Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[fish]

The rallies were obviously well organised and did attract fair crowds with a variety of people.

Yeah I was just saying to a workmate today that the Adelaide rally attracted a wide diversity of people, much like the huge No War rally several years ago...

[Interceptor]

So you've changed your tune and the numbers at the rally don't count now?

Whichever way you look at it todays anti-carbon-tax "rally" was a monumental flop compared to the "take action on climate change" rally!

I don't care about anti-carbon tax rallies.
The numbers at the pro rallies were fair, but not massive turnouts that would indicate a substantial mainstream backing.

[Q.]

Sorry, but the conservative agenda of The Australian is so obvious they don't even bother to hide it.

Their fair and balanced reporting was on display last year when they announced that they want to 'destroy' the Greens.

I'll give critics some credit when they actually provide reasonable critiques of the articles that so upset them.
Maybe that's too much to ask though, it's easier to play the man when you've assumed a position and aren't interested in differing opinions.
Sure that works both ways, but more often than not, the left seem to assume the moral and intellectual superiority (both false), then choose to mock and stiffle the voices of those who disagree.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2010/09/09/the-australian-announces-that-it-wants-to-destroy-the-greens/

From a blog that regularly critiques the integrity of the print media.

The position I'm assuming is the one where I ask that the integrity of our fourth estate not be compromised by the agendas of the corporate ownership. A bi-partisan position I would have thought.

[redandblack]

Well, Interceptor, I was heartened to read your first reference, definitely a fair story by 'The Australian'. I wondered why I had missed it, seeing the rallies were held on Sunday morning. Then I noted it was filed at midnight, yes, midnight. I strongly suspect it was also 'buried'.

Midnight, you've got to love them

I didn't read the second article you referred to, except for the first few words. It's written by Janet Albrechtsen, well known right wing shrill, noted for her descriptions of anyone to the left of Attila the Hun as chardonnay-sipping, latte-drinking elitists, etc.

Mate, if you're quoting Janet Albrechtsen to support your argument, you're behind the game.

[Darth Vader]

I loved the response by the woman at Sydney's pro tax rally givenher shot at fame when asked why she was there. Her response: I'm here to support Cate Blanchett's right to state her opinion. Classic.

[Interceptor]

I didn't read the second article you referred to, except for the first few words. It's written by Janet Albrechtsen, well known right wing shrill, noted for her descriptions of anyone to the left of Attila the Hun as chardonnay-sipping, latte-drinking elitists, etc.

Mate, if you're quoting Janet Albrechtsen to support your argument, you're behind the game.

Behind the game? That's funny.
You've just proven my point and "played the man", immediately rejecting instead of even considering someone from the "other side".
Your choice, but I guess you wouldn't be happy to concede to anything by such a "shrill".

[redandblack]

I didn't think you were that sensitive, mate, after describing those who attended the rallies as 'rent-a-crowd', unionists and hippies, with their 'watermelon politics'.

I agree with you about calling Janet A a shrill, so in deference to you I'll happily withdraw that statement and just say that no reasonable reader would claim that she was remotely independent or neutral and is always described as a 'conservative' journalist.

[Interceptor]

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2010/09/09/the-australian-announces-that-it-wants-to-destroy-the-greens/

From a blog that regularly critiques the integrity of the print media.

The position I'm assuming is the one where I ask that the integrity of our fourth estate not be compromised by the agendas of the corporate ownership. A bi-partisan position I would have thought.

It would be impossible for anyone not to say that editorial wasn't an aggressive and open stance against the Greens.
They obviously don't give them much overall credibility.
People can say that's simply the corporate agenda speaking, but are the Greens policies wholly compatible with mainstream Australia?
They have a lot of work to do convincing people otherwise.

[redandblack]

I loved the response by the woman at Sydney's pro tax rally givenher shot at fame when asked why she was there. Her response: I'm here to support Cate Blanchett's right to state her opinion. Classic.

Seems reasonable to me, DV.

I love the defence of the richest people in Australia railing against a threat to their mining profits, but Cate gets lambasted for daring to have an opinion on a subject of world imprtance.

It's even funnier when the Murdoch press get stuck into Cate Blanchette, happily ignoring the fact that they spout Rupert's non-elitist opinions ever day.

Darth, do you find it a conflict to argue against Cate Blanchette's right to have an opinion (if you do), but your signature suggests you respect or follow the opinions of some of the richest people in America, employed by Murdoch.

[Interceptor]

I didn't think you were that sensitive, mate, after describing those who attended the rallies as 'rent-a-crowd', unionists and hippies, with their 'watermelon politics'.

I agree with you about calling Janet A a shrill, so in deference to you I'll happily withdraw that statement and just say that no reasonable reader would claim that she was remotely independent or neutral and is always described as a 'conservative' journalist.

Yeah, I know how Janet's regarded.
In reality I have very rarely read her stuff, in this particular case though I thought she made a reasonable case for the topic.

Hmm, perhaps needed an emoticon or better wording for my earlier response, I wasn't particularly offended

[redandblack]

Tony Abbott supports a carbon tax

2009 interview on Sky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74

How does he explain this????????

[Darth Vader]

I loved the response by the woman at Sydney's pro tax rally givenher shot at fame when asked why she was there. Her response: I'm here to support Cate Blanchett's right to state her opinion. Classic.

Seems reasonable to me, DV.

I love the defence of the richest people in Australia railing against a threat to their mining profits, but Cate gets lambasted for daring to have an opinion on a subject of world imprtance.

It's even funnier when the Murdoch press get stuck into Cate Blanchette, happily ignoring the fact that they spout Rupert's non-elitist opinions ever day.

Darth, do you find it a conflict to argue against Cate Blanchette's right to have an opinion (if you do), but your signature suggests you respect or follow the opinions of some of the richest people in America, employed by Murdoch.

this is about left versus right. My understanding is Australia contributes 1.4% of global emissions and Green/Labor's plan is to reduce that by another single digit percentage by 20-whenever. It is simply laughable. If an election was called this week do you really think Gillard could get her mob over the line? I think about 64% - or was it 58%? - of punters would vote against it? The polls are there. This whole thing is a serious sham and while the debate rages most people are watching cooking and/or dancing shows on tv and subsequently have no freaking idea what is going on.

[redandblack]

DV, I'll cue fish to reply to that. Your 1.4% argument is not valid, to be polite.

As for polls, right or wrong isn't defined by poll results, but by informed discussion, so I'm pleased that you're discussing it.

The election isn't next week, so time will tell.

[Q.]

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2010/09/09/the-australian-announces-that-it-wants-to-destroy-the-greens/

From a blog that regularly critiques the integrity of the print media.

The position I'm assuming is the one where I ask that the integrity of our fourth estate not be compromised by the agendas of the corporate ownership. A bi-partisan position I would have thought.

It would be impossible for anyone not to say that editorial wasn't an aggressive and open stance against the Greens.
They obviously don't give them much overall credibility.
People can say that's simply the corporate agenda speaking, but are the Greens policies wholly compatible with mainstream Australia?
They have a lot of work to do convincing people otherwise.

Without fair and balanced reporting, then yes, they do have their work cut out for them.

For a proud, so-called democracy, our press freedom index ranking has been lamentable for the past decade. We deserve better.

[Darth Vader]

DV, I'll cue fish to reply to that. Your 1.4% argument is not valid, to be polite.

As for polls, right or wrong isn't defined by poll results, but by informed discussion, so I'm pleased that you're discussing it.

The election isn't next week, so time will tell.

If 1.4% is wrong what is it RandB?

[redandblack]

I didn't say that was wrong, DV, I disagree with you about the significance of changing that percentage.

The 1.4% argument is one trotted out by Alan Jones & Co and even his radio station says it's wrong. I'm off-site now, so I'll give you a link tomorrow if I get time.

[Leaping Lindner]

Tony Abbott supports a carbon tax

2009 interview on Sky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74

How does he explain this????????

So....if we do go to an election on Carbon Tax -that Abbott keeps asking for - will he be for or against it??

[redandblack]

Well, LL, this is a bit of a bombshell, surely?

Interceptor, it's the 2nd story in The Age, has been on Lateline and morning TV, but I haven't seen it mentioned yet in The Australian

Regardless of whether Abbott supports a carbon tax or not (and he changes with the wind), this has him saying it's not a problem to have one

It destroys his credibility on a carbon tax completely.

[Leaping Lindner]

Well, LL, this is a bit of a bombshell, surely?

Interceptor, it's the 2nd story in The Age, has been on Lateline and morning TV, but I haven't seen it mentioned yet in The Australian

Regardless of whether Abbott supports a carbon tax or not (and he changes with the wind), this has him saying it's not a problem to have one

It destroys his credibility on a carbon tax completely.

Tony's policy on a Carbon Tax explained.....

[smac]

Perhaps circumstances changed?