The Australian Greens party

SirRumpole said:

I have never tried to "close you down" , just saying that responding to your cherry picked Right Wing propaganda is pointless.

Click to expand...

You and your lefties have tried to close me down by character assassinations and don't try to deny it.

Please give me an example of cherry picking as you say and I will endeavor to defend it.

Responding is pointless?????????????....You obviously don't have the answers.

Greens want a utopian society where no one says anything they disagree with or else they get fined or thrown in jail (ISIS style of freedom) hence they are now suing the Catholic Church for opposing gay marriage. In Tassy there is no freedom of speech hence the capability to sue.

A complaint that the Catholic Church has offended and humiliated gay, lesbian and transgender Australians by distributing a *booklet supporting traditional marriage is looming as a test case for freedom of speech and religion ahead of the national same-sex marriage plebiscite.

The Archbishop of Hobart, *Julian Porteus, is preparing to fight the complaint to Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commission on the grounds of religious freedom.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...549711732?sv=cb53bceaae2e58d753cfc70acf2ed164

Knobby22 said:

Greens want a utopian society where no one says anything they disagree with or else they get fined or thrown in jail (ISIS style of freedom) .

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...549711732?sv=cb53bceaae2e58d753cfc70acf2ed164

Click to expand...

More like Fabian style...Communism.

Going off on a tangent here,

if the Greens have any sort of political antennae, they'll realize that current federal politics provides a tailor made opportunity for them.

Don't want to vote for Shorten, don't like Turnbull...then here they are, your friends the Greens.

Logique said:

Going off on a tangent here,

if the Greens have any sort of political antennae, they'll realize that current federal politics provides a tailor made opportunity for them.

Don't want to vote for Shorten, don't like Turnbull...then here they are, your friends the Greens.

Click to expand...

They have a better chance of doing that since Milne's departure. de Natalie comes across as a much more moderate leader.

SirRumpole said:

They have a better chance of doing that since Milne's departure. de Natalie comes across as a much more moderate leader.

Click to expand...

That is their strategy.

They are the only party of the left in Australia.

The ALP is at war with its own left faction and has been haemorrhaging that voter base for a long long time.

Hence the internal battles with hard line Greens candidates that don't have a wider voting appeal. Because they will eventually take over the ALP left faction in its entirety.

SirRumpole said:

They have a better chance of doing that since Milne's departure. de Natalie comes across as a much more moderate leader.

Click to expand...

If he walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then he is a duck....still a Green commo.

noco said:

If he walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then he is a duck....still a Green commo.

Click to expand...

He comes across better than Christine Milne but until there's significant policy change, they're still in my view economic vandals and don't respect our sovereignty as a nation.

Knobby22 said:

Greens want a utopian society where no one says anything they disagree with or else they get fined or thrown in jail (ISIS style of freedom) hence they are now suing the Catholic Church for opposing gay marriage. In Tassy there is no freedom of speech hence the capability to sue.

A complaint that the Catholic Church has offended and humiliated gay, lesbian and transgender Australians by distributing a *booklet supporting traditional marriage is looming as a test case for freedom of speech and religion ahead of the national same-sex marriage plebiscite.

The Archbishop of Hobart, *Julian Porteus, is preparing to fight the complaint to Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commission on the grounds of religious freedom.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...549711732?sv=cb53bceaae2e58d753cfc70acf2ed164

Click to expand...

Well said, Knobby.

The new terrorists, that call out tolerance, but are the most intolerant of all.

Tink said:

Well said, Knobby.

The new terrorists, that call out tolerance, but are the most intolerant of all.

Click to expand...

They are the political equivalent of particle swarm optimisation = flock of human birds. They are a leaderless flock with only reactive control agents that obey the Ordo Ab Chao rules.

Tink said:

Well said, Knobby.

The new terrorists, that call out tolerance, but are the most intolerant of all.

Click to expand...

Yes, they would be a hard dictatorship to live under if they ever got control. A bit like Pol Pot.
Their intolerance ruins their cause.

The Australian Greens- so out of touch.

They make even Bill look good.

explod said:

No you did not noco.

Lets try another way.

What makes a communist?

What is the meaning of a communist in Australia today?

What is it that makes a communist bad in your view?

If we are (the Greens) real communists why are we not in that party?

Why are there only a handful of people in the communist party?

Remember when handing out how to vote at Geelong pre_poll for the last Federal election speaking with the Communist representative. He was further from Green philosophy than the Liberal Party. The greens are very much about free choice and real democracy. The communists would require obedience to their doctrines. A very big difference here.

Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-12/the_ideological_drive_behind_the_greens/41010

Plod, if you need any more info on the Greens and their association with Marxism, there is plenty more where this came from......Remember....they are "WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING".....Green outside and red inside......Thta is why they are called the "watermelons".

While the Greens appeal to an alliance of young, tertiary educated students and professionals, the party has increasingly been infiltrated at the parliamentary level by members of the hard left. Let me take two examples. New South Wales senator-elect, Lee Rhiannon, is a former member of the Moscow-aligned Socialist Party of Australia. Her parents were prominent members of the Communist Party.

The new Member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, was a radical student activist. He once attacked the Greens as a “bourgeois” party. Writing on a Marxist website in the 1990s, Mr Bandt attacked capitalism, arguing that ideological purity was paramount. It is clear from his 1995 comments - “Communists can’t fetishise alternative political parties, but should always make some kind of materially based assessment about the effectiveness of any given strategy come election time” - that Bandt views the Greens as a vehicle for his ideological pursuits.

Ecological Marxism

There are many descriptions that could be applied to the Greens, but none seems more accurate than Jack Mundey’s own description of “ecological Marxism”. This description sums up the two core beliefs of the Greens. First, the environment or the ecology is to be placed before all else. This is spelt out in the first principle in the Greens Global Charter:

“We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.” [vi]

Secondly, the Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism when applied as a political movement. By totalitarian, I mean the subordination of the individual and the impulse to rid society of all elements that, in the eyes of the adherent, mar its perfection.

Faith and belief

For many Greens supporters, environmentalism is ultimately an article of faith and belief. This is no better illustrated than in the controversy surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has become increasingly clear that the process of “establishing” human-caused global warming has been manipulated by a small group of people, using mutual peer processes, and claiming to speak for many more scientists who had little input and no real opportunity to review the final documents. The closed-shop nature of the process is counter the scientific empiricism of the enlightenment, and marks another significant break with traditional western culture.

To Greens believers, this is of little consequence. Ultimately, global warming is a matter of faith.

Similarly Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps one of the most dramatic scenes in the film is the depiction of an ice-wall collapsing. Viewers are led to believe that they are watching footage of an actual collapse. The truth, however, is that the scene was taken from the opening credits of a Hollywood movie, The day after tomorrow. [xxix]

Despite the fact that a British court found the film contained significant errors, [xxx] many environmentalists continue to believe it is true. For these environmentalists, the errors are merely inconvenient mistakes that fail to negate the Armageddon the world faces unless drastic measures are taken. Again, this is an example of belief, rather than reason. “Evidence” can be manufactured. Scientific empiricism is a vehicle to be manipulated for a political cause. Worse still, the film is now being proposed for the National Curriculum in Australian schools.

The Greens belief in their environmental nirvana manifests itself in a new coercive utopianism.

Unless we understand the ideological foundations of the Greens, we will fail to effectively address the challenge of their revolution. We will be left debating instrumental outcomes, as if they are based on the same cultural and philosophical foundations that underpin western civilisation. What the Greens present is the cutting edge of a clash within western civilization itself. [xxxi]

Rave as much as you like noco, but I believe that under de Natalie the Greens are pretty firmly in the centre of politics now, and even if they are a bit left I think its good to have a counter balance to the hard Right now espoused by Morrison and others in the Libs.

SirRumpole said:

Rave as much as you like noco, but I believe that under de Natalie the Greens are pretty firmly in the centre of politics now, and even if they are a bit left I think its good to have a counter balance to the hard Right now espoused by Morrison and others in the Libs.

Click to expand...

I guess we will just have to wait and see how good your predictions are re-guarding the Greens.....He still has quite a few Marxist in the Green Party which he has to deal with including Lee Rhiannon, Adam Brandt, Larrisa ?, Sarah Hanson-Young and another fellow I think his name is Ludeman or Ludman or something like that name.

Di Natalie may be showing a little bit of deception in his approach to a more moderate center party having leaned some support to Malcolm Tunrbull to look more attractive than the Labor Party...Di Natalie's real aim is to steal votes from the Labor Party to become the second major party....I really don't think you could say he will veer away from The Greens ideology as I have out lined.

If as Greens leader Richard Di Natale said this week, the Greens are going to run on cancelling the Private Health insurance rebate - I think it's electoral suicide. Pushing people off resultantly unaffordable health cover.

To me it seems pure ideology from the Greens. Everything must be provided by the state, i.e. in an already swamped public system.

The private health system can do it efficiently and well, while taking pressure off the public system.

The Greens should not deny consumers this choice by cancelling the private insurance rebate.

Labor needs to speak out against this if they want my vote.

Logique said:

If as Greens leader Richard Di Natale said this week, the Greens are going to run on cancelling the Private Health insurance rebate - I think it's electoral suicide. Pushing people off resultantly unaffordable health cover.

To me it seems pure ideology from the Greens. Everything must be provided by the state, i.e. in an already swamped public system.

The private health system can do it efficiently and well, while taking pressure off the public system.

The Greens should not deny consumers this choice by cancelling the private insurance rebate.

Labor needs to speak out against this if they want my vote.

Click to expand...

Bit of a cleft stick isn't it ?

Health insurance rates are getting prohibitively expensive already, cutting the rebate will definitely force a lot of people to drop private insurance. If they spend the savings on the public health system then that will compensate.

Personally I can see the benefits of two competing systems trying to give the customer the best service, but it's false competition if one "company" has to subsidise the other all the time.

The combination of Lifetime Health Cover, Medicare surcharge and the private health insurance rebate makes private health insurance an attractive financial choice to many almost regardless of the level of service provided.

This combination of carrot and stick is in my view results in an absurd situation where the private health insurance providers don't have to provide much value for service and as a consequence, they don't.

The private health funding model needs to be reviewed from scratch.

drsmith said:

The combination of Lifetime Health Cover, Medicare surcharge and the private health insurance rebate makes private health insurance an attractive financial choice to many almost regardless of the level of service provided.

This combination of carrot and stick is in my view results in an absurd situation where the private health insurance providers don't have to provide much value for service and as a consequence, they don't.

The private health funding model needs to be reviewed from scratch.

Click to expand...

+1

I don't know the situation in other states but certainly in Tas if you have a serious life threatening medical problem then you'll almost certainly end up at a public hospital no matter how much you've spent on private cover.

The private hospitals basically "cherry pick" what's profitable and leave the rest to the public system. If you call an ambulance and ask to be taken to a private hospital then the first thing they'll do is check to see if the private hospital will actually accept you as a patient and if not then you'll be taken to the public hospital with or without private insurance. And if you're unconscious then it's straight to the public hospital without question.

Thankfully I've only found myself in hospital twice as an adult. Once for a planned operation in the public system and once as an emergency patient in the private system. The emergency doctors in the private hospital looked after me well, and it was straight in with zero wait, but the specialist who dealt with me spends much of their time working in the public hospital next door. So I got a nice room and probably better food but no difference at all when it came to actual medical care - exact same specialist doctor in either case.

Having private cover didn't even result in no waiting list for the subsequent surgery and that was a bit of a surprise. It was still several months for that to be done so I don't think I gained anything at all from a pure medical perspective by having private cover. At most, maybe it saved waiting a while (in a massive amount of pain) when first admitted but zero difference after that.

I can see that there's a definite problem with funding to the public hospitals but I'm not sure that the present model of private health cover is the best way to address it. For every $ spent on private cover and the associated government incentives, how much is actually saved on treating patients in the public system? By the time the incentives are taken into account and then all the overheads of administering the whole system of private health insurance, it seems a pretty inefficient way of freeing up resources in the public hospitals especially given that they end up treating a lot of patients with private cover anyway.

Richard Di Natale in spruiking a minority government with Labor in the event of a hung parliament got himself into a bit of bother over offshore asylum processing today,

The future of offshore detention would be central to any post-election negotiations with the ALP in the event of a hung parliament, Greens leader Richard Di Natale has said.

But he would not say if any deal would be dependent on the closure of offshore detention centres during a press conference with his inner-Melbourne candidates and local MP Adam Bandt.

Asked if offshore detention was "make or break", Senator Di Natale said it was "the starting point for any negotiation".

He cited that the Greens did not get everything they wanted in 2010 with climate laws but got "a hell of a good climate package".

Click to expand...

He later moved to clarify on social media, tweeting: "Greens position is non-negotiable. We want to see an end to offshore detention & will do everything we can to close the camps."

Click to expand...

I'd suggest that forces within the Greens party that are less pragmatic than Richard pulled him into line.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-says-richard-di-natale-20160629-gpuiv1.html