. “He threatened me essentially,” she said. “The level of abuse was out of control.” Tognini said Senator Steele-John was “unfit to be in Parliament”.. “It’s not OK. That kind of language from a senator to a constituent, male or female, is unacceptable,” she told The West Australian. Tognini argued as a columnist it was her job to encourage respectful debate - a mission evident in her articles. “But I’ve never received a response like that before,” she said.




https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/the...dent-climate-action-strike-ng-b881136511z.amp

Not sure I'd say the abuse was "out of control" unless there was more to it.


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> How else does one interpret a specific group defined by race and gender being mentioned in the context of "it's over".



First, that has no relevance to my reply to your point: Your point was "*The issue is the notion that white men and "others" are not equal*."
Second, how else do you describe the predominant group of people elected to Parliament?  This is a matter of *FACT*, not interpretation.  What is it that you want to interpret?


Smurf1976 said:


> The comment sounds like an attack on "able bodied white men" as though this group is somehow a problem that needs to be dealt with.



Yes, I see you and other make the very same claim without a scintilla of evidence to back the idea.  Again, are they not able boded white men?  And was it the case or otherwise that Jordan clearly spelt out what how the Parliament could be better representative of the broader community?


Smurf1976 said:


> From the fact that he chose to focus on race, gender and the lack of any physical disability to define the group and in doing so referenced approximately 40% of the population.



He chose no such thing.  This group exists as a matter of fact in our Parliament.  
However, that did not explain what I questioned which was how you got this idea, "*I don't however follow the argument that someone who is black is fundamentally different to someone who is white unless by virtue of their life experiences..." *There is no such argument that I am aware except for you creating it here.


----------



## rederob (2 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> "The era of directors, lawyers, union bosses and career politicians controlling the parliament is over" would be hitting the nail a lot more firmly on the head I'd think.



In other words it is ok to specifically identify the composition of Parliament which, clearly from an *occupational* perspective, is not representative.  But that omits the lack of representation based on gender, ethnicity and ability.  Which means you and those others posting like you fail to grasp the context of Jordan's speech and, for that matter, the reasons why the prizes were awarded to him and to Penny Wong.


----------



## moXJO (2 April 2019)

rederob said:


> In other words it is ok to specifically identify the composition of Parliament which, clearly from an *occupational* perspective, is not representative.  But that omits the lack of representation based on gender, ethnicity and ability.  Which means you and those others posting like you fail to grasp the context of Jordan's speech and, for that matter, the reasons why the prizes were awarded to him and to Penny Wong.



Did you think that particular line needed to be added to the speech?


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2019)

rederob said:


> In other words it is ok to specifically identify the composition of Parliament which, clearly from an *occupational* perspective, is not representative.  But that omits the lack of representation based on gender, ethnicity and ability.  Which means you and those others posting like you fail to grasp the context of Jordan's speech and, for that matter, the reasons why the prizes were awarded to him and to Penny Wong.



I grasp absolutely that I consider the primary point which defines what an MP brings to parliament is their life experience for which occupation is a reasonable though imperfect proxy and he has cited race, gender and being able bodied as the points which define the group.

Now suppose that I advertise a job seeking an "experienced receptionist".

Suppose that I instead advertised the same job seeking a "white female".

Which one do you think is going to get me some applicants to work as a receptionist and which one is going to land me in serious trouble?

Occupation, either past or present, is a widely accepted measure of someone's experience in that occupation and more generally in life. It is not unreasonable to consider that a barrister will bring a different perspective to an architect or a small business owner since they each will have significantly different experiences.

In contrast measuring someone's abilities based on race or gender will promptly see you labeled as racist or sexist and quite likely in trouble. Other than on the basis of actual racism, it's hard to argue that someone's skin colour or genetics affect their ability to do something especially when that task is one of a purely intellectual nature as is the case with parliament such that appearance, strength, height etc are not relevant considerations.

For the record I doubt that he is actually racist. Far more likely the comment was either intentional to stir controversy (as in this thread) or badly expressed in error.


----------



## rederob (3 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> *I** grasp absolutely that I consider the primary point which defines what an MP brings to parliament is their life experience for which occupation is a reasonable though imperfect proxy and he has cited race, gender and being able bodied as the points which define the group.*



I find that statement a poor reflection of the context.
Jordan understands that the prevalent group in Parliament are able bodied white men - an undeniable fact - and notes that this group *does not reflect the diversity of the broader community*.  Jordan is clearly of the view that diversity needs also to be reflected through those other factors you mentioned.
It's a bit of a stretch suggesting occupation is a reasonable proxy for life experience as it does not reflect the wage disparity between men and women doing the same job, nor the discrimination that people of colour experience when interviewed for a job by a panel of white people, nor the difficulty that people with disabilities have in merely attending interview.
Additionally home life experiences *are *very different from occupational experiences.


Smurf1976 said:


> *In contrast measuring someone's abilities based on race or gender will promptly see you labeled as racist or sexist and quite likely in trouble. Other than on the basis of actual racism, it's hard to argue that someone's skin colour or genetics affect their ability to do something especially when that task is one of a purely intellectual nature as is the case with parliament such that appearance, strength, height etc are not relevant considerations.*



You again confuse racism with discrimination.  We have different Acts to deal with people who break these respective laws.
You additionally suggest the ability to be a decision maker (as in an MP) is merely an intellectual endeavour when Jordan has outlined the need for diversity to condition how leaders get there.


Smurf1976 said:


> *For the record I doubt that he is actually racist. Far more likely the comment was either intentional to stir controversy (as in this thread) or badly expressed in error.*



More likely it is due to ignorance on the part of people who are not good with the meaning of words, do not appreciate context, and are unable to respond to questions which otherwise show they are creating arguments which never existed.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Now of that lot the vast majority fit into the category of "elites" in that their occupation is either very highly paid, carries a high social status and/or is part of the political arena. This in no way could be considered as being even slightly representative of the average Australian who isn't a company director, union official, lobbyist, lawyer, state politician and so on.
> 
> Now, if he wanted to make a point then "The era of directors, lawyers, union bosses and career politicians controlling the parliament is over" would be hitting the nail a lot more firmly on the head I'd think.
> 
> Race isn't the issue so there was no need to mention it.




I guess it's a question of what sort of life experience makes a good politician.

(Some) lawyers live in ivory castles dealing with corporate issues or tax law, but others have contact with a wide range of clients (Julian Burnside ?) so I guess you could say they have an indirect experience of life on the ground.

A lot of company directors are straight out of uni with MBA's and picked on paper qualifications not expertise.

You couldn't get a bigger contrast in PM's between Hawke and Keating, one a Rhodes scholar, the other left school at 18 and came up through the school of hard knocks.

Both excellent PM's, but for different reasons perhaps.

We have to drill down through the surface veneer that politicians present to get to the real people who will be governing us.


----------



## moXJO (3 April 2019)

rederob said:


> More likely it is due to ignorance on the part of people who are not good with the meaning of words, do not appreciate context, and are unable to respond to questions which otherwise show they are creating arguments which never existed.







Australia is in desperate need of a parliament “as diverse and as vibrant and as energetic as the community it is sent to represent”.

“We must end a situation in which we are governed by people who bear no life experience to us,” he said. “The era of the dominant, white, able-bodied man is over.”

Group A of people need to be phased out in favor of group B based on skin color 

Because of ability to identify with loosely termed "life experiences" and to fill parliament based on "diversity"
This also assumes all white men life experience is exactly the same. Its using a group identity instead of basing each person on their own merits.
Therefore racist.

“The era of the dominant, white, able-bodied man is over.”
Is not just description of the majority. It's stating the removal of one specific group not based on their ability but on their color and supposed inability to identify with their communities.

If following this logic then a Asian,  Black, or wheelchair bound green have
even less ability to govern given that you actually do not represent the majority and can't identify with their life experiences.
Its not based on individual merit. Its based on group identity via color.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> Its not based on individual merit. Its based on group identity via color.




Identity politics.


----------



## moXJO (3 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Identity politics.



Its definitely playing identity politics.
And in what a lot believe Rob is actually correct in saying its not racism.
Because whites are seen as the group in power then steeles speech is classed as raising the oppressed.
Sorry whitey.
I wonder if it backdates as racism once whites are a minority?


Anyway under the UN which doesn’t actually define racism,  but does define racial discrimination:

"The term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

So diversity for diversities sake everywhere,  no I am not a fan. Each person being assessed on their individual merit/ability regardless of color,  yes.


----------



## rederob (3 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> *Group A of people need to be phased out in favor of group B based on skin color.*



What a fanciful claim. 
You seem to live in a world filled with your own delusions as this idea is wholly owned by you and those who simply failed to understand what Jordan spoke about.
You have not yet grasped the concept of diversity and how it needs to be better reflected amongst those being elected into office.  This is through a democratic process and has zero to do with *phasing out* anyone.


moXJO said:


> *This also assumes all white men life experience is exactly the same.*



You would have to be blessed with ignorance to assume that.


moXJO said:


> *I**t's stating the removal of one specific group not based on their ability but on their color and supposed inability to identify with their communities.*



In fact because you cannot work out the context of Jordan's speech, it is saying nothing of the sort.
Stop creating false narratives based on what you want to believe and deal with the very simple idea that those presently in Parliament do not come close to being representative of the broader community.  Smurf named the predominant group in Parliament based on occupation, by simple transposition of words. 
To suggest identifying the group is pejorative is a step that is very creative and requires a lot more than contained in the single sentence.  The reality here is that one has to step out of rational thought into the brave world of delusion to create the ideas you have.


----------



## moXJO (3 April 2019)

https://truecrimenewsweekly.com/exc...john-accused-of-persistent-sexual-harassment/


Interesting thing about diversity. 
Before anyone slags off an obscure site,  this mob broke the Barnaby baby and sugarbaby scandal weeks before anyone else.


----------



## moXJO (3 April 2019)

rederob said:


> What a fanciful claim.
> You seem to live in a world filled with your own delusions as this idea is wholly owned by you and those who simply failed to understand what Jordan spoke about.
> You have not yet grasped the concept of diversity and how it needs to be better reflected amongst those being elected into office.  This is a through a democratic process and has zero to do with *phasing out* anyone.
> You would have to be blessed with ignorance to assume that.
> ...



You played the man the whole post and actually said nothing.


----------



## rederob (3 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Identity politics.



Why not try to match that with what it really means.
I would call it the Wayne response.


----------



## moXJO (3 April 2019)

rederob said:


> I would call it the Wayne response.



Whoop, there it is...


----------



## moXJO (3 April 2019)

rederob said:


> This is through a democratic process.



Wait was jordy voted in? 
Serious question.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Why not try to match that with what it really means.




Well, it's voting for someone because they are a member of a societal group not because of their abilities to represent ALL the voters.

eg If a was a Muslim I may  be tempted to vote for a Muslim because they are the same societal group as me and that they would therefore promote the perceived needs of that societal group and not necessarily because I think they can represent all their electorate.


----------



## explod (3 April 2019)

_This budget is an unmitigated failure when it comes to fixing our biggest problems. The Liberals simply don’t have a plan to fund real action on climate change or reduce the gap between the rich and the rest of us, but we do. Tune in to hear the Greens vision of a future for all of us, not just the wealthy few._

Hi James
Every budget week, Australians want to hear two things from politicians: how they’re responding to the biggest challenges we’re facing right now, and how they’re preparing for the future.

What we heard last night is that this government, on its last legs before calling the election, is failing on both counts. *This budget isn’t a roadmap, it’s a dead-end.*







The climate emergency we’re all experiencing demands governments urgently invest in renewables and transition away from coal. But this budget commits more money on substandard medical treatment and needless transfers of sick refugees to Christmas Island than funding the fight against climate change. 

Growing inequality demands proper funding of essential services. But instead, Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg have stuck their heads in the sand and delivered a few election bribes.

*What this budget boils down to is a cynical attempt to buy votes instead of planning for the nation’s looming challenges.* It isn’t going to fix our biggest problems; it will make them worse.

*The Greens have a plan to solve the problems we’re facing now*, like economic inequality, increasing cost of living, environmental destruction and climate change. And tonight, I’ll be unveiling this vision in parliament. Will you tune in to hear how we’ll build a future for all of us?

WATCH OUR BUDGET REPLY SPEECH

The great tragedy of the Liberals’ cruel prioritisation of the interests of their big corporate donors over the rest of us is that *Australia does not lack the financial resources to solve the problems we face as a nation. We just lack the political vision.*

The tax cuts & surplus in this budget are enough to fully fund TAFE and free uni for all Australians, increase Newstart, build 500,000 new affordable homes, provide Medicare-funded dental care, invest $10 billion to fight climate change and still have billions spare.

That’s why I’m excited by the opportunity to spell out our plan for Australia’s future -- one where we phase out coal, deliver 100% renewable energy and build a world-leading renewable energy export industry. We’ll be premiering the video of my speech to Facebook tomorrow morning. I hope you’ll take a look.

For a future for all of us,






*Richard*



_PS: if the Liberals budget, which contained more mentions of John Howard than climate change, made you mad, help us kick them out next month._


----------



## wayneL (3 April 2019)

I find it disturbing to agree with the Greens on this point, the current iteration of the Libs are a tragic parody of their former selves (as are Labor).

Where I realise that their is still some sort of order in the Matrix, is that their alternative is as loopy s it always has been.

No. Thank. You. Mr Plod.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2019)

rederob said:


> It's a bit of a stretch suggesting occupation is a reasonable proxy for life experience as it does not reflect the wage disparity between men and women doing the same job




How much someone is paid to do a job makes no difference to their experiences gained whilst doing it. A Police Officer, for example, will be exposed to the same range of situations whether they're paid $10 or $10 million.

Same with most jobs unless the workplace and individual are highly militant such that someone being paid 10% less than their colleague ensures they do exactly 10% less work and so on. There are few such places around these days.

On the question of pay rates, agreed there are issues but it's not universal. Eg anything in government and most routine operational jobs in big business are set rates and absolutely non-negotiable. Agreed that in situations where pay is negotiable the opportunity for discrimination does exist and that _some_ employers probably do it.



> You again confuse racism with discrimination.




Here is the dictionary definition:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Note that racial prejudice or discrimination is one meaning of racism.



> You additionally suggest the ability to be a decision maker (as in an MP) is merely an intellectual endeavour when Jordan has outlined the need for diversity to condition how leaders get there.




Indeed it is an intellectual task.

Our MP's perform no physical work in parliament. No carrying heavy loads, no building anything, no plumbing or electrical, they don't even clean the place themselves. It's a white collar job which does not require physical strength, mobility etc to do it. As such there is no reason to discriminate based on physical abilities.



> More likely it is due to ignorance on the part of people who are not good with the meaning of words, do not appreciate context, and are unable to respond to questions which otherwise show they are creating arguments which never existed.




It's a political speech and one of the basics of public speaking is "speak to your audience".

Go and ask random people in the street to explain racism and you'll get examples of discrimination, you won't get some academic definition that requires a degree in English to be aware of.

Same in any context. A doctor, lawyer, engineer, pilot or anyone else speaking to the general public won't use more than the absolute minimum of medical, legal, engineering or aviation terms and will instead use common words with their normally understood meaning. Failing to do so is a failure of the speaker not the audience.

All that said, the man is a politician and has generated plenty of discussion and attention over all this which wouldn't have occurred if not for those words being included. All publicity is good publicity as they say.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2019)

My view on all of this could be summarised by saying:

*I support equal opportunity as a concept.

*The notion that opportunity is equal precludes consideration of race, gender, sexual preferences, weight, height, religion, hairstyle or any other aspect of the individual not directly relevant to their ability to do something.

*The past cannot be undone. That does not mean it was right, but it cannot be undone. The best we can do is to do things better now and in the future but we cannot rewind or rewrite history.


----------



## explod (3 April 2019)

Australian Young Greens
8 hrs ·


----------



## rederob (3 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> How much someone is paid to do a job makes no difference to their experiences gained whilst doing it. A Police Officer, for example, will be exposed to the same range of situations whether they're paid $10 or $10 million.



Women *know *they are not treated equally in the workplace and it definitely affects their outlook and life experience.  It's equivalent to you saying their fight for gender equality is groundless.


Smurf1976 said:


> Note that racial prejudice or discrimination is one meaning of racism.



They are completely different concepts, and you want to continue to blur them.  One might not like a different race merely because they look funny to them or eat unusual foods or are associated with greater wealth.  These are aspects of prejudice which may be quite different to believing they are superior/inferior which are the conditional propositions to racism.


Smurf1976 said:


> It's a political speech and one of the basics of public speaking is "speak to your audience".



*False*.
It was his *acceptance *speech at the University of Melbourne upon receiving the non-partisan and independent award that recognises outstanding Australians for *leadership *in politics.  Party politics were *never *under discussion.


Smurf1976 said:


> Go and ask random people in the street to explain racism and you'll get examples of discrimination, you won't get some academic definition that requires a degree in English to be aware of.



Why would I want to do that.  My point was that *ignorance *has dominated this very issue.  People on the street are not being involved in this forum, yet a level of ignorance has persisted despite the ability of posters to be much better informed.
I have taken a lot of time to put lots of questions to you and others, and they are largely ignored while you run off a new and separate arguments to the pivotal question of how what Jordan said could be construed as "*racism.*"
None of conditions of *racism *were satisfied unless posters developed a narrative which had nothing to do with the context of Jordan's speech.
Perhaps realising that failure (and full marks to moXJO on that score), the next pejorative was suggesting he had "dog whistled."  Again, posters should have known that a *dog whistle* which specifically identifies the group to be targeted cannot, by definition, be a dog whistle.
Now we get "discrimination" tossed into the mix.
This has been a moving feast of ignorance.
Leadership, however, is about rising to challenges.  It calls out those who want to remain invested in ignorance and believe things which are not reasonably supported.
Showing bipartisan leadership today, Mathias Cormann and Penny Wong today jointly brought on a successful censure motion against Fraser Anning, who actually doubled down on his hate towards Islamists.  Pauline Hanson's speech (she was absent and her deputy read it out) on the motion is in object lesson in vitriol and deserved condemnation.  One Nation was too gutless to vote on the motion, such is their strength in the Senate.


----------



## Ann (3 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Women *know *they are not treated equally in the workplace and it definitely affects their outlook and life experience. It's equivalent to you saying their fight for gender equality is groundless.




I am so thankful in my era women were not treated equally. My first job came about as a result of a very hard working and pleasant young man getting the sack because he turned 18 and they were going to have to increase his wages. Me being a female was paid less then a bloke, I came in on his pre-18yo wages. I did negotiate my wage up a bit, I had a lovely smile and beautiful blue eyes. He got the push, I got his job. I also knew being a female even if the bus/train/tram was packed I would always get a seat because blokes were gentlemen in those days and gave up their seats to females, bless them.  Discrimination rocks!


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2019)

If you are an MP then *anything *you say in public will be taken as an “on duty” statement in practice.

Same goes for any public figure. Say it anywhere and now it’s everywhere.

As for the rest, why would anyone mention race if not to infer some sort of prejudice, discrimination or superiority, all of which are listed in the dictionary definition of racism?


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2019)

rederob said:


> I have taken a lot of time to put lots of questions to you and others, and they are largely ignored while you run off a new and separate arguments to the pivotal question of how what Jordan said could be construed as "*racism.*"




I think Smurf made a valid point some time ago about this. Invert the argument.

If someone said "the era of black disabled men is over", would that be termed racism ?

Absolutely it would.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2019)

Ann said:


> I also knew being a female even if the bus/train/tram was packed I would always get a seat because blokes were gentlemen in those days and gave up their seats to females, bless them.  Discrimination rocks!




Not any more sweetheart. I wouldn't even open a door for a woman these days.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 April 2019)

The Greens are the left wing version of Francis Anning.

Despicable and self-centred. 

They will garner the same percentage of votes from their loopy left and knitting supporters as will Anning from his loopy right and racist ones. 

I do not like the Greens. 

I do not like Anning. 

gg


----------



## Ann (3 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Not any more sweetheart. I wouldn't even open a door for a woman these days.



 ...and that is what women never fully understood when they campaigned for 'equal rights'. Get into the scrum bitch and fight like the rest of us!


----------



## moXJO (3 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Women *know *they are not treated equally in the workplace and it definitely affects their outlook and life experience.  It's equivalent to you saying their fight for gender equality is groundless.
> They are completely different concepts, and you want to continue to blur them.  One might not like a different race merely because they look funny to them or eat unusual foods or are associated with greater wealth.  These are aspects of prejudice which may be quite different to believing they are superior/inferior which are the conditional propositions to racism.
> *False*.
> It was his *acceptance *speech at the University of Melbourne upon receiving the non-partisan and independent award that recognises outstanding Australians for *leadership *in politics.  Party politics were *never *under discussion.
> ...



Kind of all over the place there rob. With some long stretches and delusions of your own.


----------



## explod (3 April 2019)

What's going on with the demonisation of the Greens by the Libs, Nationals and right wing journalists? Will Labor join them? Or is it all about disparaging the importance of the things the Greens are strong on in favour of business as usual and the 'sensible' people currently in charge?
https://www.theguardian.com/…/comparing-the-greens-with-one…





About this website

THEGUARDIAN.COM

Comparing the Greens with One Nation is ludicrous, but it’s a political strategy | Marc Stears


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2019)

explod said:


> What's going on with the demonisation of the Greens by the Libs, Nationals and right wing journalists?



If you've concluded that your ship really is sinking, and you have no life boats, well then I suppose you'll try anything and everything that might have even the slimmest chance of improving the situation.

That's essentially the situation the Liberals and Nationals are in at the moment.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2019)

explod said:


> What's going on with the demonisation of the Greens by the Libs, Nationals and right wing journalists? Will Labor join them? Or is it all about disparaging the importance of the things the Greens are strong on in favour of business as usual and the 'sensible' people currently in charge?
> https://www.theguardian.com/…/comparing-the-greens-with-one…
> 
> 
> ...




Greens preferences almost always go to Labor, so the COALition are trying to woo back some of the disaffected Greens. I doubt if they have much chance, the Greenies these days are pretty rusted on, although their vote has been declining but the disaffected ones are going to Labor not the Coalition.

The Coalition would be better off trying to get the One Nation vote back which they may have a chance of doing following some of the revelations recently.


----------



## rederob (3 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> If someone said "the era of black disabled men is over", would that be termed racism ?
> Absolutely it would.



That just shows the level of ignorance at this forum.
Please learn what racism means, because you clearly have no idea.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2019)

rederob said:


> That just shows the level of ignorance at this forum.
> Please learn what racism means, because you clearly have no idea.




It's simply discrimination against people for their birth characteristics over which they have no control.

It's obviously possible to be a white racist, a black racist or any other colour of racist as long as you dislike a different group for simply being different.

If you have another definition, please let us know because you are becoming obtuse and frankly a bit of a pain.


----------



## rederob (3 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> As for the rest, why would anyone mention race if not to infer some sort of prejudice, discrimination or superiority, all of which are listed in the dictionary definition of racism?



Why not read through this thread and you will discover your ideas are nonsense.  However, if you are invested in a line of thought which refuses to accept how context qualifies meaning, you might not change your mind.
And while you are at it, learn that racism is conditional, and can freely stand outside of concepts such as prejudice, discrimination.
Taking a leaf from Rumple for a moment:
What does it mean when we say "the days of internal combustion gas guzzlers is over."  Using warped logic we infer that a reference to a type of car is pejorative.
Or we say "the days of Asian women at the beach are over."  That warped logic again implies that using "Asian" is pejorative.
These transpositional exercises clearly show  the irrational nature of your views.


----------



## explod (3 April 2019)

Honest people for people and not big business is required:=

"We desperately need a #FederalICACNow!





About this website

THEGUARDIAN.COM"

Melissa Price lobbied by energy company before coal-fired power review requested


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> These transpositional exercises clearly show  the irrational nature of your views.



Why not use other racial examples relevant to the discussion?

Perhaps because if someone said "it's over" and referred to "blacks" then that would be deemed totally unacceptable.

We live in a world where race is viewed differently to other things.

I could buy a wig, some cheap makeup and wear a dress in an effort to make myself look vaguely like the queen for some stage performance and nobody would see a problem with that as such.

Colour my skin dark brown in an effort to make myself resemble a black person and look out. Whole different issue then. Can't do that as Channel 9 found out when they tried reviving Hey Hey It's Saturday a few years ago.

Try making any sort of public statement which praises how well "white men" have done the job of putting the fire out, building the road or whatever and see what happens. It might be absolutely correct if indeed the entire task was performed entirely by white men but it wouldn't be wise to say it in those terms. In 1989 you'd have gotten away with it but not in 2019.


----------



## rederob (3 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> If you have another definition, please let us know because you are becoming obtuse and frankly a bit of a pain.



I will make this very simple to understand:
If you merely mention race in a sentence, without condition or qualification, then it is logically impossible to obtain a pejorative sense.  Even your basic definition requires that race is qualified with an act of "*discrimination.*"


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Even your basic definition requires that race is qualified with an act of "*discrimination.*"




Lets say I said " I don't like people of XYZ colour ".

Is that racist ? I discriminated against no one, I merely expressed an opinion.

The Lefties would be right up me if I said something like that, so are they going off half cocked ?

I would never say that of course because I don't believe it.


----------



## rederob (3 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Lets say I said " I don't like people of XYZ colour".
> Is that racist ? I discriminated against no one, I merely expressed an opinion.
> The Lefties would be right up me if I said something like that, so are they going off half cocked ?
> I would never say that of course because I don't believe it.



In my opinion it cannot be.
You are free to dislike many things.
However, expressing how you choose to act on your dislike *may *become an expression of racism.
As I have said many times, without putting what you say into context, it is unreasonable to draw a conclusion.
That said, there are others who might disagree.  The complexity of racism is briefly explored here.


----------



## cynic (3 April 2019)

explod said:


> Honest people for people and not big business is required:=
> ....



Isn't that tantamount to being sizist?!


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2019)

explod said:


> Honest people for people and not big business is required



Agreed with the point but looking at the linked article, well if someone wants to revive the Collinsville power station then I'd let them have it.

Throws a bone to the coal lobby for a tiny power station, at the absolute limit it'll generate well under 1% of Australia's electricity, and it'll only be good for ~10 years technically anyway.

If that sorts out some politics around it and gets rid of some opposition to fixing the CO2 issue more broadly then give them the $10 million or whatever they want. There's much bigger fish to fry than that one.

Noted that's not the only point being made but it's one of them. Too small to worry about really.


----------



## wayneL (3 April 2019)

rederob said:


> I will make this very simple to understand:
> If you merely mention race in a sentence, without condition or qualification, then it is logically impossible to obtain a pejorative sense.



You might want to let your side know that.


----------



## moXJO (3 April 2019)

rederob said:


> In my opinion it cannot be.
> You are free to dislike many things.
> However, expressing how you choose to act on your dislike *may *become an expression of racism.
> As I have said many times, without putting what you say into context, it is unreasonable to draw a conclusion.
> That said, there are others who might disagree.  The complexity of racism is briefly explored here.



I personally  agree with this. 

But stand in a crowd, or use social media and say I don't like xyz and the feedback won't be pretty.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> You might want to let your side know that.



Ultimately the double standards are what I'm taking issue with here.

If a Liberal or Labor politician said anything which even hinted at "blacks" being different to the rest of society in a way that needed to be dealt with ("its over") then the Greens would be all over it almost certainly.


----------



## rederob (3 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> But stand in a crowd, or use social media and say I don't like xyz and the feedback won't be pretty.



You might have worked out that I am pedantic (but a poor proofreader nowadays - sadly).
So it is my opinion that most people have a tendency to have some view on other races.  Then, to openly say you do not like a race means you can legitimately be branded as a "*racist*."
It may well be that the nature of your dislike may be so trivial as to be inconsequential, and your grounds for dislike may even be based on misunderstanding.  "There are racists and there are *racists.*"
*Racism*, however, requires something more substantial.  Without an action to guide the nature of a racist tendency we cannot conclude that racism has occurred.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2019)

rederob said:


> You might have worked out that I am pedantic (but a poor proofreader nowadays - sadly).
> So it is my opinion that most people have a tendency to have some view on other races.  Then, to openly say you do not like a race means you can legitimately be branded as a "*racist*."
> It may well be that the nature of your dislike may be so trivial as to be inconsequential, and your grounds for dislike may even be based on misunderstanding.  "There are racists and there are *racists.*"
> *Racism*, however, requires something more substantial.  Without an action to guide the nature of a racist tendency we cannot conclude that racism has occurred.




So would you agree that racism does not extend to a dislike of certain religions which practise barbaric acts, being that religion is, or should be a voluntary following and that people of that faith who fail to condemn barbarity should be freely criticised without the racism tag being applied ?


----------



## qldfrog (3 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Not any more sweetheart. I wouldn't even open a door for a woman these days.



You would sometimes receive at best killing eyes,at worst a whole tirade on how as a female she can open a door herself and you are a chauvinist pig..real life experience at lift doors..but i carry on nevertheless for the not so fairer anymore sex


----------



## rederob (4 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So would you agree that racism does not extend to a dislike of certain religions which practise barbaric acts, being that religion is, or should be a voluntary following and that people of that faith who fail to condemn barbarity should be freely criticised without the racism tag being applied ?



Religions are not "races" so it cannot be racism.
My view is that personal dislikes of anything, that remain personally held, are fine.  
Expressing dislikes as mere opinion might be frowned on, but would not of itself constitute hate speech.
The words you associate with your dislike when you express it openly is where we can judge your intent. 
I would not hesitate to call out barbarism wherever it occurs, but I would take care to ascribe it to those who *authorise *it.
The problem I see in threads on religion is that posters tend to tar everyone with the same brush. If you have evidence that all are complicit, without exception, then tarring would be deserved.  Without that evidence confine your condemnation to what you can prove.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Without that evidence confine your condemnation to what you can prove.




If followers of a religion fail to condemn barbaric behaviour carried out in the name of their religion, I would take that as evidence of complicity.


----------



## rederob (4 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> If followers of a religion fail to condemn barbaric behaviour carried out in the name of their religion, I would take that as evidence of complicity.



Then don't take that type of evidence to court because it will get thrown out.
Brunei is the latest nation sanctioning the killing if gay people.  If you were a gay Muslim in Brunei would you be speaking out?


----------



## SirRumpole (4 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Then don't take that type of evidence to court because it will get thrown out.
> Brunei is the latest nation sanctioning the killing if gay people.  If you were a gay Muslim in Brunei would you be speaking out?




I'm talking about people in this country who don't condemn what is happening in other countries, including feminists who go around wearing hijabs while women in other countries are enslaved by Islam.


----------



## basilio (4 April 2019)

What is happening in Brunei is barbaric. Absolutely. 

But turning around and trying to pin this behaviour on another billion people as complicit as well as people who showed respect for Muslims in a time of grief?


----------



## rederob (4 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm talking about people in this country who don't condemn what is happening in other countries, including feminists who go around wearing hijabs while women in other countries are enslaved by Islam.



Ok, I will leave you to think what you like.
I do not go around condemning everything that is happening in the world because I think it is bad.  I have a lot better things to do.
But where I do choose to offer my view I try to ensure it relates to a specific action and clearly identifiable people.  Otherwise you cast a slur on the undeserved.
As to women being enslaved, domestic violence against women in Australia is an epidemic. Are you calling it out?  If you want to get an idea about how women in Australia have been treated, download the audio file from the discussion here.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 April 2019)

rederob said:


> As to women being enslaved, domestic violence against women in Australia is an epidemic. Are you calling it out?




As much as I can yes. A lot of women also get murdered in this country by strangers for being women. That's also despicable. More resources should go to preventing attacks on women and I would vote for a party that recognises the problem and does something about it.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 April 2019)

basilio said:


> What is happening in Brunei is barbaric. Absolutely.
> 
> But turning around and trying to pin this behaviour on another billion people as complicit as well as people who showed respect for Muslims in a time of grief?





Well, that is the question bas.  The standard you walk past is the standard you accept right ?

How many Imams in Australia actually stand up and condemn (of their own accord without being pressed) the atrocities committed in the name of their religion ?

If we can criticise the Catholics for covering up child sex abuse I see no reason why we can't ctiticise the acceptance of barbaric acts by people of the same faith.


----------



## sptrawler (4 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, that is the question bas.  The standard you walk past is the standard you accept right ?
> 
> How many Imams in Australia actually stand up and condemn (of their own accord without being pressed) the atrocities committed in the name of their religion ?
> 
> If we can criticise the Catholics for covering up child sex abuse I see no reason why we can't ctiticise the acceptance of barbaric acts by people of the same faith.




You pretty well nailed it there Rumpy, and it doesn't just apply to religion, it applies to all facets of life.


----------



## basilio (4 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, that is the question bas.  The standard you walk past is the standard you accept right ?
> 
> How many Imams in Australia actually stand up and condemn (of their own accord without being pressed) the atrocities committed in the name of their religion ?
> 
> If we can criticise the Catholics for covering up child sex abuse I see no reason why we can't ctiticise the acceptance of barbaric acts by people of the same faith.




We can go in so many places here can't we? We could look at  Federal politicians who  don't call out  the behaviour of Fraser Anning  and accept the votes of One Nation to stay in power.

You suggest that we should criticise all Catholics for the child abuse by religious and the cover ups by the bishops  and admin ?  Really ?  Should we extend that principle to  the Scouts, State orphanages , other religious organizations where widespread abuse was reported ?

And then let's say the Imans do rise enmasse and "denounce the wickedness of their extremist brothers" ,  would you accept such a statement as sincere or would it come under the heading of "virtue signaling" which was how the forgiveness offered by one of the survivors of the Christchurch massacre was seen on another thread ?

And in the current climate I reckon that's how it would be seen today.

I think what is happening in Brunei is really wrong. In theory  strong, morally upright governments would take  actions to show their concern. Alternatively citizens and businesses can do so. 

Now in the past when someone from a particular group who no one liked "did-something-awful"  (or someone thought they had) we had events called pograms, mass lynchings, and so on.  Are we trying to retrace those paths? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_14,_1891_New_Orleans_lynchings


----------



## SirRumpole (4 April 2019)

basilio said:


> You suggest that we should criticise all Catholics for the child abuse by religious and the cover ups by the bishops and admin ? Really ? Should we extend that principle to the Scouts, State orphanages , other religious organizations where widespread abuse was reported ?




No I'm criticising the church heirarchy in both cases. Don't you think that church leaders have to set an example to their flocks whether Islam or Christian and call out atrocities ? I don't blame the average Catholic for* institutional* child abuse, neither do I blame the average Australian Muslim for what goes on overseas, in both cases though they have a responsibility to say they won't accept such things here.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 April 2019)

basilio said:


> or would it come under the heading of "virtue signaling" which was how the forgiveness offered by one of the survivors of the Christchurch massacre was seen on another thread ?




Not by me.


----------



## rederob (4 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> No I'm criticising the church heirarchy in both cases. Don't you think that church leaders have to set an example to their flocks whether Islam or Christian and call out atrocities ?



You are very mistaken if you think Imams are not calling out atrocities and radicalisation, as they have been for a long time.  The PM adopted your view last year and was called out for his ignorance.
There is a massive double standard in that whenever Islam is in the frame, it must be called out, while other daily atrocities just pass as more of the same.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 April 2019)

rederob said:


> You are very mistaken if you think Imams are not calling out atrocities and radicalisation, as they have been for a long time.  The PM adopted your view last year and was called out for his ignorance.
> There is a massive double standard in that whenever Islam is in the frame, it must be called out, while other daily atrocities just pass as more of the same.




Yes, some do but the great variety of Islamic sects  means that just because one sect leader says something doesn't mean the rest or even a majority listen to him or agree with what he says.


----------



## sptrawler (4 April 2019)

We seem to keep falling back to the belief, that inside every bad person, is a good person just waiting to 'come out'. 
When the fact is, in a lot of instances, the exact opposite is proven to be true.


----------



## explod (6 April 2019)

Dr. Robert Holian for Bendigo 2019
2 hrs ·


----------



## explod (13 April 2019)

"In this country the most comprehensive, long-term dataset on political behaviour, the Australian Election Study, begun in 1987, shows that the defining characteristic of the One Nation voter is that they didn't finish high-school. At the other end of the spectrum, people with postgraduate qualifications most likely vote for the Greens..."






About this website

THESATURDAYPAPER.COM.AU


----------



## explod (15 April 2019)

*East Gippsland Greens*
1 hr · 
I have had inquiries whether the recent activities of activist vegans reflect the Greens views. Here is my answer to the question, followed by Senator Janet Rice's.

Deb: "My own views are totally in support of farmers who care for their animals' welfare - I keep animals myself - and these are the policies I will be talking about at this election. Sustainable food production is a major economic activity in Gippsland and should remain so. Animal husbandry has its part to play in this.
As a country girl who became a city dweller and then a country woman, I am concerned about the growing urban/rural divide. Whereas once children visited family and friends and saw day to day farming practices and helped with the chores, feeding friendly and contented animals, this opportunity is now not available to many children. Thus the 'milk comes from cartons' mentality. (my goats in photo)

Janet: The situation that Gippy goat farm and Taranaki farms have experienced is awful. I can understand that the recent protests have added extra stress to these communities and I am sorry that this is the case.
The Greens do not support farm invasion or protestors accessing property illegally. One of the Greens’ four pillars is peace and non-violence. The Greens are committed to peaceful and non-violent solutions locally, nationally and internationally.
To be clear, the Greens are not affiliated with the organisation that organised the protests and their position is their own, not ours. We are not campaigning to enforce veganism or to eradicate the meat industry where the slaughter of animals is humane.


----------



## wayneL (15 April 2019)

explod said:


> "In this country the most comprehensive, long-term dataset on political behaviour, the Australian Election Study, begun in 1987, shows that the defining characteristic of the One Nation voter is that they didn't finish high-school. At the other end of the spectrum, people with postgraduate qualifications most likely vote for the Greens..."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd be interested in what these postgraduate qualifications are. I would wager they are mostly  non STEM degrees.

Gender studies,  womans studies, basket weaving and the like.


----------



## explod (15 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> I'd be interested in what these postgraduate qualifications are. I would wager they are mostly  non STEM degrees.
> 
> Gender studies,  women's studies, basket weaving and the like.



The majority of Greens are School Teachers, medical Nurses, Ambulance, Fire Brigade and surprisingly Plods.  Simply, people that are among the people on the ground.

Equality in education and basic living standards are the focus

Not too sure about Farrier's


----------



## wayneL (15 April 2019)

explod said:


> The majority of Greens are School Teachers, medical Nurses, Ambulance, Fire Brigade and surprisingly Plods.  Simply, people that are among the people on the ground.
> 
> Equality in education and basic living standards are the focus
> 
> Not too sure about Farrier's



You might be surprised by how many farriers hold degrees,  Plod.

Mostly Veterinary, but there are Medicos, Engineers, Law (up to Doctorates) even a PhD in Business.

Proper farriery is a lot more scholarly than imagined , Happy to explain why if interested.

None are Greens voters and 9/10 are right of center.

Interesting eh?


----------



## moXJO (15 April 2019)

explod said:


> The majority of Greens are School Teachers, medical Nurses, Ambulance, Fire Brigade and surprisingly Plods.  Simply, people that are among the people on the ground.
> 
> Equality in education and basic living standards are the focus
> 
> Not too sure about Farrier's



All public servants?


----------



## wayneL (15 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> All public servants?



Interesting observation


----------



## explod (15 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> None are Greens voters and 9/10 are right of center.
> 
> Interesting eh?



How do you determine this "right of centre" and what is "9/10"


----------



## explod (15 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> All public servants?



So what, our defence forces and so on too.  I can assure you that those not in the public sector are mostly engaged in the needs of personal profit which leads on to money before anything else.  We do need to maintain a balance and proper education for all leads to this.


----------



## explod (15 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> All public servants?



Many are small farmers with a growing number of larger landholders of late due to water distribution and the adverse effects of some mining practices.


----------



## qldfrog (15 April 2019)

hey Explod, a positive for the greens among the many negatives,
they support proper treatment of Assange , not many parties do, 
even if he is white, male and 40+


----------



## wayneL (15 April 2019)

explod said:


> How do you determine this "right of centre" and what is "9/10"



1/ Not socialists, likely conservative or classical liberals

2/ 9/10 means 90% like the above


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 April 2019)

explod said:


> The majority of Greens are School Teachers, medical Nurses, Ambulance, Fire Brigade and surprisingly Plods.  Simply, people that are among the people on the ground.
> 
> Equality in education and basic living standards are the focus
> 
> Not too sure about Farrier's




What is your evidence for this demographic breakdown of Greens members, explod?

gg


----------



## explod (15 April 2019)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> What is your evidence for this demographic breakdown of Greens members, explod?
> 
> gg



Mainly from Greens members I have come to know personally over the last 20 years.  Mount Martha 5 years Frankston 3 years, Bendigo 5 years, Coburg 2 years and Geelong/Bellerine 5 years.  Have always been active on those committees and of course online.  Attended many monthly State Council meetings in Melbourne too.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

explod said:


> Mainly from Greens members I have come to know personally over the last 20 years.  Mount Martha 5 years Frankston 3 years, Bendigo 5 years, Coburg 2 years and Geelong/Bellerine 5 years.  Have always been active on those committees and of course online.  Attended many monthly State Council meetings in Melbourne too.



Hmmmmmmmmm
Isn't it the case that plods are infamous for fabricating evidence?


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

Maths question:
"*None are Greens voters and 9/10 are right of center.*"


explod said:


> How do you determine this "right of centre" and what is "9/10"



Answer:


wayneL said:


> 1/ Not socialists, likely conservative or classical liberals
> 2/ 9/10 means 90% like the above



Please locate the "*centre*."


----------



## explod (15 April 2019)

A good general outline of our leader

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/from-gp...Eajm-NZFo9Mtijw_7erT86edBH3ttMxaS4ujj0-pzDk2k


----------



## wayneL (16 April 2019)

@rederob If the commies call you a fascist and the fascist call you a commie, you're probably a centrist.

C'mon guys,  we know it's subjective, but we know what it means,  pulleeez.


----------



## qldfrog (16 April 2019)

M


Garpal Gumnut said:


> What is your evidence for this demographic breakdown of Greens members, explod?
> 
> gg



I agree with Explod, match my understanding and explain the overall higher education but sadly complete absence of knowledge of business and enterprises, or even engineering...aka applied theory
I would also say absences of understanding of the outside world, as biaised oversea experience:
a cultural tour of Italy or a retreat yoga in india is not the same as a trip to Germany powerhouses , Chinese or silicon valley, or Paris suburbs ..
And what is more dangerous than someone who think he/she knows.
So like homeopathy, the green are nice at low doses, but will kill you on full strength


----------



## qldfrog (16 April 2019)

explod said:


> A good general outline of our leader
> 
> https://www.sbs.com.au/news/from-gp...Eajm-NZFo9Mtijw_7erT86edBH3ttMxaS4ujj0-pzDk2k



Reminds me of conversations in China, about the "LEADER"
Same,same?


----------



## explod (29 April 2019)

Interesting graphics! But seriously, if every voter actually read Green’s policies and voted according to the party’s policies, the Greens would be in Government.





But the monetary press slant the reality.


----------



## moXJO (29 April 2019)

Is SHY in danger of losing her seat?


----------



## wayneL (29 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> Is SHY in danger of losing her seat?



Lets hope so.


----------



## explod (29 April 2019)

David Risstrom
Political Candidate
David Risstrom
12 hrs · 
Privatisation

My recent water bill had my water usage charge as approximately $40. The bill was $430!

I have a 1.25 Kw solar panel system on my house, buy Green power and try conserving energy wherever I can. I generate more electricity than I use. For the privilege of providing more electricity than I use, I pay approximately $40-50/month.

As a barrister, I did a legal case for the ALP ~20 years ago to release information involved in the privatisation of Victoria’s gas supply system. I was opposed to two QCs and the best administrative lawyer in Victoria. We won. My memory of the evidence disclosed was that approximately two letters and three phone calls formed the basis of which interests got control of the gas privatisation process in Victoria!

Why do these things matter?

I hear many people say their water, gas and electricity bills have skyrocketed. My personal experience is the same. Whereas people tend to blame governments for causing those increases, the process of privatisation has a closer involvement than many appreciate. In how much you pay. And for what you get.

Privatisation is a one-off sale of things our taxes have paid for. It provides a one off bump in the surplus, followed quite frequently for a different and often lesser services that you pay for over and over. Part of what you pay provides a tidy profit to private companies, whose main duty is to serve their shareholders.

The major parties seem to love saying we are going to lower your taxes, that results in you paying much more for what you need.

While governing a country isn’t as simple as that, the reasons go beyond what fits on a Facebook post. The rationale is something I will try to explain in future posts.

The Greens have plans for legislating for publicly owned electricity, banking and the internet. These include:
• Create a not-for-profit energy retailer to kick off the transition to renewable energy 
• Create a not-for-profit energy retailer to kick off the transition to renewable energy.
• Cap power prices and buy back essential electricity infrastructure
• Create a not-for-profit bank to end the rorts and bring down prices
• Break up the big banks and cap executive pay
• Oppose the sell-off of the NBN and upgrade it to the best technology for fast and reliable services.


----------



## explod (17 May 2019)

Grey Power Climate Protectors


----------



## bellenuit (17 May 2019)

explod said:


> Grey Power Climate Protectors




Isn't Brown's tribute much like Abbott's in that he is claiming Hawke was more Green than perhaps the traditional Labor supporter. Said more subtly of course. I wonder if the left will be as indignant about that.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 May 2019)

explod said:


> "In this country the most comprehensive, long-term dataset on political behaviour, the Australian Election Study, begun in 1987, shows that the defining characteristic of the One Nation voter is that they didn't finish high-school. At the other end of the spectrum, people with postgraduate qualifications most likely vote for the Greens..."



I wonder about cause versus effect in that?

Eg someone with postgraduate qualifications is also more likely than the rest of the population to have a high income and to be engaged in a white collar professional occupation. I assume (but have no data to confirm) that such people are also more likely than average to live in their state's capital city.

So is the link to voting Greens due only to their education or is it also due to these other factors?

Note that I'd query the same with regard to other parties too. Is it the lack of education which links directly to voting One Nation? Or is it other circumstances which link to both a lack of education and voting One Nation? There's a difference there yes.


----------



## IFocus (17 May 2019)

bellenuit said:


> Isn't Brown's tribute much like Abbott's in that he is claiming Hawke was more Green than perhaps the traditional Labor supporter. Said more subtly of course. I wonder if the left will be as indignant about that.




There is no mention of Hawke being a Greens unlike that drop kick Abbott.

Labor are meant to be champions of the environment if only the Greens still were.


----------



## bellenuit (17 May 2019)

IFocus said:


> There is no mention of Hawke being a Greens unlike that drop kick Abbott.
> 
> Labor are meant to be champions of the environment if only the Greens still were.




Not in actual words. But my point is that the tribute is based on political issues that are Green related and makes no mention of anything else.


----------



## wayneL (17 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I wonder about cause versus effect in that?
> 
> Eg someone with postgraduate qualifications is also more likely than the rest of the population to have a high income and to be engaged in a white collar professional occupation. I assume (but have no data to confirm) that such people are also more likely than average to live in their state's capital city.
> 
> ...



Exactly. 

The book "Freakonomics"  revolutionised my thinking along these lines,  highlighting the prima facia statistical case can not be taken at face value.(forgive the subtle but intentional tautology)


----------



## IFocus (17 May 2019)

bellenuit said:


> Not in actual words. But my point is that the tribute is based on political issues that are Green related and makes no mention of anything else.




Agree Bellenuit there is no politics in the statement just recognition of Hawkes achievements.


----------



## explod (17 May 2019)

I feel the point made is that Hawke was inclusive which was understood and appreciated across the board.  Mandela's book "Long Walk to Freedom" encapsulates this angle that few ever possess.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 May 2019)

bellenuit said:


> Isn't Brown's tribute much like Abbott's in that he is claiming Hawke was more Green than perhaps the traditional Labor supporter. Said more subtly of course. I wonder if the left will be as indignant about that.



I'll simply observe that in some of those Hawke era environmental debates, including but not limited to the Franklin, Bob Brown was the most well informed person involved bar none.

Well informed about _economic_ matters that is, a point very few grasped for the next 20 years and which still eludes many today.

With the death knell for Australian manufacturing having already sounded several years prior, there was simply no point worrying about how to supply resources to feed it. A point that Brown grasped at a time pretty much nobody else did, or at least publicly admitted.


----------



## bellenuit (17 May 2019)

IFocus said:


> Agree Bellenuit there is no politics in the statement just recognition of Hawkes achievements.




Recognition of his Green compliant achievements only is politics. The broader community views Hawke as having achieved far more than those few niche issues and they would probably not even include any of them in the top 5.


----------



## IFocus (17 May 2019)

bellenuit said:


> Recognition of his Green compliant achievements only is politics. The broader community views Hawke as having achieved far more than those few niche issues and they would probably not even include any of them in the top 5.




There was nothing to do with being Green compliant I was a young man at the time, mates of mine flew from WA to get arrested in the Franklin, Hawke did not have to do any thing it was a state issue but he felt strongly about the case / environment issue nothing to do with the greens and acted as he should have.

Note Fraser did the same with Fraser Island he also was no Green.


----------



## explod (17 May 2019)

IFocus said:


> There was nothing to do with being Green compliant I was a young man at the time, mates of mine flew from WA to get arrested in the Franklin, Hawke did not have to do any thing it was a state issue but he felt strongly about the case / environment issue nothing to do with the greens and acted as he should have.
> 
> Note Fraser did the same with Fraser Island he also was no Green.



Fraser was a Green supporter in his last years.

https://greensmps.org.au/articles/malcolm-fraser-man-who-stood-his-principles-his-whole-life


----------



## SirRumpole (17 May 2019)

In 1989 the Hawke government called for a billion trees to be planted in ten years.

I wonder how many actually were ?

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ion-trees-in-the-battle-against-soil-erosion/


----------



## SirRumpole (17 May 2019)

Interesting to see John Hewson endorse Sarah Hanson Young, as did Malcolm Fraser.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 May 2019)

explod said:


> Fraser was a Green supporter in his last years.



I've no particular interest in re-running the debate about dams in SW Tasmania here but a few points of relevance as dot points:

*Fraser did offer Tasmania compensation to not proceed with the dam. That offer was substantially better, in terms of both outright $ and other benefits, than the one ultimately received from the Hawke government.

*For the record, my personal view which may surprise many who've read my various posts is that the right decision was made in not building the dam but the wrong decision was made with respect to alternatives. The ideas that were around for alternatives circa 1980 were superior or at least equal on every measure compared to those ultimately implemented from 1983. That they were off the table at that point came down to politics on all sides having made them impossible but they made far more sense from a purely rational perspective and conservationists, Labor and at the federal level Liberal were all amenable earlier in the debate.

*The debate ran for just over 3 years and 8 months from the public announcement of the proposal through to it being scrapped following the High Court decision. That effectively wrecked 2 state premiers, resulted in the election of Tasmania's first ever majority Liberal government, and was until recently often stated in those terms to highlight how extreme it all was given the underlying issue was simply how to generate electricity. The point being that such a long debate over the issue borders on the ridiculous.

*We have now had a national debate over the same underlying question, power generation,  running more than twice as long and which has played a factor in the downfall of 4 Prime Ministers.

*In the event that Labor wins tomorrow with something less than a serious landslide that could fairly be increased to 5 PM's given that the climate issue would almost certainly account for part of any swing toward Labor.

*A decade ago anyone suggesting that a debate about electricity would see the demise of _any _Prime Minister or that it would even be considered a national issue would likely have been laughed at for suggesting an idea that, until it happened, would have seemed rather far fetched to most.

*The original proposal has turned out to have a use environmentally in terms of the data that was collected indeed that same data is still collected today and done so by the same organisation that previously proposed to put the place under water. It's done with the relevant external approvals, since there's some minor impact within the World Heritage Area to be doing that sort of thing (eg landing helicopters etc), and the primary use of that data is now in relation to climate change research. There are few examples globally of wild rivers which have been subject to over half a century of constant data recording and that's where the value lies.

*As a more general comment, and I have actually put this to the test on several occasions, it was an issue over which practically everyone had an opinion but few understood the detail.

The biggest barrier to rational debate is when things take on a religious-like manner and that's what happened with that one and much the same seems to have happened over the same underlying issue today at the federal level. A lot of entrenched views that the answer is coal / nuclear / gas / wind / hydro / solar / batteries or whatever but start talking hard facts, and by that I mean environmental ones not just engineering and economic ones, and it's met with anger not reasoned argument.

Progress, on anything, is much easier when you can have a rational discussion without the "religious" aspect to it all. If we could do that with the climate issue then we'd be half way to fixing it by now.


----------



## bellenuit (18 May 2019)

Could you just imagine Tony Abbott telling this joke. The reaction from the left would be so full of invective because it includes so many taboo views that it would take the ABC a week to relate it all. But coming from Hawke, the left, as usual, are at their hypocritical best. They have nothing to say.


----------



## qldfrog (18 May 2019)

Nice joke!


----------



## SirRumpole (18 May 2019)

Onya Hawkey.

Can't see Malcolm Fraser telling that joke, or Turnbull for that matter.


----------



## IFocus (18 May 2019)

bellenuit said:


> Could you just imagine Tony Abbott telling this joke. The reaction from the left would be so full of invective because it includes so many taboo views that it would take the ABC a week to relate it all. But coming from Hawke, the left, as usual, are at their hypocritical best. They have nothing to say.





I think its more generational than left right which I get really tied of, my kids give me a hard time about my jokes and I would think I am a long way left of most here.


----------



## chiff (18 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Interesting to see John Hewson endorse Sarah Hanson Young, as did Malcolm Fraser.




When I go to vote soon, I will vote strategically to keep Hanson Young in the Senate.Always planned to.


----------



## explod (12 June 2019)

From our leader today:-

"I’m honoured and excited to have been re-elected as parliamentary leader by my colleagues. I thank them for the trust they have placed in me.

*I am so proud of our party’s achievements and the strong role the Greens have played in shaping the national debate, and I am confident that we will once again be a driving force in responding to the major challenges that confront our nation.*

First and foremost on the Greens’ agenda in the new Parliament will be tackling the existential threat of dangerous climate change and ensuring that no one is left behind as we undertake the transformation of our economy away from dirty, polluting fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas to a clean, green, jobs-rich economy powered by renewable energy.

Many Australians are struggling with the rising cost of living, job insecurity and growing inequality. Our determination to secure a safe climate future for our kids and grandkids, and to create a fairer and more equal society, go hand in hand.

*In 2016 we began a conversation with our membership over how the leader of our parliamentary team is elected, and how that process can better reflect the rapid growth our party has experienced over the last two decades.* I am very pleased with the level of positive engagement this conversation has generated within the Party, and the federal team and I look forward to this discussion continuing.

We’re facing three years of a Morrison-led Liberal government. A government already horse trading with One Nation to pass tax cuts that will send billions to the highest income earners at the expense of everyone else, and at the expense of public services that benefit all of us.

We’re seeing a warming climate and a government that is more interested in propping up a declining coal industry than making the investments that will create 180,000 new jobs in clean energy.

The role of the Greens at every level of government has never been more important, and I look forward to working with all of you in the weeks and months ahead.

Yours,

*Richard"*


----------



## wayneL (3 February 2020)

So what's the gos @explod ?

Will Greens go for another lunatic Marxist like DiNatale? Bandt? SHY?

Someone else not quite so embarrassing?

What do you think?


----------



## Knobby22 (3 February 2020)

I heard him talk explod.
His boys at that age that he felt he had to quit or miss their childhood and not give enough support.

Predicted Adam Bandt would take over.
Seemed pretty confident that the Greens would have 20% of the vote within two elections, maybe the next one. Pointed out what happened in Germany.

Mentioned Newscorp also.


----------



## wayneL (4 February 2020)

It gets worse, Faruqi being encouraged to run.


----------



## chiff (4 February 2020)

wayneL said:


> It gets worse, Faruqi being encouraged to run.



Never heard of Faruqi-but I have heard of the minister for Rinehart,that vandal Barnaby Joyce.


----------



## wayneL (4 February 2020)

chiff said:


> Never heard of Faruqi-but I have heard of the minister for Rinehart,that vandal Barnaby Joyce.



She is the Greens racebaiter in chief, mate.

And, I'm struggling a bit to figure out what Barnaby Joyce has to do with the Greens. Has he defected or something?


----------



## qldfrog (4 February 2020)

As long as it is not the little piece of shxt..
Natale seemed respectable, obviously not as rabid or north korean minded than many and probably why he is pushed away
To take care of his family, did they mentioned gardening?

With the newscorp and ABC co2 brainwashing, the Greens should do well next election
And labour is so behind .Greens are the new left


----------



## explod (4 February 2020)

Adam Bandt on his opening address on ABC was brilliant, speaks clearly with considerable confidence. And the content, about education equality, jobs and the unemployed, particularly benefits was excellent. And an improvement here would also directly help business as such monies are spent on the ground. One of the best addresses I've seen in years. DiNatialie was never that confident or fluent.


----------



## chiff (4 February 2020)

chiff said:


> Never heard of Faruqi-but I have heard of the minister for Rinehart,that vandal Barnaby Joyce.



I thought he was with the Greens...maybe I am wrong.


----------



## IFocus (4 February 2020)

The Australian political system lacks serious activism as the left in Labor really doesn't exist anymore as Labor embraces neoliberalism.

I hope the Greens elect a seriously aggressive activist to lead them and lead aggressive attacks against the current government who chooses to raise the bar in corrupt practices saying they are acceptable with no consequences.


----------



## sptrawler (4 February 2020)

IFocus said:


> The Australian political system lacks serious activism as the left in Labor really doesn't exist anymore as Labor embraces neoliberalism.
> 
> I hope the Greens elect a seriously aggressive activist to lead them and lead aggressive attacks against the current government who chooses to raise the bar in corrupt practices saying they are acceptable with no consequences.



I agree with that, it is about time we had a Party that challenged the establishment, ATM all we have, is two whiter shades of pale.


----------



## wayneL (4 February 2020)

The left doesn't exist in labor anymore?

How far left do you have to go to be "left"?

Pol Pot?


----------



## PZ99 (4 February 2020)

Labor haven't been "left" since 1975.

They are only "left" to people who are far right.


----------



## sptrawler (4 February 2020)

PZ99 said:


> Labor haven't been "left" since 1975.
> 
> They are only "left" to people who are far right.



That is the exact reason they aren't doing well at the polls, you have a choice between beige Coalition or beige Labour, so people chose on the actual policy, rather than on the thrust of the agenda. Gough was the last true 'left' Prime Minister we had, and despite what history says, he did a lot of good for the working man and the social system.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 February 2020)

So, will Adam Bandt make a difference to the Greens ?

Di Natalie didn't seem to win hearts and minds of Green voters, I wonder if Bandt has the charisma to do what Di Natalie didn't.

We shall see ...


----------



## wayneL (4 February 2020)

He will appeal to the Marxists.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 February 2020)

wayneL said:


> He will appeal to the Marxists.




Don't they all ? 

There would be some around that think the Greens are Conservatives. 

Lee Rhiannon where are you now ?


----------



## Logique (5 February 2020)

Richard to hand over to Adam? 

No problem with 'White Male Privilege' in the Greens.


----------



## chiff (5 February 2020)

IFocus said:


> The Australian political system lacks serious activism as the left in Labor really doesn't exist anymore as Labor embraces neoliberalism.
> 
> I hope the Greens elect a seriously aggressive activist to lead them and lead aggressive attacks against the current government who chooses to raise the bar in corrupt practices saying they are acceptable with no consequences.



Where do you find another Bob Brown-an intelligent activist?On corruption we will see who votes for a federal ICAC.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 February 2020)

Logique said:


> Richard to hand over to Adam?
> 
> No problem with 'White Male Privilege' in the Greens.




No National women in the Cabinet either.


----------



## wayneL (23 June 2020)




----------



## Dona Ferentes (23 June 2020)

Watermelons


----------



## qldfrog (24 June 2020)

Dona Ferentes said:


> Watermelons



More like not fully ripe tomatoes lately, hard to see any green.. left ..pun intended..


----------



## noirua (25 August 2021)

The lighter penguin is an elderly female whose partner died this year. The darker one is a younger male who lost his partner two years ago. Biologists have followed them as they meet every night to comfort each other. They stand for hours together watching the lights. Photographer Tobias Baumgaertner captured this image of two widowed fairy penguins looking over the Melbourne skyline. It has won an award in Oceanographic magazine’s Ocean Photography Awards 2020.


----------



## Investoradam (27 August 2021)

explod said:


> Adam Bandt on his opening address on ABC was brilliant, speaks clearly with considerable confidence. And the content, about education equality, jobs and the unemployed, particularly benefits was excellent. And an improvement here would also directly help business as such monies are spent on the ground. One of the best addresses I've seen in years. DiNatialie was never that confident or fluent.



Did you watch some one record a dub over voice on a Bandit interview?


----------



## Investoradam (27 August 2021)

wayneL said:


> He will appeal to the Marxists.



Both Di Nutter and Bandts parents and them selfs are hard core commies to idolise Lenin and Trotsky and are members of the Socialist alternative


----------



## Dona Ferentes (27 August 2021)

qldfrog said:


> More like not fully ripe tomatoes lately, hard to see any green.. left ..pun intended..



ah, _M Blagueur_. 👨‍🎓


----------



## wayneL (20 October 2022)

Expecting a run on Dom Perignon... the best political news in years.





__





						Loading...
					





					www.news.com.au


----------



## Knobby22 (20 October 2022)

wayneL said:


> Expecting a run on Dom Perignon... the best political news in years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thorpe also abused an aboriginal elder to such an extent that her chief of staff resigned from his role and apologised to the Auntie. (broken by the SMH, front page a few weeks ago) also other scandals have been reported. 

She is a stain and she needs to be kicked out of the Greens. A huge chip on her shoulder.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 October 2022)

And note. It was rhe ABC who Uncovered the Thorpe relationship.
You need reporters on the ground for a good democracy. Not talking heads spouting opinions (looking at you Newscorp).


----------



## wayneL (20 October 2022)

Knobby22 said:


> Thorpe also abused an aboriginal elder to such an extent that her chief of staff resigned from his role and apologised to the Auntie. (broken by the SMH, front page a few weeks ago) also other scandals have been reported.
> 
> She is a stain and she needs to be kicked out of the Greens. A huge chip on her shoulder.



Bandt should go as well


----------



## Knobby22 (21 October 2022)

wayneL said:


> Bandt should go as well



A weak leader but he is doing well for them.


----------

