I have to agree Nina, well written & yes, correct to the core.

Kevin Rudd is behind this & self proclamation about his leadership is what seals it. The excuse of religious groups are just a support measure & it is the government that make the decisions.

Kevin Rudd that I have personally had dealing's with, is a slimy religious grub that apologizes for one thing & does the same thing another way & through someone else. Don't be fooled, the man is a coward.

Oh, & well said Formersnag & I believe this is the second time I've agreed with you.

Nina,

Great article.

With all the smoke screen of climate change and border control, the pr*ck Conroy is trying to sneak this odious piece of legislation through.

What would be useful is for some software engineers to publicly free issue software to bypass this information obstruction.

The more people know about the real impact of this big brother legislation the better.

Former snag,

It's christmas so good manners and a day of relative good cheer prevent me from telling you explicitly how apparently superficial your response appears.
If you had read my responses in the equivalent topic in the "general" section and thought about what I said you would understand how superficial this article is. Add to that my constant criticism for *all* things Political (including labor) you would realize I don't fit your stereotypical models of people. In no way does this impugn your intellect I just ask all to look at the issue beyond the parameters of some political extreme of an ethereal non existent right.

I tend to be a secular humanist not a socialist, lefty or any other such nonsensical name in the repertoire non conservative ad hominems.

It's consistent to suggest that I'm wrong or as CJ does, too harsh
with the author.
____________________________

CJ

I don't think that popularity is necessarily a determinant on correctness.

I still believe that a thought piece should make an attempt to look at the issue objectively and address the reasons for not jump onto "the bugger you I'm ok, so measure up to me" bull wagon.

Nina doesn't even attempt to be anything other than myopic popularist.
I don't believe that GY trawls the largely irrational Letters to the Editor for thought pieces.

By and large, most impress me as have something interesting to say, regardless, of if I agree with them or not, this piece simply doesn't.

Of course, Graham is entitled both as the owner and an individual to post what he thinks is appropriate.

Examinator, i do humbly apologise for offending you by suggesting that you may be a labour, "true believer". Do hope, that you are not, like C J Morgan a "green", which is, even worse. They were set up by "true believers", to fool disgruntled labour voters into thinking, they could have a protest vote & then directing the preferences back to labour anyway. If Bob Brown cared, even slightly, about the environment, then he would not, have "split the vote" & joined the "Australian democrats" instead.

After all, he had seen already, how perfectly, "big brother/labour" did exactly the same trick in "1984" with the "nuclear disarmament party". A more devious fraud has never before been perpetrated on the hapless "Aussie voter". Where is Peter Garrett now? BTW have you googled "Global Dimming" yet, are you willing to admit it's possible existence? I do sincerely wish you a happy new year.

Atheistno1, BTW when i first tried your link to the "sex party" article, i was at the local Maccas on their free wifi service checking my email etc. They would not let me through to their web site. This kind of censorship i can live with, they are a free enterprise organisation claiming to be a "family restaurant". If they wish to push those credentials by not allowing anybody to use their free wifi to go on porn sites or even the "sex party" web site then so be it. That is their right. Same as any parent has the right to "program" their own computer & children away from Internet porn, But that is completely different from the swifty, "big brother Conroy" is trying to pull over "the sheeple's eyes".

"If Bob Brown cared, even slightly, about the environment, then he would not, have "split the vote" & joined the "Australian democrats" instead."
Are you referring to the party which is considerably different to the Greens and has voted in a clearly different manner on many issues in the senate (esp Privatizations). But on that note- why don't the Democrats members join the Greens alternatively?

I think it's something to admire that some parties actually stick to their principles and let the voters take it or leave it- instead of desperately trying to pander to religious loons and wowsers like the Libs and Labor are stumbling over themselves to do, as far as most of their policies show.

And the last thing Australia needs is to have parties compromising in a similar way the public were expected to vote for the Australian Republic they didn't want, and the Carbon Trading Scheme hitting snags of opposition in parliament/senate who are expected to take it for the sake of having a superficial environmental badge on our nation.

And I'm saying this as someone who can't wait to see the back of the two contemptible mobs currently in Parliament soon enough.

Formersnag, that link I gave you wasn't for the sex industry web site, I got it from the legal cases web site when I was looking for human rights legislation. The sex party is a legally registered parliamentary group (party), the same as the Greens, Labor, Liberal & Pauline Hanson.

I have to also clarify that in my earlier post, I said I agreed with you, wasn't on what you said about examinator but that it was the second time I agreed with you on something.