- Joined
- 20 October 2006
- Posts
- 704
- Reactions
- 0
ELECTIONS - Labor or Liberal
- Thread starter insider
- Start date
- Joined
- 20 October 2006
- Posts
- 704
- Reactions
- 0
b
i can see now that the govt advertising has had its desired effect. i pity you for your inability to
you are afraid that a different government will suddenly ruin the economy. this race car economy. i would hav thought that 10 years of doing exactly what they wanted wouold create a robust, reliable, and powerful economy, more like a rugged 4wd powering along regardless of the few bumps and creek crossings it may have to unexpectedly negotiate. by believing the spin and refusing to accept a different government you are nothing more than a gullible coward. you condone the blatant lies to all of us, as evidenced by howard saying refugees were throwing their children off a boat, and the awb affair, where the dept of foreign affairs received hundreds of intel reports about it. ask andrew wilkie, or warren reid, or pete tinley, or mike kelly about the lengths howard is prepared to go to keep himself in power. i personally dont like being treated like a fool.
anyone who doesnt support howard is leftist. i could label your thoughts fascist dribble.
greenie pressure? i would say pressure from just about every intelligent, responsible, and forward-looking man woman and child on the planet. john, george, and you are obviously not included.
if its so damaging to our economy, why does the govt boast that theyve met all the kyoto targets?
as to the american alliance... yes its good to have, but, allow me to use this analogy, you are walking down the street with your mates and one of them starts punching old women in the face. do you laugh and look on, or do you tell him to pull his head in, stop being a waaanker, and pressure him to stop. the truth has come out and still howard condones bush's action. still!! bwaculls cartoon says it all.
moxjo, all labor can do in opposition is put forward policy proposals. broadband, exit from iraq, IR so far. i pressume more to come. giving companys emissions targets is a first step to combat gw, same as saying sorry to aboriginals is a first step to repairing their lives.
its a momentous time in our countrys history. we are rich in minerals that the world needs, and i presume you have invested in these companies. hopefully the drought will break and farmers will be ok. we have smart, good people, and a great culture. our grandkids could live in a cutting edge, fair, progressive, and very wealthy, balanced nation. its under threat.
the best things the govt has done has come 10 minutes before an election! its targeting people like you b.
selfish. gullible. scared.
vote for liberal. if they win, in ten/twenty years time when our country has turned to shyte, you will have to live with yourself.
answer my original question. indig affairs, f.relations, honesty, freedom of speech, human rights, defence-(14th june post didnt cut it), environment- (14th june post was pathetic)
hooroo.
news flash- the wallabies can scrummage!
i can see now that the govt advertising has had its desired effect. i pity you for your inability to
you are afraid that a different government will suddenly ruin the economy. this race car economy. i would hav thought that 10 years of doing exactly what they wanted wouold create a robust, reliable, and powerful economy, more like a rugged 4wd powering along regardless of the few bumps and creek crossings it may have to unexpectedly negotiate. by believing the spin and refusing to accept a different government you are nothing more than a gullible coward. you condone the blatant lies to all of us, as evidenced by howard saying refugees were throwing their children off a boat, and the awb affair, where the dept of foreign affairs received hundreds of intel reports about it. ask andrew wilkie, or warren reid, or pete tinley, or mike kelly about the lengths howard is prepared to go to keep himself in power. i personally dont like being treated like a fool.
anyone who doesnt support howard is leftist. i could label your thoughts fascist dribble.
greenie pressure? i would say pressure from just about every intelligent, responsible, and forward-looking man woman and child on the planet. john, george, and you are obviously not included.
if its so damaging to our economy, why does the govt boast that theyve met all the kyoto targets?
as to the american alliance... yes its good to have, but, allow me to use this analogy, you are walking down the street with your mates and one of them starts punching old women in the face. do you laugh and look on, or do you tell him to pull his head in, stop being a waaanker, and pressure him to stop. the truth has come out and still howard condones bush's action. still!! bwaculls cartoon says it all.
moxjo, all labor can do in opposition is put forward policy proposals. broadband, exit from iraq, IR so far. i pressume more to come. giving companys emissions targets is a first step to combat gw, same as saying sorry to aboriginals is a first step to repairing their lives.
its a momentous time in our countrys history. we are rich in minerals that the world needs, and i presume you have invested in these companies. hopefully the drought will break and farmers will be ok. we have smart, good people, and a great culture. our grandkids could live in a cutting edge, fair, progressive, and very wealthy, balanced nation. its under threat.
the best things the govt has done has come 10 minutes before an election! its targeting people like you b.
selfish. gullible. scared.
vote for liberal. if they win, in ten/twenty years time when our country has turned to shyte, you will have to live with yourself.
answer my original question. indig affairs, f.relations, honesty, freedom of speech, human rights, defence-(14th june post didnt cut it), environment- (14th june post was pathetic)
hooroo.
news flash- the wallabies can scrummage!
Such valid points.
We have seen only token gestures from Howard over the last 10 years and now we, (as a nation) are on an environmental precipice. 10 years of inaction when we have had so much money flying around.
Why arent rainwater tanks 100% subsidised ?
They raised the energy rating on houses..... what a joke when you see the lightweight rubbish getting used in construction. As for the brick veneer in my opinion it should be outlawed and double brick should be the min standard, (a little to idealistic i know).
Why arent solar panels 100% subsidised , or do we need those billions to build the nuclear reactors?
Why do we sell our natural gas to china for 2c a litre and then start crying about our energy crisis? This was lauded by the liberals in 2002 as a boon to the australian economy. A boon hey? Now I wonder if that same gas should be firing our power stations.
Liberal or labour it doesnt matter both of them are only scratching the surface when it comes to making australia an energy self sufficient and environmentaly sustainable country.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,121
- Reactions
- 16,962
It's a bit more complicated than it seems on the specifics but agreed with your overall concept.
Rainwater tanks would actually be a BAD thing for the environment in some locations. Obviously sensible in many areas, but not all. A 100% subsidy would see them installed where it doesn't make sense.
Solar panels. Since they're actually quite polluting, far more so than any other mainstream renewable energy technology, subsidising them is questionable. Subsidise wind, wave, hydro, geothermal etc maybe. But solar is seriously dubious if we're talking about photovoltaic panels on roofs. Large solar thermal power stations are a far cleaner option.
Gas. The greatest tragedy in resource management in Australia's history IMO. We're basically giving away gas just as world oil production peaks and OPEC / Russia gain near total control over remaining reserves of both oil and gas. We'll be seriously sorry about selling that gas when we end up without reliable and affordable fuel for vehicles in the not too distant future. Don't like the idea of using it in power stations though - that's like using gold to make water pipes. It's needed for fertilizer (food!), direct use in homes and industry, petrochemicals, automotive fuel etc. Gas is, long term, just like oil in terms of geopolitics, economics etc. You wouldn't want to be using oil to fire power stations... (it used to be done until OPEC forced a rapid shift away).
Liberal or Labor? I'd add Greens and all the others to the list too. NONE of them have any notion of a proper plan for energy sustainability or even independence. Liberals promote nuclear (short term solution). Labor promotes gas (short term solution). Despite their frequent claims, the Greens track record is one of supporting fossil fuels, especially oil and gas, so they aren't any better. Indeed their unquestioning support of the tourism (recreational oil burning) industry makes them arguably worse than the others since oil is the most immediate energy problem.
I wonder how many people realise that the LPG price is essentially linked to the oil price? And that the natural gas price is also moving towards long term oil price linkage as LNG facilities are built? Just imagine if gas and electricity prices had risen in recent years in line with petrol prices. Industry would have been wrecked and likewise household budgets. And yet that linkage is exactly what we're hastily setting up - and it's permanent once established.
- Joined
- 25 February 2007
- Posts
- 838
- Reactions
- 1
I personally want Howard out.
Howard sold his soul to Bush, Blair and the Neo-cons when he joined them in their illegal and unjust war in Iraq.
The only question is Rudd is any better?
Is Rudd going to pull our troops out of Iraq?
Is Rudd controlled by the same Puppet Masters as Howard?
Is Rudd going to continue our transition towards becoming a neo-con fascist state like the UK and US under the guise of fighting Terrorism?
All this stuff about Labour trashing the economy and Interest Rates is all rubbish. The Liberals and Labour don't have any real control over Monetary Policy in Australia. It is the International Central Bankers that control Australia's and the World's Economic Future and they decide whether the Australian and World economy Booms or Busts.
Once you realise that our current monetary system and much of the worlds monetary system is based on nothing but air, everything else is pretty irrelevant until the manipulated and corrupt FIAT monetary system is eliminated.
Howard sold his soul to Bush, Blair and the Neo-cons when he joined them in their illegal and unjust war in Iraq.
The only question is Rudd is any better?
Is Rudd going to pull our troops out of Iraq?
Is Rudd controlled by the same Puppet Masters as Howard?
Is Rudd going to continue our transition towards becoming a neo-con fascist state like the UK and US under the guise of fighting Terrorism?
All this stuff about Labour trashing the economy and Interest Rates is all rubbish. The Liberals and Labour don't have any real control over Monetary Policy in Australia. It is the International Central Bankers that control Australia's and the World's Economic Future and they decide whether the Australian and World economy Booms or Busts.
Once you realise that our current monetary system and much of the worlds monetary system is based on nothing but air, everything else is pretty irrelevant until the manipulated and corrupt FIAT monetary system is eliminated.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,121
- Reactions
- 16,962
Exactly. Hit the nail on the head there.
Last time I checked, Howard wasn't proposing to take over the US Fed or any other major world central bank. Unless / until he does, all his chest beating about interest rates amounts to nothing more than hot air. Howard has only marginally more control over it than you and I do, especially whilst our economy remains so heavily tied to mineral exports.
Exactly. Hit the nail on the head there.
Last time I checked, Howard wasn't proposing to take over the US Fed or any other major world central bank. Unless / until he does, all his chest beating about interest rates amounts to nothing more than hot air. Howard has only marginally more control over it than you and I do, especially whilst our economy remains so heavily tied to mineral exports.
Yes but the unions have control to put enough red tape on business to cost an arm and a leg which would in turn put pressure on inflation from rising costs.And raise unemployment.And make a resources bust hurt twice as much.
at last, someone with the ability to see beyond the 'the govt. doesn't control interest rates" line.
A governments fiscal policy, IR policies and general economic management all impact the economy in terms of unemployment, interest rates and inflation.
playing the man, not the argument i see.
if ever there was a surer thing than a howard-hater bringing up children overboard and AWB.. but what about Tampa?
no, my leftist comment was in regards to your "no disrespect" line to garbage truck drivers. the leftist trait of moral equivalence at its finest.
the AGW debate is a whole different thread for another time.
the fact that we are meeting emission kyoto targets is one thing. signing up and paying taxes on cow flatulence is another.
geez, youre good at making up funny stories arent you. i dont actually get this one though. You support the american alliance? Great, so do i.
playing the man again...
oh please..
present some arguments about where you think the govt has gone wrong and we can talk about it.
bye.
chops_a_must
Printing My Own Money
- Joined
- 1 November 2006
- Posts
- 4,636
- Reactions
- 3
Yet a tax that raises prices exponentially on essential services isn't inflationary? Come on.
Yet a tax that raises prices exponentially on essential services isn't inflationary? Come on.
And add that tax to the above come on
Smurf appreciate your repy! Im not all that familiar with solar panels except you stick them on your roof and they charge a battery. Does the polution come from the manufacturing of them? Either way like you say wind tidal geothermal its not like this govt hasnt got other green options to subsidise.
More so than ever before i think the greater public is acutely aware of environmental issues and i just hope this translates into a govt that is a little more proactive on the issue.
Solar panels on roofs would be akin to throwing money down the toilet atm.In theory it sounds great just not viable atm.Have to agree with smurf on the geothermal.
Editorial: Beware deep-green Luddites on climate
June 08, 2007
Technology is the answer to carbon emission reductions
WHEN the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) was announced by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer at Vientiane in July 2005, The Australian gave it the front-page coverage it deserved, recognising in our editorial that the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, would spawn regional agreements, clearing the ground for one that at last engaged China, India and the US. It would adopt the only realistic way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly - through the transfer of clean energy technology. Meanwhile, the doom-mongers at The Sydney Morning Herald, who wrote the initiative off as window-dressing, buried the story on page five and did not bother to editorialise on the subject until the following year, when the grouping was archly dismissed as "partners in pollution".
Almost two years later, the wisdom of our judgement is in even greater evidence. Kyoto has been shown to be bankrupt as a mechanism for reducing carbon emissions. Numerous countries that ratified the protocol are expected to overshoot their targeted reductions - Canada by 33 per cent, Spain by 41 per cent, Portugal by 37 per cent, Greece by 26 per cent - and the total impact of the Kyoto emission reductions is estimated to be a mere 0.6 per cent lower than they would have been if Kyoto had never been signed at all.
Yet there are still those who cling stubbornly to the Kyoto Protocol as if it were the Holy Grail of the new climate change religion that will deliver us from the evil of carbon emissions. The reality of Kyoto is that it is not about reducing carbon emissions, at which it has been an abysmal failure. It has been a naked attempt by Europeans, who, having chopped down their forests and burned all their fossil fuels, are trying to get the rest of the world to shift to the high cost energy they have been forced to adopt.
The irony is that Australian devotees of Kyoto reject the very technology that has been at the heart of delivering European carbon emissions reductions - nuclear power. The Labor Party has had trouble agreeing even to export uranium, let alone build nuclear reactors in Australia, which is the logical extension both of signing Kyoto and imposing draconian early reduction targets. The Luddite, clean-energy deniers would have us believe that the only way to avert the coming apocalypse is to close down all the power plants, take all the cars off the road, and return to a pre-industrial Arcadia. But we don't have to choose between the economy and the environment. Although it will cost to develop and implement clean energy technology, it can be absorbed by growing economies such as Australia, China, India and the US. Australia on its own can make no meaningful contribution simply by cutting carbon emissions, since we produce only 1 per cent of them. Where we can punch above our weight is in devising a workable carbon emissions trading scheme that will drive investment into clean energy technology, and in persuading the major emitters to commit to it through groupings such as AP6 and APEC.
Australia has played a key role in developing both groupings because it has been aware for almost two decades that the geostrategic fulcrum of the world was shifting away from Europe towards the Asia-Pacific, yet there was no regional architecture within which Australia could engage the major powers of the region. Prime ministers Hawke, Keating and Howard can all take credit for the part they have played in developing these two groups, which are now poised to play a key role in responding to the greatest challenge facing the planet today. Interestingly, both organisations have a role, because neither includes all the players. AP6 has the big guns - the US, Japan, China, Korea, India and Australia - but partners who may play a critical role for Australia, such as fellow energy superpower Canada, are not involved. Similarly, APEC includes players such as Canada, but not India. By actively pursuing agreements in both forums, Australia can facilitate linking up the two groups for even greater coverage. And by working with like-minded partners such as Canada, Australia is much more likely to engage the US. An APEC framework that engaged members and others to develop their own greenhouse reduction plans with one long-term goal after the end of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012 would be a real achievement. The top-down, legalistic, prescriptive, eurocentric Kyoto model does not address the development aspirations of countries such as China and India or the emissions of highly efficient but massive energy exporters such as Australia and Canada. Only a framework that respects national sovereignty, but recognises diversity and sets a broad objective without being too prescriptive, will succeed.
June 08, 2007
Technology is the answer to carbon emission reductions
WHEN the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) was announced by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer at Vientiane in July 2005, The Australian gave it the front-page coverage it deserved, recognising in our editorial that the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, would spawn regional agreements, clearing the ground for one that at last engaged China, India and the US. It would adopt the only realistic way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly - through the transfer of clean energy technology. Meanwhile, the doom-mongers at The Sydney Morning Herald, who wrote the initiative off as window-dressing, buried the story on page five and did not bother to editorialise on the subject until the following year, when the grouping was archly dismissed as "partners in pollution".
Almost two years later, the wisdom of our judgement is in even greater evidence. Kyoto has been shown to be bankrupt as a mechanism for reducing carbon emissions. Numerous countries that ratified the protocol are expected to overshoot their targeted reductions - Canada by 33 per cent, Spain by 41 per cent, Portugal by 37 per cent, Greece by 26 per cent - and the total impact of the Kyoto emission reductions is estimated to be a mere 0.6 per cent lower than they would have been if Kyoto had never been signed at all.
Yet there are still those who cling stubbornly to the Kyoto Protocol as if it were the Holy Grail of the new climate change religion that will deliver us from the evil of carbon emissions. The reality of Kyoto is that it is not about reducing carbon emissions, at which it has been an abysmal failure. It has been a naked attempt by Europeans, who, having chopped down their forests and burned all their fossil fuels, are trying to get the rest of the world to shift to the high cost energy they have been forced to adopt.
The irony is that Australian devotees of Kyoto reject the very technology that has been at the heart of delivering European carbon emissions reductions - nuclear power. The Labor Party has had trouble agreeing even to export uranium, let alone build nuclear reactors in Australia, which is the logical extension both of signing Kyoto and imposing draconian early reduction targets. The Luddite, clean-energy deniers would have us believe that the only way to avert the coming apocalypse is to close down all the power plants, take all the cars off the road, and return to a pre-industrial Arcadia. But we don't have to choose between the economy and the environment. Although it will cost to develop and implement clean energy technology, it can be absorbed by growing economies such as Australia, China, India and the US. Australia on its own can make no meaningful contribution simply by cutting carbon emissions, since we produce only 1 per cent of them. Where we can punch above our weight is in devising a workable carbon emissions trading scheme that will drive investment into clean energy technology, and in persuading the major emitters to commit to it through groupings such as AP6 and APEC.
Australia has played a key role in developing both groupings because it has been aware for almost two decades that the geostrategic fulcrum of the world was shifting away from Europe towards the Asia-Pacific, yet there was no regional architecture within which Australia could engage the major powers of the region. Prime ministers Hawke, Keating and Howard can all take credit for the part they have played in developing these two groups, which are now poised to play a key role in responding to the greatest challenge facing the planet today. Interestingly, both organisations have a role, because neither includes all the players. AP6 has the big guns - the US, Japan, China, Korea, India and Australia - but partners who may play a critical role for Australia, such as fellow energy superpower Canada, are not involved. Similarly, APEC includes players such as Canada, but not India. By actively pursuing agreements in both forums, Australia can facilitate linking up the two groups for even greater coverage. And by working with like-minded partners such as Canada, Australia is much more likely to engage the US. An APEC framework that engaged members and others to develop their own greenhouse reduction plans with one long-term goal after the end of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012 would be a real achievement. The top-down, legalistic, prescriptive, eurocentric Kyoto model does not address the development aspirations of countries such as China and India or the emissions of highly efficient but massive energy exporters such as Australia and Canada. Only a framework that respects national sovereignty, but recognises diversity and sets a broad objective without being too prescriptive, will succeed.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,620
- Reactions
- 12,739
Woody (and everybody for that matter)
Lay off the derogatory language. Folks are entitled to political/environmental opinions without being called a stooge, or referred to as infesting places.
It actually says more about the commenter than the commentee, but still not kosher on ASF.
Same applies for either side of the debate.
Thanks
Lay off the derogatory language. Folks are entitled to political/environmental opinions without being called a stooge, or referred to as infesting places.
It actually says more about the commenter than the commentee, but still not kosher on ASF.
Same applies for either side of the debate.
Thanks
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,620
- Reactions
- 12,739
Interesting how the poll results have evened up over time. Reflective of the wider community?
yes, good pick-up there... especially considering the likes of woody and B have a handful of posts and constable have over 250!!!
this is a joke!
Anyway, back to the topic...
Did anyone see Coonan on 7:30 report and the crap she was talking about FTTN... She kept saying anyone further that 4kms from the exchange can't get broadband... and that thats why Labors policy is bad...!!!
How ignorant is she? FTTN is Fibre to the Node, which is the breakout box that sits at the end of every second ot third street... NOT THE EXCHANGE!!!
I can't beleive the incompetence of the the so called Communications Minister, who is trying to make decisions on the future infrastructure needs of the country and doesn't know the basics about FTTN!
And her voice is so painfull on the ears... rather like that Julia Gillard!
And as for the WiMax being a good solution for the bush, that ain't any different to NextG and that already provides the 8 - 20Mbps and the coverage is already there... and you can roam and have a laptop card to take it into your shed!!!
This strikes me a complete half baked pre-election sham of a policy. 900m waste of our money to try and looks like they are on the ball with broadband.
this is a joke!
Anyway, back to the topic...
Did anyone see Coonan on 7:30 report and the crap she was talking about FTTN... She kept saying anyone further that 4kms from the exchange can't get broadband... and that thats why Labors policy is bad...!!!
How ignorant is she? FTTN is Fibre to the Node, which is the breakout box that sits at the end of every second ot third street... NOT THE EXCHANGE!!!
I can't beleive the incompetence of the the so called Communications Minister, who is trying to make decisions on the future infrastructure needs of the country and doesn't know the basics about FTTN!
And her voice is so painfull on the ears... rather like that Julia Gillard!
And as for the WiMax being a good solution for the bush, that ain't any different to NextG and that already provides the 8 - 20Mbps and the coverage is already there... and you can roam and have a laptop card to take it into your shed!!!
This strikes me a complete half baked pre-election sham of a policy. 900m waste of our money to try and looks like they are on the ball with broadband.
rafa said:
Agree
If this government is so fantastic why can't they have sorted broadband out years ago. The libs seem to have no real policy. They simply seem to react to the policies put forward by labor. Carbon trading/environment, broadband, education these are all issues that labor has brought to the fore. One wonders whether these issue would ever have been addressed had there not been an election around the corner. Labors policies may not be the ducks nuts in everyones eyes but at least they are trying to come up with solutions to the problems we face. Wheres the leadership from this government.
