The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > The Greens...are they trying to acheive to much?

The Greens...are they trying to acheive to much?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
You won’t get any defence of the Greens from me Is Mise.

I gave it my best shot with them in the early and mid 90s. But no, they just didn’t have it together.... and haven't improved.

I don’t know about the legitimacy of their policies on guns and drugs. And I can’t get enthused over them, for as long as they are so grossly missing the picture on vastly bigger issues, as outlined in my posts above.

So who do you vote for? I still think the Greens come closest to espousing the most important things for our nation and our quality of life. But nowhere near close enough to be effective or to deserve my vote.

Besides, with the incredible antidemocratic compulsory preferential voting system, my vote would end up counting for either Labor or Liberal anyway – whichever I put second last on my ballot paper…..even if I specifically and very strongly desired not to vote for either of the two big grossly future-destroying antisustainability political dinosaurs…which of course I do!!

This leads me to another major criticism of the Greens; their lack of outrage over this disgusting vote-stealing rort of a voting system.

So there is no-one for the true environmentalist and 'sustainabilityist' to vote for. And even if the there was, the growth-at-all-costs rush-towards-the-cliff parties would steal your vote anyway!

O what a mess Australian politics is in!
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 23 March 2007 8:15:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Recent, limited research has revealed that all political parties appear to support the hooched up "Guns for Fun" brigade (despite the Greens' platform) therefore, I suspect any future votes by me will be deemed Informal.
Posted by dickie, Friday, 23 March 2007 9:56:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie,

I respect your right to voice your opinions even though I disagree with them.

However here is something else to ponder; if it hadn't been for men with guns you wouldn't be allowed to express your opinions and certainly not in English, it is even doubtful that the Roman Alphabet would have featured on your keyboard.

We would probably have still had a Yen for money (lol, rolling eyes, smirk and other emoticons)
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:25:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Read my lips, Is Mise. I specifically expressed opposition to guns for fun.

Guns for fun have no relevance to a country defending its territory where they must resort to guns.

You know about the shooters, Is Mise since you are one of them where you use guns for fun. That's why you are attempting to exploit the readers on this thread with your silly attempts, plugging away for the Shooters Party.

You are part of the brigade who salivate over the prospect of killing a defenceless beast or bird for no other reason than the thrill of the kill.

Sick sick - sickos!

Why don't you try shooting clay pigeons?
Posted by dickie, Friday, 23 March 2007 4:12:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie.

I do shoot for fun especially at clay pigeons, but they taste gritty and you have to boil them for ages before they soften.
I also shoot foxes and have killed hundreds over the years, more than 500 since I started to keep count.
Now as a fox requires an absolute minimum of 5 ounces of food per day that means that if we deduct road kills, rabbits and fruit/berries, say 50%, that means the rest is probably native animals, birds and reptiles.

So 500 X 2.5 = 1250 ozs, let us further postulate that each animal etc., saved by killing the foxes equals, on average 8 ozs, that's
1250 divided by 8=156.25 animals etc., per day.
Now 156.25 X 365 days(1 year) = 56,940. I shot those foxes over a ten year period so let us take 3 as the next factor.
56,940 X 3 = 170,820, that's a conservative estimate of the number of native fauna that I have saved and I am only one among thousands of shooters who have done the same.

Feral cats I haven't taken into the equation nor wild dogs of which I've only shot three. I have killed some two dozen feral cats.

Now Dickie have you done as much or even a fraction as much?
I doubt that the Greens have saved as many of our fauna as I have alone.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 23 March 2007 7:45:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah dickie, I'd figured Is Mise as some kind of sock puppet too with this thread - which is why I haven't responded until now.

Now that he's outed himself as a Shooters Party stooge, I'm glad I didn't bother.

What is with these guys who get their jollies out of killing defenceless animals - feral or otherwise - anyway? Where I live I'm surrounded by them and I still don't get it.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:43:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy