The organised left spend heaps of their time on social media and are adept at reframing issues and creating an outcry. But then so many feel it lightning fast where their hip-pocket (and associated nerve) might be affected.

They are forever scanning for opportunities to get headlines and where that fails they drop it fast and move onto the next opportunity to whinge and blame-shift. No apology or corrections where they are proved wrong, which is usual, of course.

A favourite tactic is to resuscitate and kick the dog. They know that it is the number of mentions over time that matters, as they take advantage of human frailties in thinking identified by psychologists. The leftists ruthlessly and callously exploit those unique things that make us human, for example our sympathy.

The NSW 'Eastern Bloc' Greens elite for instance, are in the business of protest and serial activism to win soft careers with golden handshakes to benefit themselves. That is why they resist appeals from successive Greens leaders to co-operate in becoming a legitimate party with real policies one day. So it is only to be expected that they would be chucking the proverbial brown smelly stuff everywhere and often. The headlines if won are worth it for their human headlines. Fat lot they care about those 'Struggle Streets'.

Then there are those who astroturf on discussion sites, to protect their interests in the guvvy-funded victim industry. Including, naturally enough, the multicultural lobbyists, who may only be representing the financial and expansion interests of their own NGO that regards 'ethnic', 'asylum seeker', 'citizenship' and so on as profitable businesses to be in. They and types like the Greens feed off one another, having a similar interest of gulling and taking advantage of the trusting public to get a seat on the gravy train.

The 'Showboat' Greens Ludlam and Larissa Waters showed utter contempt for the Parliament and the public. Now the left is trying to pass them off as victims(!) and the Constitution, that is Australia, as the offender. Greens up to their cheap tricks, again.

Goodness me, this is certainly looking very political with the
attacks coming from some posters with their 'anti" stances
and their rigid and stereotypical terminology and -
their vague and sweeping generalisations about people
and certain political parties - instead of a case by case
examination of the individual Senators affected by s44(i)
of the Constitution.

Still, I suppose discussions whose subject matter involve
issues of deep human and moral concern will have some measure
of bias. Most of us tend to see things from a viewpoint of
subjectivity. We are influenced by our backgrounds, our
training, our values, and our personal experiences.

At least now with the cases of Senators Ludlum and Waters
perhaps the Courts will re-examine the Article s44 (i)
of the Constitution and decide what (if any) appropriate steps
need to be taken.

It shall be interesting to see what develops next as a result.

What an audacity to tell voters who can represent them and who cannot!

Say the voters want to represented by a camel, then they should be represented by a camel: what an excellent way to chew up all the government's proposed laws!

Hi there Graham, despite a well reasoned argument put forward for opposing what was a politically motivated act, The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, headed by a person who impartiality was openly questioned. Despite all that, you seem to believe that The Greens opposition was purely a product of a desire to curry favour with a union benefactor, the CFMEU.

Do you also believe that the recent company tax cuts instigated by the Coalition government were not for economic reasons, but a pay back to their big business benefactors.

p/s Can you clarify this; "And the Greens support the actions of Greenpeace, and other, activists. I'll instance Sea Shepherd, for one.
Generally, when facts are this widely known, one doesn't have to "substantiate" them."

Is there something illegal in that? I fail to see what it is

Foxy, sorry to have to say this, but your very dogmatic position on this subject could very easily be seen as the bias of the child of refugees.

It is just this type of biased position we can not allow into our parliaments.

Dear Hassie,

Not at all.

My parents followed your line of thinking to the
letter. Both were ultra conservatives, adored
anything British, and were totally devoted to
this country. And loved Menzies. My brothers
followed suit.

I'm the rebel.

Not because I'm a child of refugees but because I
lived and worked in the US for close to ten years.
That experience made me question a great deal of
what I had been taught and took for granted.
But I guess that's life - and even today, inside
of me there's often times when my conservative side
and family influence comes to the surface.