The Liberal Party thread

[kranky al]

Nothing like having all your eggs in one basket!

We sold ourselves into slavery, and look who benefited.

slaveowners? i would love to buy you slurmy - welcome to your hovel - complete with pc - running win 95

[Chach]

LOL, yeah I see no problems if china stops buying our resources, our economy would just collapse in a big heap. Other than that, no dramas! haha

and you don't see that as a problem in itself?

[kranky al]

and you don't see that as a problem in itself?

yes i agree whole heartedly - australia should be self sufficient in everything - with... enough growth in everything and population growth in... everyway with a dose of uberprotectionism we wont have to rely on anything, anyone or anygoddamnedcommunistchineseslantyeyedfucks

q.e.muthafucking.d

[frogman]

If anything I believe it is the Greens that should be screaming 'sellout'.

And the fact that they arent, that doesnt mean anything to you?

froggy - you are in financial services right - can you tell me where you work so i can tell everyone i know not to go there

Pattersons

LOL, yeah I see no problems if china stops buying our resources, our economy would just collapse in a big heap. Other than that, no dramas! haha

Citation needed.

[frogman]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...08/3238640.htm

By Jeremy Thompson

Updated Wed Jun 8, 2011 2:33pm AEST
Tony Abbott speaks at the launch of Bowel Cancer Awareness Week

A Coalition government would toughen entry requirements for asylum seekers and provide mandatory prison sentences for people smugglers, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says.

Mr Abbott used a speech to the Lowy Institute to reaffirm the Coalition's commitment to reopening the Nauru detention centre.

He said Australia should insist that asylum seekers carry documentation, and said he would give ASIO as long as it liked to carry out security checks.

He also pledged to tighten the current appeals mechanisms by restricting reviews to just one case officer, and "end taxpayer funding for further appeals".

Mr Abbott boasted of successful Howard government measures to stop boats, including turning them around.

He said when asylum seekers on the Tampa were denied entry to Christmas Island in 2001 and sent to Nauru, "people smugglers and their customers got the message and boat arrivals virtually ceased".

"In the aftermath of the Tampa incident, temporary visas, offshore processing, heightened cooperation with Indonesia and turning boats around denied the people smugglers a product to sell and all but stopped further arrivals," Mr Abbott said.

"There's every reason to think that what happened before can happen again, and that what was stopped before can be stopped again by making use of Nauru."

Mr Abbott said ASIO needs more than the current three months to carry out security checks as foreign partners "aren't influenced by Australian deadlines".

"Under the Coalition, ASIO would have as much time as it needed to establish whether those seeking protection visas represent a threat to our national security."

He said asylum seekers are required to have identity documents when they enter Malaysia or Indonesia on the way to Australia, but less than one in five people have them when they arrive on Christmas Island.

"Using existing powers, the Coalition would ensure that destroying or discarding documentation gave rise to a presumption against refugee status."


Long delays in ASIO checks have resulted in asylum seekers waiting up to a year for a clearance. The delays have been blamed on the Christmas Island and Villawood riots this year.

But recent streamlining of the process has allowed Immigration Department officials, acting on an ASIO blueprint, to carry out the process quickly.

Out of 1,200 asylum seekers checked in March and April, only 200 were referred to ASIO for further scrutiny.

But a spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland says there is still no time limit on security assessments.

He said they remain "rigorous" to ensure the protection of Australia's national interests.

Mr Abbott, meanwhile, says the Coalition would impose a mandatory one-year sentence for a people-smuggling first offence, and 10 years for a second.

However he pledged to increase refugee intake to 15,000, up from the 13,750 Australia admitted last year, through a private sponsorship scheme.

Even before Mr Abbott spoke, the Government demanded he ensure people aren't "left to rot" on Nauru, saying 120 people, including children, were locked up there for more than three years.

In a statement, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen and Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor slammed the idea of towing boats back to Indonesia.

"How does he propose to tow back boats without risking the lives of those involved and where will he tow them to, considering Indonesia has said simply returning boats would be 'a backward step'?" the statement asked.

Mr Abbott will travel to Nauru this week to publicise his push to reopen the detention centre.

If you dont understand why this makes Abbott specifically, and by extension the rest of the Libs, a gigantic raging cunt, then you are dead from the head up.

[VERSTYLE]

Citation needed.

Fuckin LOL ... ummm ok...

[VERSTYLE]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...08/3238640.htm

If you dont understand why this makes Abbott specifically, and by extension the rest of the Libs, a gigantic raging cunt, then you are dead from the head up.

I don't think anyone on this forum or at least in this thread agrees with the policy of either major party.

Please explain what Labor is doing that is better? The Malaysians have asked that human rights be excluded from any agreement.

So that just leaves the Greens, awesome.

[frogman]

Fuckin LOL ... ummm ok...

ci·ta·tion (s-tshn)
n.
1. The act of citing.
2.
a. A quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation.
b. A source so cited; a quotation.
3. Law A reference to previous court decisions or authoritative writings.
4. Enumeration or mention, as of facts, especially:
a. An official commendation for meritorious action, especially in military service: a citation for bravery.
b. A formal statement of the accomplishments of one being honored with an academic degree.
5. An official summons, especially one calling for appearance in court.

I was aiming for 2 a or b. Try again.

[frogman]

I don't think anyone on this forum or at least in this thread agrees with the policy of either major party.

Please explain what Labor is doing that is better?

So that just leaves the Greens, awesome.

Explain to me which one of these points you disagree with and why.

Principles

The Australian Greens believe that:

the presence in Australia of people of many cultural backgrounds greatly enriches our society and should be celebrated.
Australian society, culture and the economy has benefited, and will continue to benefit, from immigration of people from around the world.
immigration must be non-discriminatory on the grounds of nationality, ethnic origin, religion, language, gender, disability, sexuality, age or socioeconomic background.
Australia has humanitarian and legal obligations to accept refugees and reunite families.
asylum seekers and refugees are no more of a threat to our borders or to society than anyone else and must be treated with compassion and dignity.
Australia must assess in good faith all asylum seekers who arrive on our mainland or any of our islands, without discrimination based on the method of arrival.

Goals

The Australian Greens want:

an immigration program that is predominantly based on family reunions and other special humanitarian criteria as defined by international human rights Conventions.
all migrants to be given access to a full range of culturally sensitive, appropriate health services including a comprehensive medical examination on arrival.
services for new migrants to include appropriate English language classes, social security, legal and interpreter services, programs to ease transition to Australia's multicultural society, and post-trauma counselling where needed.
the elimination of the policies of mandatory detention, and other forms of harsh, punitive or discriminatory treatment of asylum seekers and refugees.
asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa to have their claims for asylum assessed while living in the community.
planning for climate change refugees with a particular focus on the Asia-Pacific region.

Measures

The Australian Greens will:

ensure that potential immigrants are not unfairly discriminated against on any grounds.
increase the share of places for off-shore refugees and humanitarian entrants.
ensure that funding for public and community sector agencies providing migrant-specific services is increased to a level sufficient to provide adequate, effective and timely support.
ensure the development of networks, materials and programs that increase community understanding of the causes and benefits of migration.
abolish mandatory and indefinite detention of asylum seekers.
abolish discriminatory separation of refugees into permanent and temporary visa categories based on whether or not they arrived with a valid visa.
abolish the 'seven day rule' legislation whereby asylum seekers cannot gain a permanent protection visa if they have spent seven days in a third country.
restore the Australian migration zone to match Australia's territory and accept responsibility for processing all asylum seekers who seek Australia's protection within the migration zone.
ensure asylum seekers are fully informed of their rights on arrival and given immediate access to legal assistance.
restore asylum seekers' legal right to challenge decisions that affect them in the courts.
replace the current system of humanitarian visas (granted only by the Immigration Minister after rejection as a refugee) with an open, accountable humanitarian visa process incorporating a humanitarian review tribunal.
house asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa in publicly owned and managed open reception centres, where entry and exit to these centres are unrestricted except where prohibited for medical or security reasons specified in clause 28.
ensure that initial assessment of refugee status is completed within 90 days.
grant asylum seekers an asylum application visa (AAV) and assist without delay their move into the community provided medical and security checks are satisfied or after 14 days has passed, whichever occurs first.
ensure asylum seekers living in the community while their claim is assessed will be granted an AAV which will entitle them to travel, work, income support and access to ongoing educational and medical services anywhere within Australia while their claims for asylum are assessed.
deny an AAV if security checks demonstrate the person poses a serious criminal threat to the Australian community or if the person has not remained housed in the reception centre while the medical and security checks were completed.
ensure that refusal to grant an AAV is reviewable at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
house those people refused an AAV in separate, appropriate, publicly owned and managed facilities close to urban areas.
ensure that, if refugee status is refused and the person cannot be repatriated, the AAV will remain in force until he or she can be repatriated.
ensure that the number of AAVs given to asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa has no impact on the prescribed number of off-shore refugee and humanitarian entrants that Australia accepts.
support skilled migration programs that do not drain critical skills from other countries and do not substitute for training or undermine wages and conditions in Australia.
ensure that Australia adequately contributes to the funding of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).
ensure that Australia adopts a definition of environmental refugee in its assessment criteria and works in the UN system for inclusion of a definition in the United Nations Refugee Convention.
ensure that no family unit is forcibly separated by the Australian assessment processes.
grant the families of approved asylum seekers permission to migrate to Australia for family reunions within a reasonable time, in accordance with the UNHCR humanitarian program.

I also liked the bit where you said "noone supports either major parties policy" then acted like I supported the governments.

and fuck your sarcasm. If the greens policies were enacted right now, it would be fucking awesome. It would be amazing. It would single handedly fix the nonexistent problem that cunts like abbott keep parroting on about.

[VERSTYLE]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...08/3238640.htm

and by extension the rest of the Libs, a gigantic raging cunt

There you go again... blah blah blah they all the baddies i hates them all. Why are you so desperate to lower yourself to the same degenerate attitudes of CUB's?

I'm on night shift so you'll have all day to freelance your uneducated dribble for the remainder of the day.

... Will have a deeper look at what Kranky Al suggested tonight.

[frogman]

So you think what Abbott suggested is a good idea?

So what is wrong with the greens policies again?

[VERSTYLE]

Explain to me which one of these points you disagree with and why.

urghhh... that's my point...

[VERSTYLE]

So you think what Abbott suggested is a good idea?

So what is wrong with the greens policies again?

You really are an intellectual lightweight.

For the most part no one is disagreeing with their immigration policy.

As above... dribble away im off to bed

[frogman]

ok

[frogman]

It does amuse me to see the personal insults though. Nice touch.

[Burnside]

It does amuse me to see the personal insults though. Nice touch.

NO YOU ARE

[frogman]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...09/3239817.htm

The Productivity Commission has backed the Federal Government's claims that other world economies are taking significant measures to combat climate change.

Abbott : Still a cunt

[monkey]

The following will involve generalisations, assumptions, sweeping statements and pigeon-holing (sorry burnie, no corn-holing).

This is a politics thread so rants are allowed.

I'm so gonna get shot down for this. Burnie, you're gonna have field day.

Also, because I'm using generalisations and assumptions, read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Frogman and Vernin seem to represent the two extremes in the thread, so later I will use their positions to analyse the main arguments (kinda).

But first, I gotta take it back to core political principles so you know where I'm coming from. A lot of you will already know this stuff, some of you wont. Many of you will disagree with this and think I'm full of shit. So be it. I'm gonna regurgitate what I 'sucked from the teat of academia' as burnie put it so articulately.
(I got these views from UWA, Flinders, and ECU - I'm NOT trying to impress, believe me, its not impressive, and I'm not an academic (obviously). Just saying they all taught pretty much the same, and were mostly equal in the quality of teaching in political philosophy/international relations fields. If I had to choose which was best I would go with Flinders in Adelaide. This stuff is pretty stock-standard in the majority of universities. Yes it will vary if your lecturer/uni is more left/right, progressive/conservative, young/old, etc. I also read a lot of history books and watch a lot of docos, news and stewart/colbert, etc, its an interest of mine)

I try and look at the bigger picture. Its easy to see why everyone has different answers to the issues - we have different takes on what REALITY is. This is understandable. IMO, if we understand other positions(perceptions of reality) better, we know their arguments better, then ask better questions, and force opposing positions to justify their arguments/beliefs.

First, in order to get everyone on the same page I'm gonna define a couple basic concepts. You're gonna hate this, but try and stay with me.
So here's the first generalisation which a lot of you will hate. Please dont be offended by the CAPS, I'm not yelling, just emphasising.

1. POLITICS IS ABOUT THE DYNAMICS / CONTROL / USE OF POWER.
(Eg, what forms is comes in and who controls it)
If you dont agree, supply a more concise/efficient definition, it would be good to have one.

2. POWER COMES IN 2 FORMS - RESOURCES & INFLUENCE
Once again, if you dont agree, suggest another explanation, I like to be proven wrong, it means I get to learn something.

The majority of the arguments in this thread sit in the realm of international relations (climate change, immigration, economy). (If an issue reaches a global level, it should be classified and dealt with primarily under international relations first, and then worked down through regional, national, state, and local, from a top-down perspective. That said, you present it to the people on the level they can relate to most, which is usually from a national level down)

International relations is USUALLY discussed in two streams - LIBERALISM & REALISM
******The following are some principles that are GENERALLY more likely to be associated with the respective terms, NOT exclusively. This is obviously not a definitive list, just a few examples.
******Understand no-one needs to subscribe to one or the other, everyone usually has a mix of both on different issues!

REALISM:
- The international system is archaic
- States naturally expand and impede on each others territory
- Pessimistic view of human behaviour
- Nation states, like individuals, are primarily self-interested and driven by power
- Security is emphasised before ideals and ethics
- Emphasis on security and an offensive military
- There are no rules in the world
- Human selfishness and aggression
- Conflict in world affairs
- Hobbes 'State of Nature' - Life is short, cold, hard, brutal. Dog-eat-dog, Might-is-Right.
- No authority above sovereign states
- Conservatism
- Traditionalism
- Arguably leans towards less national risk
- The US Republican Party IS MORE LIKELY to place a greater emphasis on realist ideals than the Dems, but not always.
- The Australian Liberal Party IS MORE LIKELY to place a greater emphasis on realist ideals than the ALP, but not always.
I mainly read from - Thomas Hobbes, Niccollo Machiavelli, Max Weber, E H Carr, Hans Morganthau, to name a few.

LIBERALISM:
- Freedom
- Individual rights
- Equality of opportunity
- Freedom of thought and speech
- Limitations of power of governments
- Cooperation
- Idealism
- Diplomacy
- Optimism for human nature and nation-states
- Universal values
- International organisations needs to be created to perform functions that individual states cannot.
- The League of Nations, The UN
- International treaties should be created to govern the behaviour of states
- Liberal International Treaties include - Genocide, Human rights, Racial discrimination, Nuclear test ban, Womens rights, Refugee rights, International Criminal Court, Chemical Weapons, Bio diviersity
- The US Democratic Party IS MORE LIKELY to place a greater emphasis on modern liberal ideals than the GOP, but not always.
- The Australian Labor Party IS MORE LIKELY to place a greater emphasis on modern liberal ideals than the LIBS, but not always. (Or at least this is how they like to be perceived, they are also Realists)
- The Greens
- European ideals (GENERALLY speaking, to name one superpower/region)
I mainly read from - Rousseau, Adam Smith, John Locke, J S Mill, Keynes, Rawls to name a few.


LIBERALISM/REALISM can then be split again into SOCIAL/ECONOMIC
For instance the Liberal Party are Economically LIBERAL, but Socially REALIST(Conservative)

Underdeveloped/developing nations ARE MORE LIKELY to be ruled by powers that view the world in REALIST terms (but not always).

Developed nations ARE MORE LIKELY to have established elements of LIBERALISM because
LIBERALISM is MORE LIKELY to be established/implemented where there is prosperity, or there is POWER (RESOURCES/INFLUENCE) to implement and protect it (but not always).

SO......

When it comes to an international issue such climate change and the implementation of an ETS, I ASSUME it is safe to say Australia, or any nation-state, is taking a political risk, or at least more specifically an economic risk, in committing to an ETS or equivalent, especially during the recovery from the GFC. This threatens a nation-state's POWER because it risks its economy's efficiency (RESOURCES). The more POWER you risk, the less ability you have to protect your LIBERALISM, and your international relationships. Remember the Clinton administrations motto, 'Its the economy, stupid'. Healthy Economy (Money) = POWER. POWER gives you OPTIONS at whatever comes your way.

DONT GET ME WRONG - I want an ETS. Even if climate change is not man-made, at least we reduce our carbon footprint and have less negative environmental impact on the world. The benefits are awesome imo.

BUT imo, the ALP have not done a good enough job of CLEARLY illustrating the pros and cons of an ETS (I know we're not gonna get much of the cons from the ALP) and because of this (in part) Labor will lose the next election.

BUT....I'm still voting Labor.......NOT A CHANCE IN HELL can I vote for the Libs. While realism/conservatism has a strong common-sense connection to reality, in a COLD, CRUEL, BRUTAL REALIST WORLD, too many in conservative circles are strongly influenced to push policies and agendas that support:
- big business, oil, tobacco, pharma, weapons
- anti-progressive movements
- anti-women
- anti-minorities
- expansion of military powers
- expansion of religious powers

And they use these issues with a backing of FEAR to mobilise an understandably ignorant and vulnerable public.

Tony Abbott? Christopher Pine? Barnaby Joyce? Ian MacPharlain? Wilson Tuckey? Phillip Ruddick? Bronwyn Bishop? (yes some are gone) I cannot support a party which put these people in positions of power, and support the majority of the ideals of the Republican Party in the states.

Yeah the ALP are constantly torn by self-interested unions run by CUBs who dont see the big picture of global economics (because they need'm to run the rabble), but the LIBS have a list of first-class cunts with direct access to parliamentary power. While I hardly have faith in the Labor reps, let alone the Greens, to match it with these marquee NFL trolls, I dont have a choice. I'd rather be on a weaker-ethical side, than a stronger side full of scumbags.....leaving the choice of the douche or the turd sandwich.

continued below.....

[monkey]

SO.....

The two extremes on the ETS seem to be between Manfrog and Vernon.

Manfrog SEEMS to hold more LIBERAL ideals when reading his posts, not just relating to the ETS (trying my best not to unfairly pigeon hole here, just an observation).

And Vernon, while allegedly subscribing to socially liberal ideals, SEEMS to take the economically REALIST or conservative position, as he is not comfortable with the risk, and/or not convinced by the evidence of human-caused climate change (if he's quoting Paul Murray's show on Sky News, I'm not surprised.)

Manfrog quote
"This is just bullshit. I believe that we can change things. You believe we cant. I believe that If we change things now, we can continue living an approximation of this lifestyle. You want to live the lifestyle you are living now, without giving two fucks for anyone else who may come along after."

Vernon quote
Because it dosent matter if we cut emissions by 5% of 20% it wont mean shit, if we accept Yossarian's assertion that it is happening and it is related to human activity (which im happy to) then the feel good wealth redistribution programs with a wink towards clean energy investment will not stop sea levels rising globally.

To me Yossarian makes the most sense.

Yossarian quote
I don't buy this argument. Sitting on our hands while we wait for major polluters like China and India to act is not going to get anyone anywhere. You allude to the fact that the Chinese feel like they deserve the same living standards as us. Our lack of action on provides a wonderful excuse to them for a lack of action on their part. And so we circle. Clear action would provide some semblance of leadership and an example to others. Look at how in this very argument people point to the EU bumbling its way into an ETS.

While I accept that modification of Australia's carbon emissions by itself is going to mean shit fuck all, is not sustainability and pollution reduction a worthwhile goal on its own? A Carbon tax seems the simplest way of providing an incentive and creating a new revenue stream.

Because Australia's contribution to global emissions is minimal, the POWER we have in saying yes to the ETS is through our INFLUENCE, not resources(our emissions are small). Australia is a liked country, and we have cred on the global stage, even if it is minimal, we punch above our weight; and if there was a country in an economic position who COULD make a stance on the issue, Australia would be one of only a handful who could possibly make a real difference IMO.

But are we taking too much risk? Are we jeopardising too much? Is climate change the right problem to focus on?
This video raises some interesting questions on arguably the top 10 biggest problems the world faces. Skip to 6mins in if you are impatient, but try to watch it all if you can.



While I agree in part with the video, maybe putting funds towards an ETS is not an efficient use of our resources. The 'idea' of global warming/climate change has a movement behind it to essentially change things for the better, and half the struggle in making change is getting people behind it. (Sometimes my paranoid/conspiracy brain wonders if the left/green movement is being used as a vehicle by the west to push for global emission cuts that will in-turn slow down the development of China and India which threaten the global power structure. This is extreme REALIST CONSPIRACY, WIN AT ALL COSTS!!)

Anyway theres my rant.

sincerely

monkeyballs


Questions.
1. Do you think Australia takes on significant economic risk in committing to an ETS during the GFC recovery phase? If so, is the risk worth it?
2. How much $ per Australian per year would be acceptable to support an ETS? How much would you be willing to pay?
3. If we slip into a double-dip recession (deflation or stagflation, higher unemployment, etc,) can we still justify an ETS if China, India and the US dont follow?
4. Would the money spent on ETS be better spent else where?

tl;dr - Australia is taking a risk in supporting the ETS, and unfortunately it may not be worth it. Watch the video.

[VERSTYLE]

And Vernon, while allegedly subscribing to socially liberal ideals, SEEMS to take the economically REALIST or conservative position, as he is not comfortable with the risk, and/or not convinced by the evidence of human-caused climate change (if he's quoting Paul Murray's show on Sky News, I'm not surprised.)

In all this is one epic rant... congratulations. I'll give it a more through read later but for the time being I just wanted to clarify a few things:

1. The two extremes are Wilson Tucky and Burnside. My views on economic matters (externalities included) differ little to that of Malcolm Turnball. Frogman can speak for himself but i would suspect his economic views are probably consistent with the likes of Adam Bandt or maybe a more radical socialist movement not currently represented in parliament.

2. I don't allegedly subscribe to socially liberal ideas. I live by and endorse socially liberal ideas.

3. Your remark about Paul Murray is miles out of context. I was quoting an ALP union secretary regarding the asylum seeker issue. Not an opinion piece by Paul Murray himself on climate change.

[monkey]

2. I don't allegedly subscribe to socially liberal ideas. I live by and endorse socially liberal ideas.

3. Your remark about Paul Murray is miles out of context. I was quoting an ALP union secretary regarding the asylum seeker issue. Not an opinion piece by Paul Murray himself on climate change.

I know, I was fuckn wit cha.

and I know, but my point is if you are watching sky news there is a good chance you're not getting the whole story. I have it on all day at work against my will, and am surrounded by brokers who gobble it all up without question. IMO its biased to conservatism/libs on both immigration and an ETS.

[VERSTYLE]

I know, I was fuckn wit cha.

and I know, but my point is if you are watching sky news there is a good chance you're not getting the whole story. I have it on all day at work against my will, and am surrounded by brokers who gobble it all up without question. IMO its biased to conservatism/libs on both immigration and an ETS.

Yeah i'll pay that but I usually surf the news channels... im quite capable of smelling shit before i see it

[VERSTYLE]

OK so wrecked US/California economy aside...

OR: on the other side of things - this global cataclysm never happens, the greenies were full of shit - lord monkeyfuck was right and burny is proven to be a smelly armpit plaiting hippy dipshit

burny is proven to be a smelly armpit plaiting hippy dipshit... lol

I dont think the greenies are 'full of shit' i am just a little skeptical that it is as bad as some on the far left make it out to be. Unfortunately without a PhD and a fuck ton of self funded research it's a little difficult to take a well balanced position.

Take this for example:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.co...ivate-citizen/

Julie Bishop the stupid indolent bitch misquted this on her blog. But the actual article (as above) by Dr Simpson is an interesting read.

And leads me to this point...

We know that the far right has used boat people as a mechanism to entrench fear in the minds of ignorant Australians.

I don't think the centrist Lib's are necessarily climate change sceptics (we know Turnball isn't) they are just weary... as are the neo cons (abbott and co)... that it is entirely plausible that one could inflate or fabricate statistics to manipulate the general public for political gain.

some many years ago california started enacting laws about pollution from cars. they started setting harder and harder targets - essentially going it alone. the car manufacturers screamed blue bloody murder - yet each time they managed to meet the new standards - ahead of time.

A little unrelated... but... seen as the Greens movement was born out of environmentalism... I would like to see them push for a 'phasing out' of big vehicles for private use on our metropolitan roads perhaps over the next 5-7 years.

I don't see why anyone in a suburban area needs a ute unless its for commercial purposes, in which case they should need to supply an ABN relevant to their profession at the time of purchase... the same applies for 4WD and other bonehead/soccor mum vehicles.

An exemption for anyone living in a rural postcode would suffice.

Anyway, i digress..

apply this to our current situation:

now say australia sets its own measures - 5% to start with - that gets harsher and harsher as time goes on - our industry adapts, learns and achieves these targets - so that in 50 years we are looking at producing a lot less than we were in say the 80's

china keeps on bubbling away - polluting to fuck.

So we likely give up some competitive advantage... more and more over time...

now stay with me here:

we keep getting better and better

stay with me.....

now the earth starts fucking out big style - crisis talks are held - the international community demands action with total trade bans on non complying nations.

Ok, perhaps plausable but that is assuming all things remain equal (geo-political complexities remain the same) which is highly unlikely.

would you not think that our foresight in reducing emissions from 2011 would save us a lot more money than if we sat here and did nothing at all and had to reduce to fuckall overnight - completely crippling the country.

I'm definitely NOT advocating that we do nothing.

I see merit in the argument that there would be less shock to the economy if we made microeconomic changes incrementally.

But i personally don't believe that if we got to this stage of 'earth starts fucking out big style' that we will be able to reverse any damage already done.

It also raises the question of how do we properly monitor and measure carbon reduction plans of emerging economies, now, or in say 50 years time?

Carbon emissions can range from coal power plants to bovine flatulence. So logically, how can we slap a trade ban on a country on the basis of their emissions without having a multi-million person bureaucracy completely interwoven with communities right across the globe to observe, monitor and report emissions?

either way i see it as for once in humanities history where we are putting our kids ahead of ourselves. the last couple of generations have said - fuck the kids let them pay for it - i reckon its time we took a moral stand. be better than them.....

- THINK on the bright side - as a result of what we did in 2011 we are breathing cleaner air, we have developed alternative energy sources (please god let the thorium thing happen) we dont need to rape the planet for energy - and best of all - when the oil runs out we have again got ahead of the curve and wont be flattened by it.

I like the idea of developing clean energy alternatives, i like the idea of reducing or eliminating oil dependency and believe that both are achievable but i firmly we believe we need a more pragmatic approach to global warming than just hoping our goodwill will snowball into an effective change for the better.

Unless we lived in an authoritarian regime we are still subject to the pressures on the general populace through our democratic system. If the right wing is right, jobs are lost or prices jump how long do you think it will take before another populist conservative comes along and scraps it?

Do you really think the population is going to accept such tough regulatory contraints on energy production, manufacturing or primary industry if unemployment was to significantly rise?

Maybe... But only if they could see the effects of global warming in their own backyeard... according to scientists that may not be so transparent in say 10 years time.

Even if the rise in the COL or unemployment is not solely attribtuted to an ETS it will likely still lead to an unravelling of the plan. I would be more open to an ETS if the government had a contingency plan should our efforts to combat climate change are deemed to be ineffective, a financial package derived from the ETS aimed at adaptability as well as prevention.

To me, the ETS in its current form is nothing but an alternative revenue source that can be manipulated by the government and governments of the future.

[Burnside]

jesus fucking christ, the political dialogue equivalent of midget jelly wrestling

just with a considerably higher page count

[kranky al]

and you have added what to the debate burnside? from what i can see more jelly wrestling - black and gold jelly no less AND you ran away from your bout

[frogman]

Cunts, take it to the carbon tax thread. This is for pointing at laughing at fuckheads like Barnaby Joyce. I know he isnt in the Liberal party, but he is in the coalition, and thats just as bad.

http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com/2011/...idiculous.html

[Burnside]

and you have added what to the debate burnside? from what i can see more jelly wrestling - black and gold jelly no less AND you ran away from your bout

al old buddy

you show your silliness yet again

i wound up the pretentious twat by throwing out simplistic challenges to his intellect (note - this post is also a wind up, you just watch)

this told me (and most of TS) two things right off

he's a pretentious twat who gets violently distressed when his intellect is challenged, POASTING WALLS OF TEXT THAT MAKE PEOPLE LOL AT HIM

and

his level of understanding is painfully linear and limited

you can see this is the vast majority of arts graduates (especially politics)

around 20 yrs old - ZOMG I AM DOING POLITICS AT UNI THE WORLD IS SO BIG AND AMAZING SO MUCH POTENTIAL IMA GONNA BUY A CHE GUEVARA T SHIRT

around 30 years old - well, after making all those compromises in my life, I see that compromising one's values is the TRUE REALITY of the world. in the same way that I am locked in a one-way rollercoaster ride to a sad and uneventful exit from this world, political/social/economic thought also exists in a singular, unmovable path as this is relevant to my interests of acquiring capital, a carping and annoying wife, and a set of fat and unmanageable children.

around 40 years old - BERRRRRRRRTTTTTT PEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPLLLLLLL

around 50 years old - BERRRRRRRRTTTTTT PEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPLLLLLLL

around 60 years old - BERRRRRRRRTTTTTT PEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPLLLLLLL

it's amusing watching him 'discuss' with verstyle - currently, he retains enough smarts to see the painful limits of weevil-brain.

not too long down the track though, he'd be buying the guy a beer and bitching about socialism.

kinda like you, except you have a bit more self awareness but still get hung up on very old patterns of being a conservative twat knocker

buy more solar panels and visit a nudist meditation space!

[kranky al]

[Burnside]

old folks and image hosting

match made in heaven :P

[Yossarian]

Questions.
1. Do you think Australia takes on significant economic risk in committing to an ETS during the GFC recovery phase? If so, is the risk worth it?
2. How much $ per Australian per year would be acceptable to support an ETS? How much would you be willing to pay?
3. If we slip into a double-dip recession (deflation or stagflation, higher unemployment, etc,) can we still justify an ETS if China, India and the US dont follow?
4. Would the money spent on ETS be better spent else where?

tl;dr - Australia is taking a risk in supporting the ETS, and unfortunately it may not be worth it. Watch the video.

Risk? Yes, there is the risk of "exporting" some level of our carbon intensive industry. For the most part I believe that this has been drastically overblown, given reports that major companies have been factoring a carbon price in for a while now. Additionally, there is no actual evidence for this scenario, and everything that I have seen written by people who have looked into this scenario says that no, it will not occur. So are we taking a risk? Yes. Is it significant? No. Should we wait for 'economic recovery'? When will that be, pray tell?

The level of worth he assigns to various causes in the video is really a silly argument for a lack of action. We can all throw around numbers about how much money it would take to eliminate poverty and compare them to various expenditures. The US or Chinese military budgets come to mind. All sorts of arbitrary comparisons can be made between different expenditures.

Dollar returns on pollution abatement are practically impossible to calculate but conceivably, in 50-100 years, could be amazingly worthwhile. That is the point of disagreement I have with that dude. He assumes, based on a principle of limitless and continuing economic growth, that we will be in a position to deal with climate change in 50-100 years if pollution continues unabated. I doubt that. Furthermore I don't see how it would 'not help the average -insert poor nationality here-' given the projected impact on things like water availability and food production. We could ignore climate change, spend all our money on raising the living standards of however many billion people, and still be fucked in 50-100 years.

This comes back to my point about encouraging sustainability as a concurrent priority.

RE: Verstyle's point about "backup plans" in case and ETS/Carbon Tax does not work:
You got a better idea? I think it's been pretty conclusively shown that a carbon tax is the most efficient way of effecting pollution reduction. If it does not work, we are probably fucked. That then comes back to your planning for the eventuality of being fucked point. While it might be nice, treatment is not better than cure. Furthermore, you are asking a democratically elected government in Australia to plan for climate effects we may not see for 50-100 years.

Anyway that is my distraction for the day, study beckons.

[monkey]

Anyway that is my distraction for the day, study beckons.

Great answers, I'll reply later.

What do you study?

[VERSTYLE]

RE: Verstyle's point about "backup plans" in case and ETS/Carbon Tax does not work:
You got a better idea?

I think it's been pretty conclusively shown that a carbon tax is the most efficient way of effecting pollution reduction. If it does not work, we are probably fucked. That then comes back to your planning for the eventuality of being fucked point. While it might be nice, treatment is not better than cure.
Anyway that is my distraction for the day, study beckons.

With respect i think you are missing what some of us on the centre right are advocating.

My argument is not with the effectiveness of reducing co2 emissions in Australia through an ETS. The productivity report for the most part was a case of 'state the obvious' and the fact that Windsor needed it as a bell weather as to which way he would vote just shows how much of a dumb ass hick he really is.

The problem with the broader coalition's response is that its fragmented between deniers, sceptic's and pragmatists its also a joke because (as the productivity report showed) it puts a much higher cost on reducing carbon per tonne (something Turnball has not so quietly been simmering over). By all means install an ETS, or increase marginal tax rates or levy something on businesses or whatever way you want to go about it...

BUT to do so with the eye now on having a parallel approach to prevention AND adaptation. I want guarantees that funds will be locked into both and not just fritted away on vote buying shit by either future government.

"Furthermore, you are asking a democratically elected government in Australia to plan for climate effects we may not see for 50-100 years."

How is that any different to what the left is advocating? Whether it is 'prevention' or a 'cure' neither are going to be seen or realised (in our own backyard) for another couple of generations.

Good luck with the study.

[VERSTYLE]

Cunts, take it to the carbon tax thread. This is for pointing at laughing at fuckheads like Barnaby Joyce. I know he isnt in the Liberal party, but he is in the coalition, and thats just as bad.

http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com/2011/...idiculous.html

So in other words you want your own unchallenged thread to disparage politicians who have opinions to the right of your own.

Lol, no deal

[Burnside]

Hi Yossarian

Just wanted to say good luck with the study.

cheers

BS

[frogman]

So in other words you want your own unchallenged thread to disparage politicians who have opinions to the right of your own.

Lol, no deal

No, I want the carbon tax talk back in the carbon tax thread. I have no illusions about you "challenging" me

[VERSTYLE]

No, I want the carbon tax talk back in the carbon tax thread. I have no illusions about you "challenging" me

You mean the NBN thread ?! :P

[stevie_]

No we plan ahead I'm just suggesting an alternative way to living in fairyland and expecting the developing world to gleefully jump on board.

I reckon if USA didn't put 42604260935203503r0325004532858235856495 2394 239 5239512941601300 trillion pointless gazzilliontrillion dollars into penis enlargements for DICK comparing and spend even a fraction on helping the poorer nations (eg, not allowing their corporations to RAPE THE FUCK out of poorer economies through the "wonders" of globalization (and it could do with some bloody regulating, I sure as hell wouldn't say it's anti-evolution)), who knows, you might see them being more willing. It's just a different way of thinking, a different way of doing things. One that involves more global cooperation.

Soon this retarded game will come to a close. It always does. No one expected the Middle Ages to last forever, and hell history shows it as nothing more than a fuck hole on the worlds progression, and there'll be dark, dark, dark stories to be told of the open exploitation of others at nothing more than the expense of greed. The great crime of our time.

This whole idea that "people are greedy" is a total and absolute load of fucking shit in my eyes. People aren't all greedy, it's just that currently, the greedy cunts are weighing down the not so greedy. That trend will change, it slowly is, but I guess it will take a lot longer for these types of people to emerge, but it's happening gradually and it will spread and the insanity will ease for a while.

My point is, and ironically it converges with BS and his BS to a degree, if this shit is going down, then we are to a degree fucked. No millions of $$ in clean energy investment is going to create any tangible change in human behaviour, sea levels will rise and we cannot dictate terms to emerging markets.

IMO if man made climate change is happening our focus should primarily be on how we are going to adapt as a society to live with these changes, how are we going to redistribute populations, protect our coastlines, early intervention etc, i think its called evolution or sumfing.

I don't understand this. If people are going to get all hot and bothered about being taxed now for a carbon price, if they honestly think for a second if we allow this condition to continue that it's not going to get HARDER AND HARDER with every passing year to 1) correct the situation, 2) adjust to it, then they're crazy lol. It only makes sense that it's going to become harder and harder and therefore more expensive. Not to mention, adjusting is just submitting to the filthy fucking greed that's going on in the world, raping people, raping forests, raping coastlines. Fuck that. I don't want that. *we* can survive, what about the reefs we'll annihilate? The eco systems we'll destroy? That's not evolution, that's just a constant reminder of the kind of self serving cunts that we let get the better of us as a species. Fuck that. No way. I don't want that burden on the conscious of man, we've had enough of them paving the way. They can step aside for a while.

[stevie_]

And who or what is a strawman?

[AngryJungMan]

sommat to set fire to innit

penny for the guy?

[Burnside]

bravo stevie

but don't bother arguing with the greedy cunts

they ain't gonna change

shit goes down, it's always someone else's fault as far as they are concerned

just make fun of them til something pops

[kranky al]

bravo stevie

but don't bother arguing with the greedy cunts

they ain't gonna change

shit goes down, it's always someone else's fault as far as they are concerned

just make fun of them til something pops

i reckon the prevailing view is that they are all hoping to be dead and gone by the time it gets critical - so they dont have to pay for it.

[VERSTYLE]

i reckon the prevailing view is that they are all hoping to be dead and gone by the time it gets critical - so they dont have to pay for it.

Well it's pretty obvious someone will be

[monkey]

while you said that in an ignorant attempt to be funny, your 'joke' speaks volumes on your perspective.

[Multivital]

while you said that in an ignorant attempt to be funny, your 'joke' speaks volumes on your perspective.

you see why I didn't recommend cuddling up to him to score points against me?

i'm just taking the piss.

he's a mouthbreathing dick farmer with oak leaf clusters.

yes, this is burnside in case you were wondering.

it's as good as a holiday.

OH NOES HE DOESNT HAVE THIS USERNAME ON IGNORE THE POOR FRAGILE LAMB WILL SEE THIS POAST!!!!!!

[VERSTYLE]

Ahh Steve! Did Erin hi-jack your computer or something? Pfft... Don't get sucked into the vortex that easily. :P

I reckon if USA didn't put 42604260935203503r0325004532858235856495 2394 239 5239512941601300 trillion pointless gazzilliontrillion dollars into penis enlargements for DICK comparing and spend even a fraction on helping the poorer nations

This has got to be one of the most tired and most repetitious arguments i hear from the left and i know your smarter than this so for anyone else...

http://www.usaid.gov/

Have a read. The US spends billions on foreign aid. Could it be better distributed? Maybe. Is it going to the right places all the time? Dunno. Are the recipients allowing for it to be properly distributed? Hope so...

The point is that they spend billions on developing countries whether you want to believe it or not that's up to you but the evidence is right there in black and white. People that suggest the US don't spend money on aid in developing countries (or its only ever for personal gain) usually fall into the same category as September 11 conspiracy theorists. It's their derision toward the US and capitalism in general that inhibits their ability to look at the facts in a balanced manner.

What they do need to do though is reduce spending, that's a no brainier. Ideally this will start by drawing back from the middle east, scaling down military operations and related expenditure and trimming the massive bureaucracy created post September 11. IMO at best we have about 18 months for the US to find away to balance their books before we face another epic financial meltdown.

(eg, not allowing their corporations to RAPE THE FUCK out of poorer economies through the "wonders" of globalization (and it could do with some bloody regulating, I sure as hell wouldn't say it's anti-evolution)), who knows, you might see them being more willing. It's just a different way of thinking, a different way of doing things. One that involves more global cooperation.

The onus is also on the leaders of these developing countries to not participate in such wide spread corruption. I am under no illusions that some businesses from wealthy nations have acted in a duplicit and unethical manner as multi national corporations.


I'm also quite certain that western democracies have turned a blind eye to or even participated at times in foreign exploitation but this simplistic notion that the US represents everything evil is just plain dumb uneducated and unsubstantiated dribble.

What you are so blissfully overlooking is that the Western democracies, big businesses and developing countries all have one thing in common and that their susceptibility to human nature. Having a cry wank about big business 'fucking up the planet' is pointless, businesses are just collectives of people that work toward a common goal (profit maximisation) it is up to the individuals in these organisations to make decisions that keep the best interests of others in mind for the greater good of humanity.

Soon this retarded game will come to a close. It always does. No one expected the Middle Ages to last forever, and hell history shows it as nothing more than a fuck hole on the worlds progression, and there'll be dark, dark, dark stories to be told of the open exploitation of others at nothing more than the expense of greed. The great crime of our time.

I don't know why you think greed is something that has just magically developed in the last few decades of industrialisation. Yes i agree, unregulated capitalism DOES propagate greed, but no one with any credibility is suggesting that anyway, quite the opposite.

If you are so sure that capitalism or this 'time of greed' as you put it is about to close then please explain to me why socialism collapsed and the iron curtain crumbled? Please explain why the supply of labour has shifted to free market based economies? Please explain to me why the only large remaining communist (authoritarian) regime left now opening embraces a large swathe of capitalist ideology?

This whole idea that "people are greedy" is a total and absolute load of fucking shit in my eyes. People aren't all greedy, it's just that currently, the greedy cunts are weighing down the not so greedy. That trend will change, it slowly is, but I guess it will take a lot longer for these types of people to emerge, but it's happening gradually and it will spread and the insanity will ease for a while.

There is about 1500 years of philosophy that for the most part disagrees with you, in conjunction with the numerous modern day examples mentioned above.

I don't understand this. If people are going to get all hot and bothered about being taxed now for a carbon price, if they honestly think for a second if we allow this condition to continue that it's not going to get HARDER AND HARDER with every passing year to 1) correct the situation, 2) adjust to it, then they're crazy lol.

Yeah for the most part i agree, we do need to change and evolve from our current practises. It's just how we go about implementing change and what we hope to accomplish from it that i see as more relevant.

It only makes sense that it's going to become harder and harder and therefore more expensive. Not to mention, adjusting is just submitting to the filthy fucking greed that's going on in the world, raping people, raping forests, raping coastlines. Fuck that. I don't want that. *we* can survive, what about the reefs we'll annihilate? The eco systems we'll destroy? That's not evolution,

So from the comfort of your computer chair at your parents nice 4x2 in Stirling... please explain to me how we can stop emerging markets with poverty stricken populations with an appetite for modernisation go about it in a manner that suits your idealistic preferences.

Yes it is evolution.

I'm not a fan of what is potentially/likely going to happen but thinking that a 5% carbon tax or solar panels on every aussie household is going to make a fuckin difference to the future of our ecosystems then you really have been grossly misled by someone and that person is certainly no scientist.

that's just a constant reminder of the kind of self serving cunts that we let get the better of us as a species. Fuck that. No way. I don't want that burden on the conscious of man, we've had enough of them paving the way. They can step aside for a while.

Who can step aside? The faceless men?

What is being proposed in our parliament today is a farce.

[Multivital]

oh my god

he thinks US hands out aid simply because they LIKE BROWN PEOPLE

oh gawd

and then

THEM FURRINERS BE GETTING UPPITY BUY WAR BONDS AND KEEP THE SLANT EYED SAUSAGE SUCKERS DOWN!

though i did like his year nine dissertation on capitalism vs socialism

SOCIALISM FAILED BECAUSE ITS JUST EVIL AND STUPID I CANT EVENT SPELL ENVIROMENTAL OR HISTOICAL FACTORS LOL WHATS A WORLD WAR TWO

[VERSTYLE]

LOL burnie jumping to his other alias for a bit of attention, too bad both got blocked after he moved onto hate speech...

Go to bed you crusty old fart, the world stopped paying attention to you some time ago.

TS won't give you the legacy you're crying out for... it just makes you look more like a jaded loser.

[Multivital]

LOL burnie jumping to his other alias for a bit of attention, too bad both got blocked after he moved onto hate speech...

Go to bed you crusty old fart, the world stopped paying attention to you some time ago.

TS won't give you the legacy you're crying out for... it just makes you look like more of a jaded loser.

so both got blocked when i moved onto *HATE SPEECH* (eheeheh)

yet you somehow read it anyway

that was brave of you lil' fellah!

dude

no one likes you and your arsehole views

you are shit at understanding and discussing your 'hobby' of politics

bugger off and insert yourself into a thread where you won't be an object of such ridicule, disgust and amusement

i chose one for you at random, hope you like it

http://www.teknoscape.com.au/forums/...BY-BRISBANE-DJ!!

[VERSTYLE]

LOL he's still mumbling away... awesome... bridge must have finished late tonight

[monkey]

you see why I didn't recommend cuddling up to him to score points against me?

i'm just taking the piss.

he's a mouthbreathing dick farmer with oak leaf clusters.

yes, this is burnside in case you were wondering.

lol @ oak leaf clusters.

I've got no allies remember, I hate everyone equally.