by Sky Pilot » Sat Jul 16, 2011 7:50 pm
by Sky Pilot » Sat Jul 16, 2011 7:52 pm
by Psyber » Sun Jul 17, 2011 11:48 am
by Gozu » Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:40 pm
Psyber wrote:I've actually got a copy of the works of Chairman Mao on my bookshelves next to the complete Karl Marx, and I've read both.
That may surprise a few here..
by Psyber » Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:11 am
Yes, I don't have a problem with most of the Greens policies as listed there.Gozu wrote: Comrade Psyber, you might be interested in this piece in the SMH:
Labor's anger towards the Greens reflects the fear that the party is cannibalising its vote on the left, while the Coalition fears the Greens' progressive populist agenda will hurt its corporate constituency.
The Greens may be the most left-wing party in Parliament but that is only because the other parties - but not the public - have veered so sharply to the right.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ ... z1SKA6n914
by Bat Pad » Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:30 am
by Psyber » Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:56 am
You are probably right there.Bat Pad wrote:In my opinion there is no way to justify taxing anyone 50% of their income. I don't care how high it is.
And right or left wing is relative. To say both parties have lurched to the right is a bit of an exaggeration. Both are now skewed slightly to the right in Australian political terms, but really they are both centrist. But both would be considered Left Wing in North America, Right Wing in areas like the Mediterranean or Scandinavia.
by Q. » Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:55 pm
Bat Pad wrote:Quichey wrote:Centrist my arse.
Do go on
by Bat Pad » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:32 pm
Quichey wrote:Bat Pad wrote:Quichey wrote:Centrist my arse.
Do go on
How many examples do you want? Opposing gay marriage would be a start...
by Q. » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:35 pm
by Bat Pad » Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:18 am
Quichey wrote:It's not an economic matter. It's like saying there's a middle ground for allowing women not to vote. Opposing gay marriage is a repressive policy.
by Q. » Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:30 am
by Bat Pad » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:01 pm
Quichey wrote:Perhaps illicit drug policy is a better example.
by Q. » Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:27 pm
by Bat Pad » Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:39 pm
Quichey wrote:Federal and State laws apply.
AFAIK supervised injecting rooms come under State policy.
Nevertheless, both major Federal parties have a zero-tolerance philosophy.
I actually think you and I could discuss ad nauseum the leanings of party policies and ideologies and get nowhere. Maybe we are best served waiting until a specific discussion arises as we don't want to hijack a thread about that delightful Abbott character.
by Sky Pilot » Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:06 pm
Bat Pad wrote:Quichey wrote:Federal and State laws apply.
AFAIK supervised injecting rooms come under State policy.
Nevertheless, both major Federal parties have a zero-tolerance philosophy.
I actually think you and I could discuss ad nauseum the leanings of party policies and ideologies and get nowhere. Maybe we are best served waiting until a specific discussion arises as we don't want to hijack a thread about that delightful Abbott character.
Fair enough
by Psyber » Tue Jul 19, 2011 6:54 pm
The two major parties are fairly evenly balanced most of the time and elections are usually determined by relatively few swinging voters in the middle.Quichey wrote:Centrist my arse.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |