I want to get elected!

[YoungOne]

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 ***** 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 *******. 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]

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

 

[YoungOne]

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 *******. 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

Last week we achieved a major victory in NSW, and that’s worth celebrating.

The O’Farrell government has been embarrassed into abolishing the pro-gun pro-hunting Game Council NSW, suspending amateur hunting in state forests, and ending the idea of unrestricted amateur hunting in National Parks.

Congratulations!

Game-Council-DecisionThis decision follows a decade-long campaign by the Greens, by animal welfare and environment groups, and by thousands of dedicated campaigners like you.

The Dunn Report into the governance of the Game Council NSW supported what we’ve been saying for years – the Game Council was basically a PR machine for hunters and shooters, and was failing in its obligations as a publicly funded body to be transparent, accountable and effective.

Unfortunately, the government has also announced trials of supervised volunteer shooters in twelve national parks, operating under the close instruction of NPWS rangers.

Thankfully though, these shooters will have to demonstrate exactly the same level of skill and training that NPWS Rangers have, and will only operate as part of targeted and evidence-based pest control programs.

Unlike what the Game Council and Shooters Party wanted, there will be no unsupervised hunting, no children allowed to hunt, and no hunting with bows, knives or dogs.

This announcement is a set-back for the pro-gun and pro-hunting lobby in NSW and a step towards best practice pest-management.

This is a significant outcome. But there are still opportunities for the gun lobby to reopen National Parks and state forests to unsupervised recreational hunters.

We will be maintaining pressure on the government to completely ban hunting on public land in NSW, and redirect the $20 million budget of the Game Council to professional pest control programs and further research into humane pest-control.

We’ll be in touch again soon, but in the meantime, please share this image with your friends to build the campaign to completely close the door on recreational hunting and shooting in our parks and forests.

Warm regards,

David Shoebridge & Mehreen Faruqi
Greens NSW MPs

 

[jlm]

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]

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 Australia - 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?

I'm not trying to set up a dichotomy, false or otherwise, I'm merely making the point that people in a ****** 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]

I'm not trying to set up a dichotomy, false or otherwise, I'm merely making the point that people in a ****** 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.

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]

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

 

[spudfarmerboy]

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]

You're clearly jealous of my messageboard success.

 

[Crusty]

I'm totally sick of all the Politic ********. 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 **** heads can get rooted too. Shove your over Governed rules up ya coita. Free country my arse.

 

[OzPaleAle]

+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]

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

 

[OzPaleAle]

Touche
You might be onto something there.

 

[bum]

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]

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 *******s!

Edited: spelling

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

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.