JUST look at this astonishing farce in Canberra, is what I should have said.
You see, I was talking to a class of year 11 students this week and found - to my horror - that few of that Harry Potter generation had even heard of the children’s story that best explains this madness.
You know, the madness of Kevin Rudd’s colossal tax on everything, which couldn’t stop global warming even if that warming were real.
I mean, too, the madness of the Liberals’ collapse under Malcolm Turnbull, and the startling rise of Kevin Andrews, the man they said was crazy.
Anyway, there I was in this classroom, talking of daring to speak the truth. Who, I asked, knew Hans Christian Andersen’s tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes?
Not one hand went up. How we’ve failed today’s children.
Older readers will know this story and its terrible relevance.
An emperor as vain as, well, our Prime Minister, hires two weavers who promise to make him the best clothes from the best cloth. This fabric, the weavers say, is so fine that only the wise and moral can see it.
In fact, if you were shamefully stupid - like a Holocaust denier or climate sceptic - you’d swear it was invisible.
...
I think I've failed my BBCode.
I have quoted the whole thing because why subject anyone to that. But the last line - does that not imply that Bolt thinks holocaust denial is a good idea? Or is it just an unfortunate implication that he missed because he's a fool? Or is he being ironic and I just can't tell because I find his view so outlandish I has lost the ability to judge such things?
Bolt is like, so retarded. There's just really no other response to anything he writes. There's a reason people like him and Miranda Devine are known as "trollumnists".
Ok the whole thing with private school funding is ridiculous. Private schools are funded by federal government money direct, public schools aka state schools are funded by - states.
The ads the teachers union ran on the matter simply looked at direct federal funding - which is lower for public schools because most of their money comes from the states - which the private schools do not get.
EDIT: This isn't to say we shouldn't give more money to public schools, but private schools are not given the same money as public from the government. Just some money - which makes sense because education is practically a negative profitability business.
You're probably right, but it did really piss me off that we couldn't get an A/C in our library, where in the north shore there's all those private colleges with tennis courts in them.
You're probably right, but it did really piss me off that we couldn't get an A/C in our library, where in the north shore there's all those private colleges with tennis courts in them.
I went to one of those. We had tennis courts but no A/C in any of our class rooms.
Grounds are a really terrible way to judge a school since they're usually just fortuitous land grabs.
I do know my Dad wont shut up about how Community Groups get fucked over in Canberra.
The government departments we do work with are rude to us all the god damn time and don't pay their bills.
That every one has a hissy fit when a sports star gets drunk and punches some person in traditional Australian fashion (Australia drink beer and beat women) yet we are all cool and calm with the people who run the country on the tip of shitting in their hands and tossing it at each other in Parliament.
Why can't we all just get along?
Oh and Howard sold Telstra to us, despite the fact we already owned it. Wouldn't that be a crime?
Going to the poorest high school in the city and beating all the private schools at history/science quizzes due to spending far too much time reading wikipedia was fantastic, it almost makes up for being ignored due to them teaching to the worst students and ignoring the rest.
Just some money - which makes sense because education is practically a negative profitability business.
O_o
maybe if you totally ignore the results of education...
As a business.
It's worth a lot to the country, but in terms of trying to make money out of the enterprise, you'd have to charge a ridiculous amount to provide the same service. Plus it gives the government a foot in the door to private schools - or at least I'd hope it does.
Yeah, but if businesses had to do their own educatin'... I don't know, its just a weird thing to say. Also the way we measure profitability is pretty insane in general, which doesn't help.
Also, my dad gave a pretty convincing argument why we absolutely should not have passed the ETS as is. If it costs the government $120 billion (i.e. us a $120 billion) to run this scheme, and basically gives money to the coal companies....coal as an export to us, i.e. the biggest single contribution to CO2 emissions courtesy of China, is only worth $58 billion.
Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter, and black coal is Australia's largest export, worth more than $A50 billion in 2008-09
So...we could spend literally half the money, and just pay the coal industry to not mine coal. Boom! We cut our contribution to global warming by almost all of it. And in reality, really we'd just pay the mining industry to not mine coal and instead do something else with their skillbase. We could spend the other half on renewables to replace the coal powerplants.
I mean, jesus fuck.
But you know what's really fucking lame? Not one single fucking politician has mentioned this fact, and I've been listening to motherfucking parliament sessions in the car for the last few weeks and watching the news. Not one.
EDIT: Hell we could just pay them to leave it in a big pile somewhere.
Also, my dad gave a pretty convincing argument why we absolutely should not have passed the ETS as is. If it costs the government $120 billion (i.e. us a $120 billion) to run this scheme, and basically gives money to the coal companies....coal as an export to us, i.e. the biggest single contribution to CO2 emissions courtesy of China, is only worth $58 billion.
Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter, and black coal is Australia's largest export, worth more than $A50 billion in 2008-09
So...we could spend literally half the money, and just pay the coal industry to not mine coal. Boom! We cut our contribution to global warming by almost all of it. And in reality, really we'd just pay the mining industry to not mine coal and instead do something else with their skillbase. We could spend the other half on renewables to replace the coal powerplants.
I mean, jesus fuck.
But you know what's really fucking lame? Not one single fucking politician has mentioned this fact, and I've been listening to motherfucking parliament sessions in the car for the last few weeks and watching the news. Not one.
EDIT: Hell we could just pay them to leave it in a big pile somewhere.
I consider myself to only have an extremely elementary take on the ETS, and I frankly can't debunk a word of what you just said. I just find the whole issue very troubling. From what I understood, the ETS was from the very beginning a very right-sided approach to dealing with climate change ( first proposed by the liberals if I recall) and it's now become the 'left-wing' solution, with the right wing side of things being "do jack fucking shit" under Tony Fucking Abbot (when I heard it on the news I thought it must've be a joke). At the same time I don't even know if I agree with the Green's push to get more done by rejecting it. Surely something is better than nothing. It all just seems like a step backwards.
It's all fucking complicated and caught up in god awful politics. I just wish Labor could have taken a progressive, non market-based solution and gotten green support with massive pushing to solar, wind and future techs like geothermal; since it seems they're not going to get Liberal support anyway.
Well, my dad's proposal is that we should just declare all renewables/carbon neutral energy (nuclear power) as tax free investments.
Frankly this whole thing makes no sense - it would be dead simple to drive adoption of renewable energy by simply not taxing it. It's worth nothing as tax revenue now, so we wouldn't notice it - done properly - since it should be eaten up in economic growth as any potential losses from diversions.
I mean, Germany, with gross solar feed in, has one of the largest installed bases of solar power in the world. We're fucking Australia, and NSW has only just decided to do this.
Also, my dad gave a pretty convincing argument why we absolutely should not have passed the ETS as is. If it costs the government $120 billion (i.e. us a $120 billion) to run this scheme, and basically gives money to the coal companies....coal as an export to us, i.e. the biggest single contribution to CO2 emissions courtesy of China, is only worth $58 billion.
Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter, and black coal is Australia's largest export, worth more than $A50 billion in 2008-09
So...we could spend literally half the money, and just pay the coal industry to not mine coal. Boom! We cut our contribution to global warming by almost all of it. And in reality, really we'd just pay the mining industry to not mine coal and instead do something else with their skillbase. We could spend the other half on renewables to replace the coal powerplants.
I mean, jesus fuck.
But you know what's really fucking lame? Not one single fucking politician has mentioned this fact, and I've been listening to motherfucking parliament sessions in the car for the last few weeks and watching the news. Not one.
EDIT: Hell we could just pay them to leave it in a big pile somewhere.
The $120billion figure is over ten years I believe, so you'd have to pay $500billion total. Not to mention the world would no doubt just find another source of coal.
Maybe so but that goes on to highlight the problem - it becomes worthless to do without international cooperation. In many respects this thing with the liberals may turn out well since the new ETS bill will come after the Copenhagen conference.
Personally I have no problem with nuclear power as a way to reduce emissions. I have no idea why most Australians are so freaked out by the idea when the rest of the world is getting by just fine with it. I don't know how the economics of nuclear power work out, but I don't understand why a lot of people just automatically reject it.
I think it was on Lateline a few nights ago that they were saying that Labor strategists were thinking it would be more beneficial to them if they didn't go with a double dissolution. All they have to do is let Abbott and the other hard conservatives keep on keeping on for the next year. Labor can pretty easily paint them as extremists and discredit them in the run-up to the next election.
I'm generally a moderate conservative and Liberal supporter, but I cannot fucking wait for Labor to do this. Seriously, the sooner the party crumbles, the sooner it rebuilds, the sooner we lose the hard conservatives, and the better for everyone in the country. Even the Shetland ponies will rejoice.
Also, regarding Tuckey: Tuesday was the only time I can recall Tuckey talking publicly and not criticising his own party.
The only real incentive for a double dissolution would be to get a friendlier senate earlier. Antony Green has posted an analysis of what current polling numbers would mean in the senate, and came to the conclusion that a normal half senate election would work out better.
Sounds sorta reminiscent of dubya's infamous shoulder massage for Angela Merkel This is the kind of modern attitude towards women we like in politicians
Sounds sorta reminiscent of dubya's infamous shoulder massage for Angela Merkel This is the kind of modern attitude towards women we like in politicians
The only real incentive for a double dissolution would be to get a friendlier senate earlier. Antony Green has posted an analysis of what current polling numbers would mean in the senate, and came to the conclusion that a normal half senate election would work out better.
They're not going to loose the next election, the question becomes the election afterwards.
If I was Kevin Rudd, I'd back myself in winning a third term. It'd be pretty unlikely unless something dramatic happened that caused a massive shift away, which would bugger him anyway. Or, unless it turns out that Kevin Rudd is in fact not as good as people think he is, either way it doesn't matter.
Speaking long term then, if a double dissolution gives him a better third term, and calling another early election isn't the end of the word, I don't see why Rudd wouldn't take the double dissolution election. You've gotta really run as hard and fast as you can while the going is good and fortify yourself against the inevitable downturn.
My argument is this: It's a good opportunity, why not take it? Is Kevin Rudd just not as ruthless as his predecessors?
Unless, of course, there is some sort of succession plan in terms of elections meaning that Rudd is disadvantaged by loosing some of his term. Which seems silly and unlikely.
Given that they're saying they'll reintroduce the ETS bill in February, I can't see a double dissolution election happening. It sounds like the new plan is to let Copenhagen come and go and then use the results of it to create a situation where the liberals can't oppose it and probably try and get the Greens on board.
Which wouldn't be a bad thing, since the bill is less likely to be stupid if the Greens get their way with it.
They're not going to loose the next election, the question becomes the election afterwards.
If I was Kevin Rudd, I'd back myself in winning a third term. It'd be pretty unlikely unless something dramatic happened that caused a massive shift away, which would bugger him anyway. Or, unless it turns out that Kevin Rudd is in fact not as good as people think he is, either way it doesn't matter.
Speaking long term then, if a double dissolution gives him a better third term, and calling another early election isn't the end of the word, I don't see why Rudd wouldn't take the double dissolution election. You've gotta really run as hard and fast as you can while the going is good and fortify yourself against the inevitable downturn.
My argument is this: It's a good opportunity, why not take it? Is Kevin Rudd just not as ruthless as his predecessors?
Unless, of course, there is some sort of succession plan in terms of elections meaning that Rudd is disadvantaged by loosing some of his term. Which seems silly and unlikely.
The point I think is that if they are sure to win another term they might as well make both the current term and the next one as long as possibly. The number of terms won is pretty meaningless, its time in power that makes a difference. I mean, Gough Whitlam technically had two terms in power but was only prime minister for three years. Rudd would rather have two three year terms than two two year terms any day.
I'd just like to point out that Mad Max is R. These fucks are banning advertising Mad Max, they want to put Mad fucking Max into a seperate closed off section of the DVD store. I hate to say it, but being anti- Mad Max is quite frankly Un-Australian.
I'd just like to point out that Mad Max is R. These fucks are banning advertising Mad Max, they want to put Mad fucking Max into a seperate closed off section of the DVD store. I hate to say it, but being anti- Mad Max is quite frankly Un-Australian.
Speaking of which, the Liberals usage of that word is in full swing again to use against people they don't like. It's even in regards to AWA bullshit again.
So I live in NSW, which is now being run by a puppet. Which is a shame, because she happens to be our first female Premier. Thoughts?
The great mystery in NSW is why anyone in the ALP actually wanting the job of premier at the moment, seems to be a surefire way to murder your career potential. Was Kristina Keneally seen as a bright newcomer with potential that is now being destroyed, or is she merely a puppet that isn't losing to much in this process?
At the moment the censorship issue has me riled up enough that I have actually begun to draft an angry letter.
The problem is, I want to touch on Conroy's stupidity and Atkinson's stupidity (yes, I'm South Australian) in the same letter, so the audience for my considered diatribe is, at this point, uncertain.
I have looked into the realm of 'other parties' a little bit, becuase it won't be long now before both an SA state election and another federal election...
While I definitely don't agree with some of their policies (e.g health is a biggie) the Liberal Democratic Party appears to be on-the-ball with censorship issues. They're libertarians, so you know, small government, individuals have the right to choose and all that.
Also I need to look into the Sex Party. They're big enough now that they can be on the AEC's roster of official parties, although you'll have to look further than this post to find out how that's figured out (www.aec.gov.au). Oh yeah, and home of the Sex Party for anyone interested.
I'm frustrated enough at the lack of attention on this censorship issue that I'm willing to vote on it almost irrespective of a party/candidate's other policies. I generally vote for independents anyway (or the Democrats, although I haven't looked at their policies for a while or even if they bother fielding candidates anymore).
Edit: Whoah, a policy from the Sex Party's website:
"To hold a referendum to create mandatory equal numbers of women in the Senate and State Upper Houses"
That's pretty radical. I'm not fond of that idea at all.
Edit again: I haven't posted in D&D for a while, and I remember that it gets fiery in here. In case there's doubt, I'm for equal opportunity, but don't believe mandating numbers is a good way to go about achieving that goal.
Solvent on
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
Haven't you heard? There is a mandated one batshit insane policy for a party now.
Like the above poster I'm pro equality but forcing equal numbers would be incredibly foolish. If they promoted trying to get more women into the senate and state upper houses with the end goal of equal numbers I would have no issue.
Yeah I'd say the lean towards more men in the Senate is part sexist old people grooming younger politicians that share their views (like sexism), and part a society that at best tells women "You can be equal to men!", but never "You could be running shit around here!"
Well, I'm definitely not going for the LDP. Legalisation of the right to bear firearms? Privatising everything from schools to Australia Post, as well as the ABC and SBS? No, thank you.
Yeah the LDP is at the crazy end of libertarianism. Why do all libertarian parties seem to be at the crazy end of the spectrum and not the moderate end? Or are only libertarian in certain areas (ie low taxes) and not others (civil rights)
Yeah the LDP is at the crazy end of libertarianism. Why do all libertarian parties seem to be at the crazy end of the spectrum and not the moderate end? Or are only libertarian in certain areas (ie low taxes) and not others (civil rights)
Because libertarianism basically is crazy. Unfortunately, both our major parties seem unwilling to step away from the nanny-state bullshit and provide a reasonable middle ground.
I honestly don't know whom I'll vote for next year at the federal election. Guess I'll have to check out the independents in my area. Not that it'll make much difference. Local member is Martin Ferguson, and he's not getting voted out any time soon.
I have a feeling yours won't participate in the tabling of untrue accusations using parliamentary privilege (resulting in the target of the allegations committing suicide) before then developing convenient amnesia over her role in tabling the accusations.
Surprisingly, using parliamentary privilege to bully someone into suicide wasn't enough to end her political career and she then went on to be elected into Federal Parliament.
This is not just a repeat of the 2007 election. John Howard and Rudd agreed on an ETS, so it was never the issue. The 2007 test was climate change credentials and Rudd outshone Howard as a candidate of the future.
This time the Rudd-Abbott dispute will be greater and Abbott, unlike Howard in 2007, has political ammunition to fire and a grassroots crusade to lead. He will target Rudd on one issue: explaining the ETS and explaining why Australians need it.
The people will decide this result. For Abbott, the ETS is the prime exhibit of Rudd as a high-taxing, high-spending bureaucrat with Whitlamite overtones, out of touch with people and imposing new cost-of-living pressures on them. The ETS slots perfectly into Abbott's economic campaign.
As an aggressive leader in the Howard mould, Abbott is a mixture of conservative, radical and populist. Many of his opponents misread him. In his recent book Battlelines, Abbott argued "the Federation is broken and does need to be fixed". Convinced the Howard government was punished for the failure of the states, Abbott will hold Rudd to a degree of responsibility for the failures in NSW and Queensland.
As health minister during the Howard era and an unsuccessful advocate for a national takeover of public hospitals, Abbott is guaranteed to put health services at the centre of his campaign by insisting that Rudd is accountable for the condition of public hospitals across the board.
On boat people, he will campaign as a dedicated border protectionist.
On Aboriginal deprivation, he champions Noel Pearson's philosophy and will attack any Rudd retreat to the rights agenda.
On industrial relations, he backs individual agreements on the pre-2005 model before Work Choices. But there are two urgent lessons Abbott must learn from Howard if he wants to succeed.
As a social conservative he must convince people that he does not seek to recast the moral agenda on issues such as abortion and divorce. Second, Abbott's credentials are suspect on economic policy where, too often, he seems inexperienced and unsure, suspicious of markets, reluctant about disciplined costings and inclined to old-fashioned regulation. Labor will gun Abbott on economic policy.
Yay: Health, State Governments.
Nay: Social Policy, IR, Ecconomics, Whiatlamesque... really? Border protection! KEVIN RUDD DOES NOTHING! I WILL DO NOTHING WITH MORE CONVICTION AND HATE!
Don't know: Indigenous stuff. Not really up with that. We killed all ours years ago. (Go us...not)
Posts
But check out this column from last week.
I think I've failed my BBCode.
I have quoted the whole thing because why subject anyone to that. But the last line - does that not imply that Bolt thinks holocaust denial is a good idea? Or is it just an unfortunate implication that he missed because he's a fool? Or is he being ironic and I just can't tell because I find his view so outlandish I has lost the ability to judge such things?
The ads the teachers union ran on the matter simply looked at direct federal funding - which is lower for public schools because most of their money comes from the states - which the private schools do not get.
EDIT: This isn't to say we shouldn't give more money to public schools, but private schools are not given the same money as public from the government. Just some money - which makes sense because education is practically a negative profitability business.
I went to one of those. We had tennis courts but no A/C in any of our class rooms.
Grounds are a really terrible way to judge a school since they're usually just fortuitous land grabs.
The staff rooms, on the other hand...
I do know my Dad wont shut up about how Community Groups get fucked over in Canberra.
The government departments we do work with are rude to us all the god damn time and don't pay their bills.
That every one has a hissy fit when a sports star gets drunk and punches some person in traditional Australian fashion (Australia drink beer and beat women) yet we are all cool and calm with the people who run the country on the tip of shitting in their hands and tossing it at each other in Parliament.
Why can't we all just get along?
Oh and Howard sold Telstra to us, despite the fact we already owned it. Wouldn't that be a crime?
O_o
maybe if you totally ignore the results of education...
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
As a business.
It's worth a lot to the country, but in terms of trying to make money out of the enterprise, you'd have to charge a ridiculous amount to provide the same service. Plus it gives the government a foot in the door to private schools - or at least I'd hope it does.
So...we could spend literally half the money, and just pay the coal industry to not mine coal. Boom! We cut our contribution to global warming by almost all of it. And in reality, really we'd just pay the mining industry to not mine coal and instead do something else with their skillbase. We could spend the other half on renewables to replace the coal powerplants.
I mean, jesus fuck.
But you know what's really fucking lame? Not one single fucking politician has mentioned this fact, and I've been listening to motherfucking parliament sessions in the car for the last few weeks and watching the news. Not one.
EDIT: Hell we could just pay them to leave it in a big pile somewhere.
I consider myself to only have an extremely elementary take on the ETS, and I frankly can't debunk a word of what you just said. I just find the whole issue very troubling. From what I understood, the ETS was from the very beginning a very right-sided approach to dealing with climate change ( first proposed by the liberals if I recall) and it's now become the 'left-wing' solution, with the right wing side of things being "do jack fucking shit" under Tony Fucking Abbot (when I heard it on the news I thought it must've be a joke). At the same time I don't even know if I agree with the Green's push to get more done by rejecting it. Surely something is better than nothing. It all just seems like a step backwards.
It's all fucking complicated and caught up in god awful politics. I just wish Labor could have taken a progressive, non market-based solution and gotten green support with massive pushing to solar, wind and future techs like geothermal; since it seems they're not going to get Liberal support anyway.
Frankly this whole thing makes no sense - it would be dead simple to drive adoption of renewable energy by simply not taxing it. It's worth nothing as tax revenue now, so we wouldn't notice it - done properly - since it should be eaten up in economic growth as any potential losses from diversions.
I mean, Germany, with gross solar feed in, has one of the largest installed bases of solar power in the world. We're fucking Australia, and NSW has only just decided to do this.
The $120billion figure is over ten years I believe, so you'd have to pay $500billion total. Not to mention the world would no doubt just find another source of coal.
I'm generally a moderate conservative and Liberal supporter, but I cannot fucking wait for Labor to do this. Seriously, the sooner the party crumbles, the sooner it rebuilds, the sooner we lose the hard conservatives, and the better for everyone in the country. Even the Shetland ponies will rejoice.
Also, regarding Tuckey: Tuesday was the only time I can recall Tuckey talking publicly and not criticising his own party.
His post on election dates: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2009/12/possible-election-dates.html
His post on probable election results: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2009/07/double-dissolution-versus-halfsenate-election-which-would-be-better-for-labor-in-the-senate.html
Well, looks like there's been a bit of a falling out between Turnbull and Bishop. From about halfway through:
Patting her? Wow.
I...didn't believe this so I googled it..
Oh god
OH GOD
They're not going to loose the next election, the question becomes the election afterwards.
If I was Kevin Rudd, I'd back myself in winning a third term. It'd be pretty unlikely unless something dramatic happened that caused a massive shift away, which would bugger him anyway. Or, unless it turns out that Kevin Rudd is in fact not as good as people think he is, either way it doesn't matter.
Speaking long term then, if a double dissolution gives him a better third term, and calling another early election isn't the end of the word, I don't see why Rudd wouldn't take the double dissolution election. You've gotta really run as hard and fast as you can while the going is good and fortify yourself against the inevitable downturn.
My argument is this: It's a good opportunity, why not take it? Is Kevin Rudd just not as ruthless as his predecessors?
Unless, of course, there is some sort of succession plan in terms of elections meaning that Rudd is disadvantaged by loosing some of his term. Which seems silly and unlikely.
Which wouldn't be a bad thing, since the bill is less likely to be stupid if the Greens get their way with it.
The point I think is that if they are sure to win another term they might as well make both the current term and the next one as long as possibly. The number of terms won is pretty meaningless, its time in power that makes a difference. I mean, Gough Whitlam technically had two terms in power but was only prime minister for three years. Rudd would rather have two three year terms than two two year terms any day.
I'd just like to point out that Mad Max is R. These fucks are banning advertising Mad Max, they want to put Mad fucking Max into a seperate closed off section of the DVD store. I hate to say it, but being anti- Mad Max is quite frankly Un-Australian.
Speaking of which, the Liberals usage of that word is in full swing again to use against people they don't like. It's even in regards to AWA bullshit again.
So I live in NSW, which is now being run by a puppet. Which is a shame, because she happens to be our first female Premier. Thoughts?
The problem is, I want to touch on Conroy's stupidity and Atkinson's stupidity (yes, I'm South Australian) in the same letter, so the audience for my considered diatribe is, at this point, uncertain.
I have looked into the realm of 'other parties' a little bit, becuase it won't be long now before both an SA state election and another federal election...
While I definitely don't agree with some of their policies (e.g health is a biggie) the Liberal Democratic Party appears to be on-the-ball with censorship issues. They're libertarians, so you know, small government, individuals have the right to choose and all that.
Also I need to look into the Sex Party. They're big enough now that they can be on the AEC's roster of official parties, although you'll have to look further than this post to find out how that's figured out (www.aec.gov.au). Oh yeah, and home of the Sex Party for anyone interested.
I'm frustrated enough at the lack of attention on this censorship issue that I'm willing to vote on it almost irrespective of a party/candidate's other policies. I generally vote for independents anyway (or the Democrats, although I haven't looked at their policies for a while or even if they bother fielding candidates anymore).
Edit: Whoah, a policy from the Sex Party's website:
"To hold a referendum to create mandatory equal numbers of women in the Senate and State Upper Houses"
That's pretty radical. I'm not fond of that idea at all.
Edit again: I haven't posted in D&D for a while, and I remember that it gets fiery in here. In case there's doubt, I'm for equal opportunity, but don't believe mandating numbers is a good way to go about achieving that goal.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
Like the above poster I'm pro equality but forcing equal numbers would be incredibly foolish. If they promoted trying to get more women into the senate and state upper houses with the end goal of equal numbers I would have no issue.
Mandatory terms suck.
Living in the backyard of fat cat NSW Labor Right sucks also.
Then again, I live in the backyard of the Green Party. Which apparently polls better than the State Liberal Party that is in opposition...
Because libertarianism basically is crazy. Unfortunately, both our major parties seem unwilling to step away from the nanny-state bullshit and provide a reasonable middle ground.
I'll trade your first female premier for ours.
I have a feeling yours won't participate in the tabling of untrue accusations using parliamentary privilege (resulting in the target of the allegations committing suicide) before then developing convenient amnesia over her role in tabling the accusations.
Surprisingly, using parliamentary privilege to bully someone into suicide wasn't enough to end her political career and she then went on to be elected into Federal Parliament.
Also, Abbott wants to debate Rudd... hmmm...
I can see the arguments now:
Your plan is stupid!
Oh yeah, your entire values set is stupid. Stupid face.
Edit: Paul "to the right of Mussolini" Kelly says:
Yay: Health, State Governments.
Nay: Social Policy, IR, Ecconomics, Whiatlamesque... really? Border protection! KEVIN RUDD DOES NOTHING! I WILL DO NOTHING WITH MORE CONVICTION AND HATE!
Don't know: Indigenous stuff. Not really up with that. We killed all ours years ago. (Go us...not)