Where in the hell is Australia heading?

[Knobby22]

Goodness, Knobby, that's interesting. I've always thought of you as Gen X or even older. Must be that air of maturity.

I am Gen X, made an error, but as a male I have that whiff of immaturity most guys share also

 

[noco]

During the 50's and 60's, communism infiltrated the unions with super charged power. A majority of workers had to have a paid union ticket to be employed. They would wield the stick over the wharfs, rail, construction sites, abattoirs and any manufacturing establishment where they could cause disruption with strikes and disruption to our way of life. The sole purpose of their strategy was to break down the economies of countries like Australia resulting in high unemployment, high interst rates and higher cost of living and people discontent with the ruling government of the day. Communism would then become the alternative with promises of a better way of life. Communism also attempted to break down the morals of our youth with the intrduction of pornography.

We were probably saved by the mere fact that communism failed and many unions became redundant when most workers defected on the grounds of non compulsory membership. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there is now something like 15% of workers belong to a union and most of these are public servants in police, nursing and other government utilities. Unions now do not have the power they once had.

As an alternative, we now have "GET UP" who have set out to do exactly what communism once did and that is to disrupt and boycott any organisation who go against government policies such as the carbon dioxide tax and live meat exports and who is a foundation member of this corrupt organisation?

NONE OTHER THAN OUR ASSITANT TREASURE AND SON-IN-LAW OF THE GOVERNOR GENERAL. MR. BILL SHORTEN.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!! Are the alarm bells ringing.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ermail/comments/the_new_warming_mccarthyists/

 

[Knobby22]

McCarthyists noco??

Don't think Wayne will like it.

 

[disarray]

accusations of brainwashing / defence of critical thinking faculties / generational conflict etc. etc.

and so on ....

 

[moXJO]

What a load of tosh, a load of condescending twaddle, and I am talking to the others in this trhread also.

The problem is that some of you elderly people have become fixed in your views, unable to way issues and willing to be drip fed by the media organisations catering to your biases so your views don't get challenged. Give em hell Starcraftmazter, they have no great hold on wisdom.

And for that stupid saying that people get wisdom by becoming right wing in their old age, I used to be right but now I have gone to the centre and as a gen Y so I suppose that means I am a complete retard.

Sorry but advice from a guy out of uni is just bad advice. Hey wasn't that what Rudd tried

 

[breaker]

of life. Communism also attempted to break down the morals of our youth with the intrduction of pornography.

/[/url]

Well the commies done something right

 

[bandicoot76]

During the 50's and 60's, communism infiltrated the unions with super charged power. A majority of workers had to have a paid union ticket to be employed. They would wield the stick over the wharfs, rail, construction sites, abattoirs and any manufacturing establishment where they could cause disruption with strikes and disruption to our way of life. The sole purpose of their strategy was to break down the economies of countries like Australia resulting in high unemployment, high interst rates and higher cost of living and people discontent with the ruling government of the day. Communism would then become the alternative with promises of a better way of life. Communism also attempted to break down the morals of our youth with the intrduction of pornography.

We were probably saved by the mere fact that communism failed and many unions became redundant when most workers defected on the grounds of non compulsory membership. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there is now something like 15% of workers belong to a union and most of these are public servants in police, nursing and other government utilities. Unions now do not have the power they once had.

As an alternative, we now have "GET UP" who have set out to do exactly what communism once did and that is to disrupt and boycott any organisation who go against government policies such as the carbon dioxide tax and live meat exports and who is a foundation member of this corrupt organisation?

NONE OTHER THAN OUR ASSITANT TREASURE AND SON-IN-LAW OF THE GOVERNOR GENERAL. MR. BILL SHORTEN.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!! Are the alarm bells ringing.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ermail/comments/the_new_warming_mccarthyists/

having previously been both a union member & site delegate in the construction industry i feel i can comment on this post with a measure of authority.

a majority of people support the original concept of trade/workers unions. that idea was strenght to stand up to unscrupulous employers through solidarity, a noble idea and one that lead to better work conditions, better workplace safety, a 'fair days work for a fair days pay' employee/employer relationship. this worked fine whilever the union leadership were workers who came up through the ranks to positions of power.

as noco has stated this changed in the 60s/70s when the union leadership, which was formerly made up of real workers, was replaced by the 'professional leadership' of university educated lawyers/activists/pseudo-intellectuals, who were really just a front for the corruption of the union movement by infiltration of their fabian socialist ideals.

it was due to this new fanatical leadership, that was driven by political dogma rather than concern for workers issues combined with their use of thuggery to destroy the original concept of the democratic/representitive nature of the union movement, that lead to workers becoming dis-illusioned with unions and leaving them in droves.

if the unions returned to their proper charter of looking after their members instead of pushing political positions (CFMEU PUSHING CARBON TAX FOR CHRISTS SAKE!!! do they really think coal miners support that position!) then membership would blossom again. during my time as union delegate i was disgusted at the corruption & dishonest behavior of both the big construction companies & the union leadership. neither looked after trhe best interests of the employee's IMO!

however nocos porno quote is drawing a pretty long bow i'm afraid!

"get-up" is a front organisation pushing the agenda of billionare parasite george soros (who funds all kinds of nasty insidious organisations) and who former canadian govenor general John Ralston Saul had this to say: "in times past george soros would have been hung as a pirate".

we are definately heading into uncertain times with the lunatics having taken over the asylum! those 2 turncoat independants have ALOT to answer for and i think they had better steer clear of their constituents for awhile! theres alot of anger in new-england thats for sure!

 

[trainspotter]

I am going to start selling paddles as we are right up there.

Asked about the impact on Tasmania's Nyrstar zinc plant, Mr Wilkie said: "I am satisfied the settings that are relevant to the zinc smelter are fair to the zinc smelter ... and there is no reason in the world that (it) would suffer any undue difficulty."

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ws/story-e6frfku9-1226090753040#ixzz1Pzs6gLtg

In other words to get Wilkie to sign the carbon tax deal means the concessions he has gained for his state (Tasmania) will far outweigh the common good of the people of OZ.

 

[todster]

Yeah Ts,its not a young and old thing would you beleive I was a conscientious objector, hated America had long hair and smoked pot all cops were pigs and puppets of a totalitarian regime,Che Guevara was the man,moon walk was a day of school and not a plot,
I was thrown out off school at 15 and travelled till I found I could,nt keep living on the dole I now run a 5k turnover business and find its just harder and harder by rules made by people who dont have a clue whats going on civvy street
Nobody wants a *&#@ed world
We also run a sustainable cattle enterprize and have been governed by greenies who want to charge us for water in our dams, cattle farting and tree clearing some thing we have been doing for generations I dont want some pimply faced kid college kid telling me what I,m doing wrong because it looks good on paper
Have a look at the big names behind climate change we have listened to Al Gore but Lord Monckton turns up and nobody whant,s to know, banned from Broncos Club thats great for democracy.
When there,s nothing left it will be to late to late to say sorry[oh yeah why did I have to say sorry for something i did'nt do] but it won't be to late to say i told ya so

5k turn over you mght be better off back on the dole foghorn

 

[Smurf1976]

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ws/story-e6frfku9-1226090753040#ixzz1Pzs6gLtg

In other words to get Wilkie to sign the carbon tax deal means the concessions he has gained for his state (Tasmania) will far outweigh the common good of the people of OZ.

The only reason Tas does not have a 100% renewable electricity supply is due to decisions forced on the state by Labor in order to buy green votes in Sydney and Melbourne.

So far as I'm concerned, the other states should pay Tasmania's share of the carbon tax (to the extent it relates to electricity) for this reason - they wanted us to use coal and gas, Tasmanians weren't keen on the idea. For that matter, the other states should probably be paying the entire cost of the coal as well as the tax in order to be fair.

All that said, I'm still against the carbon tax and Andrew Wilkie ought not be supporting it.

 

[tothemax6]

I am going to start selling paddles as we are right up there.
View attachment 43580

Will you be floating stock? I'm sure many of us would be willing to invest

 

[breaker]

having previously been both a union member & site delegate in the construction industry i feel i can comment on this post with a measure of authority.

a majority of people support the original concept of trade/workers unions. that idea was strenght to stand up to unscrupulous employers through solidarity, a noble idea and one that lead to better work conditions, better workplace safety, a 'fair days work for a fair days pay' employee/employer relationship. this worked fine whilever the union leadership were workers who came up through the ranks to positions of power.

as noco has stated this changed in the 60s/70s when the union leadership, which was formerly made up of real workers, was replaced by the 'professional leadership' of university educated lawyers/activists/pseudo-intellectuals, who were really just a front for the corruption of the union movement by infiltration of their fabian socialist ideals.

it was due to this new fanatical leadership, that was driven by political dogma rather than concern for workers issues combined with their use of thuggery to destroy the original concept of the democratic/representitive nature of the union movement, that lead to workers becoming dis-illusioned with unions and leaving them in droves.

if the unions returned to their proper charter of looking after their members instead of pushing political positions (CFMEU PUSHING CARBON TAX FOR CHRISTS SAKE!!! do they really think coal miners support that position!) then membership would blossom again. during my time as union delegate i was disgusted at the corruption & dishonest behavior of both the big construction companies & the union leadership. neither looked after trhe best interests of the employee's IMO!

however nocos porno quote is drawing a pretty long bow i'm afraid!

"get-up" is a front organisation pushing the agenda of billionare parasite george soros (who funds all kinds of nasty insidious organisations) and who former canadian govenor general John Ralston Saul had this to say: "in times past george soros would have been hung as a pirate".

we are definately heading into uncertain times with the lunatics having taken over the asylum! those 2 turncoat independants have ALOT to answer for and i think they had better steer clear of their constituents for awhile! theres alot of anger in new-england thats for sure!

mate that is the whole gist of it could not have put it better myself

 

[breaker]

5k turn over you mght be better off back on the dole foghorn

I stand corrected...... 5mil

 

[Starcraftmazter]

As you get older and run your own business you will find that the people in charge are not in touch with the real world ,we cant keep having long weekends for the first six months of the year with every one on full pay, our lifstyle is to extravagent to sustain. People from other countrys do not feel its their right to rob the boss.
And it is not us making this nanny nation its them stupid bastards you voted for.

The nanny state is perpetuated by both major parties, there is no real choice. In fact this same claim can be made about most issues. Allow me to list some;

- Middle class welfare
- Toxic housing policy
- Public sector waste
- Playing to people's emotions rather than rolling out reforms and actual policy
- Looking out more for foreign interests (USA) than our own (for instance, the USA-Australia FTA is significantly imbalanced in USA's favour).

None of these things are restricted to either the Lib/Nat coalition or ALP. However I do not attribute any of them to the Greens for instance.


As for long weekends, I agree...the people in charge (ie. in charge of companies) are completely out of touch with the real world. I disagree that we should move in the direction of worse countries which treat their population like slave labor, but rather we should be moving in the direction of better ones.

I think you will find the brainwashing is quite subtle but also quite thorough.

I would rather find you answering my question of whom exactly indoctrinated me.

And, "global warming" was taught as if it was fact rather than scientific theories by some some scientists, most of whom are on government pay rolls.

This is a very interesting point. Are you talking about the government that subsidises fossil fuel industries with billions? The government that gets massive donations from big oil and big coal? The government that will suck up to USA in every one of it's oil-oriented invasions of Middle Eastern and African countries? The government that will do everything in it's power to give as little funding to renewable projects and research as they can get away with?

Is this the government you refer to?

Commendable you want to save the planet. We ALL do. But we cannot do it by ourselves. If the other larger "polluters" (USA & CHINA) will not pull their emissions back because they do not want it to collapse their existing economy then why should we?

This is a very valid point, perhaps the most valid point I have come across. I do not yet know how to address it in a way where I am satisfied there can be no logical argument against it.

However from a purely ethical perspective, I would not be able to tell future generations that I considered it was okey to do nothing because some others did nothing.

This is what is happening in reality my learned adversary.

View attachment 43568

P.S. your cartoon has "clean water, air" as one of it's goals. Point of difference to a CO2 tax

And here is one of the last 2000 years, I believe it providers greater perspective:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

I am not happy with the carbon "tax" by any means, but I would be more unhappy if nothing was done. I fear this may be a case of us having to crawl before we can walk.


I do want to emphasise that two graphs don't make an argument though, the point is that there are many equally valid graphs which support opposing views.

What do greenie supporters think of this? Hypocrisy, right? Why doesn't she ride a bike instead of adding polution to earth - let alone her car costs to the tax payer?...

I'll bite.

1. Probably not as bad as ALP and Libs
http://www.news.com.au/money/mps-top-lodgers-of-dodgy-tax-claims/story-e6frfmci-1226023025342
In fact I remember an article earlier this year about prominent politicians from both the aforementioned parties fraudulently writing off entire car purchases as tax deductible.

2. The article claims; "Senator Christine Milne, who accrued $7527 in Comcar expenses in the past 12 months" - however it makes no effort to compare this dollar figure to any other politician from any other party, nor any sort of an average.

3. The article claims; "Only a few cars in the taxpayer-funded fleet are hybrid Toyota models, with most gas-guzzling family-sized sedans." - however do the greens have any choice in this?

4. You ask why she does not ride a bike, however do you know the circumstances around which the greens senator needs to use a car? What if she needs to get between two geographical points in an amount of time not achievable by bicycle? How much would it cost taxpayers if she would be forced to hold up government meetings if she did ride a bike? What if she has health issues which prevent her from doing significant physical activity?

Compensation for sacrifices endured during rest time???? What does this mean?

Are you familiar with the concept of "8 hours labour, 8 hours recreation, 8 hours rest"? If someone works overtime they will have to give up one of recreation or rest. Rest is often scarified by Australian workers at a great cost to their health, and by extension the taxpayer in terms of medical costs funded by the government and lost productivity as a result of poorer health than is achievable under ideal circumstances.

Not to mention it diminishes people's quality of life.

True enough, but what represents 'quality of life' to you may not to someone else.

There is a reason why there are laws for matters such as overtime. It is because most consider overtime as something which hurts quality of life.

Do you think it's just possible that people who have actually been through a great depression (as opposed to the piddly little recessions seen in recent years) may have some valid views about this?
I had no understanding of what it was like until my father took exception one day to my dismissive attitude and explained in very clear terms the horror of that time.

Sure, but in my view a significant proportion of the human population will die, as well as a significant amount of species living on our planet. The world economy will collapse forever as we know it, and we would be very lucky to maintain any semblance of law and order. I do not believe any depression of a purely economic nature can compete with this scenario.

Ah, but this is where you are wrong. People can indeed argue against such a proposition, from the basis of costs/benefits.
You are entitled to your view, but others are also entitled to theirs.

It would be good if everyone held that view, but then some people believe that people with other views were indoctrinated by parents, schools, universities and everything else

Thank you for telling us about what you have studied. Do you have a job?

Yes.

I don't think I actually suggested that you'd necessarily have studied Environmental stuff. My comment was rather based on the inevitability of absorbing the general ethos which prevails in most universities, i.e. a Left political bias.

Can you please elaborate as to how I absorbed such general ethos? Please, do go into as much detail as you can, as I am very curious as to what basis you have for this most ridiculous notion. I will also repeat if you forgot, that I was not part of any student organisation or group dealing with politics, world affairs, environment, or anything related. I will also mention that all of my views I have held prior to university, I have only built on them through gaining more knowledge by independent research. While at university, almost all of my time was dedicated to study, both during class time and free time. None of the things I studied relate to anything we are discussing now. I never attended any sort of events related to the issues we are discussing now.

If you think that's not a valid and realistic suggestion, you are effectively declaring that you do not believe you will learn anything in the next ten, twenty, fifty years.

It's a fair suggestion, but it also implies necessarily that I'm incorrect in my current views. Not claiming to be infallible, but I do not like your implication nevertheless.

Some of what you may learn, if you are prepared to be open minded, is that governments are - if not actually corrupt - self serving politically, and quite prepared to compromise what genuine beliefs they may have for political survival.

This is not new to me. This is one of the main reasons why I support the Greens. Using your own argument which I just quoted, I do not understand how you (or anyone who thinks the same) can possibly support any major party. Perhaps you would care to explain, especially how ALP and LIB are any different in regards to this, and why either deserve yours (or my) support given the obvious truths of what you have said.

And I will claim that governments are far beyond corrupt. It is often not obvious to me whether ours are as far down the rabbit hole as in the USA or many European countries, but I have no doubts they are deep in there.

 

[breaker]

Mate ,why arn't you out on the piss tryin to get laid

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Mate ,why arn't you out on the piss tryin to get laid

I don't drink.

 

[breaker]

dont *&%@ either

 

[Julia]

I am not happy with the carbon "tax" by any means, but I would be more unhappy if nothing was done. I fear this may be a case of us having to crawl before we can walk.

This is the stuff being perpetuated by the alarmists on the basis that it can do no harm to introduce a tax which is not replicated in our trading competitors.
It is a totally nonsensical suggestion, naive at best.

2. The article claims; "Senator Christine Milne, who accrued $7527 in Comcar expenses in the past 12 months" - however it makes no effort to compare this dollar figure to any other politician from any other party, nor any sort of an average.

Comparisons with other politicians are beside the point which is that they who decree we must live without modern stuff like petrol powered cars should be demonstrating the point if they are to have any credibility.

concept of "8 hours labour, 8 hours recreation, 8 hours rest"? If someone works overtime they will have to give up one of recreation or rest. Rest is often scarified by Australian workers at a great cost to their health, and by extension the taxpayer in terms of medical costs funded by the government and lost productivity as a result of poorer health than is achievable under ideal circumstances.

Oh god, one day you might understand that to get ahead in competitive work environments you might actually have to work a few hours of overtime. It's called 'having a career and having a commitment to the job" as opposed to being a little worker bee toiling as little as possible

There is a reason why there are laws for matters such as overtime. It is because most consider overtime as something which hurts quality of life.

This from someone with next to no experience in the workforce. There is no rational way of debating with this sort of ingrained attitude.

Can you please elaborate as to how I absorbed such general ethos? Please, do go into as much detail as you can, as I am very curious as to what basis you have for this most ridiculous notion.

No, SCM (try to choose a simpler nic next time, huh), I will not elaborate or explain to you something which you have already decided to reject.
It may come as somewhat of a surprise to you, but people on forums are actually not obliged to meet your demands. They will make their responses only insofar as they feel inclined.

It's a fair suggestion, but it also implies necessarily that I'm incorrect in my current views. Not claiming to be infallible, but I do not like your implication nevertheless.

Love it.

I don't drink.

Pity. A good party would probably do you the world of good.

 

[trainspotter]

This is a very valid point, perhaps the most valid point I have come across. I do not yet know how to address it in a way where I am satisfied there can be no logical argument against it.

However from a purely ethical perspective, I would not be able to tell future generations that I considered it was okey to do nothing because some others did nothing.

And here is one of the last 2000 years, I believe it providers greater perspective:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

I am not happy with the carbon "tax" by any means, but I would be more unhappy if nothing was done. I fear this may be a case of us having to crawl before we can walk.

I do want to emphasise that two graphs don't make an argument though, the point is that there are many equally valid graphs which support opposing views.

Too true that "evil prospers whilst good men do nothing" BUT as we are 1.3% of global CO2 (which includes our coal exports) we are a miniscule component in a much larger machination. It is not about "saving the planet" at all. It is about changing the tax pardigm from a percentage of income/profit, then it went to a GST/consumer base and now it is about an ETS or carbon tax if you will. It has nothing to do with cleaner air or fresher water for the future. It is about propping up the failing systems with a new income stream derived from the populace/consumer/"polluter" (read CO2 emitter)

Look at this rationally and sensibly. The top 500 companies will be taxed for CO2. They pass the increase onto the proletariat. The Guvmint uses the "tax" to subsidise the cost of living increase! How does this reduce emissions if everyone is compensated? I will not be changing my usage if it means that I will be getting money from the Feds to cover up my CO2 cost impost. How does this change the output? It does not. Open your eyes and ears to what is actually going on. It WILL cause inflation as everything is going to be more expensive. No wait ...... 9 out of 10 people will be compensated which means the "rich" people will have to cut back on their consumerism. Pfffffffffffft !!!

Ethics are for the people who inhabit Ward 4 at any mental institute. There is no such thing when it comes to a government hell bent on making "nation building changes" and clinging to power by having the Greens dictate what they can and can't sell to the populace. "No carbon tax under the government I lead" - Julia Gillard said. "There will be a carbon tax" - Bob Brown. You decide the ethics on this one.

Your graph stops at 2004 (The El Niño was in full effect) mine stops in 2009 when the earth was cooling again. Oh well. Split definitives all you like as I can post just as many credible websites contradicting your websites.

Trainspotters Law states "For every website agreeing with you, I have an equal and opposite website disagreeing with you"

Once again I reiterate:- If this government was actually wanting to do something about global warming and CO2 is the culprit then place a "carbon tax" on the naughty big emitters of CO2. Use this money to actually invest in solar/wind/hydro/gas/thermal generation companies and let the people decide. Or would this risk them losing power (pun intended) at the next election?

 

[noco]

having previously been both a union member & site delegate in the construction industry i feel i can comment on this post with a measure of authority.

however nocos porno quote is drawing a pretty long bow i'm afraid!

Bandicoot, trade unions were excellant in the late 1800's up to ww11 and I agree it was an essential protection for workers. Then in the 50's and 60's it was definely exploted by communist infiltration. Coming to the end ot the twentieth century, union membership went into rapid decline to where it is are today.

My call on communism breaking down the morals of our youth came from a small book my father gave me many years ago and it was mentioned. I am sure I still have it packed away some where. It's not lost,I just can't find it ATM. If I locate it I will scan and post it.