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.