What a shambles !
You would think that they would have a chairman who knew how to run a meeting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0FmFOGnf10&feature=player_embedded#!

They voted on both the amendment and the motion !

One speaker supporting Bob Brown's motion did not like the amendment because it was democratic ! He actually said that !

Ye Gods, they appear to have passed both !

im sorry your party has adgendas
[regardless of wether ot not greens was a sham ble

i watched the alp insanity
where a vote took seemingly many couinters tallying votes
say 20 minutes of nuthing[when on tv..we get it live*..plus a wurm*

it woul;d take only 3 days
a long weekend..to rent the studio
and hold the lot of em to account...

why no worm on qanda*..eh?
why cant we link our own wurm[computer]..into qanda..LIVE TIME ALL THE TIME..[our own public bullssshh it detectors..on screen live time all the time

FAIR and balanced
the party system is so yesterday
when we couldnt attend govt..we sent a rep..but now heck

we can hear..the case
and vote ourselves..[or should have that option..
even if only via a wurm]

squirm
you party loyalists
we diont need reps telling us whats what
give us our communal live time worm voice..[over everything the media says you say]

now the party loyalty
country treason..the party system

go away
meeting attract sheeple..not goats..free thinking

And they want to run the world.

God help us.

And Oakshott and Windsors hate for Abbott led them to jump into bed with the commos. How proud they must be.

Dear runner,

You say that you're a Christian?

You'd never guess it from your posts.

Lexi

Maybe you have not considered that you may have made in your own mind what a Christian should or should not look like. I seem to remember somewhere you quoting text about not judging others. Is this no longer part of your theology?

Dear runner,

This isn't about me old chap. It's about the language
you're using and the judgements you're making about
people - which rather surprised me coming from you
who professes to
believe in the teachings of Christ - especially at this
time of the year. It appears that you don't believe in
practising what Christ preaches.

Yes, Hasbeen, I guess one compensation we have is that they are so
incompetent that they would never be able to organise a one world government.

They voted on Bob's motion and the amendment and voted on both, so now
they have two conflicting policies.
At no time did the amendment become the motion and then voted upon.
Apparently Bob's motion is the nondemocratic one.

At no time did the chairman state that either motion was passed.
So, probably they do not have any policy on world government.
So when Bob gives a wide grin and beams that the greens have a world
government policy we can say, "Oh no you don't !"

Well Lexi I am glad at least you give validation to Christ's teachings. That is heartening.

Dear runner,

Bless You.

STOP IT..you two
we need to bring forth our differnces
to get to the core[that core that hurts]

let go our fears..by bringing it on

not being nice
lol

lord what would happen
if everyone was acting like you two...too

toot toot
mute

the vote wasnt ratified
great...or is it

one world govt
one boss telling us what to do

hey that might allow a level of govt to go

lol
only joking
we love the beurocratic leeches sukking our lifeblood dry

Lexi, this is not you?

runner and Hasbeen have introduced what I think are valid perspectives. OUG is also presenting some balance. What is it about the current socio-political stand-off that provokes so much in the way of “out of character” responses?

If the Green agenda is taking us away from our core beliefs and values, does this not speak more to the Greens distortions rather than our traditional and well supported values?

Lexi, your posting history tells us much about YOU. It is an admirable you. Likewise there is a long history of runner, Hasbeen and Bazz style responses. We all know who and what you are. So, why do you have to defend who and what you really are?

Is it possible that a radicalization has been provoked by those who seek to “split the difference”?

I am not comfortable with an OLO environment where regular posters feel the need to shift or justify their perspectives left or right to accommodate dysfuncionality, ideology or radicalism. We should all stand by what we stand by. That is what makes us all who we are, and you Lexi, are Lexi.

I doubt anyone on OLO would feel comfortable with Lexi being “other than Lexi” because you are a reference point.

Spin doc, Barry, bit weak of you bloke.
I understand why you target Lexi, but have just in another thread seen you take to such as runner.
Now tell me, do YOU think Labor is full of commies?
I have time and again found reason to ask runner what brand of Christian is he?
A bigotry comes in many posts or is it, lack of insight?
You will be full of joy at Craig Thomson report.
I unsurprised but said that a year ago.
My love of the trade union movement, demands I say this 20 years prison will not be enough.
Lexi, you are quite right.
Greens do not seem to know it them selves, but they are a mixture of every lost cause the left ever had.
If voting Labor, vote two Liberal.
If the DD election comes do not waste a senate vote.
Majority government is the only hope against fleas like them.

Belly by all means have a go at me but stop misrepresenting me. Nowhere did I accuse all the Labour party as being commos. The article is about the Greens convention. Oakshot and Windsor because of their hate for Abbott pooped on tbeir electorates and jumped into bed with the Greens and Labour. The smirkness and deceit was written all over their faces and in their speaches. The Greens believe in global Government (communism) and many other perverted things. The idiotic carbon tax is just one of their crazy policies. I think even you have acknowledge that about the Greens who have divided your party and marginlised the decent members of your party.

Careful Belly, for a couple of minutes I thought you were talking to me !

Well, yes the meeting did come across as disorganised and disjointed BUT before making a judgement I would rather ask for more information.

What is wrong with multi-lateral organisations in some aspects of global governance? What is wrong with keeping governments and organisations to account through the people?

What is wrong with the people having a vote rather than being at the mercy of dictators, government or corporate or otherwise?

I can see a great argument for a multi-lateral organisation, for example, that looked at aid to support developing countries and also one that might help raise the status of women in those countries that currently see women as chattel. Currently so much of the aid budget is tied up with diplomacy as much as it is about need.

And, NO I don't want a global government in any shape of form.

BUT what part of this YouTube clip indicated this was a motion for Global Government. This is just panic mongering without taking a moment to ask or question what this motion was really about. All I saw was a disorganised bunch of Greens putting a motion for some multi-lateral cooperation.

I hate to break it to some of you, but the only way we can bring about greater equality is to ensure the undeveloped and developing world is not exploited in an unequal power relationship.

Please explain the communist plot as I can't see it just from this clip.

Belly, when you are prepared and capable of responding to the issues raised rather than defending your ideological position, then you will be respected. It seems as though, particularly in the last few months, that you have increasingly lost your ability to stay on topic. If this is due to advancing years or an increasing suspension of reality, I truly appoligise. It will aflict us all at some stage.

That said, it in no way absolves you from the responsibility for staying in the real world. You can only rely on your "history" and "ideology" for so long, after that you are going to be relegated to the old world of hasbeens. If you have grandchildren, they will be your point of reference for the modern world. If you don't have grandchildren, I am really sad for you.

Thanks spin doc/Barry, I truly, regard comment like that, from you, as high praise.
How is Menzies house these days?
Do not be concerned about the rooms shaking it is only its name sake rolling in his grave.
I can see no degree of change in your posts.
Then again you started very near the bottom in any case.
Runner ok, if it was not the ALP you called commies but only some of the greens are that.
In fact they are a whole new breed.
I doubt even they could say just what they are.
And I dare not!

Dear spindoc,

I'm sorry that I've somehow disappointed you.
Runner understood what I was getting at - and
that was all that I wanted to do. We've sorted
things out between us.

I think that in the current political climate -
we all tend to be a bit emotional and say things
we shouldn't. We could all do with taking a few
deep breaths - and having a bit of a re-think
before we say things.

The greens are Communists and want Global Governance at any cost.This is a political/scientific/banking elite who think they need to control the planet and us "useless eaters" need to be culled drastically.

There certainly was some colourful comments attached to the opening clip. I must say though, I think that it is good to hear people really say what they think and feel about issues that they consider to be of importance.

To clarify further, and recalling comments made on Q&A last night, notwithstanding the toxicity of some debates, and thinking for example about the Tasmanian Forestry issue, I do not support the practice of speaking "nicely" to people to the extent that it is used to veil abhorrent practices.

Commentators would perhaps do well to recall the position that the *Greens* hold in the Senate.

Having said that though, I would like to see *GreenBrowny* differentiate himself in a big way from the majority of the other politicians, who in my view having gained support, simply and largely do as they please, and "Lay down the Sword," take the mic and invite willing Australians on a 1 person 1 vote basis to participate in an indicative on line plebiscite visa vi the issue of the carbon tax, and be prepared to step away from it, on the basis that for right or for wrong, for better or for worse, the active majority of Ozzies may not want it, and in so doing, bow to the Will of the People above and beyond their own personal agendas.

As I have often said, climate change and global warming, if real, will ultimately force the issue anyway, with or without an united global mechanism to deal with it.

Of greater importance is how they choose to exercise their power, as if they do not acknowledge the majority will, then they are no better than any of the rest and as perhaps quite correctly pointed out by numerous commentators like *Belly,* will be punished by the electorate as a whole just as were the democrats.

Though I am not so naive to believe that they will do this, if they were to "Lay down the Sword" they may find that in the future that the electorate would give it back to them.

Pelican said;
What is wrong with multi-lateral organisations in some aspects of
global governance?
>

Can you please define multi-lateral organisations for me ?
Ummm, all governments have multiple functions, is that what you mean ?

Yea or Nae, you lost me.

BBs idea seems a bit impracticable. One man one vote, hmmm, in China
the one man would be the the Party Secretary with 1.2 billion votes.

Bazz
I assumed given you posted the clip that you had listened to it, multi-lateral organisations are mentioned in the early part of the meeting. How can you criticise something if you clearly don't know what it is.

Multi-lateral organisations in the context of the clip you posted relate to bodies that work across borders (such as the UN, NATO, Aid groups) just to name a few. I, however, doubt the Greens were talking specifically about the UN or NATO in the context of this meeting.

From my understanding of the Greens, there concerns are around Global Governance (I think some people need to Google it so as not to confuse it with Government). That is, a greater accountability for actions by governments and/or organisations where power tends to reside almost entirely with an elite minority.

This is not as Bazz wrongly asserts about a global voting system but enhancing a system of global accountability so that the dictators of policy do not hold court over basic democracy particularly in countries where there is little democracy.

I personally have problems with some multi-laterals like the UN because often they are used to promulgate a narrow agenda and fail to adhere to it's charter of peacekeeping or in preventing genocide such as with Rwanda. There are always risks in any group especially when politics are involved, but that does not mean we should not consider areas where multi-lateral agreements or organisations could work to improve conditions for people in developing countries.

Or work in ways such as in reducing corruption. Working through trade and other economic agreements where bans or sanctions are placed on nations who seek bribes or pay bribes to unfairly compete. Or where there are pitiful working conditions for people in the developing world whose disadvantage enhance the profits of irresponsible profiteers.

But Bazz you have cleverly avoided my the main question. How is this clip indicative of a Communist plot? You can divert the question by focussing on defininitions but I am still not sure how this clip supposes a Communist agenda or a world government.

I keep myself updated by reading every comment and want to add a few thoughts.
Greens are not communists,maybe a few but not the group.
Yes Global Governance is not, never was, global government.
Gee folks it is the very basis of UN .
An intention to internationalis answers to problems.
And not,in my view a threat but a promise.
Now Lexi,hope I do not offend you Friend.
Heated words, within reason,are not a threat.
IF we hold first ourselves accountable for those we use.
Any other hiding our true thoughts and opinions, behind a niceness for the sake of peace, is in my view a lie.
Spin doc and I will roll in the mud,but both understand one another.
I dislike and distrust the greens, but never enough to fabricate reasons.
Not communist, not yet,looking for one world government,maybe every party will one day.
But in my view unable to concede others views have any value.
Bazz, gee! one vote one value only sees less minority party's not imaginary communists.

This is democracy in action. Other political parties would do well to take a leaf out of The Greens book and start practicing a little bit of grass roots democracy. Too used to having it all imposed from above, I suppose. The Labor Party have their Big Union bosses to tell them what to do and say, the Liberals have their Big Business bosses to tell them what to do and say, no room for the little bloke. I have a novel idea for the Labor and Liberal parties, why don't you give your rank and file membership a say, like The Greens do, or does that smack of communism!

Paul said;
why don't you give your rank and file membership a say, like The Greens do, or does that smack of communism!

Now there is a statement of nonsense.
The very last thing the party secretary ever gave the members was a say.
Not even which prison camp they were sent to !

Pelican said;
I assumed given you posted the clip that you had listened to it,
multi-lateral organisations are mentioned in the early part of the meeting.
How can you criticise something if you clearly don't know what it is.

I did not critisise multilateral organisations !
I critisised the conduct of the meeting.
>
Pelican said;
This is not as Bazz wrongly asserts about a global voting system but
enhancing a system of global accountability so that the dictators of
policy do not hold court over basic democracy particularly in
countries where there is little democracy.
>
Oh yes it is ! Bob Brown said one man one vote one government.
He made that quite clear. I heard him say it.

Pelican said;
But Bazz you have cleverly avoided my the main question. How is this
clip indicative of a Communist plot?
You can divert the question by focussing on defininitions but I am
still not sure how this clip supposes a Communist agenda or a world government.
>
I am beginning to wonder about you. Is there a problem with you ?
Nowhere did I say there was a communist plot !
What on earth was your main question ?
You really need to understand what someone writes before you make
statements like the above.

My dear Bazz, I implore you "Come out of that dark capitalistic cave you inhabit and join us in the sunshine of a Greener world." The only future that holds promise for tomorrows generation is a 'sustainable future'. I assure you the claims that Greens are communists is totally untrue. There is no secret agenda within the Greens to take over the World as some would have it.
On Sunday I took a friend to a Greens meeting. My friend has been a Labor supporter and a strong union person all her life, skeptical of The Greens, so often calling us 'a well intentioned bunched of ratbags'. I had no motive taking her to the meeting other than giving her a chance to meet with, and listen to, Greens, never expecting her to join the party. She spoke with and questioned a good number of members including members of both state and federal Parliament, there was about 200 people there. After the meeting I said to her "What did you think?" She said "I want to join The Greens."
Belly not sorry mate, but you just lost another one. I must say one young bloke I met really surprised me. He was brought up in a very active Liberal family, joined the Young Liberals at uni and very active with them, Admitted that at one time he was very anti Green. Got involved in some social justice issues and through that found the Liberals were not for him, He is now not only a Greens member but wants to run for public office. We have all kinds of members.

Dear Paul,

Inspiring post. Extremely well argued.
I had the pleasure of meeting and talking
to the Green MP in our electorate recently.
And I must admit I was impressed by his
total honesty, openess, and logic. He was
well informed, knew what he was talking about,
and was very persuasive.

Paul said;
I assure you the claims that Greens are communists is totally untrue.
>

Where did I say the greens were a communist plot ?
I think you are repeating what Pelican said I said.
Well he made that up.
Just go back and read what I said, not what others say I said.

I have heard the accusations that the greens are green on the outside
and red on the inside, and there are previous communists in the greens
but for all I know they may have become enlightened.

My comment on this whole thing was that the conduct of the meeting
was a shambles and anyone who watched it could not think other than
the chairman was out of her depth.
Also I said two motions, one an amendment were both passed and you
just cannot have that.
Either the amendment fails or the amendment becomes the motion and
is then voted upon.
With an amendment only one policy motion can be passed.
I never said anything about communists !

The only one to raise the communist bogey was Arjay.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 7:50:28 PM

It seems that both Pelican and Paul just make up whatever they want
and accuse others of saying it.

Not very friendly that.
Personally I don't think the communists are the basis of the Greens
as they are too amateurish and if the communists were running them you
would see more professionalism and more undermining of other
organisations by "greens".

The greens are more honest than the communists which is why they tend
to be more intense and chase airy fairy projects.

Well I think I do owe you an apology Bazz reference Communist plots. You are right - on re-reading, it was another poster.

You did query my reference to multi-lateral organisations which seemed an odd question, given it was in reference to your own link.

I have not read the Greens policy manifesto on their website for a while but do not recall anything about a one-world government in the way you infer. Bob Brown, at the conference, talked about a more cohesive global approach for the greens particularly in relation to climate change and environmental issues in the context of green voting. However, further reading and searching could not find a link to a one-world government policy.

The only thing I did find was a reference to a parliamentary assembly within the UN system that would be "composed of representatives of national parliaments but ultimately it should become a body that is directly elected by the world’s citizens. As representation of the world’s citizens, we believe that a UNPA, among other things, should be involved in all important intergovernmental treaty negotiations."

That is "involved in intergovernmental treaty negotiations" which already happens now through other ML bodies such as the WTO. At least the Greens option means a vote for citizens in relation to the UN and I suspect it won't be one-man-one vote but one-country-one vote ie. each nation voting for it's own represenative who sits on the Assembly. That is more democracy than we have now where any UN posting is decided purely by government.

PS: the quote above came from right winger Andrew Bolt's blog, same quote just his interpretation was self-serving. I wondered if we had even read the same paragraph.

This is very different from a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT policy if you read the statement carefully and would not impact on the sovereignty or independence of country governments any more than the status quo.

Hi Bazz, I did not mean to imply that it was you who was saying its all a communist plot when I posted:
"I assure you the claims that Greens are communists is totally untrue. There is no secret agenda within the Greens to take over the World as some would have it."
The "some" I was referring to were others, people in general, not you as you had not said that. I apologise that my post could, and was, interpreted as you saying that.
One thing that has struck me about the young people in particular, I have met from the Greens, and from Labor and the Liberal parties as well, although very idealistic their hearts are certainly in the right place when it comes to wanting to see a better Australia, I hope as they grow older they never change.
Politically I think Australia, like the rest of the world, will face some very difficult times tomorrow, with mountainous challenges to overcome, I am confident the young of today, well at least young Australians, will be able to meet those challenges head on.

paul/quote..""I took a friend to a Greens meeting.""

so you had an invite?
and bought a guest?

mate i found a greens meeting just outside of canberra
[by syncronicty]..and at the time was a fully paid up greenie[monthly deduction etc]

i wasnt allowed in

but you know how to right?

""My friend..She spoke with and questioned a good number of members including members of both state and federal Parliament,""

sounds like more than a 'local meeting'
i can see myself outside it..unable to get in

your invited right?
must have a high position!

""there was about 200 people there.....""including members
of *both state and federal Parliament"""

not a local greeny gathering
[6 people yebbering ..about the next action
with one bossman..that gets invite to the next inner circle meeting?

""After the meeting I said to her.."What did you think?"
She said "I want to join The Greens."...

how many greenies/
need i lead...to get into this meeting?
that meeting [a deligates meeting}.. right?

Paul 1405, writes: "Politically I think Australia, like the rest of the world, will face some very difficult times tomorrow, with mountainous challenges to overcome, I am confident the young of today, well at least young Australians, will be able to meet those challenges head on."

I am so thrilled that Green's are openly grazing here on OLO. I haven't been able to get one to provide a cogent party line on the following thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4897#130772

I am really struggling to see how Greens could possibly see themselves as a part of guiding Australia in the future when they are going to be smashed to smithereens at the next election.

I apologize for re-raising the thread, but the issue is a sleeper that will be upon us again as the next election approaches.

Please start a new thread, Paul1405 and supporters, rather than cluttering up this one to explain the Green's strategy to remain relevant without political power.

I may be wrong,I like every one often am.
But our mate Paul dreams of things that others consider nightmares.
I had dreams not unlike that,basically in the way they did not relate to reality.
Hunger did that, pumpkins and spuds for tea skins for breakfast,true hunger.
Big bush family,equaled hunger.
Dad would have kicked me,Communism,then Socialism, he was the second I once the two.
I dreamed.
Only a dictator ship could change this country,or the western world to green.
At least my upbringing was from the bottom, greens are middle income or higher,never needed to dream about food or a home.
Would you vote green?
A party that rises and falls,within a small margin, as Labor rises and falls in popularity.
8 to 14 percent is its margin.
Conference a shambles? why would you think it would not be.
Within that conference the last communists, lost extreme socialist,and a hundred other small groups stood.
All convinced the rest of us just need educating.

Paul 1405
Yes I did misunderstand what you wrote.
I do not know anything about the conference or indeed about the
motions that were the subject of the utube clip.
They were projected on a screen above the chairman so were not visable
to the TV.
My critism was devoted to the poor understanding of procedure and the
misunderstanding of how an amendment is handled.

So when Bob Brown now says that the world green movement supports his
policy of a world government he will be wrong because both motions are invalid.

Generally I do not support the greens because I think they let their
objectives get in the way of reallity.
Perhaps I should explain my attitude.

I am in favour of alternative energy systems but i believe it is much
more urgent than the Greens believe.
I would recommend anyone to read the Hirsch Report.
A bit of history on the report. It was commissioned by the US Dept
of Energy but when it was completed in 2005 they did not like it as
it was contrary to the opinion of the EIA (Energy Information Authority)
So it was put onto an obscure web site, but was found sometime later
by some US High School kids and put out for all to see.

In the report Hisch states that to manage a smooth transition to an
alternative energy regime will require 20 years before peak oil.
Peak Crude Oil we now know occurred in 2006. The production of crude
oil has been static since 2006 and the slack has been made up in a
reduction of use by US & Europe due to the GFC and an increase in
biofuels.
However total production of crude plus all liquids has not increased
yet demand is increasing in China and India.

This is why the Greens have their policies wrong, we need to use
all of our energy sources such as coal and oil to make the transition.
We are now too late to avoid a long period of depression in the
economy while we crank up alternative energy regimes.

If anyone finds what I said to be away with the fairies then read
this url.

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/node/10936

It is not a scientific paper it is just the writing of the Mayor of a
city who has studied the implications. It just popped up on my screen
when I finished the last post and went to emails.

You can find plenty of scientific papers that you can spend weeks studying.

The IEA (International Energy Authority) the OECD body setup to study
oil supply tells us that we need to find a new Saudi Arabia every two
years just to keep supply constant, let alone increase supply for
developing countries.
In the two years since we have not discovered a new Saudi Arabia.

This is the problem that the Greens need to push on.
If they did I would probably vote for them.

OUG I will try and answer your questions

so you had an invite? Yes
and bought a guest? Yes
I have bought guests to Greens meetings before as observers, never been a problem.

but you know how to right? How to what, can not understand the question.

your invited right? Answered that question above.

how many greenies/
need i lead...to get into this meeting? Just one, you.

that meeting [a deligates meeting}.. right? No

OUG My branch meetings usually attracts about 30 held one a month about 10 meetings a year. More attend at election time. Regardless of who you are in The Greens if you nominate to stand as a Greens candidate at any level of government you have to make your case before the rank and file at a pre-selection meeting, and be voted on, be it for the Senate or the local council.

paul/quote..'' My branch meetings usually attracts about 30''

paul quote...""there was about 200 people there.""
c;early it was higher than 'a branch meeting'

mate i know as a card carrying cash cow..i still couldnt make my way into that meeting of 200 plus[going by the cars]

i was then green
giving the greens cash..[by autodeduction]
but when i heard of a meting..i wasnt allowed into the in

nuthing more
nuthing less

you have your experiences
i lived mine...and thus i tested *all the parties

and found them all wanting
i want them gone..[yes i know it wont happen]
but green is more than all the browns...

browned off former greenie
ben there dun that...and couldnt even get in to buy the tshirt

im glad it works for you
it dont work for all

im not after sympathy
i simply wanted to attend my first green meting
it resulted in my last try to 'join' into..*any party

if its not tom burns lying to me...
its the greens telling the hemp party..not to run
for the fed senete..[cause greens would loose half their doper vote]

thus some things..stay policy
and the vile gets dun

Hi OUG,

I as a Green would not tolerate any member or potential member being excluded from any meeting to which they are entitled to attend. We welcome new members with open arms. As your post indicated that you are in the ACT/Canberra area I did have a word with someone from the ACT Greens about exclusions they were not aware of this practice at branch level. Unlike the Labor and Liberal parties we do not have factions within the Greens so neither branch stacking or exclusions are a problem.
I do suggest you contact the ACT Greens and make them aware of your experience, here are the details.

The ACT Greens
GPO Box 2019
Canberra ACT 2601
Ph: (02) 6247 6305
Fax: (02) 6247 6455
act@greens.org.au
act.greens.org.au

thanks paul...
but mate this was ten years ago[or more]
i was conned into signing an auto withdrawel deduction from my bank
[but had decided them 'a worthy cause']

i happend accross a meting just outside of canberra
of hundreds..thus clearly not 'a local'...meeting
[i attended one in nimbin..8 greenies in the drug capital]

the local one was simply a mattrer of wandering in
the canberra one..was for the masters...to get their orders

i know that sounds 'strong'..but mate i know what happend..and what didnt..[now im over all of em]

i put issues up
hoping they get fixed
but somehow..no matter when..i try to get into the master metying [where it matters]..that just aint going to happen

ditto alp/hemp party..[for sure]
lib is highly likely

but as i say
im over it..the lot of it
i support people..NOT PARTY*
party loyalty is treazion..to the people

im over parties
[but not party patzies][wink]

i love that you and shadows/belly etc can still feel anything for what

a party

others histry
sure beinmg sustainable is great
but global warming is fraud

recycle...is the same as throwing a thing away
re-use..reuse reuse..thats logical
the longer you can re-use a thing/consumable..the more gren it may claim to be

but the best efforts of thousands
can be thwarted by a cup handle

and thats the party line

for those not green at heart
i will expand on previous throwaway line

the best efforts..of thousands..;recycling glass
their efforts will be despoiled by a single cup handle
that cuts the recycling of glass/process
dead

a mess is returned
[plus costs*
[transports processing/heating
smelting..emptying the hot cauldrin]

[plus disposal costs]
of the glass spoil/plus loss of earnings
money money money..

that gets buried at your tip
with just one bit..of crockery chip

recycling process
cant handle...the cup handle

Regardless of Bazz's intent, I find I get a bit tired of some of the anti-Green propaganda because it dwells in the area of misinformation.

It is done on purpose and ultimately in a democracy that values free speech it is par for the course, however one has to wonder at the motives of those behind spreading these pearls of fabricated stories. And no I am not referring to Bazz's post just some of the general responses here and those reported in the wider media.

If one disagrees with the Greens policy, all well and good, but the misinformation typical of some of the anti-Greens indicate a failure to have confidence in their own policies.

That is, if what you believe is so good why the need to spread misinformation about another party's policies? Why not just argue on merits or lack of merit. When some people are pulled up on their assertions of global governments and the like suddenly they disappear into the ether.

yes we should 'be nice'..by all means
even as the green fibs [warming/droughts..bushfires cyclones
meter high..sea level rises]...

keep unraveling..

but what got bob/in the end
was the long slow bleed
[as *both main parties..put green last]

yep the high spot has passsed
i wont mention it..at the cheer fest
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5080&page=0

but bob knows
in time it will filter down ..as it sinks in
from the head..

[yeah i once followed his lies..but got over it]

he got his...*gren slime slush fund
now watch him revel..in the grand green grant sand pit

lol
watch that space...

its about getting a slush fund
and the greenie one...just came in..*

and brown jumps the green