Politics in 2004

[katmeow]

/\/\/\

Not at all... even though the minor parties will not win the election, the more local seats they win, the bigger the impact they will have in parliament.

I really think that there should be a compulsory politics course in year 12 - even if it is done as a workshop or something like that. Once you get past primary school, unless you choose subjects as electives that cover this sort of stuff, you never touch on it again.

 

[Naughtiest_Maximus]

I'll be voting Green but I must be the only person who thought Latham was absolutely atrocious. Telling us what the problems are without giving any concrete information on how intends to solve the probems isn't that hard.To me he went over the same things too many times"Ease the Squeeze". John Howard has the past years of buget surplusses on his side, and i think that will play such a huge roll in his favour. Latham is going to have to come up with some really compelling bugetary policies to back up what he is promising to do, and make sure he has got his figures right. The Liberals got it so right holding this debate so far out from the election. The worm will be long forgotten by the time people start thinking about the possible effect a Labour govement will have on the economy, which is what the Liberals will be hoping prays on everyone's mind.

 

[Samadhi]

 

[-Thoth]

Heheh, I went past that today, but the powers that be had managed to remove it from the billboard. You can still see the glue marks where it used to be though.

 

[katmeow]

http://www.jodiemoore.com/

And this is one of Pauline's competitors for a senate seat in QLD - porn star Jodie Moore.

I actually like her policy about banning flyering on election day to save paper... but that's about as far as the brains extend I fear

 

[Taliana]

Omg too funny kat. hahahahaha

So.

What are peoples opinions on the whole tasmanian forest issues? Im actually genuanly worried now that greens will give their preferences to liberal. But do you really think they would follow through (liberal) on stopping the logging? I think not. IM not happy about the tasmanian forest issue (though i dont know enough about it to go into depth), but i certainly wouldnt believe howard would actually give a shit. hmm. Peoples thoughts?

 

[katmeow]

I think Howard is all talk as usual.

As disasterous as it is for the environment, I don't think it is conceivable to stop the logging - a large part of the Tasmanian economy is based on it. They would need a major contingency plan in place for the jobs that would be lost if it was to be stopped.

 

[Taliana]

Personally, i dont give a rats ass about the jobs; yeh itll be fucked for a while, but THey will move on to new pasteurs. But thats just me. It eats me up inside how we are destroying the world.

WE ARE A DISEASE.

/end depressing talk

 

[Naughtiest_Maximus]

Greens selling out on preferences: Dems
SMH September 17, 2004

The Greens have flagged the possibility of directing preferences to the coalition if it agrees to a compensation package to phase out old-growth logging in Tasmania.

Prime Minister John Howard said he had no deal with the Australian Greens to receive the minor party's preferences in exchange for an end to old-growth logging.

Labor has reportedly offered the Greens all its Senate preferences in exchange for a preference deal in 33 House of Representatives seats in NSW.

Link to entire article

I just don't know what to think anymore. If the greens give there preferences to the Liberal goverment i am going to have to have another think on where my vote will go. Wether you can believe that a Liberal goverment will stop the logging of old growth forests in Tasmania is anyone's guess. With the impact the Green vote is going to have on this election it seems the major partys are willing give anything to get there vote.

 

[JipTravolta]

Katmeow, you can find the Greens ploicy on Tasmanian old growth forests here: http://www.greens.org.au/15103

The gist is that the Tasmanian logging industry can viably be supported using only already existing plantations. Also, since only 3% of the Tasmanian work force is in logging, and 20% work in tourism, banning the logging of old growth forests will be economically beneficial as old growth forests bring in tourism. You can verify these facts here;

http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,10779222^3462,00.html

 

[kryalkastleE]

omg my b/f was telling me about that howard vs latham billboard....too funny!

 

[Macksta]

I'm getting a little tired of these swinging opinion polls that each week swap back and forth between showing Labor with a clear majority over the coalition and vice versa.

It's a bit difficult to make sense of it all when there's no uniformity or consistency to them.

 

[apollo]

As disasterous as it is for the environment, I don't think it is conceivable to stop the logging - a large part of the Tasmanian economy is based on it. They would need a major contingency plan in place for the jobs that would be lost if it was to be stopped.

Doesn't disasterous for the environment = disasterous for us?

IMHO if we want to continue to exist as a species, the attitude has to be "environment before economics", because the other way around we're simply undermining everything we built our civilisation on.

 

[doofqueen]

^^ exactly

 

[preacha]

i'll go behind my choices for voting the party im voting for

* i dont care about minorities
* i dont care about starving people overseas
* i dont care about the environment, because by the time the earth is fucked, ill be fertilising its soil
* i dont care about how australia is perceived worldwide, since we have steve irwin as an ambassador
* i dont care about people on welfare, you shouldnt have fucked and popped a kid out if you can't afford it. be sure to stretch your 3000 dollar new baby grant, you sluts.
* i dont care about cuts to private and/or public schools. rich kids are usually smarter anyway since everything is bought for them, (such as cars, computers etc) thus giving them more time to focus on their studies compared to the middle class kids who dont get everything on a silver platter.
* hell, i especially dont care whether i vote for a 60 yr old liar and massive eyebrows or a 40 yr old drunk moron who starts fights with taxi drivers

however

* i care about faster internet
* i care about going to uni so i can one day get a job so i can pay for my blazing fast internet

so labor, my vote is to you. keep on representing!

[edit: racist remark removed. tongue in cheek or not, it's unnecessary - 1234]

 

[doofqueen]

wow your a real humanitarian, you must be so proud of yourself

 

[katmeow]

Sorry, I stand corrected on how much of the Tas workforce was involved - I thought it was a lot more. What I was trying to get at was the community issues that would arise if that many people were to lose their jobs.

 

[apollo]

^^ True, but I feel like rambling anyway.

Weigh it up; community issues (which are relatively short term) against environmental issues (which will exponentially effect our children, their children, etc). Cutting down forests =

- less photosynthesis, hence less oxygen in air around Tas, as well as more carbon dioxide, promoting global warming and crappy health
- soil erosion, thus less fertile land for farming in Tas
- decreased biodiversity, thus less potential gain for mainkind from undiscovered species (e.g. medicines)

Not cutting down forests =

- structural unemployment until new sectors open up to absorb the workers

It's a matter of opinon, but if you ask me unemployment is the lesser of two evils. Who needs a job when clean air to breathe or fertile land to grow food in is hard to come by?

Preacha, the fact you're smart enough to construct a sentence indicates you're not moronic enough to hold those opinions. Seriously, what the fuck are you going on about? Is it cool to act like an invalid without actually being one these days?

Anyway, this election will decide whether I completely lose faith in the people of this country or not. IMHO, Howard being reelected would signal something terribly wrong with attitudes and awareness across Australia. Latham is destined to be a tosser no matter what he does with his life, but with the exception of Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler, anyone is better than Howard.

 

[onetwothreefour]

^^^ but being moronic has nothing to do with it (i got in a two hour -!!- argument with a really good friend last night about exactly this, and he's one of the most intelligent people i know); i don't think (i mean, howard is one of the most intelligent people going around in australian politics, but he's still a cunt) that people who hold bigoted views hold them just because they're moronic. fuck, hitler was a genius was he not? but it didn't prevent him from being an egocentric, bigoted, fascist cunt. it just helped him.

but sadly -and to get vaguely back on track with what i was saying - in this two-party system we have to go with the lesser of two evils. the more i hear/see/hear of latham, the less i like him. as my right-wing fascist dickhead (okay, maybe i was a little agitated ) friend points out, he's nowhere near the political competency of howard. but i honestly would ALWAYS prefer an incompetent head of state striving towards humanistic goals of equality (not that latham is big on that, but he's obviusly better than howard) than someone who may achieve what they set out quite well, but only at the cost of humanism. why bother choosing something that is *wrong* just because it's more efficient?

someone mentioned economic rationalism a page or so back, and it's an interesting point. my friend raised the point (this was just before i felt like hitting him ), that if the nazis had prevailed, the world would (almost definitely...or probably) be in a much better economic state right now. it would also, probably, be better in terms of social conditions too (assuming of course that the nazi fascism remained confined to just that small portion of europe). but WHO GIVES A FUCK?? i just think it's entirely reprehensible to allow an end - like that - to justify such a horrific means (christ, i would have trouble allowing *any* end to justify its means).

and there are always going to be selfish people in this world, who will always look after themselves first (which, incidentally, is why i think socialism and communism are entirely idealistic and unworkable concepts). imo, a vast majority of liberal voters are like this, and a vast minority of labor voters are like this. they're not mutually exclusive categories, but i think it's valid generalisation, at least.

okay, i'm gonna stop now, 'cause my brain's getting muddled and i'm really tired, but hopefully some of this makes some vague kind of sense. i've never done politics, or sociology, or psychology, or history though...so i'm probably struggling

not looking forward to reading this in the morning

 

[apollo]

I'm sure we could talk shit till the sun comes up in 3 days time 1234, but I'll spare you the agony of dealing with my slow head. I would most definitely have slapped that friend of yours silly

The thing I hate about economic rationalism is that it values money above human health, happiness and wellbeing. Plenty of shitsuckers argue back with outmoded crap like the trickle down effect, rich people and steady growth being good for the people... But any year 12 economics student with their head screwed on can point out all sorts of problems with that crap.

Anyway, in terms of selfishness and party preferences, you've hit the nail on the head I'd say.

I've got to ask... If not moronic, what adjective/s would you use to describe the following;

"i dont care about people on welfare, you shouldnt have fucked and popped a kid out if you can't afford it. be sure to stretch your 3000 dollar new baby grant, you sluts."

?