Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

Status
Not open for further replies.
nah and I have no sympathy for him either.

I'd suspect most of those boys in that seal team would have blown him away even if he was lying on the couch in his undies eating doritoes…..
 
A couple of years ago i was in the states and visited Ground Zero and to see all those names of people who had passed away due to him touched even me and i hardly ever cry so nah no sympathy here either. The same thing when carl williams was killed in jail, you reap what you sow…
 
@LethalGurlie said:
A couple of years ago i was in the states and visited Ground Zero and to see all those names of people who had passed away due to him touched even me and i hardly ever cry so nah no sympathy here either. **The same thing when carl williams was killed in jail, you reap what you sow**…
Click to expand...

….yep....
 
Funny, Turnbull starts to analyse the Coalition's policy and suddenly people like Minchin get on the defensive

good god, we wouldn't want POLICY being debated now, would we?
 
@Kul said:
Funny, Turnbull starts to analyse the Coalition's policy and suddenly people like Minchin get on the defensive

good god, we wouldn't want POLICY being debated now, would we?
Click to expand...

spot on kul … mister rabbit and coalition policy discussion are not going to happen. you have to have policies first !!!

mr rabbit got away with a policy vacuum last election thanks to the disgusting media bias. hopefully the coalition will be decently examined next time round. but somehow i doubt it.
 
I hope both sides are mate, both equally as much as the other.

what irks me is that parties seems to be able to get away with just naming a policy without going into the details and allowing a debate. The NBN for example could have been more thoroughly examined with full cost-benefit analyses conducted and alternatives proposed before arguments are compiled. The same for the ETS or carbon scheme.

Yet now days it seems people go head first into a debate with their minds made up first, only then do they go and construct a cherry-picked flimsy argument to support their stance.

It's poor form by both sides.

IIRC the GST debate focused much more on policy.
First the economic arguments for and against were tabled after which a proposal was put forward, after that the debate focused on the implications of the policy.

*frustration*
 
Its dumb Australia mate. We are a dumb country concerned with dumb things. Democracy gives morons a voice and this is what happens haha

Woolworths and Westfarmers are the REAL problem in Australia! But we are hung up on key issues such as the 'huge' :bash boat people problem…

See DUMB Australia...
 
@Kul said:
Funny, Turnbull starts to analyse the Coalition's policy and suddenly people like Minchin get on the defensive

good god, we wouldn't want POLICY being debated now, would we?
Click to expand...

Britain shows up Abbott's folly
May 20, 2011
interesting editorial in todays SMH, perhaps mister rabbit and his cohorts should take note. 5% target is an absolute joke, you may as well not any target at all. time for a change coalition, get out of the fifties and put malcolm t. back as leader at least to gain some credibility !

Illustration: Alan Moir
Coalition members who can spare time from their misleading attacks on Labor's planned carbon tax for a moment might care to cast an eye towards Britain, where their ideological allies in that country's Conservative government have decided to implement the most stringent program of measures in the developed world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The British cabinet has agreed to cut the nation's emissions to half what they were in 1990\. The target must be reached by 2027\. Compared with that, Australia's existing target of a 5 per cent reduction from 2000 levels by 2020 is feeble indeed.

The British decision undermines Tony Abbott's position on a number of fronts. First, it fully accepts that climate change is a reality, and that the present episode of global warming has been caused largely by human activity. This contrasts with the abject approach of the Coalition, attempting a dog-whistle exercise to pacify sceptics and deniers, to pander to unreason and deluded hopes.

Second, it accepts that if human action caused it, human action can also reverse the trend. Third, it backs up the powerful environmental case for action on climate change with an economic case: countries which move early will build the post-carbon economy first, and be able to exploit their first-mover advantage to the full.

Advertisement: Story continues below
Fourth, in doing so, it annihilates the argument so favoured for reasons of self-interest by Australia's mining industry that to move early is to be at a disadvantage - as if it were even possible now for Australia to move early, given the growing number of countries already acting to cut emissions. Thanks in large part to the Coalition's wilful ignorance and obstructionism, foot-draggers such as Australia risk becoming left behind.

Fifth, it accepts that the best way to achieve its ambitious target is with policy settings which allow the market to ensure investment flows towards carbon-free projects in search of profits. The contrast with the Coalition's current policy, a Heath Robinson-like contraption made up of subsidies for big polluters and carbon offsets, could not be clearer.

The tragedy of the Coalition's new-found economic and environmental ignorance under Abbott on this issue is that many on the Coalition side know their policy is absurd. The embarrassed performance on the ABC's Lateline program of Malcolm Turnbull, one of the few Coalition politicians both to know the truth and have the courage to speak it, is the most recent evidence of that.
\
\
\
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/britain-shows-up-abbotts-folly-20110519-1euqa.html#ixzz1MqxIQ7nN
 
Unfortunately we are stuck between a rock and a hard place
On one side we've got Tony Abbott preaching to the masses that the Earth is flat, then on the other we've got hopeless Labor who couldn't even manage putting together a Vegemite sandwich

*sigh*
 
we shouldnt have to commit to cutting emissions by 50% of what they were in 1990 just because the poms are. its a nice thought but you have to be realistic
 
if it was up to the greens party and that imbecile bob brown there would be no emissions and we would be living like people did in the stone age, lol
 
@alien said:
if it was up to the greens party and that imbecile bob brown there would be no emissions and we would be living like people did in the stone age, lol
Click to expand...

And that would be one of Bob Browns better policies .
 
@alien said:
if it was up to the greens party and that imbecile bob brown there would be no emissions and we would be living like people did in the stone age, lol
Click to expand...

alien, whilst not supporting the Greens or any of their policies and whilst not going anywhere near suggesting that Australia or the world can/should/will drop to Zero emissions, you of all people should appreciate the options that are available that could see the world operate on zero emissions. For is it not the technology that they use in sci-fiction (which you love) that could do this and are these stories (which you love) not set in worlds with zero-emissions?

Stargate: Atlantis uses a zero-point module for power. 0% emissions
Star Wars: ion technology and other clean reactors. Sure, star wars isn't heavy in the detail but they certainly arn't using 18th century coal to power the Death Star
Star Trek: matter/anti-matter reactors power star ships, global power comes from a mixture of solar and fusion (see Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home)

all far-fetched stuff, but for someone that loves sci-fi and fantasy it's ironic that you should be against such technology and for 18th century coal burning

Australia can achieve 0% emissions (or close to it) if we adopt 20th century technology like nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc…
This is opposed to 18th century technology like coal burning.
Yet you make a claim that 0% emissions would see us drop back to the stone-age. Do you not see the problem with this argument?

The Greens are crazy and Australia will never convert entirely to wind and solar; we need coal and will always have coal. But their argument that we should shift to cleaner technology is (for the most part) valid in both the long-term environmental and economic sense.

But while I'm not saying that your opinion on this topic is wrong, please refrain from saying such silly things as "zero emissions will see us living like the stone age" as I have just demonstrated that 0% emissions can be achieved without cutting our power consumption. It just makes your side of the debate look silly.
Instead you should focus on the economic and environmental debate where the argument over cost is the key for the climate-deniers/free-polluters
 
We just need to get enough of a hold on our emissions until Fusion technology is up and running. 50 years or so.

Throw plenty of research money at that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 580 (members: 19, guests: 561)
Back
Top