# I want to get elected!



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

That's right w.a. people I'm on the Senate paper as a candidate for stop the greens party.

had enough of the government banning everything we enjoy and the fun. so i put my money where my foot goes and haven taken a stand!

i hope everyone on here does the same and make the major party's take notice


----------



## koots (24/8/13)

stop the greens and watch one of the major parties become a borderline dictatorship.


----------



## bum (24/8/13)

Good on you for getting amongst it! Seriously. Very impressed.

But, holy shit, I hope no one ever votes for anyone who can't even work out what an apostrophe is for. That's primary school shit.


----------



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

Posting this on my phone. so it is a bit difficult. still i made a step up.


----------



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

koots said:


> stop the greens and watch one of the major parties become a borderline dictatorship.


no. make a genuine 3rd contender for government. just like democrats were in the Senate with there slogan " we will keep the bastards honest ".


----------



## bum (24/8/13)

I meant the first line without any reservation or qualification whatsoever. Good on ya, for real. Newts as big as Pharlap (who was a gelding but I didn't say "Pharlap's").

Get out there and talk to people about why you're doing it - that'll probably affect more change than if you ended up with the balance of power (Oh, man! can you imagine?!).


----------



## s_t_r_o_b_e (24/8/13)

Not sure if srs.


----------



## Aces High (24/8/13)

fish13 said:


> That's right w.a. people I'm on the Senate paper as a candidate for stop the greens party.
> 
> had enough of the government banning everything we enjoy and the fun. so i put my money where my foot goes and haven taken a stand!
> 
> i hope everyone on here does the same and make the major party's take notice


Sorry fish, I am confused are you for or against the greens party?

When we have Mr angry & the monkey toughing it out in the main arena why do we want to stop the greens, they may be the only sane party we have left


----------



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

Very serious. there is big push to close off the south west of w.a. to fishing. this will close off the shark fishery in the south west and the cray fishery too! Along with affecting communities that rely on the money that comes with fishing. slowing of tourism, loss of jobs.

these marine parks without peer reviewed science will do more harm then good. quobba, steep point all gone .

Then the 4wd tracks and shooting. what else? back to brews that have to be under 2%ABV.


----------



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

Also the website 

www.orp.org.au


----------



## bum (24/8/13)

Wait...

You're a "boat person"?

Good luck, pal!


----------



## manticle (24/8/13)

So your policies include getting pissed while driving up and down and around the bush and beachland a lot in a 4wd and killing fish and wombats?

**** anyone who tries to take those rights away. Right behind you chief. **** the greens and their dental care. I wanna shoot stuff.


----------



## pyrosx (24/8/13)

Thanks for making the tablecloth voting paper that much bigger...


----------



## citizensnips (24/8/13)

Ha, not trying to be an ass clown but it sounds like your working to undo everything Australia has done with regard to environment/firearms for the past 20 years. There's a good reason we did it in the first place. Still good on you for actually doing something. That said I wholeheartedly disagree with your parties policies. I do not want people given firearms for self defence.


----------



## citizensnips (24/8/13)

Not to mention jim beam cans just...everywhere.


----------



## manticle (24/8/13)

Let's vote for the bogan arsehole party.

Somehow not being able to shoot shit for fun is a gross violation of human rights but wanting to wed your life partner is a first world problem. Supporting and funding health care, education, small business and the environment is lunacy but condemning genuine 
refugees to life in an impoverished nation after months/years of detention is sane, fiscally responsible government.


----------



## manticle (24/8/13)

A massive **** yeah. I'll vote for you if you have a representative down here.

Probably just above the rise up australia candidate and just below everyone else.


----------



## pyrosx (24/8/13)

fish13 said:


> these marine parks without peer reviewed science will do more harm then good. quobba, steep point all gone .


This... bothers me. Maybe it's just late...

First - I don't believe that there actually is a lack of peer reviewed science on the efficacy of marine parks. A cursory google scholar search backs this up, even without reading into the papers too far - there's A LOT of them.

Second - do you have evidence to back your "more harm than good claim"? You can't make whatever claim you like with the justification that "there's no science" (unless you're a religion...)


----------



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

There are somethings that need to be nutted out further i agree. 

I am sure after the election is done and dusted we can do that. such as land clearing and firearms. repealing marine parks is another. We are aligned with the liberal democrat party and can adopt policies that are aligned in that vain.

i also was a shooters and fishers voter but when the NSW branch agreed to remove the right to silence. I was not happy as no one should give up freedom for security.


----------



## manticle (24/8/13)

So after you've been elected you can work out your policies a bit more clearly?


----------



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

pyrosx said:


> This... bothers me. Maybe it's just late...
> 
> First - I don't believe that there actually is a lack of peer reviewed science on the efficacy of marine parks. A cursory google scholar search backs this up, even without reading into the papers too far - there's A LOT of them.
> 
> Second - do you have evidence to back your "more harm than good claim"? You can't make whatever claim you like with the justification that "there's no science" (unless you're a religion...)





pyrosx said:


> This... bothers me. Maybe it's just late...
> 
> First - I don't believe that there actually is a lack of peer reviewed science on the efficacy of marine parks. A cursory google scholar search backs this up, even without reading into the papers too far - there's A LOT of them.
> 
> Second - do you have evidence to back your "more harm than good claim"? You can't make whatever claim you like with the justification that "there's no science" (unless you're a religion...)


when ningaloo reef was under commonwealth control there was two sets of fishing rules for the area. anglers would be penalized for a gaff, treble hooks and multiple hooks even they were just passing through park to other fishing grounds. yes anglers were penalized too. it wasn't till the marine park was back under state control that those irregularities were removed and anglers didn't have to worry what was in there tackle boxes .

the current marine parks saga has a lot misinformation going around and all groups are worthy. Pew group, SOML, fishing groups and the environment minister too. 

its late and i will seek the information to support my claims.


----------



## manticle (24/8/13)

Look forward to it. Definitely a solid contender to contribute to social and economic policy as it currently stands though.

Vote 1 ORP. 

Where are you guys directing your preferences?


----------



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

Manticle if elected we will work on them no doubt. if elected i will stand my ground on the current marine park issue. angler lock outs should be an absolute last result. I'm not going to do a labor back flip with no carbon tax and then bring it in. 

i bet labor and liberals and other parties will review there policies if they get elected or not.

are there som policies that you would like more explanation of? i will gladly get that for you.


----------



## manticle (24/8/13)

Pretty much all of the ones on the website could be elaborated upon. Additionally your policies on gay marriage, healthcare, climate change, disability, mental health, indigenous issues including health, economic management, refugee intake/detention/resettlement, education, arts and defence would be some of the issues that both myself and a large number of voters would be interested in.


----------



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

Peference in the upper housr will go to the LDP firstly and work the way down from there with liberal then labor and greens last.

I know i have focused a lot on w.a. and not the rest of Australia. I live in the south west were jobs are hard to find. this time last year i was almost given a redundancy because of the housing market being stagnant. the high aussie dollar making imported timber more viable and its upsetting that it took another company folding to save my job. we should be focusing on keeping manufacturing, milling and our food industries viable. 

tis what i will be discussing with the party after this election about making sure that Australia is still manufacturing long term and not just short term too.


----------



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

manticle said:


> Pretty much all of the ones on the website could be elaborated upon. Additionally your policies on gay marriage, healthcare, climate change, disability, mental health, indigenous issues including health, economic management, refugee intake/detention/resettlement, education, arts and defence would be some of the issues that both myself and a large number of voters would be interested in.


manticle i would suggest looking at LDP for those. The ORP are mainly focussed on your outdoor activities. 

although i will relay your questions to peter whelann ORP president.


----------



## donburke (24/8/13)

didn't the coalition announce that their preference votes would go to labour ?

that will stop the greens, good stategic move i reckon


----------



## pk.sax (24/8/13)

This is an awesome country. But **** me, the politicians and contenders are total knobs! Not just their policies, but the lack of interest in real issues or actually improving anyone's lot. They advertise more on raising welfare payments than they do about what hard actions they are prepared to take to make jobs, raise national skill levels, productivity. Mr big ears maggot just spews whatever his sponsors feed him. It's probably because this place is so good basically that we can afford to have such fuckwit pollies.


----------



## goomboogo (24/8/13)

manticle said:


> Let's vote for the bogan arsehole party.
> 
> Somehow not being able to shoot shit for fun is a gross violation of human rights but wanting to wed your life partner is a first world problem. Supporting and funding health care, education, small business and the environment is lunacy but condemning genuine
> refugees to life in an impoverished nation after months/years of detention is sane, fiscally responsible government.


Pinko.


----------



## benno1973 (24/8/13)

Being an environmentalist and ex-zoologist (where I was involved in some of the studies of marine parks around the Perth area), with no interest in cars, shooting or fishing, I have to say that I'm almost totally against all the ORP policies. But good on you for standing up for what you believe in. And good on you for discussing policies on here in a calm, sensible manner.


----------



## DU99 (24/8/13)

Just shows some are strong enough to get off there backside and try do something instead of listening to the major parties crap..


----------



## DUANNE (24/8/13)

good work fish. somebody needs to stop these insane extreme greens.


----------



## mash head (24/8/13)

I have done a lot of work in regards to marine parks and I can say much of the science is funded by ENGOs and is made up bullshit.
Nearly all of the reports on how good MPAs are come from areas with little to none fisheries management before MPAs were put in place. Marine parks do little to nothing to address the real threats to the marine environment such as pollution.
Australia has some of the worlds best managed fisheries yet overseas interests are pushing to lock up our Economic exclusion zone from fisheries extraction seriously denting our export industry. Something like 80-90% of submissions supporting marine parks came from overseas internet users.
Mining is still allowed with in marine parks which is no wonder considering the major ENGO behind the push is PEW charitable trust who made most of their money from oil. Films like the end of the line are propaganda tools directly funded by PEW. Research the Boris/Worm et al report which is what kicked of much of the push for MPAs to find out that its lies funded by PEW. But shit its peer reviewed and published in one of the major magazines. Don't believe every thing you read and hear. This amongst other things is a brain washing scam and Australias fishing practices are sustainable.
I have shitloads of info for anyone who wants it.
I see this along with a few other things this govt has done as industrial sabotage. Primary industries export dollars are the engine room of our economy and this govt has shit on nearly all sectors.
I used to think I was green until I saw all the lies these groups use to influence and brainwash the masses, now I believe very little unless it is supported by undeniable facts. Theoretical science, computer modelling and predictions have no credibility with me. 
I know Manticle will probably be the first to try and cut me down so heres a question for him to think about. Why is it so hard to believe that co2 is plant food yet a gas (co2) that makes up 0.038% of our atmosphere is 1.67 time heavier than air, has less thermal insulating properties than water vapour (which makes up a large portion of our atmosphere) can **** with our climate so much?
I am not in complete denial but do need facts, yes co2 levels have quadrupled since the 60s but at less than 0.1 of a percent I struggle to see how it can make such an influence. If you can link recent warming trends directly to co2 emisions I would like to see it (seriously).
I am off to buy some flame proof undies or a whole suit.


----------



## benno1973 (24/8/13)

This is a pretty good discussion:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/10/what-is-the-evidence-that-co2/

The key point is that...



> CO2 is a radiatively active gas that allows the shortwave (visible) radiation from the sun into the climate system and slows that same energy down on its way out as longwave (infrared) radiation


Quoting small percentages (0.038%) isn't an argument against CO2 contributions to global warming. Small percentages of critical elemt\nts can make substantial changes in the environment. Just look at heavy metals, radioactive substances, etc. But it's a fair question.


----------



## pyrosx (24/8/13)

mash head said:


> I am not in complete denial but do need facts, yes co2 levels have quadrupled since the 60s but at less than 0.1 of a percent I struggle to see how it can make such an influence. If you can link recent warming trends directly to co2 emisions I would like to see it (seriously).
> I am off to buy some flame proof undies or a whole suit.


Are you a climate scientist? Why is your opinion more valid than 97% of climate scientists? (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article)

This would be like me "not believing" in GPS because I don't believe that time slows down at high speeds (Einsteins General Relativity).


----------



## Camo6 (24/8/13)

Good on you for giving it a go Fish.

I'm all for the great outdoors, fishing, four wheel driving, camping and the like. It's a huge part of the lifestyles of people who have grown up in the country and other less urban areas. The majority of people who enjoy these pastimes also do them with the most utmost respect towards the environment so they can continue to do them into the future. Sure you still get your bogans who couldn't give a f#ck but you'll always have those that won't play by the rules. Most anglers obey bag limits and legal sizing. Hunters use the utmost care to ensure a clean kill as has been done for thousands of years. Four wheel drivers stick to tracks and employ tree protectors when winching. Campers put out campfires and remove their rubbish. To label them all redneck hillbillies with no regard for the environment gives me the shits as most of these people do more for *their* environment than the hypocrites who spew shite from the comfort of a 10th floor inner city apartment. There's a myriad of TV shows on channel 31 nowadays relating to these pastimes and if you can show me a single one that doesn't display a great level of care towards what they do then I'll eat my hat.

I admire the Greens for their principles and see the necessity for this type of party but they always seem to be so extreme and overzealous in their ideals. I have lived and worked on farms for a good portion of my life and can say that the people who live and work on the land generally have a better idea on how to look after it than urbanites and treechangers. Banning something outright doesn't work ( alpine grazing for example) but regulating it can.

I can't say I agree with a lot the ORP's policies but it's good to see someone taking a stand for their rights.

My 2c.


----------



## booargy (24/8/13)

As far as I know the greenies have never run the country and you are going to give your preference to the party that changed the gun laws. Unless you are head of a corporation mister Abott will bend you over and do you harder than his wife.
Because of some percieved threat you are going to throw your weight behind a party that will **** you over. good on ya bloke **** our country so we can go fishing.


----------



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

Thanks for perceiving my concerns as a push the bad old days . 

we support smart greens not extremist greens. no way did i promote reckless driving and shooting. if that is how you perceive my ideals and the policies then good you go back to the shed and drink yourself stupid.

my objective in doing this to get people to think seriously about there upperhouse vote. i even told manticle that i would get those policies expanded upon. nope chose to label me a drink driving can throwing shooting maniac.

Thanks to those who see why i am doing and those who wish me well and telling the party is not for them.


mods lock the thread.


----------



## JDW81 (24/8/13)

mash head said:


> I am not in complete denial but do need facts, yes co2 levels have quadrupled since the 60s but at less than 0.1 of a percent I struggle to see how it can make such an influence. If you can link recent warming trends directly to co2 emisions I would like to see it (seriously).


Irrespective of whether you believe in climate change or not (I do, and have had the privilege of sitting in some excellent lectures delivered by Prof. Dave Griggs recently) surely it can't be a bad thing if we try and reduce our reliance on energy sources that are not only dirty but cut great scars into areas of pristine wilderness and are a finite source of energy.

I think it is a shame none of the pollies have got the bollocks to encourage serious and innovative R&D into efficient and renewable energy. Mining and the jobs it creates are important, but so are future generations who are going to have to try to clean up the god awful mess we've made.

Good on you Fish, all the best for the election.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/8/13)

Dont worry...Manticle is on a crusade from another thread regarding plants & CO2


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (24/8/13)

Its a hard crowd here as you have seen. Good luck with your election.
Nev


----------



## booargy (24/8/13)

I reckon we should start exporting whale meat think of the jobs.


----------



## koots (24/8/13)

I think the OP should gather his mates and party members and maybe they could have a bbq or some sort of social gathering in their natural environment. You know, minding their own business going about their daily duties...then the rest of us can drive into his backyard in our 4wd's guns blazing and shoot them while they remain defenceless. Yep, sounds good to me because killing things for fun is a god given right.


----------



## MastersBrewery (24/8/13)

koots said:


> I think the OP should gather his mates and party members and maybe they could have a bbq or some sort of social gathering in their natural environment. You know, minding their own business going about their daily duties...then the rest of us can drive into his backyard in our 4wd's guns blazing and shoot them while they remain defenceless. Yep, sounds good to me because killing things for fun is a god given right.


you must be a vegan, right?


----------



## koots (24/8/13)

Nope. Not even vegetarian though I do try to buy meat that is free range. I am referring to the fact that a lot of shooters don't kill for food, they kill because they like killing. Often the animal dies a slow painful death becase an amateur shooter isn't a good enough shot. I've had friends justify it by saying target practice is boring because it doesn't move. That my friends is what clay pigeons are for. Killing for food is fine. Killing for fun is fucked.


----------



## OzPaleAle (24/8/13)

fish13 said:


> Very serious. there is big push to close off the south west of w.a. to fishing. this will close off the shark fishery in the south west and the cray fishery too! Along with affecting communities that rely on the money that comes with fishing. slowing of tourism, loss of jobs.


Good on you for having a go.

However I'm not sure I like policy based just on keeping an industry going for the sake of keeping it going.
Nothing lasts for ever and money should be spent on creating the next industry to take over.
Its unfortunate jobs are initially lost but thats where support for retraining needs to be.


----------



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

OzPaleAle said:


> Good on you for having a go.
> 
> However I'm not sure I like policy based just on keeping an industry going for the sake of keeping it going.
> Nothing lasts for ever and money should be spent on creating the next industry to take over.
> Its unfortunate jobs are initially lost but thats where support for retraining needs to be.


that's true and i work for a company that is environmentally,sustainable certified. A lot of the fisheryman are too.
putting measures in place ensure they are sustainable is important. 

did you know we import 80% of our seafood? what happens when those fisheries close? more pressure on others.
also we now import more food then we export. 

so for those in qld think roothy is a redneck?

through better education lifestyle can only improve.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/8/13)

koots said:


> I think the OP should gather his mates and party members and maybe they could have a bbq or some sort of social gathering in their natural environment. You know, minding their own business going about their daily duties...then the rest of us can drive into his backyard in our 4wd's guns blazing and shoot them while they remain defenceless. Yep, sounds good to me because killing things for fun is a god given right.


Well that was 2min of reading bullshit that I will never get back


----------



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

koots said:


> Nope. Not even vegetarian though I do try to buy meat that is free range. I am referring to the fact that a lot of shooters don't kill for food, they kill because they like killing. Often the animal dies a slow painful death becase an amateur shooter isn't a good enough shot. I've had friends justify it by saying target practice is boring because it doesn't move. That my friends is what clay pigeons are for. Killing for food is fine. Killing for fun is fucked.


that's the minority. my quarry has its brain spiked and then neck slit. the spike to the brain is instant. It is then eaten within the two days. if it is a large kill its broken down into packages, vacuum sealed and labelled. i also hand some out to neighbours and family so that it doesn't go to waste. 

Some of my target species start at 6kgs. everything except the entrails get eaten. the heads go to mAke soup.
all unwanted by catch is released quickly with little human contact as possible.


----------



## YoungOne (24/8/13)

fish13 said:


> That's right w.a. people I'm on the Senate paper as a candidate for stop the greens party.
> 
> had enough of the government banning everything we enjoy and the fun. so i put my money where my foot goes and haven taken a stand!
> 
> i hope everyone on here does the same and make the major party's take notice


Not a chance.
I just did my postal vote and did the Greens first - because I decided I would start with the lot that I hated first. Cate Faehrman (Greens NSW) - 109, Ryan, James, (Greens NSW) - 108, etc.

The Greens aren't the party of fun. They're the party of banning things.
Banning firearms, banning alcohol, banning cigarettes, banning freedom.
The only thing they don't ban are migrants and refugees.

For the first time in my life I voted One Nation... Because someone needs to stop the Green Menace.


----------



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

I'm also part of the ANSA tagging program to profile the growth and age of certain species in w.a.

The fish are mulloway, dhufish and baldchin groper. how many conservationists do this?


----------



## OzPaleAle (24/8/13)

We import it because its cheaper, its a problem of our own creation, we carryon if we were made to take a pay cut but complain that aussie products are too expensive.
We can't compete on price so you have to be able to create a niche\specialty product that people are willing to pay for or move onto the next business venture, if we are importing 80% of our seafood then there is clearly not enough of a demand for local product.

If the OS fisheries close and there is still a local demand there will be money in local seafood so the new industry will just start up again.


----------



## DU99 (24/8/13)

we export our seafood and yet we have to import _inferior quality_ scallops from other countries..


----------



## YoungOne (24/8/13)

Oh sorry fish I just realised you're the *stop the Greens* party, not the Greens.
Sorry.
Good on you.


----------



## bum (24/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> banning freedom.


How stupid are you, exactly?


----------



## OzPaleAle (24/8/13)

DU99 said:


> we export our seafood and yet we have to import _inferior quality_ one's from other countries..


That just shows the different markets around the world I guess, The countries we export to want quality product over price, we have a market based on price rather than quality product.
Maybe local fisheries should be gunning for the export market and take any niche local market sales as a bonus.

I did read with some amusement an article in The Age from restauranteurs blaming everything else for their troubles, including "the Masterchef effect" whre everyone just stays home and cooks fancy shit, just about fell off my chair when I read that but maybe this elusive masterchef effect will make some people seek quality product again, who knows.


----------



## YoungOne (24/8/13)

bum said:


> How stupid are you, exactly?


Not at all comrade.
That's what the Greens are all about.
They're embittered middle aged intellectuals that have lost all optimism for the future; who cynically manipulate young people to get them the power they crave. They hate everyone. They've lost in life and want to get revenge against those who have been successful.
If you follow their policies - they attack every source of power or authority in society - traditional family relationships, money, business, professional power, firearms, religion. Pretty much everything.
Their solution to all problems is to give the state more power.
That is, get rid of any other form of authority or power and replace it with the state, and they want to be in control of the state.

I handed out for the Greens at the last federal election because I thought they had something positive to offer. Instead they have been a disaster. Far worse than the major parties.


----------



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

Look i roast my mates about over looking local seafood and products for cheaper imports. sure i unfortunately have buy import items. becauses that's where it is made.

not buying local food produce causes the imports to increase. i buy most of my food from the farmer's market as it all comes from the region but they also bring in some overseas items like garlic.


----------



## JDW81 (24/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> The Greens aren't the party of fun. They're the party of banning things.
> Banning firearms, banning alcohol, banning cigarettes, banning freedom.
> The only thing they don't ban are migrants and refugees.


1: As someone who works in health care I think cigarettes should be one of the first things banned. Ever seen someone struggling to breathe dying of lung cancer? I have and it aint pretty.
2: The reason they don't ban refugees is because as humans we have a moral obligation to help people who are fleeing from genuine persecution. What would you do if you were going to be murdered for your beliefs, your wife and daughters raped then killed while you watch and your sons tortured. I think you'd try and jump on a boat to somewhere like Australia too.
3: Freedom isn't free....


----------



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

Btw i am on the W.A. paper. 

The title is based on alice coopers song.


----------



## YoungOne (24/8/13)

JDW81 said:


> 1: As someone who works in health care I think cigarettes should be one of the first things banned. Ever seen someone struggling to breathe dying of lung cancer? I have and it aint pretty.
> 2: The reason they don't ban refugees is because as humans we have a moral obligation to help people who are fleeing from genuine persecution. What would you do if you were going to be murdered for your beliefs, your wife and daughters raped then killed while you watch and your sons tortured. I think you'd try and jump on a boat to somewhere like Australia too.
> 3: Freedom isn't free....


You set up a false dichotomy. The options are not 'persecution' or 'Australia'.

There are multiple options.

The fact is by the time they get to Australia they have already been through at least one other nation that can offer them protection.
In the case of refugees foolishly jumping on boats from Indonesia - many of them have been working and living peacefully for many years in that country - far away from the alleged horrific grounds for resettlement in Australia.
It is not the case that we are denying them sanctuary. They already have it - in Indonesia or elsewhere.

We have a refugee program and if people elect to come to Australia - they can come through the proper UN program, not forced entry.

You have to ask the question, if the alleged refugees are already safe and sound in Indonesia - why are they coming?
It's not for sanctuary. It's for money.

We have no obligation to fork out money to anyone. I didn't see that in the Refugees Convention, unless you can correct me?


----------



## Fish13 (24/8/13)

Aces High said:


> Sorry fish, I am confused are you for or against the greens party?
> 
> When we have Mr angry & the monkey toughing it out in the main arena why do we want to stop the greens, they may be the only sane party we have left


i am against extremist green action and party is very concerned about the greens current trend of targeting law abiding citizens over fishing 4wd ownership and guns.


----------



## YoungOne (24/8/13)

fish13 said:


> i am against extremist green action and party is very concerned about the greens current trend of targeting law abiding citizens over fishing 4wd ownership and guns.


Sounds very good. If I had my time again I would have given you lot a vote.

I am very disappointed by the Greens.
Unlike the inner city elitist intellectuals that have tried to ban fishing, 4wds and hunting, I am a genuine conservationist.
I grow my own food, harvest my own meat and produce most of my own products at home, locally.
I don't buy lattes or eat imported treats and factory farmed meats.

But I've been attacked by the Greens for no cause. Labelling me a redneck and a murderer because I take responsibility for what I eat rather than paying someone else to do my dirty work.

The Greens have completely lost the plot.


----------



## manticle (24/8/13)

Maybe but you have voted for a party that never had a plot to begin with.
One Nation? **** me dead.

I'm completely pro sustainable hunting and fishing by the way. Also completely pro more people taking responsibility for what they eat as an alternative to intensive farming.


----------



## jlm (24/8/13)

I am a tad confused about this perceived notion that the Greens are going to take away peoples guns. For the record I'm in the process of obtaining a firearms license as I enjoy hunting for food, along with fishing (for food, not massive on sport fishing but can see its appeal) and raising my own critters to eat.
I've had a quick glance and from what I can see, apart from a blanket ban on hand guns, which really shouldn't affect any hunters, and tightening up licensing and ammo sales (again, don't want to lose your license? Don't be a violent asshole. Would only being able to purchase ammo for the firearms you own be that troublesome?)
I'd assume they're against shooting in national parks, thats a point I agree on, but I can't see anywhere they're all for banning hunting or gun ownership.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/8/13)

Clover Moore..she is my reason for not liking the greens in a NSW


----------



## YoungOne (24/8/13)

jlm said:


> I am a tad confused about this perceived notion that the Greens are going to take away peoples guns. For the record I'm in the process of obtaining a firearms license as I enjoy hunting for food, along with fishing (for food, not massive on sport fishing but can see its appeal) and raising my own critters to eat.
> I've had a quick glance and from what I can see, apart from a blanket ban on hand guns, which really shouldn't affect any hunters, and tightening up licensing and ammo sales (again, don't want to lose your license? Don't be a violent asshole. Would only being able to purchase ammo for the firearms you own be that troublesome?)
> I'd assume they're against shooting in national parks, thats a point I agree on, but I can't see anywhere they're all for banning hunting or gun ownership.


They want to ban hunting and firearms in general, at least in NSW.
For example, this recent media release was the prompt for much alarm:




> *[SIZE=13.5pt]WE DID IT! GAME COUNCIL ABOLISHED[/SIZE]*
> Monday, July 15th, 2013
> Media release: The Greens
> 
> ...


----------



## jlm (24/8/13)

Thats hunting on public land, a step too far IMO (I've got a few friends here who shoot in state forests, although most of my venison comes from private land), but I can't see anywhere a ban on firearms completely.

The research into humane pest control is intriguing.........I can't say I can think of a more humane way to kill an animal than by a clean shot that it doesn't know is coming.


----------



## JDW81 (24/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> You set up a false dichotomy. The options are not 'persecution' or 'Australia'.
> 
> There are multiple options.
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to set up a dichotomy, false or otherwise, I'm merely making the point that people in a shitty situation are going to try to come somewhere like Australia for a better life. They won't get that in indonesia etc. Yes they are trying to get here because of money, but that isn't the only reason. If they are genuine refugees then we have an obligation to help them, irrespective of how they get here, if they aren't then they should be sent back home.

I agree we need to stop the boats, but that is more to stop people drowning at sea. 

As for forking out money, if we don't have an obligation to fork out to anyone as you suggest then we'd better stop paying welfare, funding schools and hospitals etc etc.

I'm not familiar with every article in the refugee convention, I'm just someone who believes that if we have the means the help those less fortunate then us then we have an obligation to do so. If you don't agree with me I totally respect that as we are all entitled to sit on what ever side of the fence we choose.


----------



## YoungOne (24/8/13)

JDW81 said:


> I'm not trying to set up a dichotomy, false or otherwise, I'm merely making the point that people in a shitty situation are going to try to come somewhere like Australia for a better life. They won't get that in indonesia etc. Yes they are trying to get here because of money, but that isn't the only reason. If they are genuine refugees then we have an obligation to help them, irrespective of how they get here, if they aren't then they should be sent back home.
> 
> I agree we need to stop the boats, but that is more to stop people drowning at sea.
> 
> ...


I respect your view.

But my concern is that everyone acknowledges the refugees are coming here for a better life, but not for a convention ground - and therefore with no obligation for us to protect them.
To claim as the Greens have done that rejecting them makes us morally suspect or barbaric is wrong.

There are also migrants who come here for a better life and we have a program for that.

The boats are an issue. I think the figure was 1000 people that have drowned in the last for years trying to get here. It's a horrible figure. No one should have needed to die. It's very upsetting.

I'm not against people having a better life or taking in refugees at all. I just think it should be in a measured and controlled way - using the existing programs. I think the problem with the Greens moralising has been that it has encouraged people to get on boats and drown with no net benefit for refugees as a whole - because we have a fixed intake that has not changed - and by politicising the issue the Greens have made it harder, not easier to increase our intake.

By the way - I don't necessarily like One Nation but I voted for them to try and get the message through that I'm not happy with the liberals or labor in NSW, and there's no way I'm voting Greens ever again because of what they have done.


----------



## Droopy (24/8/13)

I voted for the donkey... I'm not telling you which one though!!


----------



## spudfarmerboy (24/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> They're embittered middle aged intellectuals that have lost all optimism for the future; who cynically manipulate young people to get them the power they crave. They hate everyone. They've lost in life and want to get revenge against those who have been successful.
> .


Sounds like Bum.


----------



## bum (24/8/13)

You're clearly jealous of my messageboard success.


----------



## Crusty (24/8/13)

I'm totally sick of all the Politic bullshit. We are so over Governed in this country & I simply can't vote for either of the two major parties. Unfortunately one of them will get in. I know of so many people that are voting for Abott just because they hate Ruddy but they don't really want Abott either. I think they all need to get out & a new approach & direction is needed. I will be voting for the Palmer United Party. Maybe he is a dickwad too but that's not proven as yet. What is proven time & time again, Labour & Liberal have no idea of mainstream Australian working families & neither of them deserve another shot of making my life ******* miserable, unfinancial & without any hope of any improvements anytime soon so they both can go & get rooted. When or if I ever retire, I'll be lucky to go to bingo once a week & see that our ex Pollies retire with a handsome six figure paycheck each year.These Governments do nothing but suppress, over tax & financially ruin the workers in this country not to mention the poor small business people that try to make a living. Wake up people, it's more of the same with either of the two major parties. 
While I'm at it, you council dick heads can get rooted too. Shove your over Governed rules up ya coita. Free country my arse.


----------



## OzPaleAle (24/8/13)

+1 on the council rules, Trying to put a pergola off the side of my house and I have to provide the same building permit as if I was building a whole new house, soil reports , overlooks(or whatever they are called) etc or pay a surveyor $3000 to draw up plans and fill out the application on a job that uses maybe $1500 in materials...........

I get they have to protect stupid people from themselves but why does it have to be so hard to build an f'ing pergola!


----------



## bum (24/8/13)

Perhaps that's how they do it? If you can't manage to do the paperwork correctly...


----------



## OzPaleAle (24/8/13)

Touche
You might be onto something there.


----------



## bum (24/8/13)

But seriously, they don't implement any of this stuff unless someone has created a situation where they had to.

We've all got to pay the price for the morons without any brains in their heads.


----------



## nu_brew (24/8/13)

The Greens are so anti beer they lobbied to reduce the excise tax on it... 

http://vic.greens.org.au/content/welcome-tax-relief-ballarat-craft-beer-brewers

Those anti fun bastards!

Edited: spelling


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/8/13)

I find the greens a bit hypocrytical. They are out to look after the environment, which is a good thing. But when it comes to feral animal control they just dont get it. They wont allow sporting shooters in to national parks to shoot and cull feral animals...but whinge that feral animals are ruining the natural habitat. You cant have things both ways.Shooters will pay for a permit to go and hunt/shoot/cull feral pests at no cost to the government.


----------



## manticle (24/8/13)

@nu brew - they are also in favour of reducing restrictions on live music venues.

Whether or not people agree with the greens policies is not really what gets me. Not sure I agree with them all either and there is a part of me that is strongly libertarian. What gets me is that we have a major party with clearly outlined and costed policies on a range of issues and yet instead of people actually engaging with those policies or debating the merits or lack thereof, they go out of their way to dismiss them as insane.

Would someone please point out which of their policies are insane and why? All their policies for important issues like public health, education, investment in small business and scientific research are available on their website.
Some debate on those policies would be great - beats 'they're a bunch of middle aged loonies so I voted for a candidate who thinks Islam is a country instead'.


----------



## citizensnips (24/8/13)

jesus hell 5 pages, what the hell have I been doing


----------



## DU99 (24/8/13)

people tend to forget where do we dump our compact fluro when it's dead/broken,the anti freeze in our car's.does it just end up down the drain or landfill..so much for being *GREEN*


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/8/13)

Got a mate who is a fridge......he has to account for point fuckall of a gram of fridge gas.....great bloke...beard...drives an EH .....


----------



## pyrosx (24/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> By the way - I don't necessarily like One Nation but I voted for them to try and get the message through


The message you're sending by voting for Pauline & Co is that it's okay to be a racist moron who thinks Islam is a country


----------



## bradsbrew (24/8/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Got a mate who is a fridge......he has to account for point fuckall of a gram of fridge gas.....great bloke...beard...drives an EH .....


The amount of 502 gas we wasted when I was in my late teens was ridiculous. But that's what happens when you give young apprentices open access to refilling the 9kg 502 bottle in the on-call ute, around $250.00 a refill in the late eighties. Once we new what we could do with it, instant chilled beer, watch this spit freeze as it goes through the gas, listen to how slow and deep my voice goes when I ............................no wonder they banned the stuff.

We knew that the stuff is bad for the environment but were young and ignorant. Didn't stop playing with it until we found out we could have killed ourselves


----------



## pyrosx (24/8/13)

Crusty said:


> I will be voting for the Palmer United Party. Maybe he is a dickwad too but that's not proven as yet.


What is proven is that he's a Billionaire mining magnate who uses the countries "working families" to line his own coffers.

As a quick aside - you complained about six figure salaries for politicians. Think about this for a moment - do you think paying politicians LESS will increase or decrease the quality of people willing to run for public office?


----------



## bradsbrew (24/8/13)

pyrosx said:


> What is proven is that he's a Billionaire mining magnate who uses the countries "working families" to line his own coffers.
> 
> As a quick aside - you complained about six figure salaries for politicians. Think about this for a moment - do you think paying politicians LESS will increase or decrease the quality of people willing to run for public office?


You may get people who want to make a difference run and are willing to receive a reasonable remuneration package . You may also get people who are not qualified/experienced enough that have no idea of simple economics and foreign affairs running just because its more money than the can earn elsewhere..........oh hang on we already have plenty of them.


----------



## YoungOne (24/8/13)

pyrosx said:


> The message you're sending by voting for Pauline & Co is that it's okay to be a racist moron who thinks Islam is a country


I don't think they're racist at all. They're portrayed as racist, but really they're just anti multiculturalism.

The point they have made - and it's valid - is that western liberal democracy cannot function if it allows traditions that are opposed to it to exist within it. Namely: Islam.

Besides, election are about interests and not about personalities.
If you vote based on personality then you've wasted your vote.

Incidentally, I've always disliked the suggestion that people have to meet a standard of intellect, behaviour or knowledge to run for government. The point of a democracy is that we have _*representative *_politicians. If there is a good 15% of the population who are 'racist morons', then they're entitled to be represented in kind. It's elitist and wrong to suggest that they are not entitled to be represented.

Pauline, a bit like the ALP at the moment, was subjected to a massive co-ordinated smear campaign because she was a threat to the status quo. Labor and the liberals want to import lots of foreign labour to undermine wages and keep their businesses growing; and to hell with the rest of us. One Nation and parties like it want to halt migration and make migration decisions subject to national decision making (referenda have been suggested). That's far more honest and fair than migration by stealth without the existing population getting a say.

The suggestion that someone is a moron just because you disagree with them is pretty poor.


----------



## bum (24/8/13)

GTFO


----------



## Yob (24/8/13)

Gosh... Shit!... Really? Oh my..

I've been missing out all day and didn't know it..


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/8/13)

Jeezus...

If only this was a yeast thread..

w1728.


----------



## Camo6 (24/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> (snip) Incidentally, I've always disliked the suggestion that people have to meet a standard of intellect, behaviour or knowledge to run for government. The point of a democracy is that we have _*representative *_politicians. If there is a good 15% of the population who are 'racist morons', then they're entitled to be represented in kind. It's elitist and wrong to suggest that they are not entitled to be represented.


Though Darwin would probably agree with this, most of us don't have his patience. Couldn't we just try to breed them out or something? Surely someone's tried this before?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/8/13)

Ford v Holden


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/8/13)

Hang on

Holden v Ford


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/8/13)

120y


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/8/13)

Maybe a P76


----------



## YoungOne (24/8/13)

bum said:


> GTFO


Ah, get over yourself. I'm sure there is a good person in there just waiting to get over their latent bitterness and negativity. You'll be happier.


----------



## manticle (24/8/13)

The idea that someone ill qualified to fulfil their position should be consideted a worthy candidate is also pretty poor.
You ever watched Pauline in an interview where she's given space to speak?
Racist.
Moron.


----------



## YoungOne (24/8/13)

manticle said:


> The idea that someone ill qualified to fulfil their position should be consideted a worthy candidate is also pretty poor.
> You ever watched Pauline in an interview ehere she's given space to dpeak?
> Racist.
> Moron.


Hey that goes two ways.
Have you ever watched Sarah Hansen-Young preach from the pulpit?
Or that Greens candidate who remained endorsed despite publically declaring his interest in illegal sexual perversions?

I hate to break it to you, but in a democracy people have to do the best they can; and the way to do that is persuasion rather than criticism.
This is probably why Socialist Alternative, Greenleft and the like never took off. Too much time seeing everyone as an enemy and not enough time building relationships.


----------



## JDW81 (24/8/13)

I have watched many greens candidates speak and they generally speak with well constructed and soundly based points of view. You don't have to agree with them, but it is rare that they say outrageous things that they can't back up with good evidence. One nation on the other hand. According to one of their spokespeople Islam is a country, haram is a threat to our way of life and jews believe in Jesus. Somehow I think the greens are a little more credible than one nation. But hey, the great thing about democracy is you can vote for whoever you please with the only repercussion being a healthy debate on a brewing forum.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/8/13)

I worked as a Government employee

The old saying of being promoted to their level of incompetence rings true for so many politicians


----------



## white.grant (24/8/13)

The last thing I want is my brewing forum clagged up with politicians. Rack off politicians.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/8/13)

Grantw said:


> The last thing I want is my brewing forum clagged up with politicians. Rack off politicians.


Thou shalt decree that this thread shall only contain political content that is within the constraint of the Original Post. Those that wish to disagree shall brew a lambic or some such other similar brew that may be deemed equivalent to Tooheys Red


----------



## pk.sax (24/8/13)

Oh, this has t really gained any quality since it started. Attracting the usual 'look I have a phobia, come associate with me'.

Fish, mate, are you sure you weren't drunk when you signed up for this bs! I wasn't brought up in this country so forgive me if I do get something wrong, but what I learnt was that public service (yes, including pollies) is meant to be for the welfare of the public you serve. Running on petty personal aims is hardly public service, even if you do serve the interests of 0.01% or something, unless you are looking at the welfare of the biggest lot as well, you don't serve the public.

btw, I am definitely pro animal rights, i.e., leave them alone when they aren't coming into your home and eating your sammich. Killing animals (or people!) for pleasure is vile and self centred. I get a massive conflict trying to figure out killing for food but best left at that.


----------



## bum (24/8/13)

Threads like this pretty much sum up why I'm embarrassed to tell strangers about my hobby. It's not that people say "Homebrew, hey? I had some of my uncle's homebrew once and it tasted like shit. I bet your beer is shit too." It's that people think "Home brewer, hey? That uncle of mine really is an ignorant fuckwit. I bet this guy is the same."



YoungOne said:


> Ah, get over yourself. I'm sure there is a good person in there just waiting to get over their latent bitterness and negativity. You'll be happier.


If you're going to try to make cutting remarks do try to understand the actual meaning the words you use. It's pretty important.


----------



## matho (24/8/13)

Rupert Murdoch is laughing at all austrailians, your never going to get positive press if you want to tax the rich and give it to the poor, you will just be labeled "EXTREME" or "INCOMPETENT".


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/8/13)

Yep...poor old Rupert.....made/obtained his money here....


----------



## manticle (25/8/13)

@young one: It goes every way. People should not be employed in jobs they can't do. They often are but they shouldn't be.

If you have a link to either young or the perverted guy I would appreciate it. I don't come at this specifically from a place of defending the greens. I come from wanting to understand where the animosity comes from because when I look at their policies, they seem well constructed and relevant. Even when I disagree, I can't realistically brand them as loons. One nation, dlp, cdp, rua, katter and even labor and liberal I can safely say I think have at least one policy each that belongs in chelmsford.

Would someone please engage with a specific greens policy and tell me why it's lunacy?


----------



## bum (25/8/13)

manticle said:


> I look at their policies


You know that this is where the fundamental issue lays, right?


----------



## manticle (25/8/13)

Of course. Point I've been trying to make for a while.


----------



## bum (25/8/13)

You think they can be shamed then?

All evidence is to the contrary.


----------



## wereprawn (25/8/13)

What baffles me is all the talk by our pollies of how we need to "buy Australian" to create jobs.It seems straightforward to me.Reduce tax on aussie made goods.Up the tax on imports.Abracadabra.....more jobs.


----------



## tcc (25/8/13)

i just ran out of popcorn

thanks guys


----------



## jyo (25/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> I don't think they're racist at all. They're portrayed as racist, but really they're just anti multiculturalism.


Wow. Is your head actually up your arse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIEcf_hSl4E#t=226

Go to 2:40 in the above video which is straight from the One Nation website. Makes me sick.


----------



## goomboogo (25/8/13)

wereprawn said:


> What baffles me is all the talk by our pollies of how we need to "buy Australian" to create jobs.It seems straightforward to me.Reduce tax on aussie made goods.Up the tax on imports.Abracadabra.....more jobs.


We would have to come up with a new term. I know, let's call it a Tariff. You heard it here first.


----------



## wereprawn (25/8/13)

goomboogo said:


> We would have to come up with a new term. I know, let's call it a Tariff. You heard it here first.


Ok.We need to INCREASE import tarrifs(tax) and reduce tax on aussie made goods. I know, lets call it tax relief for Australians.


----------



## bum (25/8/13)

It's not about the cost of goods. It is about the cost of manufacturing. So the manufacturers left.

There's no going back without building a stronger manufacturing sector. Increasing the cost of (now essential) imports only increases cost of living which increases wages which makes local manufacturing even harder.


----------



## goomboogo (25/8/13)

wereprawn said:


> Ok.We need to INCREASE import tarrifs(tax) and reduce tax on aussie made goods. I know, lets call it tax relief for Australians.


How well did it work the last time this policy was in place? What is your judgement regarding the macroeconomic effect of dismantling tariff protection in the last few decades?


----------



## wereprawn (25/8/13)

bum said:


> It's not about the cost of goods. It is about the cost of manufacturing. So the manufacturers left.
> 
> There's no going back without building a stronger manufacturing sector. Increasing the cost of (now essential) imports only increases cost of living which increases wages which makes local manufacturing even harder.


True. But if local goods are cheaper it filters through the whole economy , including manufacturing. If a product is not available as "Australian made" the extra import tax does not apply. As soon as a similar product is made here the tax applies. Surly this would encourage new aussie manufacturers and entice foreign companies to produce their products here


----------



## pk.sax (25/8/13)

What might work perhaps, is to devalue the dollar to a sensible level reflecting the real value of our economy, not the potential value of buried mineral deposits. That might encourage investors to value Australian industry as viable and the returns on investment might start matching those of more progressive economies. Of course, this should've been prepared for by skilling up the population more diversely than construction and mining as it stands atm. This might mean the government investing into tafe, unis and more intermediate training colleges encouraging young people to take up industrial work. Where I work, the place can't find enough interest in potential apprentices because it pays shit, people can make that flipping burgers or selling groceries. If we weren't so overvalued and everything priced up against mining money, maybe we can be affordable and even competitive.

PS: before mant strips one off me, I'm not an economist, engineering analyst.


----------



## manticle (25/8/13)

Just saw the article about Justin Walker that young one was referring to. I couldn't give a rat's arse what some guy's sexual profile on a gay dating website says as long as it doesn't involve animals, children or forced sex.
Picking up guys in public spaces might be illegal - I can cope with that. His penchant for threesomes is neither relevant nor illegal. Again - which green policies are extreme? I don't like ON's policies or philosophies and I will criticise their candidates' knowledge of politics because it's entirely relevant. Who Pauline likes to shag is not. Find another windmill.


----------



## pyrosx (25/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> The point they have made - and it's valid - is that western liberal democracy cannot function if it allows traditions that are opposed to it to exist within it. Namely: Islam.


If 51% of the population were Muslim, they'd probably vote in a party of Muslim politicians, who might then try to challenge the democratic underpinnings of the Constitution - which would lead to referenda - which would require a lot more than 51% support.

"Please explain" to me how the 2.2% of Australians who are Islamic in any way threaten our democracy? (And then, if you do manage it, make sure you can't make the same arguments where you replace "muslim" with "religious fundamentalist of any denomination")


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

jyo said:


> Wow. Is your head actually up your arse?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIEcf_hSl4E#t=226
> 
> Go to 2:40 in the above video which is straight from the One Nation website. Makes me sick.


I think I missed it.At 2:40 she's silent


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

pyrosx said:


> If 51% of the population were Muslim, they'd probably vote in a party of Muslim politicians, who might then try to challenge the democratic underpinnings of the Constitution - which would lead to referenda - which would require a lot more than 51% support.
> 
> "Please explain" to me how the 2.2% of Australians who are Islamic in any way threaten our democracy? (And then, if you do manage it, make sure you can't make the same arguments where you replace "muslim" with "religious fundamentalist of any denomination")


It's the rate of increase. In the words of the Q society: 
“In 2011 Islamic community leaders estimated 700,000 Muslims living in Australia; but post-9/11, many did not disclose their religion in the 2011 census. While Australia’s general population grew by 78% in 40 years, the number of Muslims in Australia increased by over 3,500% in the same period.”


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

Of course.....when you start out with a group that makes up a very small % it is easy for them to increase massively. If they grow from 10 people to 100 people it will look big. But if it is within a pop of 10,000 then it isnt as big of an inctease. The larger % of the pop then the smaller their % increase of the the group will be


----------



## JDW81 (25/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> the number of Muslims in Australia increased by over 3,500% in the same period.”


Raw percentages don't mean anything. 10 is 1000% more than 1. Real numbers are harder to make scary, but percentages can make it look like we're all going to be living under sharia law in 10 years.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

Eggzachery


----------



## jyo (25/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> I think I missed it.At 2:40 she's silent


sc


----------



## Fish13 (25/8/13)

Practical fool. there are 5 million Fishers is Australia. so over 20% of the population. 

there is a beautiful national park 30 minutes from and huge state decay. the road is falling away. the camping area decaying and toilet blocks vandalized and get beyond repair! 

The shire can't look after it. liberals don't help because its a labor seat... how crap is this?


----------



## brewbienewbie (25/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> That's what the Greens are all about.
> They're embittered middle aged intellectuals that have lost all optimism for the future


Holy shit, I wish! I would vote for the embittered middle aged intellectuals that have lost all optimism for the future party in a frickin second.

...and that's why I drink.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

jyo said:


> Wow. Is your head actually up your arse?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIEcf_hSl4E#t=226
> 
> Go to 2:40 in the above video which is straight from the One Nation website. Makes me sick.


It was multiculturalism that made this country...poor old Pauline.... Well she is from QLD. The state that also gave us Sir Joh, Catter, Palmer, Barnaby......


----------



## pk.sax (25/8/13)

That's true, you need to make a facility viable before it gets any attention. Still, I hope the lunatic gun loving policies were curbed. It's a bit over the wild Australia now innit?
Good luck, if anything counts, it's YOUR intention.


----------



## pk.sax (25/8/13)

PS: probably gonna sound like a hypocrite, but Muslims in particular have a way of looking at everything that makes Pauline Hanson etc sound like gentle pot smoking hippies. Btw, their philosophy of prolific baby making to islamise the world is not entirely a fairy tale. I'm not a fan. Bitten a few times in trust, of all of them I've met, 2 people. That's how many decent non bigoted Muslims I've met. I felt like running over the rest.


----------



## booargy (25/8/13)

fish13 said:


> Practical fool. there are 5 million Fishers is Australia. so over 20% of the population.
> 
> there is a beautiful national park 30 minutes from and huge state decay. the road is falling away. the camping area decaying and toilet blocks vandalized and get beyond repair!
> 
> The shire can't look after it. liberals don't help because its a labor seat... how crap is this?


Oh I see the greens went in they're and did it? More than likely they would budget it in to fix it like they have done in my local area.


----------



## manticle (25/8/13)

One more time for the deaf.

Which actual policies of the greens are nuts? Which actual policies make them kooks?


----------



## brewbienewbie (25/8/13)

practicalfool said:


> PS: probably gonna sound like a hypocrite, but Muslims in particular have a way of looking at everything that makes Pauline Hanson etc sound like gentle pot smoking hippies. Btw, their philosophy of prolific baby making to islamise the world is not entirely a fairy tale. I'm not a fan. Bitten a few times in trust, of all of them I've met, 2 people. That's how many decent non bigoted Muslims I've met. I felt like running over the rest.


Prolific baby-making? You know Australia is about 25% Catholic, right?


----------



## manticle (25/8/13)

practicalfool said:


> PS: probably gonna sound like a hypocrite, but Muslims in particular have a way of looking at everything that makes Pauline Hanson etc sound like gentle pot smoking hippies. Btw, their philosophy of prolific baby making to islamise the world is not entirely a fairy tale. I'm not a fan. Bitten a few times in trust, of all of them I've met, 2 people. That's how many decent non bigoted Muslims I've met. I felt like running over the rest.


Can I read about this philosophy anywhere? Is there perhaps a copy of the protocols of the elders of Islam floating around?


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

manticle said:


> Can I read about this philosophy anywhere? Is there perhaps a copy of the protocols of the elders of Islam floating around?


Yes, try the books that set Muslim Brotherhood world view.

They want to establish a Global Sunni Caliphate. The instruction to kill all not believers stands, but they are allowed to ignore it until they are in a position to win outright. So the goal is to colonise western nations, build power and strength, and then strike. You should read: http://www.qsociety.org.au/qonjihad.pdf

The Muslim Brotherhood of course operates here in Australia openly. It's interesting that their views are intensely and dangerously radical, even against the propaganda put out about parties like one nation - yet the left wing liberals pay them 0 attention at all.

I really resent the charges of racism. I was actually a member of the Greens for many years but their behaviour both stopping me gathering food and voting against the Carbon price really pissed me off. As did organising the '99%' rallies/riots in the CBDs of Sydney and Melbourne.
It took me a long time and lot of life experience to realise that Islam is just bad news for Australia. The Greens are miopic. The idea that you can be both homosexual, or a feminist, or an environmentalist, and embrace Islam - is nuts.

Political correctness gone wrong.


----------



## Camo6 (25/8/13)

manticle said:


> One more time for the deaf.
> 
> Which actual policies of the greens are nuts? Which actual policies make them kooks?


Does a party having sound policies mean there are no kooks aboard? Do you think their policies aren't scrutinized heavily before being announced? If a party was to announce ludicrous policies do you think they would win votes? I'm sure there's been a party or two in history whose policies were sound, ja?

From what I've gathered politicians promise a lot of things that they don't always deliver. Sometimes it's what they don't promise that you have to worry about. The principles of the Greens is primarily protecting the environment and for this reason they (or any similar party) are very important to maintaining balance. This is the primary reason they have had such success. Who doesn't want to vote for a party that is focused on saving the planet? I know I've given them my vote when I was younger.

However, history has shown that once they've held sway in parliament they've influenced some very unpractical and poorly thought out decisions. I'm sure most of the members of the Greens are sensible people passionate about their duty. I'm sure there are also a lot of peace and mung bean loving zealots who will stop at nothing to eradicate the world of anything that disturbs their shakra. I think in the last few years people have been let down by the Greens' actions and will now be hesitant to cast their vote so readily.

Manticle, I'm probably the most unpolitical person I know and try not to involve myself with any discussions on politics but as someone who spent a lot of time working in the country I've seen the effects of poor political decisions on both the land and the people who work it. Not all of these problems were created by the Greens as such, but mainly by the mindset that these do gooders have. Don't get me wrong, we need these people representing our environment but a careful balance still needs to be maintained.

Now look what you've done. Gone and made me think bout serious stuff! I'm off to play with my beer machine and drink some piss. :beer:


----------



## pk.sax (25/8/13)

Hey tickler, I respect your give everyone a chance attitude, but doesn't personal experience count for anything? Seriously bro, if the church's practices can be criticised, people should also have an open mind towards criticising other religion-cultural sets for what they propound. It's not a chiseled into stone policy or anything afaik, it's the reality of what they believe in. According to Islam, everyone but a faithful Muslim is an infidel and has to be either converted or eliminated. And most often, it's by whatever means necessary. They can be so myopic in their views that lets say someone converts to Islam, they might have been doing something every year, perhaps celebrating the start of spring as might be the culture of where they live, under Islam, they would find that the observation of any cultural or otherwise practices is deeply frowned on. Why? Because - 'the prophet did not write in the Koran for us to do that, hence it is not necessary for a good Muslim to live his life, so this practice is unislamic and should not be carried out.' They view anything not Islamic with such distrust, it takes generations of removal from their home countries to get them comfortable with anything. The divide is simply too deep.

I have paraphrased but hopefully it explains why I'm no fan of their way of thinking and doing things. Nations that get tagged as Islamic, they don't have a problem. It's the radicals flowing out to other countries, they are a lot of the time rejected by their own people for such absurd hard line relegious views. Anyway, derailed this one enough. Better to let this one go.


----------



## bum (25/8/13)

practicalfool said:


> They can be so myopic in their views


Is that a fact?

You're confusing Islam with Islamism and you need to stop it.


----------



## Fish13 (25/8/13)

They talk about sustainable actions but in reality it results in lock outs.

there gun policy is aimed disarming lawful gun activities. they are dissapointed that 1million firearms were legally brought into the country for those who sport shoot legally and our current gun ownership laws are a joke. 

the example they used was the young lady who went to a range and then stole the firearm,killing herself and her father. this firearm wasn't bought and the range was at fault for poor supervision, not reporting the firearm missing at once to police but they still argue. she had her interview and evaluation and training regarding the firearm at the range. Still those who went through the process to truly own a firearm its a completely different process.


----------



## booargy (25/8/13)

we had a baby bonus to breed white people.


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

fish13 said:


> Still those who went through the process to truly own a firearm its a completely different process.


+1
Tell me about it. Over one year all in all to get membership verified, book and sit the training courses, have criminal record checks, mandatory waiting time - and then yet more mandatory waiting time - just to get a 30 year old single shot rifle that is no threat to anyone.
The Greens' most recent call to ban lawfully held handguns is nuts. If the problem is _*illegal*_ guns in the hands of crime gangs - the answer is to go after the crime gangs and crack down on illegal guns. Removing lawfully held firearms does nothing except affect hundreds of thousands of sportsmen and women at huge cost.
Those who are afraid of guns should really book into a safety course or 'try shooting' day. Guns are just objects and are no more inherently dangerous than a car, a boat, or home distilled alcohol, for that matter. Stopping dangerous people from having access to tools they can use is the goal - which is why we have licensing for boats, cars, planes, firearms and other activities.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

Ypu will never stop criminals from having guns the same way you will never stop illegall drugs.

Any fitter & turner can make a gun in less than a day. I mate of mine showed me some of the guns he made....was very suprised at how effective they where......not only that but they where also silenced.


----------



## booargy (25/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> +1
> Tell me about it. Over one year all in all to get membership verified, book and sit the training courses, have criminal record checks, mandatory waiting time - and then yet more mandatory waiting time - just to get a 30 year old single shot rifle that is no threat to anyone.
> The Greens' most recent call to ban lawfully held handguns is nuts. If the problem is _*illegal*_ guns in the hands of crime gangs - the answer is to go after the crime gangs and crack down on illegal guns. Removing lawfully held firearms does nothing except affect hundreds of thousands of sportsmen and women at huge cost.
> Those who are afraid of guns should really book into a safety course or 'try shooting' day. Guns are just objects and are no more inherently dangerous than a car, a boat, or home distilled alcohol, for that matter. Stopping dangerous people from having access to tools they can use is the goal - which is why we have licensing for boats, cars, planes, firearms and other activities.


semiauto handguns only lefties are supposed to use half truths.


----------



## pommiebloke (25/8/13)

citizensnips said:


> Ha, not trying to be an ass clown but it sounds like your working to undo everything Australia has done with regard to environment/firearms for the past 20 years. There's a good reason we did it in the first place. Still good on you for actually doing something. That said I wholeheartedly disagree with your parties policies. I do not want people given firearms for self defence.


I think that's the biggest load of shit I've ever read on this site.


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

booargy said:


> semiauto handguns only lefties are supposed to use half truths.


after a while it all starts running together in my mind. They just want to get rid of everything.

For such a 'pro-tolerance' bunch it fascinates me how much they enjoy interfering in the lives of others.


----------



## seamad (25/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> +1
> Tell me about it. Over one year all in all to get membership verified, book and sit the training courses, have criminal record checks, mandatory waiting time - and then yet more mandatory waiting time -* just to get a 30 year old single shot rifle that is no threat to anyone.* really?
> The Greens' most recent call to ban lawfully held handguns is nuts. If the problem is _*illegal*_ guns in the hands of crime gangs - the answer is to go after the crime gangs and crack down on illegal guns. Removing lawfully held firearms does nothing except affect hundreds of thousands of sportsmen and women at huge cost.
> Those who are afraid of guns should really book into a safety course or 'try shooting' day. *Guns are just objects and are no more inherently dangerous than a car, a boat, or home distilled alcohol, for that matter. *Poppycock, you should move to texas. Stopping dangerous people from having access to tools they can use is the goal - which is why we have licensing for boats, cars, planes, firearms and other activities.


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

Do your research seamad. If you own a gun, a knife and a car in australia - you're more likely to die in the car or in an incident involving the knife than with the gun.


----------



## pk.sax (25/8/13)

bum said:


> Is that a fact?You're confusing Islam with Islamism and you need to stop it.


It's the proponent that I'm faced with, his faith had never enter my mind before his face was thrust into my view. I can't thus fault the faith he might be supposed to profess, only the one he portrays. I don't go to a swap meet naked with my body parts labelled into culinary categories with spice suggestions.


----------



## seamad (25/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> Do your research seamad. If you own a gun, a knife and a car in australia - you're more likely to die in the car or in an incident involving the knife than with the gun.


No need for research, unless you count nra propaganda as factual.
Cars are designed for transport, knives for food prep ( not counting illegal types) and guns, unless I'm mistaken, are designed to kill things ?


----------



## slcmorro (25/8/13)

Discussing politics on AHB, you're all braver men than I!


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

seamad said:


> No need for research, unless you count nra propaganda as factual.
> Cars are designed for transport, knives for food prep ( not counting illegal types) and guns, unless I'm mistaken, are designed to kill things ?


Ah yes, the 'need' argument.

As my signature notes, If 'need' (or 'genuine need') was the criterion of validity for all human activity, then the world would be a place without joy.

There are many things that can be banned on the basis that there is no 'need' for them. Including alcohol, Comrade.
Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## pk.sax (25/8/13)

seamad said:


> No need for research, unless you count nra propaganda as factual.Cars are designed for transport, knives for food prep ( not counting illegal types) and guns, unless I'm mistaken, are designed to kill things ?


That's pretty much the point, there isn't another mundane use for a gun that justifies them.


----------



## Fish13 (25/8/13)

I have no need for a firearm or want but there are people who do. rangers, farmers, police and pest controller- in some lines- and then those who do it for hunting, target shooting and competition. We back responsible ownership of firearms. t

we all use knives. a knife is one of main items used in domestic violence but we don't see them being banned do we? only restrictions on some.

this a great thread guys keep talking about and on election think seriously about what you are voting for.


----------



## slcmorro (25/8/13)

seamad said:


> and guns, unless I'm mistaken, are designed to kill things ?


Guns are simple, mechanical pieces of hardware designed to eject projectiles at speed for a number of purposes. Sure, they CAN kill. So can knives.
Knives are simple pieces of material, sharpened to facilitate cutting/slashing/piercing/penetrating objects. Sure, they CAN kill. So can guns.


----------



## jlm (25/8/13)

I recognise the point guns are tools. All the above comparisons fail to recognise that if the task you're trying to achieve is making c*unts dead, generally the most effective tool would be a fire arm.
Shovels don't dig holes, people do. But it's a shit load easier to dig a hole with a shovel than your hands.


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

jlm said:


> I recognise the point guns are tools. All the above comparisons fail to recognise that if the task you're trying to achieve is making c*unts dead, generally the most effective tool would be a fire arm.
> Shovels don't dig holes, people do. But it's a shit load easier to dig a hole with a shovel than your hands.


Not really. Hunting firearms or sporting semi-autos aren't 'battle weapons'. You'd be better off with different tools if you were a maniac.
Most hunting rifles of a consequential calibre can be shot once or twice and then need to cool down for a good 30 minutes before you can shoot them again. In that time everyone else would have clobbered you.

Australians don't have the same type of devices and weapons that Americans do - because firearms here are for simple hunting, agricultural or sporting purposes - not for a citizen's milita.


----------



## bradsbrew (25/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> Most hunting rifles of a consequential calibre can be shot once or twice and then need to cool down for a good 30 minutes before you can shoot them again. In that time everyone else would have clobbered you.


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

We should ban shovels. You could dig a hole and bury someone after you belted them with it.


----------



## slcmorro (25/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> Most hunting rifles of a consequential calibre can be shot once or twice and then need to cool down for a good 30 minutes before you can shoot them again.


Umm...


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

slcmorro said:


> Umm...


Heavy barrells are different. But sporter barrels are thin and lightweight - because they're intended to be carried with other gear for hours at a time. They heat up quickly.


----------



## bradsbrew (25/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> Heavy barrells are different. But sporter barrels are thin and lightweight - because they're intended to be carried with other gear for hours at a time. They heat up quickly.


So what are you calling a heavy barrel, anything over .308? And how can it be a hunting rifle if you only shoot off one or 2 rounds every 1/2 hour. A 22/250 is regarded as a nice light rifle. At least the Roos will be safe with your hunting rifle.


----------



## bum (25/8/13)

Can we get an IP check up in this bitch?


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

bradsbrew said:


> So what are you calling a heavy barrel, anything over .308?


No. A heavy barrel as in a heavy barrel, not calibre.
But yes, my friends 30-06 can fire 2-3 rounds before it is hot to the touch.


----------



## slcmorro (25/8/13)

Can I ask, what is the difference between a copper walking around with his or her sidearm in public, to me locking my shotgun and rifle away in a safe, having them registered and sighted, and transporting them in a safe and legal manner to and from the areas in which I hunt/sport shoot legally? 

I mean, both of us are licensed to carry and have passed the relevant background checks. Both of us are carrying for a specific purpose. Both of us (and let's not go into the 'who's more likely' debate here) are able to use our firearms for unlawful purposes whenever we choose. Why does Joe Public have a problem with me owning and using firearms in the legal, safe manner for which I purchased them, but can accept that another person wearing a uniform with an insignia on it can carry in the street?


----------



## jlm (25/8/13)

But it's completely impractical for me to take out a single person who I want not to be alive with a .223 bolt action, lets say hypothetically I sourced illegally from someone who stole it from a licensed owner? There's been a bit of that (theft, not me making c*nts dead) happening down here lately.
Edit, the above was in reply to young one, not the above. I'm sure the obvious holes in that argument will be pointed out by others shortly. I gotta go get the kayak on the ute so I can remove some invasive species (trout) from our waters tomorrow.


----------



## pk.sax (25/8/13)

Slc, the cop needs that gun because of the fact there are people out there with guns and to protect the 'gun-less' we put some people on a payroll, with training and purpose. They have a requirement to be able to subdue criminals. What criminals are you 'required' to subdue? All you want is a hunting weapon. That's your pleasure, but it does open up those potent weapons to misuse. And again, there was no requirement for you to own that gun in the first place, unlike the cops.


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

bum said:


> How stupid are you, exactly?





bum said:


> GTFO





bum said:


> Can we get an IP check up in this bitch?


ugh, you're just a bully. There's a great irony in Greenies preaching about tolerance whilst seething like the face of death himself, so much hate do they have.
I'm very sorry for whatever has happened to you in your life, but you don't need to vent it on me dude.


----------



## pk.sax (25/8/13)

C'mon Pauline! Go for the buttocks!


----------



## manticle (25/8/13)

Why are you talking about hunting rifles though? The suggested ban is on handguns isn' it?
I'm on a phone so that limits my responses - I'd like to come back and respond to some of your points though YO.


----------



## bum (25/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> I'm very sorry for whatever has happened to you in your life, but you don't need to vent it on me dude.


Sure I do. You're a fake account and don't deserve to be treated like a real person. This is endlessly dreary.

As an aside, why do you infer that I am a "Greenie"?


----------



## manticle (25/8/13)

Imply


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

Insist


----------



## booargy (25/8/13)

user name h34r:


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

bum said:


> As an aside, why do you infer that I am a "Greenie"?


Because Labor and the Liberals are, broadly, pro-shooting, although for different reasons.
You're clearly not conservative.
So broadly, you're either fascist or within the Greenleft sphere.

And I'm guessing SE Melbourne means inner city Melbourne, like Richmond - that notorious Greenie stronghold characterised by tight jeans and self-deception.


----------



## manticle (25/8/13)

manticle said:


> Imply


Actually as you were. Just got the context of your question.
YO has both inferred and implied.
Tops.


----------



## manticle (25/8/13)

Actually bum is closer to frankston but let's not make broad assumptions based on where people are able to rent/buy/set up a tent


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

manticle said:


> Why are you talking about hunting rifles though? The suggested ban is on handguns isn' it?
> I'm on a phone so that limits my responses - I'd like to come back and respond to some of your points though YO.


No I think somewhere we got on to the 'danger' of privately held rifles in Australia.
In any event most handguns are pretty weak. The .22 calibre rugers that I recall the police going on about aren't exactly battle weapons.
The bullet is (roughly) 1/4 the size of a carbonation drop - and fired from a tiny barrel it would struggle to break the skin from any moderate distance. As opposed to the police firearms, which are high powered military style pistols with much larger bullets and significantly more propellant relative to the size of the bullet (ie more power and more damage).

EDIT, here we go
The .22 Pistols produce 30 joules of energy at the muzzle.
The 9mm police Pistols produce 519 joules of energy at the muzzle.

The sporting pistols are just done up to be 'tacticool' for the US market, but I'm not sure they're 'all that'.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

NSW Police use Glock 22

.40 S&W caliber (10mm) bullet

I sure as **** would not want to be shot with one


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (25/8/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> NSW Police use Glock .22
> 
> I sure as **** would not want to be shot with one


Some times you dont have a choice.
Nev


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> NSW Police use Glock 22
> 
> .40 S&W caliber (10mm) bullet
> 
> I sure as **** would not want to be shot with one


Nice edit.
The 40 S&W is even more powerful than the 9mm.
There's a world of difference between the sporting pistols and police ones. They just look the same.

EDIT
Ouch. The 40S&W puts out 576 joules of muzzle energy. Almost 20 times that of the humble .22!
Yet the Greens will still claim that the .22 target handguns are 'military style assault weapons'.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

Police pistols are not used to kill. They are to stop and wound an offender. 

Well thats what they tell you.......


----------



## manticle (25/8/13)

For what it's worth I support, in principle, gun control and responsible gun ownership.

I support hunting when carried out humanely (some will differ on the definition of that) and for the purposes of catching food or pest/vermin control. Same with fishing although with sport/recreational fishing, it's a tad easier to throw something back you haven't shot through the head.

I'm intrigued anyone could support one nation and be miffed that people might consider them racist. What exactly do you think racism is?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> Nice edit.
> The 40 S&W is even more powerful than the 9mm.
> There's a world of difference between the sporting pistols and police ones. They just look the same.


Not if they use the same catridge


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Not if they use the same catridge


True, but I think from memory the pistols are limited to .357, which is a long way below the 40 S&W - but that you can get the larger calibre for certain competitions, but the regulation and reporting requirements are immense.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

Done much shooting youngone...

Easy to shoot a .44 at club meets


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

manticle said:


> I'm intrigued anyone could support one nation and be miffed that people might consider them racist. What exactly do you think racism is?


Racism, as in, judging people or treating them differently based on where they come from or how they appear.
As I understand it, One Nation doesn't care about race _per se_, they care about *culture**. *Their primary concern is that our liberal democractic traditions, system of government and broad cultural practices are being undermined by allowing multiple bases of legitimacy rather than allegiance to 'Australian Values'.

I think many people, including a younger version of me, got the wrong end of the stick because of the massive wave of propaganda against one nation, partly fuelled by media gaffes by Pauline Hanson that were used against them.

I also think it is worth noting that they're the only political party in Australia to have had their leaders imprisoned, without merit. Primarily to diffuse their influence politically. I infer this, manticle, because the punishment did not fit the crime.

The major parties were just unhappy that in a single election One Nation went from 0% of the national vote to 10% of the national vote - and they were desperate to discredit them to maintain the status quo.

I would look at the One Nation web page for background.

Their opposition is not based on race, it is based on unity, they're happy to have people come here when we can accommodate the growth - but they expect integration rather than maintaining separate cultural identities.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

manticle said:


> For what it's worth I support, in principle, gun control and responsible gun ownership.
> 
> I support hunting when carried out humanely (some will differ on the definition of that) and for the purposes of catching food or pest/vermin control.


Yes...the correct weapon is required. Fox shooting is done generally with .17 riffles. Very high velocity and gteat ovet long distance in a padock. Roos gen need 22-250 or even better .243. Pigs you need . 3030/308 cause of the thick skull


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Done much shooting youngone...
> 
> Easy to shoot a .44 at club meets


I haven't joined a pistol club because I am poor and can't afford it. Plus the extra storage requirements mean installing another safe, and it is too much effort for the benefit derived. I'm happy just to be registered for hunting.


----------



## petesbrew (25/8/13)

All the best Fish13, good on you for getting involved and standing up in what you believe in.
Had to have a look at your parties policies. I notice things like, no bullbar restrictions, and no anti-hoon laws (which I believe are there for a bloody good reason). While you guys look like you support motorcyclist, it would be interesting to hear the party's thoughts on commuter/recreational cyclists.
Also noticed a relative of mine is a senate candidate!


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> I haven't joined a pistol club because I am poor and can't afford it. Plus the extra storage requirements mean installing another safe, and it is too much effort for the benefit derived. I'm happy just to be registered for hunting.


Have you done much ( any ) shooting


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Have you done much ( any ) shooting


Yes I have had an AB licence for a very long time.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

What have you shot with


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> What have you shot with


.17HMR
.22lr
.223
30-30 lever
30-06
.300 Win Mag
12G
Blackpowder .50cal


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

Well that wasnt hard was it


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Well that wasnt hard was it


*Shrugs

Sorry I wasn't sure what you wanted.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

Just trying to save you from being bummed


----------



## slcmorro (25/8/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Yes...the correct weapon is required. Fox shooting is done generally with .17 riffles. Very high velocity and gteat ovet long distance in a padock. Roos gen need 22-250 or even better .243. Pigs you need . 3030/308 cause of the thick skull


Foxes are .17HMR up to a .223. Anything bigger is a waste.
I wouldn't advocate shooting Roos with less than a .243 (considering .243 and .270 are the minimum legal calibres for deer hunting, this makes sense)
Pigs I wouldn't go smaller than .270 or BB 12G


----------



## JDW81 (25/8/13)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Some times you dont have a choice.
> Nev


Yes you do. Don't put yourself in a position where the coppers are going to have to shoot you.


----------



## Camo6 (25/8/13)

practicalfool said:


> That's pretty much the point, there isn't another mundane use for a gun that justifies them.


Spot on. There's nothing mundane about letting off a shot with concentrated precision and hitting a paper target 300 yards away. Hoo-fuckin-rah!




YoungOne said:


> (snip) Most hunting rifles of a consequential calibre can be shot once or twice and then need to cool down for a good 30 minutes before you can shoot them again.


Not really a valid argument. My 30-06 sporter has put out countless rounds consecutively on a 36*c day. Doesn't do much for the life of the barrel and throws MOA out by a few inches but works reliably nonetheless.



bradsbrew said:


> So what are you calling a heavy barrel, anything over .308? And how can it be a hunting rifle if you only shoot off one or 2 rounds every 1/2 hour. A 22/250 is regarded as a nice light rifle. At least the Roos will be safe with your hunting rifle.


My .17 HMR's barrel is twice as thick as my 30-06 sporter. The '06 throws a 220grain pill the size of your little toe @3000FPS whereas the .17 HMR's 17gr bullet is smaller than a Tictac and travels at only 2550FPS. Heavy barrels relate to accuracy not calibre.




manticle said:


> ( snip) Why are you talking about hunting rifles though? The suggested ban is on handguns isn' it?


Personally I fail to see the difference between the two. The people I have met who own handguns are members of pistol clubs whose memberships are not easily obtained. They use these firearms only at the range in competition and for personal pleasure ( the same way we get a kick from hitting our numbers and making a cracking beer). Their firearms are stored at the club under secure conditions and they don't use them for any form of killing. They're entitled to their passions the same as anyone else so who has the right to tell them they're unfit to do so? If you wanted to go postal it would be easier to source a blackmarket weapon than jump through the hoops already in place for this very reason.




I love this thread, I could talk guns all day. Fish yer got mah vote.


----------



## brewbienewbie (25/8/13)

I don't see how he's going to stop the greens though. The majority of the votes he gets on this fishing and shooting ticket are going to come from the LNP's base, surely? Which if anything is only going to help the greens.


----------



## YoungOne (25/8/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Police pistols are not used to kill. They are to stop and wound an offender.
> 
> Well thats what they tell you.......


Yeah, somehow I doubt you would survive being hit by a 40S&W. It would have to put a big hole in you.
I think it has what the americans call 'stopping power'.




brewbienewbie said:


> I don't see how he's going to stop the greens though. The majority of the votes he gets on this fishing and shooting ticket are going to come from the LNP's base, surely? Which if anything is only going to help the greens.


 Maybe. I've previously been a greens/labor voter.


----------



## Camo6 (25/8/13)

I'd rather be hit by a .40 than a .357 anyday. Well I'd rather be hit by neither. That's why I don't drive my car while carrying a knife. That shit will get you dead.

From what I understand, law enforcers aren't trained to wound but to aim for the big parts till they're no longer a threat. And so they should, given the position they put themselves in.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

Camo6 said:


> From what I understand, law enforcers aren't trained to wound but to aim for the big parts till they're no longer a threat. And so they should, given the position they put themselves in.


Correct.


----------



## JDW81 (25/8/13)

Camo6 said:


> I'd rather be hit by a .40 than a .357 anyday. Well I'd rather be hit by neither. That's why I don't drive my car while carrying a knife. That shit will get you dead.
> 
> From what I understand, law enforcers aren't trained to wound but to aim for the big parts till they're no longer a threat. And so they should, given the position they put themselves in.


That's correct. You are trained aim for the biggest part of the body as you're less likely to miss, especially important in close quarters as you may only have time to get one shot off.


----------



## goomboogo (25/8/13)

bum said:


> Can we get an IP check up in this bitch?


This is what I thought after reading the post below.



YoungOne said:


> after a while it all starts running together in my mind. They just want to get rid of everything.


----------



## Phoney (25/8/13)

That's the most retarded name for a political party I've ever heard. What next, a 'stop the stop the greens party'? This could get out of control. :lol: 
if you wanted to stop any party, wouldn't you just not vote for them or any party which preferences them?


----------



## MartinOC (25/8/13)

Kill 'em all & let God sort it out - bigger calibre the better!



Perfect for bunnies.....

...and Greenies


----------



## Fish13 (25/8/13)

Phoney

stop the greens is the catch cry and how we have registered for this election. the parties real name is the Outdoor Recreation Party. 

Dave


----------



## Phoney (25/8/13)

Oh ok. It's a gimmick of sorts.

Question on your policy:

"We aim to counter the political influence of groups (such as the Greens) that seek to limit public land access to a privileged few."

What public land areas have access limited to a privileged few? The only ones I can think of are catchment areas, military sites like weapons testing ranges and aboriginal lands. I think there's very good reasons why the public are restricted from those places.


----------



## Camo6 (25/8/13)

MartinOC said:


> Kill 'em all & let God sort it out - bigger calibre the better!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



C'mon, let's be practical. Would you carry that thing all day for a bit of underground mutton?

Now the  is perfect bunny medicine.


----------



## MartinOC (25/8/13)

fish13 said:


> Phoney


Really Dave?

Just remember that YOU started this thread....'just wondering how convicted you REALLY are to your initial/ultimate cause.....?


----------



## bradsbrew (25/8/13)

MartinOC said:


> Really Dave?
> 
> Just remember that YOU started this thread....'just wondering how convicted you REALLY are to your initial/ultimate cause.....?


Come on Martin, pay attention, he was replying to Phoneyhuh.


----------



## Fish13 (25/8/13)

MartinOC,

it was answer to phoneyhuh


----------



## MartinOC (25/8/13)

Oops! Sorry, guys. Posting timing has never been my strong point.. :huh:


----------



## Phoney (25/8/13)

Reading through some of the LDP's policies. Holy shitballs! :blink: And they have the temerity to call the Greens extreme? Some of them would be utterly disastrous for this country. It's little wonder why they only received less than 2% of the vote in 2010.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/8/13)

phoneyhuh said:


> What public land areas have access limited to a privileged few? The only ones I can think of are catchment areas, military sites like weapons testing ranges and aboriginal lands. I think there's very good reasons why the public are restricted from those places.


The greens would love to be able to lockup and lockout National Parks and anywhere else that had trees and small fury animals. Their sister party is the Banana Party ( Build Absolutly Nothing Anywhere Near Anything )


----------



## Phoney (25/8/13)

OK I've also had a look (albiet brief flick through) at the Greens policies, and I haven't seen anything relating to "locking up and locking out" Nat Parks. Although national parks are managed by state governments. Can you kindly point this out?

Not sure of this is related, but I like 4WD'ing, camping and fishing. Sometimes I do hear older campers whinging that a lot of the firetrails have been locked to vehicle traffic, that 20 or 30 years ago were open.

While I can see their gripe, these are places that are within 2 to 3 hours drive from Sydney. I guess the thing is that the population has grown a lot since then, so too has the number of people owning 4WD's. There are thousands of other tracks that they can go on if they just go farther out. I never have any trouble locating tracks. I've seen the destructive damage that overused tracks / campsites can end up in and it isnt pretty so I can see exactly where NPWS are coming from when they decide to close tracks. Plus from my experience (one of my best mates is a National park ranger) it's usually those assholes who do things like build bonfires on picnic tables, do burnouts in campsites, leave rubbish everywhere etc that see places closed rather than politicians. There's still nothing stopping you from going in on foot or mountain bike, exercise is always good.


----------



## Camo6 (25/8/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> The greens would love to be able to lockup and lockout National Parks and anywhere else that had trees and *small fury animals.* (snip).


This might not be such a bad thing. I hear they're dangerous if cornered.


----------



## Fish13 (25/8/13)

Yes the national parks are a state issue as i have in an email from a dirt bike rider. 

the minorities ruin it for the majority and those 4wd clubs that maintain tracks should be praised and supported for the effort they do.


----------



## Fish13 (25/8/13)

Areas that are now longer public access? i will need to check accordingly are the mackerel islands and large groups who have previously stayed at steep point are being turned away.


----------



## manticle (25/8/13)

Were the greens responsible for that fish? Have reasons been given as to why access is restricted?


----------



## bum (25/8/13)

fish13 said:


> Yes the national parks are a state issue as i have in an email from a dirt bike rider.


Can't see any good reason to be quoting this. No, sir.




manticle said:


> Have reasons been given as to why access is restricted?


It's fun.

Duh.


----------



## Dave70 (26/8/13)

fish13 said:


> Yes the national parks are a state issue as i have in an email from a dirt bike rider.
> 
> the minorities ruin it for the majority and those 4wd clubs that maintain tracks should be praised and supported for the effort they do.


Come on fish. We all know there's 4wd'ing and _4wd'ing. _You really think that guy with 35s, a four inch lift and lockers both ends who dropped thousands on his truck just to drive along a track that could be negotiated by a ******* Suburu? You really think a few saplings are going to bother him if he needs to make a detour? What about people like me who couldn't be arsed joining a club but still want to enjoy the bush? Since plenty of access round my way is controlled _by_ clubs, where are my rights? Where's_ my _set of keys? I'm a responsible bush user, why should I have to endure the company of people I'd otherwise have nothing to do with, be obliged to spend hours dragging rubbish and burnt out car bodies from bushland on clean up days just to gain access to a ******* fire trail?


I'm no great fan of the greens, but running around blaming them for all our access woes is becoming the mantra of the moron.


----------



## treefiddy (26/8/13)

manticle said:


> One more time for the deaf.
> 
> Which actual policies of the greens are nuts? Which actual policies make them kooks?


"Genetically manipulated organisms (GMOs), their products, and the chemicals used to manage them, pose unacceptable threats to ecosystems."

"Nuclear power is not a safe, clean, timely, economic or practical solution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions."


----------



## mash head (26/8/13)

Some of the ideas within agenda 21 are out there and the Greens support that. If population control is such a great idea let the ideas creator be the first to top themselves.


----------



## Bridges (26/8/13)

I own a 4wd. I love camping with my family, I love the peace and quiet and tranquillity of our national parks and state forests. I also hate cleaning up six bags of rubbish before I put up my tent. I hate seeing locked and lifted fourby owners making their own tracks. I hate hearing revving bikes/jetskis/speedboats/generators. I hate people that light a massive fire (in a new spot not an existing pit) and think that throwing empty stubbies and cans in makes them disappear. I hate idiots that leave fish guts all over any facility within 500metres of a boat ramp. I'm happy to pay to camp in a national park and this is generally the case to fund clean up and track maintenance as caused by morons. The reason people have been barred from fire trails and various other areas is because of morons. There are heaps of responsible 4wd/boat/gun owners, problem is there are irresponsible ones also. This goes for any part of society you want to mention. I'm happy to have to jump through a few hoops if it means I don't have to put up with morons, and the destruction they seem to unleash all in the name of a good time.


----------



## benno1973 (26/8/13)

treefiddy said:


> "Genetically manipulated organisms (GMOs), their products, and the chemicals used to manage them, pose unacceptable threats to ecosystems."
> 
> "Nuclear power is not a safe, clean, timely, economic or practical solution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions."


Are you arguing that nuclear power is clean and safe?

I don't necessarily agree with both the above policies, but I don't think these policies make them kooks?


----------



## wakkatoo (26/8/13)

Bridges said:


> I hate hearing revving jet skis.


This, on inland waters. Especially when about 10m behind the person I'm towing. The temptation to turn around and do they same to them is almost overwhelming. Its only because I consider myself a responsible boat owner that I don't. 

As for the reason for this thread, only skimmed through but like others, well done on putting your hand up, takes guts. Looks like many don't agree with you, but show me a politician that has 100% support. Hell, in this climate, show me one with more than 50%  
For all its faults, that's one thing this country does have going for it - the ability to voice your opinion and people decide with pen and paper (rather than a gun as an eg.) if they do or don't agree.


----------



## Fish13 (26/8/13)

Dave70,

There are two tracks looked after by clubs but the public have access down here. they been closed due to rain though. these are not easy Subaru tracks.

Dave you then need to seek out the STG candidate in your state and get his response to this. In more detail.


----------



## Dave70 (26/8/13)

Kaiser Soze said:


> Are you arguing that nuclear power is clean and safe?
> 
> I don't necessarily agree with both the above policies, but I don't think these policies make them kooks?


Kooks? No.
Demonstratively ignorant and (ill) uninformed, more so. 

Both these issues, correctly or even amateurishly spun, have an almost Joseph Kony-ish effect and display a similar level of insight by the outraged facebooker's


----------



## benno1973 (26/8/13)

Dave70 said:


> Demonstratively ignorant and (ill) uninformed, more so.


In what way? Both these policies are divisive issues that have legitimate arguments, both for and against. Their policy happens to be against, which may be contra to yours, but how does that make them uninformed on either of these statements?


----------



## Phoney (26/8/13)

treefiddy said:


> "Nuclear power is not a safe, clean, timely, economic or practical solution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions."


The Coalition and the ALP aren't buying into nuclear power either. The biggest challenge that they will face is that no residents will allow one to be built anywhere near where they live. They would need to be built on the coast / waterfront within several hundred kilometres from major cities. 

The freedom and gun-nut party that fish has associated with himself (LDP) have on their website that nuclear power is safe and clean etc, but that governments shouldn't ever be in the power generation business and shouldn't be subsidizing it either. The problem with this argument is that there inst one nuclear power plant in the world which was build and run by 100% private capital. Not even one. Now what does that tell you?


----------



## manticle (26/8/13)

YoungOne said:


> Yes, try the books that set Muslim Brotherhood world view.
> 
> They want to establish a Global Sunni Caliphate. The instruction to kill all not believers stands, but they are allowed to ignore it until they are in a position to win outright. So the goal is to colonise western nations, build power and strength, and then strike. You should read: http://www.qsociety.org.au/qonjihad.pdf
> 
> ...



Ok I'm backtracking but I have a few minutes in front of a proper PC.

I can't see how that utterly biased article from a group setting themselves iup specifically in opposition to Islam is going to tell me much. I might as well offer a crikey article up as some kind of reference.

Let me make my position clear though - I am entirely opposed to the idea of overt religious influence on the laws or culture of the country in which I live. That goes for any and all religions. I am an atheist and I wish to continue to live as one freely. Any and all religious interference in my life or in the laws of the country, I will resist.

The problem with the anti-Islam push or demonisation as I see it is that it creates further divides and encourages the intolerance and ethnic/religious/cultural division it pretends to be opposing. people have done the same to the Jews for years. There are zealots and nutters with a basis in any religion you'd care to name. Violence is committed in the name of the bible every day. Do you hold all Christians responsible?

Do I believe Islam should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other belief? Do I believe it should be open to criticism as an spiritual belief should be? Yes. Do I believe that bigots are developing agendas based on unfair assessment of adherents of one particular religion currently? Yes. This kind of bigotry is insidious and does not behove intelligent people to follow it. For every nasty verse in the Koran or written by some idiotic Islamist fundamentalist body, I could find one in the Bible or a biblical pamphlet, one in those stupid books the hare Krsnas sell, one in the Torah and some zionist codswallop and probably one in whatever texts the Rosicrucians use.

Stop the islamisation of schools??? What the **** are they on about. Sounds like the moron on British TV protesting in the streets of London against the 'muslamic law they're bringin' in ovah Loondon'

What law?

'The muslamic one. They're bringin' it ovah Loondon'. This kind of bigotry appeals to the dumbest of the dumb which is where people like One nation will get the majority of their support. Before it was Asians and aboriginals/indigenous. Now it's Muslims and multiculturalism. They have some far more humanist policies I'll grant (their stance on Euthanasia for example) but they are and have always had a racialist barrow to push. They, and their ilk are creating as many issues as Islamists.

@Camo6 - Of course there might be loons in the party. That's not my point. There is a push by major parties and the media to "stop the loons' and it simply means no-one has to counter their policies. It creates an irritating mob mentality where everyone assumes the slogan or dogma to be correct. It's like the libs push to continually paint Labor as bad fiscal managers. No-one ever actually examines if it's crrect. In this case though there is bipartisan support for this smear campaign and it's unintelligent and misleading. Debate the policies or push whichever party you follow to develop similar or counter policies. ORP want to 'stop the greens' but don't actually have an answer to any other Green's policies besides possibly one or two relating to the environment. I expect more in an opponent.

A lot of waffle and I have loads more to say but I need to get back to work.


----------



## manticle (26/8/13)

For what it's worth I don't even see Hanson as a lunatic - just an ignorant, bigoted, populist. Her policies sound like they were written by someone in Year 10 who's better at home ec. than they are at English.

If she's so insistent that all migrants here be able to speak it, I'd like to see her take some ******* lessons.

Pastor Danny Nalliah on the other hand is a bit mad.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/8/13)

@Dave70. I have the same issues as motorcyclist. You will allways get one dickhead spoiling it for the majority. Every time I see a bike doing 400mph, pulling monoes or riding in thongs and shorts I feel like pulling them aside and pointing out that they are ******* it up for the rest of us. Unfortunatly it will never work as these type of citizens just DGAF.


----------



## Dave70 (26/8/13)

Kaiser Soze said:


> In what way? Both these policies are divisive issues that have legitimate arguments, both for and against. Their policy happens to be against, which may be contra to yours, but how does that make them uninformed on either of these statements?


Nukes = lots of clean power.
GMO = lots of poor people fed.

When the greens can present a viable alternative, they'll have an argument worth considering. 

It's this retard mindset that men in labcoats are subversively plotting our destruction we need to shake.


----------



## slcmorro (26/8/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Every time I see a bike doing 400mph, pulling monoes or riding in thongs and shorts I feel like pulling them aside and pointing out that they are ******* it up for the rest of us.


Good luck catching them at 400mph. Even Seb Vettel would struggle.


----------



## benno1973 (26/8/13)

Dave70 said:


> Nukes = lots of clean power.
> GMO = lots of poor people fed.


That's an oversimplified, one-sided argument. I don't think that you can say that the Greens are ignorant and uninformed if they raise alternative viewpoints like:

Nukes = uranium mining, radioactive waste, Chernobyl, Fukushima
GMO = increased herbicide use, Monsanto, unproven health risks

Edit: removed dig at Dave


----------



## treefiddy (26/8/13)

Kaiser Soze said:


> Are you arguing that nuclear power is clean and safe?
> 
> I don't necessarily agree with both the above policies, but I don't think these policies make them kooks?


They are divisive issues, but a complete ban on all things nuclear is a bit kooky. For instance, why shut down the OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights? Advancements in non-uranium nuclear technologies would be a win for everyone.

Seeing as nuclear reactors provides more power with less waste and less environmental harm than coal, I'd much rather live closer to a nuclear plant than coal. Especially when considering that nuclear reactors put less radiation into the atmosphere than coal plants.

That said, technology in power generation is increasing so rapidly that there would be little point in investing in nuclear power now. Nuclear power shouldn't be dismissed though, even if is only to highlight the negatives of coal power generation.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (26/8/13)

Dave70 said:


> Nukes = lots of clean power.
> GMO = lots of poor people fed.
> 
> When the greens can present a viable alternative, they'll have an argument worth considering.
> ...


RE clean energy: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/4/29/renewable-energy/100-renewables-feasible-aemo

I'm not necessarily against nuclear power either, but would prefer heavy investment in renewables. It just makes sense long-term, and will only become more and more viable as energy storage technology progesses.

FTR I'm not against GM crops as long as there is sufficient regualtion (which there probably is, I have no idea, haven't really looked into it).


----------



## Dave70 (26/8/13)

Kaiser Soze said:


> That's an oversimplified, one-sided argument. Were you saying the Greens were ignorant and uninformed?


I'll preface this by saying I've nothing against 'renewable' energy. Sun, wind methane from shit or whatever.

Historically however, the greens love to demonize nuclear energy and GMO based on hysterical rhetoric, not facts. They have said 'this is evil' and that's that. Potential goodness is simply dismissed out of hand on principle. 

How about _willfully_ ignorant and _deliberately_ uninformed?


----------



## Dave70 (26/8/13)

Liam_snorkel said:


> RE clean energy: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/4/29/renewable-energy/100-renewables-feasible-aemo
> 
> I'm not necessarily against nuclear power either, but would prefer heavy investment in renewables. It just makes sense long-term, and will only become more and more viable as energy storage technology progesses.


Me to. 

But in the meantime, lets exploit the fact that Australia seismically surefooted and rich in uranium instead of turning ourselves into the planets quarry.


----------



## benno1973 (26/8/13)

Dave70 said:


> Historically however, the greens love to demonize nuclear energy and GMO based on hysterical rhetoric, not facts. They have said 'this is evil' and that's that. Potential goodness is simply dismissed out of hand on principle.
> 
> How about _willfully_ ignorant and _deliberately_ uninformed?


Sorry Dave, removed my dig at you and edited my post above.

Still don't believe that they are 'willfully ignorant and deliberately uninformed'. They just have a different opinion to you is all.


----------



## Dave70 (26/8/13)

Kaiser Soze said:


> Sorry Dave, removed my dig at you and edited my post above.
> 
> Still don't believe that they are 'willfully ignorant and deliberately uninformed'. They just have a different opinion to you is all.



Never _eve_r mind that mate.


----------



## stakka82 (26/8/13)

I'm a bit of a closet greenie but can't side with either their stance on nuclear power or their stance on GMOs. 

Nuclear power is the best short term solution to climate change, simple as that. We don't have tectonic issues here, and we would be building state of the art modern reactors. In the mean while, steadily increase investment and incentives for the renewables (as we already do, to an extent).

We have been genetically modifying things for a long time, the process is just quicker now. Feeding more and more people with dwindling resources (and in the face of more extreme weather events) makes GMO a no-brainer.

Disclaimer: both have to be done carefully, in a heavily regulated fashion, but that being the case I can't see the moral quandary. 

2c


----------



## mash head (26/8/13)

http://www.biggamefishingjournal.com/pew_hutch_article.html
The above article gives an insight onto the Pew Charitable trust. This group funds most of the environmental groups around these days and basically is the pupetmaster. I have seen them in action and believe this article to be true. I had a quick search fro who funds the Greens and am willing to bet my balls that these guys would be there but couldn't find the info with a quick search. Ive seen enough lies through environmental science that I am very sceptical now. The above guys have basically screwed up my love and trust in science.
Its back to the cupboard with a foil hat for me.


----------



## seamad (26/8/13)

Australia is pretty unique in that we have uranium and stable geology for waste storage. Instead of just being miners we should process uranium into fuel rods and lease them to other countries, and when spent they can return them for storage and then get new ones. That way we get more dollars out of it and there is less material around for the wrong people to get hold of.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/8/13)

Re GMO

Monsanto no longer have the patent rights to Glyphosate ( Roundup). What Monsanto are effectively trying to do is control the seed stock. Basically you have to buy the seed from them. They own any seed produced by that crop. You are not allowed to keep seed for sale or use for nect sessons crop.

GMO has the potential for great things, the problem is that that large entities want to own and control GMO for profit.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (26/8/13)

mash head said:


> Ive seen enough lies through environmental science that I am very sceptical cynical now.


fixed


----------



## TasChris (26/8/13)

Liam_snorkel said:


> RE clean energy: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/4/29/renewable-energy/100-renewables-feasible-aemo
> 
> I'm not necessarily against nuclear power either, but would prefer heavy investment in renewables. It just makes sense long-term, and will only become more and more viable as energy storage technology progesses.
> 
> FTR I'm not against GM crops as long as there is sufficient regualtion (which there probably is, I have no idea, haven't really looked into it).


I agree renewables like bio fuels... No sorry kooky Greens are against renewables.

Cheers
Chris


----------



## Liam_snorkel (26/8/13)

TasChris said:


> I agree renewables like bio fuels... No sorry kooky Greens are against renewables.
> 
> Cheers
> Chris


yeah, those kooky greens.  



> Protection of prime agricultural land, water and infrastructure from urban expansion, mining, inappropriate biofuel crops and other competing uses and encroachments.
> Support for the development and use of biofuels which are derived from agricultural waste, or from biofuel crops grown to rehabilitate marginal and degraded land.


http://www.greens.org.au/policies/sustainable-agriculture


----------



## Dave70 (26/8/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Re GMO
> 
> Monsanto no longer have the patent rights to Glyphosate ( Roundup). What Monsanto are effectively trying to do is control the seed stock. Basically you have to buy the seed from them. They own any seed produced by that crop. You are not allowed to keep seed for sale or use for nect sessons crop.
> 
> GMO has the potential for great things, the problem is that that large entities want to own and control GMO for profit.



Large entities controlling shit for profit is pretty much the way of the world, nothing to see here. 

Thing is, the farmer feeding his family dirt in some third world shit hole because his wheat keeps dying due to not being able to fight off a preventable pest or disease couldn't give a shit for our legal or moral conundrums. 
He's starving _now_.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/8/13)

Dave70 said:


> Large entities controlling shit for profit is pretty much the way of the world, nothing to see here.
> 
> Thing is, the farmer feeding his family dirt in some third world shit hole because his wheat keeps dying due to not being able to fight off a preventable pest or disease couldn't give a shit for our legal or moral conundrums.
> He's starving _now_.


And the large entity dont give a shit about the starving farmer. They know that the farmer will prob save seed for himself because he is dirt poor. So do you think they will make their seed available....


----------



## Phoney (26/8/13)

stakka82 said:


> I'm a bit of a closet greenie but can't side with either their stance on nuclear power or their stance on GMOs.
> 
> Nuclear power is the best short term solution to climate change, simple as that. We don't have tectonic issues here, and we would be building state of the art modern reactors. In the mean while, steadily increase investment and incentives for the renewables (as we already do, to an extent).


As I pointed out before - where are you going to build them? NIMBY's will never have it.

Look at how much opposition the James price point gas hub generated (it recently got struck down in court), and that's on an unpopulated stretch of coast near Broome. For every person like you who might say "Hey I've got no problem living near one" there'll be another several dozens angry parents with prams who will kick up a very loud fuss.


----------



## hsb (26/8/13)

Bunbury is a perfect location.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/8/13)

"Harold, they are building something next door"

"Its OK Ethyl, I will do something about it......Hello Mr Laws my name is Harold and they are building something next door...."


----------



## stakka82 (26/8/13)

Yeah that's where you need strong political leadership, where it's done for the common good, regardless of it being popular or not. Also needs cooperation between both parties, a hint of partisan politics and the thing is dead in the water.

Alas, we have very weak leadership and partisan politics is rife.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (26/8/13)

phoneyhuh said:


> Look at how much opposition the James price point gas hub generated (it recently got struck down in court), and that's on an unpopulated stretch of coast near Broome. For every person like you who might say "Hey I've got no problem living near one" there'll be another several dozens angry parents with prams who will kick up a very loud fuss.


while you're absolutely right about NIMBY's & nuclear power plants, JPP isn't entirely relevant in this case. It was rejected due to a combination of things - environmental protection, extremely rare dinosaur tracks and their significance for palaeontology and something to do with their importance to the local aboriginal songlines. They're going to process the gas offshore now.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/8/13)

hsb said:


> Bunbury is a perfect location.


Gellong....aparently some car maker will have space avaiable


----------



## Phoney (26/8/13)

Liam_snorkel said:


> while you're absolutely right about NIMBY's & nuclear power plants, JPP isn't entirely relevant in this case. It was rejected due to a combination of things - environmental protection, extremely rare dinosaur tracks and their significance for palaeontology and something to do with their importance to the local aboriginal songlines. They're going to process the gas offshore now.


I know, I was using it as an extreme example. Whichever location you'll find for a nuke powerplant someone will find reasons to reject it. 

As for strong political leadership and bipartisan politics? Ha. No matter who is in power, if an opposition see's an opportunity to get mileage out of hitching their wagon to community anger, they'll jump on it. Populism over pragmatism is how they operate.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/8/13)

Maybe the NIMBY's can ring this guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fstxnZ2VCFw&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## nu_brew (26/8/13)

In Victoria you can't build a wind turbine within 2km of a residence, how far away will a nuke plant have to be?


----------



## treefiddy (26/8/13)

nu_brew said:


> In Victoria you can't build a wind turbine within 2km of a residence, how far away will a nuke plant have to be?


I guess that depends on how much life threatening, inaudible infrasound they create.

Edit: Probably a lot.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/8/13)

And the epileptic strobing from the shadows of the rotating arms


----------



## Liam_snorkel (26/8/13)

Chortle


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/8/13)

Stop that

You will upset the hairy eared yellow nose lesser foot Numroo


----------



## jlm (26/8/13)

I'm more concerned about the meatbeater's possum. Its been in the news a bit.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/8/13)

Would that be the silver meatbeater or large eared meatbeater


----------



## TasChris (27/8/13)

Liam_snorkel said:


> yeah, those kooky greens.
> 
> http://www.greens.org.au/policies/sustainable-agriculture


Hmmm the devil is in the detail..
The Greens have detailed that most things fall in the "inappropriate" category for bio fuels such as hardwood plantation residue, pine plantation residue, native forest residue, saw mill residue...the list goes on and on. 
The Greens are notorious for releasing broad policy statements that they are in favour of something then you read through the detail and they have put so many conditions/limitations in place that the end results is that they have basically closed the door.

Cheers
Chris


----------



## bum (27/8/13)

I want to get erected.


----------



## jyo (27/8/13)

bum said:


> I want to get erected.


Racist.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (27/8/13)

@ TasChris - fair enough assessment. They are restrictive in terms of environmental control but not "against" biofuels as your first post implied. Got a source for the residue comments? I'm honestly interested.
Cheers.


----------



## goomboogo (27/8/13)

bum said:


> I want to get erected.


As long as you have the appropriate permits.


----------



## bum (27/8/13)

When time permits?


----------



## TasChris (27/8/13)

Liam_snorkel said:


> @ TasChris - fair enough assessment. They are restrictive in terms of environmental control but not "against" biofuels as your first post implied. Got a source for the residue comments? I'm honestly interested.
> Cheers.


trying to find a link that I have read.

Below are two media reports.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-09/oakeshott-forest-plan-objections/3879546#site=ballarat

http://lee-rhiannon.greensmps.org.au/content/speeches-parliament/speech-senate-burning-native-forest-wood-waste-electricity-should-not-be

The opposing of renewable energy credits for native forests, plantations and mill waste effectively scuttled the idea. The Labor party, Wilkie, Windsor and the Greens all voted against REC's.

Cheers
Chris


----------



## mash head (27/8/13)

An interesting article where PEW admit it targeted Australia for marine parks but would not do the same to it own country because it would be bad for the economy. But YEAH there a ******* great idea here.
http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/pew-admits-it-targeted-australia-for-lockouts-left-us-alone

It is still unproven that marine protected areas within a well managed fishery have any benefit.


----------



## jlm (27/8/13)

Heard an interview with a QLD senate candidate from ORP on RN on the way home tonight. He did really well (I love Waleed Ali's passive aggressive interviewing style, I almost feel sorry for Shadow Defence minister who was on earlier) until:

1- Waleed asked why his party's president was also the DLP's president.......which sounds dodgy enough considering the ORPs preferences swinging that way........and old mate replying "I don't know, perhaps you could tell me Waleed?" or something similar.

2- Oldmate stating he'd never really been interested in politics until he was approached to run for the senate, and after 57 years he thought it was time (or something similar).

Also had a squizz at the ORPs website and checked out the policies, which are really just a bunch of statements, not policies as such. There's no depth there other than "We believe........."

Good luck any way Fish........Your mob won't be high up on my senate ticket but kudos for putting yourself out there for something you believe in.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (27/8/13)

Which is why we have the freedom to be able to run for a parliamentry seat regardless of who we are.

Anyone can run..and it doesnt get much better than thst


----------



## pk.sax (27/8/13)

I want to get elect-rocut-ed. for three weeks or so, anything I touch zaps me. I can't touch a filing cabinet or a car door without a zing. Touching someone else's laptop with an alloy case gave me a massive zing. Closing the car door is hell. Picking up copies from top of the filing cabinet is accompanied by apprehension. Seriously, I'm sick of it!


----------



## Camo6 (27/8/13)

Maybe you're due for a holiday, sounds like you're dragging your feet.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (28/8/13)

practicalfool said:


> I want to get elect-rocut-ed. for three weeks or so, anything I touch zaps me. I can't touch a filing cabinet or a car door without a zing. Touching someone else's laptop with an alloy case gave me a massive zing. Closing the car door is hell. Picking up copies from top of the filing cabinet is accompanied by apprehension. Seriously, I'm sick of it!


I want.to write a responce to this is in EBCDIC..

Because ASCII would never make sense


----------



## punkin (29/8/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> @Dave70. I have the same issues as motorcyclist. You will allways get one dickhead spoiling it for the majority. Every time I see a bike doing 400mph, pulling monoes or riding in thongs and shorts I feel like pulling them aside and pointing out that they are ******* it up for the rest of us. Unfortunatly it will never work as these type of citizens just DGAF.



How am i ******* anything up for you by riding to the shop in thongs and shorts?


----------



## punkin (29/8/13)

bum said:


> I want to get erected.



You can carry your own cross then.


----------



## Fish13 (29/8/13)

jlm said:


> Heard an interview with a QLD senate candidate from ORP on RN on the way home tonight. He did really well (I love Waleed Ali's passive aggressive interviewing style, I almost feel sorry for Shadow Defence minister who was on earlier) until:
> 
> 1- Waleed asked why his party's president was also the DLP's president.......which sounds dodgy enough considering the ORPs preferences swinging that way........and old mate replying "I don't know, perhaps you could tell me Waleed?" or something similar.
> 
> ...



That was roothy

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2013/08/rnd_20130827_1837.mp3

i haven't listened to yet but i will. Nightshift for me oh yeah!!

The policy as statements and the we believe thing must be looked at for the next election. Most of those posted on the sight are for the NSW state election...

10 days to go!


----------



## punkin (29/8/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Well sorry for labelling you a dickhead directly but I labellel any motorcyclist who rides in thong ( especially ) and shorts dickheads. I have known a few ridders who have come off becsause their thongs got caught up in brake/clutch levers.
> 
> And I dont do that shit you where carrying on about. Those fuckwits are another reason why the gov had a set against motorcyclist
> 
> Regardless of how bulletproof or great a ridder you think you are...it doesnt take much to come off and get seriously hurt.



Half arsed apology half arse accepted. There are many ways to come off a bike, having laces on your sportshoes tangled in brake/gear levers would usually result in you pulling in the clutch with your left hand and stopping the bike with your right hand. I've never had thongs tangled in them and fail to see how it could happen.

I do see if you have your thong tangled in your clutch lever how it could cause an accident though, considering the clutch is on the handlebars.

What i don't see is what difference it makes in a 50 zone coming off in shorts or long pants? Besides a little extra gravel rash.
Or for that matter workboots, joggers or whatever else someone might wear while riding a bike to work to thongs? Besides a little gravel rash or a broken/lost toe?

So you have that big sportsbike and have never put it through it's paces eh? May as well have bought a stepthrough then.

I call bullshit and hypocrite.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (29/8/13)

Yeah..you got me on the clutch bit....dooh..

Sure...I have put my bike thru its paces....but not in the manner your stated.

Yes laces are also an issue. Just because you havnt had your thong caught up doesnt mean it cant and wont happen.......well not on a stepthru..


----------



## Dave70 (29/8/13)

punkin said:


> So you have that big sportsbike and have never put it through it's paces eh?


True, tis sacrilege.. 

http://youtu.be/iqlxRLxUF4U


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (29/8/13)

I always though it wise not to discuss politics and religion, I have now added motor cycle riding to the list. 
Nev


----------



## punkin (29/8/13)

I just figure it wise not to judge others when it has no effect on me.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (29/8/13)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> I always though it wise not to discuss politics and religion, I have now added motor cycle riding to the list.
> Nev


And anything to do with yeast


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (29/8/13)

Yes or the yeast Nazi will get you.
Nev h34r:


----------



## mash head (29/8/13)

I think the issue Stu is more on about is public perception and stereotypes. You might be able to handle a bike like Mick Doohan but the caller who rings John laws to complain that they have just seen some irresponsible git on a motorbike in shorts and thongs doesn't know that.

Look back to the start of this thread. Your a fisherman??? every bad image of fisherman came out. Bloody environmental vandals who roar around in 4x4s throwing cans and shooting stuff.
Sure some dickheads do this but they are the minority and give others who care about their surroundings a bad name.
Same with the bike thing. The public already has a negative perception of MC riders they don't need their views encouraged unless you want a whole mess of PPE to become mandatory.
Public perception is a big thing and is why I am so pissed about marine parks. We don't NEED them but public perception says otherwise.
Views that have been hatched and nurtured for a long time by foreign interests.
Some sanctuary zones are actually a good idea but the whole shebang has been dictated via an overseas interest and local/regional concerns have been largely ignored so I am now against the whole lot.


----------



## Phoney (29/8/13)

I wonder what the Outdoor Recreation Party make of this?

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mine-subsidence-devastates-sugarloaf-conservation-area-20130828-2spuc.html

Must be the Greens fault. Being the destructors of the bush they are.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (29/8/13)

They could recreationally drive their fourbys up that cliff face.


----------



## Fish13 (30/8/13)

phoneyhuh said:


> I wonder what the Outdoor Recreation Party make of this?
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mine-subsidence-devastates-sugarloaf-conservation-area-20130828-2spuc.html
> 
> Must be the Greens fault. Being the destructors of the bush they are.


that would be the fellow/minister who signed off on allowing the mine to continue unchecked after the damage was reported. So the current government in power in NSW.


----------



## DJ_L3ThAL (3/9/13)

Kaiser Soze said:


> That's an oversimplified, one-sided argument. I don't think that you can say that the Greens are ignorant and uninformed if they raise alternative viewpoints like:
> 
> Nukes = uranium mining, radioactive waste, Chernobyl, Fukushima
> GMO = increased herbicide use, Monsanto, unproven health risks
> ...



Sorry but I find it hard to believe people can stand against Nuclear energy as the most viable INTERIM energy source to reduce global emissions whilst meeting increasing energy demand, allowing time for renewables to develop and eventually take over all energy sources for us to be self sufficient across the globe going forward.

_Before climate change "de-railers" step in, I'm talking reducing global emissions in a sense that how can it hurt? There will be jobs created and people in existing fossil fuel industries can jump on board renewables to progress their careers_.

Back to my point, weigh up all these Nuclear "disasters" with deaths that have occurred in the history of modern energy supply per energy unit created by that source and you get this:







So please don't tell me Nuclear is not viable. It is only being held back by some figment of the imagination based on movies/TV that nuclear meltdowns will threaten the globe and terrorists will obtain the uranium and make bombs (mind you, weapons grade and fuel grade uranium are practically two completely different things). For those wondering, the Coal deaths come from asthma and respiratory related diseases from coal fired plant particulate emissions.

Fukishima was a super old plant that should have probably been decommissioned, which was impacted by an extremely rare occurring natural disaster, tell me when earthquakes occur and bridges/buildings collapse, there is not a global push to stop building bridges and buildings now is there? It is all factored into engineering safety in design for what is within an acceptable risk versus the rarity of occurrence.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (3/9/13)

Great overview of australian politics

http://noblekraken.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/a-guide-to-australian-politics-and-parties-for-non-australians-and-also-australians-too/


----------



## benno1973 (3/9/13)

DJ_L3ThAL said:


> Sorry but I find it hard to believe people can stand against Nuclear energy as the most viable INTERIM energy source to reduce global emissions...


Firstly, my quote was in response to Dave's quote below, and I was just pointing out that there was a valid counter argument.



> Nukes = lots of clean power.
> GMO = lots of poor people fed.


Secondly, I've seen that graph you posted, and it's a beautiful way to distort statistics. The full article is here for anyone interested in reading it. The author attributes 1 death to the Fukushima accident. Admittedly, he wrote this only two days after the accident, but his data is based on actual deaths at the time of the accident, and not ongoing issues with radiation exposure. In the case of Fukushima, there was actually very little radiation exposure and the number of predicted deaths ranges from low to 25x the incidence of thyroid cancer. Regarding Chernobyl, the article only attributed 50 deaths, however it states:



> The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous.


I'm not saying nuclear isn't viable (as you stated). But I don't think that safety concerns are a figment of the imagination either. I also don't think your graph illustrates any environmental issues associated with uranium mining or disposal of nuclear waste. My point that I was trying to make is that there is a valid counter argument to yours, even if you can't see its merits.


----------



## booargy (3/9/13)

DJ_L3ThAL said:


> Sorry but I find it hard to believe people can stand against Nuclear energy as the most viable INTERIM energy source to reduce global emissions whilst meeting increasing energy demand, allowing time for renewables to develop and eventually take over all energy sources for us to be self sufficient across the globe going forward.
> 
> _Before climate change "de-railers" step in, I'm talking reducing global emissions in a sense that how can it hurt? There will be jobs created and people in existing fossil fuel industries can jump on board renewables to progress their careers_.
> 
> ...


If you think nuclear energy is so good go and live next to the reactors in Japan or Ukraine. If a coal fired power station goes arse up when the dust settles you get to work fixing it. Once that reactor is installed and started it is there for good and the ground will be good for nothing. forever.


----------



## DJ_L3ThAL (3/9/13)

Kaiser Soze said:


> Firstly, my quote was in response to Dave's quote below, and I was just pointing out that there was a valid counter argument.
> 
> Secondly, I've seen that graph you posted, and it's a beautiful way to distort statistics. The full article is here for anyone interested in reading it. The author attributes 1 death to the Fukushima accident. Admittedly, he wrote this only two days after the accident, but his data is based on actual deaths at the time of the accident, and not ongoing issues with radiation exposure. In the case of Fukushima, there was actually very little radiation exposure and the number of predicted deaths ranges from low to 25x the incidence of thyroid cancer. Regarding Chernobyl, the article only attributed 50 deaths, however it states:
> 
> ...


Of course anyone can say that there is a counter argument for something, that is a constant. In relation to Chernobyl, the ongoing health effects etc, sure they increase the numbers in the graph, but still nowhere near as many deaths as attributed to a far more polluting and less efficient energy source in coal/oil. This added to the fact that burning fossil fuels as a process has not covered as much grounds in terms of efficiency improvement, safety and control like nuclear has.

If you weigh up the effects of doing nothing and burning fossil fuels in terms of health/deaths attributed to the current particulates in atmosphere, climate change and the fact that we will run out at some point which has an even larger potential effect (wars, worsened poverty etc) versus having an interim fuel source which could assist the world getting to a self-sustained energy production case then I fail to see why anyone would be so avidly against the idea?

It is just to me, the people against Nuclear and even renewables arguing that it puts prices of energy and living up are so fixed in their current world and the way that they live, completely dismissing and not realising that it's about the future and the bigger picture for humanity. The people who are trying to implement Nuclear and renewables are driven by creating a better future rather than any short term gain for the present.

I can also definitely see the merits in worrying about uranium mining and nuclear waste, but these are not larger issues than we are facing if we continue doing what we are currently doing. I always recommend to friends and family in Victoria to go to the LaTrobe Valley to see the holes in the ground and get a feel for earth we have simply burned which has only fuelled one tiny state, put that up on a global scale and you get a pretty horrifying image. Sure, uranium mining will create holes, but far less and as I stated it's an interim source before new technologies will make even nuclear obsolete.




booargy said:


> If you think nuclear energy is so good go and live next to the reactors in Japan or Ukraine. If a coal fired power station goes arse up when the dust settles you get to work fixing it. Once that reactor is installed and started it is there for good and the ground will be good for nothing. forever.


You're basing this on the only two isolated nuclear disaster incidences known to man kind, with the assumption there have been no ill effects or disasters from fossil fuel exploration and exploitation, ill save you the effort googling and refer you to some examples at this link: http://io9.com/5526826/greatest-fossil-fuel-disasters-in-human-history

Also if a coal fired power station (typically steam turbines) "went up" as you say, a supercritical steam boiler has an insanely large explosive potential that would dessimate square kilometres, so good luck living next to one of those!

Finally I don't know where you have obtained your information that the ground would be ruined forever by having a nuclear power plant on it, can you please provide reference to one other than Fukishima or Chernobyl?


----------



## Dave70 (3/9/13)

booargy said:


> If you think nuclear energy is so good go and live next to the reactors in Japan or Ukraine. If a coal fired power station goes arse up when the dust settles you get to work fixing it. Once that reactor is installed and started it is there for good and the ground will be* good for nothing. forever*.


Hiroshima then.







Today. Better shape than many US citys.


----------



## DJ_L3ThAL (3/9/13)

Dave70 said:


> Hiroshima then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Awesome, thanks Dave!


----------



## bum (3/9/13)

**** me drunk.


----------



## benno1973 (3/9/13)

DJ_L3ThAL said:


> Of course anyone can say that there is a counter argument for something, that is a constant.


Read the full thread. The question was initially 'what policies make the Greens a bunch of loonies'. Their policy on nuclear energy was used as an example. Do you really believe that their counter argument makes them loonies? They're not suggesting we live on the moon, they are just voicing their opinion on nuclear energy, a view held by lots of other people around the world. I don't think this makes them loonies.



DJ_L3ThAL said:


> In relation to Chernobyl, the ongoing health effects etc, sure they increase the numbers in the graph...


My point is, it's distorted statistics. The number of people currently dead might be smaller, but lets think logically here - if you got cancer from Chernobyl and faced the prospect of a shortened life span, that's a death sentence. It's like saying that in the 70's, asbestos could have been considered safe because the number of actual deaths that had occurred was limited.



DJ_L3ThAL said:


> If you weigh up the effects of doing nothing and burning fossil fuels...


I don't think the Greens are advocating this. In fact, I don't think there are many people advocating this.



DJ_L3ThAL said:


> The people who are trying to implement Nuclear and renewables are driven by creating a better future rather than any short term gain for the present.


Ah, I see, nuclear philanthropists?



DJ_L3ThAL said:


> I can also definitely see the merits in worrying about uranium mining and nuclear waste...


Rightio, that was my original point.


----------



## benno1973 (3/9/13)

bum said:


> **** me drunk.


That's the only way I'd do it...


----------



## bum (3/9/13)

So I've still got a shot then?

So to speak.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (3/9/13)

Kaiser Soze said:


> That's the only way I'd do it...


Its the only way it could be done


----------



## bum (3/9/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Its the only way it could be done


Not true. Rohypnol is also effective.

At least the police told me it was rohypnol. I can't remember a thing.


----------



## benno1973 (3/9/13)

I swear it was ketamine I used, but maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (3/9/13)

Amyl Nitrite 

"Known for its relaxation of involuntary muscles, especially the sphincter muscle."


----------



## booargy (3/9/13)

I



Dave70 said:


> Hiroshima then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah yeah yeah I would like to see a power station in a B52. Go live in Chernobyl then.


----------



## Dave70 (3/9/13)

booargy said:


> I
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah yeah I would like to see a power station in a B52. Go live in Chernobyl then.


Now, now, lets not get out dreadlocks in a tangle.

I suspect powering your computer by way of a stationary bicycle spinning a generator must be a hell of a job.


----------



## booargy (3/9/13)

Actually coal that I feed into the boiler. Funny when you burn it and run the smoke through a filter you don't get that yellowish white smoke that comes out of my forge.


----------



## manticle (3/9/13)

Dave70 said:


> Now, now, lets not get out dreadlocks in a tangle. I suspect powering your computer by way of a stationary bicycle spinning a generator must be a hell of a job.


Obviously the only two alternatives must be uranium or hippies.

Hyperbole is cool.


----------



## bum (3/9/13)

It's the coolest.


----------



## pk.sax (3/9/13)

Sarah Palin would've been preferable.

Stupid vs Repulsive...


----------



## Camo6 (3/9/13)

Dave70 said:


> Hiroshima then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I call BS. If that's Hiroshima how come the rivers running in a different direction?


----------



## bum (3/9/13)

Someone dropped a bomb on it?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (3/9/13)

Its photoshoped


----------



## WarmBeer (3/9/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Its photobombed


FTFY


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (3/9/13)

Slow NBN = vote Libs.
My only point to judge by, the rest is just lies shared by both Libs and ALP.
Nev


----------



## bum (3/9/13)

WarmBeer said:


> FTFY


----------



## Camo6 (3/9/13)

ROFLMAO! You win. Microsoft Paint sux ass.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (3/9/13)

WarmBeer said:


> FTFY


DBFMS


----------



## DJ_L3ThAL (3/9/13)

Camo6 said:


> I call BS. If that's Hiroshima how come the rivers running in a different direction?



they took the photo from a different direction?!


----------



## Camo6 (4/9/13)

Whichever the case, they certainly took it from way over head.


----------



## DJ_L3ThAL (4/9/13)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Slow NBN = vote Libs.
> My only point to judge by, the rest is just lies shared by both Libs and ALP.
> Nev


Yep this is the same thing I worked off, as well as in Melbourne that Labor will support the melbourne metro train project, not the toll road east-west link. It's not hard to work out which is more beneficial to the local economy!


----------



## Dave70 (4/9/13)

manticle said:


> Obviously the only two alternatives must be uranium or hippies.
> 
> Hyperbole is cool.


Or Rastafarian.


Hang on, hyper - bowl?


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (4/9/13)

Dave70 said:


> Hiroshima then.


You would have to wonder about people who would do this to other people, yes ?
Nev


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (4/9/13)

Just remember how wonderfully the japanese treated their POW's.

Two wrongs dont make a right...but something had to be done to stop them


----------



## bum (4/9/13)

Lucky they all lived in the same place then, huh?


----------



## Dave70 (4/9/13)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> You would have to wonder about people who would do this to other people, yes ?
> Nev


War is hell. But lets not get to finger pointy.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (4/9/13)

Not pointing fingers, just wonder how they could conceive a plan so evil and go through with it.
It really did change the way people thought about what war was, enter weapons of mass destruction.
Can wait to see what we come up with next ??
Nev


----------



## bum (4/9/13)

Once again, most of you guys make me feel ashamed that circumstances make you my peers.


----------



## Dave70 (4/9/13)

bum said:


> Once again, most of you guys make me feel ashamed that circumstances make you my peers.


Forums are hell.


----------



## Dave70 (4/9/13)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Not pointing fingers, just wonder how they could conceive a plan so evil and go through with it.
> It really did change the way people thought about what war was, enter weapons of mass destruction.
> Can wait to see what we come up with next ??
> Nev


The US used a couple of holidaying German scientists to help out with the Manhattan project didn't they?

Well there's you answer right there.


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (4/9/13)

3:freedom isn't free. 
It costs 10-15k Us$ *plp for these third world countries that can afford that aren't being prosecuted they are under an economic need to change countries. As Aussies we don't have a moral need to take anyone that's global nonsense.


*People From these third world countries.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (4/9/13)

huh?


----------



## Dave70 (4/9/13)

Scooby Tha Newbie said:


> 3:freedom isn't free.
> It costs 10-15k Us$ plp for these third world countries that can afford that aren't being prosecuted they are under an economic need to change countries. As Aussies we don't have a moral need to take anyone that's global nonsense.


You must be one of the 'peers' Bum was talking about.





..or possibly Ducati Stu and myself..


----------



## manticle (4/9/13)

Money better spent on literacy in schools you reckon, Scoob?


----------



## Batz (4/9/13)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Not pointing fingers, just wonder how they could conceive a plan so evil and go through with it.
> It really did change the way people thought about what war was, enter weapons of mass destruction.
> Can wait to see what we come up with next ??
> Nev


+1

If only the money that has been spent and continues to be spent on weaponry, where instead used for the betterment of man. I believe the world would be a whole lot nicer place. Unfortunately all too late now.

Batz


----------



## Bridges (4/9/13)

I often think that it'd be great if there was a proper free education system that included university and tafe for everyone. Thinking that if everyone was a bit smarter, would the world be a better place? But you know I'm not sure it would, some people would still choose not to be educated and make bad decisions that impact on others as they do now. Over to a man smarterer than I.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

-Albert Einstein


----------



## QldKev (4/9/13)

Bridges said:


> I often think that it'd be great if there was a proper free education system that included university and tafe for everyone. Thinking that if everyone was a bit smarter, would the world be a better place? But you know I'm not sure it would, some people would still choose not to be educated and make bad decisions that impact on others as they do now. Over to a man smarterer than I.
> 
> "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
> 
> -Albert Einstein


What happened in the early 70's and free uni studies?


----------



## Liam_snorkel (4/9/13)

it was unsustainable, universities cost a bomb to run.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (4/9/13)

So you are saying that good education should only be available to those that afford it


----------



## bum (4/9/13)

No, I think he's saying unis like to exist.

But his point is kinda bullshitty. Governments have more than enough money to cover the education sector. They just prefer other things because the community gives zero fucks about education.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (4/9/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> So you are saying that good education should only be available to those that afford it


 huh, what's to afford? HECS-HELP? Sure you end up with a fuckoff debt at the end of it, but who thinks about that. I didn't, and I've just finished paying off two unfinished degrees from over a decade ago. Now I'm studying part time (while working full time) and paying for it up front, almost as a self imposed incentive to bloody finish this time. I can only speak for myself but if it were "free" I'd take it for granted and be a uni bum for life.


----------



## treefiddy (4/9/13)

As a current postgrad, I have no problem with the current hecs/help system. You don't need money upfront, and you don't need to pay back your subsidised loan until you're making 50K plus.

It would be nice if they kept the reduced fees for national priority bands though. PhD's would also be more obtainable to people of all socioeconomic backgrounds if they were recognised by centrelink also I guess.

Edit: awkward spelling mistake


----------



## bum (4/9/13)

Having been a slave to HECS in the mid 90s and whatever it is called today I have a problem with how it is now.

It's kinda shitty and rip-offy now.

My missus studied in the States and my degree will cost about the same as hers.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (4/9/13)

Yeah it isn't cheap, that's for sure.


----------



## sah (4/9/13)

just like the big guys.

Where are the small brewery policies?

I want social policy that is both GU and GU:BU based - less tax the further from the median.


----------



## bum (8/9/13)

So what's your feeling about the whole thing now, Fish? Obviously, your stated aim was not to win a seat so not having "won" isn't really worth going into. Do you think you achieved what you set out to do? Would you do it again?


----------



## Fish13 (8/9/13)

well if you have money and a team behind then **** yeah you are going to make alot of noise. When you are working 45 hours and raising four kids and no spare usuable money plus being on the other side of the state its harder. the internet is the way to go. if you use it wisely and promote yourself well people will listen. Look at clive palmer threw a huge pile and got elected. has a few seats in the senate too.

I had some of my poster vandalise because they didn't like the "vote 1 Stop the Greens". So i pissed someone off.

The minor parties need to get there shit together and peference accordingly without infighting. The S+F party had STG in there sights due to David LEyenhjolm being the treasurer. He is an LDP candidate in NSW.

I took so far 0.16% of the votes and yeah i got people to vote below the line and make there vote count and mean something. But that 0.16% that saved taxpayers money from going to those who don't need it. Will see how many votes i actually got and

Will i try again? maybe? do things differently yeap. get the policies to be explained better then a 5 word statement and a youtube video. Definitely promote myself better and not resort to dirty stuff.

Worse thing was the fishing mags all have the main fishing group in there pockets and ears.


To top it all off from all the websites i got involved with AHB.com provide the most discussion and why do this and why do that. Most of them where about a dozen replies no challenge or questions. SO fisherman are very frustrating.

Atm only 125 000 votes in W.A. have been counted so no idea on how many i have taken from the majors, the major minor parties and got for the ORP.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (8/9/13)

I may disagree with the premise of the party but good on you for having a crack. Pinching some of the primary vote off the big two and encouraging your supporters to vote below the line can only be a good thing.


----------



## jyo (8/9/13)

Good on you for having a crack at it, fish. That would take balls to put yourself and your beliefs out there for public scrutiny.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/9/13)

AHB ..The cruelest parliament of all


----------



## Braumoasta (8/9/13)

fish13 said:


> I had some of my poster vandalise because they didn't like the "vote 1 Stop the Greens". So i pissed someone off.


"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life" - Winston Churchill


----------



## Fish13 (8/9/13)

yeap and i am glad. but better preparation is needed.


----------

