# Is Garrett a Hypocrite?



## Ghetto23 (15 July 2009)

Peter Garrett approves a uranium mine in SA - now he's being called a hypocrite?

Aren't the hypocrites the ones that preach about climate change and carbon emissions then are happy to see the govt start up old fossil fuel stations instead of approving a certain more efficient source of energy?


----------



## So_Cynical (15 July 2009)

Garrett has taken the hard road into a political career, he could of easily won a seat for the greens and spent years achieving nothing...instead he wisely chose to join labor and try and achieve a green agenda from the inside, in a position of some power.

Hypocrite no...hes a Cabinet minister.


----------



## MrBurns (15 July 2009)

Yes


----------



## johnnyg (15 July 2009)

Garrett is an Idiot.

I hear he has a smoking hot daughter though.....


----------



## sam76 (15 July 2009)

johnnyg said:


> Garrett is an Idiot.
> 
> I hear he has a smoking hot daughter though.....


----------



## explod (15 July 2009)

Just following bloody common sense.

Nucluar power for the future, though it has inherent dangers is a no brainer.  The yank subs with one light up have gone for 40 years of wonderful steam power with no pollution (cept the little bit left over, jettison to outer space maybe)   The French power stations are now almost perfect, suspended in water, and the waste back into the furnace.

PLA and any good copper plays is where we investors are headed.

Garret really had no say, just the way we have to go.

We all learn eventually and those who had a good childhood like he did may be the best in the long run


----------



## trainspotter (15 July 2009)

*"If the blue sky mining company don't save me .... who's gonna save me?"* CSR was the target in this case but there was a song called "Dead Heart" that dealt with this topic.

Did not Peter Garrett sing this and was a STAUNCH anti nuclear opponent?
Did not the whole Midnight Oil junket champion the good fight? No matter how small the cause?

He has changed his thinking and opened the Four Mile Mine in S.A

*"I joined the Labor Party, I became a member of the government," he said. 

"And I said at the time that I would accept as a team player the decisions that government took. "*

Shame Peter Garrett, SHAME !


----------



## MrBurns (15 July 2009)

I think nuclear power is the way to go. it's safe now not like it was in the early days.
But Garrett is a hypocrite regardless.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 July 2009)

Is the Pope a Catholic?

gg


----------



## trainspotter (15 July 2009)

We are not talking about NUCLEAR POWER ... we are talking about ripping a hole in the ground and digging up uranium ore. It will be sent to some foreign country to be refined into Nuclear Rods capable of running a power station. 

Director of Four Mile Mine Patrick Muntz said: "If we are in production by 2010, which we think we will be, we will be the highest grade ISR (in-situ recovery) mine in the world and the largest." 

Greens MLC Mark Parnell said the approval of Four Mile was deeply disappointing and said the proposed in-situ leach method was not world's best practice as claimed.

"The in-situ leaching process is highly controversial," he said.

*"Pumping acid into the soil and aquifers will leave behind acid and radioactive wastes for many years to come."*

Shame Peter Garrett, Shame. Where are your morals?


----------



## Calliope (15 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> *
> 
> "I joined the Labor Party, I became a member of the government," he said.
> 
> ...



*

What this means is he was ready to prostitute his principles for the Party. He knew that you can't be a Labor politician and have principles when he joined them. His principles were pretty shonky in the first place.*


----------



## MrBurns (15 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> We are not talking about NUCLEAR POWER ... we are talking about ripping a hole in the ground and digging up uranium ore. It will be sent to some foreign country to be refined into Nuclear Rods capable of running a power station.




Fair enough, Garrett is s fake no doubt about it, hope he tanks at the next election.


----------



## trainspotter (15 July 2009)

OR creating nucler weapons. In it's lowest form a possible dirty bomb which does not have the impact *ie* leave a great trail of destruction behind it, but more like radiation poisoning that will slowly kill you with cancer, leukemia , lymph node destruction etc etc etc.

Where doe the waste end up? The 7 mile trench? Shot into space? Buried in our own backyard? OR "D" all of the above?


----------



## prawn_86 (15 July 2009)

He is a politician, so therefore Yes to the question, but not due to the topic described in the opening post


----------



## nunthewiser (15 July 2009)

saw him play a whole concert in a gas mask once . was in a west Australian hotel years ago .it was great . arms flying , head shaking strobes hitting his unique dance moves

as a politician i think he is a wanka and a two faced one at that

great live music tho


----------



## explod (15 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> What this means is he was ready to prostitute his principles for the Party. He knew that you can't be a Labor politician and have principles when he joined them. His principles were pretty shonky in the first place.




But he at least has the balls to change.   If we we all less rigid and measured the problems and realistic, achievable solutions.  i.e. stop and think ... we may get some progress.

I applaud the decision..    Garret on a personal basis, could not care less, the bigger problems are greater than that.


----------



## noco (15 July 2009)

The only truth Peter Garrett spoke was that "everything they won the election on will change when Labor got into power".

WHEN ONE IS TIED TO  THE LABOR PARTY  you toe the line or get expelled if  you speak out against the Labor Party machine. He is nothing more than a puppet who has to do what he is told.

I wonder how much donation was feed into the Labor Party coffers to get this approval of this new uranium mine.


----------



## explod (15 July 2009)

noco said:


> The only truth Peter Garrett spoke was that "everything they won the election on will change when Labor got into power".
> 
> WHEN ONE IS TIED TO  THE LABOR PARTY  you toe the line or get expelled if  you speak out against the Labor Party machine. He is nothing more than a puppet who has to do what he is told.
> 
> I wonder how much donation was feed into the Labor Party coffers to get this approval of this new uranium mine.




Talk about blind bias, little Johnny did not let anyone speak out, or if they did they were his bullets of bull...t.  At least the Laobor Party stick to an overall party line, well worked out beforehand.


----------



## trainspotter (15 July 2009)

1986 Blackfella / Whitefella tour, Darwin Apmitheatre, Botanical Gardens. Oils were in their prime and Peter Garretts eclectic dance routine entertained. The music hit a chord that sang through the hearts of the assembled crowd on the hill that thrummed and weaved with every stroke of Rob Hirsts drum kit. Especially when "Power & the Passion" drum solo kicked in the second bracket.

Garrett's first attempt at entering politics was in 1984, when he co founded the Nuclear Disarmament Party and stood for a seat in the Australian Senate in New South Wales at the December 1984 federal election. He needed 12.5% of the vote to win a seat in the Senate voting system, but a primary vote of just over 9% was insufficient when Labor gave its preferences to the conservative National Party ahead of the NDP.

The ALP recruited Garret to give then 'Green cred'....to ensnare the votes of people who followed Garret's idealogy on the environment and Uranium issues. Those who voted for him and the ALP in general because they 'had' him in the Party have been duped by both he and the ALP....and should therefore feel aggrieved and sold out by them.

So the beloved ALP masters gave their preferences against him in the NDP and gave them to the National Party and now he is the Environment Minister for the ALP !!!!!!!! 

Hypocrite indeed !!!


----------



## explod (15 July 2009)

This clean coal thingo is a joke and too expensive to do anything of value.  In the meatime good clean techonogy has a long way to go before it will meet our power needs.   Neuclear at least will hold things together over the next century till we can develop proper alernatives.

Who really caress about Garret.  Life is too short to waste it on nerds.


----------



## starwars_guy456 (15 July 2009)

You see him as a hypocrite, I see him as someone willing to negotiate to get the best for the country. There's no sense being entrenched blindly in one's beliefs if it means that the country is stuck permanently in one way of thinking....

Hopefully this signals a new direction that the Greens will take.



-Ed


----------



## pointr (15 July 2009)

Perhaps a quote from Golda Meyheir(spelling) " If you're not a socialist by the time you're twenty you have no heart, if you're not a capitalist by the time you're thrity you have no brain" . Not exactly on topic but perhaps some relevance.


----------



## Julia (15 July 2009)

starwars_guy456 said:


> You see him as a hypocrite, I see him as someone willing to negotiate to get the best for the country. There's no sense being entrenched blindly in one's beliefs if it means that the country is stuck permanently in one way of thinking....
> 
> Hopefully this signals a new direction that the Greens will take.



New direction the Greens will take?
Garrett isn't with the Greens.
Perhaps I'm wholly misunderstanding you here?

I can't stand Garrett.  He must have known when he got sucked into running for Labor that he'd have to become part of the party machine.  Had his principles been well founded, he'd never have compromised like that.


----------



## trainspotter (15 July 2009)

I am missing something here? Peter Garrett has backflipped his principles and allowed a FIFTH uranium mine to open in South Australia. We are not talking about a Nuclear Reactor to generate electricity. We are talking about mining YELLOWCAKE or URANIUM ORE to be shipped over to a foreign country to be enriched. Only then can it be used in a Nuclear Reactor to create electricity. The uranium enriched fuel rods are used to create a fission reaction which generates heat. The rods are submerged in water which creates steam. Steam drives a turbine. The turbine is connected to a generator. Viola ... electricity. Now the science experiment is over. 

To somehow equate this to a Green principle is absurd. The Acid that is leached into the soil during the process of cleansing yellowcake is highly toxic and is known to cause cancer on a critical scale. There was a pond spill in Arnhem land with dramatic consequences on the habitat. Destroyed for years to come. Right on !


----------



## So_Cynical (15 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> What this means is he was ready to prostitute his principles for the Party. He knew that you can't be a Labor politician and have principles when he joined them. His principles were pretty shonky in the first place.




And of course this is because the liberals/Nationals don't actually have any principles. 



Julia said:


> He must have known when he got sucked into running for Labor that he'd have to become part of the party machine.  Had his principles been well founded, he'd never have compromised like that.




Com on Julia...u cant be a politician in a major party and still have principles, believe 
in something...successful politicians compromise.


----------



## Bobby (16 July 2009)

What ever he does now he's rat-**** , credibility once lost can never be regained , what a goose  :

P.S. notice that the word sh*t has been edited , WTF is wrong with free expression of a common word ?


----------



## ojm (16 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Is the Pope a Catholic?
> 
> gg




The correct saying is:

Is the Pope a Nazi?


----------



## Who Dares Wins (16 July 2009)

starwars_guy456 said:


> .... I see him as someone willing to negotiate to get the best for the country....




You see thats just it.

In the past he never was "willing to negotiate to get the best for the country"

And considering in was co-founder of the Nuclear Disarmament Party certainly seems hypocritical to me.


----------



## Surly (16 July 2009)

You would expect he would have to toe the line on fringe issues to get his way on his core beliefs.

If this is his stance on something he has sung and protested about for 25 years what won't he do for his masters?

"When the generals talk you better listen to them..."

cheers
Surly


----------



## noco (16 July 2009)

explod said:


> Talk about blind bias, little Johnny did not let anyone speak out, or if they did they were his bullets of bull...t.  At least the Laobor Party stick to an overall party line, well worked out beforehand.




The Labor Party hacks are all brain washed. They even use the same rhetoric over and over again.

"We have a plan ; we have a strategy ; we have to get the balance right ; its all about jobs,jobs,jobs." They have the same lines. It gets soooo boring.

What's John Howard got to do with the question of "Is Garrett a Hypocrite?"

Garrett even sang songs about no uranium mining when he was in the "sump oil group". He opposed uranium mining over and over again. He would have to be the greatest HYPOCRITE EVER TO ENTER PARLIMENT.


----------



## Ghetto23 (16 July 2009)

Who Dares Wins said:


> You see thats just it.
> 
> In the past he never was "willing to negotiate to get the best for the country"
> 
> And considering in was co-founder of the Nuclear Disarmament Party certainly seems hypocritical to me.




What has nuclear disarmament got to do with anything? The uranium produced has failsafes put on it to ensure that it couldn't end up as a weapon.

As for the mining method etc. - whether it's uranium or something else there is always an inherent risk. Should he support stopping ALL mining because of songs he wrote 30 years ago?

In my opinion the real hypocrites (a lot of these people are calling him a hypocrite) are the anti-nuclear people that turn a blind eye to coal-power pollution. Is it better to have waste we can at least contain rather than releasing large amounts to the atmosphere?


----------



## explod (16 July 2009)

> Garrett even sang songs about no uranium mining when he was in the "sump oil group". He opposed uranium mining over and over again. He would have to be the greatest HYPOCRITE EVER TO ENTER PARLIMENT.




I guess some of the criticism is coming from younger ones wet behind the ears.   As you grow older you see a bigger picture and realise you may have been wrong in your developing period.  As I ahve said, Garret has never done it for me but to criticise someone who has the gumption to change may be just as hypocritical.



> In my opinion the real hypocrites (a lot of these people are calling him a hypocrite) are the anti-nuclear people that turn a blind eye to coal-power pollution. Is it better to have waste we can at least contain rather than releasing large amounts to the atmosphere?




Well said.


----------



## MrBurns (16 July 2009)

Getting back to the title of this thread - yes he is a hypocrite, that's a fact not open to argument.

He's changed his mantra for convenience, anyone can see that.

I agree with nuclear power as long as the towel heads aren't running it, but Garrett is a barefaced hypocrite and therefore a worthy member of the Labor Party.


----------



## Agentm (16 July 2009)

some say he is a post turtle


----------



## Who Dares Wins (16 July 2009)

explod said:


> I guess some of the criticism is coming from younger ones wet behind the ears.   As you grow older you see a bigger picture and realise you may have been wrong in your developing period.




But I'm not young and yet I still think its hypocritical. 

I'm supportive of U mining as well.

But it gets even better:

*Uranium mine linked to US arms dealer*
http://www.theage.com.au/national/uranium-mine-linked-to-us-arms-dealer-20090715-dli7.html


----------



## Julia (16 July 2009)

Ghetto23 said:


> What has nuclear disarmament got to do with anything? The uranium produced has failsafes put on it to ensure that it couldn't end up as a weapon.



Really?  What are these failsafes?


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 July 2009)

Hypocrite?

I guess it IS possible for a GOOSE to be a hypocrite as well. 

_"Goose Garrett"_

Has a nice ring to it, don't you think.....??

What a pity the Oil ran dry....


----------



## Ghetto23 (16 July 2009)

Julia said:


> Really?  What are these failsafes?




I thought I read this yesterday but can't find it at the moment. Apologies if I was wrong.

Of course Garrett is a hypocrite - no arguments there. But so are a hell of a lot of people that are calling him one (not neccessarily the people on this forum).


----------



## Mr J (16 July 2009)

Are you a hypocrite if your priorities change over time? His young self may see a betrayal by his older self, but time and experience can change people. This is especially true for idealistic types who get into politics wanting to change the world. They realise they have to play ball to get anywhere, and end up comprosing so much that they lose themselves. Or, they realise that their idealistic goals were not practical. Power corrupts, or in the case of politics, politics corrupts.


----------



## explod (16 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> Are you a hypocrite if your priorities change over time? His young self may see a betrayal by his older self, but time and experience can change people. This is especially true for idealistic types who get into politics wanting to change the world. They realise they have to play ball to get anywhere, and end up comprosing so much that they lose themselves. Or, they realise that their idealistic goals were not practical. Power corrupts, or in the case of politics, politics corrupts.




Yep, on the money.   When at mamagement school we were taught to be adaptive abd reasonable to acheive our objectives.   A hugh part of this was to listen to other arguments, but above all *BE ABLE TO CHANGE*

As said, I have no truck with Garret, but he demonstrates common sense.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (16 July 2009)

One thing to keep in mind here is that back in the early 80's when Garrett was against uranium mining, no-one knew anything about climate change or global warming from fossil fuels. 

Back then nuclear power was the global boogie man, not coal.

It could be that Garrett thinks uranium fueled power stations are the lesser of two evils - its easier to control uranium in a reactor than CO2 in the atmosphere.

If the mining and extraction process is toxic to the environment, then that suggests hypocrisy.

Maybe he is a trojan horse in the Labor party. He will bide his time until he gains leadership, then the Prime Ministership, and then go totally green and do all the things he said back in the 80's.

I don't like his chances.


----------



## Timmy (16 July 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> One thing to keep in mind here is that back in the early 80's when Garrett was against uranium mining, no-one knew anything about climate change or global warming from fossil fuels.




You are right, in the 80s the concerns with nuclear power related to how to safely dispose of the waste and also with accidents like Three-Mile Island and then Chernobyl.

Of course now, Krusty, we also know about the 3-eyed fish in Springfield rivers and lakes too. Mmmmmmm, fish.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (16 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> Of course now, Krusty, we also know about the 3-eyed fish in Springfield rivers and lakes too. Mmmmmmm, fish.




Now available at Krustyburger!!!!


----------



## Timmy (16 July 2009)

LOL

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, Krustyburger


----------



## trainspotter (16 July 2009)

Hmmmmm .... I have a vague recollection of the "Polar Ice Caps" are melting and the "Hole in the Ozone layer" in the early 1980's which turned into GLOBAL WARMING? There already is FOUR urnanium mines in SA. Peter Garrett has allowed for the FIFTH to be opened. It has nothing to do with nuclear power. Have we not learned from Jabiluka, Cobar 2 Prospect, Ranger minesites in the Northern Territory? The Cobar 2 Prospect site had a pond overflow that contaminated about 100 acres of waterlands killing wildlife and essentially making the area barren for the next 1000 years or so. GOSH !! 

Nuclear power generation in itself today is extremely safe. Approx 70% of France light bulbs are run by this method. Some Eastern Bloc country whose name escapes me is about 55% nuclear and the U.S. is a lowly 20% or less. 

We do not have the ability to refine Yellowcake in Australia (to my knowledge and please correct me if I am wrong) It is sent overseas to reach critical mass before being able to create nuclear fission and used as fuel rods.

What sticks in my craw is for someone like a Peter Garrett who was so ANTI urnanium mining has now changed his song and dance routine to allow this kind of destruction to occur on his authority. Do you not see the irony in it?

I am not for coal fire powered electricity generation by the way. Do we not have MASSIVE reserves of LNG? Gorgon Gas and the North West Shelf of Australia is literally leaking of cheap, combustible, low polluting NATURAL GAS. Where do we send it? Ohhhhhh thats right ..... to China so they can run their furnaces to melt our iron ore. DOPE.


----------



## Timmy (16 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Hmmmmm .... I have a vague recollection of the "Polar Ice Caps" are melting and the "Hole in the Ozone layer" in the early 1980's which turned into GLOBAL WARMING?




Yes, sounds familiar too - I was relying on memory too.  Except for the 3-eyed fish, seen documentary evidence of that (admittedly animated).


----------



## noco (16 July 2009)

explod said:


> I guess some of the criticism is coming from younger ones wet behind the ears.   As you grow older you see a bigger picture and realise you may have been wrong in your developing period.  As I ahve said, Garret has never done it for me but to criticise someone who has the gumption to change may be just as hypocritical.
> 
> 
> 
> Well said.




Ha Explod you are not getting much support on this thread.

I think my picture is bigger than yours. Do you have great grandchildren?

If you haven't  then you must still be a boy in my eyes!


----------



## trainspotter (16 July 2009)

Pretty soon we won't need light bulbs (fancy flouro ones at that) cause we will ALL be glowing in the dark. Bring it on !


----------



## Mr J (16 July 2009)

Wisdom is almost as lacking in the aged as it is in the young.


----------



## trainspotter (16 July 2009)

Maybe Peter Garrett and Sting (ex Police frontman) can get together and re record Roxanne? This way they can change the words to "Rooooxaaanne ..... you don't have to put up a red light"


----------



## trainspotter (16 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> Wisdom is almost as lacking in the aged as it is in the young.




It is a matter of serious regret that young people are commonly so little disposed to listen to the advice of the aged. This prejudice seems to have its origin in an apprehension that austerity and rigor naturally belong to advanced years; and that the loss of all susceptibility of pleasure from those scenes and objects which afford delight to the young, produces something of an ill-natured or envious feeling towards them. Now it cannot be denied that some of the aged are chargeable with the fault of being too rigid in exacting from youth the same steady gravity which is fitting in those who have lived long, and have had much experience in the world: not remembering that the constitutional temperament of these two periods of human life is very different. 

My Momma always used to tell me "Learn from your mistakes"


----------



## travwj (16 July 2009)

I don't believe that Peter Garrett is a hypocrite. This is not a decission he makes on his own, of course he has advisors to give him direction in making this decission. 
His views on nuclear power and uranium may not have changed over the year, and he may well be towing the party line. But like it was said earlier, if he was with the greens he may not of made any difference, at least with labour he may well make a difference over time.

Trav


----------



## Julia (16 July 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> Maybe he is a trojan horse in the Labor party. He will bide his time until he gains leadership, then the Prime Ministership, and then go totally green and do all the things he said back in the 80's.



Oh, God, no.  Someone tell me it just couldn't happen!
You just have to be joking, Krusty.   For one thing, he's simply not bright enough.   For another (and I usually avoid being personal) he's just horrible to look at.




trainspotter said:


> It is a matter of serious regret that young people are commonly so little disposed to listen to the advice of the aged. This prejudice seems to have its origin in an apprehension that austerity and rigor naturally belong to advanced years; and that the loss of all susceptibility of pleasure from those scenes and objects which afford delight to the young, produces something of an ill-natured or envious feeling towards them. Now it cannot be denied that some of the aged are chargeable with the fault of being too rigid in exacting from youth the same steady gravity which is fitting in those who have lived long, and have had much experience in the world: not remembering that the constitutional temperament of these two periods of human life is very different.
> 
> My Momma always used to tell me "Learn from your mistakes"



That's one beautiful piece of prose, Trainspotter.  Your own work?


----------



## starwars_guy456 (16 July 2009)

Julia said:


> New direction the Greens will take?
> Garrett isn't with the Greens.
> Perhaps I'm wholly misunderstanding you here?
> 
> I can't stand Garrett.  He must have known when he got sucked into running for Labor that he'd have to become part of the party machine.  Had his principles been well founded, he'd never have compromised like that.





Oops, I was the one who misunderstood. Sorry about that!


----------



## trainspotter (16 July 2009)

Sorry Julia ... I cannot lay claim to such perfect verbosity. It is written in 1814 (poet Lauret escapse me) that people who read Jane Austins novels will perceive my written word as a mere twitter.

So be it !!!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> It is a matter of serious regret that young people are commonly so little disposed to listen to the advice of the aged. This prejudice seems to have its origin in an apprehension that austerity and rigor naturally belong to advanced years; and that the loss of all susceptibility of pleasure from those scenes and objects which afford delight to the young, produces something of an ill-natured or envious feeling towards them. Now it cannot be denied that some of the aged are chargeable with the fault of being too rigid in exacting from youth the same steady gravity which is fitting in those who have lived long, and have had much experience in the world: not remembering that the constitutional temperament of these two periods of human life is very different.
> 
> My Momma always used to tell me "Learn from your mistakes"






Julia said:


> That's one beautiful piece of prose, Trainspotter.  Your own work?





It has to be some lines from Preparation for Death by Archibald Alexander. Apt Trainspotter, and apt response Julia.

Garrett reminds me of a description of Cuban capitalists fleeing the Revolution back in the 50's, 

"Golden pasted , like Crisco."

And like used Midnight Oil he will be poured down the fetid drain of history.

gg


----------



## trainspotter (16 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It has to be some lines from Preparation for Death by Archibald Alexander. Apt Trainspotter, and apt response Julia.
> 
> Garrett reminds me of a description of Cuban capitalists fleeing the Revolution back in the 50's,
> 
> ...




A truer word well spoken GG ! Che Guevera salutes you and his band of Merry Men. 

The difference is that one will live on as Revolutionist on a T. Shirt ... The other will go down in history as a perpetrator of crimes to humanity.


----------



## Mr J (16 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> It is a matter of serious regret that young people are commonly so little disposed to listen to the advice of the aged. This prejudice seems to have its origin in an apprehension that austerity and rigor naturally belong to advanced years; and that the loss of all susceptibility of pleasure from those scenes and objects which afford delight to the young, produces something of an ill-natured or envious feeling towards them. Now it cannot be denied that some of the aged are chargeable with the fault of being too rigid in exacting from youth the same steady gravity which is fitting in those who have lived long, and have had much experience in the world: not remembering that the constitutional temperament of these two periods of human life is very different.
> 
> My Momma always used to tell me "Learn from your mistakes"




Those that understand human nature will know that if we are to learn, it is far more likely to be from our own mistakes than from the mistakes of others. Let the young make their own mistakes, it's how they learn. It's how most of us learn, even the wise oldies.

Rather than say the aged are wiser, I would say they are generally less foolish.


----------



## trainspotter (16 July 2009)

I'm gonna use the term "wise oldies" whenever I refer to my big sister, or my aunty Jack. She was full of wise cracks.


----------



## trainspotter (17 July 2009)

*People, wasting away in paradise
Going backward, once in a while
Moving ahead, falling behind
What do you believe, what do you believe
What do you believe is true
Nothing they say makes a difference this way
Nothing they say will do*

_Take all the trouble that you can afford
At least you wont have time to be bored

Oh the power and the passion, oh the temper of the time
Oh the power and the passion
Sometimes youve got to take the hardest line

Sunburnt faces around, with skin so brown
Smiling zinc cream and crowds, sundays the beach never a cloud
Breathing eucalypt, pushing panel vans
Stuff and munch junk food
Laughing at the truth, cos gough was tough til he hit the rough
Uncle sam and john were quite enough

Too much of sunshine too much of sky
Its enough to make you want to cry

Oh the power...

I see buildings, clothing the sky, in paradise
Sydney, nights are warm
Daytime telly, blue rinse dawn
Dads so bad he lives in the pub, its a underarms and football clubs
Flat chat, pine gap, in every home a big mac
And no one goes outback, thats that
You take what you get and get what you please
Its better to die on your feet than to live on your knees_

Well, well, well, Peter Garrett. A lot has changed since 1982 hasn't it !


----------



## Ghetto23 (17 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> *People, wasting away in paradise
> Well, well, well, Peter Garrett. A lot has changed since 1982 hasn't it !*



*

I loved Santa Claus in 1982. And the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Jesus, you name it...

27 years later, after getting some new information my point of view has changed.

What does this make me?*


----------



## Krusty the Klown (17 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> Yes, sounds familiar too - I was relying on memory too.  Except for the 3-eyed fish, seen documentary evidence of that (admittedly animated).




So now Japanese chefs, when making fish-eye soup can get three eyes for the price of two!!!!

The benefits of nuclear energy are endless! It just keeps on giving!!!! 




Julia said:


> Oh, God, no.  Someone tell me it just couldn't happen!
> You just have to be joking, Krusty.




Yes and speculating. :



> For one thing, he's simply not bright enough.




Really, I believe he's actually a qualified lawyer. Although that actually could be another reason not to like him!! 



> For another (and I usually avoid being personal) he's just horrible to look at.




Be kind, Winston Churchill was not exactly a looker, but was a very effective leader!!! :


----------



## trainspotter (17 July 2009)

Ghetto23 said:


> I loved Santa Claus in 1982. And the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Jesus, you name it...
> 
> 27 years later, after getting some new information my point of view has changed.
> 
> What does this make me?




The point you make is fairly hard to dismiss but I will give it a try. The entities you have named are more than likely to be fictional characters (Jesus is a moot point though) and somehow the characters you have produced have not changed their tune. Even though the opinion of the writer may have changed with the new evidence produced to sway your thinking, the fact of the matter is that they still are acceptable in todays society. 

Peter Garrett made millions singing about ANTI NUCLEAR themes and was a founding member for the NDP. He was widely noted by the press as to his opinionated stand on such matters and many people followed him and his train of thought in regards to NO URANIUM MINING. 

To now flip flop his widely regarded inclination AGAINST uranium mining under the pretext that he has now changed his mind because he has now made an "informed" opinion means to me that he has sold out his idealogy for the greater greed of the almighty dollar. More than likely to appease his Labor masters. Peter Garrett must hire a man to shave his head because he would not be able to look himself in the mirror. Pishaw I say.

To answer you question of "What does this make me? " .... well I believe that you have now reached a mature age whereby you have TURNED into being the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus etc etc (skip the Jesus bit)


----------



## Buckeroo (17 July 2009)

Off course Garrett is a hypocrite and so are all politicians - its the nature of the beast. When you enter parliament, the first thing you give up are your convictions.

Whats really horrible though, we have an Environment Minister with an ugly duck dance and he not afraid to use it! 

Cheers


----------



## explod (17 July 2009)

> Peter Garrett made millions singing about ANTI NUCLEAR themes and was a founding member for the NDP. He was widely noted by the press as to his opinionated stand on such matters and many people followed him and his train of thought in regards to NO URANIUM MINING




And maybe it was just about the millions from the very beginning.  Strewth, is that an unusual trait.

I have 7 siblings and all of us were dead against uranium and all its facits 20 or 30 years ago.   All but two have changed stance since.   We need all the alternatives to coal and oil we can find.   Nuclear is expensive, will not meet all the needs and hopfully temporary till better technology is developed.

Garret, two faced for sure but can change his mind and be normal.  Huh, whats normal?


----------



## trainspotter (17 July 2009)

Is Peter Garrett a lawyer ? NO ! Since he was a teenager Peter Garrett was interested in social and political issues. He studied to become a lawyer, but realised that it was not the career for him. He became a singer in a rock and roll band. The ‘Oils’ were renowned for their fierce independent stance and active support of a range of contemporary concerns including the plight of homeless youth, indigenous people's rights and *protection of the environment*.

Just wait until he has to make a decision about extending the life of the PHOSPHATE mine on Christmas Island within the next few weeks !!! (insert maniacal laugh here) Bwaawwaahhahahhahaaaaaaaaaa !


----------



## trainspotter (17 July 2009)

explod said:


> And maybe it was just about the millions from the very beginning.  Strewth, is that an unusual trait.
> 
> I have 7 siblings and all of us were dead against uranium and all its facits 20 or 30 years ago.   All but two have changed stance since.   We need all the alternatives to coal and oil we can find.   Nuclear is expensive, will not meet all the needs and hopfully temporary till better technology is developed.
> 
> Garret, two faced for sure but can change his mind and be normal.  Huh, whats normal?




Read my previous response about North West Shelf and Gorgon gas. LNG is the future. Not nuclear. I have stated I am all FOR nuclear power. Once again this is not about generating electricity by boiling water with nuclear rods. It is about digging another hole in the ground to mine YELLOWCAKE. The destruction to the environment is paramount. There are already 4 uranium mines in S.A. Do we really need a 5th ??


----------



## noco (17 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Hmmmmm .... I have a vague recollection of the "Polar Ice Caps" are melting and the "Hole in the Ozone layer" in the early 1980's which turned into GLOBAL WARMING? There already is FOUR urnanium mines in SA. Peter Garrett has allowed for the FIFTH to be opened. It has nothing to do with nuclear power. Have we not learned from Jabiluka, Cobar 2 Prospect, Ranger minesites in the Northern Territory? The Cobar 2 Prospect site had a pond overflow that contaminated about 100 acres of waterlands killing wildlife and essentially making the area barren for the next 1000 years or so. GOSH !!
> 
> Nuclear power generation in itself today is extremely safe. Approx 70% of France light bulbs are run by this method. Some Eastern Bloc country whose name escapes me is about 55% nuclear and the U.S. is a lowly 20% or less.
> 
> ...




Trainspotter,
Whist I know this has little to do with the thread in question, I thought you might be interested in the following stats on Nuclear Power generation thoughout the world.

As at 2005 15% of the worlds power is generated by 439 Nuclear power stations in31 countries.

France    58
USA       100
UK         34
JAPAN    70
RUSSIA  30
CANADA 24

I understand China has several but I do not have any figures.

In addition to stationary power plants there are 150 nuclaer powered naval ships.


----------



## trainspotter (17 July 2009)

*Trainspotter thanks noco profusely for the info.* Where is Banana Republic Lands nuclear reactors ? Ohhhhh Lucas Heights is a scientific one for research purposes.

http://www.uraniumsa.org/about/faq.htm


----------



## Who Dares Wins (17 July 2009)

Ghetto23 said:


> I loved Santa Claus in 1982. And the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Jesus, you name it...
> 
> 27 years later, after getting some new information my point of view has changed.
> 
> What does this make me?




No sorry Ghetto theres no comparison. 

Its not comparing apples with apples. I suspect in 1982 you were a child with an undeveloped mind, unable to evaluate information yourself. Peter Garret was an adult when he made his very public stance against U mining and was able to assimilate all the information available.

We all change our minds during our life about various things but this is flip flop from one end of the scale to the absolute other!

How can he retain any credibility?


----------



## Macquack (17 July 2009)

Peter Garrett is a top bloke, and unlike all the f@cking whingers here, he has put up his hand, taken the baton and is running with it.

It is easy to criticise by damning someone if they do and damning them if they dont.


----------



## explod (17 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Read my previous response about North West Shelf and Gorgon gas. LNG is the future. Not nuclear. I have stated I am all FOR nuclear power. Once again this is not about generating electricity by boiling water with nuclear rods. It is about digging another hole in the ground to mine YELLOWCAKE. The destruction to the environment is paramount. There are already 4 uranium mines in S.A. Do we really need a 5th ??




LNG will run out very quickly behind oil.

We have to look further than that IMHO


----------



## trainspotter (17 July 2009)

Macquack said:


> Peter Garrett is a top bloke, and unlike all the f@cking whingers here, he has put up his hand, taken the baton and is running with it.
> 
> It is easy to criticise by damning someone if they do and damning them if they dont.




On what basis do you make this assumption?  Do you swap lawnmowers with him on weekends? Do you go fishing with him? Knocked the froth off a few coldies on a hot day after a hard days yakka? I resemble the f@cking whingers remark because I want to know how is it that he had a certain bent about saving the environment and now has completely chosen to ignore all the respect and credibilty the man had built up over his 29 years of preaching his conservation first approach.

No one is damning him Macquack. We just want to know why?


----------



## Julia (17 July 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> Be kind, Winston Churchill was not exactly a looker, but was a very effective leader!!! :



Ah, but Mr Churchill had many other talents, i.e. a substantial intellect and a gift for oratory.  Mr Garrett sadly appears to lack both.



Macquack said:


> Peter Garrett is a top bloke, and unlike all the f@cking whingers here, he has put up his hand, taken the baton and is running with it.
> 
> It is easy to criticise by damning someone if they do and damning them if they dont.



Nonsense.   He is being criticised for a very good reason, i.e. completely changing his philosophy for the sake of political acceptance.

More like originally running with the baton against uranium mining, and then - when it suited him for reasons best known to himself - forsaking these ideals absolutely.  Essentially, handing the baton to the other team.

I'm pro uranium mining and the use of nuclear power.  That's not what we're discussing.

What's without question is Garrett's having completely turned himself inside out in a moral and/or philosophical sense.  Ergo, he's a hypocrite.


----------



## trainspotter (17 July 2009)

explod said:


> LNG will run out very quickly behind oil.
> 
> We have to look further than that IMHO




True, very true explod. I don't believe we should be burning coal. Why can't we run a gas pipeline to run the turbines for the short term? Why haven't we explored solar power for all it's worth? Why don't we make the houses we live in more efficient and solar passive? 

Nuclear is a long term prospect for sure. I can't quite wrap my head around boiling water to make steam to drive a turbine (whether it be coal, gas, nuclear etc) when we already have solar panels that generate electricity free from the sun?


----------



## trainspotter (17 July 2009)

*hypocrite*  /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/  [hip-uh-krit]  _–noun_ 

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. 
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements. 

So as the dictionary points out YES ... he is.


----------



## Ghetto23 (18 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> The point you make is fairly hard to dismiss but I will give it a try. The entities you have named are more than likely to be fictional characters (Jesus is a moot point though) and somehow the characters you have produced have not changed their tune. Even though the opinion of the writer may have changed with the new evidence produced to sway your thinking, the fact of the matter is that they still are acceptable in todays society.
> 
> Peter Garrett made millions singing about ANTI NUCLEAR themes and was a founding member for the NDP. He was widely noted by the press as to his opinionated stand on such matters and many people followed him and his train of thought in regards to NO URANIUM MINING.
> 
> ...




Nice argument.

I guess the point I was trying to make is: Peter Garret is a hypocrite, but so are a lot of people. Is it really that big of a deal?


----------



## trainspotter (18 July 2009)

Thanks ghetto43 for the pat on the back ... you are right, it is not that big a deal at the moment. Like my previous response a coupla posts back. Wait until he has to make a decision about extending the life of the PHOSPHATE mine on Christmas Island in a couple of weeks time. This will test his intestinal fortitude no end.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (18 July 2009)

Julia said:


> Ah, but Mr Churchill had many other talents, i.e. a substantial intellect and a gift for oratory.  Mr Garrett sadly appears to lack both.




Very true - he was a great speaker with the power to persuade the people.

I don't know if I would really trust Mr Garrett's judgement as a wartime leader.

Does anybody know what Garrett actually said his reasons are for this change of stance???


----------



## Julia (18 July 2009)

Krusty, I heard him being asked that question in a radio interview.
His response was pretty honest, i.e. that now that he's part of a political party he has to toe the party line.  

So, at least I can respect his being truthful.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (18 July 2009)

Yes it is honest, how about why he joined the Labor party?


----------



## Julia (18 July 2009)

Yep, even better question.  Presumably his lust for political power was greater than his convictions about uranium etc.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (18 July 2009)

Julia said:


> Yep, even better question.  Presumably his lust for political power was greater than his convictions about uranium etc.




I think you might be on the money there.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (18 July 2009)

Laurie Oakes discusses this topic:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25799714-5007146,00.html


----------



## Macquack (18 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Is Peter Garrett a lawyer ? NO !




Peter Garrett is a qualified lawyer (LLB University of NSW).


----------



## trainspotter (18 July 2009)

Macquack said:


> Peter Garrett is a qualified lawyer (LLB University of NSW).




An LLB is not a lawyer Macquack. Nonetheless, the goals of most LL.B. programs are to provide a scholarly education, and therefore jurisdictions which offer the LL.B. require additional education or training before a graduate is authorized to practice law. 

http://www.petergarrett.com.au Check out his website, not a law degree anywhere to be seen.


----------



## trainspotter (18 July 2009)

Peter Robert Garrett AM MP (born 16 April 1953), is an Australian musician, environmentalist and politician. He has been an Australian Labor Party member of the House of Representatives for the seat of Kingsford Smith, New South Wales, since October 2004. After the Labor Party won in the November 2007 election, Garrett was appointed Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. He was lead singer of the Australian rock band Midnight Oil from 1973 until its disbanding in 2002. 

Born in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, Garrett attended Barker College in Hornsby, before studying Arts at the Australian National University and later Law at the University of New South Wales. About the same time he became a rock singer with the Australian rock band Midnight Oil in 1973, after responding to an advertisement placed by one of the band's founding members Rob Hirst. 

He WAS studying LAW but never made it. YES he did achieve his LLB but requires further training to finish his law degree. The programme of study for the common law LLB can be either a graduate-entry degree programme requiring a previous bachelors degree (the duration of which is usually 3 years) or can be undertaken directly after high-school either by itself (the duration of which is usually 4 years) or with another degree (ie. B.Comm/LLB, B.A./LLB or B.Sc/LLB, the duration of which can vary between *5–7 years *depending on the specific combination).

Seeing how he was born in 1953 and became the front man for the Oils in 1973 it hardly leaves him much time to obtain his LAW degree. Unless he went to university when he was 16 ??


----------



## Macquack (18 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> He WAS studying LAW *but never made it*. YES he did achieve his LLB but requires further training to finish his law degree. The programme of study for the common law LLB can be either a graduate-entry degree programme requiring a *previous bachelors degree *(the duration of which is usually 3 years) or can be undertaken directly after high-school either by itself (the duration of which is usually 4 years) or with another degree (ie. B.Comm/LLB, B.A./LLB or B.Sc/LLB, the duration of which can vary between *5–7 years *depending on the specific combination).
> 
> Seeing how he was born in 1953 and became the front man for the Oils in 1973 it hardly leaves him much time to obtain his *LAW degree*. Unless he went to university when he was 16 ??




What are you going on about, Trainspotter. 

Garrett has a undergraduate degree in Arts from the Australian National University. He then completed his LLB, which is a Bachelor of Laws (*as in law degree*) at the University of New South Wales, graduating in 1977. That would have made him about 24 years of age when he finished his studies.

I will concede that he would require a practicing certificate to act as a lawyer.


----------



## trainspotter (18 July 2009)

Thank you for pointing out this absurdity. He must have been a very busy boy studying LAW as well as fronting the Oils. If he was born in 1953 and became lead singer of the Oils in 1973, therefore he would have been 20. To graduate as a BA/LLB as well as lead the rock and roll lifestyle of the jerking motion, bald, dude under the spotlight must have been taxing for him.

Yes ... he needs a further 3 to 5 years of study to become a practicing LAWYER. So technically I will concede that this may be a case of contemperaneous thought process's. In the meantime he is still a hypocrite due to his moral inability to make hard decisions in regards to Uranium Mining in SA.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 July 2009)

He is a self admitted lickspittle, abrogating his deeply held beliefs to the ALP caucus line.

I have no respect for the man.

His music isn't bad.

gg


----------



## Macquack (19 July 2009)

Julia said:


> Yep, even better question.  Presumably his *lust for political power *was greater than his convictions about uranium etc.




Peter Garrett realised he was "pissing in the wind" as part of the Nuclear Disarmament Party. Therefore, he chose to become part of the Labor Party where he could actually have a input into government policy.

The fact that he does not get his own way within the Party, is called *democracy.* 

The majority rule and until such time as his views become part of the majority, he is towing the party line or in other words he is being a *team player.*


----------



## jbocker (19 July 2009)

What is absolutely fascinating to me is the conviction Garrett displayed while in the oils and NDP to then one day become a Federal Environment Minister who approves a new uranium mine.

Never would have thought he would EVER "tow that line".

Well as the saying goes Never trust a Politician...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 July 2009)

Macquack said:


> Peter Garrett realised he was "pissing in the wind" as part of the Nuclear Disarmament Party. Therefore, he chose to become part of the Labor Party where he could actually have a input into government policy.
> 
> The fact that he does not get his own way within the Party, is called *democracy.*
> 
> The majority rule and until such time as his views become part of the majority, he is towing the party line or in other words he is being a *team player.*




So presumably if the Labor Party opened up 20 more U mines and 20 more U Power Stations , ole baldy would still be a good bloke, is that what I'm hearing?

gg


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

NO 

I am trying to look for the one spark that made us Australian. We believed Peter Garrett when I was growing up. Anti nuclear. Freedom of stance, purveyor of the aboriginals, political thorn in the establishments side,  Rebellion in all it's extreme. Sure, he danced funny and had a bald head but by the Crikey his drummer sure backed him up. 

You may call this democracy in bold letters but this is no more than social communism at it's finest. Peter Garrett was a man of letters and to somehow be a subservient dog for the Labor Party disgusts me to my core. "I sang for 27 years remonstrating with the establishment about my political views against the destruction of the environment but somehow I must vote with caucus?" Peter Garrett said.

Give me a break. If he is prepeared to change his spinal column for a jellyfish then I renounce all my youth of dancing with a jerking motion and uttering the words "Uncle Sam and Gough was quite enough". Shame Peter Garrett to sell ALL of your idealogy for the sake of a party truce.

My only hope is that he is truly like cancer whereby he starts off slowly but creeps in and as the invidious cancerous cell that he is, will one day have hold of the masters dog that is wagging his tail at the moment.

As for being a LAWYER ... Pishaw I say .... prove me wrong ! LLB from NSW in 1977 is NOT something I would aspire to. Nowhere on his claim to fame does he mention the glorified position of being a LAWYER, undergraduate or otherwise.

www.petergarrett.com.au


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> NO
> 
> I am trying to look for the one spark that made us Australian. We believed Peter Garrett when I was growing up. Anti nuclear. Freedom of stance, purveyor of the aboriginals, political thorn in the establishments side,  Rebellion in all it's extreme. Sure, he danced funny and had a bald head but by the Crikey his drummer sure backed him up.
> 
> ...




Excuse me if I'm a bit harsh, 

But political parties live off dim people like you.

gg


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Excuse me if I'm a bit harsh,
> 
> But political parties live off dim people like you.
> 
> gg




You are excused Garpal Gumnut. 

If you view me as being "dim" because my opinion has been formed by observing a certain person over a very long period and forming a certain judgement about the aforementioned person then yes. How else would one rate a character? By the cut of their cloth? They have a big nose or that they run with the hounds? (bald head in this guys case) For this person to completely change tack is bordering on schizophernic and has destroyed any faith and trust that he built up over his many years of "rage against the machine".

Unlike your good self who drops pearls of wisdom in our little gene pool, I prefer to have a healthy debate on the subject matter at hand. However "dim" you may think it to be. As for the political parties feasting on my bloated carcass, then as long as my lungs will draw breath I will let them sink their daggers into my fetid flesh and gorge themselves silly.


----------



## Macquack (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> ... If he is prepeared to change his spinal column for a jellyfish then I renounce all my youth of dancing with a jerking motion and uttering the words "Uncle Sam and *Gough* was quite enough".




Trainspotter, you have a tendency to pad your argument with waffle and then slip in a few irregularities.
Try "Uncle Sam and *John* were quite enough" - midnightoil.com - Official Midnight Oil Website.


trainspotter said:


> As for being a LAWYER ... Pishaw I say .... prove me wrong ! LLB from NSW in 1977 is NOT something I would aspire to. *Nowhere on his claim to fame *does he mention the glorified position of being a LAWYER, undergraduate or otherwise.



Garrett does not list all his qualifications on his website because he knows its a wank to do so.

Peter Garrett AM MP
*AM BA (ANU) LLB (UNSW) Hon. D Litt (UNSW) D Univ (GRIFF)*
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
Member for Kingsford Smith (NSW)


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Bwaahhah ahahhahah ah haaaaaa I knew I was singing that wrong !!! 
" 'Cos *Gough *was tough til he hit the rough. Hey, Uncle Sam and John were quite enough."

My apologies Macquack, must have been a 2am post. Gee, I have no life if I am in here posting at 2am !! Pffffffffttttttttt !

Anyways. We both agree that he is not a LAWYER. He has an LLB. Still a further 3 - 5 years of training before our litlle Labor party patsy can become a real life practicing one isn't there?


----------



## Macquack (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Anyways. We both agree that he is not a LAWYER. He has an LLB. Still a *further 3 - 5 years of training *before our litlle Labor party patsy can become a real life practicing one isn't there?




Since when has it taken 10 years to be a lawyer?

Where do you shunt your trains, Trainspotter?


----------



## Sean K (19 July 2009)

Macquack said:


> Since when has it taken 10 years to be a lawyer?
> 
> Where do you shunt your trains, Trainspotter?



I think law is like medicine. Once you graduate you have to go off and do some on the job training and more specialist courses before you get your wings. Not sure about 10 years, but I don't think you graduate from uni and start lawyering.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Extract from previous post :- YES he did achieve his LLB but requires further training to finish his law degree. The programme of study for the common law LLB can be either a graduate-entry degree programme requiring a previous bachelors degree (the duration of which is usually 3 years) or can be undertaken directly after high-school either by itself (the duration of which is usually 4 years) or with another degree (ie. B.Comm/LLB, B.A./LLB or B.Sc/LLB, the duration of which can vary between 5–7 years depending on the specific combination).

Garrett has a 3 year ticket as he is an undergraduate. Needs another 4 years of training to become a fully fledged wig wearing juristprude. It takes 7 years in total. Where did the number 10 come from? I dunno?

http://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_become_a_lawyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Laws

I shunt my carriages with my train by the way.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

kennas said:


> I think law is like medicine. Once you graduate you have to go off and do some on the job training and more specialist courses before you get your wings. Not sure about 10 years, but I don't think you graduate from uni and start lawyering.




Lol at the lawyering inference. Two blokes sitting in a pub. One turns to the other and says "So, what do you do for a living?" man replies "Oh, not much really, just a bit of lawyering!" Love it !


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Cheers Macquack, we finally got this tardy bit of fluff of a thread past 100 posts !


----------



## Macquack (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Garrett has a 3 year ticket as he is an undergraduate. Needs another 4 years of training to become a fully fledged wig wearing juristprude. It takes 7 years in total. Where did the number 10 come from? I dunno?
> 
> http://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_become_a_lawyer



Trainspotter, what is the point of putting up a link on *how to become a lawyer in the United States of America*?



trainspotter said:


> I shunt my carriages with my train by the way.



Excuse my grammar, I meant what state do you live in?


----------



## Timmy (19 July 2009)

Is Peter Garrett a hypocrite?

I can accept that people can, and do, change their minds.

So, if Peter Garrett, had looked at the alternatives (more coal, LNG, solar, whatever), if he had looked at these other options, considered them and then decided to change his mind and support nuclear, well, so be it.  I can respect that.  I might not agree with him, and I might be pissed off at him for taking a hard line for many, many years and then abandoning it, and his supporters.  But, if he changed his mind in this manner, then I can respect that.

But, as Julia has pointed out, this does not appear to be the case; the case is, according to Peter Garrett himself, he is now toeing the party line:



Julia said:


> Krusty, I heard him being asked that question in a radio interview.
> His response was pretty honest, i.e. that now that he's part of a political party he has to toe the party line.
> 
> So, at least I can respect his being truthful.




OK, I can accept that too.  Yep, he is in a political party and must go along with party decisions.  BUT, toeing the party line has implications for his integrity.  (There is always the option open to resign if you don't agree with the party).

Again, Julia said it best:


Julia said:


> Yep, even better question.  Presumably his lust for political power was greater than his convictions about uranium etc.




Again, I can accept that too.  Its the game he is in now. He is now a politician.  Nothing wrong with that either.

But, now for the implications.
According to his own words, he hasn't changed his mind after considering things, he has decided to go against his principles to toe the party line.  This is what makes him a hypocrite.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

I was going out on a limb and thought he might have got his LAWYERS degree from some chintzy website? Nahhhh ... my mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Laws ... try this one.

It does take 7 years to become a lawyer by the way. It only takes 3 years to get a Bachelor of Law. (which could be 2 years of an arts degree and 1 year of common law) From there I think you join a lawyers firm as an articles clerk and keep on training for a bit until you pass the exams etc et al ad infinitum.

I live in the state where the sun disappears into the ocean and not behind a hill.


----------



## Macquack (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> I live in the state where the sun disappears into the ocean and not behind a hill.




That's a coincidence, as I live in a state where the sun rises across the ocean and not from behind a mine face.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

No need to be jealous of my raw mineral deposits. There is plenty for everyone. Including the Chinese.


----------



## Sean K (19 July 2009)

I think PG might be taking the tact that it's better to influence from the inside than as a dick hanging off an inflatable boat in the middle of the ocean. 

He might be accomplishing more for the green/environmental/indigenous movements by being a voice inside government, rather than a voice from the top of a stage. 

Or not.


----------



## Macquack (19 July 2009)

kennas said:


> I think PG might be taking the tact that it's better to influence from the inside than as a dick hanging off an inflatable boat in the middle of the ocean.
> 
> He might be accomplishing more for the green/environmental/indigenous movements by being a *voice inside government*, rather than a voice from the top of a stage.




"Hear hear!", a voice of logic.


----------



## Julia (19 July 2009)

Macquack said:


> Peter Garrett realised he was "pissing in the wind" as part of the Nuclear Disarmament Party. Therefore, he chose to become part of the Labor Party where he could actually have a input into government policy.
> 
> The fact that he does not get his own way within the Party, is called *democracy.*
> 
> The majority rule and until such time as his views become part of the majority, he is towing the party line or in other words he is being a *team player.*



Gee whiz, Macquack, you're wasted on ASF.   The Labor Party could use you in the Spin Department.  




Garpal Gumnut said:


> Excuse me if I'm a bit harsh,
> 
> But political parties live off dim people like you.
> 
> gg



Now I'm a bit confused.   I'd somehow formed the impression that you were of pretty much the same view about Garrett as Trainspotter, g.g.?





kennas said:


> I think PG might be taking the tact that it's better to influence from the inside than as a dick hanging off an inflatable boat in the middle of the ocean.
> 
> He might be accomplishing more for the green/environmental/indigenous movements by being a voice inside government, rather than a voice from the top of a stage.
> 
> Or not.



Hmm.  I'd go for the "Or not.".
Can't actually see where he has had any influence at all.
Perhaps, however, he's saved a couple of spotty nosed toads or something.


----------



## Timmy (19 July 2009)

kennas said:


> I think PG might be taking the tact that it's better to influence from the inside than as a dick hanging off an inflatable boat in the middle of the ocean.
> 
> He might be accomplishing more for the green/environmental/indigenous movements by being a voice inside government, rather than a voice from the top of a stage.
> 
> Or not.




Fair point kennas, this is always a possibility and I've thought about "How do I assess whether this is the case, (or not)?"

This is the best I can come up with:
1. Look for disparities between Peter Garrett's principles and what the government wants to do.  Then assess the actual outcomes, i.e.  does government policy change to more closely resemble Peter Garrett's views.  This is not perfect, of course, but would be indicative?
2. Wait 30 years for Cabinet minutes to be released and assess it then (I probably wont be around).
3. Wait for Peter Garrett's biography &/or autobiography and hope he discusses this (without gilding the lily of course).
4. Give him the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Sean K (19 July 2009)

Julia said:


> Hmm.  I'd go for the "Or not.".
> Can't actually see where he has had any influence at all.
> Perhaps, however, he's saved a couple of spotty nosed toads or something.



I don't really know what would be more influencial, I am guessing.

Is it better to be a hard line environmentalist on the outside, with no direct power. 

Or, an environmentalist on the inside with the PM's ear?

The other factor is his influence on the general population I suppose. While an independant activist he had a massive following and influence on peoples perceptions.

Now?


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Thanks Julia. I noticed GG jump ship halfway through the routine as well?

I accept Macquacks point about Peter Garrett being a stooge on the inside and effectively and singlehandedly destroying the environment by allowing a 5th Uranium Mine to open up in S.A.

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" could be his philophosy. By working from the inside out would be his best chance at actually achieving something. So far he has managed to disenfranchise many of the Green voters that he spent so long building his reputation on. 

I will reserve my power of veto on Mr Garrett's fate until he can come to terms with his duplicity in this matter. If perchance he commits to saving Christmas Island and does not allow the PHOSPHATE mine to expand it's opertions I will call it a draw. Ohhhhh the irony of it all. It must be gut wrenching for him to sign off on the white papers.


----------



## Macquack (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> ...Peter Garrett being a stooge on the inside and effectively and *singlehandedly destroying the environment*....




Thats a bit tough on Garrett.

 He has a tough job and if he was a "cop out", he would have elected to take a soft portfolio. If anything, I'm guessing that Garrett would agree there is a huge grey area between ideology and reality and it is bloody hard to keep eveybody happy.

BTW Trainspotter, does your pearl farming have any negative impact on the environment?


----------



## Calliope (19 July 2009)

kennas said:


> I don't really know what would be more influencial, I am guessing.
> 
> Is it better to be a hard line environmentalist on the outside, with no direct power.
> 
> Or, an environmentalist on the inside with the PM's ear?




I don't think anyone has the PM's ear. Some say God listens to prayers, but I don't think Rudd does. On the other hand he may be influenced by the unelected, highly paid young men he surrounds himself with.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Macquack said:


> Thats a bit tough on Garrett.
> 
> He has a tough job and if he was a "cop out", he would have elected to take a soft portfolio. If anything, I'm guessing that Garrett would agree there is a huge grey area between ideology and reality and it is bloody hard to keep eveybody happy.
> 
> BTW Trainspotter, does your pearl farming have any negative impact on the environment?




Too true Macquack. I have softened my approach on PG due to his transparent actions of late. It must be terrible to be shown as a flip flop merchant. He does have a tough job, I commend you on pointing this out to me. But it seems he has forsaken his principles somewhat? No? 

My pearl farming practices do not have a negative impact on the oceanic environment. (unless you call having a 60 foot boat with some horrible chemical painted on the hull called antifouling?) Very strict guidelines have been set down by Fisheries. Environmental Monitoring Program is in place and so far no biomass buildup has occured. The trance shots evidence that the pearl farm actually encourages more marine growth (fish life and anenomies) Good farming practices I guess. There is a waste factor component consisting of dead oyster shells which get turned into ashtrays and mother of pearl buttons etc. Some nice carved turtles from the shell is quite popular at the moment. BLATANT PLUG !! The ropes and panels that are no longer required are taken to be recycled at the plastic factory. Any rubbish from human polluters is bagged and taken to the appropriate authorities who turn it into landfill. 

18 carat white gold Mabe' blister pearl with 5 diamonds.


----------



## Macquack (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> 18 carat white gold Mabe' blister pearl with 5 diamonds.




How much for ASF members?


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Inlcuding the 43cm 18 carat Omega white gold chain has an independent valuation of $3300.00 Sell in my shop for $2700.00 with valuation. Gift boxed and numbered authenticity certificate. I am sure I can work something out for you Macquack !!* BLATANT PRODUCT PLACEMENT HERE*

Photo is about 130% oversize. Shrink it by 70% and you should have approx size of "real" piece.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett has defended his decision to approve a new uranium mine in South Australia. The Greens have criticised Mr Garrett for approving a mine they think will pollute groundwater at the Four Mile site. 

*The Opposition agrees with the Government, but has accused the former rock star and anti-uranium mining activist of hypocrisy. *

Mr Garrett says he has been assured the mine is safe and says his conscience is clear.

"I became a member of the Government and I said at the time I would accept as a team player the decisions the Government took," he said. 

Well, well, well, another three holes in the ground. The whole thread has been unravelled by the above statements. Whale Oil Beef Hooked !

We are all correct in our ethos !


----------



## knocker (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett has defended his decision to approve a new uranium mine in South Australia. The Greens have criticised Mr Garrett for approving a mine they think will pollute groundwater at the Four Mile site.
> 
> *The Opposition agrees with the Government, but has accused the former rock star and anti-uranium mining activist of hypocrisy. *
> 
> ...



Yep more bs from krudd and his merry cohorts. Bring it on, aus the sinking island lol


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

knocker said:


> Yep more bs from krudd and his merry cohorts. Bring it on, aus the sinking island lol




Soon to be the "radioactive" sinking island formerly known as Australia but has since changed name by international deed poll to "Banana Republic Land"


----------



## Ghetto23 (20 July 2009)

http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/on-the-borderline-20090719-dpdo.html?page=-1

Trainspotter, what are your opinions on this article?


----------



## trainspotter (20 July 2009)

My opinion is that it is an extremely well written, factual, piece of lierarture opined by an associate editor who is trying to put forward a balanced point of view. Nothing more,  nothing less. 

Ghetto 43 ... quite a few of the posts have said this same stuff, mine included. 

_"Too true Macquack. I have softened my approach on PG due to his transparent actions of late. It must be terrible to be shown as a flip flop merchant. He does have a tough job, I commend you on pointing this out to me. But it seems he has forsaken his principles somewhat? No? "_

and another:

_"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" could be his philophosy. By working from the inside out would be his best chance at actually achieving something. So far he has managed to disenfranchise many of the Green voters that he spent so long building his reputation on. _

AND

_Ohhhhh the irony of it all. It must be gut wrenching for him to sign off on the white papers. _

All my stuff. Difference of opinion really.


----------



## Macquack (22 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> My opinion is that it is an extremely well written, factual, piece of lierarture opined by an associate editor who is trying to put forward a balanced point of view. Nothing more,  nothing less.




I agree with you Trainspotter.



> Garrett's responsibility was to act on advice about the environmental impact of the Four Mile mine, *not to make a decision on the merits of uranium mining*. That had already been taken by the Rann Government, which wants more mines.
> 
> Rudd should have given him a different portfolio. Having him in environment confuses his past as an activist with his current status and his wider obligations as a cabinet minister.




Being a fan of Peter Garrett, I have to agree with this journo's view that he should have a different portfolio. It is too easy for the opposition to savage Garrett on just about anything he does because he is responsible for the tough decisions. 

The people that bagged him for signing off on the Four Mile mine would be the same people who would criticise him if he rejected the project.

As the journo says


> Garrett is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

Fantastic reply Macquack. I am currently listening to 10 -----> 1 Midnight Oil in my car. I really like the song whereby Garrett asks the question:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgukduYJZ44

Conquistador of Mexico
The Zulu and the Navaho
The Belgians in the Congo, Short memory

Plantation in Virginia
The Raj in British India
The deadline in South Africa, Short memory

The story of El Salvador
The silence of Hiroshima
Destruction of Cambodia, short memory

Short memory, must have a, Short memory
Short memory, must have a, Short memory

The sight of hotels by the Nile,
The designated Hilton style
With running water specially bought, short memory

A smallish man Afghanistan
A watch dog in a nervous land
They're only there to lend a hand, short memory

The friendly five a dusty smile 
Wake up in sweat at dead of night
And in the tents new rifles hey, short memory

Short memory, must have a, Short memory
Short memory, must have a, Short memory
(repeat)

If you read the history books you'll see the same things happen again and again
Repeat repeat short memory they've all got it
When are we going to play it again
Got a short, got a short, got a short, got a short
They've got a short must have a short they've got a short aah
Short memory, they've got a.

Talk about Daniel in the Lions den. He has a very tough job. It does not help his well known political stance. The guy must want to be asking himself as to why he accpeted this post???????? I guess he needs to reasess his position that he has spent so long building up. If he would like to retain any credibility with his followers he should take great pains to explain his point of view. Something like this:- 

" Whilst I accept that the decision I am about to make will inflame a certain majority, I make this decision with a heavy heart. For Australia to keep in front of the nuclear program it is necessary for the 4 Mile Project to proceed. I am against this decision due to my stance that has been well documented. Unfortunatley, I have been voted against in caucus. The decision I have made is not without regret. I have been advised that the mine in question will be of the worlds best practice and I GAURANTEE that no pollutants will leach into the groundwater or the atmosphere."

Hmmmm ....... I would like to see that !!!!!


----------



## Buckeroo (22 July 2009)

Macquack said:


> I agree with you Trainspotter.
> 
> The people that bagged him for signing off on the Four Mile mine would be the same people who would criticise him if he rejected the project.




Its all to do with trust - Garrett's has shown that he's the type of person that would sell his soul to the devil to get some advantage. He doesn't stand up to his own principals. 

You have to remember, a few of years back, he would have destroyed peoples livelihoods for his principles - now, so that he can keep his position of power, those principles count for nothing.

Now why would I respect the guy?

Cheers


----------



## Julia (22 July 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Its all to do with trust - Garrett's has shown that he's the type of person that would sell his soul to the devil to get some advantage. He doesn't stand up to his own principals.
> 
> You have to remember, a few of years back, he would have destroyed peoples livelihoods for his principles - now, so that he can keep his position of power, those principles count for nothing.
> 
> ...



Exactly.   If Labor had really valued Garrett for genuine ability, rather than 'star power' they'd have given him the whole portfolio.

Instead, Penny Wong gets the much higher profile 'Climate Change' while Garrett just gets the left overs.


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

*clap, clap, clap, clap for Julia* I beat my plates of meat together on this one !! For a man of his principles and guile he is currently being portrayed as a toothless tiger. Shame the Labor Party could not make more of him and his followers.


----------



## Calliope (22 July 2009)

No he's not a hypocrite. At long last he's grown up

Janet Albrechtsen | July 22, 2009
Article from:  The Australian


> THE Environment Minister's sensible decision to grow up makes him an excellent role model for all manner of foolish young idealists.
> 
> NOW that the dust has settled, it's worth looking back at Peter Garrett's epiphany on the way to the Four Mile uranium mine in far northern South Australia. There are indeed many lessons to be learned. But not the ones most commonly asserted by those quick to criticise the former Midnight Oil frontman. Garrett's experience in approving the first new uranium project in his time as Environment Minister is an important lesson about idealism.
> 
> Not a lesson about a once noble young man whose idealism has been corrupted by power. It is about the follies of idealism. Garrett's youthful idealism was a foolish, childlike indulgence overtaken by maturity, wisdom and the need to confront the world as it is. The lesson is not to fantasise about a world that could never be, as Garrett did when he was head of the Australian Conservation Foundation or sought out a Senate seat as a member of the Nuclear Disarmament Party.




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25816660-7583,00.html


----------



## Mr J (22 July 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Its all to do with trust - Garrett's has shown that he's the type of person that would sell his soul to the devil to get some advantage. He doesn't stand up to his own principals.
> 
> You have to remember, a few of years back, he would have destroyed peoples livelihoods for his principles - now, so that he can keep his position of power, those principles count for nothing.
> 
> ...




I don't think we can really judge him. I don't know what his principles are, who he really is, and whether or not he's changed from his younger days. It's possible he is a hypocrite, but it's also possible that he not as naive as he seemed in his earlier days. It's possible that he was never naive, or that idealists in generally aren't naive, but just take the extreme viewpoint to be heard, and make their point.


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

*FAIL !!* This guy (Peter middle name hypocrite Garrett) is a total *HYPOCRITE* Oooohhhhh I sang for 29 years against anti unranium mining ... Ooohhh I preached AGAINST the Labor party ideals. Oooohhhh the beds are burning.  My BLOODY OATH they are burning Peter Garrett. For you!!!!!! 

No softie liberlaism here. This guy wore a "SORRY" T shirt for his final gig to John Howard. WHERE ARE THE MORALS NOW PETER? Ooooooooooooops .. excuse me. I must toe the party line !!!!!! PISHAW I SAY..

I recognise the Aboriginals are sacred to this earth and I have made millions from singing their plight and I feel empathty for them and they have an affiliation to the gwandanaland. BUT .... I'm gonna give approval to a urnaium mine in SA. WTF .... No I say .... WTF ????

DIRTY STOP OUT !!!!! 

Wake up people ... if someone like this can be bought ... who is next?


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2009)

Wow ... I was really angry and had fat fingers (spelling mistakes) when I wrote that !! Ooops. 

Anyways ... I still think he is a hypocrite.


----------



## Macquack (23 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> *FAIL !!* This guy (Peter middle name hypocrite Garrett) is a total *HYPOCRITE* Oooohhhhh I sang for 29 years against anti unranium mining ... Ooohhh I preached AGAINST the Labor party ideals. Oooohhhh the beds are burning.  My BLOODY OATH they are burning Peter Garrett. For you!!!!!!
> 
> No softie liberlaism here. This guy wore a "SORRY" T shirt for his final gig to John Howard. WHERE ARE THE MORALS NOW PETER? Ooooooooooooops .. excuse me. I must toe the party line !!!!!! PISHAW I SAY..
> 
> ...




*Trainy, how many (dozen) beers did you have before you penned this post?*

You are usually "fair and reasonable", however this time you have lost the plot. 

You know as well as anybody with a brain, that Garrett is part of the Labor Party, part of the Government and *not a dictator in the Environment portfolio.*

Critics of Garrett want him to woose out and throw in the towel. Trainspotter, you should know the mammoth job Garrett has in persuading his "principles" through the mine field of "capitilistic" realities.


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2009)

You are right Macquack, I think there were a few Crownies too many passed the lips when that one sneaked in. I really did not engage the brain before changing the foot in my mouth did I? Still tastes like toe jam.


----------



## darnsmall (24 July 2009)

Not so much a hypocrite as an employee. The boss sets the rules for any organisation, some people like to wear their heart on their sleeve; which is fine so long as they don’t overstep the mark. Garrett seems to be towing the company line so I don’t think it has anything to do with his own personal views.


----------



## trainspotter (25 July 2009)

Peter Garrett:- "And this is how big the Urnanium mine is going to be in South Australia !"

Western Australia says "Anything you can do, we can do better" http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/23/2634459.htm?section=australia


----------



## trainspotter (25 July 2009)

Interesting to note that the Federal Minister for Resources has this to say: "While the export of uranium is a positive move for the nation's economy, the Government is still opposed to nuclear power generation in Australia."

WTF ??? It is OK to export it but not for Australia to generate electricity with it? Apparently because we have "alternative resources". I am not a smart man Jenny, but I know what urnaium does. (apologies to Forrest Gump) It creates clean and viable electricity and or blows the crap out of things with great efficiency. 

Ummmmm ... seeing how we OWN 23% of the worlds uranium deposits including the largest SINGLE deposit at the Olympic Dam Mine in SA, why are we exporting it again? For the royalties to flow back into the Govt coffers? For other hostile countries to turn into nuclear weapons? OR for them to turn it into cheap, relaible power generation? 

Yep ... Peter Garrett ... you are a dead set hypocrite.


----------



## trainspotter (25 July 2009)

I have never been against Uranium being used as a source of generating electricity. What I have said is that I am against Uranium/yellowcake being mined in Australia and shipped OS for the use of other countries. I have also stated that the vast deposits at the North West Shelf of LNG should be used in conjunction. Mean, clean and green is the answer.

Those who oppose the development of Australia’s uranium and LNG resources to generate electricity, need to answer the following two questions. (Hmmm ... this would be the government) Do they want Australia to have access to enviro friendly electricity? If so, how do they propose to generate it? The answers would be yes and renewables. Admirable, but impossible today as the government does not want us to have electricity generated by Uranium and ver limited LNG. I have yet to meet anyone who opposes the use of cheap, reliable renewable energy. However, the factors limiting the uptake of renewables remain very much political. We must have a rational, science-based pathway to overcome those hurdles.

Rudd’s ETS will heavily drive up the cost of electricity for traditional suppliers, which will flow through the economy and produce a higher rate of inflation. So either way, traditional or renewable energy approach, the economy will lose its major competitive and comparative advantage in the world economy because of this fixation on human carbon emissions.

So therefore Peter Garrett approving another Uranium mine has assisted in the inflationary process. In my mind .... hypocrite from his original ideals.


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2009)

Environment Minister Peter Garrett expects to make a decision on whether he will give environmental approvals to the $50 billion Gorgon LNG project within the next week. 

"I expect to make a decision in the next week but again I will take the time to go through all of the material in front of me very carefully," he told reporters. What about the flatback turtles Peter? Look deep inside your previous rhetoric and stance on these kinds of greedy BIG corporations Mr. Garrett. Look real deep. LOL.

A decision has to come before September 8. OMFG ... THE welfare of the Barrow Island mouse, the spectacled hare-wallaby, the golden bandicoot and burrowing bettong -- not to mention the flatback turtle -- is all that stands in the way of the $50 billion Gorgon gas contract with China. 

Martin Ferguson had this to say:-

Minister for Resources and Energy Martin Ferguson said the unprecedented deal - which will see 2.25 million tonnes of gas exported to China each year during the next two decades - confirmed Australia's importance as a global energy superpower.

The project will be the biggest single investment ever made in Australia, breaking the record set a few years ago by the $12 billion Pluto LNG project now under construction in Western Australia.

"We are a country built on *foreign investment* and we continue to welcome investments that develop our resources for the benefit of all Australians," Mr Ferguson said in Beijing. Sounds like the decision has been made to me. LMAOOOOOOOO


----------



## stocksontheblock (21 August 2009)

He sure bloody is ... and a crap dancer!!!



So_Cynical said:


> Garrett has taken the hard road into a political career, he could of easily won a seat for the greens and spent years achieving nothing...




Actually, what has he achieved anyway? Apart from being a hypocrite, two faced, a turncoat, a liar. MMM ... the perfect polly really!!!


----------



## Krusty the Klown (21 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Environment Minister Peter Garrett expects to make a decision on whether he will give environmental approvals to the $50 billion Gorgon LNG project within the next week.
> 
> "I expect to make a decision in the next week but again I will take the time to go through all of the material in front of me very carefully," he told reporters.
> 
> "We are a country built on *foreign investment* and we continue to welcome investments that develop our resources for the benefit of all Australians," Mr Ferguson said in Beijing. Sounds like the decision has been made to me. LMAOOOOOOOO




Yeah, like he is one that makes individual decisions in the Labor Party!!!!

I recently read that when you join the Labor Party, you have to take an _oath_ to vote with or side with the party at all times.

NO individual thoughts allowed....

Or else.......


----------



## drsmith (21 August 2009)

Barrow Island mouse


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2009)

Tow the Party line Peter. Make sure your Union Ticket is paid up while you are at it as well.

Kevin Rudd and his senior ministers have praised the giant Gorgon liquefied natural gas plant on Barrow Island, west of the port of Dampier in Western Australia's booming Pilbara region, all week. 

"Gorgon would be the largest resources project ever undertaken in Australia," the Prime Minister told parliament yesterday. "It would boost WA gross state product by 4 per cent and provide tens of billions of dollars in revenue for all Australians." 

In an unusual move, Mr Rudd congratulated ExxonMobil and the Gorgon partners, Chevron and Shell, on the progress Gorgon has made to date. "I look forward to seeing the project being brought to a conclusion subject to the completion of environmental processes." 

Wouldn't it be fantastic if he comes out and REJECTS the proposal. OOOeeeeerrrrr ... would not be a hypocrite then now would he ! I also believe in dragons, fairies, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. The irony of it all is sparkling with it's sagacity. 29 years bleating a "save the world" message at all costs and now he has to sign off on the destruction of native flora and fauna for the sake of the almighty dollar. Loving it Peter ... just loving it.


----------



## matty77 (21 August 2009)

simply put yes - he is.

Lets be serious, there isnt a hope in hell that the gorgan deal is not going to happen, it will be approved by Garrett, he is a just a government puppet out way out of his league.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (21 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> In an unusual move, Mr Rudd congratulated ExxonMobil and the Gorgon partners, Chevron and Shell, on the progress Gorgon has made to date.




Sounds like approval to me!


----------



## trainspotter (23 August 2009)

Now that an oil rig in the Timor Sea has sprung a leak and is polluting the environment, I wonder if this will have any bearing on Peter Garretts thought process's for approving the Gorgon Gas project ???????

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25965359-2702,00.html


----------



## Krusty the Klown (26 August 2009)

*Gorgon LNG project gets Garrett's green light*

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,25983816-31037,00.html

Gee, what a shock!!!!


----------



## So_Cynical (26 August 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> I recently read that when you join the Labor Party, you have to take an _oath_ to vote with or side with the party at all times.
> 
> NO individual thoughts allowed....
> 
> Or else.......



LOL and this don't happen with the Liberals/Nationals/Greens???? Are u really that politically naive?


----------



## kgee (27 August 2009)

B4 Garrets 28 addittional cause's it had been agreed that the joint venture would allocate 95 million dollars in saftey measures to protect the flatback turtle (Screening of lights and monitoring etc )...Varanus which is 5 km away has nothing like that and yet turtles (green?) lay their eggs there quite happily.

95 million!!!!! and yet the greens still aren't happy
And why hasn't this amount been discussed on the news???...We are meant to get an unbiased full story???
Is it because you could probably save a million starving children with that same amount of money???

I don't know if that's hypocrisy but it does stink


----------



## GumbyLearner (27 August 2009)

No Comment


----------



## wayneL (27 August 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL and this don't happen with the Liberals/Nationals/Greens???? Are u really that politically naive?



I don't know about the Greens, but I strongly doubt there is a formalized oath of obedience in the Lib/Nat parties.

There are always the party whips, but an oath? I would be surprised.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (27 August 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL and this don't happen with the Liberals/Nationals/Greens???? Are u really that politically naive?




The Labor party is the only one with a formal oath. 

It is a major point brought up by Liberals quite often, that they have the option to vote however they like - a "conscience vote". It has been that way since Menzies created the modern Liberals.

In reality, if you go against the Liberal party line, you just won't get pre-selected for your seat again. It happens from time to time.

The Democrats were the same.

Like Wayne, am unsure about the Greens, but when you run for the Greens, you are practically on the same level as an independant anyway, so if you go against Green party policy, it really does not make much difference to your chances.


----------



## Buddy (27 August 2009)

Whether he is a hypocrite is a bit immaterial to me. But he is a troglodytic luddite (Ha Ha, I like that phrase), or at best, a bit of a dill.

Last night on lateline, when questioned about nuclear (fission) generation he made a statement (that they all seem to be peddling these days) that Australia has plenty of energy so therefore there is no need to go nuclear.  Well sorry my friend (NOT), you are not correct, by your own standards. Whilst we may have piles an piles of coal and gas (but not a hell of a lot of liquids - we are now a net importer of petroleum), it still produces CO2. I guess you havn't heard about that bit Peter. So..................:-

1) Our power generators (80-90% coal based) still produce CO2. It will take some time before CO2 capture is sufficiently developed to soak up all that nasty CO2 (ha ha ha). And by the way, current technology uses up to 25% of the power generated just to capture the CO2.  Now that seems like an incredibly high value use of energy to me (NOT). WTF are you going to do with all that captured CO2? Ah huh, I know, put it in the ground! Really smart Peter! Have you ever thought of trying to use it for something useful? How about using it for putting bubbles in champagne (I joke ). You twit!

2) Based on current technology, sending fossil fuel up the smokestack to generate electricity is an incredibly dumb thing to do. Unless future science developments find other means to generate feedstock for petrochemicals, we are going to be in a bit of a fix when fossil fuel runs out. Much of modern life is based upon the chemicals that are generated from petroleum, etc.

3) Where is the electricity going to come from Peter? Wind? Solar? Geothermal? Biomass? Tidal? Wave? Out of your ar@e? It is just fiction to think that these technologies can produce Australia's electricity requirements. Mate, the infrastructure, apart from the technology, just aint there! It will take 50-100 years to get all that going (have you seen how long it takes to get a stupid gummint permit these days?). And even then, you will only have electricity for part of the day - as none of these energy sources have yet been shown to be able to produce baseload. Although maybe geothermal can, but at the scale required????? Not proven!

4) And speaking of gummint permits....... Peter you dill, where are you going to put all the wind generators? Havn't you even noticed the protests from your own dim-witted greenie mates about wind farms?

Yeah sure Peter, you can have some token so called renewable green technologies. And dont get me wrong, I am enthusiastic about developing new technology (I am developing and installing some myself - and with technology that you havn't even heard of). But my small minded mate, you are dreaming! In the time frame you and your mates have set out, and with the targets being set, you will fail!  Biggest problem for you gummint twits is.....................

*YOU DONT HAVE A PLAN! THE LIGHTS ARE GOING TO GO OUT!*

Unless you (you idealogically driven, sanctimonious, arrogant, impractical gummint twits - sorry can't think of any more abusive terms without getting "moderated") consider nuclear power then we are stuffed.

Until the holy grail (fusion) is found/developed, you (gummint) have to consider nuclear fission electricity generation. But not 1st or 2nd generation. At least 3rd generation or 4th/5th. Australia must go down this path NOW! We need to be part of the technology development team (for our engineers, technicans, contractors, etc) so that we are not left behind. If you dont join the club you will not be able to reap the benefits.

So maybe you are a hypcrite. You are OK with selling uranium to the rest of the world, including countries with nuclear weapons. But you are not prepared to process uranium into a product for electricity generation. And you are not prepared to use it to generate electricity. Even if it solves the CO2 problem.  And you are not prepared permit Australia to take spent fuel back, and process it for storage. And by the way you dumb assed twit Peter - why not use Thorium fro electricity generation, which would lead to almost zero waste product?

Hmmmm. Thinking some more about it. Yes, you are a hypocrite.

End of Rant.


----------



## So_Cynical (27 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> I don't know about the Greens, but I strongly doubt there is a formalized oath of obedience in the Lib/Nat parties.
> 
> There are always the party whips, but an oath? I would be surprised.




Oath, gentleman's agreement call it what u want...ALL POLITICAL PARTY'S OF ANY IMPORTANCE DO IT...DEMAND MEMBERS TO TOW THE PARTY LINE.

As will be clearly demonstrated when the nationals support the emissions trading scheme in the senate, when it gets to a second vote...that or political annihilation for the right side of the Australian political spectrum.


----------



## trainspotter (27 August 2009)

Anyone can join the Liberal Party. Any one can join the Labor Party ... as long as you join their *UNION* at the same time. And swear an oath etc, 

http://www.alp.org.au/action/donate.php if you want to DONATE to the brotherhood of socialism reform. Afterall, it's your tax payers dollars.


----------



## Macquack (28 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Anyone can join the Liberal Party. Any one can join the Labor Party ... as long as you join their *UNION* at the same time. And swear an oath etc,
> 
> http://www.alp.org.au/action/donate.php if you want to DONATE to the brotherhood of socialism reform. Afterall, it's your tax payers dollars.




Trainspotter, where do you get off, bagging unions all the time. I suppose your not a member of any association such as the "Pearl Producers Association"?

And for your information, if you have not already donated to the brotherhood of capitalists.
http://www.liberal.org.au/contact/makeadonation.php


----------



## Buddy (28 August 2009)

Go on TP, take the bait. Give it to him mate. Filthy union stooge.


----------



## trainspotter (28 August 2009)

Macquack said:


> Trainspotter, where do you get off, bagging unions all the time. I suppose your not a member of any association such as the "Pearl Producers Association"?
> 
> And for your information, if you have not already donated to the brotherhood of capitalists.
> http://www.liberal.org.au/contact/makeadonation.php




Wow ... can't believe I missed this one? Ummm ... bagging Unions all the time? I have bagged out Kevin Rudd and his misuse of "stimulus" monies. Over the top and fiscally irresponsible. IMO. Not sure but I have said in a few posts that if you join the Labor Party you are joining a Union and taking an oath etc. Big difference to being a paid up member of an association ... You actually get to choose to join an "association". When you join the Labor Party UNIONISM IS COMPULSORY. 

YES ... I am associated with certain industry affiliated bodies but once joined does not mean I must compulsory vote with their views on matters.

Thanks for the link ... I think I might just donate to this worthy cause.


----------



## Macquack (28 August 2009)

Buddy said:


> Go on TP, take the bait. *Give it to him mate*. Filthy union stooge.




Buddy boy, it's not a crime to be a member of a union. John Howard was attempting to make it an offence, and look what happened to him.


----------



## trainspotter (28 August 2009)

I am concerned when associations with rules that restrict participation promulgate the idea that they can properly represent those who are excluded by those rules of association. _*ie*_ ... Precisely why is the Labor Party fearful of allowing non-unionists to stand for preselection?

PMSL ... I just tried to join the WA branch of the Labor Party online and the website came up with this : Internet Explorer cannot open the website http://wa.alp.org.au/lhsmenu/getinvolved/join.php ... *OPERATION ABORTED*.

Hahah ahahah ah ah h hh PLOP ... laughing my head off !


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 August 2009)

Garrett is no more a hypocrite than you or I mate.

He made a quid as a warbler.

Then he was courted by the ALP.

He got elected and has free travel and a free forum to disseminate his views, with a reasonable income and super.

He is not very bright though, and has been muscled by the Wongs of this world.

So he is basically an unhappy little green ferret, who feels he should be listened to more, but basically is what he is, a small little lickspittle in the greater political life of Australia.

gg


----------



## trainspotter (28 August 2009)

I concur with my learned colleague GG on this matter of Garrett and his hypocrisy. A pox on his house I say !


----------



## Krusty the Klown (28 August 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> He is not very bright though, and has been muscled by the Wongs of this world.




Very Witty 

I actually LOL'd!!!

And I'm an accountant!!!


----------



## Buckeroo (28 August 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> So he is basically an unhappy little green ferret, who feels he should be listened to more, but basically is what he is, a small little lickspittle in the greater political life of Australia.
> 
> gg




Your on fire tonight - very funny....did you have a little flutter on the GG's today and win?


----------



## mellifuous (29 August 2009)

**** he's a rock star ****

He appeals to an audience.

Now, he's hoping that audience will be able to vote one day ....

if the voting age is dropped by 5 years.


----------

