The ELECTION Thread

[Rebel*1*]

No bnwt, what I'm saying is that your idea of an election thread could be likened to an ALP lynching party.  You seem happy to swallow anything Abbott dishes up as veritable 'gospel'.  Some of us are not so easily convinced.

Do you have the slightest idea what you are talking about in this rather serious insulation issue?  Or is it yet another Election show bag filler with as little fact as possible?  This is what offends me the most, you are willing to post election spin media but not discuss the facts underpinning Abbots outrageous one sided spin doctoring.  I'm just as happy to debate any spin being put out their by the ALP if it means Aussies will get to the truth of the issues we're all voting on.

As I tried to demonstrate with the 'boat people' crisis (that Tony Abbott alone is blowing out of all proportion in his penchant to create hysteria), there is much more to it than the Australian people are being informed of.   If we're going to vote on these issues, then don't you think we should know what they really entail?  i.e. not just behave like a huge herd of SHEEP?

For instance, you seem to think that the Govt alone was to blame for the whole insulation fiasco and nobody else?  really?  Because Abbott says so?  Do you think it's all that simple?

Businesses who rorted that system, engaged in unsafe practices, & used unsafe materials, whilst placing workers and the public at obvious risk.  Otherwise, known as negligence.   Don't you imagine that an insulation business should at least know about these risks?  whether it's a Govt subsidised installation or funded by the consumer themselves?  NO?

Well I can can assure you that any OH&S investigation or Civil Damages claim, will be asking that very question.   What caused houses to burn down and workers to be electrocuted?

The Govt's rebate program? or faulty and negligent installation?  Who told these operators to install foil sided insulation or ignore the standard distance required around down lights?  The Govt?

It may have escaped your notice, but Garrett acknowledged the Govt's Duty of care, and tightened the criteria around the rebate in the same period announcing that as of June 1/2010:

installers will be forced to re-register with the government, pay a cash bond, show evidence of training and minimum skills, provide certified quality assurance and occupational health and safety plans, and be subject to a tough new compliance regime.

Of course, under each State's W/Cover and OH&S laws, EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS, is supposed to provide training, minimum skills, safe work practices/equipment, and an OH&S plan, irrespective of who pays for the installation.  

If anything, this is the only factor I can see, where the Fed Govt might have been able to mitigate risk initially, by checking more stringently on companies out to rort the program from the outset.

Nevertheless BNWT, as each damages claim surfaces, we'll hear the real story about who's really to blame.  

Here's just one of many to come:

Charges laid over insulation death
Updated Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:02am AEST
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/28/2939252.htm

Arrow Property Maintenance Pty Ltd has been charged with breaching the Electrical Safety Act and for allegedly failing to run its business safely.

The company has also been charged under the Workplace Health and Safety Act for allegedly failing to ensure its workers were protected from high falls.


Do you still think it's all as simple as Abbott portrays?  

[bnwt]

my idea of an election thread is one where everyone is welcome to express their opinions and points of view

you may note I have not posted a single positive comment or quote about the Liberals but as I said right from the outset I am not pro Liberal but I am anti Labor

Abbott does not need to dish up anything and if you review the media you'll notice he is hardly getting any air time ....... that's extremely clever I think

Julia Caesar & Co. are punching a new hole in the bottom of their sinking ship every few hours ..... I must say it's a delight to watch

I predict the Liberal Party will not win the election ................................................ rather Labor will lose and it will be massive

[Rebel*1*]

bnwt, I'm not arguing that people's views should not be expressed, in fact, I'm inviting debate over the issues these parties are apparently using as election platforms.   You seem to be presenting the 'media's view, and I believe they are extremely biased when it suits them.

I'm more interested in both Parties giving The Australian People the facts in anything they are asserting and asking us to vote for, not a popularity contest.
 
e.g. Mining.  MM and probably many other Waussies (and Eastern Staters) are horrified at the thought of Margaret River and the Kimberley being exploited, or Uranium Mining being given the green light, and no doubt people might therefore consider that to be a HUGE and highly relevant election issue.  Notwithstanding the mining companies also paying their fair share to the Australian People for the exploitation of that wealth (which the Opposition seem to think is unfair?)  huh?  So who do they represent exactly?.  

Do you recall anytime during this whole race to the bottom, that either party (or the so called independent media) has informed the Australian people of the facts, or given us a fair say over our share of those resources? or indeed indiscriminate Mining access being granted all over the countryside?   Does anyone seriously believe that Abbott will do anything other than support the mining companies if elected?

I think Mining therefore, (and who is really running this country) would have to top the scale in terms of Issues of National Importance, and yet it's all lost in the spin cycle.
 
The Issue of 'Boat People' in my view is not something that affects the Australian people as much as mining does, and even if Tony Abbott is elected, the boat people will just keep coming.  So anything he promises in terms of stopping it with a magic policy, is just spin.  

[*wheels*]

Honeymoon de Julia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/07/15/2955069.htm

[bnwt]

no I'm not expressing the views of the media rather it's an observation on how Julia is being portrayed by the media ... they seem to going out of their way to make her look bad

in the 2007 election they were all gushing over Kevin O'Lemon

why is that they seem to have it in for Julia ?? ............even the smh and dare I say the ABC appear to not like her

I am truly surprised by the comments left by ABC readers, they just hate her, not all but majority make very unfavourable remarks

I think the Labor power brokers have made a huge mistake pinning their hopes on Julia, if you live in NSW you'll have seen the appalling results of these faceless back room puppeteers already at the state level. The Penrith by-election had a 26% swing against state Labor, I don't see any reason why it wont be any different for federal Labor. There only needs to be around a 2% swing nationally and Labor are cactus. In the inner city seats there'll be a swing to the greens and in the suburbs they'll lose to the Liberals

infamy infamy ......... they all have it in for me

[*r3830*]

Just as a matter of interest..... How the media viewed Rudd

Kevin Rudd - Lily Allen The Fear Take Off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ygqxmM_pDg&feature=related

[*r3830*]

bnwt..... you made a comment earlier - that you wondered if the media had a dislike of Julia. The link below is from the Daily Telegraph. It may assist!

Her name by the way is Amanda Bishop. See what you reckon. 

Julia Gillard impersonator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lhb1-1Fuhw

[Rebel*1*]

I agree bnwt, but that doesn't surprise me with Australian media.  They can't just report the story, (with the facts) they have to be part of the story by directing the focus one way or another. 

I can understand why there might be some disdain towards Julia Gillard, but I think it's largely misplaced.  What the ALP power brokers did however, smacked of 'tokenism' after all, so as I said, it's not surprising.

I don't blame Julia Gillard for that because I don't believe she's anybody's fool.  But I do believe the ALP really devalued her potential as Australia's first Female Prime Minister due to their conduct towards Rudd.   I believe that Gillard would have had a much easier time if she'd come into the leadership in her own right and ran on her own skills.  This isn't an intelligent election, it's one being fought on popularity and mud slinging.

As alternatives go, the Opposition are scraping the bottom of the barrel in this election with Abbott, when they could have had Turnbull or Costello.  That in itself makes me think twice.   

[Rebel*1*]

bnwt, I am quite familiar with NSW and the absolute disaster that has been created by the current State Govt.  I'm also not too fond of Bobby Carr for his legacy in removing most of our civil liability rights.  More right wing than the opposition in that regard.  

I'd like to see a SERIOUS debate happen in NSW between both parties with the real issues highlighted (and the real economic situation exposed) with each party telling us what they intend to do about it.  Otherwise, all we keep doing is voting on ambiguous promises.  We need them to commit to tangible policies so we can vote them in on an informed basis and hold them to their election promises.  

I don't care which party gets in, as long as they are accountable to the people when they screw up.  

[*r3830*]

I don't blame Julia Gillard for that because I don't believe she's anybody's fool.  But I do believe the ALP really devalued her potential as Australia's first Female Prime Minister due to their conduct towards Rudd.   I believe that Gillard would have had a much easier time if she'd come into the leadership in her own right and ran on her own skills.  This isn't an intelligent election, it's one being fought on popularity and mud slinging.

I agree with your thoughts on this Rebel*1*, particularly where Ms Gillard coming into leadership in her own right - without the shadows of the past floating above her. An earlier link that I posted sort of summed up what Mr Rudd had become.... a single operator.... or was that a player from a 'group of four'? Again, he's off in the world - somewhere else other than here.... on what looks like a mission to achieve that all important seat on the UN Security Council. I read that his Labor colleagues are concerned about the matter.

 

[mandurahmum]

I see that BP may have had a hand in the release of the Lockerbie bomber - so that they could drill in Libya.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38256677/ns/world_news-africa/

This does not surprise me at all - we cannot trust mining companies to do the right thing. 

I wonder what deal Magellan did to allow lead to be shipped out of Fremantle after the major mishap in Esperance.  We know they must have done something - because most people had no idea this was even being considered until the deal was done.  But then again - we also know that Magallen had done the wrong thing plenty of times before - but it was all covered up

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/top-stories/esperance-lead-pain-ignored/story-e6frg12l-1111113430921

[mandurahmum]

I am also concerned that the ads to get people enrolled on the electrol role have not been on tv/radio. 

[Rebel*1*]

OH mum, you wouldn't believe just how far up the cracker of every Western Govt, the mining industry actually are.    They're into the natural wealth & politics of every country, either up front or undercover, and they've found a new country to plunder.  They get around don't they?

The US have been doing Geological surveys for years now in Afghanistan and finally they've found something to really fight over.  They've identified conservatively US1Trillion in Mineral Resources and are busy making sure they keep control of it.  What war on terrorism?  Now it's a war over mineral resources. 

Read this:  Afghanistan sits on $1 trillion mineral motherlode
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/15/2926822.htm
 
Colonel Lapan says the studies were part of a US government effort designed to assist Afghanistan build up viable industries, and advisers were working with the Kabul government to attract "world-class" mining companies.
 
He says US officials were "helping the Afghans to learn how to ... understand what they have".
 
Now it's just a race to see who'll get mining rights to these resources and the big question is, will the Afghan people also be given a mere 1.00 in 7.00 like us Aussies in return for their un-renewable resources?  Seems to be the M.O.   Is that how the US Govt and Mining Companies are going to help them learn about what they have? or have not?.   

Naturally, the US are already fear mongering over it and lobbying for their perceived 'share'.
 
U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html
 
"the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact.
 
Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country".
 
At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.
 
Get set for round two.

Based on this 'motherlode', the US will want to stay in Afghanistan to safe guard their perceived interests or 'Investment' as they put it, and it looks Like Australia will also get roped into it (paid for by Aussie taxpayers of course).
 
Aussies could be in Afghanistan 'until 2040'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/10/2923407.htm
 
A former high-ranking United States defence official says Australian troops could be in Afghanistan for the next 30 years.
 
Nevertheless, it could also be the solution to the plight of millions of Afghan refugees, who might now be able to go home.  Double edged indeed.  I feel concerned for the Afghan people if mining is at the helm of their recovery.  It won't be fair remuneration, if Australia is any example.  Mining companies never play fair.

[bnwt]

LOL

I believe that moving forward is all about moving forward and we all we need move forward while moving forward


hilarious

she is a joke

[Rebel*1*]

On what basis do you consider her a joke?  And Tony Abbott the original Howard Toe Cutter isn't?  Oh come now bnwt.  I think you'll find that MANY are horrified at the mere proposition of Abbott being elected.  That alone might do him in. 

Hey and what do you suggest instead of moving forward?  moving backward and harping on about the same things over and over and over again like the Opposition does? 

Moving nowhere? or Harping on?  Would that be a good opposition election slogan?

[bnwt]

I was commenting on her APPALLING election speech .... not as political announcement but as a media presentation

quite seriously there were several occasions where I burst into laughter

it was soooooooooo corny so amateurish

she said "moving forward" so many times it became hilarious  (32 times apparently)

obviously her puppeteers have told her to keep using the term but it makes her sound like an idiot when she repeats it over and over again just because it's her election "catch phrase"

not to mention her over use of "I believe"

who ever wrote her speech is a rank amateur ... her delivery wasn't too bad but she always reminds me of someone in the grade 9 debating team when she speaks

[mandurahmum]

Thanks for that Rebel - I wonder why our mainstream media did not report on that.  Oh yeah - cause we are only interested in freeing the people from the Taliban - yeah right.

We were only in Iraq because of Weapons of Mass Destruction - yeah right.

I understand how important the Mining Industry is - more than half of my cul de sac works at Alcoa, and a couple work up North on mining projects.

But what I dont understand is why we bow down to them - I mean - we own the land/water - not them.  Surely this gives us the bargaining chip.  But our government fails to see this.  They cow tail whenever a mining company is unhappy - me I would tell them if they dont like it - leave.  Some other mining company will always step in - if the minerals/oil etc is worth it.  And we know they are worth it.  

Take Uranium for an instance, I dont see the need for it over here yet.  Surely the longer we leave it in the ground - the more valuable it becomes.  Hopefully then we will also have the solution as to what to do with spent uranium.

But it seems to me our government is very short sighted on these matters.

Do we really want them to drill for oil off the Kimberley Coast - a spectacular place to visit - and something that all Aussies should go and visit at some time in their live.  Its magical - no wonder the Aboriginal People dont want mining up there.  Just look at the Rock Art in some of the caves - thousands of years old - but not really valued by us.  Which is so strange - it is some of the oldest Art in the world - but we will allow people to try and destroy it.

I also cant believe that when the world is watching the Gulf of Mexico that any government in the world would greenlight more oil drilling in the ocean - but ours did.  I mean talk about bad timing - or do they really think we dont know what is happening over there - or even worse that we dont care.

I am not bashing Julia - cause I think the mad monk would have done the same thing.  I am absolutely shocked that the Greens are not jumping up and down about this - after all we count of them to look after the environment when the 2 other parties only see money.

But then again, we Waussies know that we dont really count - the election results are determined over in the eastern states - and normally announced before our polling places are even closed.

I can see why people over here love the thought of secession from the rest of Australia.  We bring in so much money for this country yet our hospitals are woefully lacking.  And dont even think of getting hurt up north - the flying doctor service is a long way away and often already on another job.

[mandurahmum]

I still think Barrack had the lamest - Yes we can.  Well of course you can - you just probably wont

[Rebel*1*]

Morning Mum,  

I am absolutely shocked that the Greens are not jumping up and down about this - after all we count of them to look after the environment when the 2 other parties only see money.

OH, but they are Mum, the media is just not giving them any air time.  I am on the Greens Newsletter/mailing list so I can keep up to date with what they're doing.  

You might like to voice your concerns with their office as should many others and get onto their email list.  It's the only way to hear about what the Greens are doing.  The media ignore them unless there's a controversy.  Independent ?   We need to keep the Greens in the senate or we'll have absolutely NO power over these mongrels and no knowledge of their exploits.  

If as many, you are unsure of where to cast your vote (particularly given the mining issues being ignored by both major parties), at least consider giving it to the Greens so they can keep watch over the environment from the Senate.  Otherwise, nobody will be telling the Australian people what the real costs are in this 'anything for a buck' era.  (BTW, I'm not a raving Greenie, but I do value the environment (shouldn't everyone?) and I do therefore believe the Greens must have a role in the senate to speak on behalf of our otherwise unrepresented environment)  The following newsletter has a survey, link, but if you feel inclined on specific issues not in the survey, email directly to  Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, or Bob Brown on the following email:

Contact Bob Brown
action@greensmps.org.au

Dear friend, (2/7/10)

I have congratulated Julia Gillard, given condolences to Kevin Rudd, and joined the nationwide celebration of our first female prime minister. And at our Party Room meeting in Canberra last week, we correctly predicted the instant impact on the polls.  We are also expecting an election in August.

That’s why in this message, I am asking you what you think. By clicking here, you can tell me what you think about issues the Greens will be campaigning on in the lead up to the election this year.  Survey: http://210.247.190.106/professionalquestsurveys/BobBrownSurvey.asp

Rudd was no progressive, but we mustn't forget it was the Labor Right that axed him and imposed Julia Gillard.  

Your views are very important to me, and I’d like to thank you now for any time you can spend taking part in our survey.

I do expect to have constructive, frank, honest talks soon with the new Prime Minister.  But I do not expect this will be a green government.  And the Abbott Opposition ensures that the political "tug" will be away from progressive dialogue.

Tell me what your priorities are in our survey.

So, MORE THAN EVER, the Greens are needed in the Senate, to ensure Australians get good outcomes on climate change, on asylum seekers, on forests and biodiversity, on your rights at work, on proper dental care and truth in political advertising.

The election campaign is on. Many potential Greens voters will be assessing the new Prime Minister and whether or not she will change the way they feel about the Labor Government.

Our job now is to make sure every one of those voters knows why they need the Greens as a guarantee in the Senate. The Greens in the Senate mean scrutiny, positive solutions and insurance against deadlock with the Opposition.

Imagine a re-elected Julia Gillard government with an Abbott controlled Senate!  This is a real possibility if the Greens don’t obtain balance of power at this year's poll.

Your views will help make our campaign better, and inform our policy priorities.

I look forward to the campaign, now well under way, and seeing you on that trail.

Yours sincerely
 
Bob Brown

[bnwt]

what is difference between listening to bob brown and standing in front of an elephants arse when it farts ?





nothing

[shyer]

Imagine a re-elected Julia Gillard government with an Abbott controlled Senate!  This is a real possibility if the Greens don’t obtain balance of power at this year's poll.

Imagine a bob brown controlled senate NOTHING will get done. The country will be sh1t brown in a year, and flushed out to sea, take decades to correct. Greens are very dangerous read their full platform, not "enviroment" friendly leaflet .

No defence, indonesian in a decade. No development. No cities. No children ( apart from bobs grandchildren) . Media and schools controled by "big brother". No bushfire controls. All to make a dictatorship of the left. A mao type elite living the good life. The rest economic serfs condemed to work dawn till dusk and non polluting early death. And burial sites soon vegie gardens so every thing is recycled.

You think that is far fetched. Pol pot initially was sponsored by china, how many millions killed ?. Laos is still a closed dictatorship making china look like heaven. The Nazis only took 15 years to turn germany into a military dictatorship from a good democracy.

All democracies need loony lefties, like our rebel friend, one idea in a thousand is a good idea. Just as we need the rat bag gengis khan right, one idea in a thousand is a good idea. ie one nations Naru for economic que jumpers like boat people.

[Rebel*1*]

We were only in Iraq because of Weapons of Mass Destruction - yeah right.

Nah mum, they gave up looking for WMD's (if they ever even existed), and started looking for MMP's "MINERALS OF MASS PROFIT" !!!  LOL

Wonder if they've found anything in Iraq they can exploit in return for their 'Investment' of War.   Must go looking on the net, because obviously our own Media don't give a stuff about informing the public of these important events. 

The irony is that this is the only way the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is going to end, and millions of refugees repatriated = less boat people from those regions.    When the US gets what it seems to have invaded those countries for ?   Let's face it Mum, the US would never have had the freedom to scout out Minerals in those countries unless they invaded them.  The whole thing stinks to me, but that's just me.  I'm naturally skeptical.

This morning Abbott was asked on AMAgenda about the troops in Afghanistan and he didn't say boo about the new found 'riches', and the likelihood that our troops will be there for decades, no doubt safeguarding the US 'Investment'.  He just kept pushing the 'terror fear button' and lamenting the loss of defense personnel involved in this 'war of false pretenses'. 

This is what cringes me about politicians. They are liars by Mass omission of fact.    It stands to reason that the Yanks have their 'prize', and now they'll do anything they can to stay in Afghanistan to exploit it.  It also stands to reason that the Taliban will also try to gain control over those resources,  and there will be many more deaths of Defense personnel and civilians before this conflict is over. 

As I've said, the only thing that's changed is that there is now something tangible to fight over so it ain't over by a long shot and it's likely to get much worse before it gets better.

Nevertheless, Abbott talked down the Afghan refugee issue, saying in one breath that Afghanistan is still dangerous for troops, and in the other, ignoring the connection between millions of fleeing refugees from that very same danger?  He argued that the 'push' factors have nothing to do with the 'boat people' crisis?  Really?  (That's if you could call the small number of boats coming here an actual 'crisis).   Is he really that dense? or just dishonest?   Or has he altered the philosophy of cause = effect to suit his election rhetoric?

Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is a consequence of the first.    i.e. the war in Afghanistan and Iraq has created millions of refugees, some of whom become 'boat people' and a very small number of whom make it to Australia.  If we end the war, we end the refugee crisis, and the resultant boat people.   It's not rocket science.

[Rebel*1*]

All democracies need loony lefties, like our rebel friend, one idea in a thousand is a good idea. Just as we need the rat bag gengis khan right, one idea in a thousand is a good idea. ie one nations Naru for economic que jumpers like boat people.

Why is it that when faced with a differing opinion, or even an objective 'big picture' consideration of an issue, some people resort to petty name calling and naked value judgements? 

You are entitled to your opinion Shyer, if that's what you call it.   I'm neither left or right, but a mixture of both depending on the issue under discussion.    You appear to be 100% right wing, no matter what the issue by comparison.  How inflexible of you.

I stated specifically that I am NOT a greenie, but I see the need for both extremes in the senate for the sake of balance.  RIGHT AND LEFT.  Otherwise, it's a dictatorship.  I also see the logic in discussing the political philosophies of each major party including the Greens, given that many Australians WILL vote Green, and those votes will then go to one or the other party in preferences. 

That's why I encouraged people NOT to waste their votes if they find themselves repulsed by both major parties.  At least make it count. 

The fact that your subjective prejudices don't allow you to consider the big picture is your problem, but it doesn't therefore entitle you to be personally abusive towards anyone who DOES.   Grow up, I dare you.

[bnwt]

two questions I have always wanted answered

1 - why do politicians have to kiss babies ?

2 - why is it considered an advantage to claim the party is "the under dog" ?






[attachment deleted by admin]

[shyer]

Why is it that when faced with a differing opinion, or even an objective 'big picture' consideration of an issue, some people resort to petty name calling and naked value judgements? 
You are entitled to your opinion Shyer, if that's what you call it.   I'm neither left or right, but a mixture of both depending on the issue under discussion.    You appear to be 100% right wing, no matter what the issue by comparison.  How inflexible of you.....   Grow up, I dare you.

I have grow up dear true believer when I was 20 I to was a true believer. I belieived in the great socialist ideals by the time I was 35 and had real world experience I saw the REAL world.

You my friend need a mirror I have a different opinion to you . I do not wear a tin foil hat to bed every night. I do not see a conspiricy at every cross roads. I never made this personal YOU did. I also make a prediction you came to this forum just before the election was called and will never be see again after the election, maybe you will be hiding from the police.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/7600995/liberal-candidate-punched-in-face-over-asylum-policy/

I know you are a coward verbal bully only. But by your earlier logic, spins and twists my comment is more factual.

[bnwt]

Julia Gillard's election call may have backfired, with poll showing Labor's support slipping


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillards-election-call-may-have-backfired-with-poll-showing-labors-support-slipping/story-fn59niix-1225893621692

[mandurahmum]

Rebel - there has been no coverage at all of the media over here on the Oil drilling off the coast or about Uranium Mining.  Most of us WAussies had no idea they were being considered.  The only coverage we got was when both projects were given the go ahead - and that was one day, nothing since.

I dont like Bob Brown - he should have supported the Government on climate change - instead of accepting what was offered and then trying later to get it increased - he destroyed the bill.  That was just stupid.

And lets no forget that one of our own Green members was sleeping with the liberal treasurer.  Both married with kids - but not to each other.

I would however love to hear how Tony Abbot is going to stop the boats.  It is impractable to have our navy constantly in the area - its a big bloody area.  Its just a fact that they will always come - i dont like it but I have to accept it.  And why wouldn't they - look where and how they live and then look at us.  I think we just need to start preparing for them, by building up this country so we can cope.

And its not just the illegal refugees we have to prepare for, but its a fact that some of the countries near us and losing land to rising oceans and erosion.  These people will also be coming, and we wont be able to send them back.

bnwt - Answers to your questions

1.  Because babies dont really know who they are - they will take a kiss from anyone.  People who do know they are politicians - well - would you let them kiss you?

2.  Apparently is because of the tall poppy syndrome.  But then again I support the Dockers - underdogs from the get go - but doesn't everyone want the underdog to win.

[bnwt]

here's another question I have always wondered about


why do greens voters live in the inner city ??

the most environmentally unfriendly location they could pick

from my observation these voters are mostly losers that use being champions of the environment as an easy means to make themselves seem important

[Rebel*1*]

bnwt, I totally agree, I watched the baby kissing fest yesterday and found myself cringing.  Why is it that Pollies want to corrupt the nations youngest in election campaigns ?.  Wet Wet Wet.   Cringe.

As for Greens,  Right or wrong, they just are, and labeling all green voters as leftist loonies or losers is not entirely intelligent.  Some of our leading scientists are also Environmentalists, along with many aligned professionals.   Where do you suppose all the data on Global Warming has come from, and the scientific arguments against?  Laypeople?     I don't agree with various 'Green' policies, but I still see the need for someone in the Senate defending the environment where relevant.     I can well understand why people harbor grievances towards the Green party, as much as some harbor grievances towards both major parties and their respective leaders.  That's politics. 

As for all this socialist rubbish, you are the only one going on about that Shyer, and hurling insults around (as if your subjective assumptions constitute fact).  I guess if you can't debate an issue intelligently, you have nowhere else to go but abuse and insults.  Works for some.   

I believe in a 'Fair Go', and last time I looked that was very much part of our culture in Australia.  So, those of us who believe in a 'Fair Go', are all leftist loonies now? 

Mum, you hit the nail on the head about the conditions the Afghan people in particular have put up with for decades. (politics and blame game mentality aside) No-one can say it's been a picnic for Afghan civilians.    Perhaps if people spent more time finding out about the plight of those they so easily judge, fear and reject, there might be more intelligence in the 'boat people' debate.  i.e. what they are fleeing from and just how much we take for granted.

I found this article which seems fairly comprehensive.    I'm assuming it is reasonably accurate (Though who can tell what's fact or fantasy with the media)  This was back in 2001, 9 years and another war later, it's even worse.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A38162-2001Sep15
 
There are few places on Earth where people have lived in greater misery for more years than Afghanistan, a rugged swath of landlocked deserts and mountains just smaller than the state of Texas where about 25 million people struggle to survive. One of every four children die before the age of 5; life expectancy is about 43 years; infant and maternal death rates are the second highest in the world; only 12 percent of the population has access to safe drinking water; and barely 30 percent of the men and 15 percent of the women can read or write.
 
Its people have been bombed, raped, tortured, slaughtered, looted and uprooted by two decades of war. Its lands are some of the most densely mined in the world. Its roads, irrigation systems and other infrastructure have been devastated by war and poverty. In one of its most recent reports, the United Nations described the situation in Afghanistan as "a horror."
 
Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows.

[bnwt]

and why is Afghanistan like that ??

because they are still living in the 12th century

because stupid religion is holding them there

[Rebel*1*]

Rebel - there has been no coverage at all of the media over here on the Oil drilling off the coast or about Uranium Mining.  Most of us WAussies had no idea they were being considered.  The only coverage we got was when both projects were given the go ahead - and that was one day, nothing since.

Mum, this is the very type of thing you should be posting about on media sites, and the campaign sites of each candidate including the Greens.  Ask them a simple question.  What is their position on Mining Margaret River, the Kimberley coast, and also Uranium.  

It is a serious election issue that many are curious over.  How will they balance jobs with potential environmental devastation?  

Realistically, there has to be some mining or the economy will definitely suffer.   The question is how that balance is going to be achieved.  

I'm just taking a look to see if any of them are putting forward polices on mining access and fair remuneration for the Australian people?  Isn't there a little issue of infrastructure funding we still have to foot the bill for otherwise?  In my view, if they must mine an area, then there has to be safeguards and fair remuneration to the Australian People.  

[Rebel*1*]

bnwt, I did say (all politics and blame game mentality aside).  I should have included religion.   It's really none of our business what religion these people are but the majority of Afghan people are Muslim.  It's not a problem to be fixed.

Hey and if we're comparing religions, the Western world's religions are no better when it comes to war in the name of 'God'.  How many wars have been fought over the centuries in the name of Western Religions?? 

Whoever might be to 'blame' for Afghanistans history of conflict, (whether war lords, Russians, US, Taliban or Bin Laden himself) essentially has no relevance to whether in this century, they should finally have a safe and prosperous society for the first time ever?  Given that they can fund it themselves, I'd say it's not an unreasonable gesture.

[mandurahmum]

Rebel - I have written to all 4 of my mp's about this issue to see what their position is on this matters - I will let you know what they say.

I also tweet Julia whenever she does one - to let her know how disappointed I am in her decisions, I also do the same on myspace.  She may not read them - but others do.

I am not sure why the media is not covering these issues - they seem to think that all we care about is the mining tax.  Well to me that is done and dusted.  But it does also seem to me that the media never covers mining mishaps over here - and its not because we are not interested - I assume they have a vested interest in not reporting them.

I am not opposed to mining - it is something that this state and country needs to stay financial.  But I do think it goes both ways - we need the mining companies - but they need our land too.  We also need to know that if things go wrong - they will be able to fix the problem straight away - so that the impact on the environment is next to nil. 

[mandurahmum]

http://www.saveourmarinelife.org.au/

This is the website for save our marine (from the oil drilling)  it also has  a link to email the pm.

Please send her your thoughts if your opposed to what they want to do.  Please also forward this link to anyone else that may be interested.

Thanks

[bnwt]

typical gutter antics

[attachment deleted by admin]

[golden]

Looks like a Volkswagon bonnet!   

[Rebel*1*]

Oh come now, Tony Abbot is the iconic undisputed 'Budgie Smuggler' King isn't he?  NO chance of a competition from Julia on that 'front'.  lmao

[shyer]

A vote for labour is a vote for poverty and unemployment.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-depth/greens-say-no-to-roxby-uranium-mine/story-fn5rizbk-1225894763085

"BECAUSE"  the green pirnted handbook has an ideal it becomes worshiped. WHO will invest billions in a country if the rules keep changing??? No one is the answer!!!

Roxby downs produces huge $ for all australia it is one of the reasons Australias has under employment and skilled migrants reeded. USA japan europe all OECD countries are still stuggling to come out of the GFC . We here are on easy steet.   

[bnwt]

we are also here on easy street thanks to the Howard government that not only managed to pay off the 10 billion dollars worth of debt from the previous lousy Labor government but saved another 12 billion dollars

which krudd gave away on crap

Liberal governments are very good at making money

Labor governments are very good at spending money

only trouble for the current Labor team is they have spent all the money

simple answer TAX TAX TAX

[Rebel*1*]

Shyer, there is sustainable mining, and then there's dangerous  and 'unsustainable' mining that might produce a short term profit, but impose a long term handicap, even disaster, not only here but Worldwide. 

Whether you like it or not, there are rational arguments against Uranium mining, and whatever is decided here, can have ramifications locally and globally.   It pays to consider all sides of the argument in something this important.  JMO 

This particular article has arguments for and against Uranium mining in WA. 

Great science debates of the next decade: Spotlight on uranium

    * Narelle Towie, Science Reporter
    * From: PerthNow
    * February 01, 2010 4:20PM

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/special-features/great-science-debates-of-the-next-decade-spotlight-on-uranium/story-e6frg1ac-1225825647309

Uranium is one of the world’s most dangerous minerals—literally and politically.

Australia has about 40 per cent of the world’s uranium reserves with 5 per cent in WA, most of it in the Yeelirrie deposit, 400km north of Kalgoorlie.

Since the Barnett Government formally overturned a ban on uranium mining in November 2008, and after a spectacular price increase, exploration applications have flooded the desks of bureaucrats across the state.

There are 27 uranium projects in WA, with five resource companies "significantly advanced" enough to start firing up production as soon as 2012.

So far, Australia has exported enough uranium to produce 80 tonnes of plutonium or enough to build 8000 nuclear weapons, according to the Conservation Council of Australia.

And there are no guarantees that WA's uranium won't fall into the wrong hands, fuelling the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by unstable regimes and terrorist groups. 

On one side is the almighty dollar, (and a bag full of beads called Jobs) and on the other are real health and environmental risks and proliferation of nuclear WMD's.   The least the Pollies can do is consider going back to the 3 mine policy, as a compromise, not the 27 mine, free for all it's turning into. 

Oh and let's not forget those health risks.

Uranium mining 'a health risk'
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
ScienceNetwork WA By Aaron Fernandes

Nobel Peace Prize nominee Dr Helen
Caldicott says uranium mining could pose
a range of health risks to WA inhabitants.

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20091808-19572.html

Then there's the the moral and ethical issues:

Uranium mining, nuclear power and 'ethical' investment
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/19/2339607.htm
By Frances Howe

The uranium mining industry has a poor track record in its dealings with Aboriginal communities - failing to consult traditional owners, using divide and rule tactics, and ignoring sacred sites. In the words of Yvonne Margarula, Mirarr senior traditional owner in the Northern Territory: "Uranium mining has ... taken our country away from us and destroyed it ... Mining and the millions of dollars in royalties have not improved our quality of life."

Just saying, there are some issues that bear more consideration than a knee jerk generalisation. Uranium mining is one of those issues in my books.  That doesn't imply that I'm leftist or anti mining, just cautious about gambling with our kids future.

[mandurahmum]

Thanks for that Rebel.

You are right - Uranium mining is not just about the money we can make, nor should any mining be only be about the money. 

Just look at the problems at Wittenoom - no one wants to clean up that mess do they.  That mine has been closed for over 44 years now - but it is still contaminated - the whole area is.  The governments response was to just take Wittenoom off the maps.

Can we guarantee this fiasco wont happen again - of course we cant.

 

[shyer]

I thought this discussion was about the election, mines have operated under labour and liberal govenments because most Australians like the income. A "I love MAO" T shirt is no mandate ANYWHERE even in China he is being erased from history. One of the largest mass murders of history.

Also closing existing mines is changing the rules AFTER investment made and approval given. Immoral , unethical and illegal.

If case you had not noticed all uranium mined is used for peaceful uses, mostly to replace CO2 producing coal stations. And before some loonly leftie goes on about weapons. Nucelar weapons are being dismantled the real problem is biological or existing weapons.

 It is only the greens who want to turn life back to the middle ages except for them of course.

[mandurahmum]

Shyer - mining is an election issue.

You also state that all uranium is being used for peaceful means - can you prove that?  Of course you cant - no one can

[bnwt]

Hockey grilled on money matters

by Kerry (who cried on air when Keating got booted) O'Brien

and you wonder why I call the ABC the australian broadcasting commies

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/07/21/2960540.htm

[shyer]

Yes mum new mines may be an election issue for NIMBies. Existing mines are old issues

[*r3830*]

It looks like Kev may be playing "the barstard". But..... there is still a good hope for that UN seat! Just what he always wanted.


Kevin Rudd's one-man show haunts Julia Gillard

http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/kevin-rudds-one-man-show-haunts-julia-gillard/comments-e6frfllr-1225892542609

[Rebel*1*]

and you wonder why I call the ABC the australian broadcasting commies

Yes bnwt I do wonder.  Seems anyone or anything that doesn't resemble yours and shyer's political leanings are all leftists, commies, and whatever negatives you can come up with.  Hardly objective or well thought out.  At the end of the day, we're all Australians.   So how do you feel about SBS?  and Mainstream media by comparison?  

Would it surprise you to know that during the rebellion the only media entity that gave a stuff about consumers, and was willing to stand up against Ebay's 'gag' request, was ABC?  There was also one independent from The Australian and Asher Moses from SMH as well as ITwire.  That was it.

The Mainstream Media are so easily BOUGHT OFF, they're useless in reporting most things.  They pick and choose the news.  They also pick and choose which pollies, and issues of National importance, they are going to give coverage to.  As we see time and time again, it's always usually the most negative and superficial stories they can find.  

Nevertheless, even though the media and Pollies are ignoring this issue it is still one that many people want a National vote on, not just those with a vested interest calling all the shots.   There are a huge number of Australians it seems against Uranium mining and wondering why it isn't being put on the table as an election issue.  

However, as MM has pointed out, there's hardly a whisper about it in WA news media or National news media, when it should be top of the list.  That's because both sides of Politics have no intention of listening to the Australian people on this issue or giving us a National vote on Uranium mining.   If they don't put it forward as an election issue of National Importance, then I guess they can justify ignoring it and us, on both sides of the political fence.

For instance, While they're all distracting us over bullshit, the ALP are quietly planning to turn a part of our country into a Nuclear waste dump.

This is at the very heart of the dispute over Nuclear power.  Where does the radioactive waste produced by Nuclear Power get dumped?  Do you have any suggestions?  Should they dump that on Naru too?  


Fallout over NT nuclear dump site
http://www.theage.com.au/national/fallout-over-nt-nuclear-dump-site-20100226-p97i.html

Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson revealed this week the government plans to pursue Muckaty as its nuclear dump site, saying it is the only place in Australia that had been ''volunteered''. He introduced legislation that gives the government power to override a threat by the Northern Territory to block the dump at Muckaty, an earthquake-prone area 120 kilometres north of Tennant Creek.

If the dump - or radioactive waste repository as bureaucrats call it - is built, about 4000 cubic metres of waste that has been accumulating in small stores in southern states during the past 50 years would be transported there, by rail or road. Trucks would relocate 2000 cubic metres of radioactive soil from the Woomera defence area in South Australia. Stockpiles of waste from Sydney's Lucas Heights reactor would be transported through dozens of cities and towns to reach the dump site, 10 kilometres from the busy Stuart Highway and eight kilometres from where people live at the station homestead.

In 2015 and 2016, about 32 cubic metres of highly radioactive waste from the reprocessing of spent research reactor fuel that Australia has sent to Scotland and France over decades is planned to be transported to Muckaty, probably via ships docking at Darwin Harbour, 1000 kilometres to the north.

Mr Ferguson is determined to push ahead with Muckaty despite strong objections from environmental and indigenous groups, the NT government and some Labor federal MPs who object to a dump being imposed on the territory.

And people think Nuclear power is 'clean'?.   If it produces deadly waste, it is NOT sustainable, and definitely a FALSE economy for Australians, no matter how many bags of beads they offer.

BTW, this is the Labour Party doing all this, and if the Coalition were in Govt. it would be them doing it.  The one sure fact is that the Mining companies have influence over BOTH sides of politics.  Is that in our National Interests?  And meanwhile they are crying poor when it comes to paying $3.00 in $7.00 rather than the piddly $1.00 in $7.00 they currently pay?  What a total rape of all integrity that is.

No wonder neither party is daring to mention it.  They both stink when it comes to putting the Mining companies in their place.  Money talks louder than National Interest irrespective of the party.  We're the bunnies in the middle being lied to by both sides.  That's why we need the Greens in the Senate Shyer, so issues like this don't get covered up.  They are the only party even mentioning it.

[Rebel*1*]

Now consider the danger this open door policy is going to present to the world in terms of Nuclear Weapons proliferation.

Obama Nuclear Weapons and the Future of the Planet
Helen Caldicott
Founding President of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Founder of Womens Action for Nuclear Disarmament
Posted: April 26, 2010 02:33 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helen-caldicott/obama-nuclear-weapons-and_b_550282.html

Isn't it strange?

In the 1980's an overwhelming 80% of Americans wanted to see an end to the nuclear arms race. The U.S. establishment treated this grassroots movement almost as an aberration, virtually ignoring it.

This massive, global, grassroots movement helped bring an end to the Cold War. But, throughout the duration of the Bush, Clinton, and G.W. Bush presidencies there was no respect for, no move to act on, the wishes of the American people and the worldwide supporters of nuclear disarmament.

Isn't it strange, that it was only last year, when the former champions of nuclear weaponry- Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Bill Perry and Sam Nunn, wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons that the establishment "woke up" and started to take this notion seriously?

No doubt Barak Obama was influenced by this philosophy when he attended Columbia University. He almost certainly witnessed the million-strong peace march in Central Park, June 1982. And, during that time he wrote two articles calling for nuclear disarmament between Russia and the U.S.

This early period in the life of President Obama is clearly one of the motivating influences of his presidency. He is the only U.S. President ever to call for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Now, however, he is facing two of the most powerful forces in the world: the Military Industrial Complex, and the nuclear weapons labs.

He is a brilliant politician who exhibits patience and wisdom when dealing with his adversaries. But, the Nuclear Policy review recently published by the Pentagon exhibits no evidence that the U.S. Military establishment intends to decrease its essential reliance upon nuclear weapons, which remain the cornerstone of its military arsenal.

$5.5 billion dollars have been allocated to Los Alamos Labs to continue the development of new plutonium pits for new nuclear weapons scheduled for production in the future. The U.S. missile defense program stands unabated, and is forging ahead using Iran and North Korea as its raison d'être.

In this scenario we are only, ever, minutes away from Armageddon and the truth is the world is sick and tired of being held hostage by nuclear warriors whose 20th century mindset cannot seem to comprehend this. They insist on maintaining thousands of hydrogen bombs in ground, and sea, based missiles, on high alert, ready to be launched within minutes leaving us vulnerable to human or computer error, to hackers (domestic and foreign), and to the sheer adrenalin and anxiety of political crisis.

During the tragic events of 9/11 the nuclear command moved the country to the highest state of nuclear alert, ready to launch, simply because that is U.S. policy when faced with an unexplained state of emergency. The utter devastation of a nuclear response, had it occurred, would have dwarfed not only the horror of 9/11, but of anything imaginable.

Ninety-five percent of the approximately 23,000 nuclear weapons in the world are owned by the United States and Russia. Despite the extreme secrecy surrounding military information we must assume from available information that at any given minute 15-40 hydrogen bombs target New York, and Washington D.C, Moscow, Leningrad, and more of the worlds major cities. The effect of one 550 kt weapon on a city like Washington D.C. would be devastating. Imagine 40 and start doing the math. In fact, there is at least one hydrogen bomb targeting most towns with populations of over 100,000. This is true in Russia, China, Europe, Canada, and the U.S.

The stark truth is that one single failure of nuclear deterrence could end human history. The operational and deployed nuclear arsenals of Russia and the U.S. hold the human race and all other species captive and at nuclear ransom. I am sickened that we still play this deadly game of nuclear risk with our fragile planet. There are no national or political goals that justify a war that could terminate human existence. What terrifying accident or act of aggression must happen to wake people and our leaders to this reality? This cannot be how we learn if we wish to avoid nuclear Armageddon, and nuclear winter.

Once initiated, it would take one hour to trigger a swift, sudden end to life on this planet. The clock on global warming is ticking louder and louder. Nuclear war and nuclear winter would be a strange way to stop it.

Does that give anyone pause?  Nuclear power is dangerous in ANYONE'S hands especially the US. 

[bnwt]

warning warning leftie propaganda

rebel as soon as saw "Founding President of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Founder of Womens Action for Nuclear Disarmament" .. I knew to immediately disregard any further on the page

when will these people begin to realise what idiots they appear

by all means have a point of view but stop giving yourself such stupid titles

[Rebel*1*]

Well then bnwt, I feel sorry that you are so closed minded.  The person you are disregarding and disrespecting as a 'leftist loonie' has an incredible list of credentials and achievements.  What do you offer as your credential for such ignorance of a more informed view by comparison?

Born in Melbourne, Australia in 1938, Dr Caldicott received her medical degree from the University of Adelaide Medical School in 1961. She founded the Cystic Fibrosis Clinic at the Adelaide Children's Hospital in 1975 and subsequently was an instructor in pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and on the staff of the Children's Hospital Medical Center, Boston, Mass., until 1980 when she resigned to work full time on the prevention of nuclear war.

In 1971, Dr Caldicott played a major role in Australia's opposition to French atmospheric nuclear testing in the Pacific; in 1975 she worked with the Australian trade unions to educate their members about the medical dangers of the nuclear fuel cycle, with particular reference to uranium mining.

While living in the United States from 1977 to 1986, she co-founded the Physicians for Social Responsibility, an organization of 23,000 doctors committed to educating their colleagues about the dangers of nuclear power, nuclear weapons and nuclear war. On trips abroad she helped start similar medical organizations in many other countries. The international umbrella group (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War) won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. She also founded the Women's Action for Nuclear Disarmament (WAND) in the US in 1980.

Returning to Australia in 1987, Dr Caldicott ran for Federal Parliament as an independent. Defeating Charles Blunt, leader of the National Party, through preferential voting she ultimately lost the election by 600 votes out of 70,000 cast.

She moved back to the United States in 1995, lecturing at the New School for Social Research on the Media, Global Politics and the Environment, hosting a weekly radio talk show on WBAI (Pacifica), and becoming the Founding President of the STAR (Standing for Truth About Radiation) Foundation.

Dr Caldicott has received many prizes and awards for her work, including the Lannan Foundation's 2003 Prize for Cultural Freedom and 21 honorary doctoral degrees, and she was personally nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Linus Pauling - himself a Nobel Laureate.

The Smithsonian Institute has named Dr Caldicott as one of the most influential women of the 20th Century. She has written for numerous publications and has authored seven books, Nuclear Madness, Missile Envy, If You Love This Planet: A Plan to Heal the Earth (1992, W.W. Norton) and A Desperate Passion: An Autobiography (1996, W.W. Norton; published as A Passionate Life in Australia by Random House), The New Nuclear Danger: George Bush’s Military Industrial Complex (2001, The New Press in the US, UK and UK; Scribe Publishing in Australia and New Zealand; Lemniscaat Publishers in The Netherlands; and Hugendubel Verlag in Germany), Nuclear Power is Not the Answer (2006, The New Press in the US, UK and UK; Melbourne University Press in Australia) and War In Heaven (March 2007). Dr. Caldicott’s most recent book is the revised and updated If You Love This Planet (March 2009).

She also has been the subject of several films, including Eight Minutes to Midnight, nominated for an Academy Award in 1981, If You Love This Planet, which won the Academy Award for best documentary in 1982, and Helen’s War: portrait of a dissident, recipient of the Australian Film Institute Awards for Best Direction (Documentary) 2004, and the Sydney Film Festival Dendy Award for Best Documentary in 2004.

Dr Caldicott currently divides her time between Australia and the US where she lectures widely. She founded the US-based Nuclear Policy Research Institute (NPRI), which evolved into Beyond Nuclear, of which Dr Caldicott is Founding President. Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both to safeguard our future.

Dr Caldicott can be heard discussing urgent planetary survival issues on her weekly radio show If You Love This Planet, and is the Founder and Spokesperson for People for a Nuclear-Free Australia, established to represent the millions of Australians who uphold the strong belief that there should be no uranium mining, nuclear power plants or foreign nuclear waste in Australia.

Dr Caldicott is also a member of the International Scientific Advisory Board advising José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Prime Minister of Spain.

Can you top that for qualification while you ignorantly dismiss a more informed, educated and esteemed opinion?  

For my money, I'll give this lady at least the respect she's earned with such dedication, education and knowledge.  But then, I'm a tad more open minded than some.  

Sociological leanings aside,  Social responsibility (which is what she is a proponent of) is NOT communism or socialist rhetoric.   That same organisation you dismiss, (because it contains the word 'Social') comprises 23,000 trained medical practitioners in the US & Australia with many more worldwide.  The international umbrella group of this same organisation Caldicott founded (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War) won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985.

Are they all socialist left wing commies too?  What's in a name right?