Aloysius Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 Greetings fellow forum members of all persuasions - looks as though it's been s s s - slow news week from my brief perusal of the threads Ok - how about this observation raised on a Radio National program during the week - Mr Rudd is slowly but surely moving the ALP into the 21st century - someone had to do it - and good on him. Trouble is, this progressive trend moves the opposition steadily closer toward the present coalition government policies. On present trends the the only difference to the two possible winners of the next election will in fact be the leaders of the respective parties. But don't worry Mr Rudd appears to be covering that difference too - - Don't dare tell me you haven't noticed the way he is cultivating his eyebrows to look more like JWH and other famous Prime ministers Now, Mello, where did your thread for miscellaneous headline comment go - is it all forgotten or was it given the elbow? WAKE UP GUYS - your lives are ticking by!!
Skid_MacMarx Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 how about this observation raised on a Radio National program during the week - It wasn't counterpoint was it Gerard Henderson: In fact, the ABC is less balanced now than when the Howard Government came to office in March 1996. The ABC has found no conservative presenters – after an apparent ten year search. Sure, on 3 May 2004, the ABC proudly announced that Michael Duffy would present a program titled Counterpoint on Radio National. The implication was that Mr Duffy, on his own, would provide a counterpoint to the prevailing view on the entire network. But has he?Well, if you happen to be able to listen to Radio National between 4 pm and 5 pm on Monday you will note that Mr Duffy is no “right-wing Phillip Adams”. Nor is he a dedicated follower of the Prime Minister. Take a couple of issues, for example. Michael Duffy gives the impression that he disapproves of private education and favours the government system. In this sense, he sounds more like Mr Adams than Mr Howard. Also it is just two years since, in his biography of Mark Latham, Mr Duffy depicted the erratic former Labor leader as one of the finest politicians of his generation. Really. In any event, Mr Duffy does not consider himself a conservative. When his Counterpoint gig was announced, Michael Duffy told The Australian (6 May 2004) “I’m really a small-l liberal. I’m not such a conservative. I’m not a Christian, for example.” There have been no such other “counterpoint” appointments of presenters within the pubic broadcaster – in radio or televisio http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/ghseC...nt.php?ghseID=7 Trouble is, this progressive trend moves the opposition steadily closer toward the present coalition government policies. I would argue against that assertion (are you sure you weren't listening to 2GB ) .. Labor's policies regarding industrial relations, the environment (greater focus on developing sustainable techniques), human and civil rights are very different.. the only thing I would agree with is that Crud's policies are more "progressive" .... WAKE UP GUYS - your lives are ticking by!! how is the ticker Aloysius? BTW if you cane toads want our water you better start opening that big phat "resource boom" wallet of yours
Aloysius Posted April 14, 2007 Author Posted April 14, 2007 It wasn't counterpoint was it Gerard Henderson: http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/ghseC...nt.php?ghseID=7 I would argue against that assertion (are you sure you weren't listening to 2GB ) .. Labor's policies regarding industrial relations, the environment (greater focus on developing sustainable techniques), human and civil rights are very different.. the only thing I would agree with is that Crud's policies are more "progressive" .... how is the ticker Aloysius? BTW if you cane toads want our water you better start opening that big phat "resource boom" wallet of yours Yo Skid! I confess we are unable to receive the fabled 2GB in our rural backwater - Aah well! Sometimes deprivation can be eventually seen as merciful Ticker good - spent a whole week reading books - going for extended walks with the CEO and dear Miss Allie the stafford along enormous beaches with almost no other humanoid to be seen - magic Now I would have expected a lovely person like yourself would have been more than happy to share the bounteous providence - waterwise - that you Cockies enjoy, with your less blessed SE Queenslander brothers! Don't disappoint me here - and guess what - they need it so badly the price that you highly commercially astute cockies could extort would be the equivalent of any other "resource boom"
mello yello Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 Good to hear you made it back safely Aloy..never doubted it for a minute...canetoads do have an uncanny knack for survival OK enough plesantries...lets tear you a new butthole..... welcome back Greetings fellow forum members of all persuasions - Whats that supposed to mean? - looks as though it's been s s s - slow news week from my brief perusal of the threads No Al plenty of news ...just that I think everyone is sick of talking about the news BTW..Liberal Party E-leaflets like the ones you "post" arent considered news anymore ole son Mr Rudd is slowly but surely moving the ALP into the 21st century - ....and Johnny and the Libbies insist on sending us back .... Anger over PM's call to ban HIV-positive migrants Now, Mello, where did your thread for miscellaneous headline comment go - is it all forgotten or was it given the elbow? Its still here Aloy.......Ill clear the cobwebs and dust it off a little for you ok? hint hint WAKE UP GUYS - your lives are ticking by!! That would be Austens Hanimex....should go off in about 4 hours shhhhh
Aloysius Posted April 14, 2007 Author Posted April 14, 2007 Good to hear you made it back safely Aloy..never doubted it for a minute...canetoads do have an uncanny knack for survival OK enough plesantries...lets tear you a new butthole..... welcome back Whats that supposed to mean? No Al plenty of news ...just that I think everyone is sick of talking about the news BTW..Liberal Party E-leaflets like the ones you "post" arent considered news anymore ole son ....and Johnny and the Libbies insist on sending us back .... Anger over PM's call to ban HIV-positive migrants Its still here Aloy.......Ill clear the cobwebs and dust it off a little for you ok? hint hint That would be Austens Hanimex....should go off in about 4 hours shhhhh 'Day Mello good to see you are alive and kicking - I truly like that - take it as it's said - no clever bullshit at all! I will give you credit for having your own opinion - even if you don't think I can have mine
Santa1503559644 Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 Greetings fellow forum members of all persuasions - looks as though it's been s s s - slow news week from my brief perusal of the threads You were away? Ok - how about this observation raised on a Radio National program during the week - Mr Rudd is slowly but surely moving the ALP into the 21st century - someone had to do it - and good on him. Trouble is, this progressive trend moves the opposition steadily closer toward the present coalition government policies. On present trends the the only difference to the two possible winners of the next election will in fact be the leaders of the respective parties. But don't worry Mr Rudd appears to be covering that difference too - - Don't dare tell me you haven't noticed the way he is cultivating his eyebrows to look more like JWH and other famous Prime ministers Now, Mello, where did your thread for miscellaneous headline comment go - is it all forgotten or was it given the elbow? WAKE UP GUYS - your lives are ticking by!! You could (and many have) argue that both have drifted together somewhat. Its common worldwide. The problem of the Howard period was that he & his ilk moved the party's position on some issues toward the destructive neo-conservatism, away from a central common ground (and the common good). The Coalition has enjoyed sunshine thanks in part to some of the non-Labor-like decisions of the previous Labor administration. As I guess you'd agree, its by no means automatically troubling when parties converge.
Santa1503559644 Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 How did that Classic Howard lemon wedge (the HIV ban - on all ten people who fit the bill) go down with the commerical media? Did they bite, and run with it? How about the shock jocks?
Austen Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 I can see some logic to banning HIV positive people from migrating to Australia. As I understand it, we already look critically at tuberculosis and other health factors, but as a cost basis as opposed to a (health) discrimination basis. "Victorian Refugee Action Collective spokesman Tim Peterson said Australia had an obligation to shelter asylum seekers regardless of their HIV status." (Source here) . Migrants should not be confused with refugees .......... If someone wants to migrate to Australia to become a burden on Australian taxpayers, I consider that different from a (genuine) refugee who is escaping persecution in their land. Too many people (on both sides of the political spectrum) too often mischievously deliberately muddy the waters by not discriminating between migrants (who we have the right to pick and choose) and refugees (who we have a moral obligation to help). Austen.
Santa1503559644 Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 I can see some logic to banning HIV positive people from migrating to Australia.As I understand it, we already look critically at tuberculosis and other health factors, but as a cost basis as opposed to a (health) discrimination basis. "Victorian Refugee Action Collective spokesman Tim Peterson said Australia had an obligation to shelter asylum seekers regardless of their HIV status." (Source here) . Migrants should not be confused with refugees .......... If someone wants to migrate to Australia to become a burden on Australian taxpayers, I consider that different from a (genuine) refugee who is escaping persecution in their land. Too many people (on both sides of the political spectrum) too often mischievously deliberately muddy the waters by not discriminating between migrants (who we have the right to pick and choose) and refugees (who we have a moral obligation to help). Austen. There may be some "logic" - but coming (at this time) from Johnny, its certainly one of many lemon wedges and grenades to come. There is a whole class of "medical migrants", btw, that the media generally stays pretty quiet about, coming in by the thousands, these days. However, I certainly agree with your completely non-Howardian understanding of the differences between refugees and migrants.
Aloysius Posted April 15, 2007 Author Posted April 15, 2007 You could (and many have) argue that both have drifted together somewhat. Its common worldwide.The problem of the Howard period was that he & his ilk moved the party's position on some issues toward the destructive neo-conservatism, away from a central common ground (and the common good). The Coalition has enjoyed sunshine thanks in part to some of the non-Labor-like decisions of the previous Labor administration. As I guess you'd agree, its by no means automatically troubling when parties converge. Yes I do agree - looking from a fairly party-apolitical standpoint I guess it really means that both sides are moving to where they think the votes are - this is democracy in action I would think. Think "The Babushka doll" As I have said in the past, large swings in policy from one election to another are destabilising and even worse, they give rise, eventually, to large reverse swings. Similar policies would appear to indicate minimal swings in event of a change of government. I recognise that this is a conservative view - not a left or right view - just a conservative view. Many small changes made over time seem to have longer lasting benefits than the "Crash through or crash" style adopted by some. The centre is not automatically where one is observing from That the coalition has reaped some benefit from some previous ALP government decisions is obvious and unarguable - we all have. Similarly, some of the decisions made by the Coalition government have benefited us all - unarguable also.
Skid_MacMarx Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 hope you're partaking of the merlot tonight not the muscat .....spent a whole week reading books [listening to RN]- going for extended walks ...... sounds like my type of summer vacation I have penciled in 3 weeks on the calendar this year Now I would have expected a lovely person like yourself would have been more than happy to share the bounteous providence - waterwise - that you Cockies enjoy, with your less blessed SE Queenslander brothers! Don't disappoint me here - and guess what - they need it so badly the price that you highly commercially astute cockies could extort would be the equivalent of any other "resource boom" its a capitalist society Aloysius and all of the cost of infrastructure must be taken into account.. More importantly, it appears you are "spreading" enviornmental problems south as these types of the developments would have environmental effects. Furthermore, I already pay a premium for my water down here.... can't see why you cane toads expect it for free. But true the air we breath and the water we drink should be free ideally.
Aloysius Posted April 15, 2007 Author Posted April 15, 2007 hope you're partaking of the merlot tonight not the muscat sounds like my type of summer vacation I have penciled in 3 weeks on the calendar this year its a capitalist society Aloysius and all of the cost of infrastructure must be taken into account.. More importantly, it appears you are "spreading" enviornmental problems south as these types of the developments would have environmental effects. Furthermore, I already pay a premium for my water down here.... can't see why you cane toads expect it for free. But true the air we breath and the water we drink should be free ideally. Aah but think of it this way Skid: If someone spends money to build a pipeline from the Clarence to SE Queensland then two things at least can happen: Water can flow along the pipe line Water can go in both directions How can it hurt a northern NSW person to send some water to the ocean via SE Queensland? How can it hurt a Northern NSW person to have the capability of water arriving in NSW from Queensland - if the needs arose?
Skid_MacMarx Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 Aah but think of it this way Skid:If someone spends money to build a pipeline from the Clarence to SE Queensland then two things at least can happen: Water can flow along the pipe line Water can go in both directions How can it hurt a northern NSW person to send some water to the ocean via SE Queensland? How can it hurt a Northern NSW person to have the capability of water arriving in NSW from Queensland - if the needs arose? I think its more than a simple pipeline Al: The report by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation said building a 250,000 megalitre dam on the Clarence River upstream from Duck Creek would be "the best value for money". The dam and pipeline would divert 15 per cent of the Clarence's flow and would cost an estimated $1.5 billion to build. It would deliver 100,000 kilolitres a year, more than 80 per cent of which would be pumped into Queensland.NSW farmers are angry their water could be sent interstate. "Why don't they build their own dams up in Queensland," asked Lance Hooton, whose 1600-hectare cattle property straddles Duck Creek. "We're not going to benefit from it." The NSW Premier, Morris Iemma, said the State Government did not support the proposal. "There's a thriving fishing, prawning and boating industry in northern NSW," he said. "[Mr Howard] might have to explain to the tens of thousands of jobs and communities up there … where their water is going to come from, if he's going to divert it." http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/farmer...5971265518.html
Aloysius Posted April 15, 2007 Author Posted April 15, 2007 I think its more than a simple pipeline Al:[/b] http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/farmer...5971265518.html Yeah - well there is a dam at the other end that they can pump to already - So you valve the pipes to allow pump stations to pump in either direction as required. Iranians and Romans and etc were all doing the advanced and extended water reticulation schemes a long time ago - it's not rocket science - and we have far more technological advantage than those folks had. Only difference now appears to be parochial interests with stronger media presence. Do you think it might help you to like us more and say - "Yes, fellow Ozzies - you can use some of the water we don't need" if we let you win the SOO?
Skid_MacMarx Posted April 16, 2007 Posted April 16, 2007 Yeah - well there is a dam at the other end that they can pump to already - So you valve the pipes to allow pump stations to pump in either direction as required.Iranians and Romans and etc were all doing the advanced and extended water reticulation schemes a long time ago - it's not rocket science - and we have far more technological advantage than those folks had. Only difference now appears to be parochial interests with stronger media presence. Do you think it might help you to like us more and say - "Yes, fellow Ozzies - you can use some of the water we don't need" if we let you win the SOO? I actually I have a number of Queensland friends and will be visiting next month on business. Even if you and Johnnie think its "commonsense" Water piping plan 'commonsense'Prime Minister John Howard insists a plan by federal Water Minister Malcolm Turnbull to pipe water from New South Wales to Queensland is a commonsense solution to the water crisis gripping south-east Queensland. Mr Turnbull last week released a report that looks at options like damming the Clarence and Tweed rivers and piping water across the border, but the scheme has been questioned by the New South Wales and Queensland governments. Mr Howard has told Southern Cross radio both states should get on board. "It passes the commonsense pub test - provided all the mathematics and everything stack up," he said. "But I take a very nationalist view on things like water - I regard them as assets for the whole nation. "I don't think they're the assets of Queensland or the assets of New South Wales." http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1898129.htm it sounds like a plan drawn up after consuming a few beers or muscats Even if we over look the environmental concerns of such a plan, it appears you and Howard are ignoring state rights and attempting to dilute them From the news report above even your own state giovernment is questioning the proposal/ I feel you cane toads should be doing more to "conserve" your water .. water tanks etc.. Don't bring your problems across the border Al.. we have noticed how fast you cane toads populate (worse than rabbits).. a bit of birth control in the water supply would put a stop to it
Aloysius Posted April 16, 2007 Author Posted April 16, 2007 I actually I have a number of Queensland friends and will be visiting next month on business.Even if you and Johnnie think its "commonsense" http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1898129.htm it sounds like a plan drawn up after consuming a few beers or muscats Even if we over look the environmental concerns of such a plan, it appears you and Howard are ignoring state rights and attempting to dilute them From the news report above even your own state giovernment is questioning the proposal/ I feel you cane toads should be doing more to "conserve" your water .. water tanks etc.. Don't bring your problems across the border Al.. we have noticed how fast you cane toads populate (worse than rabbits).. a bit of birth control in the water supply would put a stop to it Wouldn't want you lovely folks to have any more problems than you already have States rights? It's not an issue of rights at all, it's an issue of good and responsible use of resources! Why demand "the rain falls here so we should decide to let it be wasted or not?" Do you think it would make sense to say "Sorry Skid you can't come to Queensland and drive on our roads and by the way - bring your own water?"
Skid_MacMarx Posted April 16, 2007 Posted April 16, 2007 Wouldn't want you lovely folks to have any more problems than you already have States rights? It's not an issue of rights at all, it's an issue of good and responsible use of resources! Why demand "the rain falls here so we should decide to let it be wasted or not?" Do you think it would make sense to say "Sorry Skid you can't come to Queensland and drive on our roads and by the way - bring your own water?" maybe something Queenslanders should heed before expecting others to part with their resources... (the trouble is these local government allow developers to build acres of MacMansion estates and don't factor into the price of supplying essential services such as water and then expect others to pick up the tab before building these estates they should factor in the amount of water usage and ensure there is sufficient supply before giving the go ahead..) hey land and houses up in Queensland are cheap...mmmm wonder why but seriously, considering this venture would benefit SE Queenslanders much more than us folk.. you would have to cough up the money for the infrastructure costs.. why do you expect us to lay it on for you? What happen to that dam which was suppose to be built over your side of the border.. wasn't that knocked on the head for environmental reasons.. If the project was to be seriously considered by both the Queensland and NSW governments, shouldn't the environmental consequences of such a development also be considered on this side of the border. Do you think it would make sense to say "Sorry Skid you can't come to Queensland and drive on our roads and by the way - bring your own water?" i'll be flying up & back... and buying the bottled variety.
Aloysius Posted April 16, 2007 Author Posted April 16, 2007 maybe something Queenslanders should heed before expecting others to part with their resources...(the trouble is these local government allow developers to build acres of MacMansion estates and don't factor into the price of supplying essential services such as water and then expect others to pick up the tab before building these estates they should factor in the amount of water usage and ensure there is sufficient supply before giving the go ahead..) hey land and houses up in Queensland are cheap...mmmm wonder why but seriously, considering this venture would benefit SE Queenslanders much more than us folk.. you would have to cough up the money for the infrastructure costs.. why do you expect us to lay it on for you? What happen to that dam which was suppose to be built over your side of the border.. wasn't that knocked on the head for environmental reasons.. If the project was to be seriously considered by both the Queensland and NSW governments, shouldn't the environmental consequences of such a development also be considered on this side of the border. i'll be flying up & back... and buying the bottled variety. 1 - It would be quite unreasonable for NSW to pay the bill to supply water to Q - obviously 2. Different dam 3. Totally agree that serious consideration should be give by all parties - at present I'm just seeing out of hand rejection of what appears to be a very good idea. 4. Don't fall sick and put a strain on our sad hospital system - you never know what kind of a Dr you might get But seriously Skid - you have a great trip to Queensland - I presume you mean real Queensland - not the just SE corner where those half and half Cockroaches live - they're mostly from states further south anyway
Skid_MacMarx Posted April 16, 2007 Posted April 16, 2007 Pink floyd's Richard Wright Holiday Lyrics It was meant to be a holiday Building castles by the sea Another way to live for you and me Time to pause, consider what we've done The wind is blowing, so come, Let's take a holiday How was I to know quite so soon That dreams can turn a life, Around it seems There is no single way to live our days Between these lines I know you see a man Who's not quite sure who he is Or where he stands Sail on Sail on, across the sea Ride the waves, feel the breeze Sail on There's no other way I'd rather be Destiny, reality are just a dream Raise the sails, the wind is free Every day I become more confused Which way to go, how to choose Back at home, what holds me here Shut in not moving, only half a life Clouds hang heavy, they leave me cold It doesn't have to be this way The wind is blowing, so come, Let's take a holiday Sail on Sail on, across the sea Ride the waves, feel the breeze Sail on There's no other way I'd rather be Sail on Sail on, across the sea Ride the waves, feel the breeze Sail on There's no other way I'd rather be Sail on Sail on Sail on Sail on There's no other way I'd rather be Sail on Sail on you can listen to the track here: http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=1225
Aloysius Posted April 16, 2007 Author Posted April 16, 2007 Artist: Bob Seger Song: In your time Album: Greatest Hits [" Greatest Hits " CD] Words and Music by Bob Seger In your time The innocence will fall away In your time The mission bells will toll All along The corridors and river beds There'll be sign In your time Towering waves Will crash across your southern capes Massive storms Will reach your eastern shores Fields of green Will tumble through your summer days By design In your time Feel the wind And set yourself the bolder course Keep your heart As open as a shrine You'll sail the perfect line And after all The dead ends and the lessons learned After all The stars have turned to stone There'll be peace Across the great unbroken void All benign In your time You'll be fine In your time Lyrics > B > Bob Seger Lyrics > In your time Song Lyrics
Recommended Posts