OK Stern, so far we've had 2 long posts from you and you've ignored the topic. The topic is "Christopher Pyne". So let's get back on topic. Tell us stern, what's you analysis of Christopher Pyne's performance over the past several years?

Quite a few people believe in an
unbridled commitment to individualism.
Which leaves no room for social equity,
compassion or the idea of an egalitarian
society. People in their view either sink
or swim. And if they sink, well that's too
bad. Because according to them welfare is
not good for business. These people are
usually pro big business, pro development,
pro nuclear weapons, pro the monarchy.

They are anti conservation, anti union, anti
multiculturalism, and anti government.
Christopher Pyne agrees with these views.
John Howard agrees with these views, Tony
Abbott does as well. These people are
usually leading business executives,
employer organisations, some farmers
organisations, a few conservative academics,
and anybody else who hasn't witnessed the
divide and fall of Thatcher's Britain.

Foxy I agree. Individualism is just another "ism" ........... no different from all the other "isms", marxism, capitalism, fascism, communism, etc etc etc.

"Individualism" is just another strict and rigid ideology that some would love to force upon society, just like all the other isms.

Just like religions, there's plenty of people who believe their "ism" is the one and only true ism, and that if everybody just agreed to it then the world would be just fine and dandy.

Which all goes to show............we haven't really progressed much at all "intellectually" since the stone age.

5 weeks what fun!every day we will see posts that could come from near any member of the opposition.
Trouble is only a conservative would like it.
It is not the strong conservative who are needed to elect them.
John Howard knew how to get swingers Abbott clearly does not.
Abbott, make no mistake had Labors head on a plate, he did not put it there Rudd did.
Do not look to Abbott to bring Julia down the same way it will not happen.
He will not have that much luck again, his has no skills to do it no plan that would do it.
And is in truth as much a weak link as Pyne in fact a carbon copy of him.
Labor with an in ceased majority is the result.

Benq - Tell us stern, what's you analysis of Christopher Pyne's performance over the past several years?

Oh thank you for asking me that question Benq, not that I am under any obligatin to answer it but thankyou anyway

Since Christopher Pyne is a liberal, he has obviously got more sense than anyone in the incumbent government.

As a liberal he will be supported by his parliamentary colleagues, rather than being stabbed in a factional inspired public execution.

He may seem a less than perfect character for parliamentary position but indeed, so was Margaret Thatcher considered in similar manner and she managed to pull through, unlike say the erudite Rudd who was so self assured he became arrogant and obnoxious.... in fact a similarly obnoxious personality to

Latham habitual bully – who lead labor to defeat
Keating egocentric fopp– who stabbed Hawke
Hawke - an alcoholic held together by his wife, who he abandoned and Hawke who stabbed Hayden in another eleventh hour faction coup
And of course the ever odious

Whitlam who took the country to the edge of disaster and was appropriately kicked out by the Governor General

It is good to reflect on the personality characteristics who people elected, be they liberal or socialist...

maybe a personality like Christopher Pyne needs nurturing,
but the disfigured personalities of labor, with their psychopathic egos, prepared to muscle or stab anyone who stands in front of them or even supports them, no nurturing will ever help.

Always good to remember that before we caste our votes

Hope that answers your question Benq.... doubtless you are not enamoured by my answer to your loaded question

but I always say it as I see it...

the democratic process is like that.... you do not necessarily get the answer you demand

and when you ask loaded questions... expect them to sometimes backfire.

Foxy “Quite a few people believe in an
unbridled commitment to individualism.
Which leaves no room for social equity,
compassion or the idea of an egalitarian
society.”

Let us consider those few words

Individualism – thats the thing we acquire because we all have different genes..... seems reasonable to me that such characteristics are inherent in our make up, we are, after all, not Ants living in a colony, with an exclusive responsibility to die to defend or feed the queen
Social Equality – sounds a bit like am ethereal concept, something and nothing

Lets see who ware the folk who are supposed to benefit form “social equity” – well its all those individuals, which collect to describe the “individualism” you spoke of before.

So “social Equality” is like this.. you achieve it by limiting the rights of the individuals who comprise the society on which “Social Equity” is applied....
A bit like –
we will all be equally free in prison,
so the socialists who support the fraud of “Social Equity” will imprison us to make us all equal...

Its a bit like levelling the hills to make an even playing field,

In economic terms we would spend a lot of energy simply carting the dirt which makes the hills and putting it into the valleys and end up with the same land mass at the end.

Better we forget that plan to create the bland and level plains and
leave the prettier undulating hills and varying topography as it is

instead use our energy to do something which advances humanity, rather than just rearranging it into neat and even rows.

The rest of your diatribe is just rant and a load of spleen venting generalisation about people you have, in the main never met. Just jingoistic nonsense and the sort of vomit inducing mantra of the faux-philosophy of collectivism, by any name.

That Benq agrees with you is no recommendation. Such acceptance is more an endorsement of it being complete twaddle, bereft of reasoning and facts.