Where in the hell is Australia heading?

[Slipperz]

opcorn:

 

[wayneL]

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

If you have an open mind (which is not apparent right now), you will stumble across the answer one day.

But to quote Winston Churchill - Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.

I don't drink.

FYA

"never trust a man who doesn't drink because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They're the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how how to survive himself. It's damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he's heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl."

 

[moXJO]

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.

LOL you are kidding right, I mean either you are blind, or one of the new media spinsters the Greens are using to change public opinion. The Greens have set about a social media blitz across the boards and apparently comments and forum boards are the new battleground. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment.

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



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?




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.




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?




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.



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.




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.




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




Yes.



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.




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.




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.

What you spout is communism throughout your post like it is some kind of saving grace. Sorry to be harsh but your post makes me sick in sections. You have the greens method of sounds kind of right but with no thought of consequences. The only thing the greens offer is a great way to ruin our standard of living, no real benefit to the environment, ruin business and productivity, and ensure self righteous bastards like you don't get a decent education despite that the greens think they are pro learning. The greens are the sneakiest of the bunch with total disregard to what the Australian public actually wants. Hiding behind cover policies of feel good nature to make the more damaging ones more unnoticed
Like I said you sound like the new greens advertising department.

 

[sails]

Starcraftmazter, here is some information on how our school kids are being brainwashed to the point of fear. And Garrett refuses to take it out of the cirriculum. What does he know about education?

From News.com.au by Bruce McDougall and Jenny Dillon:

Australian children are being terrified by climate change lessons

PRIMARY school children are being terrified by lessons claiming climate change will bring "death, injury and destruction" to the world unless they take action.

and despite calls by Psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg for educators to be "more circumspect and present both sides (of the climate-change debate)", it seems like they don't want to know.

Federal Schools Minister Peter Garrett said the government would not stop the teaching of climate science, despite moves in Britain for the subject to be withdrawn

.

 

[Logique]

During the 50's and 60's, communism infiltrated the unions with super charged power.....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..
..We were probably saved by the mere fact that communism failed...As an alternative, we now have "GET UP"...
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ermail/comments/the_new_warming_mccarthyists/

Well said Noco, and right on the money. The figure I've heard for union membership, with low confidence, is ~12%. I don't blame the Gen X'ers and Y's and Next's for not understanding the historical socio-politics, they weren't around to witness how insidious and how destructive it was to Australian life and the economy.

Talk to some Eastern European migrants from this era. They thought they'd escaped, now it's chasing them across the globe. Gee I guess I'm an alarmist now.

Also what sort of place is Canberra, I read yesterday that 1 in 5 people are members of GetUp. The loftiest of Ivory Towers.

 

[sails]

...Also what sort of place is Canberra, I read yesterday that 1 in 5 people are members of GetUp. The loftiest of Ivory Towers.

Perhaps most of GetUp's 18,000 financial members all come from Canberra...

Bolt claims there are only about 18,000 financial members and the remaining 400,000 are most likely names on petitions.

Someone at ASF put up a petition against carbon tax on the GetUp site and I felt very uncomfortable about giving them my details, so didn't vote there. But there were other votes already there. So, it is possible there are many people being included in the get up "membership" that may not support their ideals in any way.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...raldsun/comments/the_new_warming_mccarthyists

 

[Starcraftmazter]

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.

This is an economic argument rather than an environmental one. Also it's a pretty big generalisation, ie. some of our trading partners do have carbon trading systems in place. In this sense, we are actually late with ours.

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.

Are you kidding me? It's entirely relevant. Why put forth an arbitrary figure without anything to compare it to? This is the worst sort of reporting, and nothing less than I would expect from News Ltd.

Patrol powered cars are hardly "modern stuff", they have been around for a very very long time. I would consider "modern stuff" to be more along the lines of electric cars.

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.

Or you could work better than your competition in the amount of time allocated in the day to do work. Your notion of getting ahead is amazingly simplistic and basically relies on the brute force waste of time to do so. I prefer to do it through superior skills and knowledge.

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

How is experience relevant to the reason why workplace laws are in place?

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.

This is what people say when they have backed themselves into a corner. You in fact can not explain your claims, because they are simply false. I did not "demand" you do anything either, I am merely giving your the opportunity to vindicate yourself from making false claims.

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

Parties are boring. No intellectual stimulation...

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 !!!

I understand your point; this is my biggest problem with the carbon tax, the fact that there is any compensation at all. It amounts to pressing the acceleration and break at the same time...it makes no sense.

But in regards to that, if the Greens had their way there would be no compensation (except for low income earners perhaps), this is something brought on by ALP.

I don't see how top income earners need any compensation, especially considering how little impact a price of $23/t will have.

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.

Our system of government allows this sort of thing to happen, there is not much to say or do. Sometimes you may be supportive of policy backflips, sometimes you might hate them.

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?

Once again I agree

If you have an open mind (which is not apparent right now), you will stumble across the answer one day.

I assert my mind is more open than yours.

never trust a man who doesn't drink

I am once again amazed at some of the crap that is posted here

What next, you're going to hate on people who don't like ice-cream? You sure have a good way to make stupid assumptions and illogical choices. I prefer to stick to logic and reason though, so I won't trust or distrust someone because they do or do not consume as certain type of food or drink.

LOL you are kidding right, I mean either you are blind, or one of the new media spinsters the Greens are using to change public opinion. The Greens have set about a social media blitz across the boards and apparently comments and forum boards are the new battleground. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment.

What's a media spinster and how do they change public opinion? I don't recall the last time I watched or heard any kind of an address from the greens.

What you spout is communism throughout your post like it is some kind of saving grace. Sorry to be harsh but your post makes me sick in sections.

So instead of debate you choose to slap a label? Whatever suits you best I guess.

Hiding behind cover policies of feel good nature to make the more damaging ones

You mean policies like...the baby bonus? FHOG? FHOB? Those sorts of policies? Yes, the greens are such a terrible party, oh wait...

Starcraftmazter, here is some information on how our school kids are being brainwashed to the point of fear. And Garrett refuses to take it out of the cirriculum. What does he know about education?.

I have a number of problems with the linked article, which is again nothing less than I would expect from News Limited.

It uses a lot of emotional language and goes for "expert opinions", however no real examples of any of the material are provided, nor does it present any viewpoints of any supporters of this new material. Overall, there is no way you can claim that article is remotely unbiased.

I think it would be far better if they simply showed the material and allowed people to make up their own minds about whether it's too "extreme" or not.

Personally, I cannot judge something like this without actually seeing it first hand, so forgive me if I don't buy poorly written, subjective articles by biased news corporations.

 

[bandicoot76]

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.

with regard to the union issue i agree 100% noco! i thought the gist of my previous post would have re-inforced the fact i agreed with you. i just dont see how reading a people/picture/playboy etc mag constitutes a moral decay..

perhaps your right and that moral decay by pr0n was the aim of the communist movement, but if thats the case then i feel that it was a major failure of their doctrine, as i believe cencorship and prohibition (the alternative) to be a bigger evil to freedom than looking at a big pair of silicon titties on a centrefold model!

 

[trainspotter]

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.

Found it ! Little Red Book - Mao Tse-Tung :

 

[Glen48]

T S
Open it up might have some juicy contact's?

Mayo could have been a pedo, Gambler???? we can expose him here for all to see.

He did do one good thing...........die

 

[wayneL]

I assert my mind is more open than yours.

I thought you might. I believe you... promise... honestly

I suppose you believe you can urinate further than me as well?

I am once again amazed at some of the crap that is posted here

What next, you're going to hate on people who don't like ice-cream? You sure have a good way to make stupid assumptions and illogical choices. I prefer to stick to logic and reason though, so I won't trust or distrust someone because they do or do not consume as certain type of food or drink.

This is another hypothesis of mine that you have conveniently added some observational data to, viz those watermelons of the extreme left have a deficiency rendering them unable to recognize tongue in cheek comment.

Thank you for adding to my studies, it is most appreciated.

Patrol powered cars...

BTW, I have never heard of these. Sounds exciting, what are they?

 

[Aussiejeff]

Patrol powered cars..

BTW, I have never heard of these. Sounds exciting, what are they?

I read somewhere that a brace of hot coppers under da hood provide more than ample impetus...

 

[disarray]

Found it ! Little Red Book - Mao Tse-Tung :

i would argue strong national ideologies are far better at shaping and maintaing the morals of youth than the "do what you want you unique and precious flower" liberal attitude that is common now.

We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity ... But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organisations

 

[trainspotter]

i would argue strong national ideologies are far better at shaping and maintaing the morals of youth than the "do what you want you unique and precious flower" liberal attitude that is common now.

"Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy." - Mao Tse-Tung

I would advocate that somewhere in the middle would suffice when it comes to shaping and maintaining the morals of the national youth.

Along with land reform, during which significant numbers of landlords were beaten to death at mass meetings organized by the Communist Party as land was taken from them and given to poorer peasants,[28] there was also the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries,[29] which involved public executions targeting mainly former Kuomintang officials, businessmen accused of "disturbing" the market, former employees of Western companies and intellectuals whose loyalty was suspect.

Mao himself claimed that a total of 700,000 people were executed during the years 1949–53. However, because there was a policy to select "at least one landlord, and usually several, in virtually every village for public execution", the number of deaths range between 2 million and 5 million. In addition, at least 1.5 million people, perhaps as many as 4 to 6 million, were sent to "reform through labour" camps where many perished. Mao played a personal role in organizing the mass repressions and established a system of execution quotas,which were often exceeded. Nevertheless he defended these killings as necessary for the securing of power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

Yeah .... great guy. So was Idi Amin

 

[Smurf1976]

This is an economic argument rather than an environmental one. Also it's a pretty big generalisation, ie. some of our trading partners do have carbon trading systems in place. In this sense, we are actually late with ours.

What is the rate of carbon tax in those countries with which we directly compete (as distinct from trade with)?

South Africa? Qatar? Brazil? Saudi Arabia? Canada? Indonesia? USA?

They and others are the relevant countries. The EU in this context is irrelevant and to a large extent so is Japan.

 

[IFocus]

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



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?




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.




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?




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.



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.




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.




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




Yes.



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.




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.




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.

Oh man you are questioning religion doctrine from these guys here, good post from the other side.

 

[IFocus]

Well said Noco, and right on the money. The figure I've heard for union membership, with low confidence, is ~12%. I don't blame the Gen X'ers and Y's and Next's for not understanding the historical socio-politics, they weren't around to witness how insidious and how destructive it was to Australian life and the economy.

Rubbish unions moved work safety standards from projects budgeting for deaths to no deaths being acceptable on the job.

That came from hard fought campaigns in the 70's, 80's,90's and is ongoing now.

If you feel that work place deaths are acceptable then disband unions tomorrow.

The comments about unions here is half truths at best.

 

[trainspotter]

Heeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyy IFocus ...... where ya been buddy? Go and read the rest of the thread, catch up to speed and come back with more of your scintilating rapier wit.

 

[trainspotter]

As of 12 o'clock tomorrow this will be where we are at and there is no turning back.

 

[breaker]

Just had a great day at golf came in 3 under par, nice btl of blass shiraz flat out scratchn meself ..... Thank you i knew youse would be amused.
P.S hit every GREEN