Ex-PM Paul Keating says that the Greens have no claims to be green. He says they are Trots who troll the major parties in the Senate.

Ex-PM Gillard would agree with him. The always treacherous, headline grabbing, credit-taking Greens scuttled her chances, but Abbott was always given the credit for unseating her.

Most mature voters would admit that the Greens only demonstrate an interest in the environment at election time. After that, the lazy Greens just grandstand and are disruptive, wasting costly Parliamentary hours, days and sessions.

Keating,

<Greens self-serving Trots: ex-PM Keating
JUNE 25, 2016

Former prime minister Paul Keating has used a Labor rally to turn his caustic wit on the Greens Party, labelling it "a bunch of opportunists and Trots" splitting the progressive vote.['Progressive' - the necessary euphemism for International Socialism, which the Australian electorate rejects]

In his first public address of the 2016 election campaign, Mr Keating told the Sydney crowd the Greens were reducing Labor's ability to form government.
"They're a protest party, not a party of government, but their game is to nobble the party of government that can actually make changes," Mr Keating said.
"You can't be a government when you've got a bunch tearing away at you, trying to pinch a seat here and there, all to make themselves look important."
..
"
"They purloined the name Greens. We're more green than they are," he said".>

That doesn't bode well for another hung Parliament.

Opportunists Trots or Time-Wasting Trolls, that the media and particularly the ABC do not hold to account? Or misunderstood?

Getting nervous are you Beach? As one old dinosaur with his antique clocks and gucci suits tries to hold the fort for that other Labor looser Albanese in Grayndler, where the Greens candidate Jim Casey has a fair chance of winning the seat.
Keating took his snout out of the public trough just long enough to try and stick it up the Greens, not that anyone outside the ALP cares what Keating thinks anyway. What's more important is Keating trying to give an endorsement for Albanese to stab Shorten, after Shorten gets thumped next Saturday. Assuming of course that Shorten does get thumped and Albo is still there.

Beach, things are looking desperate for your gal Pauline and One Nation in Queensland. What does dinosaur Keating think of your party up there. Not that I care, i'm more concerned with helping The Greens get two up in the Senate in NSW than any grubby comments from Keating.

Keep up the goading Onthebeach, the arrogance that pours our of Paul's posts will remind everyone that this is one of the prime characteristics of the greens.

Good to have it poured out here, where many will read it. Should stop many who may be thinking of parking a vote there, when the main parties have such hopeless leaders.

It must be a real problem for the Greens, despising the very people they have to attract to vote for them, if they want people elected.

Keating, spot on as always.

Greens are dags on the fly-blown backside of the Labor Party. I can only hope the electorate sees this clearly and votes Labor or Liberal.

//not that anyone outside the ALP cares what Keating thinks anyway.//

Well that's not true. Beach obviously cares a great deal for the opinions of International Socialists like ex-Labor leaders, at least when they're criticising the Greens. Probably not so much when they're criticising the Liberals. Or indeed any time when they're not criticising the Greens.

//What's more important is Keating trying to give an endorsement for Albanese to stab Shorten, after Shorten gets thumped next Saturday.//

Oh for heaven's sake, this isn't Game of Thrones. Although a few more tits would definitely spice up the campaign ;)

But nobody is getting stabbed, thumped, raked over the coals, tarred, feathered, hanged, drawn or quartered.

One party will lose by a narrow margin and the other party will win by a narrow margin. Thus speaketh the soothsayer Toni.

And you can all suck my cock (or 'man-fowl' in the Old Tongue) if I'm wrong. Thus further speaketh the soothsayer Toni.

Hassy, you can stop sitting on the fence now, and cast your vote for the ratbag right party of your choice.
"the arrogance that pours out" you would know Hassy being a past master.

Luciferase, "Greens are dags on the fly-blown backside of the Labor Party" Thanks for the complement I'll keep it in mind. If you ever even just contemplate voting Green please let me know, because that's the day I resign, obviously by then the party has attracted such obnoxious degenerates no self respecting person would want to be associated with a party of reprobates.

"One party will lose by a narrow margin and the other party will win by a narrow margin" Toni I think you are right. I think that loser will be Labor, now that Chicken Little Turnbull is on winner by running around telling everyone "the sky is falling" in the form of GB and Europe.
"But nobody is getting stabbed, thumped, raked over the coals, tarred, feathered, hanged, drawn or quartered." Are you saying its a quite day in Canberra.
Keating has made more enemies in politics than anyone, and most of them are in the Labor Party, just ask Bob Hawke.

Ex Liberal leader John Hewson addressed 2000 people at a Greens organised rally yesterday in Sydney just down the road from Turnbull's joint, on 'Climate Change'. Hewson accused the Coalition of being a "national disgrace" on the subject. What do you make of that? Once wanted to be a Liberal PM no less.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jun/26/climate-change-john-hewson-accuses-coalition-of-national-disgrace

For years there has been a very nasty takeover push by the Trotskyists, the 'Watermelons' faction. There is nothing subtle about the disruptive tactics and the boots going in.

Here it is, blowing the lid off the NSW Greens while the electioneering is underway. Typical Trots/'Watermelon' Greens.

News Report,
"The New South Wales Greens party has broken out into civil war in the middle of the election campaign following Carole Medcalf's ousting as the party's executive officer.

The party's long-term treasurer, Chris Harris, has resigned over Ms Medcalf's treatment, and in an email to members he has accused the party of acting like a major bank trying "to shaft their customers".

Ms Medcalf was hired to professionalise the party and act as campaign director.

Senior federal Greens have told 7.30 they are dismayed by Ms Medcalf's departure and the rift in the state organisation.

For years there has been a bitter dispute for control of the NSW party between the hard left, known as the watermelons (green on the outside, red in the middle), and the moderates, who backed Ms Medcalf.
..
When 7.30 asked Mr Di Natale about the conflict, he said it was a matter for the NSW party and he knew nothing about it."[The ostrich 'denialist' manoeuvre].

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-26/nsw-greens-internal-war-over-party-control/7447340

Thanks Luciferase,

I might get a bumper sticker saying "Honk if you think that the Greens are dags on the fly-blown backside of the Labor Party."

I used to give out how-to-vote stuff for the Greens, after their stepfathers, the Democrats, folded. In my defence, I thought they were interested in the environment.

Paul, some of us can think, we're not all 'dinosaurs' or 'ratbags' or even 'obnoxious degenerates', but thanks for the laugh. 'Obnoxious degenerates': I'll have to think about that, it sounds like fun.

Speaking of Trots, I wonder if there are people in every religion or ideology who develop a sort of psychotic paranoia, whereby anybody who disagrees with them is Evil Incarnate, for whom no vile punishment is too harsh. A characteristic of this would be whether or not adherents, after, say, an election, redouble their efforts to purge and exclude non-true-believers, and blame outsiders for all of their failings, perhaps calling for jail or the death penalty for unbelievers, or perhaps throwing them off tall buildings.

Islamists, fundamentalist Christians and Trots have historically followed this path after defeat, amongst others. After all, faith or theory work perfectly well in theory even if never in practice.

I'm puzzled, Paul, why you would want - as an example of Greens' faulty policies - to restrict illegal refugees only to leaky boats: why not sea-worthy boats ? Why accept those poor buggers only if they have risked their lives on the high seas ?

Cheers,

Joe

In NSW, Ian Cohen was the last Greens MP who was a fair dinkum conservationist, but Lee Rhiannon hated his guts, probably because he was male, straight, a conservationist with guts and a Jew.
That last must have really gotten up her nose.

The answer to this question is - any derogatory term describes the Greens. They are truly awful, nasty people.

Hi Joe,

So you were one of those "dags on the fly-blown backside of the Labor Party". What happened? did you fall off. Yes, get yourself a buumper sticker, rather long winded, but I'm sure it will fit your rear end with no trouble.. Now how did you get involved with the Greens, did you wander in the wrong door or something. Your story reminds me of that African American who tried to join the Ku Klux Klan.

Beach, you would think if your going to pontificate on a subject like The Greens, you would have some knowledge to rely upon, but in your case you waffle on, but are totally bereft of any such intelligence at all. Amazing, how do you do it?

Hi Is Mise,

Yes, it's interesting - and appalling - how often ratbags and extremists resort, sooner or later, to anti-Semitism. I recall a Maoist friend who denied the Holocaust - where was the evidence, he said. I suppose the answer is, nowhere if you're not willing to look for it.

So I'm half-expecting Trumpf to make a slip and have a go at Jews, maybe even slag Lewandowski (well, it does sound like a Jewish name).

Of course, as with Senator Rhiannon, Trumpf might not mean it: from a complete opportunist, that might only be calculated to get some of the Islamist vote.

Cheers,

Joe

G'day Paul,

That gave me another laugh: no, my rear wouldn't be big enough for such a slogan, I'll have to think of one (seven words limit) that could fit on yours.

I gave out stuff for the Greens from about 2003 until about 2011, letter-boxing, spending Saturday afternoons giving out stuff at the polling stations. I still have the T-shirt.

As for actual Green WORK, with which you may be unfamiliar, I did my knees in, tree-planting, a couple of thousand of them one year. So no, I didn't just wander into the wrong Strip Club, Paul, as Bill Leak's cartoon portrayed Shorten claiming today. Brilliant ! I guess I might have been actually doing Greeny things when it was still running down your leg.

Joe

Thanks Paul, it is nice to have ones judgement confirmed.

That post is dripping more arrogance than most of yours.

Then you show us tat the Greens will use any lie, connive with any rip off merchant they can find, to try scare a few into voting for them.

You know, as well as I & other thinking voters that John Hewson is heavily invested in alternate energy. quite possibly disastrously so, with the growing rejection of wind power in the previously poster countries of Europe.

Still we would expect the greens to endorse any lie or liar, if there was a chance of conning even one vote from the uninformed, it has always been their practice.

Paul, as you are the only green I have any contact with can you tell
me if the greens still intend to close all coal mines, (including
metallurgic coal ?), and oil use in favour of solar & wind ?

If so is the intention to get to 100% reliability ?

Well my daughter in law is a greenie but she is technically ignorant.
She is a school teacher, ha ha.

Bazz, Greens policy is for 90% renewable energy and phasing out of coal fired power stations by the year 2030. In NSW the Liberal state government has announced that the Wallerawang coal fired power station will not reopen and is to be demolished. The highly polluting brown coal stations in Victoria and SA are closing. The shift away from coal is inevitable. The big polluting AGL company has committed itself to ramping up investment in renewable energy capacity and to shut down all of its existing coal plants by 2050. There are no less than 8 high capacity coal fired power stations around 40 years of age earmarked for closure over the next 10 years. The large 2000 MW capacity Lidell coal fired station may be forced to close early if the Tomago aluminium smelter ceases operations earlier than expected,

With both China and Japan curtailing their demand for Australian coal, the market has seen an over supply, and with a declining price many mines are uneconomic and will be forced to close,

Thanks Paul,
My opinion is we have to leave coal & oil before coal & oil leave us.
Hmmm, to get to 90% is extortionately expensive.
I have seen things lately that suggest that in a well interconnected
system as 100% is approached the cost of achieving that approaches infinity.
I am looking for info that shows that it is following an exponential curve.
It is now looking, to me anyway, that assuming fusion is not available,
that a base load of nuclear stations is inevitable.
Storage helps but not like I thought it might and is expensive.

Generations ago when families had children with brain damage they often ended up living in the attic. These siblings were often charming but generally because of their inability to comprehend the consequences of their actions needed to be kept away from the general public.

In political circles these are known as the Greens. They childishly promise to meet every whim of everyone regardless of the consequences.

Bring back the attic.

That's right Shadow, years ago, while those children were locked in the attic, the wise ones of the Liberal Party, your party, were sending the able bodied children off to war. You do remember the Liberal Party supporting the stupidity of the Vietnam War, where the Liberal Party had over 500 Aussie kids killed, and several wars since, don't you. Now tell us who had the brain damage people like the coward Menzies, Holt, Gorton, Mcmahon or the ones locked in the attic. History certainly tells us who should have been in that attic!

Paul,

Anything to say about Ian Cohen and what a great committed conservationist he is?

Pity that he left Parliament but I suppose that he got tired of being undermined by the Red Brigade.

Paul,

Maybe we should have stayed home for WW1 Gallipoli, WW2, and Korea too? I suppose all those dictators would have seen the error of their ways and take up flower arranging eventually.

The 90% renewable target by 2030 is a prime example of the fantasy world the greens live in. This would only work if we were prepared not to use electrical power at night and cycle to work.

Your right Shadow, the German Kaiser and the Ottoman Empire were a terrible threat to Australia in 1914. It fully justifies over 60,000 young Australians killed, and more than 150,000 wounder from a population of around 5 million, nice call that one. Conservatives made such a hash of WWI, 20 years later they had spawned fascism in Europe and Japanese imperialism, that millions more had to die in WWII. As for Korea in the 1950's it was an early example of what was to come in Vietnam. Conservative governments in Australia have excelled themselves in getting us involved in other peoples wars, and sending young Australians to die, an uncomfortable fact, but true.

Shadow as a gung-ho Conservative which one of those wars did you fight in, or were you like the coward Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party who stayed home, whilst sending others off to die for him? That's the Liberal Party.

Paul,
It does seem to be coming quite clear that solar & wind cannot
do the job. I had thought that with storage and a well connected grid
with the sort of data transmission systems we now have it would be
possible to achieve 100% reliability.
However that dream has been denied by the cost of storage, the cost
of providing a geographically very wide system at MegaVolt levels even
in Australia is enormous and the losses not sustainable.

The crux of the matter turns out to be that the solar & wind required
in one area to support that area has to be multiplied by a yet to be
determined figure. That figure varies it appears depending on the
climate, and the number of similar areas it might have to support.

Pity, but the sooner the greens face up to brutal reality the better.
You did not reply about the metallurgic coal. If closed the power
needed to make steel with electricity will be enormous.

Hi Paul,

Although it may not fit your narrative, I think that before and during WW II, fascism pretty much spawned itself, even in countries that had been on the Allies' side during WW I, such as Japan and Italy.

I'm puzzled why pseudo-progressives commonly think that various parties, fascists there, Indigenous people here, subjects of imperialism everywhere (except, perhaps, Paul, around the South China Sea ?) are no more than passive victims subject to the all-powerful and vicious decisions of the West, from which all Evil flows.

No, I suspect that people everywhere exert as much agency on their own behalf as they can, acting sensibly as they see it, and that imperialists etc. are never as powerful as they seem. The Vietnamese showed that forty years ago. And so did our soldiers fighting fascism in Papua-New Guinea and north Africa: a generation of heroes.

And Indigenous people have, often within severe constraints, done whatever they liked, I don't believe they've often been herded or had done this or that to them: I really despise that arrogant way of thinking that pitches them as helpless pawns. Re-reading a missionary's Journal, I was struck by how easily people came and went, as they pleased, and reminded of that Mythbusters' program on herding cats. People DO things, they less rarely allow things to be DONE TO them. Young people should take that as a cautionary rule in relation to Indigenous people, and people in general.

Cheers,

Joe

Paul,

The worlds worst atrocities were due to socialism. Either the communists under Stalin or the National socialists under Hitler. Both protagonists closer to the labor party than to the libs, and considering that the greens have a stalinist in Lee Rhiannon, they are the closest of all.

//The worlds worst atrocities were due to socialism. Either the communists under Stalin or the National socialists//

National Socialism was socialist in the same way that the Democratic Republic of Congo is democratic.

Calling something socialist doesn't actually make it socialist, and as much as the right try to wash their hands of any association with the Nazis they can't change the fact that fascism - the form of government that the Nazis actually practised - always has been and always will be a right-wing ideology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Toni,

What twaddle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

"The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism."

There is national socialism, (Nazism) International socialism (communism) one side, and capitalism on the other.

The greens being anti semitic and against free speech, but internationalist are between the two, and a long long way from free capitalism.

Fascism and Communism are but two coins of the same currency, and both of very low value.
Farthings come to mind.

//There is national socialism, (Nazism) International socialism (communism) one side, and capitalism on the other.//

And there is fascism, which is opposed to liberalism and communism. Which the Nazis were. They were never on the side of the communists. Just because fascists and communists both oppose liberalism, it does not follow that they are the same thing.

It's times like this I wish I could post Venn diagrams on OLO.

//The greens being anti semitic and against free speech//

They are neither. Their policies are all there in black and white on their website so you should have no trouble pointing me to any anti-semitic or anti free-speech policies they have (that aren't also supported by the major two - pointing out that the Greens support anti-discrimination laws doesn't count when the major two do as well).

Did you really think anybody would be fooled by such a cartoonish strawman?

//and a long long way from free capitalism//

Well gosh, I guess that clinches it. The Greens are in favour of social welfare; ispo facto they are inexplicably LBGT-friendly neo-Nazis. It's a good thing that you're here to set the record straight on these things - here was me thinking they were just a bunch of noisy hippies who stopped maturing before they graduated from uni (if indeed they ever graduated). Amazing to think that all that racial tolerance stuff they go on about is just a smokescreen for their belief in Aryan superiority.

Right again Shadow, both Adolf and Joe spent an inordinate amount of time during WWII talking about The Australian Labor Party. One of Australia's leading fascists/Communists of the 1930's 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies, you remember Bob, founder of the Liberal Party, your party, spent some time in Nazi Germany before the war and returned to Oz with glowing reports, obviously Bob was you know what! Ah... earlier in the thread the rabid right was calling Lee Rhiannon a Trotskyests now she is a Stalinist, when did she change. I don't think Joe and Leon were good buddies, an ice pick seen to that.

Toni

Simple Definition of socialism
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

So socialism is at the core of both fascism and communism, and the counter position is capitalism.

P.S. communism has killed way more people than fascism. The communists killed way more Russians in their purges prior to 1941 than died in the war.

As for the greens anti semitism, you only have to look at the overreach of the greens BDS program which aims to boycott anyone associated with Israel, which primarily means anyone that is Jewish. As for censorship, the greens also want to make illegal any speech that is offensive, and "offensive" means anything that is offensive to the greens.

Paul,

Keating and the left is calling Rhiannon a Trotskyite, which is essentially saying that she is a comrade that holds heretical ideas. The conservatives see Rhiannon's unwavering support of the Russians through their brutal oppression of Hungary and Czechoslovakia as a strong indicator of her totalitarian leanings

Shadow, obviously history is one of your many weak points. Most of the German war effort was supplied by private industry, hardly fits your definition of Socialism. As for supporting corrupt undemocratic regimes the Liberal Party is guilty of supporting such regimes in South Vietnam, and others like Marcos in the Philippines, and the one time buddy Saddam Hussein, does that show the Liberal Party's totalitarian leanings?

Nothing to say about Ian, Paul?

Paul,

Your knowledge of history is probably pretty good, it's your distortions that spoil the picture.
Private enterprise in Hitler's Germany did what it was told, undoubtedly most industrialists were party members and many took advantage of the Party's offer of POW and/or slave labour.

On Fascism and Communism: some poisons are alkaline and others are acidic and therefore poles apart but they have the same effect.

The Greens are a slow acting poison, somewhat like vellum; insidious.

I hope Paul goes to see a doctor very soon.

He is becoming increasingly more rabid as this thread goes on, & the election approaches.

I hope it is just anxiety, & nothing more serious.

Politics is always going to be contentious depending
on one's ideologies. I don't know much about the Greens.
I have never voted for them. However Both former leaders,
Bob Brown and Christine Milne seemed to be good party
leaders from what I've read. As for Lee Rhiannon? I'm
not aware that she's a communist. I've read about the
background of her parents, but children don't always
emulate their parents, as we know.

Anyone can label people and parties. That's easy. But what
about some evidence to substantiate the claims? And why the
sudden attacks on the Greens? If they are such an insignificant
Party - then why attack them? Unless of course they seem to be
posing some kind of perceived threat. In that case it makes
them quite significant to their attackers.

Here's a link that sums up the various parties and where they
stand:

http://www.politicalaustralia.com.au/

And another one that shows how anyone can interpret things rightly
or wrongly about the actions of any party and any leader:

http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/is-the-abbott-government-fascist

http://www.theaimn.com/so-how-fascist-is-australia-right-now/

I would like to take up another serious concern about the Greens and particularly the NSW 'Watermelon' Greens, which is that they so often seem to be encouraging already disaffected persons and impressionable, idealistic youth to form the view that there is no way they can successfully represent their opinions and needs to government.

The horrendous outcomes possible from such defeatist, isolating, anger-building thinking should be obvious to all.

One of the very first and serious priorities of any politician should be to educate and steer all citizens and especially youth towards the many avenues available in a democracy to make one's views known and how to do that.

Secondly, politicians should never be seen to be encouraging already disaffected persons and impressionable, idealistic youth to break laws and disrupt others in the process.

It was outrageous for instance that a Greens politician crossed a State border to light a fire in the open without a permit just to score a shabby headline. That he wasn't immediately rebuked by his colleagues was shabby and could lead others to copy cat, each time going some steps further.

Foxy,

Where have you been over the last few years?
The Greens have been attacked on this forum hundreds of times by a number of posters among whom I proudly include myself.

Ref. Rhiannon, a visit to Google should answer your questions.

I detect an increasing frustration in the greens. They believe that the
world is going become too hot to live here but nothing is being done
fast enough to suit them.
Their other beliefs are usually poo poo'ed by the majority of people
and they have developed radical attitudes to the extent that they
campaign against anyone who does not agree with them.
Lomberg the Swedish academic comes to mind even getting him sacked.
They have developed an intolerant & arrogant attitude even to the
extent that some who disagree with them should be charged with a new offense.
They even think it is OK to confront people in groups and while wearing
masks assault them.

They are also trying to change the speach behaviour of people who
say things that are not politically correct.
I even had my daughter-in-law pick me up on some non-PC thing I said.
She is an iridescent green Melbourne school teacher.
Says it all.

What sin has Lee Rhiannon actually committed to have
people attempt to assassinate her character?
It reminds me of US McCarthyism in the 1950s where
people were demeaned if they were suspected of being
associated with communism.

Here's a link that explains and is worth a read:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-27/the-character-assassination-of-lee-rhiannon/167382

//communism has killed way more people than fascism//

And malaria has killed more than both. The clear lesson here is to be wary of those organisms which are less blessed in the way of brains.

//the greens BDS program which aims to boycott anyone associated with Israel, which primarily means anyone that is Jewish.//

Since when do you have to be associated with Israel to be Jewish? Last time I checked, you only had to be Jewish to be Jewish - the government of Israel doesn't get a say in the matter.

//As for censorship, the greens also want to make illegal any speech that is offensive, and "offensive" means anything that is offensive to the greens.//

That's not a Greens policy; it is dodgy hearsay. Can you not tell the difference?

//some poisons are alkaline and others are acidic and therefore poles apart but they have the same effect.//

Broadly speaking that is correct, however it should be noted that:

1) Pretty much everything is acidic or alkaline, including but not limited to: rainwater, tapwater and food. A pH that is not exactly equal to 7 is no cause for concern.
2) Sola dosis facit venenum: the dose makes the poison. You can die from drinking too much water.
3) Many dangerous toxins are not strongly (in the chemical or the vernacular sense) acidic or alkaline. Their mode of action and toxicity are unrelated to their corrosive properties.
4) The most toxic substance I know of is botulinum toxin (better known as Botox). People choose to get this stuff injected into their face on a regular basis, so clearly a little bit of poison is acceptable to some people.

//The Greens are a slow acting poison, somewhat like vellum//

Vellum is parchment made from calfskin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellum

And as far as I know it's not noted for its toxicity (although I wouldn't want to lick it). I suspect you may have read Umberto Eco's 'The Name of the Rose' - or watched the film, like I was forced to at school - and gotten a bit confused.

**Spoiler Alert**

In that story, the murderer killed his victims by rubbing arsenic (As), which is highly toxic, on medieval parchments. Parchments that may well have been vellum. But it was the As that was lethal, not the vellum.

Foxy,

I would suggest that you read up on Lee Rhiannon, as she had a very active role in the extreme left, leaving no doubt as to her clear support for the Soviet union.

Toni,

I like your comparison between the Greens, the communists and Malaria. All parasitic infections.

WRT the BDS, I agree, there is no reason for the greens targeting Jews

WRT to censorship, I never said that it was a written policy of the greens, only their practice.

Is Mise, I didn't realise you wanted me to comment on Ian Cohan. Ian was a hard working MP and a credit to The Greens. I'll ask you for a comment. What do you think of the elephant killer Bob Borsak. I think he is a grub, but you might have a different opinion. For one of your analogies Borsak is the sulphuric acid of the NSW Parliament, whilst I'll agree Lee Rehannon is the vellum.

Hassy, Pauline awaits your vote! Don't be late on Saturday.

"crossed a State border to light a fire in the open" Beach, hundreds of other campers do that every day, do you want them all locked up. Time to call out the Citizens Militia me thinks. Oh! how the "mighty" have fallen OTB's favorite political party Australia First has been de-registered, well Beach you also will have to stick with One Nation.

Foxy, you ask the question, " What sin has Lee Rhiannon actually committed?" Lee is guilty of not being a member of the rabid right, that's her crime.

Toni, We lost one of our finest MLC's John Kaye recently to cancer. John was a passionate Green, very intelligent, hard working, but above all he was a decent human being who cared about people. John was also Jewish.

Been doing some pre-polls last couple of weeks. Met a few new "political friends and enemies". Met a nice young chap yesterday from the Liberal Party, wants to go into politics one day, after uni. Said give local government a go first, the move on from there. I think he would be an asset to politics, his views are very Liberal in the true sense of the word.
Shadow, I can only convey my feelings from doing HTV's at a strong Labor booth, the Liberals are doing okay in my electorate. Labor has about a 3% margin, but it will be close again that's for sure, but Labor should hold on here.

Those Christian Democrats, Fred Bile group, they never fail to amaze. Their latest line when giving out HTV'v "Just think who Jesus would vote for?" Not the Romans, OR YOU, that's for sure!

Dear Shadow Minister,

I have read about Lee Rhiannon on the web.

She did quite a few things in her youth due to her
upbringing. Quite a few politicians did which they
may regret in their adulthood.

There's an old saying that I came across:

"If you're not a communist by the time you're 20, you have
no heart. If you're still a communist at the age of 40,
you have no brain."

(Or words to that effect).

Dear Paul,

I agree with you about Lee Rhiannon:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-27/the-character-assassination-of-lee-rhiannon/167382

Her sin it seems is what she did decades ago.

Your Google is defective.

Re Rhiannon, what about this example of the outrageous Rhiannon (Brown) in action?

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/protesters-target-max-brenner-cafe-20110826-1jeec.html

Hi Foxy, I am probably one of the few on the forum, if there are any others who actually know Lee. In the Greens you have to be voted on by the membership to stand as a party candidate, call it grass roots support. When Lee stepped down from the NSW LC and stood for the Senate I attended one of the candidates forums, and listened to all those that had put themselves forward, and Lee was my number one choice. Worked with her several times in the past, and there are those that disagree with her politics, but she has never been one to push any sort of Trotskyism or any ism at all in my experience. Lee is far more concerned with issues and outcomes that any nonsense the likes of OTB pushes about Greens and her on the forum. By his sympathies he demonstrates on here, Beach is a Pauline Hanson devotee, if he's not, he should be.
The Liberals have well and truly split into two camps, the majority conservatives with Abbott, and the rest with Turnbull, it is going to be interesting if Turnbull is returned with a narrow majority, the knives will be out within 18 months, nothing is more certain.The gay marriage issue will be the catalysts, the conservative faction is extremely anti. Turnbull is already trying to use the issue to exert his authority, and the enermy within are not going to give in easily,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/06/27/a-day-on-the-campaign-trail-with-greens-senator-lee-rhiannon/

Dear Paul,

Thank You for sharing your experiences with us concerning Lee
Rhiannon.

I trust that Mr Abbott will not attempt to come back
as leader of the Liberal Party. But who knows?
Predicting the future is a risky business.
Still, I'll keep my fingers crossed.

As for the commentary by some on this forum. To me
it all depends who's making the comments. If its
someone who simply rants and raves, generalises,
insults,
and expresses their opinion with no facts
to substantiate their point of view - I find it best
to either ignore them or provide links with the
facts. Mostly I prefer to ignore them.

I always enjoy reading your posts and am grateful for
the balance that you maintain.

Paul1405,

You are in denial of reported facts. I quoted a newspaper and gave the link. No other media outlet disagreed with that report. Go and check, but you already know it to be fact. Which is why you go on with all of that nonsense to cover it up.

Here again, specifically where is the report wrong?

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/protesters-target-max-brenner-cafe-20110826-1jeec.html

Socialist Alternative, eh?
from Wikipedia,
"Socialist Alternative is a revolutionary socialist organisation in Australia, identifying with the Marxist tradition of "socialism from below". Formed after its founding members were expelled from the former International Socialist Organisation (ISO) in 1995,.."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Alternative_(Australia)

Hi Paul,

Just a bit of inconvenient truth: Mussolini, before forming his Fascists, was the founder and editor of the Italian Socialist Party newspaper, 'Avanti'.

Back in my Marxist days, I used to be puzzled how on earth, in the 1920s, many philosophers like Sorel, and writers like G. B. Shaw could write approvingly of both fascism AND Bolshevism, as if they were rivals in the same tent, or variations on the same theme. Perhaps because they were: perhaps because, as Toni rightly says, " .... because fascists and communists both oppose liberalism ...."

In practice, what did both fascism and Bolshevism oppose in liberalism ? Democracy perhaps ? The freedom of expression ? The freedom of market forces ? Scientific - i.e. genuine scientific - investigation ? Yes, those are imperfect facets of our current societies, but at least they don't necessitate mass executions and gulags. They will always be imperfect.

Mussolini's fascism, Nazism, Bolshevism and pre-war Japanese fascism, all supported their own imperialisms. Their ideologies all posed as Utopian, the One True Plan, and surely there is a lesson there ? That all Utopias degenerate, sometimes overnight, into fascisms, in which the dominant ideology is an Unchangeable Religion, and whose critics had to be exterminated in order to keep the Religion inviolate.

Can you have genuine socialism AND, say, the freedom of expression ? It hasn't happened so far. Are the Greens closing off, or opening up, pathways for the freedom of expression ? Not just the Greens of course, but the Trots on university campuses, who really do seem to perceive an Unreconstructed and Unchangeable Marxism of the 1920s, even of the 1870s, as religious dogma ?

The tragedy for young people at universities these days and for the Greens is that they, like every other bitter and twisted ex-Marxist, will have to go through that same idiotic process of Believing, of seeking Ideological Purity, of wasting valuable years barking up the wrong tree, and of sacrificing their abilities to think to Gods who have well and truly failed.

Cheers,

Joe

Toni,

Many thanks for correcting my typo, if only others would so patiently research and correct mere slips of the finger what a better place this world would be shewn to be.

Foxy,

I'm surprised that you chose such a sanitized version of LR,

Lee joined the Soviet-aligned Socialist Party of Australia (SPA) in 1973 (age 22 not a youth) and worked for them authoring pro Soviet backing articles until the late 80s (when she was nearly 40).

As per labor MP Danby:

"“She says she is no longer a communist, and I accept that. But she has not said that communism is and always was a false and pernicious doctrine which has caused the deaths of tens of millions of people, and is still causing oppression and misery in China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba.”

“Specifically, I would like to know what Senator Rhiannon now thinks about certain events of the 1970s and ‘80s which took place while she was an enthusiastic supporter of the Soviet Union. What does she now think of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? What does she now think of the suppression of Solidarity and the imposition of martial law in Poland? What does she now think of the Berlin Wall, and the shooting of people trying to escape across it to freedom? What does she now think of the persecution of Andrei Sakharov and other Soviet dissidents? What does she now think of the anti-Semitism of the Brezhnev regime?”

While Paul would like to airbrush away Rhiannon's 40 yrs of terrible judgement, the rest of us won't forget her obsequious apology for the brutal Soviet regime.

Dear Shadow Minister,

According to an article on Lee Rhiannon in
The Australian and I quote: "There is no
evidence that Lee Rhiannon ever worked as
a Soviet agent. "

If you have an evidence to the contrary please
provide it.

I have nothing further to say on the subject.

//Many thanks for correcting my typo, if only others would so patiently research and correct mere slips of the finger//

I have been racking my brains to try and think of a word only one letter different from 'vellum' which refers to a well known slow-acting poison, and drawn a blank. It's like a particularly difficult crossword clue. What was it you were actually trying to type?

Foxy,

You claimed that Rhiannon was being judged on the actions of her parents, and that her flirtation was a youthful indiscretion.

If you read my post, I was rebutting this, I never claimed that Rhiannon worked as an agent. Her trips to Moscow and her meeting with KGB recruiters don't prove that she was an agent, but do prove that she was more superficially involved. The indisputable facts are that she was member of the local communist party, and wrote pro soviet articles for them for nearly 2 decades.

Apparently Vladimir Putin is also a charming person, perhaps Paul would invite him to join the greens too?

Toni,

I meant to type 'vallium', so I'm guilty of a normal typo and one of omission.
Vallium isn't in tne news these days so I can see your mystification; sorry.
I put it down t the fact that I'm using my wifs's computer and I'm no longer familiar with the 'qwerty' system, having used 'Davorak' for some thirty years.

Foxy,

You ask what do we have against the Greens, in my case I strongly object to their callous disregard for animal welfare; their disregard for the survival of native animals (despite claiming to be conservationists); their desire to see more youths involved in firearm accidents so as to further their totalitarian agenda of disarming all civilians; their desire to make life harder for the man and woman on the land and their utterly callous attitude towards the suffering of sheep and other farm animals that are mauled and mutilated by wild dogs and foxes.

Picture if you will a ewe treading on her own entrails after being savaged by a wild dog that the farmer couldn't save her from because he was hamstrung by a stupid Green's proposal, or a fox waiting patiently to snatch a new born lamb as it exits its weakened mother;
and picture the other fox that races ib and starts to tear at the ewe's uterine canal, ripping bits of the living flesh from the sheep and then leaving her to the crows and a lingering death.

That's a few of the reasons why I despise the Greens.

Shadow, trying to throw some mud. I ask about John Howard, who was given an honored position at the recent Liberal Party campaign launch, Turnbull even shook his hand, and made glowing comments about him. Howard in the 1970's was a leading political supporter (but not an active participant, we don't want to die now do we) of the Vietnam War. The war in which despotic puppet governments were installed in South Vietnam, with the backing of the Liberal Government in Australia, A war in which napalm was used by our side to kill innocent men, woman and children, a war in which many atrocities were committed by both sides. John Howard also famously said he was a great admirer of Robert Menzies, the same Robert Menziies, founder of the Liberal Party, who visited Nazi Germany in the 1930's and returned with glowing reports about Hitler and his fascists government.
Shadow, is the John Howard of 2016, the same John Howard of 1970? To be kind to John Howard, I think he would no longer support those evils, but I have no evidence, if we want to throw mud, we can just highlight some facts without comment.

Trying to spin emotive LIES are we Is Mise.

From Greens NSW Firearms policy;

15.4 Establish good and genuine reasons for possessing a licence (e.g. persons with an occupational requirement, e.g. primary producers, other rural purposes, security employees and professional shooters for nominated purposes or a member of an approved sports shooting association);

The best "environmentalist" is the likes of the elephant killer Robert Borsak from the Shooters Party. Borsak admits to killing no less than 8 Elephants, several of which had to be shot again by others because Borsak messed up the job, and left the animal in agony! These grubs try to legitimize their dirty pursuit by claim they are "environmentalists" These grubs have been endorsed at number 3 in the Senate NSW by the Liberals along with 4 other right wing extremest parties, and they say the Greens are crazy!

Is Mise, you asked me about Ian Cohen, I answered, how about your opinion of Robert Borsak. No answer.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/shooters-and-fishers-mlc-robert-borsak-admits-to-killing-eight-elephants-20160606-gpcfpv.html

Ia Mise, Picture if you will a female elephant treading on her own entrails after being shot by a wild dog with bad aim! Pleaseeeeeeee!

Paul1405,

From the report you linked to,

"Mr Borsak in turn alleged Mr Buckingham had eaten venison sausages at a Shooters and Fishers barbecue without making a gold-coin donation. Mr Buckingham insists the sausages were paid for."

Greens, "Do as we say, not do as we do".

However the NSW 'Watermelon' Greens policy would have those magnificent deer have painful, lingering deaths from contractors' helicopters with the fearsome 1080 poison and left to rot where they died.

The Greens are deceitful. They have been getting away with it for years. Because the media and especially the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster do not critically examine what the Greens actually stand for, the far-left idealism underpinning their 'policies' and their record, which is very shabby indeed.

The media use the Greens for sensationalist bumpf on slow news days, not believing and not caring if anyone takes it as real.

Dear Shadow Minister and Is Mise,

Tomorrow is election day and we have the opportunity
to make our feelings about who we support politically,
known.

Peter Costello in 2008 wrote the following:

"... Politics, for all the obloquy shovelled on the head
of politicians, they are the men and women who work the
machinery of our liberal, democratic way of life. They reflect
public opinion - and at their best lead public opinion - and
transmute it into laws that shape our society and our country."

"...I have discussed some of the unresolved problems that face
us, especially addressing Indigenous disadvantage and dealing
with the structure of our federalism. We must deal with these
to move forward as a free, fair and vibrant society. I have no
doubt we can find the solutions that suit us, provided we do
not succumb to the siren calls of demagogues, charlatans,
and ideologues."

"The achievements of the past decade have laid an extraordinary
foundation. Properly preserved and built on, we now have
opportunities we never had before in Australia's history. The
best years for our country are still in front of us."

Make your vote count tomorrow.

Paul,

I'm no trophy hunter, though I do take the horns of feral goats that I've shot to make knife handles, powder horns,etc.
Borsak paid big money for the elephants that he shot and he shot them as part of an ongoing conservation policy to save the species; we all know of the thousands of elephants that died when there was no controlled culling.

Foxy,

The Greens have a policy of making it nigh on impossible for a farmer to get to his/her firearms when suddenly needed eg., to protect sheep from a sudden dog attack.
Do you support such a policy?
Do you find sheep having their guts torn out for fun acceptable?

Dear Is Mise,

Please provide us with the specific Greens policy that you're
referring to because the evidence is
contrary to what you're claiming.

NSW Greens MP, David Shoebridge stated on the "Insight,"
program on TV - 4/4/2016:

"People can have legitimate reasons to own a gun.
Farmers often need access to guns to be able to deal
with injured livestock or remove invasive species
that threaten and kill stock..."

Which makes sense.

Foxy,

What evidence?

How is a farmer going to shoot a wild dog that is attacking the sheep if he/she has to abide by this example of wishful thinking stupidity?

From Greens' firearms policy:
"25. Enforcement of regulations requiring guns in homes in rural communities to be kept in a metal box with a combination lock securely bolted to wall or floor, with firing mechanisms and ammunition locked in a similar box in a separate room;"

How is the farmer going to get a gun and ammunition in time?

This fanciful Greens' idea of a law shews an utter lack of understanding of life in the real world or if they understand farm life then an utter disregard for the farmer and a callous indifference to the victims of dog attack.

Is Mise, you have told a bare faced lie;

"in my case (Is Mise) I strongly object to their (Greens) callous disregard for animal welfare; their disregard for the survival of native animals (despite claiming to be conservationists); their desire to see more youths involved in firearm accidents so as to further their totalitarian agenda of disarming all civilians; their desire to make life harder for the man and woman on the land and their utterly callous attitude towards the suffering of sheep and other farm animals that are mauled and mutilated by wild dogs and foxes."

"Picture if you will a ewe treading on her own entrails after being savaged by a wild dog that the farmer couldn't save her from because he was hamstrung by a stupid Green's proposal, or a fox waiting patiently to snatch a new born lamb as it exits its weakened mother;
and picture the other fox that races ib and starts to tear at the ewe's uterine canal, ripping bits of the living flesh from the sheep and then leaving her to the crows and a lingering death."

"That's a few of the reasons why I despise the Greens."

An emotive lie! The evidence for your lying has been presented for all to see. Your argument is so shallow and weak you resort to lying to make your case. Like Borsak the elephant killer claiming to be a "conservationists" another bare faced liar. he kills elephants because he enjoys the so called thrill of killing a majestic beast, no other reason. Since it costs $20,000 plus to shoot an elephant, that is at least $120,000 Borsak has spent on killing elephants in Africa. How much has the grub ever donated to real conservation of native animals in Australia? Nothing!

Hi Paul,

Isn't passion fun ? I don't think that you have shown Is Mise to be a liar at all. You talk of some mongrel shooting elephants; Is Mise talks of dogs and dingoes ripping sheep apart. You're both right.

Please get BTT :)

Cheers,

Joe

Paul,

The Greens are anti hunting, hunters kill foxes, foxes kill native animals therefore the hunters are pro saving native animals and the Greens are against,

How can you justify
"25. Enforcement of regulations requiring guns in homes in rural communities to be kept in a metal box with a combination lock securely bolted to wall or floor, with firing mechanisms and ammunition locked in a similar box in a separate room;"
when it would hobble a farmer trying tp save his/her sheep?

Shews a callous disregard for the welfare of the sheep.
What about the loony greens that want to save foxes?

Whatever you may think of Borsak he was taking part in a legalconservation programme.

The Greens actively oppose conservation by tying to stop hunting in the breeding grounds of feral predators.
Shooters, on the other hand, particularly the Sporting Shooters' Association (SSAA) actively eradicate feral predators and have set up numerous native animal refuge areas.
Shew me one refuge area that the Greens have set up.

Is Mise, is Tony Azzi the well known shooter in NSW also a "conservationists". Azzi was photographed with a number of protected wombats he had shot. Is Mr Azzi a member of the Sporting Shooters Association of NSW. If he is, I am led to believe he is/was a member, what action did the association take, if any, on learning of Mr Azzi's vile actions?
I asked you a direct question about Robert Borsak, yet you choose to answer in relation to "the Sporting Shooters' Association (SSAA) actively eradicate feral predators and have set up numerous native animal refuge areas," and Borsak what has he done. The last defense of the immoral is to scream "ITS LEGAL!".
Yes, do you remember the trial conducted in NSW of shooting feral animals in national parks. A trial conducted after political pressue on the State Government by the shooing lobby, through the Shooters Party. The result was laughable it cost the state $7150 for each animal killed, what a joke! The stories below.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/multimillionaire-car-dealer-tony-azzi-investigated-over-wombat-deaths-20151218-glqoga.html

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/7150-for-each-animal-killed-in-nsw-hunting-program-20140923-10kogt.html

Hi Joe,
You also have a passion about aboriginals, do you not? I am passionate as well, I believe in respect for all, be they native, domestic wild or feral, animal or human.

Despise (detest, hate, loathe) a strong word there Is Mise, I respect those that fly their true colours like Jay Of Melbourne. I could never agree with Jays politics, but I respect him for coming on here and putting up what he believes, and he gets involved out in the community, makes no secret of it. Naturally I never condone any kind of violent action by any side of politics.
Have enjoyed the past couple of weeks doing pre-polls, with Labor and Liberal people, even the crazy kids from the CDP, great comradely, we all agreed we'll be a little disappointed when the results goes up, because there will be only one winner but two losers, all three, Labor, Liberal and Greens have worked hard and deserve a win for effort. Will do the same tomorrow.

Dear Is Mise,

In their firearms policy the Greens clearly state that:

'Rural owners of licensed firearms should limit their
use of firearms to legitimate farm purposes..."

I shall leave you to your gruntlement.

Have a nice day.

And don't forget to vote.

Foxy,

Is protecting one's farm animals from predators not a legitimate use of firearms?

How does having to access two separate containers, via combination locks, in different rooms make it easy for the farmer to shoot the predators?

How does the Greens' policy work on properties where the dwelling has only one room?

As I said, not a well thought out policy.

Paul,

As I said earlier I don't know the bloke that you are on about and if he shot wombats then he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and kicked out of any shooter's organization.
Ref Borsak, he was assisting in a conservation programme, end of story.

As usual, the Greens' 'policy' on firearms is not what it seems. It is a complete deceit, hypocrisy.

The Greens have lazily co-opted international currency-trading billionaire George Soros's 'gun control' which is to ban all legitimate, licensed, private ownership of firearms. Also to confiscate private assets of legal law-abiding citizens.

Why currency dealing Soros would want to disarm ordinary licensed citizens and is uninterested in and never proposes measures to collar offenders is anyone's guess. Strangely and again one might speculate there are some selfish, currency-speculation reasons why, the highly secretive Soros outfit is also accused of seeding and supporting far left demonstrations, pickets and disruption.

The bone lazy, unethical Greens, whose last concern is Australian sovereignty (they undermine it!), get ready made media releases out of 'gun control' activists and fresh from those overseas global corporations interfering in the domestic politics of Australia and western democracies. A wagon to ride and no effort from them. A constant stream of misleading factoids and outright lies. No need to copy and paste, just put a Greens brand on it.

That suits the social engineering Greens Trots down to a tee and the bans and confiscations appeal to their totalitarianism. A Big Brother, highly centralised State where a central committee of Greens Trotskyists tell you what you can do, subject to you obtaining permission, that is.

Just to add that Soros has come out in the open on Brexit, using his considerable resources and contacts, where of course his interest is in continuing the massive immigration of unchosen citizens to the UK.

He also mentioned the billions to be made from the change and one would assume that the highly complex and always covert Soros outfit will be transferring more windfall profits to those secretive accounts in tax-avoiding havens. See here,

http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/tax/panama-papers-reveal-george-soros-deep-money-ties-to-secretive-weapons-firm/news-story/4f34cba3104155cdce5f93ec7751d729

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2016/04/george-soros-funded-organization-behind.html

The Greens and their mates, not forgetting the cozy matey relationship between the Greens and the CFMEU.

Foxy,

What do you think of this one from the NSW Greens' firearms principles?

"7.That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm".

Hi Is Mise, that statement should be absolutely true for all people except police and military Personel of course.
That mad principle of 'having the right to bear arms' certainly has not improved personal safety in the US has it.....

Excepting that it is the illegal firearms, illegally possessed and of course illegally used by offenders, almost invariably black on black (with Hispanic well behind in second place well), involving drugs and gangs that are responsible for tyhe violence stats, including by firearms.

Inflicting harm on others and murder have always been illegal, with severe penalties. Although as in Australia, an offence against an animal attracts a more serious penalty than an offence against a human.

It is the unforeseen social problems that have been the inevitable negative consequence of multiculturalism that results in divisions in society.

So much for the presidency of the left's great black hope Barack Obama, who has done squat to resolve social problems. He missed his vocation in shonky car sales.

Hillary Clinton will be the same if she ever becomes President. Massive piles of cow dung, a US version of Angela Merkel, wearing her heart on her sleeve (an expensive, designer sleeve, mind you) and acting like a cow in a china shop where social policies are concerned. All at the expense of the instantly forgotten people who elected her.

Suse,

"Hi Is Mise, that statement should be absolutely true for all people except police and military Personel of course.
That mad principle of 'having the right to bear arms' certainly has not improved personal safety in the US has it..." [yes it has, but that's another subject].

So you favour the Greens' idea that a farmer's wife, children or the farmer himself could be savaged/mauled/killed by a wild dog and it would be illegal to use a firearm in self defence?

I don't think that you would be like that at all, but that's one of the Greens' firearms principles so one must think that they are absolutely callous as to the welfare of humans put at risk by wild dogs/scrub bulls/feral pigs..

It isn't just firearms. Criminals have buffed up rights, while the rights of law-abiding citizens and victims are forgotten.

It is illegal to possess anything that can be alleged to be for self defence. Australia mimics the UK where social policies and laws are concerned. Even where those policies have been demonstrated to be producing effects that are directly opposed to the stated aims.

Below is an example from the UK and emphatically YES, the same applies in all Australian States and territories. It is only in NSW where the Shooters, Fishers & Farmers Party has managed to recover some of the basic rights that used to apply for the innocent victims of criminals. Elsewhere, victims of crime are re-victimised by a reversed standard of proof.

UK, but same applies in Oz too,

<Myleene Klass warned after brandishing knife to deter intruders
Police tell TV presenter she was acting illegally in waving kitchen knife at youths who were peering in window late at night

The TV presenter and Marks & Spencer model Myleene Klass has been warned by police for waving a knife at teenagers who were peering into a window of her house late at night.

Klass was in the kitchen with her daughter upstairs when she spotted the youths in her garden just after midnight on Friday. She grabbed a knife and banged the windows before they ran away.

Hertfordshire police warned her she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an "offensive weapon", even in her own home, was illegal.

Klass's spokesman, Jonathan Shalit, said the former Hear'Say singer was "utterly terrified" by the intruders and "aghast" at the police warning. "All she did was scream loudly and wave the knife to try and frighten them off," he told the Sunday Telegraph. "She is not looking to be a vigilante, and has the utmost respect for the law, but when the police explained to her that even if you're at home alone and you have an intruder, you are not allowed to protect yourself, she was bemused.">
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/10/myleene-klass-knife-intruders

BTW, if a home owner's lap dog Poodle scratches/bites an intruder in your home the police might be having some words about dangerous dog ordinance too.

Now some of that is less likely where the attending police might be sensible. BUT first, not all police are that way and secondly, the higher ups and police prosecutor will definitely not be seeing it from the homeowner's viewpoint.

So, an ill-thought out quip meaning "Yes" to the seemingly polite humour from the police who are supposed to be after the bad guy/s, "Lucky you had that, *list object* to hand for any intruder, eh?", could land you in court. Many thousands of dollars and months later a good barrister might see you let free without penalty, but you will never get that money or peace back again.

That is what Suseonline supports. It is largely attributable to a foul reversed standard of proof that re-victimises the innocent victim and leaves all law-abiding citizens defenceless and exposed. Great for criminals though.

Is Mise, Beach,

You fail to mention the need for guns for self protection from those "space aliens", after all you are both off the planet on this.

Is Mise, what about a comment on the use of a gun by the licensed farmer Ian Turnbull? You remember Turnbull, he fits your mold! Turnbull got 34 years for murdering Environment Officer Glen Turner, in cold blood. Gunnies tried to portray Turnbull as some kind of victim, wanting the charge downgraded to manslaughter, some wanted him acquitted. Do you believe Turnbull was only exercising his "right" to protect his property from the law?

Beach, did those pommy coppers ring David Shoebridge from the Watermelon Trotskyests NSW Green's before issuing your Dolly Bird Darling, what's her name, with a police notice. I hope they did.
You are a scream.

Paul,

I answered you on Turnbull, a person that the Greens say could have a gun.

"7.That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm".

What does No. 7 in the Greens' firearm principles mean?

Paul you have again adopted the disgraced lefty tactic of using an
irrelevant example. The inspector was not threatening his life just his livelihood.
There is a difference ignoring which is a typical left technique.

Is Mise you did say that, but what is YOUR opinion. Are you pointing out a weakness in Greens policy. In my opinion some of the Greens policy is a bit soft in the application of gun licences.
Consider for example the licencing of private security people to carry a gun. I'm not entirely satisfied that proper training of such persons is always the case. I think the Greens policy does not stress the need for adequate training enough. The Greens policy is far superior to that offered by the likes of the Shooters and Hooters or the laughable nonsense from Pauline Hanson on gun policy.

Bazz, some may not make that clear distinction between ones life, and ones property. Can you, or anyone, guarantee that arming society for self protection will always result in the use of guns only for that purpose and no other. Can you or anyone guarantee that mistakes will not be made and innocent people will die as a consequence. When such a iron clad guarantee is forthcoming then and only then will I consider agreeing to "arming the populace!"

Paul,

What does
"7.That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm".
mean?
Please enlighten us all.

Is Mise, it seems clear and unequivocal to me.

It means; That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm". Do you have a problem with the English language? Now if it was written in Swahili, I could understand your problem,...but

Paul,

I understand it perfectly and I now understand that you and the rest of the Greens would deny a farmer the right to use a firearm when attacked by a scrub bull, a wild dog or a feral pig.

Par for the course, but why do you have such a callous disregard for the lives of fellow humans?

I think that no7 is stupid and was ill thought out,

Foxy,

You haven't said yet why you think that leaving a farmer's wife with no means of protection against a wild dog is OK?

Paul, I am against the licensing of firearms to people living in
cities, towns etc but farmers are in a totally different situation.
Farmers should be able to carry their guns in their vehicles at all
times as they never know when wild dogs will appear.
It should be possible to have secure arrangements in their vehicles
for when they drive into town.

The greens can get no where until they either abandon their opposition
to nuclear power or they accept that solar & wind cannot do the job.
If solar & wind is adopted as a fixed policy we will have to abandon
all buildings over 3 stories.

Dear Is Mise,

I never said that.

You're not interested in what I did say.
Therefore I see no point in any further discussion.

Have a nice day.

Dear Bazz,

The Greens are doing remarkably well.
And undoubtedly will do even better according
to all indications, predictions., and forecasts:

http://www.newmatilda.com/2016-07-03/too-much-party-testosterone-explains-the-opposition

Foxy,

You support the Greens' firearms policy, Principle 7 is part of that policy.

If you don't support Pr.7 then say so, but until you do then one must assume that you agree with it being a crime to protect oneself or any other person from an attack by a wild dog if the Greens got their way.

Foxy,
Yes they are doing well because almost no one looks at the implications
of their policies.
Implement their "demands" and everyone who lives in a block of flats
will vote against them. Being stuck for a few hours in a lift will not
be found to be amusing or dragging the shopping up 22 floors will be
very good exercise but not fun.

Oh rubbish I hear everyone saying but it is reality.
I agree it won't happen as they will be history once people realise
it is not just the raving of people like me.

The Greens' policies give support to terrorists, murderers and other violent criminals.

I'm sure that the misguided majority of their supporters have no idea of the real meaning of many of the Greens' public statements.

The fact that they have lied to the NSW Parliament ought to be enough for most thinking people.

Just to sort of get back to topic:

* The Coalition doesn't look like gaining enough seats in the Reps to form government on its own (boy, did I get that wrong);

* The Labor Party doesn't look like gaining enough seats in the Reps to form government on its own;

* the Greens have not won any extra seats, in fact they may lose a Senate spot in SA.

While this would give every one of us great glee for one reason or another, the reality is that the new situation is no good for ANY serious party, or for the Greens.

It's likely that we will be back at the polling stations within six months. I don't know what the legal procedure is, and I'm probably wrong but if the PM, whoever it may be, calls an election early, it may affect only the lower house, not the Senate: Senators elected on Saturday are in for three- and six-year terms, regardless. Someone please correct me :)

Since this thread is supposed to be about the Greens, it's worth pointing out that they have actually lost some share of votes, from around 11 % to below 10 %. This is surprising, given that in Marxist-class terms, the number of relatively affluent, educated, inner-city people in the Goat-Cheese-and-Kale-Circle is steadily growing. By the way, for those who haven't ever tried kale, don't unless you like eating dry grass. It's for sale in my local supermarket at $ 4.49 a kilo, and one suspects, $ 2.00 for 2 kilos.

So where are those ex-Greens going ? Back to Labor, perhaps ? NXT ? The Sex Party ? Informal ? Is it possible that, like the Democrats before them, the Greens have actually peaked ? That they will be a distant memory by the early 2020s ? Who will speak then, for people-smugglers ?

Gosh, what a tragedy.

Joe

Greens politicians are the way the Australian cricket team used to be: once you get that nomination you have it for life. Lee Rhiannon is an example.

Protest is easy peasy. No need for any real, comprehensive policies that must take into account the full range of government responsibilities and services.

The Greens knobs will always be self-limiting because it suits them to be so. Nothing like a Senator's pay and conditions and then there is that golden handshake that lasts for life.

Protest is safe because there will always be the serially disaffected and easily led youth who have a need to protest - to stall coming to terms with reality and taking responsibility for their decisions as an adult.

Take a look at SHY, the stereotypical egocentric, warring, adolescent girl with authority issues. Rude, overbearing and ignorant and of course totally unaware and uncaring about her impact on others.

Terrorists that the Greens would protect by law have just murdered scores of innocent people in Iraq.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/03/baghdad-bombings-dozens-killed
Five score according to that report.

Are the Greens going to have a candle lit vigil for these 120 innocents?

The link didn't come up
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/03/baghdad-bombings-dozens-killed

//The link didn't come up//

2 for 2. OLO can be a bit temperamental about links sometimes, and I can't find any rhyme or reason to it. But if you copy the url and paste it into your search bar it does the same job.

I find that when the site won't accept my link, it works if I make it a tiny url at:

http://tinyurl.com/

The tiny url service is more intended for contracting ridiculously long url's into a more manageable size, but I also find it useful for posting working links on OLO. Of course, it would be much nicer if links just worked and I didn't have to bother.

But that would probably require some effort on Graham's part.

Not cool to biff the mods on a free site that allows posters so much freedom. Anyhow, approach mods direct is the fair way to go.

IMHO the problem with URLs is usually the inclusion of the 's'. Cull to http in lieu of https before posting the link.

Bazz,

"....I am against the licensing of firearms to people living in
cities, towns etc but farmers are in a totally different situation.
Farmers should be able to carry their guns in their vehicles at all
times as they never know when wild dogs will appear.
It should be possible to have secure arrangements in their vehicles
for when they drive into town."

The secure arrangements are already law when firearms are in vehicles [something that the Greens overlooked in their desperate attempt to write coherent policy].

These days, Bazz, many farmers live in their local towns and travel to their property.
One of my good friends moved to town because of his wife's health problems and others bought properties that had no dwellings or else only basic 'one man' accommodation.
The cost of building out of town is far higher than in town as, for starters, there are no services to tap into and (depending on distance) connection to the electricity grid can run to many thousands of dollars.
Solar power is an option as is wind but both are expensive to set up.

Be careful of any links posted by OTB, He has posted virus infected links previously without any sort of apology or explanation. I avoid them like the plague.

Is Mise, you sink to a new low with claims that The Greens support ISIS "Terrorists that the Greens would protect by law have just murdered scores of innocent people in Iraq." I wont dignify your comments with a rebuke, or a similar slander of our opponents. You are obviously a demented old fool for which there is no salvation.

Bazz, you simply post unsubstantiated clap trap "everyone who lives in a block of flats will vote against them. Being stuck for a few hours in a lift will not be found to be amusing or dragging the shopping up 22 floors will be very good exercise but not fun."

Provide some evidence.

Referring to The Greens "Who will speak then, for people-smugglers? Maybe you Joe, if you can take time out from Aboriginal bashing, something your expert at, I suggest you stick to what you know.

The Greens vote is presently running at 10.2%, up from 8.65% in 2013. Regardless of who you support, the two big dinosaur parties are losing their grip, down from a combined 96% in 1950 to 79% today. They can no longer take voters for granted, the rusted-on's are a dying breed. The decline for the big two has been slow and relentless since WWII.

Paul,

"7.That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm".

Having a law that would prosecute an Australian citizen for protecting themselves or others with a firearm from terrorists or murderers is support for terrorists and murderers.

You can understand plain English can you not Paul?
Principle 7. (above) is, as you said, in plain English; can you not understand what it says?

When is the vigil for the 120 dead in Baghdad going to be held, or is there no political mileage in that?
If I am interpreting it wrongly, perhaps you or Foxy(who supports Principle 7,)or Suse can set me right.

@ Paul1405, Monday, 4 July 2016 8:08:00 PM

Your depiction of Joe (Loudmouth), who is one of OLO's respected researchers of indigenous history, of "Aboriginal (sic) bashing.. something (he) is expert at", is particularly outrageous and disgraceful, even for you.

No-one who is familiar with Joe (Loudmouth's) site, articles and posting record could ever believe that. The reverse is true.

Is Mise, you are one sick human being, now you mock the dead in Baghdad where the death toll is over 200 innocence's from senseless violence. I don't know what to say to you. I hope its just senility on your part which leads you to this disgusting insensitivity.
You care nothing for those people in Baghdad, or anyone else who is needlessly slaughtered. Maybe your war service, and the killing of ordinary defenseless people you experienced has hardened you this way. Driven you to love violence, your perverse fascination with guns and killing I don't know.

Thank you for your kind words, OTB :) One's best friends tell you like it is - if they are concerned for you, then they don't lie or pussy-foot around or ignore your shortcomings. That's always been how I saw any relationship to the Aboriginal Cause.

BTT: Indirectly, Paul, there are similarities between Green supporters and Islamist terrorists, although of course nobody is suggesting that Greens = Terrorism.

From a Marxist point of view - of terrorists having some class basis - is it possible that the terrorists are often young, aspiring would-be professionals, frustrated at their chances of promotion or even employment, and opportunist in their sudden allegiance to Islam ?

Young, righteous, relatively well-educated but not valued fully by society in their own eyes, and so resentful of the status quo - do you reckon there may be any Green supporters who fit that description ?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Greens could become terrorists, simply that they may have a rather forgiving, indulgent attitude to terrorism - after all, it's anti-American, and therefore .... sort of .... well, not totally bad.

What do you reckon, Paul ?

Cheers,

Joe

Paul,

I don't mock the 200 dead, I merely point out the politically motivated selective mourning that goes on; don't these 200 Muslims (in all probability) deserve the same reverence as the 49 in Orlando or the 35 at Port Arthur?
I'll ask again, when is a vigil to be held?

Bye the way, does Principle 7 mean what it says?

Under Green Law would a mother be prosecuted for using a gun to save herself from a wild dog?

That's how it reads to me "Self defence is never a reason....for using a gun." (Greens' Law, LOL!!).

Paul,

I love this one:

"6. Rural owners of licensed firearms should limit their use of firearms to legitimate farm purposes and minimise disturbance of people on neighbouring properties."

Out there in the bush, miles from the nearest neighbour, the man
on the land fires his .22 rifle and the thunderous report reverberates through the land, but doesn't disturb the sheep grazing a few hundred metres away.

Who ever wrote this piece of Green Law should get out of the inner city a bit.

Hi Joe,

"there are similarities between Green supporters and Islamist terrorists, although of course nobody is suggesting that Greens = Terrorism." Of course not Joe, just planting the seed.

With The Greens on target to score 1,200,000 primary votes Australia wide, it marvelous how incisive you are.
"Young, righteous, relatively well-educated but not valued fully by society in their own eyes, and so resentful of the status quo - do you reckon there may be any Green supporters who fit that description?" Yes Joe, with 1.2 million supporters there must be one who fits that description.

Don't get me wrong, but your posts on Aboriginal people seem to convey the impression that they are all drunken layabouts, not that I would suggest you would think that at all. Joe, how many Aboriginal people do you think fit the description of drunken layabouts?

Cheers Paul1405.

//Young, righteous, relatively well-educated but not valued fully by society in their own eyes, and so resentful of the status quo//

Sounds like the Young Liberals to me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Young Liberals could become terrorists, simply that they may have a rather forgiving, indulgent attitude to terrorism - after all, it's anti-Islamic, and therefore .... sort of .... well, not totally bad.

And on the other hand, they may not.

I can't say I've ever met any Young Liberals that condone terrorism. I doubt you've met any Greens that do. But never mind that: they could, in theory, exist. And that should be enough for us to make vague, substance-deficient suggestions that they definitely do exist, right Joe?

Paul, pretty miserable of you to use Baghdad causalities as a club to
beat others over the head.
If I lived in Baghdad I would not go out without my AK47.
As I live in Sydney I do not even have a popgun.

What goes on in the Middle East is because they are Arabs and that is what they do.

You sound like a greenie.

Citizens of NSW you are lucky enough courtesy of John Tingle of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party to have the Home Invasion Bill, which gives occupants of a house a Parliament-guaranteed right of self-defence.

Elsewhere in Australia, a victim of a home invasion can expect:

- automatic arrest (after sly questions from 'helpful' police aimed at obtaining self incrimination);

- his/her liberty deprived by being thrown into the Watchhouse and interrogated over hours and days; and,

- being forced to defend in court his/her choice of defending him/herself and loved ones and his/her use of 'reasonable' force (as defined by a police prosecutor who is overly optimistic and positive about the home invader's intentions, the availability of incredibly prompt and successful rescue by the police (remember the Lindt Cafe!) and the easy escape methods and routes you didn't consider, or not hard enough (such as doing the Sugar Glider from the small bathroom window eight metres above the concrete driveway).

The court proceedings will empty your cash reserves, could end up in the sale of your house, make you a media target for months/years thereafter too and probably end your marriage as well.

All of that police action is possible in NSW too. But at least in NSW the police know they have to pull their horns in. And as the hapless victim you are not fighting against a reversed standard of proof that requires YOU and not the police prosecutor to prove your innocence.

Simply amazing how the leftist 'Progressives' the self-named 'Wolves in Sheep's Clothing', have reeled back the rights of ordinary law-abiding citizens and are forever proposing more rights and protections for criminals and ferals. The International Socialists taking care of their voting demographic.

and when that law came in, in NSW, the Greens labeled it a "....licence to murder".
Lee Rhiannon being particularly shrill in her condemnation of the onus of proof being put on the Crown (where it belongs).
Her stand is understandable however as the law is not totalitarian but seeks to protect the ordinary citizen and not the criminal.

The Australian Greens are the closest thing we have to Nazis. They seem to be getting even more Nazified under Generalissomo di Natale, who seems to be mimicking that other Italian fascisti, Mussolini. There is also a little of Pol Pot, too: drive us back to year dot with 'renewable energy' that will bring industrial and social progress to a grinding halt

Hi Paul,

Drunken layabouts ? Probably quite a fair percentage, especially of people on lifelong welfare, especially of men. They don't particularly concern me. They've made their choices.

I'm more interested in how many are working their way through higher education - 2015 figures should be out any day now, and they'll probably show an increase of 7 or 8 % on last year's figures, and a total of around forty thousand graduates, two-third of whom are women. I'll post them up on my web-site ASAP. Do you know of anybody else who is following these figures ?

No, Paul, they're not a small minority of all Indigenous people - currently, around 55 % of young Indigenous people can expect to enrol at some time at university, say six thousand out of an age-group of eleven thousand - of those, perhaps 20 % will be enrolling in post-graduate courses, and most of the remaining 80 % will be enrolling in mainstream, degree-level, under-graduate courses for the first time. If you don't believe me, you can easily check it all out on: https://www.education.gov.au/student-data

Why do I care about Indigenous graduates ? Because they will be the ones who contribute to the future of their people, not the 'drunken layabouts', as you call them.

I'll repeat, I'm not suggesting that Greens supporters are terrorists, simply that their class bases overlap. Hence, the fairly soft approach (no, I wouldn't call it camaraderie yet) that your mob may have towards massacres and atrocities. But that's for you to sort out.

Cheers,

Joe

Paul,

I can see that you are happy with the greens results, how do you feel about the One Nation Party getting 350 000 votes in the senate and polling higher than the greens in Queensland?

Secondly, how do you feel about it being mandatory in Iceland for people to own guns for self protection against Polar bears?

Bazz, Your post is rubbish.

"What goes on in the Middle East is because they are Arabs and that is what they do." Because they are Arabs, what a sick racists comment to explain the deaths of innocent men, women and children.
You are in the same league as the mocking Is Mise, he also refereed to the dead in Baghdad, not because of any compassion on his part, like you he couldn't give two hoots about such people, He used their deaths to try and score a cheap political point.

Is Mise, now you are a Pauline Hanson sycophant, on gun policy could you explain this from One Nation policy "Australians have the right to defend themselves and their families in their own homes." Dose that apply to using lethal force against a person stealing from your home? In times of an emergency no time to weigh up the pros and cons so a simply yes or no will do.

NASA has just sent the probe Juno to Jupiter, Juno has reported back it has located OTB orbiting to the far right of the planet, somewhere in the Asteroid belt.

Shadow, we thought after three days of morning you had gone out of the bunker and done the honorable thing, seems not. Been tracking around Iceland in pursuit of Polar Bears did you take Is Mise along he loves the thrill of the kill. is Mise please board the next ice breaker bound for Iceland.

cont

cont,

With a swing back to Labor of around 1.95% in its primary vote, I was pleased The Greens were able to achieve a swing of 1.25% off a much smaller base (AEC figures). As for the vote in Queensland, which is Hanson's strongest state and The Greens weakest. The National Socialists polled extremely well in Bavaria in 1933. One Nation polled extremely well in Queensland in 2016. Every country must have its state of extremest ratbags,
The Greens out polled Barnyard and his Nationals 2 to 1. Is Mise's other love The Shooters and Hooters Party hardly went off with a bang, scoring a pathetic 0.01% of the vote, so much for the slogan "I have a gun, and I vote." probably had difficulty with the ballot paper, Is Mise tell your members an "X" in one square wont do, even if they are illiterate,

Could it be that all this crowing by Paul about an increase in votes is to try to prevent him crying about the Greens actual loss of a senator?

Perhaps they should adopt Turnbull for their leader, both seem to the same illusions of what constitutes a victory.

Delusions needs company, so they are both in need.

Paul,

In answer to your question, a simple 'yes' or 'no' won't do; it's a complex question, however if someone breaks into your home then they must intend you or your's harm, that's the safest assumption; if you stop to ask them their intentions then it may be too late, you or your's could be dead.
If they didn't intend any harm then that's their bad luck, they shouldn't have broken in.

It's not up to the victim to ascertain the intentions of an intruder, the intruder has by the action of breaking in declared an intention to cause harm.

Tell me, Paul, if the intruder is armed with a loaded firearm would you think it reasonable to charge the victim for using a firearm in self defence, bearing in mind the Greens policy on this.

Well Is Mise, you have said it all. Personal experience, when I was a boy, a neighbors child young Michael about 9 years old climbed in through a window of our house, when no one was home, and stole several item including my grandfathers fob watch which was very precious to my mother (all admitted later). According to you if my father had come home unexpected, and hearing noises in the front bedroom, with a gun at hand and believing his life and property may be in danger from a vicious criminal, who could possibly be armed, then dad could have blown young Michael's head off! WOW!
Naturally given the Beach line, the police should not be able to ask questions at all.

Based on your post.

No time for "complex questions"
Young Michael having broken in "must intend you or your's harm, that's the safest assumption"
Shoot first " if you stop to ask them their intentions then it may be too late, you or your's could be dead."
Bad luck kid "It's not up to the victim to ascertain the intentions of an intruder, the intruder has by the action of breaking in declared an intention to cause harm."

You cannot refute this as it is based on what you have said.

Based on what you have said, it may have been unfortunate, but given the circumstances my father would have been fully justified if he had blown young Michael's brains all over the ceiling for stealing a fob watch and a few trinkets. All I can say is WOW!

p/s Constable Clod in the form of OTB would ask no questions of the victim, Dad. All I can say to that is WOW!

Happy ending, because no gun was involved, all young Michael copped for his crime was a kick in the ass from his father, and had to say sorry to my mother, and hand back the goodies.

Paul,

Reductio ad absurdum - who's talking about shooting children ? Let's leave that to your ISIS mates. [Well, they're anti-US, aren't they, therefore, in your child's mind, they must be sort of, like, ..... Good ?]

Although it must be an exciting time to be a Greens Senate candidate, I think you may have misunderstood elementary statistical analysis: the Greens' total vote seems to be down around 10 % on its 2013 total, they may have lost at least one Senator, and they failed in turfing out property-owner Feeney in Batman. Perhaps di Natale's exploitation of au pairs wasn't a good look, not even in the Goat Cheese Circle where good help is so hard to find.

Still, good luck with pre-poll, postals, absentee and overseas votes - they tend to favour the upper end of class, which includes the Greens these days. All those tourists overseas might get your last senator over the line, and help you salvage something from the wreck.

Joe

Hi joe,

A friend of ISIS am I.

Your Greens figure are rubbery, just like the ones you produce to justify your constant bashing of Aboriginal people. Am I mistaken to think you have mates among the white supremacists. Were you ever a skin head? Remember the movie 'Rompa Stompa' does it bring back memories, see I can be as nasty as you.

Cheers Paul.

Joe, I would have liked to have perused your website, but unfortunately my anti virus 'Nortons' software described it as "suspect" and recommended it be avoided, can never be too careful as to where rubbish might be on the internet can you. Your website must be like you!

Gosh, Paul, I didn't think I was being nasty, just on the mark, and trying to be helpful. I don't believe in either Islamist or white supremacy by the way. I can't understand where you got any of those ideas: when the next lot of stats on higher education come out, I'll be happy to report rises in Indigenous participation - would you be happy to see them ? or would you make up some mealy-mouthed excuse for attacking Indigenous achievement ?

On that subject, I have to protest the way Indigenous university commencements are reported: the figure of only 1.3 % is used, BUT what is forgotten is that 27 % or so of all university students are from overseas.

So the number of Indigenous students has to be compared to the total number of DOMESTIC students only, not ALL students. On that basis, Indigenous students commencing study make up around 1.75 % of all commencements, two-thirds of them women. 2.2-2.4 % would be parity.

So if Indigenous men commenced study at the same rate as Indigenous women, Indigenous commencements would be getting close to parity. That's happening very slowly, far too slowly. There's a big job yet for universities' Indigenous student recruitment and support programs. I look forward to the day when Support Funds from Canberra are spent appropriately for that purpose.

Sorry for good news, Paul :)

Joe

Hi Paul,

As for my web-site: www.firstsources.info - thank for that opportunity - I've found it on the internet overseas, so you may need some help cfrom your class teacher in using the internet. I suggest that you ask one of your school resource teachers as well, or perhaps a school assistant - if your school has academic advisers, all the better.

Make sure that you spell it right: www.firstsources.info - on the 'Higher Education' Page, you will find a simplified higher ed database: you can move on from there to the complete, adult-version database. On other pages, you can find around fifteen thousand pages of primary data (all free), a missionary's 600-page Journal with new Index, Royal Commission transcripts from all States, key Conference transcripts from the 1960s, maps, Mission letter-books, depot ledgers, a 'Land Matters' page, and so on. Get your mother to slowly take you through it when she is home.

Joe

Paul,

My Norton anti-virus doesn't say ought about Joe' site.

What would you do Paul, if someone was breaking into your house?

Would you protect yourself and yours, or would you have a quiet chat to the intruder?

If the intruder was aggressive would you give him a quick course in Bob Brown's recommended method of anger management?

Bye the way, to blow a child's brains all over the ceiling one would need to fire from below the level of the child's chin, so in the hypothetical that you presented, premeditated murder would be the only possible verdict.

So Paul, are you saying that it is not the Arabs blowing up everyone ?
Then pray who is it ?
If they are not blowing up Belgians or Parisians or Bagdaghi's or
Turks or Egyptians or Tunisians or Londoners or Syrians
Then who the hell is blowing them up ?

All right I know, it is Pauline isn't it !

geez those questions should take the computer some time to answer !

Oh Paul, I missed this;
Jihad-martyrdom bombers hit 3 Saudi cities, including Muhammad’s mosque in Medina

Do you think it could have been the Fijians ?

Paul1405, 'Joe, I would have liked to have perused your website, but unfortunately my anti virus 'Nortons' software described it as "suspect" and recommended it be avoided'

LOL You have a habit of making allegations like that. Attempts to poison the well against their critics is par for the course for NSW 'Watermelon' Greens it appears.

Gee BAZZ you're so blindingly quick ! Who else would've thought the Fijians would've attacked the Saudi cities with their asinine bombers. Or maybe it was a couple of those highly covert zealots, who've been for months, deeply ensconced as staff, at the Macquarie Island's Sub-Antarctic Research Base ?

Perhaps a well organised group, from the ostensibly serene, 'Samoan People's Purveyors of Peace: Precautionary Coterie' they've not even registered a single 'blip' on ASIS's radar thus far ? I'm surprised these two have seemingly evaded your meticulous analysis, and strident intellect ?

Hi O Sung Wu,

Probably that was Bazz's point, that it is in fact blindingly obvious that only Islamists have been responsible for the series of dreadful bombings over the past couple of weeks, in Somalia, Lebanon, Turkey, Belgium, Iraq, Iraq and Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan and Bangla Desh. I might have missed a couple of places, it's hard to keep up with terrorism.

I sincerely hope that, before he retires, President Obama has the decency and courage to attribute responsibility for such atrocities - and there will be many between now and then - on Islamists, yes perhaps psychopaths, yes perhaps incited by some action of the USW, but mainly inspired by the very instructions, the unchangeable words, of the Koran.

I read recently of a gay Imam, who suggested that Islam needs to be reformed. I wish him well. Perhaps Paul might have already done so; if not, now is his opportunity to reinforce his support for freedom for all for sexual orientation.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

I don't think that you could be nasty, even you tried. Your only mistake is trying to discuss anything with the total nutter, Paul 1405, whose only 'argument' is to screech 'racist' at everybody. How he works out who is a 'racist' is hard to pick, as he will argue black is white until he is blue in the face.

We have to keep trying, ttbn, even if it seems like a lost cause: people are too precious to be abandoned just because of their naïve ideas or total lack of empathy with others.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I have checked your website and all looks fine.

https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.firstsources.info

Norton has a habit of flagging suspicions rather than actual malware which is fine but can lead people to stay clear of your site.

What may be the cause is the number of .docx files you have. These files are pretty notorious for allowing virus and malware injections. Is there any reason why you haven't just copy and pasted the text to your posts (I'm assuming you are using Wordpress)? This would get around the problem and create a far more user friendly experience for those wanting to explore the excellent work you have done.

If you do this you can then create links from your front page directly to those pages. Web development and design is something I have been involved with for many years so if I can be of assistance let me know.

As to your conversation with paul1405. If you want to go around saying things like “Let's leave that to your ISIS mates” then you really do not get to prance about offering this;

“We have to keep trying, ttbn, even if it seems like a lost cause: people are too precious to be abandoned just because of their naive ideas or total lack of empathy with others.”

Calling someone a friend of ISIS is a pretty big insult in anyone's language. It is aggressive, demeaning, libelous and uncalled for which is fairly standard for some of the posters here. You are generally one of the more articulate and reasonable types from your side and I normally attempt to treat you as such.

i feel a withdrawal of the remark would be an appropriate path.

Hi there LOUDMOUTH...

I really don't know Joe. ISIS seems to be growing exponentially in strength right throughout the Middle East, and I despair what it is, the West can do about it ? Their suicide attacks seem to have no borders or limitations, they attack anyone and anybody, including many of their own people and nobody in the West is prepared to 'face them down' and try to destroy them once and for all ?

They don't seem to fight a conventional war; rather similar to that of the French voltigeurs who came into so much prominence during Napoleon Bonaparte's many conflicts. Save of course for their earnest desire to suicide, which is totally beyond me ?

Anyone who believes that a citizen who uses a gun in self defence against a terrorist should be prosecuted is a friend to terrorists.

Do you not agree?

Thanks Steele,

I'll try to get my head around what you suggest. But I don't even know what Wordpress is, so it might take some time :(

As for my appalling comments on Paul, I'm not so sure - it's rare to hear or read any anti-ISIS comments from anybody on the pseudo-Left. Maybe they take their anti-terrorism for granted, and don't feel much of a need to express it.

I hope that's how it really is because surely they have some sense of right and wrong ? Surely they are horrified at what is happening to so many innocent people in ISIS-dominated areas ? I'm not saying that everyone should wear their hearts on their sleeves, but some support for those fighting terrorism, for the Kurds for example, would be appropriate ? Have I missed something ?

Cheers,

Joe

Now to answer a few of those off the planet statements, Where do I start there are so many erroneous remarks today from the lads. Did they call off bingo down at the senior citz on you fellas or something.

Bazz said "What goes on in the Middle East is because they are Arabs and that is what they do."
Do you believe the whole 367 million Arabs in the world go around killing each other, simply because they are Arabs. Do you also believe all 24 million Australians are mass murderers because Martin Bryant was Australian and a mass murderer.

A spray from ttbn, the Greens are Nazi's with a bit of Mussolini and Pol Pot thrown in. You left out Idi Amin, please don't leave out Big Dadda, and the Colonel, and i don't mean Sanders, they might get offended, and you could get a visit from those 367 million Arabs knocking on your door.

With Adolf, Benito, Mr Pot, Big Dadda and the Colonel on board, along with the regulars including me, now Hassy wants to chuck Malcolm on to The Greens bus, things are getting pretty crowded, its standing room only.

Gee, this is getting tough , I wish someone had started that Bingo gane for you fellas. I'll keep going.

Is Mise, what will be the legal age that people can be shot, I thought children were people, and as such were entitled to be shot.

Beach you little old virus spreader you. Remember that link you posted that contained a virus.

SteeleRedux, all was fine until Joe decided to come rushing in from right field and though he would give me a kick, saying Greens were speaking for people smugglers, grubs I certainly detest. Then it was Green links to Islamic terrorists and then ISIS, with a soft leaning in regards to massacres and atrocities. Strong unsubstantiated claims, which I didn't let go unchallenged,

The red X warning is common from Nortons, even this site gets one from time to time.

As for Joe's web site I can now access it and its content is detailed but innocuous. FOR EARLIER COMMENTS I APOLOGIZE UNRESERVEDLY TO JOE.

A backflipping 'Watermelon' with egg on its face.

Blames it on the 'Boogie' too.

Ahem, make it that naughty 'Mr Norton'. So easy to get confused.

Paul,

As with a lot of other things, you need to read up on forensic ballistics.

Have you ever seen brains splattered on a ceiling from a gunshot?

In the course of my professional life I've seen two suicides by shotgun and I'm only too well aware of the results on a ceiling.

//Calling someone a friend of ISIS is a pretty big insult in anyone's language.//

He's also rather selective about who he deems to be friends of vagISIL.

He seems to work on 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' principle, and concludes that because the extreme Left and vagISIL consider the US their enemy, they must be mates.

VagISIL hate Muslims as well as the US. The recent bombing in Baghdad was deliberately targeted at Shiite MUSLIMS, not western interests. If we follow Joe's line of reasoning that all lefties are sympathetic to vagISIL because some lefties hate the US with a passion and so do vagISIL, surely it is also reasonable to conclude that all righties are sympathetic to vagISIL because some righties hate Muslims with a passion and so do vagISIL.

If we follow Joe's 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' reasoning, which prima facie seems quite reasonable, we are left with the conclusion that both the left and the right - so, pretty much everybody - are mates with ISIS.

This is the literal textbook definition of a reductio ad absurdum. As I've attempted to explain to others on this forum, the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Sometimes they're just c&^ts.

//it's rare to hear or read any anti-ISIS comments from anybody on the pseudo-Left. Maybe they take their anti-terrorism for granted, and don't feel much of a need to express it.//

Then allow me to repeat myself in case you just missed that: vagISIL are c%#ts. That's pretty much why I call them vagISIL.

And no, I don't feel much of a need to express it. Pointing out that vagISIL are c&#ts is like pointing out that water is wet, that ice is cold and that it's darker during the night than the day: it is a statement of the completely bleeding obvious. Pointing out the obvious seems a waste of my precious time.

But apparently if you don't some people will try to insinuate that you are a terrorist sympathiser. God knows why.

Toni, I cannot speak for all Greens. One commonality I certainly have encountered from all those of the moderate side of politics Greens, Labor and Liberal supporters, is a universal abhorrence to the vile acts of terrorism committed against all innocent people by the extremest.
Where there is difference is the causes of this extremism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and the military and political roll played by the west in contributing to the present situation. There is also difference as to what action should be taken to resolve what is a terrible dilemma.
Bazz with his "What goes on in the Middle East is because they are Arabs and that is what they do." very much sums up the conservative attitude as they try to distance the west from any culpability and therefore any responsibility to find a solution.
To say all those of the left "hate America" is also a falsehood, Americans have contributed immensely in a positive way to the betterment of mankind. That is not to say there has not been American shortcomings, particularly in foreign policy and actions, there certainly has been, but that does not detract from their achievements in science and technology etc. Again I don't know any Greens who openly say "I hate all Americans" mostly the attitude is similar to mine.

P/s I am also a pacifists, so any inference I would support the killing of my fellow human being is detestable to me, and I tend to react. Call me a trotskyists, watermelon etc so what, but I do take offence at being called a supporter of murderers.
The worse act a person can commit is to kill a fellow human being.

Thanks Paul, fair enough.

Toni, if A never seems to condemn B, but both have no trouble condemning C, then it's a fair bet that A and B are at least, willing or not, congenial. I agree that the old Maoist principle of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' is contemptible opportunism, but one needs to carefully differentiate one's position, say, against C, from what seems to be another's position against C, to avoid the false impression that one is on cahoots with the other, even unwittingly.

For example, in the case of Syria, where, broadly, there are three main positions: that of the brutal Assad dictatorship and the Russians, that of ISIS and that of the very weak would-be-democratic forces backed by the West, I would suggest that the Western-backed forces organise a truce with the Assad forces and work together to defeat ISIS, and plan for some sort of coalition once that has been achieved. i.e. which is the worst enemy of the people: Assad or ISIS ? In my view, ISIS is, with Assad a close second. So we should hold our noses and conditionally support Assad and the Russians, all the while condemning them for barrel-bombing and cluster-bombing civilian areas.

Maybe I've missed something, but I don't see that differentiation from the Greens or the pseudo-Left. Maybe there are some genuine old Left who are trying to maintain some principles and are striving to work out what they should support in very complex situations. I devoutly hope so.

Yes, Toni, water is wet; night is darker than day. But you (and the Greens - and the pseudo-Left generally) need to be a bit more explicit in your unspoken condemnation of vagISIL/ISIS, a bit more analytical than just calling them c&#ts, because they are far more than that, far more of a danger to the world. They and (once they have been defeated) their inevitable descendant bodies will be a problem throughout this century, and until Islam is reformed. Have enough principle to respond to evil ideology with ideological arguments, not just swear-words.

Cheers,

Joe

Paul,

"The worse act a person can commit is to kill a fellow human being."

A worse thing is for a human being to not kill a fellow human being who is about to kill him.
Self defence is a natural right.

Do you not agree, Paul?

Would you not defend you and yours from a killer?

Or would you ring '000' and hope?

Paul1405, "The worse act a person can commit is to kill a fellow human being."

Murder is a horrendous crime.

How would you describe an Australian Senator, or political party if you will, who despite being fully aware of the serious, often brutal crime wave wreaked in Europe by economic migrants is quite prepared to put Australians at the same risk? And promotes a policy of appeasement, where victims must adapt to the perpetrators and women are made responsible for the rape attacks suffered by them?

//But you (and the Greens - and the pseudo-Left generally) need to be a bit more explicit in your unspoken condemnation of vagISIL/ISIS, a bit more analytical than just calling them c&#ts//

Nah, I think c%^ts sums up the situation pretty accurately. Brevity is not a sin and like I said, pointing out the bleeding obvious is a waste of my precious time. Why waste more of it by making a detailed bullet-point list of the precise ways in which they are c%@ts when everybody already knows they're c$&ts?

//Have enough principle to respond to evil ideology with ideological arguments//

The only point I can see in employing an ideological argument against vagISIL would be to try and persuade somebody who doesn't think they're c#*ts that they are. In case you hadn't noticed, there's NOBODY here who believes that. So what's the point?

Hi Toni,

Because such limited characterisation is a bit juvenile, and gives the impression that there is nothing more to ISIS, or to Islamists - and Islamism - than their c&#thood. There is far more ideologically going on, and this will still be the case long after I'm gone. [And I don't think that Amish are burning young women in cages for refusing to be sex slaves, or even pedophilic Catholics are machine-gunning young children and older women.]

Muslims are no better or worse than any other people, but they are victims of an outdated, tribal, desert-oriented ideology. Islamism is probably not the only vile ideology in the world today, but given that it is a danger primarily to the 1.5 billion Muslims, our fellow human beings, then it is a very serious problem which, more or less, only they can resolve.

But there are so many factors militating against that in Muslim countries - high youth unemployment, high professionally-educated unemployment, rising food prices, rapidly falling birth-rates and consequent higher elderly-dependency rates, financial incompetence, corruption, to name a few factors - that it is tempting to be very pessimistic that people in Muslim countries can liberate themselves from the village-idiocy of traditional Islam - and in a rapidly modernising world. I certainly wish them well in the unenviable task of reforming Islam - all religions need reforming - especially the women and the next generations, but the craving to migrate out of those stagnant bogs is quite understandable.

Yes, Toni, ISIS has attracted all manner of psychopaths - c&#ts, if you like - but I'm betting that many recruits are perfectly sane, with above-average education, extremely frustrated, and misguidedly blame the West for all their problems, and not the backwardness of their beliefs. Hmmm, now which Aussie political party would represent such people today ?

Cheers,

Joe

Is Mise, why the morbid fixation with killing? You seem to be obsessed with the subject. In your 100 or so years on the planet haw many times have you had to defend your cave from other cavemen who's intention is to bop you on the head with a club, and take over your precious cave, because it has central heating and theirs don't.

Are you as pleased as much as I am that here in NSW Lee Rhiannon and the Greens have been given a ringing endorsement by the people of the State. The same can't be said about The Shooters and Hooters who received less than 2% of the vote, and that other charlatan David Leyonhjelm has been ass holed from the Senate. Every candidate in every state put up by the phony party has been shot down.

Dear Joe,

You wrote;

"And I don't think that Amish are burning young women in cages for refusing to be sex slaves, or even pedophilic Catholics are machine-gunning young children and older women."

No they are not but not that long ago Serbian Christians were mass raping Muslim women and ethnically cleansing entire villages.

This too will pass.

The strongest Muslim seat in Sydney is Blaxkland where the result was Labor 64% Liberal 24% Greens 4%. So Joe to answer your question "which Aussie political party would represent such people today?" Is it Labor first Liberal second.

Hi Paul,

Blaxland is my birth-electorate :)

No, I don't think that young Muslims there would be especially frustrated, unemployed, itching to do something and ready to blame the world for their issues. My point is: which party attracts frustrated, professionally-educated, young people ? You say Labor, I suggest respectfully the Greens.

Hi Steele,

It's interesting that you mention the fascist Serbs and their brutal oppression of Bosnian Muslims. I recall, during those terrible years, that the pseudo-Left here were very soft on the Serbs, pussy-footing around their extermination of Muslim men and rape of Muslim women.

In fact, although my links with it were withering rapidly by then, the pseudo-Left didn't, as far as I remember, ever criticise the fascists without somehow blaming the Yanks or NATO, quite an acrobatic feat.

When the fascists tried the same tactics against the people of Kosovo, all the pseudo-Left could manage was some feeble excuse that the people of Kosovo were not entitled to any sort of self-determination because the Yanks might get something out of it: bugger the Kosovars. Total opportunists.

I wonder where the Greens would have stood back then ?

Cheers,

Joe

No fascination, morbid or not, Paul, and you brought up the subject; what's your fascination?

Worse than killing a fellow human is making it impossible for innocent victims to defend themselves and then proposing to prosecute them if they successfully use a gun to save their life.

Such support for criminals and terrorists is a low to which only the Greens have sunk in this country.

Only cowards would propose such a law as

"7.That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or USING a firearm".

Shame, Paul, shame!

Dear Joe,

You keep bandying around the term pseudo-Left.

I'm wondering what you mean by it?

If you think I fit into the category could you please explain why.

If you don't then why did you bring the term into the discussion with me?

Also why mention the Greens? I am not nor never have been a member of the Greens.

Perhaps also we could explore the notion of the pseudo-right, the ones who bellow loudly about freedoms with less government interference but are happy to see detention without trial, wholesale eavesdropping on all citizens, and the erasure of the right to silence without self incrimination.

Hi Steele,

No, I certainly don't mean you :) I'm trying to find a term for that gaggle of points of view which seem left-of-centre, but are more of a smoke-screen for anti-US blasts, no matter what the excuse - in other words, little more than opportunism. The Greens overlap with them. The Socialist Apologists for Fascism, for another. The SPA, if it still exists.

While we are on the subject, I was puzzled to see Anne Aly described as a 'Progressive Muslim'. People are welcome to call themselves whatever they like, and to worship however they like, but I would have thought that progressive politics and Islam really don't fit together easily: there is nothing progressive, per se, about standard, orthodox Islam, any more than, say, Pentecostal Christianity. People may put one aside in order to practice the other, and somehow square it all away. But strict Islam is surely the antithesis of progressive political views ? Perhaps I should ask a gay Iraqi.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I'm not sure Anne Aly describes herself as a progressive Muslim. I heard her answering something similar and she replied she was not only a Muslim but a mother, a sister, a daughter, a woman, an Australian etc.

Of all the Muslims I know she would be regarded as pretty run of the mill but I do not mix with the more fundamentalist version too often.

My fundy inlaws regard themselves as Christian but not the Catholics.

I asked my father-in-law and my brother-in-law who are Family First supporters that if FF were ever to become the governing party would they expect it to outlaw homosexuality. It was a unanimous yes. I also asked if the expectation extended to capital punishment, again the answer was yes.

I should make myself clear. Some of the mega churches like Hillsong give me great cause for concern. If I had my way they would be stripped of tax exempt status and radicalism from the American ultraconservative Christian Right be closely monitored. I would also ban any Wahabi money entering this country for religious purposes and disallow any Mosque which promoted Wahhabist teachings and was supported by said money.

Other than that I welcome the normal versions of both Christianity and Islam into this country.

If anyone wants to attack either faith by tarring all their followers with the same brush then I will call it out as bigoted behaviour.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Hear! Hear!

Well said - as always!

Bravo!

Steele, I can only concur with Foxy

Hear! Hear!

Well said - as always!

Bravo!

Joe, once again you are at it, trying a backdoor approach to associate The Greens with ISIS.

You claim without evidence;

"that many recruits (to ISIS) are perfectly sane, with above-average education, extremely frustrated, and misguidedly blame the West for all their problems, and not the backwardness of their beliefs. Hmmm, now which Aussie political party would represent such people today?" You answered your own question with your opinion that the party is The Greens.

As you have no personal association with The Greens or its members, and i doubt you ever had. I can only conclude you make such wild unsubstantiated accusations like that, for no other reason than to smear The Greens name by using what is clearly, erroneous nonsense.

Your line is ridiculous. If you said; Anders Breivik the Norweigan mass murderer and right-wing extremist, of those in Australia that supported Breivik's actions, which political party are they also most likely to support Liberal, Labor or The Greens. Should I say Liberal, as they are further right than the other two, Breivik was right wing, his Australian supporter would be right wing so from that I can extrapolate they must be Liberal party supporters. Then you could take it further and claim as you have not heard that much condemnation of Breivik by Liberals, then they must be all supporters. Same as your argument against the Greens. Nonsense.

//I'm betting that many recruits are perfectly sane, with above-average education, extremely frustrated, and misguidedly blame the West for all their problems, and not the backwardness of their beliefs. Hmmm, now which Aussie political party would represent such people today ?//

ALA? One Nation? Rise Up Australia?

//My point is: which party attracts frustrated, professionally-educated, young people ?//

I know this one: it's the Young Liberals.

It can't be the Greens because Paul votes for them and he's old, and my mate Dylan votes for them and he's a scaffolder (i.e. not professionally educated).

Whereas the Young Liberals are exclusively for young people, most of whom are probably professionally educated and all of whom seem to have a massive chip on their shoulder, judging by the Young Liberals I've observed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH_MBwQhGgA

Dear Chaser,

Hear! Hear!

Well said - as always!

Bravo!

Last Saturday at the polling booth I was at, 4 or 5 young "Muslims" turned up, they could have been Hindu but what the heck they are all the same, easy to recognize, brown skin, turbines on their heads. They could have fitted Joe's description "that many recruits (to ISIS) are perfectly sane, with above-average education, extremely frustrated, and misguidedly blame the West for all their problems, and not the backwardness of their beliefs" Naturally thinking of Joe I said "Lads! get your Greens tee shirts on!" In one voice they replied "Goodness gracious me, no mansub, we are for Laborrrrr! I immediately said to the Liberal standing near by, I knew he was a Liberal, because he was wearing a blue tee shirt with a pic of Anders Breivik on the front, and the slogan "Vote For Malcolm" on the back. "bloody terrorists!", the Liberal nodded in agreement.... and The Christian Democrats said a prayer, for God Fred to send them to hell.

I have more concerns. The other evening on the telly I seen Mike Baird (Liberal Party) and Luke Foley (Labor) together at the Lakemba mosque, not a Green in sight, they were with hundreds of Muslims to celebrate the end of 'Ramadan' the polys had little in the way of security to protect them, must be friends. I ask you; What does that tell you about the Liberal and Labor Parties?

I broke my own rule and watched OTB's Chaser Youtube on the Greens, my 'puter is now a pile of ashes on the floor, ha ha, but I love that skit, one of their best. Beach i didn't know you had any humor in you. I thought you were just dead pan miserably serious all the time, perhaps not, did you win lotto or something? Well done son.

I also love the Bin Laden at APEC conference skit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdnAaQ0n5-8

Sorry, Paul, you misunderstand what I am trying to get at. Like most of us, I'm interested in how young, relatively well-educated, but unemployed people around the world (or people whose employment is constantly under threat), in different contexts, respond to their longer-term futures as they see them. That goes for supporters of the 'Arab Spring' (remember that ?) in Egypt and Syria and Iran, and supporters of Trumpf and Sanders in the US, young Bremain supporters in the UK, as well as young people here.

Understandably, in most of those cases, young people are impatient, frustrated and disillusioned. I'm not suggesting that their responses to their situations are similar, let alone identical - I'm certainly not trying to paint them all with the same brush - just that they tend to reject the dominant ideologies wherever they are. So they tend to break either to the Left or to the Right of the mainstream.

Of course, I AM suggesting that Islamism is Right-wing, extremely so, there is nothing whatever progressive about it. Any political movement which relies on unchanging, ancient texts is likely to be, by definition, reactionary in the Old Left sense.

I'm also suggesting that Islamism, jihadism, ISIS and al Qa'ida etc., are far to the Right of the world capitalist system, and a long-term threat to fiercely-won notions of democracy, equal rights, freedom of expression and scientific investigation.

That might be where we disagree :)

Cheers,

Joe

I understand what you are saying Joe, but why have you tried to create a link between young radical Islamist's and The Greens, saying we are the party that would be most likely to support them. We simply do not, if such a person was to turn up at my branch, and spout violent radical Islamic jihad, they would be quick smart shown the door, some years ago a new woman member was given the boot, not over Islam, over something else, she wanted people to get violently involved. I am a pacifists and would not be a member of any party, Labor and Liberal for two, that support violent action, or supported people in their violent behavior, I understand why people get aggressive in the world, but I do not support that violent action, always believing there is a better way.
Radicals are not a homogeneous bunch, I'm sure different factions have different opinion, with individuals having different levels of radicalization, and may seek to achieve outcomes through different methods.

Hey, Paul, would you kill an attacker if that was the only way that you could save your partner's life?

Would you USE a gun to do so?

Or would you stick by the Greens' principle No 7 and also ring "000"?

Hi Paul,

No, I'm not suggesting links, let alone 100 % support etc., just that many Greens would have a rather casual attitude towards human rights in the Middle East, to making any judgment on the burning of young women or the tossing of gays off rooves [roofs?], lest they offend some imam, or seem to offer in any way the slightest support to the Great Satan, the US.

Perhaps you could prove me wrong ? Have the Greens made any condemnation of ISIS etc. atrocities ? Perhaps you think that it wouldn't be relevant, since the Greens are just an Australian party ? What might be the greens' policy on, say, hypothetically, a request from the Iraqi government for more Australian troops to combat ISIS ? Or, in the future, to combat the successors to ISIS, once it has been militarily defeated in the next couple of years ?

Yes, I agree with you, there are very, very many ways to be 'radical', or even 'progressive'. Or, I suppose, 'conservative'. Nobody can stop freedom of thought or belief, thank Christ.

Cheers,

Joe

Is Mise, there you go again with your morbid obsession with killing people, Since you never answer questions I'll ask another one. At what age do you think school children should be allowed to carry loaded guns to school. High school age, or should they get used to killing each other from a much earlier age say kindergarten?

Joe, you seem ignorant of Greens and what they believe, simply influenced by the radical sections of Australia's right wing media.
I know of no Greens who support ISIS atrocities and the party has condemned such vile acts, including terrorists bombings etc. I know after the Paris attack a resolution condemning the outrage was unanimously passed at my local branch. Likewise I find no support from Greens for human rights abuse in the Middle East or elsewhere, You simply throw out the provocative line "many Greens" when you know nothing of such people, provide evidence, you can't. as it is nothing more than a fabrication that only exists in your minds eye.

A Liberal Party member Chris Nelson, was found guilty recently of racial abuse of Aboriginal senator Nova Peris. From that can we judge that most Liberal party members are racists. Did you support Nelson's action, I have not seen you post anything condemning it, so you must support it. I gave you time but,,, Just as you gutlessly claimed I support ISIS. Something you have not retracted I do note and remember. Any apology from me concerning your web site content does not extend to you. I have an opinion of you based on your posts, not your web site. It may be nothing more than a innocuous sham to fool the ignorant, I don't know.

If you go back in this thread you'll find that I answered your questions.

Hoist on thine own petard, Paul?

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your mention of my web-site: sww.firstsources.info ... Just to blow my own trumpet, I notice that what I have put up there is twice as long, or more, as the Chilcott Report.

In answer to your post: ' ..... Did you support Nelson's action, I have not seen you post anything condemning it, so you must support it. I gave you time but,,, Just as you gutlessly claimed I support ISIS. ..... "

No, I don't support any attack on Nova Peris. And:

No, I didn't claim that you support ISIS, just that EITHER you and the Greens seem to be either a bit lukewarm on condemning ISIS atrocities, OR the press doesn't report your condemnations fully.

How's that ?

Joe

Dear Joe;

You wrote to Paul;

“No, I didn't claim that you support ISIS, just that EITHER you and the Greens seem to be either a bit lukewarm on condemning ISIS atrocities, OR the press doesn't report your condemnations fully.”

But you had written earlier;

“Let's leave that to your ISIS mates.”

Now perhaps there has been a misunderstanding if so may I give the full paragraph and ask you to explain what you had meant by the words you used;

“Reductio ad absurdum - who's talking about shooting children ? Let's leave that to your ISIS mates. [Well, they're anti-US, aren't they, therefore, in your child's mind, they must be sort of, like, ..... Good ?]”

The ordinary punter would look at that and say you are calling Paul a friend of terrorists.

Well, Steele, he must be a friend to terrorists as he's a Green and the Greens are friends to terrorists; otherwise why would they want to make it a criminal offence to use a firearm in self defence against terrorists?

Had someone in the Lyndt cafe taken the gun off Monis and used it to hold him until the police arrived then the Greens would want to see the hero prosecuted for using a gun in self defence.

Sorry Steele, heat of the moment :)

Is Mise, I understand that the question about school children was too hard, so you couldn't answer. Could it be your answer may have be incriminating?
Moving on, today in Dallas Texas 5 police officers were shot dead by presumably black snipers. Given recent cold blooded killings of blacks by police in the US can I take it Is Mise you agree with these cop killers as they were only acting in self defense, a case of get them before they get you. It tallies with what you think and say.

Some of your questions are so stupid as to not warrant an answer.

So, Paul, we c an take it that you would stick by your Green Principles (particularly No 7) and watch your partner murdered rather than kill to save her, especially by using a gun.

Commendable.

Is Mise, I agree some of my questions are stupid, as they are based on the stupid policies of the Shooters and Hooters and One Nation parties. Therefor I expect equally stupid answers from you since they to are based on the fore-mentioned stupid policies.

Do you still believe the elephant killer from the Shooters Party, Robert Borsak is a "conservationists". Given Borsak's support for the greyhound business?
Like Borsak do you believe the best way to kill a rabbit or possum is to tie it to a mechanical arm and have a pack of dogs tear it apart?
Do you believe conservation involves the wholesale slaughter of thousands of greyhounds each year?
Are these also stupid questions?

No, Paul, those are not stupid questions and I'll willingly answer them after you answer my questions relative to Greens Principle 7.

Paul,

In trying to score points you end up saying some of the most atrocious things. A man planning, and murdering people cold bloodedly based on their race is no way comparable to a homeowner defending his family against armed intruders.

Obviously reasoning eludes you.

PS, While the greens don't support ISIS, they do sycophantically defend Hamas against Israel, with Hamas being only marginally less vicious than ISIS.

Shadow, your lack of understanding is phenomenal. What Greens, me included do, is not defend Hamas, but rather defend the human rights of the Palestinian people. Zionism in its efforts to establish a Jewish state in Palestine has in more than 60 years systematically trashed the human rights of Palestinians. Millions of Palestinians have been dispossessed, forced into refugees camps as Jews have taken possession of their land.

Paul1405, "What Greens, me included do, is not defend Hamas, but rather defend the human rights of the Palestinian people. Zionism in its efforts to establish a Jewish state in Palestine has in more than 60 years systematically trashed the human rights of Palestinians"

Which is why the Greens picketed a very surprised good citizen of Brisbane,

<Greens senator Lee Rhiannon stands by Israel boycott
THE AUSTRALIAN AUGUST 29, 2011 12:00AM

GREENS senator Lee Rhiannon has again refused to back away from the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign, despite opposition from her leader, Bob Brown.
..
One counter-protester, Logan City councillor Hajnal Black, said BDS supporters shouted anti-Semitic slogans.

"It's shocking, the sort of things they were saying -- that Jews kill babies, Jews are terrorists . . ." she said.

The BDS rally's organisers, Kathy Newnam and Hamish Chitts, declined requests to be interviewed.>
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-senator-lee-rhiannon-stands-by-israel-boycott/story-fn59niix-1226124026224

Watermelons: a thin veneer of green environmentalism concealing the solid pink and red beneath.

The hypocritical Greens are posing as everyone else's moral guardians demanding truth in electoral advertising. But they are the masters of duping voters and they went along with Labor's lies in the recent election.

It is outrageous and reprehensible that a federal Senator, Lee Rhiannon, would be encouraging and leading the pack in such a disgraceful action as picketing an ordinary shopkeeper and embarrassing him, his staff and customers.

If federal Senators had any backbone at all and were not always distracted checking their travel and other entitlements they would not have a bar of jackasses like Lee Rhiannon.

Paul,

I understand all too well. The reactions of the greens are as follows:

Hamas executes gays - Silence
Hamas executes non muslims - silence
Hamas rounds up opposition members, calls them collaborators and executes them - silence
Hamas diverts humanitarian aid towards building rockets and tunnels - silence
Hamas bombs a civilian school bus - silence
Hamas sends in terrorists to kidnap and kill school children - silence
Hamas fires rockets at Israeli civilian areas from Palestinian civilian areas - silence
Hamas hides weapons and ammo in hospitals and schools - silence.

Israel retaliates, and then the squawking begins.

Spot-on, SM !

In the Baghdad bombing last week, around three hundred innocent civilians were killed, just going about their business shopping in a market. For Iraq's population, of 25 million, that's equivalent to much more than the three thousand killed by al Qa'ida in the Twin Towers bombing, which was, after all, horrific. I don't recall any Greens statement of condemnation of that Iraqi bombing.

Perhaps Paul could easily find some reference to such condemnation, how appalled the Greens are at such constant evil and brutality ?

Cheers,

Joe

What do you pair of monkeys think, I am your 'fetch it boy'. Sorry to disappoint, if you want a bone go and dig it up yourself.

Paul,

So cruel, so cutting !

No, Paul, I assume that some of the Greens would be appalled at the ideological killings over the past week or so, in Somalia, Afghanistan, Belgium, Florida, Baghdad, Dhaka, Yemen. I was just waiting for you to get official approval to report it.

No ? No Greens statement on mass murders in the name of an ideology ?

Time to switch camels, Paul :)

Joe

Dear Joe,

You wrote;

"Sorry Steele, heat of the moment :)"

It isn't me who you should be apologising to.

Paul1405, "Like Borsak do you believe the best way to kill a rabbit or possum is to tie it to a mechanical arm and have a pack of dogs tear it apart?"

Where did Borsak say that? Evidence please.

"No ? No Greens statement on mass murders in the name of an ideology?"

Your right Joe, I checked the Greens website no condemnation as you say, not a single word on "ideological killings over the past week or so, in Somalia, Afghanistan, Belgium, Florida, Baghdad, Dhaka, Yemen"

So, I thought I would pop over to the Labor website and read their statement of condemnation. Nothing, not a word just congrates for Bill on how he din't lose the election, Must be ideological I thought! So a quick google of the Liberal Party website to get a real boots and all condemnation! I thought if anyone had it, it would be the Liberals! Shock horror, like The Greens, like Labor, not a word on the subject, just congrats for Malcolm on how he didn't lose the election, in fact all three are claiming they had the greatest victory since Nelson at Trafalgar!

So it looks like we have bipartisan support from the major political parties in Australia for killings over the past week or so, in Somalia, Afghanistan, Belgium, Florida, Baghdad, Dhaka, Yemen, Do you agree Joe?

Sorry Beach, I keep forgetting Borsak is a "conservationists" wouldn't hurt a fly, so rabbits and possums must be safe. Don't know about elephants though, the guys bagged 8 in the name of "conservation" thus far, unfortunately at least 3 died in agony, due to poor aim. Now, when your only concerned with conservation like these gunnies are, you can't be put off by a bit of animal cruelty, now can you?

Hi Paul,

Perhaps you should check Julie Bishop's web-site, i.e. as Foreign Affairs Minister. She has made statements consistently condemning Islamist atrocities. I don't know who the Greens' spokesperson on foreign affairs is, but if they have one, check theirs out too.

Cheers,

Joe

Unfortunately Joe, I went to the Julie Bishop Federal Member for Curtain website and I could not find any condemnation of killings over the past week or so, in Somalia, Afghanistan, Belgium, Florida, Baghdad, Dhaka, Yemen. I'm not saying its not there, it may be just buried under all those "feel good" statements some polys like Bishop are prone to make. Could Ms Bishop have been more concerned with the possibility of defeat of the conservatives at the election to be putting out statements of condemnation. Maybe Ms bishop was more concerned with the Federal Government kicking in $5000 for Curtain lifesaving clubs, I assume that has more to do with saving Aussie lives than the lives of people in Somalia, Afghanistan, Belgium, Florida, Baghdad, Dhaka, Yemen.

Hi Paul,

Labor lost the election. The Greens lost a Senate seat. Suck it up.

No, Julie Bishop would not have much reference to external affairs on her electorate web-site, but she would have on the Dept of Foreign/External Affairs web-site. Check it out.

Joe

Paul,

How're you going with Principle 7

Do you really think that a person should be prosecuted for using a gun in self defence against a terrorist?

Seems to be Greens' policy to protect terrorists.

"Perhaps you (Paul1305) should check Julie Bishop's web-site". I did and found nothing. it may well be somewhere else but I'm not running all over the place looking for it. What did your last black boy die of, over work? I would expect our foreign minister to condemn terrorism in all its forms. Maybe Julie can put up a piece condemning the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people by ALL sides in the Middle East, not just the ones she politically opposes. Do you agree?

Paul,

How're you going with Principle 7

Do you really think that a person should be prosecuted for using a gun in self defence against a terrorist?

Seems to be Greens' policy to protect terrorists and criminals.

Is Mise, in your mind how does one determine who is a "terrorists" and who is not? You keep "terrorizing" me about Greens policy, does that make you a terrorist..
I am surprised you are justifying the killing of 5 police officers in Dallas Texas in the way you are. The perpetrator viewed police as some kind of terrorists, so in his mind he was justified in killing them, which fits your nonsense.
The difficulty I and others have with your open slather approach to guns is there may be the odd "bad guy" taken out, now and then. but a lot of innocent people are going to die because of that kind of ridiculous policy, America clearly demonstrates that fact. I don't believe that you are motivated by a real concern for the community, but rather by self interest, you simply want guns freely available to satisfy your own perverse pleasure, nothing to do with community concern. Gunnies know if they peddled their real agenda they would not be supported, so they create this illusion that they have some kind of community interest, when no such interest exists. That is why the Shooters and Hooters Party got less than 2% of the vote. You can fool a few people, but not the vast majority.

Paul,

Do you really believe that a person should be prosecuted for using a gun to defeat the designs of a terrorist/murderer against their life?

The reason that the Shooters and Fishers didn't gain more votes is that they were not concentrating on winning but rather on keeping the Greens out, and in this they succeeded as the Greens seem to have lost a seat in the Senate and did not gain any Representative seats.

Do you really believe in the Greens more stupid gun policies?

Is Muse, I was referring to NSW where your Shooters and Hooters scored 2&, a nothing vote in itself, Lee Rhiannon was comfortably returned for the Greens. In SA the Shooters and Hooters scored 0.7%, a laughable result, we did lose a Senate seat there to NXT, I am please that our seat went that way and not to the dinosaurs or your laughable lot, pleased that Nick got 3 senate seats in SA. Your mob scored absolutely zero Australia wide. In Victoria the seat of Batman went close for The Greens, the Shooters and Hooters had no effect their vote was zero, you couldn't find a Wally Wombat to stand for you.
You fellas should stick to what you do best, running around the bush pretending your Rambo's or Daniel Boone shooting each other, and leave the politics to more intelligent people.

Lost a seat, Paul, lost a seat. LOL.
S&F hold State seats, which is where it matters for us; firearms law is a State matter.

Is Mise 10 got returned, the Shooters and Hooters never lost a seat. you had none to lose. The people clearly reject your politics. Why did the nincompoops run candidates in the first place, You thought you had a chance of a senate seat in NSW, you delude yourself. Your happy with a pair of drongo's in the NSW LC.

Paul,

Example of a stupid policy,

Do you really believe that a person should be prosecuted for using a gun to defeat the designs of a terrorist/murderer against their life?

C'mon, defend this bit of Greens' stupidity if you dare,

Just get BTT: On the association of Trotskyites with jihadists, Pascal Bruckner has written this:

"All of the ultra-left is fascinated by the eruptive power of jihadism. This alliance has been theorised by the Socialist Workers' party in England: under certain conditions, the alliance with Muslims - even if reactionary or retrograde - is necessary in order to shake up the fortress of capitalism. Since we have missed out with the proletariat, and the Third World, we have to bring this about through this sacrificial monotheism in which the faithful form a substitute-proletariat. This is what is called 'Islamo-leftism."

Elsewhere, he notes:

"The peculiarity of Europe is a paradox pushed to the extreme: out of the medieval came the Renaissance; out of feudalism, the aspiration to democracy; and out of the church’s repression, the rise of the Enlightenment. The religious wars promoted secularism, national antagonisms promoted the hope of a supranational community, and the revolutions of the twentieth century promoted the anti-totalitarian movement."

I wish the last was true. Bruckner writes a great deal about the reflex-action anti-US, anti-Europe, anti-modern approach of people who think they are on the Left, and its apocalyptic, almost religious, attitude to current power structures and political systems, along the lines that "We're all doomed unless .... " [Fill in your own particular 'end of days' scenario].

Elsewhere, he has passionately defended Ayan Hirsi Ali, the forerunner of new forms of feminism. I hope he has bodyguards.

What has this got to do with the Greens, I hear you ask ?

Joe

Joe, there are lunatics all over the world including The Socialist Workers Party UK, and the Shooters Party Australia, just to name two among hundreds, if not thousands, of fringe dwellers who orbit at the extremes of the political universe. Like The Shooters Party here, with their less than 2% popular support, The Socialist Workers Party Uk is of the same magnitude. Both have way out policies which appeal to a few of the more psychotic members of society. So what is you point?

As for your attempt at planting the seed with;

"What has this got to do with the Greens, I hear you ask?"

No one is asking, possibly just rumblings in your head you can hear.

Nothing to do with any of this nonsense, but what can you tell me about Jimmy James?

Is Mise, stupid policy is the kind that would see innocent people die so that a few of the perverted people can enjoy their gunnie pursuits. read your own parties website if you want stupid policy.

You have not answered my questions about the spectacular failure of The Shooters and Hooters at the recent federal election. Do you expect a please explain from the far right National Shooters Association of the US about the result. After all it is them who bank rolled the whole sorry episode. Mr Heston must be most disappointed with you fella's efforts, you failed to fire a shot!

Paul,

I realize that answering the question of why the Greens consider it an offence to use a firearm in self defence against terrorists or murderers is a difficult one for you to answer but a clarification of the Green's position would be very helpful.
I find it difficult to understand why an Australian political party would want to thus give comfort to terrorists, murderers and other violent criminals.

Surely if a person saves their own life or someone else's by using a gun to overcome a terrorist in the commission of a crime then they ought to be commended rather than condemned.

Is Mise,

"Surely if a person saves their own life or someone else's by using a gun to overcome a terrorist in the commission of a crime then they ought to be commended rather than condemned."

That's really a pretty flimsy foundation.

How many "terrorists" have been taken out by civilians in Australia lately?

Are you expecting a sudden upsurge in the number of "terrorists" per capita in this country."

You sound as if you imagine there's one lurking behind every second tree.

Hi Paul,

Do you mean Jimmy James, the tracker ? Born about 1915, died about 1990 ? I 'worked' with him, in the sense that he was on a labourer's wage like me. We'd be pruning about this time of the year, while he stayed in the Toyota.

Yes, I remember his wife Lily, his kids Alex, Jim-boy and Nellie, all gone now, all of the kids under thirty five. I don't recall his sons ever working a single day. Actually, there were two Jimmy James, Lily's father who came from around Alice Springs and tracked for the NT and SA police until he died around 1945, and the more recent one from across the SA-WA border.

He was a very smart old bloke: he used to get paid by results, not by the time spent. So one time, he drew out a hunt for an escaped prisoner over a couple of weeks, probably clocking up a huge wage bill for all of the other officers. So they kicked up his pay after that.

Thanks for the memories !

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Poirot,

I don't know how you can deny Is Mise's hypothetical, it seems perfectly logical and rational to me: if your life, or that of someone else, is threatened by a terrorist (do you want a definition ?), then you should be able to defend yourself and that other person, and if necessary, shoot the bastard. If necessary.

What's wrong with that ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Poirot,

I've lost OTB here, I assume he's off chasing trotskyists, feminists Greens somewhere in the back blocks of Queensland, That is correct Is Mise believes there are terrorists hiding behind every second tree. He's glad you didn't say every tree, because that would be ridiculous where would the space aliens hide if the terrorists had all the trees, so said is Mise. I have told Is Mise that he should speak to nursey and get doctor to change his medication the present lot of pills are causing him hallucinations.
OTB may have gone, but Joe Loudmouth has jumped in to take up the cudgels in his place. Joe tries to associate The Greens with every ratbag wacko group in the world he can think of.

The lads don't get on the forum that much on a Wednesday, bingo at senior citz you understand. Since the election all three have suddenly fallen in love with the vivacious Pauline, I suspect its nothing more than puppy love, greyhound style, but the boys, being boys. Barnyard is putting on a celebratery square dance in the old shearing shed up at Cumbuckta, about a 100 clicks west of the black stump, as the crow flies, next Saturday night, the lads are all invited. Each wants the sweet Pauline to accompany them to Barns knees up, if she will. Who will she pick, the one with all the charm and charisma I suspect, Beach maybe, Joe a possibility, Is Mise hummmm depends on that medication!

Loudmouth,

"I don't know how you can deny Is Mise's hypothetical, it seems perfectly logical and rational to me: if your life, or that of someone else, is threatened by a terrorist (do you want a definition ?), then you should be able to defend yourself and that other person, and if necessary, shoot the bastard. If necessary.

What's wrong with that ?"

Well...in the case of the US...having that amount of firepower in the hands of civilians leads to an average 20-odd people being murdered each day.

That's what's wrong with that.

"A study from October 2013 analyzed data from 27 developed nations to examine the impact of firearm prevalence on the mortality rate. It found an extremely strong direct relationship between the number of firearms and firearm deaths. The paper concludes: “The current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.” This finding is bolstered by several previous studies that have revealed a significant link between gun ownership and firearm-related deaths. This international comparison is especially harrowing for women and children, who die from gun violence in America at far higher rates than in other countries."

"Suppose a criminal has just broken into your house brandishing a firearm. You need to protect yourself and your family. Wouldn’t anyone feel safer owning a gun? This is the kind of narrative propagated by gun advocates in defense of firearm ownership. It preys on our fear. Yet, the annual per capita risk of death during a home invasion is 0.0000002, which, for all intents and purposes, is zero."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/01/good_guy_with_a_gun_myth_guns_increase_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html

Paul,

The Greens give succor and support to terrorists and violent criminals apparently, sad as it seems.
They also apparently want any children who come across a firearm to harm themselves or others because the Greens are against firearm safety training for minors, else why would they seek to prohibit 12 to 18 year olds from receiving such training?

Rather despicable attitude.

Poirot,

Hypothetical or not, why would anyone try to enshrine in law a prohibition on a means of justifiable self defence?
Do you not believe in justifiable self defence?

Do you believe that a battered wife, in fear of her life, should be prosecuted if she uses a firearm against her violent husband to protect herself?

Even if she doesn't fire it, but merely frightens him off?

The Greens do.

Loudmouth,

Just an addendum,

The number of people wounded by firearm is three to four times the number killed...which of course is a huge weight on the emergency departments in the US.

Apart from toddlers getting hold of guns and shooting themselves, their siblings and their parents (and you'll find the death toll from misadventure in that instance a tad more common than terroism)... http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

My son-in-law is from Missouri - his elderly dad shot himself through the thigh while cleaning a gun a few years back....lot's of medical care involved in that.

Poirot,

No one, except one notable exception, has ever shot themselves whilst cleaning a gun,
They may shoot themselves whilst mishandling one, fooling with one, but never whilst cleaning.
The gun went off while it was being cleaned is an old and venerable cop out.

Is Mise.

Well, whatever...his dad shot himself in the thigh.

is Mise, in all these scenarios you waffle on with, there is no mention of police involvement. Do you really believe millions of Australian including children, should be pack'n a gun as they go about their daily lives. This gun toting nonsense is justified by the ridiculous rubbish that a person could at any moment be subjected to an act of terrorism.
What you want is the uninhibited right to play with guns, or like Beach some vigilante type citizen militia to negate the police and enact you style of law and order. Hitler believed in it, so do you.

Paul,

You belong to the Greens, that's proof enough that you believe that waffle is its own justification; waffle on.

Paul, you don't have to be so cruel ! How do you KNOW these things about us Neanderthals ?

Poirot, a bit of a non sequitur AND a straw-man, all in one. If you were attacked by a terrorist bent on slicing your throat, and you happened to have aa gun handy, I would support your right to plug him. If you DIDN'T have a gun, but if I were standing by and DID have one, wouldn't you expect me to use it in your defence ?

I would, by the way. You're too precious to lose :)

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

I'm just about over you and Is Mise justifying a gun-toting society on the grounds of attack by terrorists.

It's a patently silly argument with regards to the US and Australia...as conditions currently stand.

Did you happen to take note of the companies producing nifty backpacks for US kiddies to unfurl and hide under in the event of a gunmen attacking them at school. Lovely padded articles they are...used in conjunction with regular drills where children learn how to take cover under desks for the same reason.

That is not a country in control of its citizenry....would you like to inflict the same thing on kids in Australia?

All because you and your ilk think a "terrorist" is likely to spring out at any moment so you can gun-sling him into paradise.

Hi Poirot,

Okay, so if hypothetically you were attacked by someone who wanted to knife you at random (nothing personal), and I was standing by and happened to have a gun, would you prefer me to leave it all alone ? Maybe call the police or the ambulance instead of doing anything ?

Okay, if that's what you want.

Joe

Poirot,

You seem to be missing the point.

The point being that the Greens would make it a crime to use a gun for self defence.

Now here's one that's not hypothetical, I was recently stalking foxes on a property between Inverell and Glen Innes and I was charged by a rather irate pig; as I was armed with my No1 Ruger in .220 Swift and he was very close, I was able to nail him with one shot; and that's all that I had time for.

According to the Greens' proposed law I would have been liable to prosecution for USING a gun in self defence.

What utter stupidity, and that's why no one who supports the Greens will discuss the NSW Greens' Principle 7, because they realize the utter stupidity of Pr.7.

Is Mise,

"The point being that the Greens would make it a crime to use a gun for self defence."

"According to the Greens' proposed law I would have been liable to prosecution for USING a gun in self defence."

Why would they include this then?

[Principle] 15.4 - Establish good and genuine reasons for possessing a licence (e.g. persons with an occupational requirement, e.g. primary producers, other rural purposes..."

Poirot,

Now I know that you are not that thick.

There is no contradiction between Principle 7
"That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or USING [emphasis added] a firearm."

and " 15.4 Establish good and genuine reasons for possessing a licence (e.g. persons with an occupational requirement, e.g. primary producers, other rural purposes, security employees and professional shooters for nominated purposes or a member of an approved sports shooting association"

To suggest that the latter in some way over rides the former is a 'Watermelon herring'.

Yum !

Hi Paul,

Yesterday you mentioned feminists, so this paper on the sexual slavery of Yazidi women and girls - and why First World feminists haven't yet launched a campaign to highlight the issues - might be right up your alley:

"Why Isn’t Sexual Slavery a Feminist Priority?" on the Quillette web-site:

http://quillette.com/2016/07/13/why-isnt-sexual-slavery-a-feminist-priority/

Bloody good question. Quillette is an interesting web-site - it runs articles which might not make it into the Festival of Slightly Dangerous Ideas here, but still provoke that unfashionable phenomenon, thinking. And for that, we should be thankful. Of course, you may not agree, Paul, given your equation of 'thinking' with 'agreement' :)

Cheers,

Joe

Is Mise,

You are that thick

15.4 "Establish good and genuine reasons for possessing a licence" is applied at the time one is seeking a firearms licence. At that time if one states that reason being the notion of future self defense and no other reason that in itself is not an acceptable reason.
In your example your purpose of having the gun was legitimate under the law. It was not a case of "Oh! look a piggy is attacking me I must apply self defense!" Piggy was the one acting in self defense and lost, you were out there hunting.

Even today if you shoot someone and claim self defense you may well face charges, right up to murder. A court will establish if you had no other alternative and the outcome will be appropriate,
Simply claiming self deference is no defense at all.

One for you Is Mise; My next door neighbor is not a hunter, farmer target shooter etc. He is of good character, do you believe he should own a firearm for no other purpose that possible future self defense?
Do you believe farmer Ian Turnbull was acting in self defense when he shot dead environment officer Blen Turner? Was he incorrectly found guilty of murder? If not please explain the circumstance in which Turnbull would be justified in shooting Turner.

Joe, nothing on Jimmy James? Do you know anything about him?

Is Mise,

Re your silly comment about cars (this thread or another)...which aren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing or maiming - unlike guns.

These guys were sitting in a car...

"The authorities said the men, ages 27 to 29, came under attack Tuesday evening, as one of them was streaming live video of the group hanging out in a car.

Less than six minutes into the broadcast, as the men smoke and listen to the hip-hop of Lil Bibby, gunfire erupts, sending the camera to the floor. With the lens now pointed away from the men, more than 30 pops can be heard over the span of a gut-wrenching 20 seconds."

Etc...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/us/another-night-another-shooting-on-facebook-live.html?smid=tw-share

Although, the angst appears to be these days that victims are able to live stream video of the incredible debauchery of US gun laws inflicted on the general population.

It's titled: "Another Night, Another Shooting on Facebook Live"

Great stuff, eh!

Paul,

Your stupid Green law would make it an offence to USE a firearm for self defence;it takes no cognizance of the purpose for which one has a licence.

You cannot logically defend Principle 7, but do have a try.

Poirot,

How is that different to a drive by shooting in Sydney?

Is Mise,

"How is that different to a drive by shooting in Sydney?"

Um....well...one assumes that drive-by shootings in Sydney are a tad less prevalent.

And why would you employ that question to defend your stance?

You can't commit a drive-by shooting if you don't have access to gun...drive-by stabbings being somewhat more difficult.

Hi Paul,

Yes, I replied yesterday at 9.50 (see above).

I could add one incident: I was driving my kids to Red Cross training in Berri, driving through a cutting in the road out from the Mission; an Easter Grey kangaroo started coming down the incline, I braked, but it swerved and slammed into the car. It limped away and early the next morning, I told Jimmy James, thinking - 'Caring for Country,', etc. - that he would track it to see if it was okay. He tracked it all right, and shot it. Ate its tail.

I used to drink with Lily's brother David, but he was killed in a roll-over on the Sturt Highway near Berri Estates winery in about May 1973. Nice bloke.

Joe

Thanks Joe, I missed that post yesterday, went back and read it now thanks again.

Poirot,

What stance?

Drive by shootings and most other kinds are done using illegal firearms from which our Uniform(LOL)Firearm Laws are supposed to keep us safe.

Knifings are walk/run by events and I sincerely hope that we don't see any by a person trained in the use of the knife.

Poirot,

"Re your silly comment about cars (this thread or another)...which aren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing or maiming - unlike guns."

Guns aren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing; outside of the military there is target shooting, clay pidgeon, re-enactments, theatre and collecting.
Blank firing guns are designed not to be able to propel a projectile so cannot kill or do anything other than make a noise and sometimes a cloud of smoke.
Then there is my favourite among target rifles, the Zimmerstutzen, which is a firearm but definitely not designed to kill.

So many deaths from cars, which indeed are not designed to kill (although there are killer designs; early Holdens a prime example) should be viewed askance, but have become acceptable because to not accept them would surely cause inconvenience.

Is Mise,

"Guns aren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing; outside of the military there is target shooting, clay pidgeon, re-enactments, theatre and collecting."

So you are trying to tell me that the evolution of the firearm is in response to those kinds of pastimes?

Are you for real?

Hot damn! Poirot is onto something there.

Better take all of those weapons from indigenous hunters NOW!

If one child is saved etc etc.

http://ozoutback.com.au/Australia/hunting/index.html

But wait a bit, maybe the leftists only mean those 'whites'(sic) they despise.

Dagnabit, Is Mise Poirot's sensibilities have been offended by that rabbit you've got in your pot.

Ummm, speaking of that rabbit, do you happen to have some taters, onions and so in with it? What about a dash of beer to the Dutchy? I think I can smell it and I am on my way...

I left out a comma.

Must have been the thought of that slow cooked rabbit.

http://www.firepit-and-grilling-guru.com/rabbit-recipe.html

Poirot shops bubble wrap, chemical enhanced and thinks it is food. LOL

Paul & Poirot,

Why persist with hypotheticals which nobody would agree with ?

Hi OTB,

I recall a 1930s interview with Albert Namatjira, in which he remarked how he liked to go hunting in his off-hours: on the back of truck and with a .303.

I'm told that up in the north-west of SA, there wouldn't be a kangaroo within 100 miles of a community, except for one pastoral property in the middle, which was resumed in the seventies, then leased back to the original pastoralist: due to his land management practices, the place now carries many cattle AND abounds with kangaroos. I'm glad at least someone's 'caring for country'.

Cheers,

Joe

//Now here's one that's not hypothetical, I was recently stalking foxes on a property between Inverell and Glen Innes and I was charged by a rather irate pig; as I was armed with my No1 Ruger in .220 Swift and he was very close, I was able to nail him with one shot; and that's all that I had time for.

According to the Greens' proposed law I would have been liable to prosecution for USING a gun in self defence.//

Do you have any data on the last time a person was actually charged with a criminal offence as a result of defending themselves against a wild animal? With any sort of weapon?

It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would happen outside the Realm of Wild Hypothesis (a province of Imagination Land). Voyages to Imagination Land are fun, but not always useful.

In the real world, I think it's pretty well implied that when the Greens talk about the use of firearms in self defence, they mean self defence against attacking humans.

So if you have a charming anecdote about the time you were hunting urban foxes in a major city and were forced to shoot dead a wild homeless man that charged you when you startled him, that might have a bit more relevance to what the Greens are talking about when they talk about the use of guns in self defence.

But I think any talk of angry pigs misses the point (possibly deliberately so).

Hi Toni,

Well, he does say 'the Greens' PROPOSED law'. No need to go about shooting homeless people, that's a bit 'outside the Realm of Wild Hypothesis ', don't you think ?

Cheers,

Joe

Is Mise, you avoid giving answers as usual. I can only assume your silence indicates you consider Ian Turnbull was wronged when he was found guilty of murdering environment officer Glen Turner. After all Turnbull was only defending his property from government interference, something you agree with.

Your support of the Shooters Party and their way out policy of 'no gun control' is ridiculous. You would be happy to see children with guns in their school lunch boxes. Grandma's with guns, shooting check-out chicks if they were over charged.

Joe 1930 and Albert Namatjira, the blokes been dead for nearly 50 years are you recalling those Cucumber Wars of yours. LOL.

Beach, have you got your citizens militia up and running yet? Pauline awaits

I suppose that the positive side of the election is that the green's senate vote fell and they look like losing up to 3 senate seats.

Paul,

Don't be such a dill; I answered your ? about Turnbull long ago.
The rest of your rant is Green lies.

More later, I've bee out hunting foxes (successfully) all night. I'm offto bed.

Paul,

You know very well that the environment officer wasn't armed, or threatening Turnbull, who shot him in cold blood.

Interesting technique in arguing: go to extremes, drop out a key factor if necessary, then accuse someone of something they would never support.

Albert Namatjira died in late 1959, August I think. So nearer to sixty years. I was commenting on OTB's comment about Indigenous people using guns and, while you may not be able to imagine anything before the present, it seemed relevant to refer to incidents in the past. Sorry for the mental confusion.

In connection with that, and Indigenous people, and guns, AND the SA Protector's Letters, I was surprised to discover that, in South Australia, it has always been legal for Indigenous people to have guns - they were British subjects, after all. One time, around 1880, the Protector specifically points this out. He used to issue guns for free to older Aboriginal people who couldn't work, and other Aboriginal people paid only half the cost for their guns. Repairs to guns were, respectively, free and at half-cost.

Rev. Taplin reports in his Journal [see www.firstsources.info], in about 1862, that when a young bloke (Nipper) set fire to his parents' wurlie, they lost numerous spears, a rifle and a shotgun. Taplin got the police from Goolwa to take the young bloke away, which pissed off the parents. I think he did three months.

Glad to be of help :)

Joe

Joe, maybe you can define when self defense becomes, accidental homicide, which then leads to cold blooded murder. Given the total arming of the citizens, American style, I can imagine there will be many shooting that will fall into some gray areas. Is Mise fails to define what is self defense, what is accidental homicide and what is cold blooded murder.
The bloke who shoots an old man dead, because it was dark and he thought the old bloke was brandishing a gun, his life was under threat, self defense, accidental homicide, cold blooded murder. In the end, the old mans "gun" turned out to be his walking stick.Will a simple apology do? Maybe just a court issued good behavior bond is enough, possible the death sentence. What do you think? Do tell me such is impossible.

Paul,

You know very well that the inspector was unarmed, he didn't even have a walking stick, it was broad daylight and that Turnbull shot him in cold blood. Murder. end of.

BTT: what is a 'troll' ? Someone who insults a poster, uses ad hominems, steers the discussion away from the topic, and generally does not contribute in any sort of constructive manner. G'day Paul.

What is a 'Trot', i.e. Trotskyite ? A follower, or fellow traveller, or useful idiot, of one of the many strands of opportunism loosely based on one of the fetid versions of the eighty- and ninety-year-old sacred texts of Leon Trotsky, folded these days in with the barbaric rubbish of Stalinists. What a gaggle. Some of the Watermelon Greens would secretly be proud to call themselves one or the other. G'day Paul.

Any more side-tracks you want explored ?

Joe

"BTT: what is a 'troll' ? Someone who insults a poster, uses ad hominems, steers the discussion away from the topic, and generally does not contribute in any sort of constructive manner. G'day Paul."

Notwithstanding that Loudmouth reserves the right to steer the thread off topic when it suits him...

Eg,....on a thread titled "The Great Burqa Debate"

"Slightly off-topic: perhaps the same dumb-dumbs were involved in forging their addresses before the last elections, claiming to live in Indi when they didn't. Oy, how stupid can you get ? So after the election was called, and before voter registration closed three weeks or so later, these dumb-dumbs filled out registration forms, all neatly in a handful of files now, which the police can go through at their leisure, identifying frauds and preparing charges. One of them is supposed to have even been a lawyer.

When will children learn that you can't lie and cheat, and get other people into trouble, for what you think is a Good Cause.

God save us from fools.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 4 October 2014 10:25:18 AM"

Toni,

The Greens say USING a firearm in self defence,
So, as Paul has pointed out, they were using English and in that language their meaning is clear "self defence" means defence of the self against humans or animals.

There is no difference between animals and humans in the Greens' weird grasp of things, as evidenced by the teachings of their co-founder and guru Peter Singer.

//Well, he does say 'the Greens' PROPOSED law'. No need to go about shooting homeless people, that's a bit 'outside the Realm of Wild Hypothesis ', don't you think ?//

I can only assume that you believe talking about pigs doesn't miss the point.

In most jurisdictions, under most circumstances, people enjoy the fundamental right to not be killed. Pigs not so much.

But if you really believe that the law cares as much about as pigs as it does about people and that they enjoy similar legal rights, then you are just as entitled to your quaint views as everybody else who believes rubbish, or pretends to believe rubbish in order to make an absurd argument.

//So, as Paul has pointed out, they were using English and in that language their meaning is clear "self defence" means defence of the self against humans or animals.//

Yes, because context never has any bearing on meaning in English.

They are obviously using English in a legal sense (because the aim of forming a political party is to form government and the role of government is to make laws) and in a legal sense "self defence" means defence of the self against persons (humans and corporations. Not animals).

But do persist with your ridiculous argument that they're really talking about pigs if it amuses you to do so. I'm pretty sure that you know you are being disingenuous and just doing it to wind up Paul. Which is fair enough, because he is one of those people that it's fun to wind up.

//There is no difference between animals and humans in the Greens' weird grasp of things//

Really? There is a species of barnacle whose penis is about one and half times its body length. Mine's not that big (close, but not quite). Birds can fly. Thorny Devils can drink by standing in a puddle of water. Fish have gills. I think that probably even people who vote Greens accept that animals and humans aren't the same thing.

//as evidenced by the teachings of their co-founder and guru Peter Singer.//

Singer is a philosopher, not a lawyer. The joy of philosophy is the joy of believing as many as six impossible things before breakfast. Philosophers are seasoned travellers of Imagination Land. Lawyers not so much. They have to deal with what is and what is not. And in the eyes of the law animals is not persons.

The Great Ape Project are trying to get some basic legal rights for the four species of great apes, a tiny subset of the kingdom Animalia. There is no Great Pig Project, and much to Miss Piggy's consternation, nobody is trying to gets pigs recognised as people under the law.

Hi Poirot,

Pot and kettle :) Actually, I'm still a bit proud of that post. I hope Cathy McGowan didn't try the same trick this time.

But you're right, we're both moving away from the topic. [Good try too, Poirot].

So what's you're definition of either a 'troll', or a 'Trotskyite' ? Can you understand how, in their different ways, impede robust discussion ?

[P. flounces off, Left].

Poirot,

"Re your silly comment about cars (this thread or another)...which aren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing or maiming - unlike guns"

The same applies to trucks, but unfortunately for the dead and injured in Nice they can and will be used as weapons.

You said that guns are manufactured for the sole purpose of killing and when that statement is shewn to be wrong you try the old trick of shifting the goal posts.

Is Mise and Joe,

I fail to see how Ian Turnbull would be guilty of murder under your definition of self defense, He was a farmer, a special case in itself, according to you. The bloke was protecting his property from unwanted government intrusion, which you tout as justification for using a firearm, just protecting what was his, you definitely agree with that. Maybe the bloke is an embarrassment to your argument, so you offer him up for sacrifice, when you don't really mean it.

Joe, the old bloke with the walking stick was a "what if" scenario, nothing to do with Ian Turnbull. I want you to define self defense. accidental homicide and cold blooded murder. I don't think you blokes can tell the difference.

Joe, did you not claim you once helped out some greenie org by planting a 1000 trees, until one fell on you, and it made you see the light. Which I can only assume was the lovely Pauline coming to you in a dream during your period of unconsciousness, and she has shown you the way of the self-righteous. Is that true? Throwing all that trolls and trots stuff around like you do.

Is Mise,

"The same applies to trucks, but unfortunately for the dead and injured in Nice they can and will be used as weapons"

Unfortunately that's true in this instance....however, trucks aren't normally used as weapons.

Paul,

As a humourist you are a failure.

Poirot,

It's not since the mid 1950s that I have done any anti-terrorist training but many of the improvised weapons and techniques of terrorists have not changed.
People just don't realize what can happen and one of the greatest weapons of terrorists is explosives and some very powerful explosives are freely available in this country, no restrictions whatsoever.

Have you worked out yet that some guns are not designed to kill?

Is Mise,

"Have you worked out yet that some guns are not designed to kill?"

Have you worked out that most are?

Here's a good one:

"During the Republican Convention, Toy Guns Are Banned, Real Guns Are Fine Though"

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/13/during_cleveland_republican_convention_toy_guns_are_banned_real_guns_are.html

"When the Republican National Convention kicks off in Cleveland next week, guns will not be allowed in the host Quicken Loans Arena, but protesters outside will be allowed to openly carry firearms, city officials confirmed Wednesday. Ohio is an open carry state and no permit is required to do so for a lawful gunowner. To carry a concealed weapon, protesters would need a permit."

20-odd murders a day by firearm in the US....one assumes those guns are designed to kill.

Paul,

I think they call it 'projection': you project your fantasies onto others and then accuse them. Perhaps you need to see somebody.

For example, you claim

"I fail to see how Ian Turnbull would be guilty of murder under your definition of self defense, He was a farmer, a special case in itself, according to you."

I've never suggested that. Turnbull was obviously not defending himself.

"The bloke was protecting his property from unwanted government intrusion, ... "

which was perfectly lawful.

" .... which you tout as justification for using a firearm, just protecting what was his, you definitely agree with that."

No, I don't. Again, projection of evil, then accusation of it.

"Maybe the bloke is an embarrassment to your argument, so you offer him up for sacrifice, when you don't really mean it."

Wow. I've never suggested anything of the sort. It's wrong to use any sort of weapon to murder someone. How much clearer do you want it ? Book that shrink, Paul.

"Joe, the old bloke with the walking stick was a "what if" scenario, nothing to do with Ian Turnbull."

You raised the hypothetical, Paul.

"I want you to define self defence, accidental homicide and cold blooded murder. I don't think you blokes can tell the difference."

Can you ? Why do you accuse Is Mise and me of something we would never support ?

"Joe, did you not claim you once helped out some greenie org by planting a 1000 trees, until one fell on you, and it made you see the light."

Actually, two or three thousand. For an Aboriginal farm. Did my knee tendons in. None fell on me, most being around 8 cm tall.

Any other fantasies ? If you intend making a living from satire or something like it, don't give up your UB.

Joe

Poirot,

Is Mise is being empirically quite correct when he suggests, quite logically, that some guns are not designed to kill. Some are designed, and used, to kill feral pests. Even the Greens would give that lukewarm support.

So your statement that ' .... 20-odd murders a day by firearms in the US....one assumes those guns are designed to kill.... "

is a non sequitur on many grounds. This is not the US. A land-use inspector is not a feral pest. 'Some' is not 'all'.

Nobody is suggesting that guns CAN'T be used improperly - simply that they CAN be used properly. Not necessarily by the same people, of course.

Joe

The Greens are cozied up with 'gun control' activists. The stated goal of 'Gun control' is a complete ban and compulsory State confiscation of the lawfully purchased and lawfully employed assets of ordinary licensed, law-abiding citizens.

'Gun control' is a clever disguise as is the thin green veneer over the pink and red of the Greens social agenda. A handle, words, that can be flexed to mean anything for the plausible denial tactics of the totalitarian leftist, but always meaning more restrictions. Death of a thousand cuts.

It is remarkable that leftists are in lock-step with George Soros some other wealth interests. Soros is the genius and main bankroll behind 'gun control'.

Now what would a billionaire currency trader who was convicted by French authorities of serious currency trading manipulation and whose mission is capitalist globalism be interfering in the domestic politics and seeding leftist demonstrations in peaceful western democracies and be so interested in disarming the civilian population of those western democracies?

'Gun control' is uninterested in criminals and their illegal weapons. But why so? They say themselves that they should not be getting led away from their goal of banning all private ownership of firearms.

It is essential to the advocacy of 'gun control' that the already illegal behaviour and illegal firearms of offenders is projected onto ordinary law-abiding, citizens who comply with all laws and would be the strongest opponents of illegal ownership and use.

'Gun control' activism consistently fails the test of honesty. Examples abound of quite deliberate sloppy research, miss-attribution and researcher error (to put it politely). Then there is the Marxist's favourite ploy of poisoning the well against known reputable authorities who have nothing to hide and have open books and sites. Whereas 'gun control' is highly secretive about its objectives, sources of funds, liaisons and so on.

The public and licensed persons strongly agree with evidence-based REGULATION of firearms ownership and use. Although regarding use, how often does an already illegal act, eg murder, have to be made illegal with duplicate laws?

Soros in action,
http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/tax/panama-papers-reveal-george-soros-deep-money-ties-to-secretive-weapons-firm/news-story/4f34cba3104155cdce5f93ec7751d729

Wheels within wheels,
http://www.infowars.com/soros-and-ford-foundation-behind-the-panama-papers/

Poirot,

""Have you worked out yet that some guns are not designed to kill?"

Have you worked out that most are?"

Of course most guns are designed to kill, the majority of firearm made are either for the military or for hunting and in both cases are designed to kill and, what's more, designed to kill effectively.

But then I never said that they were not, you are the one who repeated the anti-gun mantra that all guns are designed to kill, and you are demonstrably wrong.

If there is a failure of honesty in Australia on this subject, it is by the pro gun lobby. They continually claim their agenda is a simple one, the protection of the rights of gunnies to own and use guns for legitimate purposes, nothing could be further from the truth, their real agenda is somewhat different. The pro gun lobby Australia has been heavily financed and influenced by the ultra right NRA of America as it and others including arms dealers try to interfere in Australian domestic politics. These international meddlers want nothing more than a proliferation of guns in Australia for the purpose of forming right wing heavily armed militia to oppose government when they feel it is justified and necessary to do so.
There are useful pro gun idiots in Australia with conservative leaning who are continually duped into believing the phony propaganda of the international extreme right lobby and their political supporters in The Shooters Party, One Nation and Australia First!

Not much argument there from me, Paul. But you do take a point to untestable extremes:

"These international meddlers want nothing more than a proliferation of guns in Australia for the purpose of forming right wing heavily armed militia to oppose government .... "

If this were actually coming about, don't you think that governments here would be concerned ? You alone know better ? Again, you're projecting your paranoia onto others, and into the future.

Anyway, back to topic: it seems the greens have lost a couple of Senate seats and a huge chunk of the people's vote since 2013. It's possible that, Labor and the greens together, won't reach the magic number of 39 senators, enough to trouble the Coalition and its allies.

Could this be the Meg-Leys moment for the greens as it was for the Democrats, when their vote slips away to some piddly percentage, like 5 % ? Maybe trolling might be the best they can. Bob Brown would be pissed off.

Joe

Loudmouth,

"Is Mise is being empirically quite correct when he suggests, quite logically, that some guns are not designed to kill. Some are designed, and used, to kill feral pests..."

Er..."...to kill feral pests..."

Ergo - a gun that "is designed to kill".

Sheesh!.....

.....

Is Mise,

"But then I never said that they were not, you are the one who repeated the anti-gun mantra that all guns are designed to kill, and you are demonstrably wrong."

Where did I state that "all" guns are designed to kill?...(link please)

Why are you wasting time arguing this point?.....as you say:

"Of course most guns are designed to kill, the majority of firearm made are either for the military or for hunting and in both cases are designed to kill..."

Some plates are used for display or to hang on walls...but you'd be hard pressed to win a pedantic argument that they're not principally designed to hold food.

Now all you green supporters of the NSW Greens' Principle 7.

"
Sydney Morning Herald, July 12, 2016, p.6. News section, Column 1, Item 6:

Break-in shot down.

A housebreaker got more than he bargained for in northern NSW when he was confronted by the resident brandishing a gun.
Police say the intruder had a knife and a chain when he tried to force his way into a south Grafton home on Saturday night, but was greeted by a 64 year old man who fired a shot into the ground.
Police arrested a 43 year old man."

Do you believe that the 64 year old man should be prosecuted for USING a firearm for self defence?

Do you think that he had a right to protect himself?

Or do you think that he should have rung "000" and offered the aggressive intruder a cup of tea?

Or perhaps you think that he should have copped a bashing and a few stab wounds so that Principle 7. would not be violated?

Joe, wishful thinking on your part with the Coalition (Turnballs) losing a dozen lower house seats and several senate seats. I would hardly call the Nick Xenophon Team and a few others, Coalition allies. Perhaps you are referring to the love of your life the unpredictable Pauline Hanson as a Coalition ally. One thing that looks beyond doubt is The Shooters prop man Leyonhjelm was given the drop kick in NSW, I am so pleased.
It cost Turnballs a %1,000,000 of his own money to "win" the top job. Now Barnyard and his motley crew of cow cockies are call the shots in the Coalition. The crazy right wing of the party led by Cory Banana is openly calling for Turnball's head and the recall of the Mad Monk himself. I must say it was a terrific result, I love it. Turnball's needs to do some serious head kicking and take on the disloyal white ants within, otherwise he's got 12 to 18 months at best. Is Turnball's up to the job, I doubt it.
Joe keep dreaming, it may even come true, you never know.

Poirot,

"Where did I state that "all" guns are designed to kill?...(link please)"
Page 38, this topic.

"Re your silly comment about cars (this thread or another)...which aren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing or maiming - unlike guns" ['guns' being an inclusive noun, means all guns]

That is where you said that guns are manufactured for the sole purpose of killing or maiming "...which aren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing or maiming - unlike guns"

Seems like plain enough English.

Is Mise, then there was Ben Batterham of Newcastle who was charged with murder after shooting Ricky Slater, Batterham claimed Slater had broken into his house. Like with Ian Turnbull there can be serious consequences if one shoots another, and then claims it was self defense, and so it should be, In your case Is Mise was the 64 year old defending himself from the ground. It may prove fortunate for him that he shot the ground, and not the intruder.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-29/man-charged-alleged-intruder-murder-remains-custody/7280312

//Is Mise, then there was Ben Batterham of Newcastle who was charged with murder after shooting Ricky Slater, Batterham claimed Slater had broken into his house.//

Complete and utter bollocks. This one happened in my neck of the woods and it was all over the local news. Batterham did not shoot Slater-Dickson (who did break into Batterham's house); there was no weapon of any kind involved. The fatal injuries inflicted on Ricky Slater Dickson were inflicted bare-handed.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/benjamin-batterham-repeatedly-punched-home-invader-ricky-slaterdickson-before-death-court-hears-20160506-goof5p.html

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/3898139/updated-ben-batterham-granted-bail/

Squirm, Paul, squirm.

Is Mise,

"That is where you said that guns are manufactured for the sole purpose of killing or maiming "...which aren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing or maiming - unlike guns"

Lol!...what a pedantic gun enthusiast you are.

Okay how about 99.9% of guns are manufactured for the sole purpose of killing or maiming.

Or shall we dance around a little more and pretend that they are merely for collectors - or decoration - or for sport.

All those guns being manufactured for collecting - and decorating - and for sport...have apparently been hijacked by stupid humans who seem to want to use them for killing and maiming.

Amazing!

Actually, I think you should pop over to the US and address the nation. You could tell them that they could stop all that killing and maiming in a flash if they only realised that the firearms they're so fond of would be much better off on the wall, in a display cabinet or passed onto a sports shooter.

Problem solved!

Poirot,

Being pedantic is one of my many pastimes!!

How are you on the 64 year old who was attacked by the bloke with the knife and the chain?
Would you think that he should be charged if the Green's fantasies were law?

Toni, I stand corrected, the reports that Ben Batterham was charged with murder after shooting Ricky Slater, is incorrect. Batterham did claim Slater had broken into his house, coreect. Batterham was charged with the murder of Slater correct. Even though he didn't use a gun but his bare hands indicates one must be very careful when claiming self defense. Toni please accept my slight error. Is Mise your claims of self defense as a reason to kill is looking very flimsy indeed.

Poirot, wrong! wrong! wrong! Is Mise will claim it is only 99.8% not 99.9%. Hold any gun with a bullet in it against your temple and pull the trigger Is Mise can tell us what the likely outcome might be.
I certainly understand what you are saying, even if Is Mise and Daffy Duck do not.

Paul,

"Is Mise your claims of self defense as a reason to kill is looking very flimsy indeed."
Where did I claim that?

Must be annoying to be shewn up, or do you stick by Principle 7 and would say that the 64 yo should not have used a gun for self defence.

I must admit one thing however, I thought that the Greens had no principles at all and here it is in black and white on their site; they've got 7 at least, faulty though they may be.
I've always known that they have principals and principal; Dr. Brown got a lot of the latter at one stage.

//Batterham was charged with the murder of Slater correct. Even though he didn't use a gun but his bare hands indicates one must be very careful when claiming self defense.//

Indeed one must. I followed this case with interest, because as I said it was all over the local news. Personally, I believe that the murder charge is unreasonable. Batterham was acting in self-defence, unarmed and did not demonstrate any intent to kill; the charge should have been manslaughter. It may yet be downgraded to manslaughter when the matter goes to court.

Hi Toni,

Thanks for your input re Ben Batterham, the circumstances which led to a charge of murder will be investigated by police and the charge may well be downgraded to manslaughter, still a very serious charge which can carry a long jail term.
What these events boil down to is the concept of "reasonable force" and the police must look at that aspect. I agree with the present system. The Greens policy is clear to me, obtaining a gun licence for no other reason that you might need it for self defense sometime in the future, American style, is not in itself a valid reason for owning a gun in the first place. The idea that protection of ones property takes precedence over a persons life is not acceptable, simply saying something like "He was running away with my wallet, so I shot him dead!", is not acceptable in itself, and given no other circumstances is likely to lead to a charge of murder.

What Paul1405 is not saying is that the Greens pay lip service to the notion of self defence, while wanting to restore the very unfair and unreasonable previous law that re-victimised victims of home invasions and assault by putting the onus on them to prove their defence was warranted and that their actions in defending themselves were reasonable.

The Greens favour the attacker and the home invader and are forever beavering away to protect and extend the criminal's rights. Greens have no sympathy nor empathy for the victim and the vulnerable public.

That the people of NSW have enlightened self defence legislation is due entirely to the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party. The Greens fought a bitter battle all of the way, being adamantly opposed to removing the disgraceful situation where the victim of an assault or home invasion faced a reversed standard of proof.

NSW Law, with particular attention to "Defence or Right", page 2, given below,

"Defence or Right?
'Self-Defence' isn't really a defence in the legal sense. Usually, the defendant would carry
the onus of raising and proving a defence. However, section 419 provides that the
prosecution has the onus of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person did not
carry out the conduct in self-defence. So, it is up to the police to eliminate it as an issue by
proving beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant's act was not done in self-defence.
The police will negative self-defence if they prove beyond reasonable doubt either:
(i) that the accused did not genuinely believe that it was necessary to act as he or she
did in his or her own defence, or
(ii) that what the accused did was not a reasonable response to the danger, as he or
she perceived it to be."

http://chrisnowlan.com/self_defence.pdf

Just as an aside, I was in the local supermarket yesterday and saw packets of "Unprocessed Sugar".
Being pedantic I immediately thought that the sugar must have gone through some process to become a marketable product in a packet, therefor it could not be unprocessed.

Hi Paul,

Tee-hee ! Barnaby = Barnyard. Cory Bernardi = Cory Banana [yuk yuk !] Turnbull = Turnballs [Stop, my sides are splitting !].

Do you have a silly name for your Gift that Keeps on Giving, Pauline ? Brilliant argumentation, so deep, so incisive.

Anyway, back to topic: Proportionally, the Greens lost more votes than the coalition, a third compared to a tenth. We should be trying to learn why this was so:

* from a neo-Marxist point of view, what class interests have shifted during the last three years ?

* clearly, there is record dissatisfaction with the major parties (except with the Nationals), and with minor parties such as the Greens. The perception is that they haven't delivered.

* since the end of the mining boom, of course support has shifted from ruling parties at state and federal levels, and away from the greens as people feel their hip-pocket nerve pinching that much more (except for the Kale Latte set, of course, on the public teat).

* the instability within the greens - and there's a lot more to come as their defeat hits home - may force it to put aside some of its watermelon policies and focus more on green issues that concern the ordinary hoi-polloi. Nah, that won't happen.

Wouldn't be dead for quids ! Thanks, Paul.

Joe

Joe, as a one eyed disciple of the rabid right, you only refer to name calling of politicians when it is directed at your side of politics, not seeing, or commenting on the names Brown Eyed Bob (Bob Brown), Dave Sandleplank for David Shoebridge, I don't judge you as a person of the middle ground, as like OTB you might want to profess to be.
According to the AEC the vote for The Greens stands at 1,311,410 or 10.08% up 1.43% for the house of reps, Add in the Senate vote thus far, which was down slightly at 0.3%, particularly in SA where the Nick X vote was very strong and overall The Greens have increased their vote. Did you fail arithmetic at school? Making a wrong statement as " Proportionally, the Greens lost more votes than the coalition" no Joe, they actually gained votes, and I have shown you to be wrong. When all the votes are countered you can add up the grand total and see you are wrong.
The Nationals vote of 4 or 5% has been up and down over a number of elections. nothing new in that, as the cow cockies tend to flock left or right, depending on the weather conditions at the time.
Did you not claim you once handed out for The Greens, given you political stance now, you must believe that was during your period of political lunacy, hippy days, pot smoking, tree hugging and all that. Did they reject you in some way?

Your web site and the motivation behind it puzzles me. Why does a member of the rabid right host a web site on aboriginals. What is the purpose, what message is it attempting to convey? Interesting.

A search on Google revealed this:

"A KITCHEN knife was the weapon of choice in an alleged attempted home invasion at South Grafton.

Just after 7.20pm on Saturday, a 43-year-old Grafton man allegedly armed himself with the knife and metal chain and attended a home on Margaret Cres.

Coffs-Clarence Police acting inspector Darren Williams said the family inside the home heard shouting, and looked outside to see the alleged offender standing on their front lawn.

"The family left the residence to see what the problem was and saw the man holding a large kitchen knife and chain and threatening to kill anyone inside the home," Act Insp Williams said.

The male occupant then told his family to get back inside the house, and barricaded the front door.

But as the accused allegedly made further threats and continued to bang on the front door, the family became fearful for their lives.

Act Insp Williams said the male occupant removed a shot gun from his cabinet, and fired warning shots into a safe area in an attempt to deter the accused.

Shortly after, police arrived on scene and apprehended the 43-year-old man.

He was taken to Grafton Base Hospital for medical checks and later transferred to Grafton Police Station where he was arrested and charged.

He was bail refused to appear in court on Sunday and is due to reappear in Grafton Local Court today (Monday).

Act Insp Williams said the alleged offender was not known to the victims - in fact "a complete stranger".

He said dozens of phone calls had been made to police from nearby residents and witnesses who heard the sound of the warning shot being fired.

The licensed firearm has also been seized by police."

http://www.coffscoastadvocate.com.au/news/shots-fired-alleged-south-grafton-home-invasion/3059496/

Under Greens' Law the 64 year old defender of his family would be prosecuted,
seems a bit unfair and illogical to me, but that's the Greens!!

Hi Paul,

Ah, projection ! What a wonderful antidote for reality.

No, I've rarely used such a childish tactic, Paul, I haven't found it necessary. I don't know who Shoebridge is, and I don't think I've ever called Bob Brown, Brown-eye. Still, live in your world if it's more comforting than the one outside your room.

So far, Senate results for the greens:

* total votes 1,023,024

* share of vote 8.3%

* swing against -0.3%

I stand corrected: I thought that the greens won around 13 % of the votes in the 2013 election, and only 8 % in this one. Maybe I'm comparing votes for one house against votes for the other.

So the greens have lost only 3.6 of their previous vote. Point taken.

I regard myself, by the way, as belonging to a small band that one could call "the Thinking Left", or "Critical Left". Yes, I handed out stuff and letterboxed for the greens, over about eight years. No, I'm too old to smoke pot. Yes, political lunacy it may have been, to associate with the greens, you're right there, but I do have shortcomings. No, that's just false modesty.

As for my obsession with Indigenous welfare (in the broadest sense), friends criticise friends: if you don't like someone, you leave them to their delusions and mistakes, but not if you're a true friend.

Any other trolling you want to do ? Ad hominems ? Focussing on digging up dirt ? Or do you want to stick to the issues ?

Joe

Paul,

You ponder: "Your web site and the motivation behind it puzzles me. Why does a member of the rabid right host a web site on aboriginals. What is the purpose, what message is it attempting to convey? Interesting."

Sometimes, as Freud and Groucho Marx suggest, a cigar is just a cigar. There's not necessarily ulterior motives behind everything. Ah, you'll now say in your paranoid delusion, that 'excuse' PROVES that there IS something behind everything. Oy.

I don't 'host' a web-site, strictly speaking: I type interesting material up from its original shape and put it on the web-site. I've enjoyed finding documents to type for over twenty years, but I've exhausted the sites that I wanted to cover. I suppose there's vastly more available, but I'm taking a break. No, probably not, there's the higher education data for 2015 coming out in a couple of weeks, and I'm very excited about that: new records. Then there's the 2016 Census data coming out in a year's time, which should be fascinating.

But you unwittingly raise an intriguing point: I've never once been contacted by anyone in Indigenous education, or higher education, about those data. I've never read anything by an Indigenous person who has the data right, it is always under-played, down-cried, out of date, or plain rubbish, such as the data in Larissa Behrendt's Review a few years ago of Indigenous Higher Education. God knows were they got their data from, but it was worthless. The "nothing has changed" mantra is such bullsh!t in relation to Indigenous higher education - when commencements, enrolments AND graduations have doubled in ten years (and will again, in the next ten years) - but it still rules amongst the incestuous Indigenous elites.

And I'll keep criticising the bullsh!t-artists until I drop, I don't care who the hell they are.

Joe

Joe, I was not referring to you, and I did not say you said Brown Eye Bob or Dave Sabdalplank, I just didn;t catch any criticism from you, you probably missed the reference at the time. Politicians of all persuasions are fair game and so what. I did once say to David Shoebridge that he was called Dave Sandalplank on the forum. Without surprise, and with a laugh, Dave said "I hope they spelt it correctly". Politicians tend to have a thick hide, and a bit of jocularity is harmless on a forum where other than some of the participants no one is taking themselves seriously, I don't think too many others are all that interested, a bit like your web site, but there could be unseen interest and you could have a secret counter etc installed, I don't know.

The small band, sounds rather elitist, "the Thinking Left", or "Critical Left", as opposed to the "rabid right" or "fanatical right". I am glad you tag yourself as a "critical thinker", better than tagging oneself as a "dill brained dodo".Are there any well known people who might fall into that small band of yours.It could be likened to The Australia First Party which scored only about 3,000 votes Australia wide, also a small band of elitists, one should never get too big, then one can no longer pride themselves on that degree of elitism. I'm just in that rather big band of over 1,300,000 who vote Green.

Paul,

Yes, it's true: sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Your suspicions about an " .... unseen interest" and " .... a secret counter" really do border on paranoia. Every web-site has a way of counting hits, pages, down-loads, etc., but mine doesn't identify any hitters or people or sites accessing pages. Such web-site systems probably don't exist, not for normal web-site producers anyway. But you won't believe me, even more so now that I deny that such things happen. That's the nature of paranoia. Wow, even more so, now that I deny THAT. Try to stick to the issues.

I don't know if there are any other "Thinking Left" or "Critical Left", and I'm really too old to give a stuff. If they're there, fine. If not, what am I supposed to do ? Become a Trot ? Not bloody likely. As an atheist, I try to think for myself. You should try it.

Joe

Joe, non visible or "secret" counters are not unusual on web sites, often for no other purpose that to gauge the number of hits the site receives, nothing sinister, just a measure. I am also an atheists, something in common then. How do you know how I think, I may think for myself, I don't believe you would have a monopoly on thinking for yourself, there could well be others who do likewise, I could even be one. Rather presumptuous of you to tell me how to think, in this case "for myself", saying "I (Joe) try to think for myself. You should try it." Pray tell how does one become a "Trot", what exactly is a "Trot"? Something you obviously feel strongly about not becoming, gave it plenty of critical thinking before coming to that conclusion did you. For me its a bit like becoming a 'Jehovah's Witness' it has not figured largely in my thinking, should it?