Labor's carbon tax lie

[Julia]

I'd have thought just cause for a trip out to Government House at Yarralumla, for a cup of tea with the Governor General. Before the national credit is maxed out in pursuit of the Labor/Green impractical ideologies and lust for power and control.

What, actually, would you expect the Governor General to do?

 

[Smurf1976]

Take any issues from the Australian, it is full of complete crap - so much so it's unbelievable it is legal to print.

That is where this all becomes dangerous. Very, very dangerous.

Throughout this debate there have been various calls from one side that democracy may need to be suspended and that the media needs to be censored in what they publish. Meanwhile, the other side of the climate change debate has simply expressed its' view about climate change, making no attempt to literally silence their opponents.

That is something I have noted about the Greens over the years. Try to express a contrary view at a Greens rally, or even a public meeting that just happens to be dominated by Greens supporters, and you will very quickly be silenced, kicked out or shouted down.

I've been there, done that at an official government forum where the audience just happened to be mostly Greens supporters. No way was I going to be allowed to express a view that they didn't agree with. No way whatsoever. And just to make sure, it turned out that the same group were attending every such meeting in every town, thus ensuring they all produced the same outcome by shouting down anyone who disagreed.

The Green movement has its merits but no way could they legitimately claim to support freedom of expression or democracy.

 

[sptrawler]

The problem is when they stuff everything up and it all turns to manure, they just disolve into the crowd.
Then they resurect for the next Ra Ra issue, whether it has merit or not.
Anythings better than getting a job.
They should try fly in fly out. 14 days of 12 hours then 7days off(fly in your time) then you earn $140,000 P.A.
Which works out to less than $50/hr. Plenty of room for Tassie Greens over here in W.A.
No they don't want to do that, they just want Tassie to become nice and green and live on welfare.LOL

 

[DB008]

^Smurf1976
Greens = Fascist

 

[sptrawler]

Yeh, lets bring in more refugees, they will work in those god forsken places.
While I stay in beautiful Tassie on the dole, tie myself to a tree and ask why isn't everybody living in this beautiful place.
What is wrong with everybody, just move to Tassie live on the dole and let someone else worry about making the money.

 

[sptrawler]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...s-steel-industry/story-fn91v9q3-1226114053655

Whats this Bluescope talking about shutting its blast furnaces because they are not competitive.
But wait aren't they supposed to spend millions of dollars changing to clean sustainable blast furnaces.
What they need is a carbon tax to force them to change.LOL
This government believes in faires at the end of the garden.

 

[Smurf1976]

Yeh, lets bring in more refugees, they will work in those god forsken places.
While I stay in beautiful Tassie on the dole, tie myself to a tree and ask why isn't everybody living in this beautiful place.
What is wrong with everybody, just move to Tassie live on the dole and let someone else worry about making the money.

The state of the Tasmanian economy, and the opinion of those who want to work, is perhaps best summed up by the huge number of people who turned up hoping to get an entry level job at the zinc works this week. The company ran an information session during the evening for anyone interested, and ended up having to turn people away because they didn't have a big enough room to hold the meeting in. They expected perhaps 40 people would turn up, and ended up with hundreds. This tells me all I need to know about the disastrous state of the local economy and how the Green dream isn't working.

 

[Smurf1976]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...s-steel-industry/story-fn91v9q3-1226114053655

Whats this Bluescope talking about shutting its blast furnaces because they are not competitive.
But wait aren't they supposed to spend millions of dollars changing to clean sustainable blast furnaces.
What they need is a carbon tax to force them to change.LOL

And if they do close? Well then production just gets shifted overseas. We export the coal and iron ore, buying back steel. The end result is the same emissions from making the steel, plus added shipping = total emissions go up rather than down.

This sort of outcome, far more than household bills, is the real problem with this carbon tax. Completely wrecking important Australian industries. What happens when (not if) there's a war and we can't even produce basic materials such as steel on our own soil? National defence is one of the major reasons the steel, zinc, aluminium and ferro alloy industries were established in the first place (to the point that the first aluminium plant was originally run by a government department, the Australian Aluminium Production Commission, for this very reason).

 

[noco]

^Smurf1976
Greens = Fascist

I tink dey are more like communists.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Looking forward, the defence force has planned to purchase new F-35 Lightning II war planes and the Australian defence force budget is growing to maintain the technological edge. The money has to come from somewhere.

 

[Smurf1976]

Looking forward, the defence force has planned to purchase new F-35 Lightning II war planes and the Australian defence force budget is growing to maintain the technological edge. The money has to come from somewhere.

I have nothing against our Defence Force, I think they do an excellent job, but the mere notion of investing in the military is absolutely at odds with a carbon tax and all it represents. Just saying...

 

[drsmith]

The warm up to the convoy of no confidence looks well attended.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...r-fresh-election/story-fn7x8me2-1226115962582

 

[sptrawler]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...s-steel-industry/story-fn91v9q3-1226114053655

Whats this Bluescope talking about shutting its blast furnaces because they are not competitive.
But wait aren't they supposed to spend millions of dollars changing to clean sustainable blast furnaces.
What they need is a carbon tax to force them to change.LOL
This government believes in faires at the end of the garden.

Whats this One Steel talking about shutting down its steelmaking furnaces, even Wayne Swan says they are not competitive.
But wait aren't we going to put a carbon tax on them so they will spend millions of dollars changing to clean sustainable furnaces.
Jobs for the future in our new world, built on cleaning up our industries.LOL
New jobs cleaning the streets and queing up for an interview at McDonalds.
Meanwhile the steel will be made overseas and we will buy carbon credits off them. Yep this is magic for your kids future, maybe parents should be in politics?

http://www.smh.com.au/business/onesteel-ponders-steelworks-closure-20110816-1ivca.html

As soon as the carbon tax compensation payments finish, so will the blast furnaces.

 

[Calliope]

The warm up to the convoy of no confidence looks well attended.

My favorite placard was "DUMP THE FRUMP." She is looking more frumpish every day.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Surely Gillard is being irresponsible to even consider enforcing this when opinion polls are so clearly showing the majority don't want it.

I bet if you ran a poll about whether the first home owners grant should be increased, the majority would say yes. There is a reason why we have politicians to make decisions...because the population is not in every single case smart enough to decide on the best long-term policy. Given how rare it is for politicians to do so as well, the ETS should be welcomed with open arms.

That is where this all becomes dangerous. Very, very dangerous.

Throughout this debate there have been various calls from one side that democracy may need to be suspended and that the media needs to be censored in what they publish. Meanwhile, the other side of the climate change debate has simply expressed its' view about climate change, making no attempt to literally silence their opponents.

I do not agree with censoring News Ltd - better to ban it from doing any business in our country. I would support a law that says that zero consolidation in media ownership is allowed (that is, each media company must be independent of the other). I would also establish a special independent regulator to assess the political neutrality of any majority shareholders or owners of every media company, and any political pressure on editors to publish with any spin.

That is something I have noted about the Greens over the years. Try to express a contrary view at a Greens rally, or even a public meeting that just happens to be dominated by Greens supporters, and you will very quickly be silenced, kicked out or shouted down.

Well look, imagine this. You are at a parents and teachers meeting in a school, where some parent gets up, and starts adamantly demanding that the flat earth theory be taught in science. I don't know about you, but I would remove such a parent from the meeting with haste.

I do not know what circumstances you were in obviously, but I would suggest they saw the situation very similar to the one I described.

 

[Julia]

I bet if you ran a poll about whether the first home owners grant should be increased, the majority would say yes. There is a reason why we have politicians to make decisions...because the population is not in every single case smart enough to decide on the best long-term policy. Given how rare it is for politicians to do so as well, the ETS should be welcomed with open arms.

Once again, there is no ETS. What is being proposed is a carbon tax.

I do not agree with censoring News Ltd - better to ban it from doing any business in our country.

Ban News Ltd? On what basis exactly?

I would support a law that says that zero consolidation in media ownership is allowed (that is, each media company must be independent of the other). I would also establish a special independent regulator to assess the political neutrality of any majority shareholders or owners of every media company, and any political pressure on editors to publish with any spin.

How exactly would this apply to the ABC which is supposedly owned by 'the people'?
Clearly, some arms of the ABC (Radio National particularly) has a clear bias to the Left, as does "The Insiders" on ABC TV.

Further, how will you determine the neutrality of this 'special independent regulator'?
Pretty hard to imagine anyone who could qualify intellectually for such a position who would not have already firmly established political views.

Well look, imagine this. You are at a parents and teachers meeting in a school, where some parent gets up, and starts adamantly demanding that the flat earth theory be taught in science. I don't know about you, but I would remove such a parent from the meeting with haste.

That's just a silly analogy.
And even if someone did want to express such a thought, why would you not feel competent to appropriately argue the point rather than just ejecting them.
As far as I know, we are still supposed to have free speech, however much this seems to be compromised recently.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Once again, there is no ETS. What is being proposed is a carbon tax.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Ban News Ltd? On what basis exactly?

Too many news outlets concentrated in the power of few individuals who are proven to be politically motivated (in fact the lizzard has admitted it...).

How exactly would this apply to the ABC which is supposedly owned by 'the people'?
Clearly, some arms of the ABC (Radio National particularly) has a clear bias to the Left, as does "The Insiders" on ABC TV.

I am unfamiliar with either of those so I can't comment specifically, but alas I do not see how the owner of the news outlet will matter for my proposal (which is just a random thought by the way, I'm sure something more efficient can be thought up).

Further, how will you determine the neutrality of this 'special independent regulator'?
Pretty hard to imagine anyone who could qualify intellectually for such a position who would not have already firmly established political views.

There are many ways. For instance, let's say the government engages in a significant infrastructure program. If a news outlet runs many articles against it in every single issue of it's newspaper, providing very one-sided analysis, that can easily be said to be biased.

And even if someone did want to express such a thought, why would you not feel competent to appropriately argue the point rather than just ejecting them.
As far as I know, we are still supposed to have free speech, however much this seems to be compromised recently.

Let's say you've already argued it countless times with the person, shown them satellite images, they know that 99.99999% of the world's scientists discredit their theory...and yet they still persist.

I am patient, but I would not be able to deal with that level of ignorance.

 

[Smurf1976]

II do not know what circumstances you were in obviously, but I would suggest they saw the situation very similar to the one I described.

A better description would be rorting the system and voting not once, not twice but perhaps a dozen times by attending the same community meeting in every town it went to and drowing out anyone who disagreed.

I have never, ever seen the other side even try such a stunt and I wasn't the only person to suffer the same fate. I remember quite well another individual who dared suggest that encouraging business (without mentioning any specific business) might be a good idea. They were shouted down pronto.

Much as I disagree with Greens on many points, I have never tried to actually silence them. Nor have I ever tried to literally blow up key assets, add valve grinding paste to the engine oil of expensive machinery or install devices intended to injure workers undertaking lawful work.

 

[sptrawler]

I guess we'll agree to disagree.



Too many news outlets concentrated in the power of few individuals who are proven to be politically motivated (in fact the lizzard has admitted it...).



I am unfamiliar with either of those so I can't comment specifically, but alas I do not see how the owner of the news outlet will matter for my proposal (which is just a random thought by the way, I'm sure something more efficient can be thought up).



There are many ways. For instance, let's say the government engages in a significant infrastructure program. If a news outlet runs many articles against it in every single issue of it's newspaper, providing very one-sided analysis, that can easily be said to be biased.



Let's say you've already argued it countless times with the person, shown them satellite images, they know that 99.99999% of the world's scientists discredit their theory...and yet they still persist.

I am patient, but I would not be able to deal with that level of ignorance.

So basically, it would be your way or the highway, if you were in power.
WHAT A DICK!!!!!LOL

 

[Smurf1976]

IThere are many ways. For instance, let's say the government engages in a significant infrastructure program. If a news outlet runs many articles against it in every single issue of it's newspaper, providing very one-sided analysis, that can easily be said to be biased.

Agreed that this would represent bias.

But if the same publication presents nothing but positive stories in relation to the same program then that also represents bias.