Guest ozzie Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 Riverduk. keep us informed of electric conversion from electraflyer. way to go!! I have been wanting to convert the Lazair but all the accessable motors ect are either to small or to big at this time. The govt offer incentives but as you say to make it worthwhile you have to go big and then slug you with tax for the income. better to put a few panels up some batteries in and convert some of the lower wattage stuff to low volt like lights ect. with the high intensity LED ect. you can chop a fair bit off your bill and satisfy your want for the environment. ozzie
riverduk Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 thanks Ozzie, keep watching that web site, looks good, for me just need to get Airborne on side as well as the cash but the concept at this stage is great, perhaps a new forum? why not, cheers, Da Duk:laugh:
facthunter Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 Use of Essendon. If each of the policy forming people had used the Aerial Ambulance they might be of a different view. Essendon airport has been there much longer than most of the houses and pretty much ALL of the people around there. Modern aircraft are much quieter than the older ones. I actually agree with most of the greens policies. I watched Bob Brown address the National Press Club yesterday. My only corcern is how a lot of that gets implemented. They don't have a record of being very pragmatic, and let's be honest, those sort of parties do attract a few unusual people. ( Not ALL of them are but SOME). Nev
Exadios Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 Gibbo,Exadios, Not so, and I suggest the council doesn't know what it is talking about. And I do not know what you are talking about. What is not so? Which council are you talking about and what have they said? I was talking about the Greens and Essendon Airport but you have changed the subject.
Exadios Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 Hey guys, seems like this has turned into a real bun fight, anyway I'm already planing my next move and all I have to say is thank goodness for the "innovators." See this web site ElectraFlyer.com - Home of the ElectraFlyer - Electric Aircraft Corporation I'm starting to get all my gear together tomorrow, leccy motor, lipo or Li-fe batteries, solar charger & so on, so that when the greens stuff this country and stop my little ringy ding ding 582 from pushing my trike along and blowing oily smoke all over the country side, (I love the smell of 2 stroke in the morning) I'm going electric. But, truth be known, at the end of the day I actually want to do my bit for the environment, I'd be happy to fly electric, I just don't want some big wally in Canberra dictating how my life is going to be run.For me a carrot and stick approach will always work better than just the big stick. For example, I would love to stick a great big array of solar panels on my roof to help with co-generation of power but why bother when: a. I can't afford to spend $40k on the gear to really make it worth while, even after the current government rebates. b. the government will tax me on any revenue I make to pay for their over sized bureaucracies and superannuation. c. The power companies screw me over with ridiculous charges so I can never repay the initial outlay for the equipment. Solar panels on every roof of every house in Australia would have to make a bigger difference to our environment than a carbon tax ever will but it wouldn't matter whether I voted Red, Blue, Green or brindle, no government will ever have the guts to make a real stand on this sort of policy because there is no money in it for them whereas there is no doubt a money making angle for a carbon tax. (oh, hang on there it is: TAX, silly me) Another consideration also, is the off shore interests that dictate our government interests and policies. (Just my thoughts) As I said before, a carrot and stick approach will always work better than just a big stick and at present I have not seen any political party offer me a carrot so I will remain cynical regarding the motive of any political party in Australia and on Saturday will, like all others on this forum, vote according to how I believe is best for me and mine for the future, have a great Saturday and happy voting, cheers Da Duk Which party is proposing a carbon tax?
Bill Hamilton Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 Which party is proposing a carbon tax? Ex Goodby,The Greens and Labor. The Libs/Nats are proposing technology as the long term solution ---- and not a carbon tax that will be a dead weight on every section of the economy ----- and I suppose you will all have noted that the way "progressives" parties in Australia plan on meeting long term targets is to not actually reduce carbon dioxide output, but to buy carbon offsets on the international market, so we meet out "targets" in an accounting sense, not in a "real" sense. One sure fire way of keeping our balance of payments in the red in the long term --- mining booms do not last forever, and iron and coal prices are already coming off their peak, as new mines come on stream in South America and in several African countries, and Leightons is flat out developing huge coal deposits in Mongolia for the China market. Anybody who watched Bob Brown at the National Press Club lunch yesterday will not be in any doubt as to the fact that my original post on this thread was spot on the mark. I was talking about the Greens and Essendon Airport but you have changed the subject. Not so, I was referring to the nonsense about something called "buffer zones" at Essendon, Essendon satisfies all legal requirements for a certified airport ---- so ---- what "buffer zones"???? Just something plucked out of the air ( or somewhere the sun doesn't shine) by the Greens and their allies ( developers???) on the local council. Regards,
Exadios Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 Ex Goodby,The Greens and Labor. The Libs/Nats are proposing technology as the long term solution ---- and not a carbon tax that will be a dead weight on every section of the economy ----- and I suppose you will all have noted that the way "progressives" parties in Australia plan on meeting long term targets is to not actually reduce carbon dioxide output, but to buy carbon offsets on the international market, so we meet out "targets" in an accounting sense, not in a "real" sense. One sure fire way of keeping our balance of payments in the red in the long term --- mining booms do not last forever, and iron and coal prices are already coming off their peak, as new mines come on stream in South America and in several African countries, and Leightons is flat out developing huge coal deposits in Mongolia for the China market. Anybody who watched Bob Brown at the National Press Club lunch yesterday will not be in any doubt as to the fact that my original post on this thread was spot on the mark. Not so, I was referring to the nonsense about something called "buffer zones" at Essendon, Essendon satisfies all legal requirements for a certified airport ---- so ---- what "buffer zones"???? Just something plucked out of the air ( or somewhere the sun doesn't shine) by the Greens and their allies ( developers???) on the local council. Regards, Labor proposes a cap and trade system - not a carbon tax (which is quite different). The Greens' policy is more structured around outcomes but they will support a cap and trade if the larger (by mass) polluters are not subsidized by the issuance of free certificates. It was the issuance of free certificates that almost killed the EU cap and trade system. Ironically the Liberal Party was proposing a carbon tax if I remember correctly. Now they are proposing something called "Direct Action" which, I suspect, means no action. The cap and trade system has a lot to recommend it. It has worked brilliantly in the US over the last 20 years for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide reduction. The US did not issue any free certificates but did phase in reducing targets. It is hard to see why this system will not work for carbon dioxide as well. In summary, if you wish to do something positive for climate change then it is probably best to vote for the Green Party. If you wish to ignore the problem then it is best to vote for the Liberal Party. With respect to Essendon Airport its existence, as I have said previously, is a matter of legitimate public interest. That the airport meets the regulatory conditions is a necessary, but insufficient, requirement for its continuing existence. It also needs the support of the community.
turboplanner Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 BS - it just needs greedy little private fingers levered off it
winsor68 Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 Anybody who watched Bob Brown at the National Press Club lunch yesterday will not be in any doubt as to the fact that my original post on this thread was spot on the mark. I watched Bob Brown at the Press Club yesterday (actually read the below transcript online)... I also listened to him respond to the evil little troll Alan Jones on the radio this afternoon and numerous other times when the man has been given the opportunity to speak.... It leaves me in little doubt of... something that is not very flattering to people who are trying to impose there own irrational fears onto Mr Brown and the Greens. A little bit of honesty would go a long way Bill. Ladies and gentlemen, Saturday is crunch time for Australia. In the Senate it will either be a vote for the Greens in bigger numbers, providing accountability, or a return to Coalition domination. I will come back to these options, but first I want to talk about the campaign. Three messages have been repeated to me from people in the streets of Australian cities and towns these last weeks as I travelled from Darwin to Melbourne, from Mackay to Cygnet, from Orange to Gunghalin, from Adelaide to Perth. First, elections are bad for business. People stop spending. Whether it's at the newsagent or the petrol pump, receipts are down. Sunday can't come too soon for small businesses across Australia. Second, a pox on both their houses. There is enormous disappointment and frustration with both the bigger parties; at their in-fighting and failure to lay out a vision for Australia. Third, there has been a very warm-hearted response I've had from people in the streets - ‘I'm voting for the Greens this time', ‘Good on you Bob', ‘I hope the Greens go well', ‘at least you stand for something!' This country wants leadership and it is the Greens who are delivering leadership. Last week, I went back to Toowoomba on Queensland's Darling Downs and, for my first time, to the nearby village of Acland. However, when I got there, Acland was missing. This was a town of 250 people in the rich Darling Downs agricultural area, which won the title of 'Queensland's Tidiest Town' in 1989. But Acland has been demolished. Only one house remains. Acland is where all that is wrong with Labor and Coalition politics comes together with an astonishing result which pulls the rug from under the notion that this wide brown land's beautiful plains are sacrosanct, the idea that farmlands are needed to feed future generations. No, the Acland farmlands are going. They are being converted into an open-cut coalmine. That pit will be seven kilometres across. A few weeks ago, in the Oxygen Café in Toowoomba I met the last resident of Acland - Mr Glenn Beautel. Like a good many other bush folk I've met in my time, he's pretty quiet. But he also has that quintessential Australian stubbornness against letting the wrong thing happen. Despite the coal company's entreaties, Glenn has refused to move. His is the last house in Acland. He is also committed to saving the Anzac Memorial Park, just down the road. His late mother and father worked for years to establish the park. He doesn't want the coalmines to destroy their Memorial Park too. Glenn gave me a recent photo of a koala getting through the back fence. He has more photos of koalas in the deserted town's main street. The coal company is not just displacing humans and farmland; it will destroy the habitat of these koalas, our national icon. Well, where are you, Greg Hunt and Peter Garrett? When I moved in the Senate, recently, for an inquiry into the koala's fraught future, the big parties derided the move. It was voted down. Now, ladies and gentlemen, every day we wake up to a world with more mouths to feed and less land to feed them. As I speak, climate change-fuelled drought and fires are decimating the crops of Germany and Russia. And a massive flood is moving down the fertile Indus Valley, Pakistan's food bowl. In Australia, as in pretty well all others, top grade land for growing wheat, potatoes and fruit is being permanently taken out of production by rapidly spreading suburbs, highways, monoculture plantations and, worst of all, climate change. The Garnaut Report to the Rudd government predicted that 90 percent of the productivity of Australia's own greatest food bowl, the Murray-Darling Basin, could be lost due to climate change-induced drought, heat and pests, later this century. Neither Julia Gillard nor Tony Abbott has ever acknowledged or mentioned this fact. Acland on the Darling Downs, at the top end of the Murray-Darling Basin, would be, you'd think, premium safe land in the hands of our political strategists, in this age of mounting global food insecurity. But not so! Instead of saving Acland, a coal company, which in a masterstroke of greenwash is called ‘New Hope', is getting the nod from the Labor politicians in Brisbane and Canberra, as well as the Coalition. The coal will be burnt, loading the atmosphere with more carbon, hastening global warming and, perversely, accelerating the destruction of the productivity of what's left of the Murray-Darling Basin. This coal madness - the NASA Institute's James Hansen, who alerted Congress to the threat of climate change back in 1988, calls it ‘criminal' - will rip 6-20 percent off the gross domestic product off our grandchildren according to Sir Nicholas Stern. Sir Nick spoke at this very podium 3 years ago, but as far as the Coalition and Labor are concerned, he may as well have been talking on Macquarie Island. He is coming to Australia again soon and I hope the next Prime Minister will listen to him. The tragedy of Acland underscores the planning irresponsibility of Labor and the Coalition - and their economic irresponsibility in committing to never having a carbon price. I was astonished, on Monday, when Julia Gillard followed Tony Abbott's commitment to never allow a carbon tax. Her reversion on the mining tax to the big miners a month ago, was little less alarming. The Prime Minister's backdown to the big coal and iron-ore mining corporations will cost future budgets, after 2013 -14, some 9 billion dollars per annum. Worse, Tony Abbott, Leader of the Coalition - spell that C-O-A-L-ition - says he won't collect a dollar out of the mining super profits. His total surrender to the miners will rip some $20 billion off Australia's future budgets. That's $20 billion ordinary Australians will pay in tax, starting with small business. Or else it's $20 billion not available for nation-building: for high-speed rail between our cities; or for modern, fast, clean, efficient, cheap light rail within our cities. Just twenty percent of that $20 billion could fund a national dental system to help the 500,000 Australians now on waiting lists to get dental care. This reasonable tax income will also enable the Greens, unlike Labor or the Coalition, to put $2 billion extra into Australia's education system. Let me quote to you from Professor Richard Teese from the University of Melbourne's opinion piece in the Age on Monday: "It is a failed vision of public schooling that subjects the Labor Party to the indignity of scavenging on the scrapheap of failed educational reform. The Greens, by contrast, start from the premise that public schooling is intrinsically valuable and the best vehicle to engage all children. They want a public system that is "recognised as among the best in the world". Can either of the big parties say this or mean it? Is either prepared to draw out the consequences - setting high standards for all public schools, adopting the funding priorities that this requires, and making durable improvements in the quality of the teaching force?" Australia ranks 18 out of 30 in a comparison of OECD for funding to public education (excluding tertiary) as a percentage of GDP. Based on the most recent available figures, for Australia to be a leader in OECD, spending around 4% GDP, would require an additional $5.2 billion. As you know, the Greens support the Mining Super Profits tax as originally proposed by Wayne Swan and Treasury which would raise that 20 billion. However as a first step in the new parliament, the Greens will negotiate an adjustment to the mining tax so that it raises an additional $2 billion that will boost the public school system to fund a range of important areas. We would check all Indigenous children to ensure they don't lose their hearing to otitis media (middle ear infection) at a cost of just $3.5 million. Hundreds of children in northern Australia are suffering from hearing loss in this wealthy nation of ours, in some places more than 10% of children have suffered hearing loss and the Greens would put an end to it. We will also invest $320m over four years in a Commonwealth Teaching Scholarship Program. This will provide 3000 teaching scholarships worth $5000 a year each for up to 5 years. Scholarship recipients will be required to work in a public school of high need for 3 years. The program will cost an estimated $17m for the first year and up to $80m a year on-going, and it will help address teacher shortages which are predicated to grow with increased retirements. Our Teacher mentoring and support initiative would cost $600m over four years. It will support early career teachers who are at high risk of leaving the profession within 3-5 years, and fund trial schools up to $70 000 to employ an additional teacher, to reduce workloads of first year and mentor teachers, as well as $5 million for establishing and running the mentor training. The total cost per year will be around $150m. The Greens will also bring back the Restoring Asian language literacy in schools program, costing $94 million over 4 years. Under-funding for the Asian language program over the past decade has resulted in a significant decline in the study and completion rate of this hugely important program. Additional funding will be invested in the development of Australia's teaching workforce, as well as addressing the shortage of maths and science teachers. We will also use this nation's mineral wealth to better fund Australia's universities and TAFE community. Ladies and gentlemen, the high speed rail saga showed the real value of the Greens in Australian politics. When I moved for a national study into high speed rail in the Senate, a few months back, Labor and the Coalition voted ‘no!' The Coalition branded the study a waste of people's money. We Greens persisted. Now, in the middle of this campaign, Labor, seeing how popular the project is, has switched to ‘yes!' Remarkably, the Coalition alo switched to 'yes'. Australia will get high speed rail, carrying millions of people between our big cities, years earlier because we Greens are in the parliament. But, with no Sovereign Fund from a 40 percent super profits tax on mining, who will fund High Speed Rail? Labor and the Coalition back the study. But won't they then complain there is no money for the connection between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne - or between Sydney, Newcastle and Brisbane, let alone linking Adelaide and Perth? And while public transport languishes, both major parties will pour hundreds of millions of dollars into new rail track and port facilities to export more coal, for an industry 75 percent owned overseas. Labor and the Coalition are putting coal before people, and selling out Australia's future in terms of not only public transport, but climate change and its looming potential to severely damage the nation's economy. Whether we get High Speed Rail rather than more coal trains depends on whether people vote Green for the Senate next Saturday. I will come back to the double peril involving the Senate in a minute. First, I want to remind you, Ladies and Gentlemen, of some of the other policies the Greens are putting before the Australian people. You may have missed them for very good reason - too much of the news pages have been too full of piffle to cover them. The Greens will end discrimination in the marriage laws of Australia: this issue rankles out there. Young Australia is in revolt over it. The Greens will accord with international law and give asylum seekers the respect and compassion they deserve in Australia, in an election where the dire prediction of a tsunami of boat people has proven false. The Greens will roll out the remainder of the $16 billion schools building program. We got that through the Senate as part of the Rudd-Swan $43 billion stimulus package. The Coalition opposed this package which saved Australia from recession. Tony Abbott now threatens this school funding program, if voted into office next week. That threatens projects in both the private and public schools of Australia. For the Senate on Saturday, I hope voters will remember it was the Greens, against Tony Abbott's opposition, who ensured those thousands of Australia's public schools, as well as independent schools which benefited from the schools building program and more, which, if the Coalition is elected, face being cut out immediately. We will work with the next government for a triple referendum: to recognize Indigenous Australians in the Constitution; to acknowledge Local Government in the Constitution; and for a new vote on Australia becoming a republic, for an Australian as our Head of State. The Greens propose a Murray-Darling management commission with teeth: able to make sure those urgent measures to save the nation's greatest river system will be implemented. We advocate a National Register of the foreign ownership of farmlands and water rights. We will legislate for truth in political advertising. Our policy is to extend the nation's marine reserve system, including the Coral Sea, to guarantee the future of Australia's fisheries and marine ecosystems. We will meet the aspiration of over 80% of Australian voters to end the needless destruction of Australia's remaining wild forests and woodlands and their biodiversity. Christine Milne has announced our $5 billion national loans guarantee fund for 'first of kind' renewable energy projects like base-load solar, wind, geothermal and ocean power. We would also extend Rachel Siewert's amendment to the workplace laws, which entitles parents of pre-school children and children with a disability to have flexible working hours. The Greens will work for flexible work hours for all carers. Carers deserve such a break - after all they contribute $30 billion to Australia's economy each year. One topic is not up for debate with the old parties - Afghanistan. Australians may be divided on the deployment of our troops, though most Australians want the troops brought safely home. But all Australians support and honour the courage and commitment of the brave 1600 who are in Afghanistan. We should honour them further by debating their deployment in the Parliament. The parliament of The Netherlands did, to the extent of forcing an election, and so the Dutch contingent is now on its way home. I will pursue a debate on Afghanistan in our parliament - so that every elected MP contributes for once - when parliament sittings resume after this election. We politicians owe that debate to our Defence Force Personnel and to the nation. The Greens back Labor's National Broadband Network which can deliver dedicated broadband speeds of one thousand megabits per second to 93% of the population. Whereas the Coalition can only promise that same 93% that their broadband speeds will be no worse than a peak speed of 12 megabits per second. I put on the record here that the Greens will also move to prevent the future privatisation of the NBN without an act of Parliament. The Greens will call on the next government to commit to an international ban on the mining and manufacture of asbestos. Asbestos continues to be used in developing countries - with over 2 million tonnes produced in 2008. There are an estimated 125 million people around the world still exposed to asbestos in their home and work environment. Australia, with its own terrible experience of asbestosis, can lead in helping the World Health Organisation and International Labor Organisation to achieve a comprehensive ban on asbestos. The Greens will also move to establish a Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), which will provide economic and budgetary advice to Parliament, similar to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in the United States. This PBO would provide alternative costings for budget and policy, removing the reliance on government departments. It would put an end to the squabbling over debates on the economy and the costing of policies between the major parties which has dominated this election campaign and many before it. A Parliamentary Budget Office will make our democracy better informed and more accountable to the people. Which takes me to the next Parliament. Let no one undervalue the rolled-gold contribution to the House of Representatives there will be if the people of Melbourne - or of Denison or Grayndler or Sydney or Brisbane or Adelaide or Fremantle - vote a Green MP onto the floor of the House of Representatives. Adam Bandt, if elected for Melbourne, can take into the House the program I am outlining here today. He will not be just another backbencher. He will be there to advocate and campaign, over the next 3 years, for the Greens' platform of innovation. He will be able to introduce legislation to end marriage discrimination. He will back the rights of refugees. He will move to abolish the dubious Australian Building Construction Commission, and he will advocate better funding for schools in need. A Labor or Liberal member for Melbourne will do none of these things. In the Senate, the Coalition is one seat short of control, especially in the 11 months until newly elected senators from the six states take up their seats in July next year. However, if the Australian Capital Territory Greens' Lin Hatfield Dodds displaces Liberal Senator Humphries - he who also voted against the schools building program - she will immediately take up her seat and so ward off that domination of the Senate. She will be a Greens front bencher replacing a Liberal backbencher. In the ACT, voters are very aware that the Abbott team is committed to cutting 12,000 positions from the Commonwealth Public Service in 2010. One study indicates that, with flow-ons, this could cost 30,000 jobs. So the prospect of a Coalition dominated Senate looms large. Labor can't win a Senate majority. But if a Gillard Labor government is elected this Saturday, a Coalition dominated Senate will spell parliamentary deadlock. If an Abbott government is elected, and also controls the Senate, that will leave Parliament every bit as debilitated as it was in the Howard years. Remember how between 2004-07 the hugely unpopular WorkChoices laws were rammed through both houses, and Telstra was sold out of public ownership? That's why a vote for the Greens in the Senate is so important. The ACT will save the day if it votes for Senator Hatfield-Dodds. But the Greens bonus is within the reach of every other Australian voter too. In Queensland, the Senate option is Greens candidate Larissa Waters, in NSW it's Lee Rhiannon, in Victoria it's Richard Di Natale, in South Australia it's Penny Wright, and in the Northern Territory it's Warren H Williams. And of course, Tasmanian and Western Australians can ensure the return of two of contemporary Australia's most outstanding parliamentarians, Christine Milne and Rachel Siewert. The Greens are on twelve to fourteen percent in the polls. Yet we have injected most of the nation-building ideas into this campaign. Where the Coalition and Labor are failing the hopes of Australian, we offer stability, experience in leadership and a real vision for voters to latch on to. We will give Australians the accountability they deserve in the Senate. We will be the people's watchdog, whichever party wins office next Saturday. That is my commitment to all Australians. I do have a vision for Australia. And I won't be consulting the telephone book to refine it, and I won't be asking you to suspend belief unless it is written down. The Greens are the smaller party with the big ideas for Australia, up against the bigger parties with the small ideas. That's why, next Saturday, Australians who seek an assured, secure and exciting future, should go to the ballot box with a new purpose in mind and vote Greens!
winsor68 Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 Re. The Greens,Have any of you actually looked at Green's economic policies ---- besides a whacking great carbon tax that will push up prices across the board. They include: Re-Nationalization of "natural" monopolies. Increased personal tax Increased company tax Increased indirect taxes, including widening the GST base and increasing the rate. Re-imposition of death duties/estate taxes. Removal of many personal tax deductions, ie; no longer deduct the legitimate costs of producing your income. Removal of the health insurance rebate. An even bigger tax on miners than Rudd proposed --- do any of you understand how the mining "super profit" is struck for the super profits tax calculation ----- before deduction of the cost of finance ---- effectively a tax on EBIT ---- because company tax is still payable. That might be OK for the "Big Three" who mostly finance development and expansion from cash flow, but for Australian owned mining companies it is the same kind of financial disaster as the 1961 Menzies budget. That budget disallowed interest paid by finance companies to debenture holders as a business cost, precipitating a raft of major finance company bankruptcies, with tens of thousands of "mums and dads" losing their life savings. Don't anybody forget that it is the mining industry that is financing what is otherwise a major structural deficit in the Australia economy. A myriad of additional auto taxes, to discourage car use ---- great if you have convenient public transport from where you are to where you want to go --- but in general in Australia, that's a rarity ----but as one candidate has alluded --- personal freedom of movement and travel is not apparently regarded as a necessary freedom in the green future. Removing mandatory secret ballots for strike action. Complete removal of the building industry watchdog ---- even Labor left that organisation in place under their new industrial legislation, and the building unions hate it. But wait, there's more!! In addition, bans on hunting/shooting/fishing -----and given the attitude of one candidate from NSW, a ban on other than "essential" aviation would not surprise me---- and that does not include any private aviation, and a tax system to discourage airline travel --- because that has been talked about in recent times. On that gave me a real laugh in the health policy was, wait for it ---- free gender re-assignment surgery --- I would not have thought that was top of the agenda of urgent public health issues. Go check all these things out --- and then come back and say you are going to vote Greens. Regards, Now Bill... would you do us all the courtesy of going and checking these things out before you continue to spread untruths about things you know nothing about... or do you have another reason for trying to mislead people that we don't know about? :confused:
turboplanner Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 Shows you can fool some of the people all of the time I did see this one, and presume it means he will encourage fourth generation Aussies to marry asylum seekers "The Greens will end discrimination in the marriage laws of Australia: this issue rankles out there. Young Australia is in revolt over it." But surprise surprise none of the other nasties which are there in black and white as policies were on show in the speech.
winsor68 Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 But surprise surprise none of the other nasties which are there in black and white as policies were on show in the speech. The previous links to the Greens policy pages already showed the "other nasties" to be untruths as well turbo... Please have a read. Seems that we have become a cynical mob of suckers who are willing to believe anything the the two major parties and its trolls claim as fact.
turboplanner Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 The previous links to the Greens policy pages already showed the "other nasties" to be untruths as well turbo... Please have a read. Seems that we have become a cynical mob of suckers who are willing to believe anything the the two major parties and its trolls claim as fact. Well Winsor, I took your advice and went back to my previous list and I now quote the sources, which are directly from the Greens website The Australian Greens Under the Sexuality and Gender Identity section, Goals Items 7, 15 - same sex marriage Item 9 - equal right to parent Under the Substance Abuse and Addiction section Item 24 - Regulated use of Cannabis Item 33 - Syringe exchange Item 33 - Injecting rooms Item 33 - trial prescribed heroin So - no untruths Nothing from the two major parties Just the cold hard truth
winsor68 Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 Some sensible evidence based policy there Turbo... Nothing on banning fishing or hunting?
Exadios Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 The Australian Greens[/url]Under the Sexuality and Gender Identity section, Goals Items 7, 15 - same sex marriage Item 9 - equal right to parent Under the Substance Abuse and Addiction section Item 24 - Regulated use of Cannabis Item 33 - Syringe exchange Item 33 - Injecting rooms Item 33 - trial prescribed heroin So - no untruths Nothing from the two major parties Just the cold hard truth [sigh] I had hoped that this would not happen. But you have discovered the truth. The Greens plan to close Essendon Airport and use the land on which to build injecting rooms and reception centers for homosexual marriages. All your worst nightmares will come true if the Greens have their evil way.
justinm001 Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 Vote greens if you are indeed a fan of boat people & heroin addicts. The policies pretty much stop short on saying "we will have banners welcoming the boat people" Its actually quite concerning reading some of the policies they have on the website..........
riverduk Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 Well Said Blackrod, but words and thoughts wasted, w68 will never take the green tinted glasses off. Perhaps once his green mates have stuffed this great country up forever he just might realize his folly but I doubt it. As for bans on shooting, it is already happening, 2 weeks after the greens got into bed with labor in Tassie they introduced a bill to ban duck shooting in that state, no doubt a foretaste of things to come. Here, around the Shepparton area there have been a number of new N.parks declared, good in one sense but shooting is banned, so any feral animals within these parks now get park protection to breed and take over from native species, along with any introduced species of flora which will over grow these parks making them wild fire risks. Further East of here at the Mt Sumaria NP (Benalla area), wild pigs are moving through the park unabated, rooting it up as they go because hunters are not allowed in to decrease numbers. Wild deer, also an introduced species are also causing problems in this area as well. This is not hearsay, this is fact, from people who live in the area and that I am acquainted with. As a taste of things to come regarding National Parks, Volunteer firefighters in Murray Shire, NSW have indicated that they will not enter newly designated N. parks in the shire during bushfires citing safety concerns, with some saying it would be a suicide mission, they will limit their activities to park boundaries only. (Paraphrased from an article in The Kyabram Freepress 18/08/2010) I think this will be a foretaste of how firefighters will react to future bushfires in all N.Parks which will have the potential to become infernos in the future. As a thought, isn't it funny how we never see a tree hugging feral greenie on the end of hose or a beater helping to put these wild fires out, no they're long gone to another place to disrupt another hard working Aussie from making an honest living. As suggested by W68, I have taken the time to read the green policy papers and to some extent I have similar concerns and desires for our future, but some of their policy is at best fanciful and pie in the sky. To quote a great Australian: "Tell him he's dreaming" Darryl Kerrigan (The Castle, 1997) It's a bit like a Miss World pageant where every contestant wants 'world peace' sounds great but it will never happen, no matter how good intentioned they may be. I want world peace too, as I have said previously in this forum, I want a safe place for my 2 (at this stage) grandsons to live in but reality is, as long as we have radicals of any creed, be it, Islamic, Christian, Jew, Atheist, Anarchist, whatever, this world will never change. It's all very good to talk, but talking is not going to make a difference, the radicals don't want talk they just want to impose their rules on everyone else and rule by fear, in the end it's all about power. Sorry W68, "ya dreaming" if you really think that the greens will make this world a better place, they, like every other political party just want the power and you just watch in the weeks to come if they get the balance of power, as predicted, by others far more astute than I. Happy voting on Saturday, cheers, Da Duk
riverduk Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 Re Metalman's last post, HERE, HERE young fella! DA Duk
turboplanner Posted August 20, 2010 Posted August 20, 2010 Now that's a very clever question; also one of the better explanations of where Liberal, Labor and Greens came from
Bill Hamilton Posted August 20, 2010 Posted August 20, 2010 Folks, Given the totality of the Greens' policies ---- not just what might be on the web site, or just what Bob Brown covered at the NPC lunch ---- but consolidating "policy" as expressed by other candidates (particularly NSW Greens) ---- ANYBODY who has an interest in aviation at any level ----- UNLESS that interest is in the destruction of most of what we know of aviation ---- will not vote to further increase the influence of the Greens. For those several of you that want to argue that, somehow, "cap and trade" and "carbon tax" have a different outcome, you are really kidding yourselves. Either way, the intent is to produce "price signals" to reduce the use of fossil fuels --- and what do you think "price signals" really means???? Either one jacks the price up, to "discourage" discretionary use of fuels as a first and foremost aim --- just listen to Bob Brown. Have you actually heard him on the subject of the "future" (or lack of) of airline travel in Australia. And if the whole of Sports and Recreational Aviation isn't discretionary use of fuel, I don't know what is. In reality, it is highly unlikely that anything other than technological answers will solve global warming problems, but one thing is absolutely certain ---- even if Australia reduced it's carbon consumption of fuel to zero, it will not make the slightest differences to the final outcome. So, what is the point of severely constricting the Australian economy, potentially to the point of severe depression ---- for no result other than a "warm and fuzzy feeling". In reality, most of the Greens' policy are the failed socialist policies central planning/big government command economies of the 1920's through to the collapse of the USSR ---- they didn't work then, they will not work now. As one columnist in the Sydney Morning Herald (not a notably right wing paper) wrote yesterday, the Greens should no longer be referred to as the Watermelon Party, green on the outside, but red on the inside, but the Tomato Party --- Red all the way through. If you have any interest in a positive future for aviation in Australia at any level, don't vote Greens. Regards,
Ultralights Posted August 20, 2010 Author Posted August 20, 2010 Finally found a positive policy, well, part of policy on aviation in Oz. Labor still have the white paper policy of 2007, which,well, was nothing but white paper. JOINT PRESS RELEASEThe Hon. Warren Truss, Shadow Minister for Trade, Transport & Local Government Leader of the Nationals Senator Guy Barnett, Liberal Senator for Tasmania FOCUS ON LAUNCESTON Wednesday 18 August, 2010 A Coalition Government will commission a review into the use of radar in Australia’s air traffic management, with a particular focus on Launceston, Shadow Minister for Transport and Leader of the Nationals, Warren Truss, and Liberal Senator, Guy Barnett said today. The review will obtain international expertise to ensure that Australia uses radar in the best possible way to ensure the safety of our skies. The review will have a particular focus on Launceston following an incident in the area more than two years ago. “Plainly, Labor is not interested in this issue,” Mr Truss said. The review will consider the conclusions of the ATSB report on the Launceston incident and whether the better use of radar could have prevented it. Senator Guy Barnett welcomed the announcement on behalf of Tasmanians. Senator Barnett said, “The fact that it took Australia’s safety authority, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau two years to report on a near ‐miss incident that took place over Launceston, is unacceptable.” “Mr Truss said, “A Coalition Government will ensure that Australia’s air management agencies are resourced properly,” A Coalition Government will also seek to make Australia a global leader in flight training. The Trade Representative for Services, to be appointed by a new Coalition Government and the Australian Trade Commission, will be tasked to promote Australia’s pilot training services around the world. Australia is one of the best places in the world to learn to fly and obtain skills in the aviation industry. The Coalition will build on this by seeking to enhance Commonwealth loan assistance for commercial pilot training. Australia has highly professional aviation sector and a Coalition Government will keep it that way. “I am also concerned that the Federal Labor Transport Minister Anthony Albanese refused my invitation to attend a stakeholder’s forum on air safety in Tasmania,” said Senator Barnett. “What could be more important for an island state than air safety? Media Contact: Philip Clayton – 0414 317441 “A Coalition Government will ensure that Australia’s air management agencies are resourced properly,” A Coalition Government will also seek to make Australia a global leader in flight training. Anything that helps grow aviation in oz is a good thing...
Exadios Posted August 20, 2010 Posted August 20, 2010 Folks,Given the totality of the Greens' policies ---- not just what might be on the web site, or just what Bob Brown covered at the NPC lunch ---- but consolidating "policy" as expressed by other candidates (particularly NSW Greens) ---- ANYBODY who has an interest in aviation at any level ----- UNLESS that interest is in the destruction of most of what we know of aviation ---- will not vote to further increase the influence of the Greens. For those several of you that want to argue that, somehow, "cap and trade" and "carbon tax" have a different outcome, you are really kidding yourselves. Either way, the intent is to produce "price signals" to reduce the use of fossil fuels --- and what do you think "price signals" really means???? Either one jacks the price up, to "discourage" discretionary use of fuels as a first and foremost aim --- just listen to Bob Brown. Have you actually heard him on the subject of the "future" (or lack of) of airline travel in Australia. And if the whole of Sports and Recreational Aviation isn't discretionary use of fuel, I don't know what is. In reality, it is highly unlikely that anything other than technological answers will solve global warming problems, but one thing is absolutely certain ---- even if Australia reduced it's carbon consumption of fuel to zero, it will not make the slightest differences to the final outcome. So, what is the point of severely constricting the Australian economy, potentially to the point of severe depression ---- for no result other than a "warm and fuzzy feeling". In reality, most of the Greens' policy are the failed socialist policies central planning/big government command economies of the 1920's through to the collapse of the USSR ---- they didn't work then, they will not work now. As one columnist in the Sydney Morning Herald (not a notably right wing paper) wrote yesterday, the Greens should no longer be referred to as the Watermelon Party, green on the outside, but red on the inside, but the Tomato Party --- Red all the way through. If you have any interest in a positive future for aviation in Australia at any level, don't vote Greens. Regards, For the record I did not say that cap and trade and a carbon tax will have different outcomes (although they may well do). Cap and trade is a market mechanism and a carbon tax is a legislated cost. As you point out, either way the price of carbon will rise. That is the point. With respect to climate warming either we deal with it by legislating law our selves or we will be penalized by the laws of physics. In the first case we are in control and in the second we accept what is dished out to us. One reason we (i.e. Australia) should act now is because, in order to reverse climate warming, we will have to re-engineer our economy and for that we will need to put engineers and technicians to work. The countries to develop the necessary technologies will be economic winners among the countries of the world. I think Australia should have some of the best engineering companies and be a winner. One last thing: the stone age did not come to an end because of the lake of stones.
Guest asic45 Posted August 20, 2010 Posted August 20, 2010 A little balance I am an aviator, and love aviation as a sport. I recognise aviation as an important part of the national economy .I am as pro aviation as it is possible to be without wanting to make it compulsory. I am reminded however, of a statement by the great cricket commentator John Arlott at the time of the boycott of the South Afican cricket team. He said that he loved cricket, and he loved sport, but that life was more important than sport, and he supported a boycott. I feel the same about aviation. I love aviation, and want to see its success at every level, but aviation is only part of life. There is an absolute consensus amongst experts that climate change exists and that we are contributing to it. No such consensus exists however amongst taxpayers who will end up paying more in the future every time they fuel up the v8. If you think that their views on climate change are reasonable, then I suggest you consult them the next time you get sick - why bother to talk to experts (who call themselves doctors) I happen to disagree with the Greens policy on Essendon airport, but don't forget that the developers who are applying pressure for its closure are the same anti aviation crowd who can't look at a runway anywhere without seeing a row of houses. None of the greedy councils around Australia who are closing airstrips have anything to do with the Greens. What about the fate of Wallan airfield ? Greens again ? I think that instead of joining a group of flat earthers, climate change deniers, peak oil deniers, citizens of redneckia, we should be interested in things like alternative fuels which will enable us to continue to enjoy our sport. I am tired of lectures about the unsuitability of ethanol in our engines, as if the alternative was cheap and inexhaustible avgas for ever and ever amen. Who is standing up and saying that we want a future, long term sustainable future for our sport ? Who is going to Jabiru saying "Let us work with you to produce a new generation of engines which is E85 compatible" ? As to the Greens other policies; I enthusiastically endorse their view that our current level of population growth is far too great - in the western world we have one of the worst levels of infrastructure - try taking a train in peakhour Melbourne ; When the Americans tried to combat ungodliness by banning booze with prohibition laws, they did'nt get less drunks, they got Al Capone. Our drug laws create new Al Capones every week. The major parties agree that our drug laws are a comprehensive and demonstrable failures, and that is why they should'nt be changed. In this area, perhaps a new approach should be tried - could'nt be worse than what we have now ; If Gays want to get married, why should'nt they ? If you don't want to marry another bloke, then don't do it ! ;We affect mass indignation when we hear about the felling of forests in the third world, but somehow ignore the fact that these people are only doing today what we did 100 years ago. Speaking of facts, here are some unpleasant ones - recreational aviation is a very small sport and is percieved as the province of a privileged wealthy few. I would imagine that the pollies in Canberra are more interested in the views of the netball federation than in ours. Posturing is rarely attractive and when the posture assumed is one of sticking one's head in the sand, it is a little undignified too ! I am intrigued however,by the view that since our actions on the enviroment will have little consequence, then we should do nothing - what we really need is a little leadership on enviromental issues from nations like Chad and Guatemala ! One final question, has anyone from our organisation actually 'phoned Bob Brown and told him of our concerns ? Whoever wins tomorrow, he'll have the balance of power. Perhaps we should impress him of our resonableness by inviting him to read this forum. By the way, since I am on holiday, I cast my absentee vote for the Greens in the house of reps, and the Sex party in the senate.
Recommended Posts