Far away in another place the forces of socialism were dealt a death blow. You might quickly say this isn't relivant but way back when, the election of a socialist government in Australia was a forerunner to the election of BO. Call it bellwether if you like. Last weekend the ruling Labor Party was all but wiped out in the election in the Australian state of Queensland, there are not even left with enough members to be recognised as a political party under Queensland electoral law. This was more than a landslide, it was a massacre. This is the third time the party has been defeated in state elections recently not only being a harbringer of doom for socialist politics in Australia but pointing to a change in community attitudes which echoes in other places.
Julia Gillard's party is just about over as Labor routed in Queensland | News.com.au

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Far away in another place the forces of socialism were dealt a death blow. You might quickly say this isn't relivant but way back when, the election of a socialist government in Australia was a forerunner to the election of BO. Call it bellweather if you like. Last weekend the ruling Labor Party was all but wiped out in the election in the Australian state of Queensland, there are not even left with enough members to be recognised as a political party under Queensland electoral law. this was more than a landslide, it was a massacre. This is the third time the party has been defeated in state elections recently not only being a harbringer of doom for socialist politics in Australia but pointing to a change in community attitudes which echoes in other places.
Julia Gillard's party is just about over as Labor routed in Queensland | News.com.au

---

Hi Clete,

It is interesting to look historically at state elections in terms of Labor versus Liberal. In nearly all Australian states Labor has always had the problem of being the incumbent party for too long. The exception being a 20 year Petersen government in Queensland from the late 60's onwards. Interestingly in Federal elections the opposite seems to be the case.

So long as Newman and O'Farrell don't not make the same mistake as Greiner. After 12years of Labor, Greiner only lasted for a brief period. The Liberal party was banished back to the wilderness for another 16 years of Labor party rule.

Now in power, I think O'Farrell and Newman are acutely aware of this history.

I think history will repeat itself in Queensland and NSW. If the electorate see the Liberals as moving too quickly on too many issues they will be shafted at the next election.

Tut

Quote:

---

a forerunner to the election of BO

---

Hopefully their defeat will be a forerunner to an Obama defeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Hopefully their defeat will be a forerunner to an Obama defeat.

---

That was the point Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Clete,

It is interesting to look historically at state elections in terms of Labor versus Liberal. In nearly all Australian states Labor has always had the problem of being the incumbent party for too long. The exception being a 20 year Petersen government in Queensland from the late 60's onwards. Interestingly in Federal elections the opposite seems to be the case.

So long as Newman and O'Farrell don't not make the same mistake as Greiner. After 12years of Labor, Greiner only lasted for a brief period. The Liberal party was banished back to the wilderness for another 16 years of Labor party rule.

Now in power, I think O'Farrell and Newman are acutely aware of this history.

I think history will repeat itself in Queensland and NSW. If the electorate see the Liberals as moving too quickly on too many issues they will be shafted at the next election.

Tut

---

Hi Tut

Yes a very chequed history there but Labor has a self destructive quality about it, no doubt stemming from the selection of its candidates and it seems, an ability to create a gerrymander to retain power. People like Carr, Beattie and Bligh leave a vacuum behind them and Liberals stayed out of power not because of labor brillance but because of dearth of leadership. This isn't evident in federal politics. Conservative politics have a natural home in Queensland, along with big hats,the rise of people like Joh, Katter and Hanson demonstrate this but in NSW the spectre of Labor is rarely far away despite the recent election result. For those in far away places, Qld is akin to Texas, and NSW akin to Boston

One can see that same dearth of leadership in the conservative ranks in other places, stemming both from long periods out of power and factionalism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Hopefully their defeat will be a forerunner to an Obama defeat.

---

Hi Tom,

I don't know what you guys are complaining about. As far as I can see Obama is pretty much a 'once off'. All up we have had decades upon decades of labor rule (socialism if that is what you want to call it.)

Tut

If you go by his "hot mike" comments to Medvedev ,he appears pretty confident he will have a 2nd term.
Obama promises Medvedev 'more flexibility' after election - latimes.com)

I won't talk about the implicit betrayal or deception of the comment... hopefully Romney will force him to clarify what he dare not reveal now.

Let's put it this way ,it's tough to unseat an incumbent and it's way too early to predict the outcome. 2008 everyone thought foreign policy would be the deciding factor going into the fall campaign . Then the economic collapse occurred at the perfect time for the President's prospects.
So to prognosticate now would be a futile exercise.

Tom without a theory, now there is a first, what's the matter, don't want to be wrong? You are suffering from that dearth of leadership I spoke about and your system doesn't allow the best to rise so you get the mediocre. Yes BO probably thinks he doesn't have a viable opposition but he doesn't command where it matters. I think though, we are starting to see that the world has had a little too much of socialism for the moment so even a second string might get up.

Oh I have a theory all right. The last President who was reelected with such cr@ppy economic numbers was Roosevelt. Obama has to play the blame game "I inheritted it" to win in November. That's if the economy is still the big issue. As you know ,the world is a tinderbox right now and foreign policy may emerge as the big issue. It really is too early to tell.

This time in 2008 I was predicting a McCain v Evita race . Romney won't secure the nomination until late April the earliest .(Newt is already history... he doesn't ven have the press following his campaign right now... Paul has his devoted 5-6%... and Santorum will likely bow out when he loses his home state Pennsylvania primary... He thinks he's holding out for a VP slot ,but there is no advantage for Romney to have him on the ticket. All Santorum is really doing now is preparing the battlefield for the 2016 campaign if Romney loses).

I'll have a better idea of the race when I see Romney consolidate the support of the base after he is the inevidible . I think that's happening already .

I did not want to make this post about American politics . I agree the world has had it's full of socialism . May it be consigned to the scrap heap of history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I agree the world has had it's full of socialism . May it be consigned to the scrap heap of history.

---

I disagree. Countries with a socialism leaning seem to be doing quite well:
Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah OK... the only thing the UN can accurately measure is their level of graft and corruption. If I want to see how Scandinavian my country is ,I'll reference the HDI .

Tom if socialism is to be consigned to the chasm of history it will take capitalism with it, If ever there was a failed philosophy it is capitalism.

You are standing in the aftermath of a capitalist meltdown and you still think this is good.

This thread isn't about the american economy it is about the way people think and it really doesn't matter where they are the truth wins through eventually

That would be true if it was a capitalism melt down. I contend it was government policy spurred .

Hello clete:

I don't know Australian politics. It may be that when YOU refer to a socialist, you might actually mean a real socialist. Here in the US, when the right wing refers to a socialist, they're talking about a center right capitalist. I don't know how they do that.

So, WHATEVER doom your election might predict for socialism, it's NOT going to affect OUR election.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello clete:

I don't know Australian politics. It may be that when YOU refer to a socialist, you might actually mean a real socialist. Here in the US, when the right wing refers to a socialist, they're talking about a center right capitalist. I dunno how they do that.

So, WHATEVER doom your election might predict for socialism, it's NOT gonna affect OUR election.

excon

---

Yes Ex I do mean socialist and even closet communist, but Fabianists are everywhere and I think BO is one of them so when we see rejection of socialism we really see rejection of fabianists. These things echo, right now you have people who are very vocal about a piece of social engineering, we have the same sort of thing going on here, the tools are different, but the political outcome the same

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Yes Ex I do mean socialist and even closet communist,

---

Hello again, clete:

I'm confused. The ONLY law that Obama pushed that COULD be considered socialistic, was Obamacare... And, you appear to support it.

??

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

I'm confused. The ONLY law that Obama pushed that COULD be considered socialistic, was Obamacare... And, you appear to support it.

???

excon

---

Ex I support fairness in distribution of wealth in the economy, access to health care is part of that. I don't think you can understand my perspective because you live in a place dominated by capitalistic thinking. There are aspects of obamacare I would not support but the concept behind it is sound. That is that there are costs of maintaining a system and you can't opt out just because you don't have the need at this moment and you can't deny those in need because they lack resources

Being conservative doesn't mean I have to give in to mean and selfish thinking, this means I think that people should be able to develop and that government should provide the environment for them to flourish. Government is financed by taxation and so a fair taxation system minimises its impact on the socially disadvantaged but ensures that certain universal services are delivered and where private enterprise doesn't deliver the government fills the gap. In my world the government is not the enemy of the people but the people acting collectively.

When we wrote our constitution we had regard for your example but we had more than a hundred years of history to consider how well your example had worked and our version removed some of the issues where yours is obviously designed to prevent government from working effectively

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Ex I support fairness in distribution of wealth in the economy, access to health care is part of that.

---

Hello clete:

It's like I said. Here, in the US, those beliefs would label YOU a socialist. So, I'm confused about what you mean when you accuse Obama of being a socialist, and you call yourself a conservative..

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello clete:

It's like I said. Here, in the US, those beliefs would label YOU a socialist. So, I'm confused about what you mean when you accuse Obama of being a socialist, and you call yourself a conservative..

excon

---

Did I say BO was a socialist? Even so is this a bad thing? When I say I'm a conservative, I mean that I'm not on board for certain aspects of socialist behaviour such as a tightly controlled economy but nor am I on board for certain aspects of capitalist behaviour such as lack of social consciousness and exploitative behaviour. Sticking labels on people is what McCarthyist politics did and I'm sure you know more about that than I do. I am a conservative because I don't go along with the high taxing, high spending agenda of our socialists which here fall under the definition of Labor, a political alliance of academics and labour unions, and I do have certain views about immigration and the environment which also fall outside their purview. But in no respect could you see me in the ranks of your republicans, they are too far right for me.

So here are some thoughts for you
Affordable health care
Minimum wages set with cost of living in mind
Unemployment benefits and retraining available to those who need it
Minimum standard of education
Exploitative trade practices banned
A defence force not an offence force
Nuclear energy

My views would probably not sit well there because I see what I regard as a lot of foolish and corrupt behaviour

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Far away in another place the forces of socialism were dealt a death blow.... way back when, the election of a socialist government in Australia was a forerunner to the election of BO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Did I say BO was a socialist?

---

Hello again, clete:

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

excon

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.