This is fun.
My, Julia is doing well isn’t she?
Boaties
First she says we are going to process boat people off-shore in East Timor – “I’ve already spoken to the President,” she claims.
The media point out she should have spoken to the Prime Minister – speaking to the President is like speaking to our Governor General; neither of them have executive power.
“Oh, OK then, I didn’t actually say East Timor!…mumble mumble …PNG and Manus Island”
It’s getting good. East Timor has a vote and says no thanks. PNG has a vote and says no thanks.
Oh!. Well back to East Timor. I really did say East Timor – why are you doubting my words? – raising the question of what part of NO doesn’t she understand – the N or the bloody O?
Nauru puts her hand up. Pick me…we’ll do it. Not interested say Julia. not interested says Foreign Affairs Smith.
Reporter: “Why not consider Nauru” Smith: “Because we are focusing our efforts on East Timor”. Reporter: “Yes, but why not consider Nauru, they have indicated they would sign up to your UN resolution on refugees. ” Smith: “Because we are focusing our efforts on East Timor! ” Reporter: “Yes, but why not consider them. ” Smith: “Because we are….” you get the drift.Let’s presume East Timor folds and say yes they will have lost face and it doesn’t matter what the final outcome is, Gillard has lost creditability. We now need to spend millions on infrastructure when we could use the already set up Nauru enclosure all because the ALP needs to save face. Having lambasted Howard for years over his inhumane off-shore processing they are now doing the same but on a different island. Tax the rich program. The Minerals Resource Rent Tax cut the percentage from 40% to 22% and yet the receipts only move from $12b to $10.5b. Either my sense of high school maths is failing me or someone is telling lies. A tax designed specifically to fill in the huge hole the ALP have left in our bank balance now looks shakey.
Treasury secretary Ken Henry revealed yesterday that his department relied on modelling provided by the three big resources companies BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata for its estimate that the new tax would deliver $10.5 billion in the first two years.I wonder how much clever accounting went in that estimate? Next problem…the ETS. I wonder if, on his return from the G20 meeting in Toronto, Kevin Rudd told Julia about the G20 losing interest in apocalyptic global warming Last week’s G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto and its environs confirmed that the world’s leaders accept the demise of global-warming alarmism.
One year ago, the G8 talked tough about cutting global temperatures by two degrees. In Toronto, they neutered that tough talk, replacing it with a nebulous commitment to do their best on climate change — and not to try to outdo each other. The global-warming commitments of the G20 — which now carries more clout than the G8 — went from nebulous to non-existent: The G20’s draft promise going into the meetings of investing in green technologies faded into a mere commitment to “a green economy and to sustainable global growth.”Let’s summarize the first couple of weeks of Julia’s reign. Aim: Stop people panicking about overpopulation Answer: Change Tony Burke’s title from Minister for Population to the Minister for Sustainable Population. Result: Box ticked. Aim: Stop people worrying about boat people Answer: Change Howard’s off-shore island processing to Gillard’s off-shore processing. Result: Box ticked Aim: Stop people worrying about the huge deficit. Answer: Invent a new tax…oops the miners are complaining and we are bleeding votes….Sack the PM and have the new PM say some different words. $10.5b coming in…stop worrying! Result: Box ticked (penciled in only) Aim: Get back votes lost through ETS backdown Answer: Don’t know but in any case must delay as long as we can…maybe after the election Result: Jury still out. Last word I leave to cartoonist Zeg; Hmmmmm, if elected? let’s see, if we vote for Julia Gillard we will get a mining tax that will go nowhere to settling the massive billions of dollar debt that her Kevvie set up for our children, along with a loss of jobs and industry. We will also get another failed border security policy or the same one that worked when John Howard was PM (as long as it doesn’t look the same and doesn’t involve the introduction of temporary visa) and we can also expect a massive rise in the costs of living due to the feel good tax (ETS) that will be imposed on us all so as not to upset those good folk in the Green Party (who are providing preference votes to the ALP at the election). Seems like a no brainer to me then……. hand me the how to vote Liberal card please.
Facebook
Twitter
And just for laughs they have moved attempting to legislate to filter your free speech on the net and track your every move until after the election. Are people really dumb enough to think they will get a better result when the Govt isn’t afraid of being turfed out? Stay tuned.
It would be great to have politicians driven by the national interest rather than opinion polls. It would also be an improvement if our political activity was collaborative rather than adversial.
Given that the mainstream media is locked into selling newspapers and improving ratings, to keep feeding the hungry beast (advertising revenue) neither of these things will happen. Joe Bogan would always prefer to watch a fight than a feed.
This means that the only hope for the country is the election of a third force that will belt the binary nitwits about the ears until they cooperate.
Roll on the Greens holding the balance of power in the senate – the lower house is irrelevant.
This country’s only hope is in a conservative government.
The Greenies and leftists should all be driven into the sea. At least that way they’d serve as fish food. That’s about all they are good for.
Whether you would be prepared for a government to send your children/grandchildren to war is a pretty good test of a government’s probity.
I would not trust this government in this area.
Moreover, giving the balance of power to the Greens to decide the matter would, in my opinion, be completely unacceptable.
“The Greenies and leftists should all be driven into the sea.” Obviously the product of deep thought and careful consideration.
Sounds a bit like – “Bomb them into the stone age”. Worked a treat in Vietnam, didn’t it?
You don’t destroy an ideology by removing its adherents. “Left” and “Right” are meaningless concepts. Just ask anyone under twenty-five.
I’m stunned, the ever whining 17 etc has, yet again, dragged an utterly topic back to Vietnam – next stop = “I was conscripted. boo hoo”.
The best thing in the long term is that the Greens do get the balance of power in the senate, then they will implode just like the Aust democrats did – both parties are the parties of the inner city whinging latte left, neither can accept compromise as they are founded on being actually irrelevant to the political process but allowing their members to pretend to have a position of moral superiority.
If the greens get the balance of power in the senate, it will be a rough year or 2 (and cost $10s of billions more than chasing their prefs already has) before the need to actually compromise destroys them, but it will be a lesson that lasts at least a generation.
“I was conscripted. boo hoo”
I’m sorry – know just how you feel. Don’t worry, you’ll get over it.
“an utterly topic”- you’ve lost me there…..
Vietnam is relevant – it was a war (so we were told back then) about ideology. To believe that any ideology can be defeated by military intervention is simplistic nonsense. The current rise of Islamofascism is the clearest example of that. Generally, military intervention has precisely the opposite effect – it simply legitimises whatever ideology it sets out to destroy and feeds it – first principle of asymmetric warfare. It turns the power of the conventional military against itself.
People like Kilcullen have shown a different way of dealing with insurgency, but I’m not sure that his lessons have been taken on board. There are those (like HRT) who haven’t woken up yet.
So the Greens will be destroyed by a need to compromise? I think you’ll find they’ve learnt something from the demise of the Democrats.
Speaking of Vietnam, I wonder how many (previously) South Vietnamese hold the same belief that an ideology cannot be defeated by military intervention? Even the Chinese would probably agree with you….that an ideology cannot be defeated by military intervention. Yeah and we all believe that.
Do you think that people, ruled by unelected groups that use the military to enforce the groups brand of ideology, are actually able to practise there own ideologies without going into exile?
“I wonder how many…..”
Spend some time in the country, and you’ll find that the majority of Vietnamese (“North” and “South” – with the possible exception of cuisine – has about as much significance now as it does in this country) have no memory of what they call the “American” war. They are too busy experiencing one of the highest growth rates in the world, and using their entrepreneurial spirit to develop their country.
One interesting sidelight is that these days there are twice as many Catholic churches in Vung Tau (for example) as there were in 1970. Unlike the churches in this country, they’re full to bursting every Sunday.
Firstly, Vietnam offers me nothing that I need that I cannot get here in Australia, except cheaper pricing.
I suppose that you have an honest belief that the Vietnames from the south actually grew communism as an ideology in a similar way to growing a wart. I seem to remember that there was a very bloody military intervention from the north, only slowed down by another military intervention by you and your friends as you attempted half-heartedly to assist the southerners. After the northern “intervention” communism was foisted on the southern Vietnamese and those who could not escape at the time were “re-educated” or were aquiescent in their submission to the new “order”. Hence what ideology they were familiar was erased and replaced by a new ideology….Communism. If that is not a method of erasing an ideology by military intervention/overthrow I have a different understanding than you. As with other communist states Vietnam has come to grips with the commercial aspects shared by other regimes and has the tenacity to embrace the opportunies afforded. I don’t think they share the riches around as much as the ideology would necessarily require but then who does.
You are obviously big on religion where I am not. To me an increase in the number of Mick churches available to the populace of any country, is only indicative of the needs of people feeling the pressure of mortality and the need to believe there is something after death. There is also a greater need for priests so it is an employment opportunity for persons who, hopefully, hold a blue card.
The questions should have been: Have you considered setting up a processing centre in Sri Lanka?
The boat people save money.
Camps are already set up by the Sinhalese.
No dangerous boat journeys.
No people smugglers.
No billion dollars required for new patrol boats.
And if they are turned down then we don’t have to pay for a flight back home.
Seems like a win-win situation.
“an utterly topic”- you’ve lost me there…..”
Sorry, I missed the word unrelated.
“Vietnam is relevant – it was a war (so we were told back then) about ideology.” etc, stop bullshitting, for you running out of toothpaste comes back to you whining about vietnam and conscription – I knew a guy who escaped over the Berlin wall and lost his family and a finger doing it who goes on less about how tough his life was than you do.
Re the Greens surviving, it isn’t about the pols like Bob Brown, he is as hypocritical as any pol (see his attempt to sell his vote on the sale of Telstra after going to an election saying he was utterly opposed to same) and has no doubt learned what he needs to do to keep the cash rolling in but it won’t help, the problem is the idiot followers, just like the democrats followers, they will not accept any compromise and without it, the greens will be turfed by the mainstream voters at the next election (likely a double D if the greens cause it) as being utterly obstructionist.
Nature of the beast, their party members have had years to convince themselves that they occupy a uniquely moral position and when they have to get dirty to get things done, watch the fur fly within the party.
“I knew a guy”
Your problem with my references to Vietnam is simply that I disagree with you. If I used these references to support conservative positions on a range of topics I’d be everybody’s mate.
I have every right to use my life experiences to support my point of view. I’d suggest it makes a refreshing change from the abuse and name-calling that ensues when people argue against the Coalition supporting PC that is evident on this blog.
It’s called “debate” – one of the fundamentals of a healthy democracy – get used to it.
No, my problem with your whining is that it is constant and predictable. get a new record.
Now that you’ve done with name-calling, how about addressing the points I made?
There’s that reading comprehension problem again. If Harry was name-calling, he’d have said that you are a constant and predictable whiner. What he said was that your whining was constant and predictable. A subtle difference to be sure, but surely not beyond such a renowned educator.
“the ever whining 17”
Sounds like name calling to me – as in a descriptive phrase referring to (some of) my tag.
It’s about as subtle as a pickaxe.
Your argument?
Could the former teacher enlighten the rest of the class as to how whining is a noun?
“Could the former teacher…”
Happily.
“17” is a noun (my tag) – “ever whining” is an adjective qualifying that noun. If I described you as “the useful idiot Sharpe” that would be name-calling. I wouldn’t of course, as that would not constitute reasoned debate.
An average year 5 student would understand that without the necessity for an explanation. Your argument?
My argument is that the only person engaged in name-calling here is you. Idiot is a noun. That useful idiot Sharpe constitutes name-calling. The ever whining 17 is an insulting, demeaning, offensive and rude phrase. He has not however, called you a name. That would require the use of a noun – you know- one of those naming words.
The fact that you still don’t get that point speaks volumes.
I prefer 17 bobby red-herring as a pejorative phrase, I know he is forever whining, but that’s because he was conscripted and a conservative was mean to him 175 years ago in the north of a southern country one Saturday afternoon.
“A noun is a word used to name a person, animal, place, thing, or an abstract idea.” (Source – University of Ottawa Writing Centre)
“17” is a noun.
Sharpe has a very limited understanding of basic linguistics. If someone has used my tag and qualified it, he/she/it has called me a name. Sharpe needs to sit down – the dog is pissing on his swag.
All of this, of course is an attempt to distract from debate. Lots of primary school kids do it, but they’re usually over it by year four.
Harry called you an adjective. Live with it.
’17’ used to be a noun. However after your incessant whining it is now a verb too e.g. a conservative was mean to him so he sat on the step and 17ed about it for the next four decades. Also an adjective e.g. That guy over there? Nah not worth listening to, he’s a 17 guy, you know, a left wing whiner…
“he sat on the step and 17ed about it for the next four decades”
Well no – I earned 2 degrees and a post graduate diploma after ten years evening study, raised 4 great kids, worked as a volunteer for VVA because I have a Counseling qualification, opened 2 new schools and ran 3 others as a Special School principal, earned an award for work in outback schools, published research on students with disabilities and stayed married to the same good woman for 33 years. I’m still working for a living supporting kids with disabilities in bush schools, and will continue to do so whilst I remain fit and healthy.
Do tell, PeterW, what have you been up to for the past 4 decades?
A man is more often remembered for the way others perceive him, than for his perception of himself.