This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

2010 Federal Election

Who do you support?

  • Labor

    Votes: 27 12.0%
  • Liberal

    Votes: 133 59.1%
  • Neither

    Votes: 39 17.3%
  • Haven't decided yet

    Votes: 26 11.6%

  • Total voters
    225
The contribution from W.A major mining super profitable ventures will help reimburse the rest of Australia for stumping up the initial capital for infrastructure that enable W.A to be developed in the first place.

Victoria. South Australia and Tasmania are the dependent states and rely on WA and Qld. to keep them solvent. They are the handout states, and that is why they came out so solidly for the Labor/Greens knowing they will heavily tax the miners to keep the handouts coming.
 
It looks pretty certain we are going to get a Green/Labor government. The first bit of legislation will be to legalise same-sex marriage. If that's what they want, let them have it. The gays I know say it is not all it's cracked up to be. Some like to play the field.

As long as they don't make it compulsory. Although their numbers are dwindling there are still a lot of heterosexuals who believe in good old fashioned marriage between men and women.
 
It looks pretty certain we are going to get a Green/Labor government. The first bit of legislation will be to legalise same-sex marriage....

I doubt that Fielding will let that one through the senate so it will probably depend on how other conservative senators vote. They might have to wait another ten months...
 
No offense but I believe your post would be more appropriate in the drunken rant thread.

None taken nulla, it belongs in both threads IMO. It still had valid points.


I shall continue to do so , look for more next friday.
You do have a point on the Greens being cunning, but sooner or later they will get too smart for their own good.


Nice work there TS, spot on!


If you were a dinosaur mate, you'd be a Correctosaurus
 

Here we get back to the 2 speed economy. How will all of the non mining sectors go if the projected mining boom causes the Reserve Bank to jack up interest rates to keep a lid on inflation?
I think this is a issue for NSW, Vic, Tas and Sa.
Just not sure we want to put mining industry to sleep - maybe a valium or nice cup of herbal tea would do the trick.
 
So let Joolya have the worry. With a double dip recession expected next year, where will she get more money for a new stimulas package?
You can't seriously be wondering about this, noco? They'd just borrow more, of course. No worries. Toss it around, do anything as long as it saves their political skin in terms of unemployment numbers.

'Denier' is offensive, it evokes an earlier usage: holocaust deniers, a truly extremist right wing element. This is toxic leftist propaganda of the worst kind, and especially insensitive to Jewish people.
Exactly right, and why it was so utterly offensive when applied to people who were doubtful about what eventually has turned out to be dodgy science in the climate change debate. It holds a clear inference that anyone holding a different view from the person commenting is stupid.

The Greens won't be budged as easily as the Democrats. They might seem flaky, but politically they are rat cunning.
Agree, The Democrats always retained some objectivity, the capacity to see a different points of view. Not so the crazy Greens. Their dominance will do immeasurable harm. We can only hope the government (assuming Labor is returned) and the opposition will vote together where it matters, and render the damn Greens irrelevant.
Ms Gillard has probably not thought through all the potential ramifications of her deal with these nuts in her desperation for her personal political survival.

I'd bet my last dollar that if you gave the population the option of going back and repeating their 2007 vote, they'd now vote to have John Howard still running the country. Minus workchoices.
Labor has been a gigantic mistake.

Sadly, the current line-up on the opposition benches are not up to much either.
 
The discussions on this thread has scant to do with the election, its all about miserable views on political philosophies of the good old days. Well those days have gone folks, we need to deal with a totally new paradigm.

You are way off topic.

"Commorn" as Hewit would say and give me the numbers on the election.


And who says global warming science is dodgey. Even if it is a little bit we need to deal with the fact that it may not be and that is the concern now of a lot of people, misguided or not, its the reality of the now. ouch off topic
 
The discussions on this thread has scant to do with the election, its all about miserable views on political philosophies of the good old days. Well those days have gone folks, we need to deal with a totally new paradigm.

Yes, a paradigm of hidden Marxists and naive deceived muppets voting for them.



And who says global warming science is dodgey.

In toto, the science says IPCC/Gorist/Hansonist alarmism is dodgy. Their cherrypicked and compromised data should not be considered as science.
 
Yes, a paradigm of hidden Marxists and naive deceived muppets voting for them.





In toto, the science says IPCC/Gorist/Hansonist alarmism is dodgy. Their cherrypicked and compromised data should not be considered as science.

You should check out Marx and Engels writings waynel, your obvious bias would get in the way of understanding though. China making so many widgets now they are running out of customers. Like massive US dollars, nobody wants em anymore. Marx; spot on.

Dodgy the climate stuff maybe pal but this is where we are at with the sentiment.

And both way off topic too ole pal, give me the numbers.
 
You should check out Marx and Engels writings waynel, your obvious bias would get in the way of understanding though.

Explod, re bias:

Every human is biased, however only some understand that they themselves are biased. The unintelligent don't realize this, all the while accusing others of the same. In so doing, they delude themselves that they have delivered some sort of intellectual uppercut.

However, they appear fools as their own hypocrisy escapes their notice.

In your post I'm not sure of your point due to lack of clarity.

Are you:

1/ Denying that the Greens are in fact Marxists, or

2/ Admitting they are Marxists but accuse me of not understanding their virtue?

Next question - Are you biased?
 
 

Yes waynel, I am biased.

We all want this election to go towards meeting our individual hopes, needs and desires for a better future.

However our question is beyond and off topic in this thread. Any answer, if it can be found, that can be settled between and to the satisfaction of the different parties/perspectives involved is probably improbable.

Because such a question ought to be tackled and resolved within each individual context, or if you like, within its intrinsic seperate human layers, then the defining of sentiment, judgement, control and bias as it may effect investing or trading, then perhaps we should meet in a more appropriate thread for that purpose.

As my superior on this forum wayneL, I seek your lead.
 
 
Although she says she will go the full term of 3 years, IMHO, parliament will become so disfunctional that they will have no alternative but to go to the GG for another election and if that happens, the Green Labor coalition will be decimated.
As I understand what I've been reading on this, she has guaranteed not to even leave open the option of a double dissolution election in her commitment to go the full three years. If the results of a Green/Labor/Independent parliament are as we anticipate, this could be horrible beyond belief.

The following is a letter to "The Age" on the subject:
An interesting exploration of the implications. On the matter of a fixed term being given legislative backing, it's unlikely such legislation would be constitutional if it impinged on the constitutional provision for a double dissolution.


Regarding this being a good time for the Opposition not to become government, I think there are some deeper layers involved , viz a lack of belief by the independents, and likely the wider population after the costings debacle, that the opposition is simply not up to managing government. It's possible this impression will remain in the minds of voters up to the next election.

I just can't help picturing an ongoing situation where Heffernan, Barnaby Joyce et al just can't help themselves taking frequent swipes at the Independents, so put out will they be at what they perceive as the usurping of power that should rightly belong to them. This will further cement in the view of the electorate that an Abbott-led government would be poorly disciplined.


However our question is beyond and off topic in this thread. Any answer, if it can be found, that can be settled between and to the satisfaction of the different parties/perspectives involved is probably improbable.
What? Could you provide a translation please, explod? The above would be a candidate for inclusion in Don Watson's treatise "Weasel Words".

Where did you go for your holiday, explod? Did you perhaps suck on some mind altering substances?
 

Talk about gobbledygook!!! :silly::silly::dimbulb::dimbulb:
 
Getting even or getting revenge is a strong motivating force for politicians. Wilkie has nurtured his hatred of the Liberal party for years, and you could read it in his face, when he showed his true colours, that revenge is sweet.

Tomorrow is the turn for the three Independents. An opportunity to get even with their old National enemies is too good an opportunity to be missed. They will defect as a group to Green/Labor.

It will be interesting to hear their justification for the decision. They will be most anxious to see that the government lasts three years otherwise their leverage is lost. A four seat majority give this a better chance of happening.

Rudd's turn will come later.
 

Wish I got onto Centre Bet 2 weeks ago with this scenario. I think you have hit the nail on the head Calliope
 
I was doing a bit of research on Comrade Gillard, and came across this document. It claims that Gillard was charged with treason in 2007, but it was suppressed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. It even contains a photocopy of the charge. Apparently if you are charged with treason you are ineligible to sit as senator or a member of the house of reps.

The document is quite long - 57 pages - but this is due to the massive font used. It would probably only be about 10 pages long if a decent font size was used.

http://larryhannigan.com/articles/The_Constitution_and_The_Law_of_Treason.pdf

Does anyone know if there is any truth behind this? Or does this belong in the "Conspiracy Theory" thread?
 

Very, very good work Comrade Gav. Vith dis excellent brief Ve should be able to send Comrade Gillard to Ziberia az quickly as Comrades Noco, wayne, calliope et al put ze pen to ze paper.

Vell done. It is truly hiumbling to see how de great minds of our time can create zuch a beautiful piece of legal vork..
 
Entitled "Aussie democracy, a tale of Perversion", this from David Penberthy in today's "Sunday Mail" is pretty funny. He's suggested readers can choose their own ending.

 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...