Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[drsmithy]

Because hasn't letting the flood gates open worked so well everywhere else....

No-one is advocating "letting the flood gates open", whatever that is supposed to mean.

And so we get rid of any skilled migrants program where we can have a chance to encourage migrants who will directly benefit Australia???

No.

 

[drsmithy]

The human mind is an amazing thing, isn't it? Able to hold two contradictory opinions, simultaneously. For some people, three or four.

Nothing contradictory there.

 

[Skyring]

Rudd says he has "no hard feelings" toward the make-up artist who revealed how very differently the two leaders treated her.

Rudd has not changed one little bit. If the cameras aren't rolling, he still treats the voters like the dirt beneath his feet.

 

[casanovawa]

No-one is advocating "letting the flood gates open", whatever that is supposed to mean.


No.

From your previous post about the Greens immigration policy...

Actually the position of the Greens is that, in line with our treaty obligations, we accept refugees who arrive into Australia and claim asylum.
It is also their position that we increase our humanitarian intake. My understanding is they want to replace other types of immigration with that, rather than increase the overall immigration intake.

I'm not going to insult my intelligence and waste several minutes of my life i can never get back by reading any of the Green's policies but from what you state, at what number do they plan to cap intake or is it a free for all that if you can get here we accept you, in which case a fleet of rickety boats would be ready to set sail...

And you state there that you 'understand' the greens want to replace other types of immigration, does that include skilled migration where we get to allocate places to people with skills we want or need???

 

[Moody]

I thought Moods ban the reading of the OZ for this thread

Where have I said that?

I read The Australian upon occasion - no harm done if you picture in your mind the master puppeteer Rupert Murdoch pulling the strings. The Telegraph and its cousins should only be read by the already brain-damaged.

You should write for them ...

 

[serfty]

Make-up artist Lily Fontana gives Kevin Rudd some lip | TheAge.com.au

 

[Moody]

They're not paraded they're just his family. I don't see any problem at all.

It never happened - there's no reliable source. Just a satirical blog.

What never happened? Tony Abbott's daughters are never seen with him on the campaign trail?? You need a reality check, Skyring, because the two eldest daughters seem to always be at his side. They don't appear to have an official function and are only allowed to speak to the press when "daggy dad" has one of his moments of free thought and reveals his chauvinistic attitude to women. In the words of PK, they need to "Get a real job!"

Can you please reconstruct your post into something that makes sense? Or better still, delete it. This thread is padded with enough tiresome guff as it is!

 

[amaroo]

Where have I said that?

I read The Australian upon occasion - no harm done if you picture in your mind the master puppeteer Rupert Murdoch pulling the strings. The Telegraph and its cousins should only be read by the already brain-damaged.

You should write for them ...

Sense of humour does wonders for the soul....

 

[markis10]

Make-up artist Lily Fontana gives Kevin Rudd some lip | TheAge.com.au

I believe this was the response

 

[medhead]

Uhmmm, have we entered the twilight zone, or is this like '1984' or whatever where Big Brother tells you what to believe...

Restrain spending??? The ALP??? Now i have friggin heard it all.....

Even the Australian has stated this point. The only twilight zone is the rusted on coalition supporters trying to deny the bleeding obvious.

 

[medhead]

But you follow the same behaviour yourself.

You know, I don't think anyone here is fully behind either leader. Both have serious flaws. Trying to paint one as perfect and the t'other as t'opposite won't wash.

I have my reservations about TA, but he deserves a go. We gave KR a go in 2007 and that turned out to be a mistake. As Julia Gillard and her senior colleagues acknowledged by their actions in 2010 and their public statements in 2012.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm simply pointing out the faults of you preferred voter. In doing that I get stupid comments from the peanut gallery calling me a loony leftie. I haven't advocated voting for Rudd, at all. I have clearly stated my view that he is an egotistical manic. But that does not stop me from challenging you to outline why Abbott deserves a go. Because all the evidence so far clearly states that Abbott is far worse than the ALP, with irresponsibly high spending policies. Everything he says is a contradiction. You and your mates fail to offer anything to counter that beyond he deserves a go. Just admit that you are a sheep of the coalition. Then we can ignore your ramblings.

One might say the same about LSL, but wouldn't there be a howl if that were dropped!

The interesting part about TA's PPL scheme will come when the Greens consider it in the Senate, assuming Shorten doesn't support it.

LSL. Are you kidding. The taxpayer DOES NOT pay for LSL. What an utterly ludicrous analogy.

You can have your nuclear reactor - I'll be voting to keep them out.

I'm quite happy with my solar panels Great earners.

So you are one of the people responsible for making electricity overpriced. You don't mind benefitting from the ALP carbon/green house gas policies. Don't let the fact that Nuclear power is cheaper than solar power and produces less carbon emission across the whole fuel cycle get in the way.

 

[amaroo]

So you are one of the people responsible for making electricity overpriced. You don't mind benefitting from the ALP carbon/green house gas policies. Don't let the fact that Nuclear power is cheaper than solar power and produces less carbon emission across the whole fuel cycle get in the way.

Just trying to do my bit - 7kw worth

Lucky to have been organised enough to get paperwork sorted on the knock of Can do Campbell changing the game - one of the very many disasters that Anna left behind. Anna wasn't on her own with this one - ALP/Green clowns all over OZ set the same thing up!

 

[Skyring]

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm simply pointing out the faults of you preferred voter. In doing that I get stupid comments from the peanut gallery calling me a loony leftie. I haven't advocated voting for Rudd, at all. I have clearly stated my view that he is an egotistical manic. But that does not stop me from challenging you to outline why Abbott deserves a go. Because all the evidence so far clearly states that Abbott is far worse than the ALP, with irresponsibly high spending policies.

Excuse me? Tony Abbott has never been Prime Minister. Any "evidence" you can muster must necessarily be of the crystal ball variety.

LSL. Are you kidding. The taxpayer DOES NOT pay for LSL. What an utterly ludicrous analogy.

That's like saying that the taxpayer does not pay the carbon tax. The money comes from somewhere, and in the end, it's the consumer paying for higher staff costs. Abbott plans to levy business to pay for it.

But my analogy wasn't based on the immediate source of the funds. LSL is a chunk of fully paid leave - the more you earn, the more you receive. Just like PPL.

Would there be howls of outrage if LSL were withdrawn? Of course.

And once PPL is in, you may be sure that there would be howls from the same folk if anyone talked about scrapping it.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not supporting it, at least in its current shape, and I'll be interested to see how the Greens deal with it.

I'm interested, which is why I responded to you in my previous post, as to what you think of higher paid employees being paid more in leave entitlements.

As for nuclear power, it makes sense for Australia. We have the uranium and we want to cut down on carbon emissions. That's the reason we emit more CO2 per capita than other developed nations. It's not because we squander more power, but because we don't use nukes to generate it.

 

[Moody]

Sense of humour does wonders for the soul....

Yes it does ... and having one will be very important over the next three years. If I could quote a wise old man :-

"Dark and difficult times lie ahead. Soon we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy."

If I believed in any particular diety I would pray that Australia does not take the easy way out. For all the good that will do ...

 

[BadgerBoi]

Make-up artist Lily Fontana gives Kevin Rudd some lip | TheAge.com.au

looks like tony has the Avon Lady vote in the bag

 

[drsmithy]

I'm not going to insult my intelligence and waste several minutes of my life i can never get back by reading any of the Green's policies [...]

Indeed. Heaven forbid you comment from a position of knowledge, rather than ignorance. Much easier to attack something you've made up out of thin air.

[...] but from what you state, at what number do they plan to cap intake or is it a free for all that if you can get here we accept you, in which case a fleet of rickety boats would be ready to set sail...

We are already required by our treaty obligations to accept any refugee that lands in Australia and claims asylum (at least until it is safe for them to return wherever they came from).

That is to say, the conditions for a "fleet of rickety boats ready to set sail" already exists.

I believe they want to increase the humanitarian intake to 30,000ish.

And you state there that you 'understand' the greens want to replace other types of immigration, does that include skilled migration where we get to allocate places to people with skills we want or need???

To some degree, yes. My understanding is the Greens believe immigration policy should prioritise humanitarian and family reunion type immigration.

I assume they feel that truly unique skills are only a small proportion of "skilled" immigration, and that the majority of the skilled intake is used so local business can avoid their obligations to employees and suppress local wages. That the country would be better off in the long term skilling up locals rather than temporarily importing economic immigrants chasing dollars from one country to another.

That's the trouble with those wacky Greens. They're always thinking of people other than themselves and more than five minutes into the future.

 

[Skyring]

We are already required by our treaty obligations to accept any refugee that lands in Australia and claims asylum (at least until it is safe for them to return wherever they came from).

Indonesia.

 

[medhead]

Excuse me? Tony Abbott has never been Prime Minister. Any "evidence" you can muster must necessarily be of the crystal ball variety.

That's like saying that the taxpayer does not pay the carbon tax. The money comes from somewhere, and in the end, it's the consumer paying for higher staff costs. Abbott plans to levy business to pay for it.

But my analogy wasn't based on the immediate source of the funds. LSL is a chunk of fully paid leave - the more you earn, the more you receive. Just like PPL.

Would there be howls of outrage if LSL were withdrawn? Of course.

And once PPL is in, you may be sure that there would be howls from the same folk if anyone talked about scrapping it.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not supporting it, at least in its current shape, and I'll be interested to see how the Greens deal with it.

I'm interested, which is why I responded to you in my previous post, as to what you think of higher paid employees being paid more in leave entitlements.

As for nuclear power, it makes sense for Australia. We have the uranium and we want to cut down on carbon emissions. That's the reason we emit more CO2 per capita than other developed nations. It's not because we squander more power, but because we don't use nukes to generate it.

Do you understand how the democratic process works? The candidates announce policies, the policies are costed etc. The candidates state their manifesto, to tell the vote what is being offered. That is the evidence that is provided to the voter. They DO NOT have to have done the job to be judged by this process.

The natural implication of your view that having never done the job we don't know what PM Abbott stand for, is even more reason to not vote for him. If that is truly what you believe.

As for your LSL analogy. Your are clearly getting confused between the entire community and taxpayers. The enitre community pays for LSL as you describe. Taxpayers are a subset of the entire community. No taxpayers do not bear the full cost of LSL, unlike for abbott's PPL.

By you continued support for Abbott you are supporting his PPL.

 

[casanovawa]

That's the trouble with those wacky Greens. They're always thinking of people other than themselves and more than five minutes into the future.

What utter heroes they all are... Luckily, as they tend to also be divorced from reality, they do all this thinking over in relative obscurity and impotency...

 

[casanovawa]

Indeed. Heaven forbid you comment from a position of knowledge, rather than ignorance. Much easier to attack something you've made up out of thin air.

There are a large number of inconsequential parties that i have no interest in reading up on to comment on their positions and policies, this just includes the Greens, and i only commented on them because you raised some of their policies and i was largely going by what you said, so unless your talking a load of bull then i am pretty much commenting accurately...