Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
What, actually, would you expect the Governor General to do?
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.
That is where this all becomes dangerous. Very, very dangerous.Take any issues from the Australian, it is full of complete crap - so much so it's unbelievable it is legal to print.
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.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.
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.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
^Smurf1976
Greens = Fascist
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...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.
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.
The warm up to the convoy of no confidence looks well attended.
Surely Gillard is being irresponsible to even consider enforcing this when opinion polls are so clearly showing the majority don't want it.
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.
Once again, there is no ETS. What is being proposed is a carbon tax.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.
Ban News Ltd? On what basis exactly?I do not agree with censoring News Ltd - better to ban it from doing any business in our country.
How exactly would this apply to the ABC which is supposedly owned by 'the people'?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's just a silly analogy.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.
Once again, there is no ETS. What is being proposed is a carbon tax.
Ban News Ltd? On what basis exactly?
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Agreed that this would represent bias.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?