The Forum > General Discussion > Are the Greens Sustainable?
Are the Greens Sustainable?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Page 13
- 14
- 15
-
- All
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 2 April 2010 9:45:54 AM
| |
<< Greens grab last seat in return to North-West >>
http://tiny.cc/n1t7z At 21.61% of the vote in the recent Tasmanian election, the Greens achieved their best ever result in a State election. As I said earlier in the thread, at every election at every level of government, the Greens are steadily increasing their vote and representation. No wonder their opponents are starting to appear desperate. Bring on the Federal election! Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 2 April 2010 9:46:01 AM
| |
"Bumfuzzling" ?!? Thanks for that - a new word. What does it mean, sounds like it could be fun?
I note that you still avoided answering my questions. Be afraid, Corny. Be very afraid :) Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 2 April 2010 10:14:47 AM
| |
C J Morgan
More proof you only read the headline of that link you posted earlier and didn't read the content. Otherwise you might be more concerned about the five leather polishers in Canberra: 'This was also a timely reminder of the separation of McKim's campaign from the federal Greens' ''old'' icons, Brown and Christine Milne. They did not appear in advertising and were even absent from the campaign launch, which was held on a Senate sitting day. Instead, the campaign largely focused on McKim and his soothing words: ''accountability'', ''stability'', and ''working constructively'' and ''transparently''.' http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/farmers-cheer-greens-leader-20100323-qroi.html I take that as a fair indication that Nick McKim wouldn't have them on his board either if he was a company chairman. Now, what about some accountability from Bob Brown and the remainder of the group of five Greens' Senators for their flagship policy 'sustainability'? Next question, does Bob Brown need more arms so he can point at more people as being responsible, but never the Greens of course? What board of a private company would put up with executive management bumfuzzling and finger pointing in lieu of productivity on that flagship policy? Where are the specifics , strategies, numbers and costings after all of these years talking it up? Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 2 April 2010 10:18:51 AM
| |
Corny, apparently you're unaware that the Greens are neither a corporation nor in government. Also, as I said previously when you speculated erroneously about the Tasmanian campaign, you obviously haven't got a clue about the Greens' electoral strategies. Suffice to say that Bob Brown and Nick McKim work very closely and well together.
Now, how about having a go at answering my questions - without trying to hide your arrant hypocrisy behind a smokescreen of ignorant slagging. I still don't know what "bumfuzzling" means either. If you mean 'confusing' or 'obfuscating', isn't that exactly what you're doing here with respect to my request that you answer my questions? Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 2 April 2010 4:45:43 PM
| |
Here's a story from 'The Australian' that I missed:
<< Queensland may give Greens balance of power in the Senate March 27, 2010 >> http://tiny.cc/gvffh As Bob Brown says in the article, "This is more a result of the mainstream becoming green, rather than the Greens becoming mainstream". Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 2 April 2010 9:36:24 PM
|
Greens supporters should listen to Bob Brown's 'vision' on population and sustainability because he criticises other parties for not having a policy, yet the Greens do not have one either, only the generality of a motherhood statement that probably conflicts with their other social policies. It is all waffly and 'someone else" has to do something, but never the Greens of course.
He has nothing to offer but the request for an inquiry, NEXT year.
Then no doubt time would fly while there is endless fudging around with the brief, which would have to be general enough to let them off the hook.
So the bumfuzzling Greens senators will in the interim continue to polish the well-padded leather seats in the Senate, comfortable in the knowledge that once again they have apparently been able to avoid any specifics, numbers and costing on sustainability and population.
Again, what private company would put up with five of its most senior staff, including the CEO who cannot do any better than ask someone else to do a review to tell them what their policies should be for one of the flagship businesses they claim to be in, viz., sustainability!"