Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[drsmithy]

There's a lot of good in ALL religions. The areas of common ground: don't lie or steal, be kind to strangers, look after the oldies and so on.

You don't need religion for any of those things.

Religions always seek to explain the world.

No they don't.

Religions seek to define and control the world by imposing creation myths and moral codes. That's why they tend to have so much trouble with things like homosexuality and gender equality - their frame of reference is fundamentally skewed.

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

The rise or fall of religion in society has absolutely nothing to do with the breakdown of morals or ethics. To draw that conclusion is a convenient way of religions grasping to the only element left of their marketing plan - fear.

As people become more worldly, more intelligent, and evolve, there will always be an element of society that devolves at the same time.

The separation of church and state is fundamental to modern politics. I'm not suggesting those with or without a god are any better or worse politicians, but when a religious belief (or lack thereof) starts to shape government policy rather than reflecting the position of the majority of the electorate they represent, then democracy fails.

Pretty much all countries where the church dominates the political system are not democracies in my opinion. Most of them are also currently involved some kind of war.

 

[HarryB]

Humanity is not in a position to confirm or deny the existence of a higher being.

But just goes to show the arrogance and how far humans have evolved to think they know everything

The scientific process is about challenging what we already know. The arrogance, it can be argued, is from the religious who flatly reject science as it disagrees with the word of the church.

And given there are many (not all) religious people who are duty bound to spread the word and recruit new members it is valid for people to doubt some religious members of parliament can separate church and state. A classic example overseas is Mitt Romney who, as a Mormon, is expected to recruit new members, in fact is duty bound to do so, to a religion that has a violent, racist and misogynistic history. Having someone like that who has spent their whole life living and breathing their religion one cannot dismiss the influence that upbringing would have on his decision making.

 

[drsmithy]

The evidence appears overwhelming that belief systems are the glue that binds successful societies.

The evidence also appears overwhelming that belief systems are the time bombs that blow societies apart.

The evidence also appears overwhelming that the decline of "traditional" church influence roughly equates to the erosion of moral values and general law and order in western societies.

This is called "begging the question". Your premise is broken.

My son , after visiting Israel , opined that there was little sign of traditional jewish belief/culture among the young.. they were mostly interested in partying. ( make love not war)

Your son will undoubtedly be astounded to learn that young people the world over are mostly interested in partying.

Islam inculcates a very tight "tribal" behaviour discipline and breeding programme that will completely overwhelm western civilisations in no time flat.. IMnsHO...

Speaking of history, how successful have history's strictly authoritarian regimes been once they are exposed to liberal democratic values ?

Finally I wouldn't bet a cent that Rudd can't win this election, he has enough empathy , aka "common touch" , to fool enough of the people enough of the time.. to win

I wouldn't bet anything Rudd could even be installed as leader before the election. However, he's an infinitely better man for the job than Abbot.

 

[tgh]

I see little evidence here of words failing you , unless one of your kids is ghost writing under your name.

The endless waffle of the anti coalitionists will continue but there appears to be quite overwhelming evidence that the baseball bats are all ready and waiting.
The jury has clearly decided that by "good deeds alone shall ye not be saved" and that any good work is buried in a gross foul smelling pile of failed socialist ideology.

 

[drsmithy]

Plus, their ties to Union and Greens are making Australia uncompetitive in the global market.

No, they're not.

Australia is uncompetitive in the global market because of our ludicrously overpriced dollar and real estate, and a complete disdain amongst business leaders for innovation and entrepreneurialism (and no, owning a dozen [-]taxpayer-subsidised[/-] negatively-geared "investment" properties does not make you an entrepreneur).

Punishing the weak and raping the environment will not make us more competitive.

 

[drsmithy]

The jury has clearly decided that by "good deeds alone shall ye not be saved" and that any good work is buried in a gross foul smelling pile of failed socialist ideology.

There's SFA "socialist ideology" in the contemporary Labor party. They're neoliberals, just like the Coalition. Yay for big business and screw the little guy.

 

[tgh]

won't dignify your other ramblings as worth comment.. but this is relevant

Speaking of history, how successful have history's strictly authoritarian regimes been once they are exposed to liberal democratic values

getting ot here...again ...

Across history it seems to me that the most successful societies in survival terms have been dictatorships or other undemocratic regimes.
Tribalism works.
Equally it seems to me that the creation of personal freedom or human rights has always led to a rapid social decline.
Perhaps it's moot .. both views are probably arguable.

I think we need less freedom , more discipline and a legally enforced secular system of law and order.
A lot of processes that are now seen as brutally barbaric.. kept the masses focussed and working.
I believe that the extrapolation of a few old prophecies into modern christianity is quite unbelievable...
Most folks seem to share this view.
The concept has clearly lost it's way , but a strong resurrection (sic!!) of these old values and ideals would create a platform for survival..atm we don't have one.

 

[drsmithy]

Good old fashioned destroy the village to save it, eh ?

And you vote. Scary.

 

[dajop]

I
The evidence also appears overwhelming that the decline of "traditional" church influence roughly equates to the erosion of moral values and general law and order in western societies.

Where is this evidence? The decline of "general law and order" in western societies is a media creation. ABS actually suggests that:

Australia was a less violent society at the end of the twentieth century than it was at the end of the nineteenth or eighteenth centuries. Violence and theft have been part of human interaction for all of recorded history, but it is not easy to compare statistics on the extent of violence and theft across the span of the twentieth century.

Surveys indicate that Australia has much lower rates of people indicating religion plays an important part of their daily lives vs USA (~ 1/3 in AUS vs ~2/3 in USA), yet our intentional homicide rate is 1/4 of the USA.

I think to make bold assertions that law and order has increased with the decline in religion is really a big call. I suspect relative wealth and poverty levels play a much bigger role than religion. Also what defines morals? Sure there is a decline in morals, eg an increasing proportion of men and women in (openly) gay relationships - but only if you have been brainwashed into believing that two men or women loving each other and having sex is evil. Self fulfilling decline in morals really!

Anyway back on topic, if TA's religious beliefs and involvement were to impinge dramatically on the way he governs (and one suspects they wouldn't) then I am sure there are brakes to prevent it from going out of control, such as the media, party members and future elections. I even think "liberalisation" of attitudes (such as gay marriage) are probably easier for a conservative party to put forward than a left leaning party, simply because the opposition can't/won't make a big issue out of it - in the same way we saw a lot of economic liberalisation by the ALP in the 80's and expansion of (middle class) welfare under John Howard.

 

[JohnK]

I don't think it's a complex subject at all, it's very black and white you either believe there is a God or you don't. Personally I think religion is a crutch for the weak minded to lean on, it makes them feel happier and it acts as a big stick to control them.

The world would be a better place without religion, no suicide bombers, no religious nut jobs flying planes into buildings etc but we are off topic so I won't say any more.

I am really sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about.

I am an intelligent and logical person and I am religious and spiritual.

Some beliefs claim to be "religious" but they could not be further from the truth. Let's just leave it that....

 

[drron]

Oh drsmithy.You said-

It's only a "tax" according to the standard right-wing lineup and their tribe of useful idiots. It's not legislated as a tax and once the fixed-price period has expired it won't function as a tax.

But the PM said when addressing the National press club when introducing her Carbon pricing-

I saw an opportunity to use a new tax on pollution to cut an old tax on work.

And-

They compete against each other and if they pollute less they’ll pay less tax compared to other polluters. And they compete against producers who don’t pay the tax, so if they pollute less their disadvantage will be less. That means there is a very significant incentive effect on the “supply side” of carbon emissions.

So is Julia in the standard right wing line up or just one of the band of idiots in your opinion?

Then your words-

The full quote, which dishonest people like yourself like to conveniently forget, is:

“There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but lets be absolutely clear. I am determined to price carbon”.

Of course there are numerous TV interviews where that last sentence was left out.
But even if she did say it each and every time.The second sentence does not negate the first-pricing carbon is not the same as a tax and as quoted the PM believes what we have now is a tax.
Third if she did mean the second sentence to negate the first then she has deliberately tried to mislead the public.

Now although the PM says now she did not lie that was not the case when the tax was announced-
"

Yes, I did say that and circumstances have changed," Ms Gillard told the Nine Network today, following mounting criticism that she has broken a promise reported in The Australian.
"What my vision was, was to be elected as prime minister and to introduce an emissions trading scheme, which is not a carbon tax."

The Prime Minister explained that a fixed-price period, for the interim three to five years, would effectively operate as a carbon tax.
"A carbon tax is where you fix price," Ms Gillard said.
"An emissions trading scheme is where you fix quantity and allow the market to sort out price ... that's what I wanted to do."

Both quotes from here-
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Then there is this from the election campaign-

"A representative group of Australians drawn from all age groups, parts of the country and walks of life will help move us forward."
-- Ms Gillard on her plan to have 150 Australians hold a Citzen's Assembly to move towards a consensus on emissions trading, July 29, 2010

So drsmithy JG certainly mislead the voters before the last poll.compare her now with the things still brought up in this thread re John Howard.Certainly he once said there would be no GST but when he changed his mind he took that to the next election before it was introduced.
Then there are those continually ranting about his core and non-core promises.The fact is he acknowledged he had broken promises just calling them non-core promises.At the present Julia doesn't even admit breaking promises.

 

[Skyring]

Wow. Blaming Gillard for attack politics. Words fail me.

Gillard will forever be known as the PM who broke her promise on a carbon tax. That ship has long sailed.

She knew she'd be hung out to dry on that one, but she went ahead anyway. Her expert panel evaporated in her haste to sign the Greens up to her side.

So we went from an expert panel to a carbon price to a carbon tax, and we are supposed to see that as Gillard firm and determined on something she believes in. Right.

Just like Kevin Rudd believed that global warmin was the great moral challenge of our generation. Yeah, how did that work out, Kev?

Part of the deal with the independents was a reform of Question Time. There were group hugs, there were "kindler, gentler" proceedings, it all looked good for a while.

But nowadays, you listen - really listen with an open mind - and you'll get the Coalition asking the most straightforward questions, and receiving a load of waffle and a couple of savage barbs in return. It's savage, it really is. It's the worst part of this Parliament, the venom directed across the chamber. Just listen to Gillard's voice as she lays into those opposite. There's real hatred there.

Now, it's a good Opposition that asks good questions. Searching, penetrating, probing questions. It's always been the case - an Opposition can lay bare the matters a Government would prefer covered up. We saw Peter Reith destroyed over the Children Overboard affair, and rightly so..

But it's the mark of a good government that it doesn't try to hide what is already exposed. It doesn't attack others for merely doing their job. It doesn't play the man and not the ball. It is above all that. It is honest and trustworthy.

If the Government is doing a good job, it can lay out its record, it can govern with dignity, it can be an example to all.

The government Julia Gillard leads is none of the above.

And I submit that, although this is my opinion, it is one very widely shared.

 

[medhead]

Gillard will forever be known as the PM who broke her promise on a carbon tax. That ship has long sailed.

She knew she'd be hung out to dry on that one, .

She's only been hung out to dry by hypocritics who did not change their vote because of that promise and never would have voted for her. The fundamental flaw in your argument, which fails as a result of having such a shoddy foundation.

 

[Pushka]

She's only been hung out to dry by hypocritics who did not change their vote because of that promise and never would have voted for her. The fundamental flaw in your argument, which fails as a result of having such a shoddy foundation.

You have only asked me if I would have changed my vote, to which I said no. And now you have made that your case, that I represent everyone! But then you argue that she had to approve the carbon tax because she wanted to form a minority government. Seems like one too many excuses; it's either one or the other.

However you want to represent what Gillard did, by and large the electorate has interpreted her actions as a lie. So it doesn't really matter how you dress it up/rationalise or whatever it is you are trying to do there.

 

[drron]

She's only been hung out to dry by hypocritics who did not change their vote because of that promise and never would have voted for her. The fundamental flaw in your argument, which fails as a result of having such a shoddy foundation.

And the fundamental flaw in yours is that after the carbon tax the government's standing in the Opinion polls began falling.Seems some would have changed their vote because of it.
Not many needed to change their vote to get a different result.Robertson won by 200 votes by the ALP.Only 100 people had to change their vote.

 

[medhead]

You have only asked me if I would have changed my vote, to which I said no. And now you have made that your case, that I represent everyone! .

I've asked that as a general question of everyone in this thread. Not just you.

 

[medhead]

And the fundamental flaw in yours is that after the carbon tax the government's standing in the Opinion polls began falling.Seems some would have changed their vote because of it.
Not many needed to change their vote to get a different result.Robertson won by 200 votes by the ALP.Only 100 people had to change their vote.

What's my argument? I enjoy when you put words into my mouth.

But I think you'll find that my argument is that the vocal minority screaming to high heaven about that promise did not change their vote. That polls change does not change the fact that people who didn't vote for her because of that promise are hypocrites. Other people changing their vote has nothing to do with it. I've never claimed people didn't change their vote, just that those scream here about it didn't change their vote. No flaw in my argument at all.

 

[drron]

What's my argument? I enjoy when you put words into my mouth.

But I think you'll find that my argument is that the vocal minority screaming to high heaven about that promise did not change their vote. That polls change does not change the fact that people who didn't vote for her because of that promise are hypocrites. Other people changing their vote has nothing to do with it. I've never claimed people didn't change their vote, just that those scream here about it didn't change their vote. No flaw in my argument at all.

Glad to oblige.I just know how you like an argument!
And just why are people who didn't vote for her because of that promise hypocrites.They have as much right as anyone else to critiscise.human nature to say-We wuz robbed.

 

[Skyring]

She's only been hung out to dry by hypocritics who did not change their vote because of that promise and never would have voted for her. The fundamental flaw in your argument, which fails as a result of having such a shoddy foundation.

I'm sorry. I don't follow your logic here. Gillard knew very well the difference between a carbon tax and a carbon trading scheme. She must have known that once she went for a carbon tax she would be hit hard by those whose job it was to scrutinise her. How often did Howard get hammered on those "non-core promises" and "never ever" GST?

Howard stuck to his guns. He couldn't implement all he'd promised, sure, but he had the very good reason that there wasn't enough money to do it.

And with the GST, he didn't spring it on the electorate in 1996 - he fought an election in 1998 with the GST as its core. He took some hits over that and Kim Beazley did very well. But Howard took the GST to the people and there was no doubt about his legitimacy in implementing it.

Those who attacked Howard the hardest were never going to vote for him anyway.

But we see Gillard promising not to introduce a carbon tax and then going ahead and doing so. That was always going to come at a cost in credibility. How is it that it's okay for the ALP to attack Howard over that "never ever" GST, and not okay for the Coalition to do the same to Gillard?

Seems to me that Gillard bent over, looked the voters square in the eye and thumbed her nose at them. She got kicked hard in the polls and she's going to be kicked even harder in September. Booted right out. Out of office and out of Parliament.

If she lasts that long.