Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

It LOOKS to me like you did. If not, never mind.

excon

---

Hi Ex,

It is just speculation but it's fun to speculate in broad terms at times.

I would think Clete and I are fairly typical of the opposite ends of the political spectrum in Australia (Clete may having something to say on that)

There are a lot of things we disagree on but there are also a lot of things we do agree upon. There are of course more extreme views on the left and right in this country but they don't raise a blip on the political radar.

I think this is way Australia is a progressive nation. Agreement between the left and right happens.

Tut

So Tut, are you telling me you are a hansonite or a katterite or are you telling me you are a brownie, when you say you are the opposite end of the political spectrum are you a communist or an anarchist. Those are the ends of the political spectrum here, the others could be called centre right or centre left, as we observed on many occasions not a lot between them just a whole lot of me too, until we started to talk about big taxes, and ex we are not talking about raising thresholds or making structural adjustments, but inventing new taxes which have heavy economic impact and using those taxes to redistribute wealth. At that point my views start to look very conservative even though in some sense I might be a beneficiary

To put it in perspective I see what happened in QLD as a victory even though the QLD brand of Labor may have been in itsself somewhat innoxious under Bligh. I see what happened in NSW as justice long overdue, it should have happened to Carr the first time he faced reelection, and I see the current federal position as a stolen election with Gillard having secured no mandate to govern

Hi Clete, I think that while we agree on some policies, its clear you think you are in a sweet spot, and will stay there, but I doubt it, and as your country grows, there will be many things that blur the lines of political war. LOL, wait until your fast growth economy reaches into the tens of trillions and the rich get greedy, and buy the government.

Then the civil war of ideas begins, and that's what we are fighting now. The history of the world, and every country in it is about ups, and downs and your land is no different. But I love what you say about FLEXIBILITY in government. That allows you to move to actually getting things done effectively.

We will get there again, once we get over the war weariness, and those who want to go backward, and do nothing to move ahead. Yes we are in a political war over here, and have done nothing to solve our current problems, but we will, no doubt, and soon. My only word is that coalitions can change with circumstances so be wary of your leaders. A few bucks can change anyone, and the agenda.

Indeed, our own downfall was letting the judges pick our president, instead of the people. That changed everything, and we are still cleaning up the mess. Bush had no mandate to govern, and he didn't, he just took the money and ran with it. Like a kid in a candy store.

Well Tal apparently he gained that mandate the second time around, so like it or lump it what he did was endorsed by the electorate or at least half of them. No cop out there buddy.

Yes our democracy gets things done, because it isn't just a two party system, there is room for expression. In our system it is unlikely Romney and Santorum would be in the same party, and as we don't spend billions to get elected the prospect of billionaires buying our government is somewhat less than you might expect, neither is being an elected representative a disqualification for ministeral office, but in fact a prerequisite, all must face the ballot box.

I would be the 1st to agree that SCOTUS had no business intervening in the 2000 election; not that they decided it wrong; but it was not their role. However ;the roots of our 'down fall ' began many years before then.

What cracks me up is that you guys seem to think that Red Julia is centrist if I'm reading Tut right when he says There are of course more extreme views on the left and right in this country but they don't raise a blip on the political radar.
Well she's as extreme as we have in a liberty loving nation ,and she won with a coalition that included the greenies. If that is main stream thinking then you are hardly a moderate nation .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I would be the 1st to agree that SCOTUS had no business intervening in the 2000 election; not that they decided it wrong; but it was not their role. However ;the roots of our 'down fall ' began many years before then.

What cracks me up is that you guys seem to think that Red Julia is centrist if I'm reading Tut right when he says There are of course more extreme views on the left and right in this country but they don't raise a blip on the political radar.
Well she's as extreme as we have in a liberty loving nation ,and she won with a coalition that included the greenies. If that is main stream thinking then you are hardly a moderate nation .

---

Let me just correct your record there Tom. Our current parliament is a cobbled together alliance after Red Caviar lost the election. She did not go to the electorate with a coalition of Labor and the Greens, if she had it would have been an even greater defeat. The Greens hold one House of Representatives seat and so she needed the help of independents who were by their electorate and rhetoric expected to be conservative.They will not survive the next election. The Labor Party corrupted those independents for its own ends and it has since been shown that it doesn't keep its deals. The Greens hold sufficient Senate seats to ensure passage of leglislation but they have their own agenda recently defeating Labor sponsored legislation. Red Caviar has proven herself to be very leftist in thinking, so the Labor Party might be centre left but it has factions and Red Caviar is supported by the left. In another place and another time she might have been a communist candidate but their strategy is obviously to infiltrate the Labor Party.

To understand our politics you might refer to this template Left to right
Communist~~ Greens~~ Democrats~~Labor ][Liberal~~Nationals~~Katter(AP)~~Hanson(One Nation)
The extremes have ceased to exist electorally.
In our terms your Democrats/Republicans equate to our Liberal/Nationals. You don't possess that deep left thinking

Sometimes Tom you have to have an umpire and where Bush was concerned where else would you have gotten an umpire. It is unfortunate that your SCOTUS has been politised but you complain it is left leaning and yet it found in favour of the right and may yet again

The procedure for a Presidential election is established in the Consitutition and there is zero role for the jusdiciary on the process. Let me make one point. The court was not partisan in their ruling . The vote was 7-2 that the 14th amendment equal protection clause was violated in how the ballots were being counted . So on a pure 'merits' argument ,they made the right call. But still they had no business deciding Bush v Gore. Further ,by holding that the equal protection clause can be applied to the way votes are counted, the court opened the door to new litigation that would test the constitutionality of elections going forward. And that proved to be correct . Lawyers descend on state after state contesting the ballot in election after election since. This is severely impacting the states power to run their own elections ,including the Presidential election.
It was so unnecessary. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Gore had been used. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes... more than triple his official 537vote margin .
Newspaper: Bush Would Have Won Fla. - ABC News

Gee that Constitution is a bummer when it works against you, but that Constitution didn't prescribe the details of the process otherwise you wouldn't be using machines and you wouldn't have gotten all those disputed votes. You have this very pecular Federal v States nexus like you can't really work out who is in charge. We solved this little fracas long ago

No the constitution is quite clear . The states run the elections . President's are elected by the state electors . When we vote for President ,we are really voting for electors who in turn vote on the Presidency.Disputed elections were rare prior to 2000. When they were disputed ,the proper steps were taken ,and the election was decided in Congress.
Now,with the SCOTUS intervention ,they've almost guaranteed a court challenge in every state that is close . They shouldn't have stuck their nose in something that the Constitution gives them no role in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

No the constitution is quite clear . The states run the elections . President's are elected by the state electors . When we vote for President ,we are really voting for electors who in turn vote on the Presidency.Disputed elections were rare prior to 2000. When they were disputed ,the proper steps were taken ,and the election was decided in Congress.
Now,with the SCOTUS intervention ,they've almost guaranteed a court challenge in every state that is close . They shouldn't have stuck their nose in something that the Constitution gives them no role in.

---

Strange Tom they don't appear to share your opinion

I frequently disagree with SCOTUS . But ,if they were looking for guidance ,it is in Article 2 of the Constitution,and the 12th Amendment .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Strange Tom they don't appear to share your opinion

---

Our politicians will say anything to charge their base, and that leads to some crazy sound bites, because the pandering to the loonies is necessary for their vote.

Only a strong central government can glue the various states together, and that's not easy. Every state here is like a country, autonomous, and independent, and diverse in its own way. Some are more diverse than others, but you will understand as your population grows, and becomes more diverse (if you allow other groups in?? ), that diversity clashes with culture. Right now you enjoy all those same culture advantages and its about a predominate culture making rules and policies.

Every decade here yields power to minorities, so the dwindling traditional lines of power are in flux, and make the conflict resolutions of a diverse society one wild ride. The same happens in other countries, and may yet happen in yours, taking you out of that secure comfort zone moving forward.

Then it will be harder to retain power, and keep your minorities in check. So good luck with keeping those Asians out, because they grow as fast as the Mexican/Hispanics do here, and scare the bejesus out of the traditional policy makers.

These are all factors in the challenges yet to come, if you grow, and evolve. It's a struggle for any country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Only a strong central government can glue the various states together, and thats not easy. Every state here is like a country, autonomous, and independent, and diverse in its own way. Some are more diverse than others, but you will understand as your population grows, and becomes more diverse (if you allow other groups in???), that diversity clashes with culture. Right now you enjoy all those same culture advantages and its about a predominate culture making rules and policies.

Every decade here yields power to minorities, so the dwindling traditional lines of power are in flux, and make the conflict resolutions of a diverse society one wild ride. The same happens in other countries, and may yet happen in yours, taking you out of that secure comfort zone moving forward.

Then it will be harder to retain power, and keep your minorities in check. So good luck with keeping those Asians out, because they grow as fast as the Mexican/Hispanics do here, and scare the bejesus out of the traditional policy makers.

These are all factors in the challenges yet to come, if you grow, and evolve. Its a struggle for any country.

---

Tal I don't think you understand fully, my nation is one of the older and more mature democracies, although from the behaviour of our politicians you would not know it. We are multicultural with an extremely diverse population. We don't have many signs of problems with minorites excepting of course our indigenous friends, in this we have been fortunate. Keeping asians out isn't the aim but keeping people out who want the make this the same battleground they left is. The Islamists try to make their presence felt as they do everywhere but they are largely ignored. Every now and then a group will get its knickers in a knot about what they think is discrimination but it rarely is. We have immigration problems, too many illegal immigrants, these are overstays and, of course, the boat people, who have to be saved from themselves and the people trafficers, so it isn't a case of grow and evolve we have already evolved and we will never have the population you have, the continent could not support it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Australia

That's really scary if you are at the top of your evolution as a people and a country. That's sad really. My condolences for your lack of motivation to be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Thats really scary if you are at the top of your evolution as a people and a country. Thats sad really. My condolences for your lack of motivation to be better.

---

Tal what can you do when the present debate is at the level of the size of the Prime Minister's arse
http://thehoopla.com.au/germaine/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-3...abbott/3922262

The same could have been said of your own nation since it has been over two hundred years and empires grow and decline, it was ever so

We have given the world many political innovations in our short history as well as contributed quite a bit of technology so we don't lack motivation or ability

And you can be proud that with Red Julia and her deficit spending ,carbon tax ,and sucking up to the unions; you now have a country that is in the red ,with the unions demanding wage increases to keep up with the cost of living increases caused by the carbon tax they supported . So Red Julia is proposing the only fix the left knows... tax increases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

and you can be proud that with Red Julia and her deficit spending ,carbon tax ,and sucking up to the unions; you now have a country that is in the red ,with the unions demanding wage increases to keep up with the cost of living increases caused by the carbon tax they supported . So Red Julia is proposing the only fix the left knows ...tax increases.

---

Tom I abhore what Red Caviar is doing, so I will not be proud, but dismayed, however, unlike your fair land, we are not so far in the red that we don't have the good sense to cut the cloth. Julia will be generous and give big handouts in the form of tax cuts, subsidies and superannuation contributions, so that the unions, who are a shadow of their former selves, will fall in line and demand nothing. This is a well worn labor tactic invented by scum bag Keating. Tax is now used as a weapon of a different kind, we are more innovative than yourselves.

The only way to stop this madness, which has arisen out of the lie of AGW, is at the ballot box. Beware that the carbon tax doesn't become a favoured option of your own politicians to fix your massive deficit, our innovations have a habit of migrating as do yours and it is about time we returned some favours

Trust me ;it has already reared it's ugly head in a different way. This week Obama announced the destruction of the coal industry in the US. Yesterday he tried to transfer profits from the Oil companies to all his failed green energy ideas. He was defeated in a bipartisan vote (with 4 Dem Senators crossing the aisle ). Now I'm all in favor of ending subsidies.;but not for the purpose of creating others .

Obama Delivers a Death Blow to the Coal Industry | FrontPage Magazine
Senate keeps oil tax subsidies flowing

Again right wing spin to protect their precious mega giants.

Obama Delivers a Death Blow to the Coal Industry | FrontPage Magazine
What's wrong with cleaner more efficient natural gas, while the coal industry retools their technology? You can do both you know.

Senate keeps oil tax subsidies flowing

Not surprised at the rights commitment to corporate welfare, while taking away welfare from poor people. More extractionism, considering oil prices are set globally, and not federally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Not surprised at the rights commitment to corporate welfare, while taking away welfare from poor people. More extractionism, considering oil prices are set globally, and not federally.

---

If your prices are set globally, as you claim, how come you enjoy much lower oil prices than other developed countries? Tapis is at least 20% higher than US prices. What is happening is you are driving up global oil prices with your embargoes on Iran, while enjoying the competitive advantage it creates. The rest of us are tired of paying for your wars and your expansionism. The day is coming when industries like coal can no longer be protected. We have as much to loose in this as you do but it is going to happen. We have a great deal of uranium, and guess what, we own a great deal of yours. By the way it is nice to see BO recycling all those jet engines they make wonderful gas fired turbines for generators.