• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: andyturbo

Election 2007.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm talking about trying to drive on a road in the dry that has been torn to pieces by 4WDs.

And by State Rec. Areas I mean areas that are covered under the State Conservation Area part of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1976.

They're now called State Conservation Areas but they used to be called State Recreation areas

Basically they are like National Parks but open to other forms of recreation generally not allowed in a National Park.

http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/The+different+types+of+parks+and+reserves.

Too much of the Australian Bush is already beyond repair for things to not be legislated in this manner.

State Forests are a completely different thing as they are owned by the Forestry Commission and thus covered under the Foresty Act 1916.

I also enjoy State Forests for the fact that you can collect firewood and there is less rules, but I accept the fact that most areas need better protection and thus I was happy when half of my local State Forest was handed over to National Parks.
 
Last edited:
For the record you can still 4WD in a lot of National Parks as there are areas that aren't accessible any other way. I just don't think they appreciate the kind of 4WDing that requires multiple cars and winches.

But you've got to accept the fact that there are areas where four-wheel drives should not be permitted like breeding areas of threatened species or in threatened ecological communities. Right?

Truthfully I think you have a misconception about the Green Party that it suits yourself not to let go of.
 
lostpunk5545 said:
I'm talking about trying to drive on a road in the dry that has been torn to pieces by 4WDs.

And by State Rec. Areas I mean areas that are covered under the State Conservation Area part of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1976.

They're now called State Conservation Areas but they used to be called State Recreation areas

Basically they are like National Parks but open to other forms of recreation generally not allowed in a National Park.

http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/The+different+types+of+parks+and+reserves.

Too much of the Australian Bush it already beyond repair for things to not be legislated in this manner.

State Forests are a completely different thing as they are owned by the Forestry Commission and thus covered under the Foresty Act 1916.

I also enjoy State Forests for the fact that you can collect firewood and there is less rules, but I accept the fact that most areas need better protection and thus I was happy when half of my local State Forest was handed over to National Parks.
Click to expand...

Well, there you go then. You learn something new everyday :)
 
Questions without notice

Now that the formal election debate is over, it's time to give you, the readers and viewers, a chance to pose your questions to our leading politicians in the lead-up to the November 24 federal election.

What are the issues that are important to you and your families? Are you worried about climate change, or are workplace issues more important to you? Do you want to ask something about our involvement in Iraq?

We're in the process of lining up politicians to appear in a moderated Q&A session where they will be fielding questions submitted on our new
YouTube channel.

The questions will be selected by a panel of Fairfax journalists and then put to the invited politicians at a live event to be webcast on theage.com.au.

At the outset, we do not have firm commitments from the candidates to respond to your questions. But we hope that they will agree to the online forums we have proposed in the coming days as our audience expresses its interest in engaging with our political leaders.

But don't worry. Either way we'll make sure they hear your message.

So start submitting your video questions. Remember to keep them brief and to the point and please, no profanity or abuse.

How to submit your question:

1. If you haven't already got one, you need to sign up for a free YouTube account.

2. Once you've done that, you're ready to begin uploading videos. You can also capture your questions directly from a webcam.

3. After you've added your video question to your YouTube page, you need to visit our YouTube channel.

4. To submit a video question, you either click on "add comment" on the bottom box on the left hand side of the channel page or you click on our welcoming video and submit a video response to it.

If you have any technical questions, you can always contact us through the "Send a Message" link in the box on the left of our home channel page.
Click to expand...
The Age
 
lostpunk5545 said:
But you've got to accept the fact that there are areas where four-wheel drives should not be permitted like breeding areas of threatened species or in threatened ecological communities. Right?

Truthfully I think you have a misconception about the Green Party that it suits yourself not to let go of.
Click to expand...


I dont have a problem with that mate..........but really, a track uses so little of a country that the carry on is way over the top most times.



I will show you evidence of what the greens have done mate and also what they plan to do thast is fucked up.

Maybe you can help me change there thinking to be more reasonable
 
It's interesting reading this thread because you can see how Australian voters think. When I vote I consider what will be good for the whole country, not just myself personally. I never understood why politicians always focused on stupid issues intead of tackling the bigger picture. Reading this read has helped me understand. So many people go to the ballot box only thinking about their own hip pocket, or their own personal bugbear. It makes it easy for politicians to shirk their real responsibilities, like making sure we have adequate public health and education systems, and talk shit about stupid tax cuts and sensationalist bs instead.
 
Beatlebot said:
It's interesting reading this thread because you can see how Australian voters think. When I vote I consider what will be good for the whole country, not just myself personally. I never understood why politicians always focused on stupid issues intead of tackling the bigger picture. Reading this read has helped me understand. So many people go to the ballot box only thinking about their own hip pocket, or their own personal bugbear. It makes it easy for politicians to shirk their real responsibilities, like making sure we have adequate public health and education systems, and talk shit about stupid tax cuts and sensationalist bs instead.
Click to expand...


I couldnt possibly agree with you more BB. However I suspect that Aussies are pretty much identical to the rest of the world in terms of voting reasons.

The funniest ones of all are probably the ones who turn up on voting day and never really even gave it any thought at all.

I think its great that threads such as this can maybe get people to think a wee bit more deeply about how they may or may not vote. But not only that, its also good for those who do believe they put a lot of thought in, to actually be forced to think deeper maybe or think harder about there own motivations.

The world is a very selfish place.
 
howard-john1.jpg


0268.jpg


gal_1118.jpg


Labor or Liberal, your Prime Minister will never have anything on mine.
 
^Is that Fidel? He's looking good - that pic must have been taken a fair while ago. The last time I saw him on telly he looked like he had 1.75 feet in the grave already...
 
ValeTudo said:
I am not a communist. That's Ramzan Kadyrov.
Click to expand...

Now I maybe entirely confused here. I have a history of missing jokes, or taking things too literally. When you posted the pictures of Howard, Rudd and Kadyrov, was this just to show the contrast between the Chechen leader and the two Aussie leaders, or are you in fact a Chechen national or refugee? Or both perhaps?

The reason I ask is because I had picked up from one of your posts, for some reason, perhaps entirely unfounded, that you had foreign heritage or backgound. I always assumed it was Portugese, because of Valetudo, 'everything allowed/everything goes'.

Kadyrov, besides being a brutal thug and extortionist, spent fourteen years or thereabouts, involved in an even more brutal struggle - and if sides can be clearly defined, he fought on both.

His father I believe was the first President of Chechnya, and a Sunni Imam. He was known for a great many things, one of which was his strident opposition to Salafism, a strict Sunni sect, one form of which some people have claimed Osama bin Laden or his followers ascribe to. He was assassinated by a bomb several years ago, I don't remember when.

Ramzan Kadyrov commands a paramilitary force of around 2000 members in Chechnya. He has been selected as President of Chechnya, not succeeding I believe, but following in the footsteps of his father.

And he's only 30 years of age, or thereabouts. Less than half the age of John Howard, and I suppose he'd be a great deal younger than Kevin Rudd as well. Not that this is any indication that he is a good leader, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Interestingly and as an aside - Muqtada al-Sadr is only 34 years old and commands a force of some 55,000.

I'm not drawing any conclusions from this -

I'm not saying, 'Militants get the job done, and if they can command thousands of men at age 30, they certainly have ability for leadership - thereby I propose we regenerate Alexander the Great using the technique seen on Jurassic Park, supply him with modern machinery, and set him loose on two party politics.

If things go awry, like for example, Alexander decides to invade Iran, which is a high possibility given his previous campaigns - well, then hit fast forward, regenerate Joan of Arc, hit rewind and grab Tutankhamen (who is theorised to have died in a battle with the Hittites, thus proving his military credentials), supply them with men and weapons to defeat Alexander, and then have them run Australia as a democratic dyarchy.'

No, I just find it interesting that these guys command such influence and are so young, having both spent their youth in fairly brutal environments, depending on the waxing and waning of the violence in both Chechnya and Iraq at that time.

Anyway ValeTudo, if you are indeed Chechen I'd like to learn more about the conflict from a personal perspective. I would consult my local library but I have fines there. If you're not Chechen and you just meant the post as a visual joke of contrast, well, I guess just forget everything you read :P
 
On another note - regarding Abbot and his lack of punctuality...

Does anyone know HOW this came about? It just boggles my mind that a frontbench politician, in the middle of a very tough election campaign, would be so slovenly as to turn up half-way through a debate - a debate which would have been as informative as these things can get had he NOT turned up and just bludged the whole thing.

It's pretty amusing really. It reminds me of my high school days, turning up late to class with a half-arsed excuse. I think the best thing for Abbot to have done would have been to play hookey and bludge the debate altogether. Then feign some mysterious illness, perhaps a twenty four hour virus, and then reschedule.

But yeah, I mean I really wonder what prompted the whole debacle. Did he sleep in? Perhaps his alarm didn't go off. Or maybe he set the alarm to 7PM instead of 7AM because he uses a 24 hour alarm clock, and having had no experience in the Defence cabinet, has no idea how to read 24 hour time. I picture a Hugh Grant, Four Weddings and a Funeral Morning, where he's rushing around, trying to get everything together.

Or maybe he just plum forgot about it. Then Costello mentioned his debate with Wayne Swan, and Abbot realised 'Shit! I had one of those today.'

Another explanation could have been that he forgot to change his watch over to daylight saving time, and therefore was an hour off schedule.

I honestly wonder what the real explanation was.

Now it comes out that after the debate, Roxon and Abbot dropped the civility-facade like a bad transmission. It's always funny to watch politicians debate and gauge the disparity between their curt but civil answers, and their real opinions.

For example:

RUDD: Thanks David, Mr Howard, ladies and gentlemen.....Mr Howard has said that working families have neverbeen better off. I disagree with him and I disagree with him fundamentally.

Thinking: Yes, thank you for coming to see me. Rodent, you're a monument of crap, and not only are you dead wrong, but you've got a face like a squishd pune.

HOWARD: My fellow Australians, I agree with Mr Rudd on one thing, and that is that this election is about the future of our nation...I have afundamentally optimistic view about Australia’s future, whereas Mr Rudd has afundamentally pessimistic view about our future

Thinking: Mein Volk. Ich bin euer Führer. Rudd, you galute, you say this country's going down the toilet. Hmm, also, I say fundamentally enough, maybe people will miconstrue it with fundamentalism, and that'll paint Rudd as a fundamentalist. Yeah, that'll work, they're all idiots anyway. But as I was thinking - yeah I say the country's going bloody well. Fair dinkum, etc. Of course, Rudd's going to say it's headng down the doulton, but that's his job. I mean he couldn't very well agree with me, could he? Then again, the guy is trying to take my job. What if he gets it? Can I lodge a dispute with the union? Hmm...maybe if he gets rid of AWAs, I can get back in power - I'll start a union for ex-prime ministers, me being secretary of course. Then I'll engage in collective bargaining with Rudd, and he'll have to let me on board. That'show they work. Anyway I should probably answer this question, I'll just rattle off some bullshit about unions, throw in a couple of talking points about Labor being inexperienced with economic matters...yeah that'll hold the SOBs.

Anyway, the real snide exchange between Roxon and Abbott after the debate was as folows:

Ms Roxon: "You can't even get here on time."

Mr Abbott: "It certainly wasn't intentional."

Ms Roxon: "You can control these things, mate. I'm sure had you wanted to, you could."

Mr Abbott: "That's bullsh*t. You're being deliberately unpleasant. I suppose you can't help yourself, can you?"

Ms Roxon: "I can't help myself and you've well and truly earned it today."

Tony's always been a charmer. He just knows how to treat the ladies. I'm sure his first response to the news he had a child (before the news that he didn't), would have been "Oh, bullshit."

Lastly - does anyone remember, or even better, have the clip from the Lateline episode that aired a few years back, where Tony Jones riled up Abbott so much, that when Abbott stood up, the camera stayed on him for a moment longer, and he could be heard on the mic saying something like "You better bloody watch yourself." Or words to that effect. I'd like to track that down.

Tony, such exemplary etiquette. I foresee his next job as drive-time co-host with Ray Hadley.
 
So he never explained why he was late?

I don't think it would have been anything other than a genuine accident, because it certainly wouldn't have benefited him in any way.

We all make mistakes, but you'd like to think that someone in charge of such important things would be more mindful.
 
^ and not so rude.

i was disgusted when seeing this on the news late last night. his defensive behavior and abrupt approach (all in the while keeping his poker face on) towards ms roxon was childish, unprofessional and mindless. politics have always had a reputation of being lowbrow; although mr abbott took the crown on this occasion; as egotism and bitching in the face of the media is as a low as you can go. he was in the wrong; and a simple apology for his lateness would have sufficed.

...kytnism...:|
 
I think he might have poked his finger in his ear, and then bit his nail, without any transfer of wax. I hope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top