Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[straitman]

Come 15 September 2013 the Mining Tax better be gone, if not, you're a liar Mr Abbott.

No more so than a whole bunch of others :!:

 

[browski]

My god, the moon landings were not fake!!!!!

Isn't now the consensus position that the moon landings were real, but the photos were not (or is that just my position?)

 

[Skyring]

To my mind, the interesting thing about this election is Rudd-watching. After he did his best to sabotage Gillard in 2010, what's he going to do this time around? He had a year or so as a cabinet minister, he must have some pretty juicy inside dirt. And he'd be collecting more all the time.

I don't think he's given up his hopes for the top job, yet, but my guess is that unless he is given some really plum job - Governor-General, Ambassador to the UN or UK, maybe Pope, he is going to screw things up for Gillard's campaign. And this time do it right.

 

[Alanslegal]

Dear Mr Abbott,

I do not want my kids to be forced to read the Bible.

I would like them to have freedom of religion and let them decide on their own what is best for them.

Yours Sincerely,

Concerned Atheist.

 

[Skyring]

Dear Mr Abbott,

I do not want my kids to be forced to read the Bible.

I would like them to have freedom of religion and let them decide on their own what is best for them.

Yours Sincerely,

Concerned Atheist.

I wouldn't be concerned about the Bible. I'm all for bible study, actually. So long as the instructors are armed with a long list of contradictions and absurdities and the children are given free rein to explore all the stupid bits.

There is a lot of good life advice, especially from Jesus, but it's buried under all the cough that goes along with it.

I've got some favorite bits, but perhaps the sweetest is that God apparently brought down three different sets of commandments. They couldn't even get something so fundamental as that right.

Lets have concerned atheists leading bible study classes. That'll put some spark into religious instruction!

 

[Hvr]

Dear Mr Abbott,

I do not want my kids to be forced to read the Bible.

I would like them to have freedom of religion and let them decide on their own what is best for them.

Yours Sincerely,

Concerned Atheist.

I would also like birth control to made available as required and safe abortions if required.
I want women treated as equals, not subservient because that is what your particular fairy stories tell you is 'right'.

I want freedom from religion, not just freedom of religion.

 

[Hvr]

To my mind, the interesting thing about this election is Rudd-watching. After he did his best to sabotage Gillard in 2010, what's he going to do this time around? He had a year or so as a cabinet minister, he must have some pretty juicy inside dirt. And he'd be collecting more all the time.

I don't think he's given up his hopes for the top job, yet, but my guess is that unless he is given some really plum job - Governor-General, Ambassador to the UN or UK, maybe Pope, he is going to screw things up for Gillard's campaign. And this time do it right.

I agree Kevin Rudd is Tony Abbott's best asset in this election campaign. If he keeps these disruption tactics up then I wouldn't be surprised to see Abbott pay him off next year with a plum position. It will be called a bipartisan appointment but will be a pay off for favours received.

 

[Pushka]

And finally - I would trust an independent over a party hack to best represent the nation's interests ... wouldn't you?

Not at all. They each had their own agenda. Which was not even their electorates agenda, and for which they will be punished at the next election according to polls. Windsor was all about gambling.

 

[Alanslegal]

I want women treated as equals, not subservient because that is what your particular fairy stories tell you is 'right'.

What you and I want are complete opposites to what Mr Abbott wants.

 

[drron]

Well if the truth was to be the main factor in the next election I fear Julia is still in trouble.
She had 3 big promises as she removed the knife from Kevin's back-
1.To fix the mining tax.Well good ole Wayne fixed it alright.But then he screwed up in spectacular fashion.He spent all his predicted income.What is going to happen with the increase of the Super levy from 9-12%.The MRRT was going to pay for that as well as the small business tax rate reduction and infrastructure.And to those who continue to sprout the party line that the Opposition was wrong in saying it wouldn't bring in a cent-well they are closer to the true figure than the Government and were right for the First Quarter.So they are 1/2 and the Government 0/2.
2.Stop the boats.The second of her solemn promises.Enough said.
3.No carbon tax.It is not just that she has introduced a tax but we have the highest tax in the world.$A23/tonne.EU-4.5 euro/tonne.NZ-$NZ0.14/tonne as of last week.
Once again good ole Wayne has already spent the money,and from 2015 that spend is on the basis that our price would be $A25/tonne but of course we will join the EU scheme then.A massive shortfall is very likely to develope but the compensation package is already in place.A few more billion to find before even thinking about NDIS or Gonski.

And then of course just to mention a few people that have been found guilty-Keith Wright,Gordon Nuttall,The Phantom,Merri Rose,Rex Jackson,Brian Burke.
In total 15 ALP politicians have been found guilty by the courts,5 Liberals,5 nationals and 2 independents.

And of course it already has been discussed in this thread about Tony Abbott's membership of the Catholic church and tieing that to child sexual abuse.But the facts make that old saying about people in glass houses not throwing stones.3 ALP politicians have been jailed for child sex offences and 1 Independent as well.

Facts Moody,Facts.

 

[777]

In total 15 ALP politicians have been found guilty by the courts,5 Liberals,5 nationals and 2 independents.

What's the source for this? Not disputing it just curious as to where the numbers come from.

 

[Moody]

Logic drron, Logic,

1. Drawing a link between specific revenue and specific expenditure is only a good idea when you know for a fact the size of both buckets and you want to pitch a story to the electorate. In that respect Wayne was overreaching himself. But I was not aware that the Opposition said it would not raise a cent in revenue - and surely if they did think that then they would have not claimed it was going to destroy investment and jobs. I am confused. Can you point me to some Facts?

2. Abbott said he would stop the boats by turning them around at sea. He lied. Sorry - that's not strictly speaking true. Maybe not enough people believed him to vote for him. Gillard said that making unrealistic claims about stopping boats was not her thing, but her government would explore offshore processing as a way of stopping the pull-factor. The High Court ruled the Malaysian solution was not legal under current legislation and it suited Tony Abbott to hang Labour out to dry even though the policy was hardly different to his own party's. Neither side wanted to budge an inch in the game of refugee football and so the farce goes on. A pox on both their houses!

3. The "no carbon tax lie" is an insult to people who think. Tony Abbott lied about intimidating an early political opponent by punching the wall beside her head, but you don't hear me going on and on and on about it. Would you like me to? And revenue bonuses and shortfalls are a normal part of our yearly finances, and again the only comment I can make is that it is stupid to tie specific revenue to specific expenditure unless there truly is a hard link. Insurance companies have good years and bad years and adjust their premiums and benefits to suit, it's called business but don't let me stop people from spouting some pithy comments about it.

Who brought up child sex offences? Why is this relevent? What is your point, drron?

 

[serfty]

Not at all. They each had their own agenda. Which was not even their electorates agenda, and for which they will be punished at the next election according to polls. Windsor was all about gambling.

Not sure about that - it was with Andrew Wilkie that the Prime Minister broke her promise on gambling reforms about 13 months ago.

He did state he would no longer support the PM after that, although it seems by his subsequent lack of any real action that he is no rush for another election.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

 

[Skyring]

Not sure about that - it was with Andrew Wilkie that the Prime Minister broke her promise on gambling reforms about 13 months ago.

I remember picking up a couple of ALP heavies before that happened. It was on a Sunday and they had just had a long meeting. There was some crisis going on. They talked in the back seat and I listened with interest.

They weren't worried about Tony Abbott. But they were really scared by Wilkie.

Wilkie seems like that very rare creature in politics - an honest man. I think he's quite naïve in some ways, but I do admire his intention to cut gambling down a bit. Pokies just suck money out of people, often those least able to afford them.

I think we could use a few more like Andrew Wilkie.

 

[Pushka]

Not sure about that - it was with Andrew Wilkie that the Prime Minister broke her promise on gambling reforms about 13 months ago.

He did state he would no longer support the PM after that, although it seems by his subsequent lack of any real action that he is no rush for another election.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Yes. My bad. I'm dreadful with names. I do remember faces though.

 

[browski]

I remember picking up a couple of ALP heavies before that happened. It was on a Sunday and they had just had a long meeting. There was some crisis going on. They talked in the back seat and I listened with interest.

They weren't worried about Tony Abbott. But they were really scared by Wilkie.

Wilkie seems like that very rare creature in politics - an honest man. I think he's quite naïve in some ways, but I do admire his intention to cut gambling down a bit. Pokies just suck money out of people, often those least able to afford them.

I think we could use a few more like Andrew Wilkie.

You know, the rabid Lib supporters go on and on about how Oakshott and Windsor gave the election to Julia. But truth-be-known it was Wilkie, by serving a cold dish of delicious revenge, that sealed Abbott's fate. Howard's lie had finally been caught by karma. It was great TV that day.

 

[drron]

Logic drron, Logic,

1. Drawing a link between specific revenue and specific expenditure is only a good idea when you know for a fact the size of both buckets and you want to pitch a story to the electorate. In that respect Wayne was overreaching himself. But I was not aware that the Opposition said it would not raise a cent in revenue - and surely if they did think that then they would have not claimed it was going to destroy investment and jobs. I am confused. Can you point me to some Facts?

2. Abbott said he would stop the boats by turning them around at sea. He lied. Sorry - that's not strictly speaking true. Maybe not enough people believed him to vote for him. Gillard said that making unrealistic claims about stopping boats was not her thing, but her government would explore offshore processing as a way of stopping the pull-factor. The High Court ruled the Malaysian solution was not legal under current legislation and it suited Tony Abbott to hang Labour out to dry even though the policy was hardly different to his own party's. Neither side wanted to budge an inch in the game of refugee football and so the farce goes on. A pox on both their houses!

3. The "no carbon tax lie" is an insult to people who think. Tony Abbott lied about intimidating an early political opponent by punching the wall beside her head, but you don't hear me going on and on and on about it. Would you like me to? And revenue bonuses and shortfalls are a normal part of our yearly finances, and again the only comment I can make is that it is stupid to tie specific revenue to specific expenditure unless there truly is a hard link. Insurance companies have good years and bad years and adjust their premiums and benefits to suit, it's called business but don't let me stop people from spouting some pithy comments about it.

Who brought up child sex offences? Why is this relevent? What is your point, drron?

Party line,moody,Party line.You use neither logic or facts.
The promises were made by Julia Gillard after she toppled Kevin Rudd.Google her speech.
The Spending promises were promised by Wayne Swan and linked by him to the tax initiatives by him and the PM.Google MRRT and read the press release on it's passing by the parliament.Again specifically linked the small business tax cut,increase in super levy and infrastructure spending to the MRRT.

Tony Abbott has nothing to do with my previous post.This was all the Government's own words.
As to child sexual abuse and the mining tax these subjects were introduced by people of your political persuasion in this very thread.Read post 458 by HVR for the introduction of the topic of child sex offences.

Then you bring up the alleged incident of Tony Abbott supposedly throwing a punch-this has been repudiated by him and backed up by several who knew him then.Of course I could quote the words of someone I am sure you will believe-

Firstly the concept of being innocent until proven guilty is not something that can be applied selectively, regardless of who is the accused.

Yes your own words.
Back to your beliefs.As I have said before the science of CO2 warming the lower atmosphere has been proved.The science of the consequences of this has not.As previously quoted-
Climate Confusion | G Cornelis van Kooten

Now to the much more reasonable 777.Here is the source of the figures for Australian politicians found guilty-
List of Australian politicians convicted of crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course 1 of the Independents jailed was Pauline Hanson and she was subsequently acquitted.Meaning in the eyes of the law she is innocent.

 

[amaroo]

Windsor was all about gambling.

Windsor.....lol.

This is the bloke that wants to cease mining on farm land however, sees nothing wrong with him selling his farm to a mining company!

This bloke is all about self interest & settling old scores with the National Party. IMHO he represents all things that are wrong with politicians.

Normally, individuals are moulded into rat bags by the machine of party politics......this bloke does it all on his own.

Particularly like his comments about the value of his sale compared to his neighbours......very Eddie of him!

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

 

[browski]

Windsor.....lol.

This is the bloke that wants to cease mining on farm land however, sees nothing wrong with him selling his farm to a mining company!

This bloke is all about self interest & settling old scores with the National Party. IMHO he represents all things that are wrong with politicians.

Normally, individuals are moulded into rat bags by the machine of party politics......this bloke does it all on his own.

Particularly like his comments about the value of his sale compared to his neighbours......very Eddie of him!

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Windsor seems like the most decent guy in parliament and Amaroo comes out and slanders him. Too funny.

 

[Moody]

Party line,moody,Party line.You use neither logic or facts.
The promises were made by Julia Gillard after she toppled Kevin Rudd.Google her speech.
The Spending promises were promised by Wayne Swan and linked by him to the tax initiatives by him and the PM.Google MRRT and read the press release on it's passing by the parliament.Again specifically linked the small business tax cut,increase in super levy and infrastructure spending to the MRRT.

Tony Abbott has nothing to do with my previous post.This was all the Government's own words.
As to child sexual abuse and the mining tax these subjects were introduced by people of your political persuasion in this very thread.Read post 458 by HVR for the introduction of the topic of child sex offences.

Then you bring up the alleged incident of Tony Abbott supposedly throwing a punch-this has been repudiated by him and backed up by several who knew him then.Of course I could quote the words of someone I am sure you will believe-

Yes your own words.
Back to your beliefs.As I have said before the science of CO2 warming the lower atmosphere has been proved.The science of the consequences of this has not.As previously quoted-
Climate Confusion | G Cornelis van Kooten

Now to the much more reasonable 777.Here is the source of the figures for Australian politicians found guilty-
List of Australian politicians convicted of crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course 1 of the Independents jailed was Pauline Hanson and she was subsequently acquitted.Meaning in the eyes of the law she is innocent.

Facts? What facts have I got wrong?? I said it is a stupid idea to link specific revenue to specific expenditure unless that link can be locked in, which means I was calling the current government stupid. Did you actually read my post or just make assumptions? No - don't bother answering that.

BTW - where in the MRRT legislation does it link the revenue gained to any specific program? I would be shocked if it does but we are talking about politicians, after all.


Now is Tony Abbott a wall puncher??? I would say yes due to my knowledge of the "victim" and the fact that it was a well known story. But if you say that nice Tony Abbott would never do such a terrible thing then be happy in your ignorance. In the end it says more about you than Tony Abbott, but I don't know why he can't just put his hand up and say "I was young and stupid and had a brain-snap" - or would you no longer vote for him if he did? I thought not.

My "beliefs" (stupid concept - sounds like some religious war rather than the scientific discussion) on the topic of cliimate change are thus :- human activity is creating higher and higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This has a greenhouse effect and is contributing to global warming. The rate of warming is slowing down which is a big relief, but it is still uncertain what the long term effects will be of the current warming. But predictions - I have none because I am not a scientist. How about you?

Now about any further assumptions you will make about my "beliefs". Why don't you keep them to yourself and concentrate on justifying your own position.