Morganzola:>> Oh come on, SOG. Global domination, Heil Brown? You can't expect to be taken seriously if you actually believe such fanciful, if not paranoid, drivel.

Drivel perhaps or perhaps not, but definitely not paranoid, the view is a consideration of facts and events. The greens, conservatives, and liberals control nothing. I have mentioned the Lima Agreement a few times previously as the prognosticator of the 40 year period since it's signing, and it was spot on. That the entire economic and social future of the people and nations of on this vast earth could be altered so dramatically concerns me greatly. We do not need an alien invasion; we are under threat of servitude and dependence from a handful of bags of water such as ourselves, and the greens in particular are their naive yapping lap dogs.

This guy probably didn't go to uni, but he is perceptive, or perhaps he just looked.
http://wn.com/Australia_and_the_New_World_Order_The_Lima_Declaration

Oh dear, SOG. I just wasted 2 minutes of my life I won't get back watching the start of that paranoid rant - I switched off when he implicated virtually every international trade agreement as evidence of the 'New World Order'. You don't seriously buy that lunatic garbage, do you? It seems Belly's not the only one whose acumen I'd previously overestimated.

I agree that the anonymous author of your global conspiracy fantasy is very perceptive - so perceptive in fact that the can see stuff that nobody else can see! There's a word for that...

I am totally absorbed by politics and current affairs world news and events.
My views are mine,researched chewed over changing some times but mine.
I have read every word of the Greens policy's.
Found much not to like some good.
I distrust/dislike/ am appalled by SOME of their people policy's/ actions.
I stand against ending the use of coal in ten years.
I stand against the implications in their defense policy's.
I STAND against the FIXED immovable position Morgonzola takes, inferring my attitude to his party of the extreme is makes me unable to think clearly worse.
My intention was to talk about reforming our system of government.
Starting from a view honestly held, we should get rid of the senate.
That more AUSTRALIANS are offended by the greens than vote for them.
I wanted clearly! one value, no preferences, my vote as it can in NSW state elections, to die after it was counted ONCE.
I wanted to UNDERLINE my thoughts preferential voting, not even understood by far too many,put people in the house and senate Australian voters did not intend to.
My detractor belittles me, no worries bloke I can get over that.
For? saying what I think.
How many, tell me, think Andrew Wilie, who finished third in primary's, should have been put into the house on LABOR AND LIBERAL preferences?
Or that the green in the lower house should be there on Liberal preferences
Family first DLP many have entered Parliament on preferences.
The senate has a history of preferential system installing idiots!
Wilkie is in the house in front of two who between them more voters wanted but did not get and is holding this government to ransom on? poker machines!
Threatened by my refusal to hide my views I feel no hate pain or dislike for a good bloke but do not both over value your views and under value mine.
The Greens have peaked, Labor and conservative lay now on the bottom of the dam, but they will and are about to come back.
Heated insults will not see voters toe the line.

Belly not trying to pick on you but I think you are missing something basic here about preferential voting.

"That more AUSTRALIANS are offended by the greens than vote for them.
I wanted clearly! one value, no preferences, my vote as it can in NSW state elections, to die after it was counted ONCE."

In the case of Wilke which you mentioned it might be fair to say that more people were offended by either of the front runners than voted for him. The majority got a rep that they prefered to the alternative. If that wasn't the case then they could have given the number 2 spot to the other front runner.

If you don't like the green's or independents (and preferential voting is not optional) then give your number 2 vote to the coalition. We don't have to do what the party deal's tell us.

R0bert

Morganzola, if you had said to the Australian people in 1975 that within thirty years they would have only 20% of their manufacturing base left, that the economy would move from manufacturing to service industries. That in 40 years we would be a net importer of food, that countries such as China will be buying up our farmland to feed their people while we import food to satisfy Australia’s needs, and the remaining agricultural land was being purchased for coal seam gas extraction I expect that the response would have been as yours was to me, accuse the doomsayer of having a "paranoid rant".

All that I said has come to pass, and it is all in the Lima Protocols and that fact leaves me nothing except sovereignty deflated, suspicious and untrusting.

Belly, I'm not "belittling you", I'm disagreeing with your muddled ideas. What's with playing the victim here? The only "heated insults" I've seen in this thread have been coming from you.

You say you want "one vote, one value", when what you mean is 'first past the post' voting. If you were really in favour of one vote, one value you'd be arguing for proportional representation, but you simply ignored that possibility when I raised it earlier. You don't want to change the system to make it more democratic - you want to change it so no political parties other than the increasingly identical Labor and Liberals get a look-in.

Belly old mate, I'm certainly not threatened by your imperviousness to reason and civility, but I am disappointed that you've become obtuse and disingenuous in this argument.

@ Oin:

I'm not surprised that you're feeling "sovereignty deflated (whatever that means), suspicious and untrusting". To that list I'd have to add "credulous".