-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
E
easy_tiger
Guest
Baloo said:
yeah right.
cause wanting the Nationals held accountable for killing the Murray River
is extreme.
Keep perpetuating Barnaby's myth.
and you'll progress from uninformed, to downright dumb.
easy said:yeah right.
cause wanting the Nationals held accountable for killing the Murray River
is extreme.
Keep perpetuating Barnaby's myth.
and you'll progress from uninformed, to downright dumb.
1. By your own admission you like to play in the extremes.
2. You claimed some have the Greens are more evil than Anning - incorrect
3. You deduced that I think the Greens are as evil as Anning - so *smile* wrong that you had to be trolling or ..
I'll leave the question of who is uninformed, or misinformed, hanging there. The answer is pretty clear.
E
easy_tiger
Guest
Baloo said:
Im really miserable and disillusioned this week and losing my cool as a result.
sorry.
Im quite likely wrong.
I certainly feel pretty wrong.
easy said:
Easy
Buck up please
Nil desperandum
Would sending you a tip help restore your equilibrium mate?
E
easy_tiger
Guest
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Except it is.
Inaction has turned alarmism into realism.
Best estimates now have worldwide food shortages a reality as early as 2040. I don't know how old you are. Maybe it's not a problem for you.
It is a disaster for many younger people.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
This argument is philosophically, ethically and economically bankrupt:
A person is trapped under a car, a busload of people stop to help and can lift the car off the person. One person sits down and reads the paper and puts the tranny on the races 'nah you don't need me, I won't make any difference'.
It is the right thing to do, we don't do the right thing because some larger nations aren't?
We are still a wealthy and well educated nation, we are a global leader, or at least we have the power to be.
Why did we get involved in the Iraq war, or any war? We wouldn't have made much of a difference.
The next wave of innovation is in alternative energy, the smart money knows this.
Seriously, it is a dumb, embarrassing argument that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Remember, nobody is proposing or expecting the coal industry to be turned off overnight, that is a straw man, without expansion it will remain a huge earner for years to come as it slowly contracts. Tobacco still makes big profits. But significant expansion is another, dumb, backward-looking, irrational thing altogether.
Is every person on here suggesting that we are not doing anything in relation to climate change?
The comments of doing nothing and the analogies of doing nothing are not accurate.
We are doing something. It's not getting less it is getting more and we are achieving our targets, mostly.
The issue would seem to be how much? Why couldn't Bill give some answers to ensure voter support, this is probably the biggest question I can think of regarding what we are failing at.
Did anyone really expect to support a policy that could not be explained in real terms. Seriously, the red shorts lost the plot with this one.
The comments of doing nothing and the analogies of doing nothing are not accurate.
We are doing something. It's not getting less it is getting more and we are achieving our targets, mostly.
The issue would seem to be how much? Why couldn't Bill give some answers to ensure voter support, this is probably the biggest question I can think of regarding what we are failing at.
Did anyone really expect to support a policy that could not be explained in real terms. Seriously, the red shorts lost the plot with this one.
Did you watch any of the debates Baloo? Shorten was a rookie hack. He turned more people off than you can understand. The polling in the debates were obviously run by the same mobs that ran the rest of the posts. Believe what you will, the numbers show something different.Baloo said:
E
easy_tiger
Guest
MD Jazz said:
believe me, the food production game is the last place you want to be in at +3oC.
I'd be doing either air conditioning mechanic, embalming or gunsmith
if I was a young fella.
Panthera Tigris said:And he left One Nation within an hour of getting into the Senate. I actually took the time to read up on the backgrounds of the candidates in both of these parties. They are not really on the same wave length. Fraser Anning had a number of candidates in his party who had criminal records for violent offences and some were actual members of White Supremacist and/or Fascist organisations. Serious lunatics! And their party website unashamedly resembled a Fascist manifesto. One Nation hold views further to the right than most of us, and they made absolute fools of themselves in the whole Aljazeera wash up. But their platform was not that comparable to what Fraser Anning's National White Supremacists were offering.
Interestingly, as I suggested earlier, One Nation have begun taking voters off the ALP, whereas in their earlier years it was primarily disillusioned National Party voters. Look at what happened in the Joel Fitzgibbon's seat of Hunter (in the Newcastle hinterland). One of the most working class, true blue ALP seats in the country. A 21% swing away from the ALP. And the Coalition received none of this swing. Their vote was actually down 0.4%. The swing went entirely to One Nation. Fitzgibbon still held on, as he had such a massive margin. But his primary shrunk from 57% to 36%. With One Nation and the Nationals about equal on 21-22% each.
Is Mark Latham joining and being the face of the party a factor in legitimising the party in the eyes of a working class ALP voter? Perhaps in NSW in particular, this is one factor.
Yep, Anning is a disgrace, I am not sure if he totally a white supremist like those he mixes with, or whether he was going for an opportunistic power grab.
either way at the last election he was on Hanson's ticket.
if their views are so divergent why was he on her ticket? probably because she is incapable of running a political party.
if Mark Latham is the face of legitimising the party, allah help us all. he is a nut. though he is probably a politically savvy nut, so you might be right. history, on both sides, suggests though he and Hanson will have a falling out.
MD Jazz said:
cant read that, but as far as i am aware the issues the greens face are similar to what the Libs and Labor grapple with. large membership bases whodont agree on everything, and a few people in power who arent cleanskins.
these are different issues to parties who lose most, or all, of their elected members once they enter parliament. at the last election one nation won 4 senate seats. Hanson was the only one remaining by this election.
tigersnake said:
You can do the right thing without e.g. selling all of your worldly possessions to feed the starving.
As stated above by HR, voters won't provide a mandate for an uncosted policy with the potential to cripple them financially.
Coburgtiger said:
Young enough to be running around a cricket field. I'll be here for a while yet.
The Sahara is greening; I call *smile* on your "best estimates". As a result of climate change, anyway.
The big issue is overpopulation. Now, what are we going to do about that?
