You can make peace with Iran, Palestine and the Taliban and we'll retain the right to stand up and fight when threatened. You can have the greenies and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Penny Wong. You can also have the U.N. But we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the 4WDs, utes and V8s. You can take every hybrid hatchback you can find.

We'll keep "Waltzing Matilda" and our National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to keep in tune with Peter Garrett as he sings "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya", "We Are The World" and his recent big solo hit ?Beds and Batts are Burning?.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it so often offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded conservative Australians and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John Wall
Australian Law Student

P.S. Also, please take Lindsey Tanner, Wayne Swan, Alan Griffin, John Faulkner, Kevin Rudd and Jenny Macklin with you.

P. S. S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

I really don't see how anybody from the Right can claim that their freedom of speech is in any way curtailed, when polemical rubbish unmitigated by facts, of the kind cut and pasted here by individual above, are published daily in the MSM and on blog sites like this.

What do you want to say that is being supposedly suppressed? Given the depths to which the level of political discourse regularly descend on these pages, I shudder to imagine.

Where have you been 'individual'? That chain letter has been going around a while:

http://www.teapartyrangers.com/?p=287

Such a coincidence that your Australian 'Law student' has the same name as the American 'Law student'?

Methinks you simply have things in common with these grumpy old rednecks - nothing new.

Hey, hey, bonmot - good one!

Trickle-down neo-conservatism, no less.

Morganzola,

<< I’ve noticed that the latest meme being deployed by the denialists is to claim that their freedom of speech is threatened when people disagree with them. As in the act of disagreement itself constituting a restriction of another's freedom of speech. I'm not kidding.>>

No, you really MUST be kidding, Morganzola.

If all you see is the opposition to AGW getting upset because someone disagrees with them, then, I can only conclude that you must be viewing the world through one (squinting) eye.

Does this sound like mere a disagreement, or something a little stronger?

“Take Alan Jones. Though it pains me to say it, he is forcing me to change my mind. Not on climate change, or cycling, or the right to public protest, all of which he opposes, but on censorship”
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/cane-toads-of-the-air-thrive-on-stupidity-20110608-1fsuj.html#ixzz1RYrtjRqs

What was this, if not an attempt at censorship:

“MORE than 50 Australian academics have signed a letter urging Western Australia's Notre Dame University to cancel a speech by British climate change sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/academics-call-for-lord-monckton-ban-at-uni/story-e6frg6nf-1226084792062

Does this sound like a group open and unafraid of debate—or, a group eager to wage a McCarthyist style witch hunt?

"There is not a robust scientific basis for drawing definitive and objective conclusions about the effect of human influence on future climate,"
“I would be grateful if you could let me know which organisations in the UK and other European countries have been receiving funding so that I can work out which of these have been similarly providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business

and, here’s a little overview of state of play:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8621

PS: those who doubt some aspects of AGW are usually a pretty mild mannered bunch ---why, we don’t even get upset when old Bonmot calls us rednecks’ and neocons’

rstuart,

I raise this because,

“The opposition majority has now invited those who have a contrary view to speak publicly on their behalf.” And there are clear attempts to censor.

I evidenced this censorship response by the warmertariat as;

“40 academics signed a petition to prevent a skeptic from a public speaking engagement, the withdrawal of venues by some Clubs for similar events, the threatening letters sent by GetUp to companies opposed to the CO2 tax and the disgusting personal attacks upon the international guest speaker, Lord Monkton by the likes of the ABC’s Alan Spencer”

I can’t make the censorship issue any clearer and have provided the evidence; all you have to do is address the issue without more diversions?

Bonmot,

I’m specifically not addressing my personal freedom of speech (see above), but thank you for the offer.

morganzola,

CAGW refers to Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming. It is not new in the debate and some might ask the question how you have come to such strong views on this topic without knowing what the debate has been about?

The two fundament and specific issues in this thread are censorship and vilification. The censorship issues are clear and in the public domain, as eveidenced above.

The issues of abuse are curious.

From rstuart we have; “utterly infantile”, “credible as a local butcher”, “moronic”

From morganzola we have; “denialist apologetics”, “impervious to evidence and reason”, “rednecks”, “dumb appeal” and “unambiguous ignorance”.

We have to wonder why the warmertariat are “not happy Marge”? We are about to pass a CO2 tax through both Houses of Parliament, for good, bad or indifferent. Why has this made you all so belligerent? What more can you possibly wish for?

You have a result that exceeds you wildest dreams, you have all been “vindicated” and yet, the abuse vilification and censorship has actually increased. Now that is curious.

Not one of the pro-CAGW lobby has been willing, or possible able, to address the issue of abuse and censorship.

Are any of you going to?