# Bob Brown for PM?



## Sir Osisofliver (1 June 2010)

What?   Well there is a thread for Rudd Gillard and Abbot.

What I'm concerned about however is given the plummeting popularity of Kev and the utter inability of Abbot and the Liberal party to capitalise on the weakness...where does that leave the voting public?

Will we end up with Bob Brown in control, or the power behind the throne?

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs...the-colossus-of-the-senate/20100527-wgkv.html


----------



## Timmy (1 June 2010)

Libs looking for a leader ... in steps BB ... grows bushy eyebrows ... and Bob's yer uncle.


----------



## Bushman (1 June 2010)

Protest vote, lack of a credible third force. The stars are aligning for the Tassie ferals. Rather the Greens than a conservative rabble like Family First.

Bob must be loving Kev's backflips and Tony's brain fades. 

Then there is the Gay-lord being forced from Gunns and the likely abandonment of the pulp mill. 

Good things come in three's.


----------



## basilio (1 June 2010)

Can't really see BB for PM. For one thing it would decimate the ranks of ASF not to mention the entire business community as apoplectic seizures struck down the cream of our community... Couldn't have that could we ??

And of course it would instantly mean "the end of the world as we know it." Mind you I don't think it will take more than a light wind to push over the  facades that are covering the the current economic and environmental realities.


----------



## wayneL (1 June 2010)

Bushman said:


> Protest vote, lack of a credible third force. The stars are aligning for the Tassie ferals. Rather the Greens than a conservative rabble like Family First.




Bushman, after your excellent post on liberalism, I stunned you could prefer the totalitarian cretins that are the greens... umm, not that F1st is any better... jeez Oz is screwed with either one holding the balance of power.


----------



## dutchie (1 June 2010)

Desperation on the Australian political landscape prevails.


----------



## Bushman (1 June 2010)

wayneL said:


> Bushman, after your excellent post on liberalism, I stunned you could prefer the totalitarian cretins that are the greens... umm, not that F1st is any better... jeez Oz is screwed with either one holding the balance of power.




If it comes between Greens vs Family First, then I would vote Green every time. 

I detest neo-Cons, with their religious ideology (esp. birth control and women rights), big brother governments and middle class welfare, with a passion!!


----------



## wayneL (1 June 2010)

Bushman said:


> If it comes between Greens vs Family First, then I would vote Green every time.
> 
> I detest neo-Cons, with their religious ideology (esp. birth control and women rights), big brother governments and middle class welfare, with a passion!!




I hear ya!! 

If it was such a binary choice, I'd probably go greens too, but with considerable dry wretching. 

What a choice, Neo-Cons or Communists.


----------



## Timmy (1 June 2010)

basilio said:


> Can't really see BB for PM. For one thing it would decimate the ranks of ASF




Surely not basilio - imagine the boundless opportunities for outrage and moaning, I doubt the servers could handle the foaming-at-the-mouth post traffic.


----------



## Bushman (1 June 2010)

wayneL said:


> I hear ya!!
> 
> If it was such a binary choice, I'd probably go greens too, but with considerable dry wretching.
> 
> What a choice, Neo-Cons or Communists.




Yep things have scarcely been worse.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (1 June 2010)

basilio said:


> Can't really see BB for PM. For one thing it would decimate the ranks of ASF not to mention the entire business community as apoplectic seizures struck down the cream of our community... Couldn't have that could we ??




Naked shorts would have a field day


----------



## Calliope (1 June 2010)

Up steps Malcolm Turnbull to take the helm?  By now it seems that the conservative liberals are on a loser with Abbott. The party may now have to ask Turnbull to return, to stop the drift to the Greens.

Bob Brown holding the balance of power would be worse for the country than a Rudd government... a disaster of epic proportions. 

Turnbull is the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Bushman (1 June 2010)

Calliope said:


> Up steps Malcolm Turnbull to take the helm?  By now it seems that the conservative liberals are on a loser with Abbott. The party may now have to ask Turnbull to return, to stop the drift to the Greens.
> 
> Bob Brown holding the balance of power would be worse for the country than a Rudd government... a disaster of epic proportions.
> 
> Turnbull is the lesser of two evils.




Definitely, Turnbull would be a blessing. Where is Costello? Such a pity that he walked away when he did. I believe he would've been one of the great Australian prime ministers. 

I would laugh if Tanner lost his seat of Melbourne to the Greens! It would serve him right.


----------



## explod (1 June 2010)

Timmy said:


> Surely not basilio - imagine the boundless opportunities for outrage and moaning, I doubt the servers could handle the foaming-at-the-mouth post traffic.




They might get me to help em out, Prof Frink and I going better since I cut my toenails short, damned painful but.

Anyway, good on ya Bob, told dubya what for


----------



## Mofra (1 June 2010)

wayneL said:


> Bushman, after your excellent post on liberalism, I stunned you could prefer the totalitarian cretins that are the greens... umm, not that F1st is any better... jeez Oz is screwed with either one holding the balance of power.



Makes you nostalgic for the "good old days" of the Australian Democrat Party


----------



## Mofra (1 June 2010)

Bushman said:


> Where is Costello? Such a pity that he walked away when he did. I believe he would've been one of the great Australian prime ministers.



If he was still in parliament I have a feeling he would be leading the "preferred prime minister" polls - even from the backbench.


----------



## nioka (1 June 2010)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Will we end up with Bob Brown in control, or the power behind the throne?




There is one throne that Bob Brown should be in but not on. Maybe then someone would pull the chain.


----------



## Julia (1 June 2010)

wayneL said:


> I hear ya!!
> 
> If it was such a binary choice, I'd probably go greens too, but with considerable dry wretching.
> 
> What a choice, Neo-Cons or Communists.



Yep, I'd feel about the same.  The Greens at least are socially progressive which would be a refreshing change from the current dominance of the godbotherers.  There would be no rubbish like internet filters, and they'd encourage reasonable discussion about voluntary euthanasia.

I'm against the extreme focus on environmental issues by the Greens, but respect their consistency and what seems like a greater level of morality than exhibited by either Labor or the Libs.  And Bob Brown, much as he often annoys me, at least doesn't rant and yell like the major parties.





Bushman said:


> Definitely, Turnbull would be a blessing. Where is Costello? Such a pity that he walked away when he did. I believe he would've been one of the great Australian prime ministers.
> 
> I would laugh if Tanner lost his seat of Melbourne to the Greens! It would serve him right.






Mofra said:


> If he was still in parliament I have a feeling he would be leading the "preferred prime minister" polls - even from the backbench.



Agree absolutely.  Doubt there's any chance he could be persuaded to return though.  Suspect he will be laughing to himself at the rabble that exists at present.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (1 June 2010)

BB for PM a joke right?


----------



## Trembling Hand (1 June 2010)

Bushman said:


> Definitely, Turnbull would be a blessing.



When I heard that Turnbull was coming back I had hope to start his own party.... Not to be so unfortunately.


Bushman said:


> I would laugh if Tanner lost his seat of Melbourne to the Greens! It would serve him right.




I'm in Tanners electorate and mentioned to friends on the weekend that I might actually vote for the greens. After everyone stopped laughing I tried to reason that my vote for liberal will just be wasted but there is a chance that it could help to kick out one idiot to be replaced by a less powerful one. they still laughed


----------



## trainspotter (1 June 2010)

Is this is the openly gay inaugaral Parliamentary Leader of the Australian Greens who nearly got booted out of the Senate for unpaid legal bills for $240,000 when he took on Forestry Tasmania and lost? The same person who had to arrange an appeal to his constituents for donations and good 'ol Dick Smith helped him with a sizeable wad of cash? This is the same human being that is a strident tree hugging, pillow biting, arrested 5 times, heckler of President Bush, nude sleeping, thorn in the side of parliament? Never heard of him.


----------



## Bushman (1 June 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> I'm in Tanners electorate and mentioned to friends on the weekend that I might actually vote for the greens. After everyone stopped laughing I tried to reason that my vote for liberal will just be wasted but there is a chance that it could help to kick out one idiot to be replaced by a less powerful one. they still laughed




Yep this is my electorate too. I was thinking the same thing as there is no way that the Libs will ever win Melbourne. So take out one of the Gang of Four (even though I did have a soft spot for Lindsay at a stage). 

Go the beanie wearing, latte sipping socialist tree huggers of Fitzroy! At least I will be able to enjoy a stroll through our old growth forests when I have nothing to do due to financial armageddon that will ensue with Bob as our PM


----------



## awg (1 June 2010)

Greens will end up with balance of power, due to dissillusion with other options.

If anyone saw Australian Story about the buisinessman that campaigned for himself on Green issues in John Howards electorate, I have no doubt that was why he lost his seat, apart from Maxine. ( cant remember his name but he was a property executive)

Now that Rudd has assholed his promises on Green issues, he stinks among those so inclined


----------



## sinner (1 June 2010)

As much as I detest 4Corners these days for being the ABCs "Today Tonight", last week they ran a piece on Securency. You can still catch it on ABC iView, I showed it to incredulous friends last night.

You know, that company half owned by the RBA, that was implicated in huge international bribery scandals involving the heads of state and heads of Central Banks from all over the world?

Well, Bob Brown was one of the speakers. As he pointed out:

Both John Howard and Kevin Rudd governments have voted down any investigation into the matter *SEVEN TIMES* despite international pressure and huge reams of evidence from a whistleblower. Even when they were in opposition neither party would dare to upset this huge boat that is even bigger scandal than AWB Iraq kickbacks.

Yet, here is BB on national television discussing the issue.

I think this scenario paints the entire picture. Vote Liberal or Labour and you are a defacto mushroom: fed on bull**** and kept in the dark (the current BP scandal makes it blatantly obvious that this sort of behaviour is now the defacto norm all over the Western world). At least BB has the balls to say it like it is. 

And yes, this is the same BB who nearly got booted out of the Senate for unpaid legal bills. Is that supposed to be an article of shame or something? His supporters helped him out, even Dick Smith paid a lump. If Kevin Rudd or Tony Abott was lying on the side of the road bleeding and begging for medical assistance I would rather spit on them at this point than do anything to help them. Meanwhile *the people* of this nation are giving their hard earned to keep Bob in Senate! It's not like he spent the peoples money on crack and hookers like most politicians. He put his own money on the line to defend against Forestry Tasmania and couldn't front the margin call.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (2 June 2010)

Hi Trainspotter,

I'm not a greens supporter.  However I do feel the need to defend Bob Brown against your comments below.



trainspotter said:


> Is this is the openly gay



 Why is this relevant? Is there something wrong with being gay? 







> inaugaral Parliamentary Leader of the Australian Greens who nearly got booted out of the Senate for unpaid legal bills for $240,000 when he took on Forestry Tasmania and lost?



 I applaud his determination to fight on issues he believes to be vitally important, even if I abhor his ability to do sums. 







> The same person who had to arrange an appeal to his constituents for donations and good 'ol Dick Smith helped him with a sizeable wad of cash?



 Wasn't that nice of Dick? I don't see how it's relevant beyond his deplorable skill at math or budgeting. 







> This is the same human being that is a strident tree hugging, pillow biting,



 Once again you mention him being gay in a negative manner....homophobic much Train? 







> arrested 5 times,



 And convicted how many times? 







> heckler of President Bush,



 Hell if I'd had the chance I would have heckled President Bush as well. 







> nude sleeping,



 ????? Who cares if he wears jim jams when he sleeps? 







> thorn in the side of parliament?



 I do like some of the things he says to keep the rest of them at least somewhat honest.







> Never heard of him.




Cheers 

Sir O


----------



## nunthewiser (2 June 2010)

Personally would rather vote for Humphrey B Bear.


----------



## Trembling Hand (2 June 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> Personally would rather vote for Humphrey B Bear.




Why? because his not so gay? or because his not a flaming socialist tree hugging hippy?


----------



## nunthewiser (2 June 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Why? because his not so gay? or because his not a flaming socialist tree hugging hippy?




I have no problems with homosexuality or hippys.

History has shown Bob Brown has been useless like t1ts on a bull .

At least with Humphrey one can guide him where you want him to go without a word of complaint .

Vote 1 for Humphrey.


----------



## prawn_86 (2 June 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> Vote 1 for Humphrey.




Humphrey is currently sitting in the basement of an insolvency firm that my mate works for.... (company that owned him went broke)


----------



## nunthewiser (2 June 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> Humphrey is currently sitting in the basement of an insolvency firm that my mate works for.... (company that owned him went broke)





Even better, we can get him working for us for a fraction of the cost


----------



## Ageo (2 June 2010)

BB for PM??? lolol does it get any better.......


----------



## Timmy (2 June 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> Even better, we can get him working for us for a fraction of the cost




& save on pants expenditure.


----------



## Timmy (2 June 2010)

No possibility of an embarrassing Malcolm in Memphis moment with Humphrey either.


----------



## trainspotter (2 June 2010)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Hi Trainspotter,
> 
> I'm not a greens supporter.  However I do feel the need to defend Bob Brown against your comments below.
> 
> ...




Satire is wasted in this place. He is more famous for the wrong things rather than his skill as a politician. But I digress yet again.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (2 June 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Satire is wasted in this place. He is more famous for the wrong things rather than his skill as a politician. But I digress yet again.




Text is a hard medium to verify tone...try /satire at the end next time and then there is no confusion. /grumpy

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## trainspotter (2 June 2010)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Text is a hard medium to verify tone...try /satire at the end next time and then there is no confusion. /grumpy
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Sir O




I would have thought the last sentence of _"Never heard of him"_ would have quantified this juxstaposition. I will in future add the appropriate addage to clear up any misunderstandings. /tongue in cheek


----------



## Kipp (2 June 2010)

I'm not just saying this to be contentious.... but I think Bob Brown would be a good PM.  I am not necessarily saying the greens would do a great job runnin the country, but I think Bob Brown is a man of some integrity.

I don't follow politics all that closely, but he was right about Bush- being a muderous warmonger, while Howard was happy to support the IRAQ invasion.
I don't think Howard was necessarily a bad PM, and certainly he/Costello can run the economy very confidently.    

And I wouldn't mind seeing a government that actuaaally had environment on the agenda (not just CO2 talks).  I cannot split the Libs and Labour on environment, it is not really what govts elected in this country, and receives focus accordingly.  Kev wimped out of the ETS, and Peter Garratt has been a bloody disaster as environment minister. (IMO)

As far as the Greens go, I think they would be excellant in local govt or maybe even a state level- as I think they have something to offer on a town planning/transport/waste level.  But Federal.... with open immigration policies etc.... I'm not so sure.  Anyway, I just wanted to cast one positive vote for Brown.


----------



## nioka (2 June 2010)

Call me xenophobic if you like but I doubt that anyone that does not have normal family values would understand normal family requirements and be able to fulfill the wishes of normal families in this day and age. Therefore he is out on that basis with me.

In addition his green values are too extreme and he would want to impose those same values on the rest of us. As an example,take Tasmania. It is unable to stand on its own because of its excessive green values. His policy on forestry has seen the wholesale clearing of native forests and had them replaced with sterile pine forests. The policy of the forestry dept was heading towards sustainable logging of forests but by the loggers looking after the forests they kept them near pristine and the greenies grabbed them and locked them up for good. So we have clear felling and sterile pine plantations in their place.

Tasmania should have plenty of cheap hydro power that would allow industry to thrive there. Instead the no dams policy killed that off.

Maybe you could have Brown as the President of the Republic of Tasmania.


----------



## Trembling Hand (2 June 2010)

nioka said:


> Call me xenophobic if you like but I doubt that anyone that does not have normal family values would understand normal family requirements and be able to fulfill the wishes of normal families in this day and age. Therefore he is out on that basis with me.




Xenophobic?? You may want to look that one up. I think you mean Homophobic.

"Normal" family 

<EDIT> unless Tasmanian is now deemed a different country, lol.


----------



## Bushman (2 June 2010)

Nioka - 'xenephobic' means a deep fear of Xena the warrior princess.


----------



## nioka (2 June 2010)

A blonde moment, Homophobic. I must have Pauline Hanson on my mind. Now there is a candidate for PM.????????????????


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (2 June 2010)

nioka said:


> Call me xenophobic if you like but I doubt that anyone that does not have normal family values would understand normal family requirements and be able to fulfill the wishes of normal families in this day and age. Therefore he is out on that basis with me.




Call me Peladophobic but I get the feeling that you're essentially marginalizing anyone that doesn't fit into your perceived ideal of family. I'll guess one mum and one dad is the ideal for you.  Given that Two Parent families (and there is no break-down in the census data about re-marriages after divorce and no distinguishing between families with two mums or two dads) accounts for 39.59% of households...well perhaps ideal isn't as common as you think. /sarcasm

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## nioka (2 June 2010)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Call me Peladophobic but I get the feeling that you're essentially marginalizing anyone that doesn't fit into your perceived ideal of family. I'll guess one mum and one dad is the ideal for you.  Given that Two Parent families (and there is no break-down in the census data about re-marriages after divorce and no distinguishing between families with two mums or two dads) accounts for 39.59% of households...well perhaps ideal isn't as common as you think. /sarcasm
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Sir O




There is the ideal and there are variations from the ideal but then there are extreme opposites to the ideal. As someone that was brought up for half my young life in a single parent family (my father died when I was 2 years old) and spent the second half of my young life with step brothers and step sisters I understand variations. Anyone with an arrangement that hasn't a possibility of providing future generations should not be trusted with the task of providing for my future generations. I do have great grand children to think about. I doubt that BB will have any great grandchildren.

So I still say there is normal, there are acceptable variations of the norm and to me at least there are variations that are not acceptable.


----------



## explod (2 June 2010)

nioka said:


> I doubt that BB will have any great grandchildren.
> 
> So I still say there is normal, there are acceptable variations of the norm and to me at least there are variations that are not acceptable.




Which makes Sir Osisofliver's take fairly spot on.

Sorry however about your tough circumstances as a kid but is probably why you so narrowly wish things were all normal.

Bob Brown is a gentleman in all respects and tries his absolute and honest best for what he believes.   His persuasion, and many forget this fact, is neurological, some assert that it is a choice but that type of thing is driven by the way one is made.   Being born a certain way is one thing but having attitudes due to life's experience is another thing altogether. 

Only my opinion of course and at the same time respect yours.


----------



## Calliope (3 June 2010)

nioka said:


> So I still say there is normal, there are acceptable variations of the norm and to me at least there are variations that are not acceptable.




You are right. I don't think Australians have reached the stage where they could accept a same sex married couple installed in the Lodge.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (3 June 2010)

nioka said:


> There is the ideal and there are variations from the ideal but then there are extreme opposites to the ideal. As someone that was brought up for half my young life in a single parent family (my father died when I was 2 years old) and spent the second half of my young life with step brothers and step sisters I understand variations. *Anyone with an arrangement that hasn't a possibility of providing future generations should not be trusted with the task of providing for my future generations.* I do have great grand children to think about. I doubt that BB will have any great grandchildren.
> 
> So I still say there is normal, there are acceptable variations of the norm and to me at least there are variations that are not acceptable.




So just gay men then, coz lesbians have everything they need to provide a future generation. How...specific of you Nioka. And of course gay men having no possibility of providing future generations (even though they are quite capable of providing _for_ future generations) are all emotionally crippled and disconnected from the rest of society. Yeah that sounds like a gay man - not in touch with his emotions. /sarcasm.

So how should we manage this unacceptable portion of our population Nioka? How do we treat them differently? Should we do a little "cleansing"? Get some large pink buses and drive them all to Alice Springs and leave them there? 

Nioka - what happens if your son or grandson turns out to be gay? Will you attempt to "de-program" him? Ostracize him? Pray him straight?

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## Trembling Hand (3 June 2010)

nioka said:


> Anyone with an arrangement that hasn't a possibility of providing future generations should not be trusted with the task of providing for my future generations.



Xactly!! So you would agree that Priests and the Catholics church as a whole should shut up and stop preaching because they have no stake in the future? They are a long way away from 'normal' and therefore should not be trusted.



Sir Osisofliver said:


> Nioka - what happens if your son or grandson turns out to be gay? Will you attempt to "de-program" him? Ostracize him? Pray him straight?



Nah wouldn't happen, real men don't produce poofs


----------



## Bushman (3 June 2010)

Its the same argument that has been used by some of the rat bag right-wingers of the Liberal/Nats (think it was Heffernan) that Gillard is not fit to be PM as she has not had children. 

Reproductive capacity has nothing to do with moral or intellectual capacity. 

I cannot believe that this thread has diverged into a discussion about homosexuality? Personally I believe we have matured a great deal as a society and the electorate would be more than willing to accept a homosexual politician as prime minister.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (3 June 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Xactly!! So you would agree that Priests and the Catholics church as a whole should shut up and stop preaching because they have no stake in the future? They are a long way away from 'normal' and therefore should not be trusted.




*snort*


----------



## nioka (3 June 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Xactly!! So you would agree that Priests and the Catholics church as a whole should shut up and stop preaching because they have no stake in the future? They are a long way away from 'normal' and therefore should not be trusted.




Same applies for the pope as for Bob Brown. I wouldn't want the pope as PM either. I have no argument with them preaching and I have no argument with what Bob Brown does in his own life but I wouldnt want either of them having any say in my life.

That is what this is all about.


----------



## Trembling Hand (3 June 2010)

nioka said:


> I have no argument with what Bob Brown does in his own life but I wouldnt want either of them having any say in my life.




yeah it understandable. They may preach 'gayness' to you. 

just lol sad


----------



## nioka (3 June 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> yeah it understandable. They may preach 'gayness' to you.
> 
> just lol sad




Couldn't give a toss what they preach to me but I don't want them making rules that I have to live with.

Can't you see there is a difference. Then again why is the hand trembling?


----------



## Trembling Hand (3 June 2010)

nioka said:


> Couldn't give a toss what they preach to me but I don't want them making rules that I have to live with.



Such as what exactly?? Exactly what is it they they will be making you do??? what will you have to live with under a gay politician?

Or is it just general good old homophobia thats the real problem here?



nioka said:


> Then again why is the hand trembling?



I see I'm dealing with an imbecile child here.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (3 June 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Such as what exactly?? Exactly what is it they they will be making you do??? what will you have to live with under a gay politician?
> 
> *Or is it just general good old homophobia thats the real problem here?*




C'mon TH didn't you know that Gay men plan to take over the world!!! I can just see the glorious future after the revolution.

Once our gay overlords are in power we will have Super fridays where everyone has to be all super to each other and everyone wears pink and are like totally accessorized with super hair.

We'll have a national Kylie Minogue day and she will be declared a national treasure and just so cute darling.

Sydney Mardi Gras budget will *explode* and it will be a month-long event.

All male trousers and pants will be sold with window cut-outs in the butt cheek areas.

We will become world leaders in Hairdressing and the most popular names for boys will be Lance, Rock and Bwuce.

Hairy testosterone fueled rebels will be brutally re-educated with facial moisturisers and manicures and long deep and meaningful discussions about their feelings.

Ok I'm having too much fun... time to stop.

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## trainspotter (3 June 2010)

Sir O .... it appears that you have forgotten to add in the obligatory addage of /taking the p!ss in your last post. Some of us here might take you seriously and become deeply offended by your whimsical approach to such gay abandon.

:topic

Bob Brown will hold the balance of power in the senate as the proleteriat have abandoned both Liberal and Labor due to their arrogance.

I reckon we start a new party here in ASF and call it LABERAL. This way we can take both ideals of the Left & Right to form a solid CENTRE to turn this crapola we are being force fed from CANTberra into something positive for a change. I am sick to death of the excrement that passes as politics these days. We get the government we deserve because after all it is YOU that voted for them.


----------



## SmellyTerror (3 June 2010)

In all honesty, there's such a wealth of crapitude in the major parties that pretty much anything has got to get some support in the next election.

Someone start the Bloody Angry Party. I'd vote for that.

Re: Teh Gayness Of The Bob: I had no idea he was gay, but then I think it's about as relevant to his politics and my vote as his eye colour or head bumps.

*Funny, I never hear people saying they wouldn't vote for Julia on the grounds that she's got no kids...* Plenty about her politics, but never her barren womb's lack of investment in future generations. Might need to start checking young Liberals for fertility before they get too far up in the machine. Or... is that where all those stories come from?

Surely Bob Brown has enough nutty politics for people to object to that his preference in genitalia wouldn't get a look in?

Having said that, I'm probably going to vote for the Greens, no matter how nutty. I disagree with them a lot, but I'd feel like a sucker to give the nod to the other guys, and at least the Greens have balls. I like balls...

...:

Anyway, from what I can see, politicians are out to screw everyone. What kind of sexuality is that?


----------



## prawn_86 (3 June 2010)

trainspotter said:


> We get the government we deserve because after all it is YOU that voted for them.




Ahh the joys of compulsory voting, where the sheeple are forced to vote, so just go with those who have the most media saturation.


----------



## Bushman (3 June 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Anyway, from what I can see, politicians are out to screw everyone. What kind of sexuality is that?




As they say ST, everybody likes you when you're bi!


----------



## nunthewiser (3 June 2010)

Bushman said:


> As they say ST, everybody likes you when you're bi!




HAHAHAHAHA i would like to nominate this for "post of the week "


----------



## nioka (3 June 2010)

There is another new party. the Australian Protectionist Party. Registered in most states and represented in all. Probably has a lot of Hanson supporters so that may make it a good topic for ASF lamblasting.  Check them out on www.protectionist.com. I doubt tht Bob Brown would get along with them any more than Tony the Monk


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (3 June 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Sir O .... it appears that you have forgotten to add in the obligatory addage of /taking the p!ss in your last post. Some of us here might take you seriously and become deeply offended by your whimsical approach to such gay abandon.




Yes you are correct and I am deeply mortified that my lack of the  /taking the p!ss tag was remarked upon.

I thought my examples were so outrageous and over the top that no one could be fooled into thinking they were in any way serious. I apologise deeply for making you cut the bums out of all your pants and having you get blisters on your knees practising kneeling in front of your new Gay overlords.

Alas the world keeps making bigger fools.

/cheeky bugger mode


Cheers

Sir O


----------



## nioka (20 September 2010)

*Bob Brown for PM ?*

And why not. He seems to be calling the shots. He is now calling the resources tax a "wealth tax". From establishing a wealth tax the next step would be a death or inheritance tax.

Is his next aim to be part of a coalition government and there by become deputy PM. Not out of the list of possibilities. With the help of the left side of the Labor party he would be able to paint Australia with a new shade of red.

Remember you were warned about it here.


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 October 2011)

Interesting to realise Bob Brown was a founding patron of Bush Heritage Australia as conservation is absolutely necessary . He looked quite relaxed sipping tea at his house created from Australian quarries and forests. Funny how people like to tell others what they can and cannot have once they have it themselves.


----------



## Ageo (23 October 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Interesting to realise Bob Brown was a founding patron of Bush Heritage Australia as conservation is absolutely necessary . He looked quite relaxed sipping tea at his house created from Australian quarries and forests. Funny how people like to tell others what they can and cannot have once they have it themselves.




Bit like when John Howard said people dont need guns for protection, yet he was always surrounded by men with guns.....  strange that


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 October 2011)

The Wilderness Society (TWS) original head office in Davey St (Hobart) did for many years burn wood for heating.

To be fair though, opposing hydro-electricity was their original key policy (they were actually in favour of cutting trees 30 years ago - true) and the wood fire plus minimal lighting in the building did keep power consumption down. There was a single 40W fluoro in each room and I think it's still the same today (though they've probably changed the tubes for 36W I'd assume).

For those not aware, TWS, UTG (the somewhat inappropriately named United Tasmania Group), Bob Brown himself, The Independents, Tasmanian Greens and the Australian Greens were for a very long time effectively all as one in a manner far closer than even Labor and the unions. More recently there's been something of a split involving TWS (which itself seems to have quite a lot of internal turmoil at times).


----------



## noco (5 November 2011)

So why are the Greens so secretive? Ah yes, as this link explains their modus operandi to use the cover of the environment to the fullest to mask their real intentions.




http://www.vexnews.com/2011/11/carbon-criminals-greens-return-to-the-scene-of-the-slime/


----------

