Of course R0bert's right. If by some great good fortune and unusual judgement the Australian electorate supports the Greens in the Senate, they will certainly not be in any position to push radical agendas.

Not that the Greens' policies are radical anyway. Jack the Lad reckons the Greens are "commies" and "Reds" on the basis of their policies. However, when challenged, the best he can do is point to some policy areas that are supportive of multilingual services and critical of Howard's idiotic "Aussie values" test.

He might disagree with multiculturalism - but it's hardly Communist. I don't think that "lefty PC" really counts as "commie" or "Red" either.

They're just boofheaded slogans that the intellectually bereft utilise because they can't actually argue against the eminently sensible policies and principles of the Greens. It doesn't matter anyway, because the world as we know it won't end if Labor wins the House of Reps and the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate.

In fact, it might even last just a little bit longer :)

CJ, 'They're just boofheaded slogans that the intellectually bereft utilise because they can't actually argue against the eminently sensible policies and principles of the Greens'. Isn't using insulting terms of the same order? You seem to get off on hurling insults at those who darte to oppose your views. Not what I'd call 'eminently sensible'.

'when challenged, the best he can do is point to some policy areas that are supportive of multilingual services and critical of Howard's idiotic "Aussie values" test'. Are you sure that's all? Lets go back to my post of Tuesday, 20 November 2007 10:46:23 AM. How does 'your ‘animal’ policies', 'Sexuality and Gender Identity’ policies', 'Your Peace and Security policies' or 'your planned assault on sporting shooters, hunters and fishermen' have anything to do with 'multilingual services ' or the '"Aussie values" test'?

Please explain if it's not too hard.

Jack, since you seem to have some sort of cognitive problem, I'll try one last time.

In your initial post, you claimed that the Greens are "Reds in disguise". In your next post you said you made that claim "based on the majority of their policies".

I then asked you which Greens policies are "Red". Your reply suggested I look at the Greens policies in detail in order to discover them as "closet commies". Since I'm a Greens member and I'm familiar with their policies, I again asked you which are "communist" or "Red".

Your reply nominated acouple of specific policies about translation services and Howard's 'values' test, and a range of general policy areas as being "very Lefty PC". I responded that neither multiculturalism nor "Lefty PC" policies are "Red" or "communist".

What do you mean by the terms "Red" and "commie" if you don't mean communist? You haven't demonstrated at all that the Greens are "Reds" or "commies" in the commonly understood usages of those somewhat anachronistic political labels. Which aspects of which policies are communist?

May I remind you that it was you who introduced "insulting terms" like "Reds in disguise", "closet commie" and "crackpot" into the discussion. It seems pretty clear that you haven't a clue as to what actually constitutes a communist policy, and use terms like "Red" and "commie" as slogans against those whose political views are to the left of yours.

Unless you'd care to show why it is that specific Greens policies are 'communist', I see little point in continuing this dialogue with you.

In the words of Victor Meldrew of "One Foot in the Grave" fame:...."I don`t bloody well believe ittttt!"

We have just witnessed the strangest Electoral Campaigning blackout ever, (from Midnight Thursday), carried out by the media, both Television and Radio!

I saw and heard both media machines airing discussions, comments and excerpts of speeches and performances from the past few weeks of both of the major players in today`s Election.

All I can say is that whoever is the loser in today`s big game of political brinkmanship, certainly should be asking for a review and close examination of the AEC`s rules and guidelines!.....I would be questioning the legality of the whole deal in light of what I have witnessed and heard over the past 48 hours!

But then maybe I am once again becoming a trifle paranoid!

Nice rant, CJ, but it doesn't make you right. Rather than answer to the policies that are "very Lefty PC" (of which I only labelled the animal ones, if you care - or dare - to check), you came up with 'I responded that neither multiculturalism nor "Lefty PC" policies are "Red" or "communist".' Haven't you heard the acronym ATFQ? If you don't think that PC is a leftist invention, you are more blinkered than I thought.

As for slagging off, you were first with 'vacuous' on 18 Nov, 8:30:46 am. 'Reds in disguise' was not directed at you, though 'crackpot' was but after your 'vacuous' episode. So, check your facts before you froth.

I've already pointed out some of your policies that are leftist. If you'd rather 'see little point in continuing this dialogue' than reply to them, that's up to you.

Typical lefty PC greenie.

Cuphandle like the post you started this thread with your failure to understand is showing.
Electric Medea black out is the way it has been for a very long time, just maybe longer than you have been alive.
The billions promised in this campaign are not extra tax's or stolen funds from the future fund.
Just for a start do you understand how very much more we pay in tax's for our fuel now?
That government tax windfall returned in tax cuts is unwise but only giving us SOME of the over taxing we pay, back?
Unwise? yes it drives inflation.
The future fund came from as well as the theft of our property Telstra ,tax's we are justified in spending those tax's on better service delivery.
Tax raised on petroleum products may be the only reason governments have not truly come to terms with other fuels its money for nothing.