Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Search results for 'death penalty'

Search Results for: death penalty

There are times when the death penalty is unquestionably justified, the execution of Mohammad Ajmal Kasab

 

click for source

Despite the fact that hanging is to quick and painless for this class of scum-bag  the short lead time between his trial and execution suggests that a capital case need not be as drawn out and expensive as trails tend to be in the United states when a truly evil man is quickly dispatched.
Cheers Comrades

At least they have the death penalty in Arizona

There is something rather chilling about a smiling killer,and something truly horrible about the unrepentant.

Alleged gunman Jared Lee Loughner, 22, as he appeared in court yesterday. Picture: AP Source: The Australian

New details emerged yesterday about how the alleged gunman had bought ammunition at a Walmart store just hours before the shootings. He was turned away from one Walmart store for reasons that remain unclear, but was sold bullets at another.

The gunman had two oversized magazines for the automatic weapon, each allowing him to shoot 30 rounds in rapid fire. He bought the Glock pistol from the Sportsman’s Warehouse in Tucson last November, a month after he was suspended from a community college over aggressive outbursts and told he could not return without a medical certificate declaring he was mentally stable.

Loughner has refused to shed any light on his motive for the rampage, but authorities portray him as a loner who descended into a world of paranoia and fantasy, harbouring a deep anger towards the government.

Despite Loughner being mentally disturbed, prosecutors intend to argue Loughner was in control of his actions when he plotted the assassination attempt and should face the full weight of the law, which includes the death penalty for murder in Arizona.

However those of us who care about justice can take comfort from the fact that Arizona does have a capital sanction and that this man can look forward to facing it for his crimes, the only downside here is that the process will take far too long and a whole swag of bleeding hearts are going to try very hard to argue that he should not face death should he be found guilty (he was caught in the act so that should not be a big ask). those of us with more sense will realise that it is those for which no doubt of their guilt that the death penalty is in fact most apt and justifiable.

 

Cheers Comrades

The only realistic penalty for such a crime has to be death.

I have often argued here that there are some crimes for which there is only one adequate penalty . Well what could be a better case in point than the cold-blooded murder of more than 3000 people on 9-11?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Santa he ain't (Daily Mail image)

Mohammed and his four co-accused will be brought from the controversial prison at Guantanamo Bay to face multiple charges, including murder, relating to the suicide hijackings that destroyed the Twin Towers, large parts of the Pentagon and brought a plane down in a Pennsylvania field, claiming almost 3,000 lives.

Attempting to reassure Americans that the suspected perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack in history would not walk free, President Barack Obama said: “I am absolutely convinced Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice.”

Eric Holder, the US attorney general, said that after reviewing the evidence he was “confident of a successful outcome”.

He added: “If I had concerns we would perhaps be in a different place.”

Stressing the emotional significance of staging the trial near the scene of the crime, he said: “After eight years of delay those allegedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks will finally face justice.”

He underlined his confidence “in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial, just as they have for 200 years”, adding that he fully expected to direct prosecutors to seek the death penalty for these “heinous acts”.

Ok lets just go through the”anti death penalty ” check list shall we?

  • Doubt about the guilt of the accused?     No problem when they boast about their crimes
  • The crime  does not warrant a capital sanction.   Hmm we are talking about  9/11 here, who would believe that one?
  • The fairness of the trial process.   Hmm, Well a trial in New York has to be “fairer” that a military commission in the minds of even the most froth encrusted Latte sipper… So that one is attended to.
  • Any method of execution is a “cruel and unusual’ punishment.  No  that won’t wash. There are some crimes that  actually justify the most cruel and painful end that can be imagined.  By any measure 9/11 is one of them.

Well that is sorted then, bring on the trials and then bring on the executions.

Cheers Comrades

8)

Give them death, and the sooner the better

It is clear that even from inside ihs concrete box that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has still been plotting the ruin and downfall of the United States and the machinations of this chap and his co-accused makes it clear that he wants to gain the maximum publicity for his cause.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

But Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other alleged terrorists then postponed formally entering guilty pleas until a later court date, thwarting their bid for a speedy imposition of the death penalty.

Mohammed, who has already confessed to plotting the 9/11 attacks and dozens of other acts of terrorism, appeared at a military tribunal alongside a quartet of fellow terrorism suspects being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp at a US naval base in Cuba.

In a letter to the judge, the five described how a decision had been taken on November 4, the day Barack Obama was elected, to abandon all efforts at defence and ask that their confessions be accepted in full with immediate effect.

The request seemed designed to hasten their trials and dare the US Government to impose death sentences before President George W. Bush leaves office.

Now my friends from the left (in particular those who oppose capital punishment anyway) will no doubt be suggesting that despite his repeated claims that he is guilty that he should not be allowed to be executed precisely so that he could never succeed in his “bid for martyrdom”. I think that this is a rather shallow argument and that a greater good will be served if this man and his co-accused are promptly deprived of their breathing privileges.
Look at it this way which is a more powerful rallying point, five men endlessly imprisoned by the “great Satan”, men whose treatment will be endlessly cited as and example of all that is wrong with the USA especially by its own* “progressive” voices, or five dead men cold in their graves?
I would pick the former as being a more powerful symbol every time and as it was with the Bali bombers their fate will become a fish and chip wrapper in no time at all.  Rather than fearing their swift executions, we should consider them a long term blessing for humanity despite the fact that there will be a short term spike in interest in their cause. The will soon be forgotten which is precisely what they want to avoid.
Cheers Comrades
8)

*in both the United States and elsewhere in the west

“Death sentence for corrupt food and drug boss”, A lesson for corporate cowboys?

Mary-Anne Toy Herald Correspondent in Beijing
May 30, 2007
CHINA’S former top food and drug regulator has been given the death penalty in an unusually harsh sentence against a backdrop of widening international and domestic concern over the safety of “Made in China” food, pharmaceutical and other products.Zheng Xiaoyu, head of the State Food and Drug Administration from 1998 until his sacking in 2005, was convicted yesterday in a Beijing court of taking 6.49 million yuan ($1.04 million) in bribes and for dereliction of duty.Zheng, 62, was arrested last year for accepting kickbacks to fast-track drug approvals. In one case under Zheng’s watch, a tainted antibiotic approved by his agency killed at least 10 patients last year.(source)

As abhorrent as I believe the regime in China is one thing you can’t say about them is that they are soft on corruption. Perhaps we need to be just a little more harsh with some of the corporate high flyers here; like the people responsible for the collapse of ACL; yet another example of financial or investment firms who have gouged the savings from the pockets of gullible Aussies going belly up.
Maybe the thought of that single bullet to the back of the head would rein in the cowboys… Well at least they would not do it again and I am sure that there are many people who they have reduced to penury who would happily pull the trigger.
😉

Death of a Tyrant

The photo courtesy of Florida Cracker and other pictures and video can be had there if you actually need to see a despot meet his end personally stills are enough.

Reports in the OZ today said that the execution of Saddam Hussein is due as the sun rises today in Iraq.

SADDAM Hussein will hang as the sun dawns over Iraq today, Iraqi officials said, setting a dramatic end for a leader who ruled Iraq by fear for three decades before a US invasion and his conviction for crimes against humanity.
“They just called to tell me to be ready to attend the hanging at 5:30 am (13:30 AEDT),” said a court official whose presence is demanded by law. The execution was planned by 6 am, he added, although he did not know where it would happen.

Reports on TV say he has been executed .


The people of Iraq have endured a great deal of suffering and tragedy at the behest of this man and no period of imprisonment could make amends for his multitudinous crimes. As expected there have been many half hearted cries that even Saddam should not be subject to the death penalty. The world today is a better place without this man drawing breath.

Update

IRAQI TV has reported that the former feared dictator Saddam
Hussein has been executed in a dawn hanging.
“The execution of Saddam Hussein
is complete,” the state-run Iraqiya television said in a text headline broadcast
against a background of Koranic verses. Saddam and his two co-accused — his
half brother and intelligence chief Barzan Hassan alTikriti and revolutionary
court judge Awad Ahmed alBandar — were convicted of crimes against humanity by
an Iraqi court on November 5. Over the previous months, the Iraqi High Tribunal
in Baghdad heard how they oversaw a campaign of collective punishment against
the Shiite village of Dujail, north of Baghdad, where Saddam escaped an
assassination bid in 1982. Dujail’s orchards were torn up and 148 men and boys
were executed after being dragged through Bandar’s kangaroo court. (the Australian)


Portions of any work that are quoted are reproduced on the basis of the “fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review” section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968.

Guardian comments 16-6-2016

In response to ildiavolo

Under what law is that the case?

View discussion

In response to uptherecrazies

uptherecrazies

For anyone without blinkers on the transition is already happening and it is being lead by a globalised market keen to continue making profits.

Yeah but most of that is hype led by spivs

There are no profits to be made on an exhausted planet too toxic to carry a consuming population.

To paraphrase a well worn adage, reports of the planet’s death are both premature and over sold

View discussion

In response to VenetianBlind

VenetianBlind

The unavoidable truth here is that the only way that humanity will stop using fossil fuels is when alternative technologies actually do the same job both cheaper and better

Renewable would be cheaper than coal fired energy where I live but the locals reject it because they read this sort of thing. The main problem is mindset, not costs. The costs for, again where I live, insurance for eg has skyrocketed. The cost of no action will hurt Australia far more than renewables. Already started.

Until there is a viable and cost effective way to store energy form “renewables” there will be no alternative to coal for our electricity. Your claim that its all about the mindset is utter nonsense as is the cost of “no action” claim you make here.

View discussion

In response to VenetianBlind

For a thing to be a crime it actually has to be against the law, using fossil fuels is simply not against any law, ergo its no crime

View discussion

In response to Alpo88

You show such faith in the AGW proposition…

View discussion

No matter how many time the Guardian publishes stories like this one we all know that the chances of this happening are so low that continued calls for such things are utterly pointless. What this article boils down to is a rather futile example of climate virtue signalling. The unavoidable truth here is that the only way that humanity will stop using fossil fuels is when alternative technologies actually do the same job both cheaper and better. Until then no amount of whining is going to make the slightest bit of difference.

View discussion

In response to SimonEsposito

SimonEsposito

I should say that I accept the bipartisan policy, even to the point of believing that this government’s ONE achievement in its whole three years was Scott Morrison’s management of the boat turnback policy.

They have had other policy successes

Specifically that, though. The management of Manus and Nauru, and the failure to achieve honorable resettlement outside Australia, is a stain on the national character.

Those in detention there have been given a rather perverse incentive to keep playing “blink” with the government by open borders activist who give them false hope that they may eventually be allowed to come into the Australian mainland that is why they don’t do the sensible thing and accept any resettlement option offered to them.The key to the policy was that Manus and Nauru and Christmas Island should

serve a short-term purpose – offshore processing. There seems to have been no interest in the most difficult part, regaining the trust of the countries that we have to partner with to resettle the legitimate refugees (and that includes Malaysia, Canada, and New Zealand). Abbott and now Turnbull and Dutton (and Joyce) can’t shut up with their offensive and reckless comments long enough to give Julie Bishop any clear air. (And was she ever even interested?) Bribing small countries, as Jeff Sparrow shows in this article, is not an honorable solution (nor a solution of any kind).

Yadda yadda yadda teh fact that the number of the detained cohort has not been increasing, so once this cohort have been encouraged to either accept what can be offered by way of resettlement or reparation the problem will be solved because there are no more boat people coming to replace them.

It’s probably reached the stage where any foreign minister who could pull it off would merit a Nobel prize or something (or the prime-ministership). But I can’t see it happening without the reset of a change of government.

Nah if the Labor party get back into office the problem would be quickly made worse because the people smugglers know how weak they are on this issue, especially if the ALP dog is being wagged by a Green tail as it was under the Rudd Gillard Rudd years.

View discussion

In response to Steve Griffin

The amount of private debt may well be some what illusory because it is bound to include the debt that those like yours truly carry each month because we pay for everything on our credit cards and then pay it off in full before the due date at the end of the month.

View discussion

In response to cookie2255

cookie2255

Fact – The Coalition will spend less on hospitals!!!! Education, NBN, Climate Change and anything that really matters to everyday people.

Its not the amount of money that is spent that matters as much as how big the bang for the buck spent is and on that the ALP record is utterly woeful. On top of that the ALP is simply running up too much debt on their “spendometer”

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

Religious zeal combined with hatred is a most pernicious thing.

Agreed, which is why I constantly question the apologia for Islam that so many from the left engage in .

The recently deported visiting British cleric shared your views re not hating homosexual people but still claimed it was OK to put them to death for displaying their sexuality.

I share NO views with that man I simply do not believe that there is anything “wrong” with being homosexual He believes that it is Hiram and that its “compassionate” to kill gay people.

As you said “The religious zeal displayed by Warministas is greater than I have seen from many Born Again Christians”, I don’t even know what a Warminista is or what their relevance is to a discussion on science.

Don’t feign ignorance Wal, you are better than that! I’m sure that you realize that “Warminista” is a sarcastic way of describing a climate change true believer that also includes a hat tip to the association with Marxism.

I met a born again Christian about this time of year over ten years ago while while walking to the bus about 4.00 pm. I was feeling very happy as I was on my way to collect second prize in a pub trivial pursuit competition – free food and drink for a nights viewing of the State of Origin.

We talked as we walked up the hill about my work and the joy of preventing disease. He told me I’d go to heaven as I boarded the bus at the end of one of those beautiful Brisbane “winter” days. I told him we were already there.

Agree with you about this place being “heaven” its a bit cold here on my mountain today but I’m sure that a hearty breakfast will easily make that endurable.

View discussion

In response to photographofgeorge

photographofgeorge

I suggest you update your reading to the works and opinions of right wing politicians like George Christiensen and Cory Bernardi just to see how much animosity is reflected towards homosexual people even from our politicians.

I suppose you are one of those who think that opposing Gay marriage as the guys you cite above do means that they hate homosexuals. It doesn’t

If not in direct quotes, but in actions as well. Both Christians too. Homosexuals still face brutality in this country and it is frequently not from Muslims.

Really when was the last example of anyone in Australia killing anyone because they are gay? Heck we don’t even have the bashings of gay men (just because of their sexuality) that were common when I was a young man. You are delusional if you think that our attitude to homosexuals is as murderous as it is in places like Iran or any other Muslim country.

For your information the Catholic Church does not condone homosexual acts either, nor do many other religious organisations.

So what? They certainly don’t condone killing them either unlike so many Muslims do.

The point I make is that because a person like Manteen is said to be a Muslim, yet with no apparent links to ISIS, he should not be used to tar all Muslims with the same brush.

To become a Muslim all any one has to do is make the declaration of faith and I’m sure that all it takes to join ISIS is to declare your allegiance, Manteen has done both.

I directed someone to a page in the Guardian that tells another story beyond the Trump-style, Pauline Hanson-style interpretation. There have been frequent mass killings with automatic weapons in the US, none of which involved Muslims in the least.

I will give you one minor concession here by accepting that most of these nutters do have various motives for the things that they do. But I simply will not accept your implication that we should ignore the religious motives that are clear from this man’s actions

The main problem seems to be the easy access and availability with little scrutiny to military grade weapons that can cause enormous damage.

No that is nonsense, admittedly the USA has been awash with guns for the last century however as with Paris and Belgium it is the ideology of Islam that has obviously motivated both the targets and the timing of this atrocity.

But even then, Timothy McVeigh the ‘Oklahoma bomber’ for example, a decorated soldier returning from the first Gulf War, was responsible for the much greater amount of death: 168 people and over 600 injured.

Yep and I bet you would have been right up there objecting to his well deserved execution

He used a massive ammonium nitrate bomb not even bothering with a gun.

Something he would not be able to do today

Now silently considered a terrorist, you won’t see his case be used to tar all Christians with the same brush even though he was a Roman Catholic. We do not also blame Batman and all Batman fans for the gunning down of the audience in a movie theatre in the US because James Holmes saw himself as the Joker, to the point of making himself up to resemble the character in a motion picture.

Yadda yadda yadda

Most of these people including Manteen had mental health problems on a grand scale.

You see its only you who is suggesting that “all Muslims” are the problem I am questioning the ideology that motivates the Jihadists, I am citing the unrelenting misogyny of that ideology and its overt and unapologetic homophobia and no amount of your false equivalence with other far more benign religions is going to make the ideology of Islam less pernicious

View discussion

In response to photographofgeorge

To go on about the guy being homosexual does not negate the fact that he both swore allegiance to ISIS and he was a a Muslim. Heaven in a hand basket what do you lefties have so much trouble simply admitting that Islam is the single most homophobic religion on the planet?
When polled about 80% of Muslims say that homosexuality should be against the law and that 11 Muslim countir4es have a death penalty for homosexuality.
In fact the most recent reports suggests that he was full of self loathing because he was a homosexual Muslim.

View discussion

In response to Petunia Winegum

Sadly Petunia I need to work on being less of a socialist just a bit harder

View discussion

31 points LNP, 11 Labor, and shame to say 5 fro the greens
The problem with this survey is that it has too few questions

View discussion

In response to WombatsRamble

WombatsRamble
To be more accurate, I’d say “there’d be no more deaths then there are currently

with prescription drugs”.
Which is still quite a bit, as there’s always going to be people who think “one makes me feel better. If I take five of them I’ll feel five times better, no matter what my script says”. Instead they stop breathing

Actually I would say that the problem is is really more about peopel taking various drugs at the same time and there being serious issues as a conse

View discussion

In response to BJWard


BJWard

In fact the name Ward is on my birth certificate and so are the initials BJ. I’m widely known by those initials. Having had an unfortunate past experience from broadcasting my first name in another forum, I’ve refrained from doing so in this one.

And I bet that you have been ribbed about calling yourself “BJ” many times in the past” and some friendly ribbing was all I was intending with may comment. Because you have to admit that your screen name does bring to mind a hospital room for those unfortunate blokes who could not convince their lovers to be careful with their teeth.

To the rest, I’ll just say that we have probably already spent more on Turnbull’s 60th-rate lash-up than the original proposal would have cost. Not that the cost argument holds water, really. The taxpayer wasn’t going to be asked to pay for it.

I’m pretty sure that you are wrong about that. And who do you think has both put up the money and more importantly wears the financial risks of this project? The good old Aussie Tax payer that’s who.

View discussion

In response to BJWard

BJWard

Can’t resist the ad hominem, can you? It is my name, however.

I very much doubt that the name “BJWard” appears on your birth certificate, thta said I only mentioned it because your screen-name does have some amusing allusions some of which are a little but unfortunate.

Why should the government have to make a “business case” for building vital infrastructure?

Because its too much money to work on some sort of vague hope that it will be affordable for the nation.

It’s self-evident, I would have thought, that if you’re going to build infrastructure, you do it using the most effective available materials and methods.

History teaches us that every time a government buys into a form of technology it ends up being superseded by something else. My brother has wireless internet in his small town that is pretty good and it suggets to me that wireless may well be Bette than fiber to the home

In the case of a modern communications system, that is by using fibre to the premises.

maybe . maybe not

What you are obliquely advocating, however, is the 21st century equivalent of the proposal to make all Australia’s telephone lines out of iron wire, because it was cheaper. Certain politicians 100 years or so actually tried to make that case, but were overruled by the more farsighted. Pity we didn’t have a few more such visionary people around to put Mr. Abbott back in his box when he first advocated the destruction of this project.

No what I’m saying is those who want Champagne and caviar are being unrealistic ion the expectations for a country the size of our own when its population is a s small as it is.

View discussion

In response to BJWard

No my unfortunately named friend. It was Labor who promised everyone a champagne and caviar NBN when they could not make the business case even for the MacDonald’s version.

View discussion

In response to BadPower

The thing is I already have a car powered by the Toyota engine form the same period BP and it serves me quite well. Which is kinda may point . Just ebciuase something is an old design don’t kid yourself that it can’t do the job just as well as a “modern” product.

View discussion

In response to MikeFlanagan

Oh how can your forget who over promised and under delivered on the NBN in the first instance?

View discussion

In response to Notjimdewar

The 120 Y was and remains a damn good car with nice simple engine that almost literally runs forever, If the NBN can achieve that sort of sterling service it will serve us well enough,

View discussion

In response to Wheelspinner

Its not stupid at all to redirect said money to help the reef, what else would it be spent on?

View discussion

In response to nollafgm

And Labor’s scheme would have given us a worse result and bankrupted the country in the process, You may need fast internet to announce your bowel movements via social media But grown ups know that not everyone wants a Champagne and caviar NBN we will do quite well enough on a meat and potatoes version that we get sooner.

View discussion

In response to voltron1966

actually that would make your vote informal

View discussion

In response to RonJB

RonJB

Apparently even you don’t read what you wrote.

whay do you think that?

Or you prefer going straight to abusive comments, when you know you’ve been called out on your usual bullsh!t. I do hope you’re getting a good wage for all the partisan crap you write.

No my friend, what I do here I do for a love of the truth and a desire to bring light into this darkness…

View discussion

In response to Mark Harrison

Mark Harrison

Well considering we are talking about networking, well yes; it is, you know, kind of important to have some idea what you are talking about before offering an opinion.

I do have some idea as it happens

While wireless may well be an option for a micro-village (a pub, post office, garage and two houses) anyone with any-freaking-idea-whatsoever knows that this technology does not scale.

Well the town my brother lives in has quite few more than that, even though it does not even have a pub and the service is a great improvement over the satellite service they had before.

Seriously, go back to making whirligigs!

Actually at present I’m making foot-bikes

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

Most Australians live in the coastal strip between Melbourne and Brisbane.

That still does not make any difference to the problem of distance

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

“Labor have always thought with suburban minds”.

Though living in Queensland you are unaware that the world’s first Labor Party formed in Barcaldine in the state’s central west. Some foreigners never seem to integrate.

I have actually been there Wal sat under the famous tree and all, even so they stopped having any rural sensibilities at least 70 years ago.

Australia is the most suburban society in the world at present as rural and far western areas shed population for reasons to do with restructuring of the rural economy and despite increased urban lifestyle in the major population centres.

Sure I understand that, much of it was due to mechanization

So most people live in the suburbs and in a democracy elections are decided by most people or the majority. You need to get used to democracy now you live here.

I am more than used to democracy and I have been voting for as long as I have been legally entitled to do so.

View discussion

In response to RonJB

RonJB

But by your own logic, it is wasteful to built phone lines, electricity lines and roads in this spread out wide brown land as well.

You must have failed basic geography and economics.

View discussion

In response to Mark Harrison


Mark Harrison

Tell that to my neighbor who can’t even get ADSL The problem is not service to the cities its service to the rural parts of the country\

Actually, you’re wrong there too (shocking, I know). Many suburban (even inner city suburbs) cannot get ADSL connections either. Or if they can, ADSL1 only. Greenslopes in Brisbane is but one example I know of.

My guess would be that there has been a pause on creating new adsl capability with the expectation that the NBN would be rolled out instead. More to the point if you live in Greenslopes you will still get the better broadband before any one in the country simply because they get more customers for the service per dollar invested. I’d also expect that with Labor’s shambolic record on the NBN before they lost office in 2013 that things would be worse had they continued to control the project.

As for rural areas, the copper infrastructure will be so degraded, the only realistic options would be fibre or replacing copper to put in a node. It is just too absurd to contemplate but that is what the NBN police in LNP central have dictated you will have.

On the contrary my brother lives in a small Queensland country town and what they have just had turned on is a town wide wireless service that gives him extremely good internet that is fast and offers substantial band width. This is clearly a technology that works and is more cost effective tech than running fiber to every house in that town.

If getting a reasonable NBN solution is important to you, voting conservative is voting against your interests.

The thing that you don’t seem to appreciate is that for lots of people having a Rolls Royce internet is a nice idea and something that they would want but they also understand (in a way that you tech obsessed latte sippers don’t) that the internet is not the be all and end all or something that will decide our vote. Both sides make grand promises for the NBN but the Coalition have a small edge on their ability to deliver.

View discussion

In response to Mark Harrison

Mark Harrison

as a maker of various things

“Maker” of what? Whirligigs? You obviously have no idea about networking from your comments.

I haven’t made any Whirligigs recently but if that was what you wanted I could do it. That said though you are mistaken in thinking that “networking” is the be all and end all of the modern world.

View discussion

In response to Mark Harrison

Mark Harrison

You do not understand the technology, at all.

On the contrary, as a maker of various things I understand it rather well.

View discussion

In response to aquaPura

aquaPura

A Ford, no problem, a model T Ford definitely.

The model T is was and remains a great example of providing adequate and affordable way of getting around the place. Frankly if the NBN under the coalitions can do as well then it will be a good day for the country.

View discussion

In response to Gregory Shearman

Tell that to my neighbor who can’t even get ADSL The problem is not service to the cities its service to the rural parts of the country and we rural dwellers will be better off under the coalition scheme because we will get an improved service sooner than we would under Labor’s Rolls Royce fantasy that would always be just a little bit out of reach.

View discussion

In response to parsivalmontde

parsivalmontde

Wrong there buddy. I live in outer Melbourne. No where near the inner city.

Yet you tell us that you can get fiber to you home and you are still whining? Mate you may live in the outer burbs but you still don’t understand geography at all!

View discussion

In response to parsivalmontde

See my response to Hotspringer
Bet that you have never got out of your latte sipping inner city ghetto in all of your short life.

View discussion

In response to Hotspringer

Hotspringer

New Zealand could do it, but even their right wingers aren’t as stupid as ours.

New Zealand has a Land area of 268,021 km² but Austrlaia has 7.692 million km² so which do you think would be easier to hook up to an NBN?
Come on you must be able to do the very simple calculations here.

View discussion

In response to Ertimus

Labor have always though with suburban minds and as such they simply have NEVER truly understood just how spread out the Australian people are over the wide brown land . I live on the fringes of the Brisbane area and there has never been any likely hood that I will be able to get a better broadband service and my neighbor can’t even get the ADSL service I enjoy because there are not enough “ports” at the exchange. NBN???? not likely for years here and its not hard to understand why, my road has only one house other than my own and that means that just the cost of running Labor FTTH would never be recovered by the subscription even if my neighbor and I both wanted the highest possible speed from the top plan, but most people who have been using the net fro a while settle for something less that the highest speed an the biggest bandwidth which means less revenue that Labor has ever modeled. The bottom line here is that we are a continent of what? 23million people? and if we were all closely packed like countries physically smaller with the same population the Labor scheme might just be possible but that is not us so all of those dreaming of the promised Rolls Royce solution maybe you need to have a more realistic aspiration for something in the Ford line up instead.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Follow the Link Wal I posted that comment there because the original thread was closed down.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

“Because the biggest emitters like China and India” (for the moment ignoring the second biggest emitter) “are expected to increase their emissions rather than reduce them over the next few years and if there is any meaningful reductions then its going to take many decades to makes it happen”.

Just because something will take many decades to happen doesn’t mean you should not set out to do it. Especially when the outcome is so advantageous.

You are of course ignoring the dire warnings that unless the global emissions are drastically reduced immediately then things like the GBR are doomed. So don’t you see the gap between what you imply is the best case scenario (above) and what you have been told is necessary to “save the planet”????”doesn’t your liturgy tell us that we have to be reducing” net CO2 “emissions like yesterday?”

I have no liturgy. Because of your religious delusions by proxy syndrome you are projecting your religious delusions onto me a practical scientist who is sufficiently in touch with reality to know we can’t do anything about yesterday except learn from it and that what is important from this point in time on is what we do now and in the decades to come.

You certainly do have a liturgy and you also know I was being sarcastic about doing it “yesterday” to point out the urgency in your own emissions reduction mantra”It is simply not going to happen as your claimed cure says it must happen if we are to avert climate disaster?”

By it do you mean global net CO2 emissions reduction? What do you mean by my claimed cure? Do you mean curing global warming caused by the increase in global net CO2 emissions
by reducing net CO2 emissions? But if that’s the case you’re saying that reducing global net CO2 emissions is simply not going to happen as my claimed cure of reducing global net emissions says it must happen if we are to avert climate disaster, which doesn’t make sense.

I’ll lay it out in easy to understand steps:

AGW theory tells us that we have to reduce CO2 emissions
Global emissions are expected to continue to rise without any global reduction expected in the foreseeable future
Advocates like you keep saying that we are all doomed unless Australia on its own decides to reduce its statistically insignificant contributing to global emissions.
I say that the probability that there will be enough reduction in global emissions at any time time in the next thirty years (at least) to have any effect on the climate is so low as to be unmeasurable. therefore anything we do to reduce our emissions is at best an act piety and faith because there will never be any positive consequences for our action no matter how extensive it may be in our national terms.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

“Unless that” (every person does their own experiments to independently verify every scientific discovery which would present time management problems) “is the case then you have to be basing your acceptance of ” (what science finds out) “on some sort of belief, faith even , in the work of others.”

You’re creating a false dichotomy for yourself here. Let us look at the terms you use and how they apply to this situation and the situation within religions.

No dichotomy at all as far as I’m concerned.

Belief has two meanings.

The first is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. We know through experience that the work of others exists so we have proof of its existence. So belief in the work of others does not fit this meaning of the word belief.

Wal with the greatest of respect you don’t get exactly how these essentially philosophical questions work. You simply can not argue as you do in in the bold above that we can know something “from experience” without acknowledging that such “knowledge” is in fact one belief and you expectation that something is proven is another. Your knowledge or understanding of any thing in the universe is built on, in the first instance, our senses through which we perceive the universe, and secondly through the intellectual constrictions through which we try to understand the world we inhabit and as we can not do every basic observation and experiment we accept the claims of others who have done the experiments and who have made the observations and mostly we do so without replicating those observations and experiments. That my friend requires an act of faith.

Secondly belief means trust, faith or confidence in someone or something. When I order a new shirt on line I trust that it be delivered. This trust is based on experience that the work of the courier exists and is true in finding my front door. Trust is probably a better word in this context as it avoids the semantic confusion that you are demonstrating.

But what do you trust those in the AGW industry above other voices about the climate? They have not actually delivered anything as substantive as the shirts in your example above, all they have delivered is a great deal of dodgy predictions and much doom-saying.

Faith also has two meanings.

The first is complete trust or confidence in someone or something. My trust in the online sales system and the delivery bloke is probably not complete but so far experience has shown that it works.

And you also have an almost unshakable faith in the talk of the AGW doomsayers even though their delivery record is a great deal less impressive than online shirt salesmen.

The second meaning of faith is defined as a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion. You can’t use this definition of belief to establish that the belief signifies religion without falling into a circular logic trap.

Utter rubbish!
Faith is simply a strong belief in something that can not be proven and as the AGW proposition can not actually be proven it can only be claimed and that means that to believe in AGW you have to rely on your belief in the arguments made for it and have faith that is proponents are correct.

So your contention that acceptance of what science discovers based on belief and/or faith in the work of others means that trusting the work of others based on experience is a form of religion is both as ridiculous as it sounds and is based on semantic confusion on your part.

No semantic confusion at all on my side here Wal, That said the religious zeal expressed by so many Warministas is greater than I have seen from many Born Again Christians .To communicate meaning other than rhetoric you need to concentrate closely on the meanings of the words you use. I do understand why this may be difficult for you.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

Note when I talked about reducing net CO2 emissions above, I was not talking about just Australia reducing our net CO2 emissions. If we (all the people in the world) all reduce our net CO2 emissions with such measures as a price on net carbon emissions plus many other effective measures, we can in time make a difference to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and and slow its current rate of increase in the more immediate future.

“the cure simply cannot work because at a global level it cannot be made to happen.”

Why not?

Because the biggest players like China and India are expected to increase their emissions rather than reduce them over the next few years and if there is to be any meaningful global reductions then its going to take many decades to make it happen if it happens at all and doesn’t your liturgy tell us that we have to be reducing emissions like yesterday? It is simply not going to happen as your claimed cure says that it must happen if we are to avert climate disaster.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

When I say that “No religion is involved in the reality of the current global warming”; you say ” On the contrary if you look at how religion is defined it is very easy to fit the belief in AGW” (anthropogenic global warming) “into said definition”. However as anthropogenic global warming is a reality their is no belief involved. As the belief you are talking about does not exist you are talking about nothing. I can’t discuss something which does not exist with you. All your talk about belief is meaningless as science is based on evidence not belief.

So are you telling to me that you and every other person who has taken the AGW proposition on board as a truth has personally made the empirical measurements and done the necessary experiments to substantiate the AG#W theory? Unless that is the case then you have to be basing your acceptance on some sort of belief, faith even, in the work of others.

“I ask again what do you think we” (the people of Australia) “can do about it” (global warming due to net carbon dioxide emissions) “and please don’t say ‘reduce’ (net carbon dioxide) ’emissions’ ”.

Why when the problem has been caused by net carbon dioxide emissions do you plea with me not to say reduce net carbon dioxide emissions?

“because even if we” (the people of Australia) “were to become the worlds greatest” (carbon dioxide) “emissions reducers on a per capita basis it would not be enough”.

It would not be enough to do what?

According to the AGW liturgy the entire planet needs to make VERY big reductions in CO2 emissions and as such reducing our less than two percent of global emissions, even to zero is never going to be enough to make any kind of difference, it certainly will not be enough to avert the disaster predicted by your Profits

What profits are you talking about when you say “according to your profits would it?”

They are the spokes people for the AGW industry who profit form its millinarian predictions.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

Note: Iain has religious delusions.

The only religious delusion in play here is your denial that for so many who espouse the AGW orthodoxy do so because it is their religion.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda

People have survived in Barrier Reef waters for up to 36 hours after their boat sank though the attentions of Tiger sharks did pose a problem. They were luckier in this regard than the Titanic passengers.

36 hours is hardly that long and as long has you have fresh water you could survive that long quite easily.

The pragmatic and practical way to ameliorate and in the long run solve the current greenhouse warming is by reducing net CO2 as Australia achieved when it had a price on carbon. As with the practical management any problem all factors contributing to the problem must be address. It is most unpragmatic and impractical to ignore the major cause. You have to be level headed and realistic about these things.

You are simply kidding yourself if you think that IS putting a” price on carbon ” is going to save the reef. We could go to zero emissions tomorrow and it won’t make the slightest bit of difference to the global level of CO2. What you claim as the cure simply can not work because at a global level it can not be made to happen.

View discussion

In response to Walsunda

Walsunda
Firstly I responded to your last missive at my blog

No religion involved in the reality of the current global warming and the contribution everyone makes to the net CO2 emission that cause it. Australians contribute like everyone else and on a per capita basis contribute more than the most, hence have a responsibility to to take effective and pragmatic measures to reduce their net carbon.

On the contrary if you look to how religion is defined it is very easy to fit the belief in AGW into said definition:

religion
rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/
noun
noun: religion

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
“ideas about the relationship between science and religion”
synonyms: faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More
sect, cult, religious group, faith community, church, denomination, body, following, persuasion, affiliation
“the right to freedom of religion”
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
“the world’s great religions”
a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
“consumerism is the new religion”

The definintions in bold all fit the AGW belief quite well especially when you add in the rather common “the end is nigh” doom-saying.

The Queensland state governments in the last seven years have run programs to protect the water quality of the southern two thirds of the reef from agricultural runoff and are planning further expansion of these regulations.

Well that is a good thing right?

These would have had little effect on the northern one third of the reef where the worst of this year’s bleaching occurred as there is not a great deal of agriculture north of Mossman.

So what could be done that night have any measurable effect within our lifetimes?

Even in the southern two thirds of the reef global warming and climate change; in the form of higher sea surface temperatures, greater extremes between drought and flood, plus increased incidence of extreme El Nino events; has a far greater effect on the reef both directly as well as exacerbating the runoff pollution problems. Ignoring the major problem is far from pragmatic.

I ask again just what do you thing we can do about it and please don’t say “reduce emissions” because even if we were to become the worlds greatest emissions reducers on a per capita basis it wouldn’t not be enough according to your Profits now would it?

View discussion

In response to kantonysen

kantonysen
What we are seeing now is what denier Agencies such as Heartlands, ALEC and IPA

have achieved. Stuffing up many coral reefs around Earth, creating temperatures difficult to withstand, causing damage to Earth’s air conditioner … the cryosphere.
They have achieved these matters; and more, by holding up adaptive and mitigation responses.

That is ridiculousness incarnate! Those on your side of the argument have out spent all of those institutions by many orders of magnitude so don’t blame skepotics because your fellow Warministas have proven to be utterly impotent at getting their ideas the intellectual hegemony you desire.

Scientists from ExxnMobil anticipated climate change in the 1970s; yet, ExxonMobil financed denier groups. There is a paper trail showing what scientists were saying, and a paper trail indicating ExxonMobil was resourcing denier groups. Fact.

If an idea is both good and true then it will withstand any counter argument that your ideology is still contested says that its arguments are not as strong as you might try to claim

ExxonMobil is being investigated by a number of Attorney Generals at present. Investigations had begun with the Attorney General of New York State. Fact.

So what?

A number of US papers have commented on this, as has the Union of Concerned Scientists.

So what?

View discussion

In response to RicardoK

RicardoK

Straw man, Iain.

No its simply the factual truth

Awesome water quality didn’t help the northern GBR this year.

The reason to focus on Water quality is not ever going to change the high water temperatures however it is the aspect of the problem that we can clearly make a difference to

The southern GBR was saved by a fluke pulse of cold, turbid water associated with ex-cyclone Winston.

So lets hear what you would suggest that we do to solve the problem, Just make sure that what you suggest can actuality make a measurable difference because the usual whining about our coal mining is no answer.

This policy is repainting the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Actually, to go with your Titanic metaphor its more like providing a few more lifeboats that will help save some of the passengers.

View discussion

In response to RicardoK

RicardoK
the government clearly has a most pragmatic approach to this problem, unlike you worshipers of the Green religion. We can have a real effect on water quality issues but even if we were to shut down our entire economy we can have no effect on global emissions, in fact Air travel produces more emissions than we do globally so grounding all jet aircraft globally would do a lot more for the global equation that this country ever could.

View discussion

In response to LorrieBelling

LorrieBelling

Why do liberal commentators always use juvenile language “spendometer” are we in primary school Ian?

Because Bill Shorten used the term himself and its actually such a gift to those opposed to Labor

Restoring all the savage cuts made by LNP is an honourable thing to do and is coming out of the $50 billion that Labor will not be spending on Corporate Tax Cuts to business which is not a priority at this point in time.

How precisely is it honorable to spend money that they do not have and to have absolutely no plan to pay off the national credit cards?

View discussion

In response to GrumpyOldDog

GrumpyOldDog

Where’s the money for those subs and corporate tax cuts coming from?

Not the issue here

And where does the money come to pay for negative gearing, middle class welfare, subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, running the Border Protection Force and the offshore gulags.

None of which is at issue here

If I hear one more time that inane comment about ‘where is the money coming from’ I will press the Report button. You guys have absolutely no idea about anything.

Citing Labor’s Shortencommings is not agianst the community standards here

You are a complete waste of space, oxygen, water, food and time!

None of which is the issue here either, just think mine might be the very vote that tips the balance against Labor….

View discussion

In response to carey18

Doncharles

No from Turnbull’s $50 Billion magic pudding!

I believe that this is worth repeating again:The thing about that magic figure is that even if we take labor at its word those so revenues largely occur outside the forward estimates but labor’s spend occurs almost immediately within the forward estimates! Labor have done a good job of deception with this claim and you have totally fallen for it!

View discussion

In response to Doncharles


Doncharles

No from Turnbull’s $50 Billion magic pudding!

I believe that this is worth repeating:The thing about that magic figure is that even if we take labor at its word those so revenues largely occur outside the forward estimates but labor’s spend occurs almost immediately within the forward estimates! Labor have done a good job of deception with this claim and you have totally fallen for it!

View discussion

In response to mallorywasfirst

mallorywasfirst

It’s coming from the 50billion pay rise the LNP has promised their corporate buddies.

The thing about that magic figure is that even if we take labor at its word those so revenues largely occur outside the forward estimates but labor’s spend occurs almost immediately within the forward estimates! Labor have done a good job of deception with this claim and you have totally fallen for it!

View discussion

Where is the money coming from again? Oh that”s right its straight onto the “spendometer”

View discussion

In response to Ozponerised

That is the classic bait and switch nonsense Labor supporters are famous for, because surely you would have to admit that in the end we do not have a bottomless wallet to pay for labor’s promises here and if that tax cut was cancelled Labor would still not have enough money to pay for all of their promises wracked up on Shorten’s spendometer now would we?

View discussion

In response to Ozponerised

Ozponerised

Rubbish. Priorities.

Sure, but how about you give some priority to the truth rather than ALP propaganda?

View discussion

In response to Ozponerised

In your quest to endorse the Labor party you ignore the sad but true fact that health spending is very much a “how long is a piece of string issue” where even if we were to spend the entirety of our GDP on health there would still be calls for more money. We simply have to live within our means in our health spending just as we do in every other aspect of government expenditure. Because if we don’t our economy will collapse and then there will be NOTHING to keep the health system afloat.

View discussion

In response to Ozponerised

You are talking utter rubbish about the proposed tax cuts for business, beside the fact that they start off far more modestly in the forward estimates than your block capitals suggest. In your quest to endorse the Labor party you ignore the sad but true fact that health spending is very much a “how long is a piece of string issue” where even if we were to spend the entirety of our GDP on health there would still be calls for more money. We simply have to live within our means in our health spending just as we do in every other aspect of government expenditure. Because if we don’t our economy will collapse and then there will be NOTHING to keep the health system afloat.

View discussion

Guardian comments

In response to wordinedgeways

Snowden probably caused the deaths of many agents of his country in the field which is treason and deserving of a capital sanction

View discussion

In response to wordinedgeways

They were not “desperate” people they were arrogant and greedy people who gambled their lives and lost The world is a better place without them, its as simple as that.

View discussion

In response to guffawer

guffawer

The ALP wont win an election promising another Tax on energy that was rejected not 3 years ago. The ALP wont win an election when Chris Bowen demonised anyone who negative gears

think the policy is all about shoring up their primary vote by trying to lure back those who have defected to the Greens the problem is that there are far more who will defect away to the government than will return to the fold over this.

View discussion

In response to johngood123456

They don’t like it up em!!!!! fro those who don’t get johngood123456’s allusion

View discussion

In response to Ranger010

Don’t assume that criticizing the carbon tax proposed By Shorten means that anyone has to endorse or defend “direct action” both are bad but Shorten’s new scheme is going to be orders of magnitude worse by any measure that matters.

View discussion

In response to markingstar

What would delight me more would be you ceasing to cut and past big slabs text from elsewhere instead of commenting properly like the rest of us

View discussion

In response to voltron1966

voltron1966

Especially with your mate, murdoch, spreading lies and misinformation for you flat-earthers. Hopefully, he’s too busy with his new succubus, I mean wife.

Murdoch certainly does not have the sort of power and sway that you imagine he has.

View discussion

In response to Helicalgroove

Helicalgroove

Its still a return to the Carbon tax

No it isn’t. I’m not going to repeat what Doomglitter has already told you, but no it is not.

As far as the voting public are concerned if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then its a duck no matter how much you and your ilk claim it is some new species of bird.

Thanks for illustrating what I was referring to with my comment about Liberal misinformation though.

I am being utterly truthful here

View discussion

In response to markingstar

markingstar

BHP revealed it paid $4.25 million to the Minerals Council of Australia to help its campaign against the mining tax in 2010. You will be delighted.

That is utterly irrelevent

View discussion

In response to thefinnigans1

thefinnigans1

Direct action has a carbon tax/price

Well I don’t support that scheme either frankly we should do nothing rather than waste money on futile actions. That said it is a lesser evil than the Carbon Tax but not by much

View discussion

In response to DoomGlitter

DoomGlitter

The Clean Energy Act of 2011, which established the emissions trading scheme as a mechanism to deal with climate change, talks about a “price” on carbon, not a tax.

The Gillard government typically referred to a “carbon price” when communicating its policy.

You can hide behind semantics in your comments as undoubtedly the Labor party will hide behind semantic during the election campaign but taht won’t change the public perception that this is still a Carbon Tax being proposed by the Labor party. Its a poisoned chalice filled with climate change Kool Aid.

View discussion

In response to Kaikoura

an amount so small that it can not be measured…………. this is an attempt to raise the Carbon tax form its well deserved grave and the public will reject it in greater numbers than they will welcome it

View discussion

In response to Helicalgroove

Its still a return to the Carbon tax and while that may play well to the “Greens” demographic the rest of the country will refuse the poisoned chalice in droves even with out a government campaign against it.

View discussion

In response to CanadaChuck

A sneaky Carbon Tax is still a carbon tax no matter how Labor try to dress it up in almost impenetrable complexity. And no matter how complex the Lab0r party make its New carbon tax it will still make absolutely zero difference to the climate.

View discussion

In response to murph73

Like you Murph73 I have long favored the idea of creating a separate legal instrument to meet the needs of same sex couples, but sadly the activists are unwilling to accept that because of their fallacious idea that apples are precisely the same as oranges when everyone knows that you can make a pie with apples but you can’t do the same with oranges even though both are fruit.

View discussion

In response to coppersmith

coppersmith

While I share the concerns expressed in this article, I wonder if reflexive intolerance isn’t a normal, even necessary, part of the dialectic of social change.

two wrongs do not make something right More importantly behaving badly to others no matter how much you feel it is justified hinders rather than enhances your cause no matter what it might be.

Marginalised people and there supporters who are on the verge of achieving a hard-won victory over conservative and reactionary forces in society are likely to see that success as fragile.

How they feel simply does not matter

Shaming people for expressing dissenting views may be quite deliberately silencing debate in an effort to ensure that their acceptance is firmly entrenched as part of “the new normal.”

That is just a form of bullying and its often counterproductive as well

While I don’t like to see reasoned debate on an issue shut down, I would be very willing to have critics of transgender people (or Islamic identity, or aboriginal peoples, or what have you) loudly shouted down in the public square until we stop seeing video of people on busses loudly abusing some minority that they are personally offended by.

How very totalitarian of you !
Look if people don’t have the freedom to offend then they have no freedom of speech at all. And if they don’t have freedom then you won’t either.

Maybe a rule of thumb: When vile prejudice if no longer acceptable on the political right, then we’ve reached the point where the left needs to be ready to ease off the knee-jerk response. On many of these issues, we’re just not there yet.

That is ridiculous. under your regime we would never be there, just as it was under Stalin

View discussion

In response to coppersmith

coppersmith

While I share the concerns expressed in this article, I wonder if reflexive intolerance isn’t a normal, even necessary, part of the dialectic of social change.

Marginalised people and there supporters who are on the verge of achieving a hard-won victory over conservative and reactionary forces in society are likely to see that success as fragile. Shaming people for expressing dissenting views may be quite deliberately silencing debate in an effort to ensure that their acceptance is firmly entrenched as part of “the new normal.”

While I don’t like to see reasoned debate on an issue shut down, I would be very willing to have critics of transgender people (or Islamic identity, or aboriginal peoples, or what have you) loudly shouted down in the public square until we stop seeing video of people on busses loudly abusing some minority that they are personally offended by.

Maybe a rule of thumb: When vile prejudice if no longer acceptable on the political right, then we’ve reached the point where the left needs to be ready to ease off the knee-jerk response. On many of these issues, we’re just not there yet.

View discussion

In response to laclem

laclem

Also, what are the arguments against same sex marriage that aren’t based in bigotry and homophobia? Genuine question, as I haven’t heard one yet.

There are quite a few of us out there who are for individual liberty to have any kind of sexual relation ship with another consenting adult that pleases you but have reservations about changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples.

View discussion

In response to PDGFD1

PDGFD1

I see no ‘problem’ there. As long as the discourse doesn’t descend into abusive language.

Maybe that is because you feel the advantages of politicla correctness within the bubble of your fellow minions of the left here where contary opinons are so very often denounced or disallowed even when they are presented in a polite and respectful way.

IF ‘tother side will brook no opposition at all, or claims any and all criticism is ‘intolerance’ then you are dealing with someone who isn’t capable of civilised discourse.

Actually it is your side of the arguments who do that Just look at any thread about feminism and you will find tons of comments removed , supposedly for violating community guidelines but what they have really done wrong is disagree with the prevailing orthodoxy here. Its things like that which does the politcally correct team no favors.

View discussion

In response to martyboy

Yes even readers like me agree with the thrust of this article

View discussion

In response to JohnTiler

JohnTiler
its no more biased that the sources you cited and no matter what its bias you can not deny what it says about your citations which is that all of the ‘research about same sex parenting has a faulty methodology caused mainly by having a rather small and self selected sample rather than a larger more randomized selection and a suitable control group.

View discussion

In response to JohnTiler

John
I can google studies that support my opinion as well:

In his study, published earlier this year, Sullins examined the National Health Interview Survey’s results from 1997 through 2014. The survey, which has been done since 1957, gave Sullins 1.6 million people as his total sample size, including 207,000 children and 512 same-sex couples raising children.

Sullins said that the size of his study gave it a specific strength that other studies on the issue lack. He pointed to 47 studies that say children raised by same-sex couples are not worse off than children raised by opposite-sex parents, all done prior to 2010. “The mean sample size of all of these studies was only 39 children.”

“Only four studies used a probability sample….And the largest of these probability samples was only 44 female same-sex families,” said Sullins. Sullins cited Canadian researcher Doug Allen, whose work has famously showed that children are better off when being raised by parents of the opposite sex, to highlight another flaw in those studies — that the participants are often recruited through the LGBT community via ads and other methods, and therefore have tremendous biases.

The results of Sullins’ study are clear — 7.4 percent of children raised by opposite-sex parents have emotional issues, while 17.4 percent of kids raised by same-sex parents have similar issues. Similarly, 10.2 percent of kids raised by opposite-sex parents have ADHD and other emotional issues, while 19.3 percent of kids raised by same-sex parents have the same issues.

More than 10 percent of opposite-sex parents get their children treated for emotional issues, while more than 17 percent of same-sex parents do the same. And 6.9 percent of kids raised by opposite-sex parents are prescribed medication, compared to 21 percent of children raised by same-sex parents.

“Parent education and income makes no difference” in how children turn out, said Sullins, nor does “family stability” or “age, race, and sex of the child,” or emotional issues that parents have.

Sullins also criticized the popular idea that the children of same-sex parents are bullied and otherwise ill-treated compared to their counterparts raised by opposite-sex parents. He pointed to the National Health Survey (NHS), which he noted has “several good measures” related to such matters. When he looked at the NHS survey, Sullins found that children “with opposite-sex parents were stigmatized at a higher rate,” and that “the differences were augmented — it didn’t explain the differences, it aggravated the differences.”
Source

As i said same sex couples can certainly do an adequate job of parenting but lots research has found that children raised by both of their biological parents do better in life and as such that is the model that we should support and encourage.

View discussion

In response to JohnTiler

JohnTiler


the day that a same sex couple can produce offspring without the intervention of technology and a third party gamete is the day that I will endorse Gay marriage…

Gay couples can also adopt, foster and become legal guardians for children.

Which is both admirable but irrelevant to the point you are trying to counter here

Gay marriage would therefore endorse and strengthen this social endorsement of an enduring pair-bond which has been a foundation stone of human society (your criterion).

No it wouldn’t because a same sex pairing is not the same as heterosexual pairing when it comes to raising children it can be certainly be adequate in a functional sense but children do better when they can experience both male and female examples while they are being raised .

Try again Iain, this really is getting tedious.

Well I enjoy the journey of a discussion as much as its destination.

View discussion

In response to JohnTiler

John
the day that a same sex couple can produce offspring without the intervention of technology and a third party gamete is the day that I will endorse Gay marriage, until then I will continue to argue that instead of co-opting marriage same sex couples should be seeking a separate legal instrument to meet their need for pubic affirmation of their relationships. A separate legal instrument solves all of the political problems and achieves the desired endgame of legal recognition without alienating those in our society who so strongly believe that marriage is only possible between a man and a woman.

View discussion

In response to JohnTiler

JohnTiler

Really? that must surely give the Christians, who by and large are tolerant of homosexuality the moral high ground then.

No matter how much some individual church people opine against homosexuality the reality is that most Christians are not advocating for it to be criminalized and if you ask them privately they will admit to a “live and let live” attitude. That is tolerance, heck that attitude is evident even in Australian Christian Lobby leader, Lyle Shelton.

Perhaps your definition of tolerant is different to the rest of the world?

My definition of tolerance does not require anyone to like that which they will tolerate, in fact accepting something that one strongly disagrees with is by definition “tolerance”

View discussion

In response to JohnTiler

JohnTiler

Because marriage is a heterosexual institution for the continuation of the species

It’s a real wonder our species managed this continuation prior to us ever inventing the institution of marriage.

Marriage, or a social endorsement of an enduring pair-bond has been a foundation stone of human society for as long as we have been a distinct species because it takes so long to bring our offspring to maturity.

View discussion

In response to rattis

rattis

Aggressive, sharp, arrogant responses.

And why is that a problem?

Your dissection of everyone’s commentary demonstrates how much you’re enjoying arguing your point, regardless of who you offend.

Yes I enjoy the process here and I am unmoved by the possibility that someone might be offended in the process because I assume that all here are grown ups.

Like a true bully, your thriving on a knowing that regardless of who you harm, you can hide behind a simplistic ideology that in a way excuses your prejudices.

Commenting here is entirely voluntary and given the fact that those arguing for your side out number the other by orders of magnitude its a bit rich to claim that I am bullying anyone.

As I mentioned to another individual who constantly looks to battle via this issue, I’d bet anything that behind the lines, theres a perfect stereotypical fit of somebody who thoroughly enjoys offending the gay community- middle aged, white heterosexual Christian male (someone who hasn’t had to fight for an inch of social justice because they’re the @ssholes who have dictated notions of social normality for centuries).

Sorry to disappoint you but I am a life long atheist, I am a bit past middle age and I have absolutely nothing against the concept of homosexuality per se. In fact I have repeatedly argued for every individual’s right to copulate with any other consenting adult regardless of gender.

And gay marriage is just another social change that further diminishes your position of power at the top of the class.

You see I reject the “hierarchy of victimhood” that is implicit in your claim above and the very last place that I would be is “top of the class in a position of power” I’m just putting the argument I believe in in an open forum, just as you are.

View discussion

In response to rattis

rattis

Iain, you clearly have more time than me to argue a point.

Not by an measure a crime to have more time as far as I am aware

I’m no longer interested in your rant.

Sorry to bear that you have been an interesting interlocutor

But you should know that in the midst of your discussion is a message being sent to gay people that you believe their relationships are not worthy of marriage.

Its not a matter of “worthiness to marry” as much as its a case of a same sex relationship does not meet the necessary prerequisites for the institution.

This in turn suggests you consider them inferior.

Not inferior just different

This is a message that hurts people who are born different to you.

engaging in our polity on any issue is not for shrinking violets ratis and if someone is ‘hurt” by disagreement then they need to toughen up a bit

I can walk away from this debate knowing that all I am hoping for is an inclusive society that finally recognises the value of a gay relationship and that the law of the land finally embraces same sex relationships as equal.

Well I think that forcing the latter in pursuit of the former may well backfire

You have to live with the thought that you’re campaigning against the rights of a minority who want nothing more but recognition in the eye of the law that who they love is acceptable and meaningful. And I don’t think your determination is doing anything for your cause.

The thing is I believe that you have a substantive acceptance of homosexuality in this country and I am very pleased that is the case its just that I believe that changing the definition of marriage is a bridge too far.

View discussion

In response to SeanoQ

SeanoQ

Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”

Yes I take that as a personal mission statement.

View discussion

In response to BulbousAlsoTapered

BulbousAlsoTapered

the moral imperative to yourself is to demonstrate to those people how to do tolerance properly.

Which has been my practice of a life time

A starting point would be to support SSM and Safe Schools.

No that does not follow

View discussion

In response to Joshua Monkie

Joshua Monkie

Intolerance exists on both sides. Singling out only progressives for this seems pretty intolerant in itself.

I’m not saying my side of the argument is entirely blameless but my experience has been that the progressive side is somewhat worse.

View discussion

In response to rattis

rattis

So Christians are ‘tolerant’ of homosexuals.

In our country they largely are, it seesm to me taht your vision of Christianity would see them all from the same mould as the Wetsbrough Baptists when taht si simply not so in this country

Do they consider them equal?

I don’t speak for them but I would say that the vast majority think that all people are equal in their humanity

Why is there a broad movement by the Church to remove the safe schools program (designed to teach acceptance of difference) from state funded schools?

Because the content of that program is as you progressive like to say “problematic” on a number of levels and it does not actually teach acceptance as much as it teaches a “social justice” orthodoxy that is of questionable virtue.

And why is there an aggressive push to ensure the gay community are locked out of the concept of ‘marriage’?

Because marriage is a heterosexual institution for the continuation of the species

Why? Because Christians ‘tolerate’ homosexuals but they do not consider them equal.

No because a same sex couple can never create children without the intervention of a third party

They never have, and they will continue to campaign to supress them.

We live in a pluralist society and that means that Christians do not have to like or approve what you choose to do, they simply have to let you do as you please as long as you hurt no one else in the process. It seems to me that you are desperate for their approval and that you will hate on them until they give it to you.

You are supporting a movement of bullies.

No I’m not supporting your side of the argument who are the real bullies here.

View discussion

In response to FatzKatz

FatzKatz

So, you are saying Christians are bigots by default Iain?

Certainly Not

Not very clever at this intellectual jousting are you?

Better than you, by any measure though…

View discussion

In response to laclem

laclem

By which you mean criticism of Christians, of which you are intolerant. #irony

You and everyone else here is entirely welcome to criticize Christians and I’m just as free to point out when you and your pals commit precisely the same sins that you accuse Christians of.

View discussion

In response to Davesnothereman

Davesnothereman

Yes Iain, I am intolerant of bigots and will make no apology for it.

Really? that must surely give the Christians, who by and large are tolerant of homosexuality the moral high ground then.

View discussion

In response to rattis

rattis

What, intolerance of bigotry and an intolerance of Chrustians who refuse to tolerate homosexuals as equal?

If Christians* were being intolerant (which the clear majority certainly are NOT intolerant) then surely the moral imperative to yourself is to demonstrate to those people how to do tolerance properly.

Christians playing the victim is utterly absurd. If you want to be tolerated, all you have to do is accept others for who they are.

As Jesus famously said “let those among you who is without sin cast the first stone” The point that John Haldane was making about a lack of generosity in debate is clearly evident in your own comment firstly you mock Christians with unnecessary sarcasm (* above) and then you demonstrate precisely the sort of behavior you are complaining about from Christians.
And before you denounce me as a Christian I will tell you that I am an atheist.

View discussion

You can bet london to a brick that there will be lots of evidence of intolerance form progressives in this thread

View discussion

In response to iBreed

iBreed

So as long as our troops were better than our enemies, we should not be critical of our troops at all, even a century after the fact?

We should not be “critical” of them in a way that implies a general sort of bad behavior that was not actually the case.

View discussion

In response to iBreed

He is a stupid stupid man who fails to put the very few incidents into the proper perspective, namely that such behavior by Australian troops is/was considerably more rare than it has been by the totalitarian enemies that this country has fought wars against. There was not “comfort women” for Aussie soldiers as there were for the Japanese. and any Aussie bad behavior has always been subject to the military justice system.

View discussion

In response to LindaTC

Exactly right Linda flirting is one of the things that puts a sparkle into life and its not something that anyone should have got upset about.

View discussion

In response to MikeFlanagan

Mike
My argument is not at all about “ideology trumping science” its very much about putting what you claim is “concern” and “dismay” into its proper social context. I think that you are simply letting your confirmation bias see the public opinion of this issue through a distorting lens.

View discussion

In response to 58656e

58656e

I think you are completely wrong about the public’s feelings …
No doubt you do. However when your perception is so jaundiced, as to allow you to describe the very real concerns raised by the best available science as ” [t]he sky is falling millenarian rhetoric of the AGW panic merchants,” your credibility as a witness is impugned to the point that no reasonable person can take you seriously.

On the contrary I make a point of having a very wide and diverse social circle
ratehr than just the latte sipping echo chamber that you obviously inhabit. None the less you do raise an important point when you talk about concerns, as IO pointed out in my reply to MikeFlanagan the public’s “concerns” are directly proportional to the immediacy of the threat so something that is claimed to be a disaster this afternoon is far more worrying that something that is predicted to be an issue in 100 years. We have had about decades of dire predictions and that has put this issue very much into “the boy who cried wolf” territory. Frankly if anyone is living in a bubble its you. Most of the people I meet pay lip service to the AGW orthodoxy but they don’t have any heart in it.

I put it to you that beliefs rampant in the denialist bubble you appear to inhabit do not necessarily reflect the views of normal society.

You see this is a matter of science so why do you use the language of faith? Maybe its because the whole climate change industry is really a misanthropic Millenarain cult which is terrified of heresy.

View discussion

In response to IanCPurdie

And you forget or ignore the fact that a lot of people are subscribed (as I am) just to see what the other side are doing.

View discussion

In response to MikeFlanagan

I took a good look at the 2014 survey and form that its pretty obvious why they dropped the whole deal. Its a very vague and rather unfocused effort that really does not tell us much.
Frankly to use the term “dismay” in relation to the public’s level of concern is, well hyperbole. Dismay is what you feel when your life is in immediate danger or your child is very ill. Even if the AGW proposition is correct its impossible for the public to feel a sense of threat after so many dire predictions that have not come to pass (Tim Flannery and Al Gore can take a big bow on that score) and on top of that the public understand that nothing they can do is going to make much of a difference anyway. So the natural consequence is that people down grade their real concern about the issue accordingly. When people are powerless tpo change something they cease to worry about it in any real sense , sure they may do things like be more energy efficient, recycle or even keep chooks “for the planet” but they are still rather sanguine about the issue. You see I am a Boomer and that means I spent my formative years under the shadow of the Cold war and the MAD doctrine and try as you might the vague possibility that the climate may change in a way that is bad for humanity simply does not have the same urgency as the very real fear that the bombs may obliterate us.

View discussion

In response to MikeFlanagan

Mike
I think you are completely wrong about the public’s feelings about climate change they are simply over the endless The sky is falling millenarian rhetoric of the AGW panic merchants. They will happily accept things like improved energy efficiency. But they reject the hair shirt policies of the extreme Greens.

View discussion

In response to Lesm

Lesm

Technology has been around for the last two hundred years and has been used at different times by employers to replace human beings with machines.

Actually Len its been around since long before the industrial Revolution

Those instances were the proximate causes of various revolutions in some countries, and Parliamentary reforms in others of a more democratic bent.ve continually, with minor interruptions, to a more civilised society

Maybe so but neither are likely in contemporary Australia there is simply a total lack of awareness of the implications of things like self serve checkouts in supermarkets and even our public libraries, Personally I refuse to use them and I try to spread the word to all and sundry. Never the less So many of you socialists simply don’t seem to get it that if self serve checkouts are too successful then there will be fewer jobs in retailing, not that you lot generally care about such low status jobs

. In the end these are matters for decision by the people in a democracy and the people will ultimately decide, in much the same way as they have over that last two hundred years, to protect the rights of human beings over machines. As someone so wisely said, “machines are good servants, but bad masters”.

The machines have already got a very decent foothold and in fact it may well be too late. But you are wrong to imagine the machines becoming our masters what they are going to become are willing slaves who will compete with those workers who are now getting double time and a half on Sundays. And as you yourself point out machines make VERY good slaves, they never ask for more pay and they never complain about working longer hours.

View discussion

In response to Lesm

You forget the one thing that this will drive more than any other and its already a problem, namely businesses will simply get machines to do the job instead of a casual, or haven’t you noticed the self serve checkouts at the supermarket ?

View discussion

In response to droverscat

droverscat

Part of these Fair Work powers wold be to ensure employers did not have the right to just ‘seeya’, in the same way that would ensure ‘phoenix’ companies would be banned.

There are way around it if you are that keen/desperate.

The Greens haven’t peaked – they’re about to increase their influence substantially

The public are rapidly tiring of their far left thought bubbles

View discussion

In response to bestusername

bestusername

Plenty of businesses already offer 3 month casual contracts as a trial period. The Greens are simply trying to make it a standard contract across the board in order to boost permanent job numbers.

You simply can not wind back the clock to the time before widespread casual employment because all of the service focused businesses, your food and retail businesses would not be profitable without casual labor.

You’d know this if you did something other than sit on your computer all day trying your damnedest to channel Andrew Bolt.

On the contrary I have been hunched over an angle grinder and Mig welder for most of the day. That said YOU would not run the line you do here if you had the slightest inkling about how business works, Hint it has nothing to do with socialism.

View discussion

In response to MarekBage

MarekBage
Thankfully the Greens have peaked and we will never have to deal with this stupid policy but if it did happen all that would happen is that at the end of the qualifying period employers would say See ya and employ new workers.
That said I agree that the banks need to lift their game when it comes to the way that they view workers like your wife when it coems to getting a loan but this proposal won’t do it.

View discussion

In response to BlueThird

I wrote my blog for a decade ant that particular obsessive made it her mission in life to harass me for most of that time.
And no its not doxing to know more about the person harassing you, the fact of the matter is that I could have “doxed” her but I chose not to even though she thoroughly deserved to have the world know all about here secret internet hobby.
For blogging to be truly civilized I think that you have to give up any notion of anonymity because then all players tend to behave better knowing that they can be held responsible for their deeds. You see over the course of that decade of blogging I have had every sort of threat that you can imagine, (yes even rape threats) I have had hate sites devoted to me created, my children threatened I have had fake Gay dating profiles created and had my face pasted into bestial pornography. I have been repeatedly misquoted and attacked for things I did not say or do. Its simply too tedious for words these days which is one of the reasons I am so sanguine when a woman complains because someone has been unkind to them on twitter
. The internet is simply not a “safe space” and it never will be you just have to know that and be tough if you want to play there no matter what you have in your trousers.

View discussion

In response to steerpike82

My children are quite a bit further along than yours but it may be something you are familiar with but she was never a “girly girl” and she was not consciously channeled into what would be the traditional role for a girl either, For a start I was always the primary carer for my children changed most nappies provided all of the nurturing when they were small, it has always been me they come to if they have scraped a knee or need emotional comfort so their family is not traditional. Even so certain gendered behaviors have emerged anyway which is why I am fairly convinced that those must be innate (for the most part) as for the crying thing well I council both of my children to be tough and stoic because I reckon that has very good survival value for both genders. But at two expecting a boy not to cry is a bit much.
I don’t know about the claim that “boys need more care” Both girls and boys both need care but what each needs is not always the same you have to feel your way through it and just do the best you can, frankly don’t sweat it too much try to persuasion rather than being a domestic dictator and most importantly no matter what they throw at you stay calm because if you don’t they will lose respect for you authority.
Frankly all of the tough stuff is ahead of you and gender will be the very least of your worries.

View discussion

In response to Wizzby

Third time lucky

I say that online bullying is a problem for all users, both male and female and I personally don’t think there is substantially more of it directed at women then is directed at men, but I do think that women are more likely to complain about it than men are which would skew the figures somewhat.

View discussion

In response to BlueThird

I am absolutely certain about her identity, little things like her posting from the same IP address is a dead giveaway as are straight out admissions when I caught her out but no matter what name a person uses they can’t disguise their rhetorical style, or even things like them making the same typos under different personas. But like all liars what trips them up is the lack of consistency in the lies they tell and when you have them commenting at your blog on a daily basis its easy enough to keep track of what they say.

View discussion

In response to Earl_Grey

I wrote a political blog for a decade and was often abused for doing so and the worst offender was a woman who kept inventing new personas every time I banned and told her to go away.

View discussion

In response to steerpike82

steerpike82

I do have one of each, with such small age gap they might as well be the same age. I’ve seen the difference in treatment. But thankyou so much for your condescendence, it really is s breath of fresh air.

Unless your children are fraternal twins there must be a minimum of nine months between then and that is not an insignificant gap in terms of their development. I find it hard to believe you when you claim to have seen ” difference in their treatment” because you as the parent would have to be the primary source of their socialization. But if you mean that you noticed that each child had different aptitudes consistent with the expectations that we have for each gender maybe its just their different natures being perceived and reinforced by the adults around them.
What our children become is obviously derived from both their innate qualities and the things that we as parents teach them.The notion that its all about nurture rather than the nature of individuals just does not stand up to any sort of close scrutiny.

View discussion

In response to Aussiealltheway

Aussiealltheway

That’s likely – not. Ian Hall is just a very angry, obviously humiliated person. Let him have his little sook. Boo hoo hoo.

I am neither angry nor do I feel humiliated

View discussion

In response to steerpike82

steerpike82

They aren’t treated equally though.

When you have one child of each gender as I do you may kid yourself that you can make them the same by the way that you raise them but reality soon knocks that silly idea out of your head. As much as I wanted to teach my daughter about the use of my workshop she was having none of it where as my son LOVES making stuff. As a parent you can and try very hard to treat them equally but that does not equate to treating them the same.

View discussion

In response to Wizzby

Wizzby

No the theory is sound but often poorly understood by those who would rather it didn’t require so much effort.

If the gender theory that claims all identity is a construct rather than an expression of innate qualities then it would not be so hard to mold individuals according to the theory.

View discussion

In response to Aussiealltheway

Aussiealltheway

Clearly, you do not.

As it happens I have a 16 year old daughter and an an eleven year old son which is why I know that that your wild gender generalizations are utter bullshit. Neither I nor any of the other parents I know treat their children as you suggest.

View discussion

In response to GRP2015

GRP2015

On line bullying of women is still on ongong problem and is getting worse.

It isn’t actually and it does women no good service to pretend that disagreeing with what they may say online is bullying.

Unsupported allegations against women by online bullies who are afraid of influentional women is getting worse.

No it isn’t

It is totally unacceptable when even Ministers of Govt engage in such activities.

Like what?

One has to ask just what is wrong with these people.

Sadly too often people like you ,make such claims (while anonymous) without a shred of evidence

Are they so frightened by these women that they have to resort to unsupported claims against such women.

I still think that you are mistaking robust online “debate” for bullyingNo doubt the Guardian will investigate their activities and hold such people to public account.

We await the Guardian’s response to defend women from such online bullying.

View discussion

In response to Aussiealltheway

You don’t have any children of your own do you?

View discussion

In response to Peter Mitchell

Peter
Legislation is only a small part of an MP’s duties

The LNP were the kings of obstruction in opposition, they are now merely reaping what they have sewn.

I saw not one needle and thread in the hands of the LNP in the run up to the 2013 election, sorry but I could not resist :o)

View discussion

In response to TheotherClaw

TheotherClaw

You rebel you!

I’ll take that as a complement

That’ll learn them, they’ll shaking in their boots when they find out your sharing your strategy.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who takes advantage of the system

View discussion

In response to Eileen Kelly

Eileen Kelly

You are fortunate to be able to “pay it off in full at the end of month”.

We live within our means and take this as our mantra:

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”

Unless the cash to make those monthly pay-offs is coming from under your mattress though, you are still holding funds in a bank account somewhere. Fees and charges will apply to holding accounts and your credit card. In my eyes the banks are still the ones sticking it to you (just slightly less than they’re gouging some others).

Our account is always in the black and as such it does not attract “fees” I also make sure that I don’t use ATMs that are not owned by my bank.You can avoid most of the fees if you make the effort.

View discussion

In response to equalsfortytwo

equalsfortytwo

you’re almost as smug as mal, it’s a trait people don’t appreciate.
just a free tip for you

Sigh……………

View discussion

In response to bestusername

bestusername

Shows just how useless the LNP is when they can’t pass legislation with a majority in both houses and a cross-bench mostly made up of conservatives.

If the government had a majority in both houses (which they don’t) then the leanings of the cross benches would not matter

View discussion

In response to Peter Mitchell

Peter Mitchell

Iain they’re paid to pass legislation, failure to do so is a failure to do their job.

No they are paid to represent the voters in their electorates, legislation is only a small part of the job.

Politics is about knowing when to compromise, the Liberals see that as a sign of weakness but by not doing so they are ironically powerless.

Tell that to the cross bench who have been ridiculously obstructive

View discussion

In response to moveonover

moveonover

The Gillard minority government successfully passed 561 bills through the parliament

.
That did not save them from being our worst government in living memory and don’t forget that their most contentions legislation like the carbon and mining taxes were quickly repealed because they were so bad.

I would suggest it is the ideological poor quality that constipates the coalition legislation , most of which I might add is still sitting in parliament and is reflected in their budgets.

and you would be wrong in that suggestion

View discussion

In response to dargie

dargie

Yet strangely , when a Labor govt. has a hostile Senate the Coalition thinks it’s quite ok to thwart them. Bit of logic please.

I think that a hostile senate is bad no matter what

View discussion

In response to ID0423880

ID0423880

Wrong. They haven’t been able to pass legislation because the legislation they have put up is ideological crap that’s not in the national interest.

No you are just too incline towards the left to realize that having an obstructive senate (no matter who is in power) does the country a great disservice.

The cross bench aren’t the problem, it’s the governments policy.

Frankly I think that giving six nutters the power to block legislation is profoundly undemocratic

Delusional to think otherwise.

Our senate is a profoundly undemocratic institution and you only have to see how many votes it takes to elect a senator in Tasmania and compare it to how many it takes to elect a senator in Victoria to see why.

View discussion

In response to RMcC63

RMcC63

It’s a theory and a bloody good one, you might feel uncomfortable thinking about it but deep down you know it’s true.

If you believe that then have I got a deal for you on a slightly used bridge…

View discussion

In response to karmapolice

karmapolice

We vote for policies and parties here, not a president- that’s the fatal mistake Turnbull also made.

Actually we vote for MPs who then elect a PM However the Government will be bringing down its budget shortly and that will contain more than enough “policy” to make any one happy.

View discussion

In response to MikeTaree

MikeTaree

Iain, even if Turnbull just scrapes in he will have lost many of the backbenchers in marginal seats who supported him in his coup over Abbott.

I really don’t think that will be the outcome

To quote Gandalf at the end of the Two Towers film “Sauron’s wrath will be terrible, his retribution swift”.
And clownshoes will be back on his rampage.

Tony Abbott is simply not Kevin Rudd no matter how hard you want pretend that he is.

View discussion

In response to Wheelspinner

Wheelspinner

Your last, best hope is that the people will find the Leader of the Opposition more objectionable than your lot when they go to the ballot box.

On the contrary I think a lot of people are sick of change for its own sake and they will appreciate stability. especially if a DD cleans out the cross benches or gives the governemnt a more workable senate

After almost 3 years, there is no policy platform to stand on, no record of achievement to point to and no future direction for the country. Nothing.

“Steady as she goes” is pretty good for most folk, except you minions of the lefty who want to constantly reinvent everything even when its not broken.

View discussion

In response to ID0423880

ID0423880

And somehow Turnball has made the genital herpes option attractive.

Go figure.

Only to those who attend “conversion parties”

View discussion

In response to Stephen Prowse

Stephen Prowse

Not any more, we need to get the “least worse” (to paraphrase FDOTM) and at the moment our PM is performing very badly. The ALP has credible policies on the table.

Only in the eyes of those like you who would NEVER vote for the LNP under any circumstances.

View discussion

In response to MrsFappy

I’m not wrong, Under labor there were leaks form the Gillard and Rudd camps

View discussion

In response to thefinnigans1

Really? We both know that for the ordinary generally nu-engaged voters its the personality of the leader that matters and Shorten is as popular as genital herpes

View discussion

In response to fredgladys

Actually being able pass their legislation will make a biog difference to the government and its the reason that they have not, as you put it , been able to do the job they are paid for.

View discussion

In response to RicardoK

But fewer leaks than we saw under labor rule.

View discussion

In response to thefinnigans1

No it won’t because the alternative is Bill Shorten and that is a most unpalatable choice indeed.

View discussion

In response to RicardoK

If you want to stick it to the bank then do as I do buy everything with your credit card and pay it off in full at the end of the month…

%d bloggers like this: