by Gozu » Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:55 pm
by cripple » Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:09 pm
by Leaping Lindner » Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:14 pm
by redandblack » Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:05 pm
by LBT » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:15 pm
by Psyber » Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:08 pm
by redandblack » Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:31 pm
Psyber wrote:R&B's concerns put in perspective:
I'll give you the real reasons, Psyber
Won't be interviewed by anyone other than his friendly shock jocks.
Common sense? It reminds me of Paul Keating and Kerry O'Brien
Shit scared
Happy to allow racist comments from his MP's with no admonition.
Happy to allow his MP's to compare the PM with Gaddafi.
Allows free speech whether or not he agrees - it's called democracy.
Bullshit, it's called lack of principle
[I suspect he may tell them they've been stupid in private rather that have a public spat that you could then deride as "division".]
Shit scared
Takes his climate change quotes direct from the One Nation website.
Have they got a website? Would Tony have noticed as he is not very techie?![]()
A recent quote of his in Parliament was hoisted directly from the One Nation website
Calls for a 'people's revolt', straight out of the US Tea Party handbook.
Well, I certainly object to MPs breaking very clear promises and then trying to pretend they hadn't made a clear promise.
Very selective, Psyber. Does this also cover 'core' or 'non-core' promises. Didn't Abbott say he told lies, so get it in writing?
It makes me want to throw them out of office - in fact it is how Paul Keating pushed me to join the Liberal Party.
I could go on, but you get the drift.
b]Eric Abetz & Sophie Mirabella:[/b]
I do agree with the idea that they are a bit loony, and not good candidates.
But in the Liberal Party, if the local members in the seats select them, there are no factional heavies with the power to overrule that democratic selection process.
You are joking
They would have to persuade the local membership to select someone else.
by dedja » Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:42 pm
by Bat Pad » Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:44 pm
by Brucetiki » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:29 pm
by fish » Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:14 pm
I disagree - I reckon the Greens would be looking on in horror as this issue is being used as a political football.Bat Pad wrote:Morrison has denied the comments attributed to him. If you want to state them as fact then you have to accept that Julia Gillard does not care about pensioner's because they do not vote labor, which is also disgraceful, as this was also and unsubstantiated leak of comments attributed to her in cabinet before the election.
Tony Windsor didn't lodge a complaint with the Federal Police until after the interview he gave, and although the voicemail he played had some colourful language and was certainly not appropriate, it did not contain a death threat. Bob Brown has not lodged a complaint with the AFP either (as far as I am aware of, stand to be corrected on this).
I will also point out that the indenities of the culprits (should they exist) are not know, and therefore neither is their political allegience.
Mirabella's comments are not at all offensive as they clearly only refer to Gaddifi's claims in the last few days that his people still love him, not his conduct as a dictator over his rule.
Labor are spooked and clutching at straws i'm afraid. Greens would be happy however.
by fish » Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:34 pm
Labor is not blameless though - the pre-election promise not to put a price on carbon was wrong and I can't blame the opposition for exploiting this broken promise.fish wrote:Tackling climate change requires cool heads (no pun intended) and a bipartisan approach - far from what the opposition is serving up at the moment.
by Gozu » Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:30 pm
fish wrote:Also a huge mistake was made several years ago under Rudd when Labor had the mandate to act on climate change but proposed an emissions trading scheme that was deficient and thus not acceptable to the Greens. If they'd worked with the Greens to come up with a decent scheme they may well have got the legislation through the parliament and we'd now be into its' first or second year...
by Psyber » Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:22 am
Agreed, the Greens model is much better. [The Democrats model is very similar.]fish wrote:Labor is not blameless though - the pre-election promise not to put a price on carbon was wrong and I can't blame the opposition for exploiting this broken promise.fish wrote:Tackling climate change requires cool heads (no pun intended) and a bipartisan approach - far from what the opposition is serving up at the moment.
Also a huge mistake was made several years ago under Rudd when Labor had the mandate to act on climate change but proposed an emissions trading scheme that was deficient and thus not acceptable to the Greens. If they'd worked with the Greens to come up with a decent scheme they may well have got the legislation through the parliament and we'd now be into its' first or second year...
by scoob » Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:50 am
Psyber wrote:Agreed, the Greens model is much better. [The Democrats model is very similar.]fish wrote:Labor is not blameless though - the pre-election promise not to put a price on carbon was wrong and I can't blame the opposition for exploiting this broken promise.fish wrote:Tackling climate change requires cool heads (no pun intended) and a bipartisan approach - far from what the opposition is serving up at the moment.
Also a huge mistake was made several years ago under Rudd when Labor had the mandate to act on climate change but proposed an emissions trading scheme that was deficient and thus not acceptable to the Greens. If they'd worked with the Greens to come up with a decent scheme they may well have got the legislation through the parliament and we'd now be into its' first or second year...
My objection to the ALP plan was that it appeared to be just a tax and did not commit to helping fund technology change.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |