Australians are as gullibly stupid as Americans!

[stephenj]

andrew walker i do take offence writing that my daughter has a price! i happen to know her very well, i moulded her sense of right and wrong!

[melon....]

As Chook said people cannot think for themselves The media tells most how to think ad they think that way. Sad but true

Nobody of any importance asked me my thoughts on the matter But for the record I wholeheartedly agreed with the tax.

Did it ever occur to you guys that by the time this generation retires, or at latest the next, the government will NOT be responsible for maintaining the living standards of retired workers. You and I will have to be self funded retirees. There wont be any government pensions.The wealth created by industries like mining, are the creators of yours and mine retirement funds. Through investment and dividends, they provide dollars to their share holders, you and I have a chance to participate in that and build wealth.

Taxing the hand that fed us through the GFC and will feed us in retirement is pretty self explanatory.

I say, Let Labor go down at the next election with a massive deficit, as they always do, because there's no ****ing tax in the world that can deliver them a holy grail of a surplus. They cannot manage money.

[Guest]

I am just terrified of the damage that will be left after Labor is gone. Unless they go in the next few months, this country might be damaged beyond repair.

We're about to lose the livestock export deal with Malaysia because the soft cock lefties that run the ABC put that video from the abattoir on Monday. I used to think anyone who talked about the Greens wanting to destroy industry in Australia was nonsense but not anymore. I'm now convinced that this ban on livestock exporting to Indonesia has nothing whatsoever to do with fears about cruelty to animals, it's to destroy the last vestiges of farming this country has left.

I don't know if to make us have to join up with this new world order or it's just that they are criminally destructive but either way they need to be stopped. That means getting rid of the current government or getting rid of Julia Gillard and putting someone from Labor in charge who'll tell the Green filth to go to hell.

The only other alternative is for Tony Abbott to become Prime Minister and that prospect is almost as frightening as having the Greens in power.

[crikey chris]

I never use the word hate, but it fits how i feel about the Greens

Watermellons: green on the outside, red on the inside!!!!!!!


If a Conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.

If a Green doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.


If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.

If a Green is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.


If a Conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.

If a Green is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.


If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.

A Green wonders who is going to take care of him.


If a Conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.

Greens demand that those they don't like be shut down.


If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.

A Green non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.


If a Conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

A Green demands that the rest of us pay for his.


If a Conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.

A Green will delete it because he's "offended".


It is bad enough having the Bogan Ranga and braindead Swanny telling us when/why/how to live our lives, but the scary thing is the influence of the Greens. And all these idiots are taking advice from an economist (Garnaut), who is not a scientist!

We are totally screwed!

[Guest]

I'll remind everyone that Ross Garnaut was the "professor" that advised Hawke and Keating to deregulate the textile and fabric industry in the mid-80s.

Regarding Tim Flannery, his qualifications are an English degree and a Master of Science, which is one step up from the basic university qualification in earth sciences.

[Guest]

I'll remind everyone that Ross Garnaut was the "professor" that advised Hawke and Keating to deregulate the textile and fabric industry in the mid-80s.

Regarding Tim Flannery, his qualifications are an English degree and a Master of Science, which is one step up from the basic university qualification in earth sciences.

Not to mention his Doctorate in Palentology.

Id suggest his opinions may be more credible than Andrew Bolt or Lord Monkten

[crikey chris]

quick google search

Gaunault:

Bachelor of Arts in economics at ANU

PhD (completed in 1972) on " Liberalising Australian trade with South East Asia "


so apart from the Phd he has, does my Bachelor of Business degree in economics qualify me to be an expert in "science"?

might have to check the fine print at the bottom of my degree hanging on the wall in my office lol.

did not know it was that easy to get such a high paying job in the labor party!

Since when is an 'economist' a 'scientist'?

And last time I checked, getting a BA degree at uni was considered an entry level in terms of qualifications when you joined the workforce. (no disrespect to those that have BA's, just highlighting that Garnaut has become an expert in another field with a BA)

This is not about who is right or wrong in the CO2 debate, my point is that someone who is NOT qualified in this area is preaching to us. With OUR taxes funding this.

The 'carbon tax' is a global way of redistributing wealth.
Our economy will never be the same. We are being conned!

[Kingbilly]

This is not about who is right or wrong in the CO2 debate, my point is that someone who is NOT qualified in this area is preaching to us. With OUR taxes funding this.

The 'carbon tax' is a global way of redistributing wealth.
Our economy will never be the same. We are being conned!

Bingo.
Whether you believe in Climate change, global warming or whatever the marketing phrase is now, if a tax or cost is introduced that is going to make a difference to the environment then a lot of people would be more accepting of it. The "carbon tax" as being touted has nothing to do with bettering the environment.

[Guest]

Bingo.
Whether you believe in Climate change, global warming or whatever the marketing phrase is now, if a tax or cost is introduced that is going to make a difference to the environment then a lot of people would be more accepting of it. The "carbon tax" as being touted has nothing to do with bettering the environment.

Well the Productivity Commission seems to disagree with you. And no for that ignorant this is an organisation that has been critised as being pro free trade and growth. Even the that greenie socialist rag The Australian reported it today.

Typically the right cheer squad has been quiet in their response.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226072674958

[Kingbilly]

Not all, the commission compared a bunch of things and in many cases did not arrive at conclusions.
The basis of their conclusions related to the comparison of rebates for the greens favoured energies as opposed to a "carbon tax".
They did not mentionmuch at all about how the "carbon tax" will reduce pollution.

BTW its important to recognise the only people jumping up and down saying this supports the labor party's "Carbon tax" is the labor party especially Wayne Swan.

As I mentioned as soon as someone shows how its going to cut pollution, then a lot more people will support it.
The commission's report doesn't really do that, Wayne Swan just thinks it does, and face it he is as dumb as a sack of shit.

[Guest]

A carbon tax is the first step in implementing an market based ETS. That has been explained over and over and over again. If people are too stupid to undertsand that, then they have no hope of understanding that a carbon tax is a tax on pollution. At the moment polluting is free, but as we all pollute in one way or another then we should all pay a tax on it.

It's easy to understand if you stop listening to ignorant idiots like Andrew Bolt, Allan Jones and Lord farking Crockton!

Chook.

[melon....]

A carbon tax is the first step in implementing an market based ETS. That has been explained over and over and over again. If people are too stupid to undertsand that, then they have no hope of understanding that a carbon tax is a tax on pollution. At the moment polluting is free, but as we all pollute in one way or another then we should all pay a tax on it.

It's easy to understand if you stop listening to ignorant idiots like Andrew Bolt, Allan Jones and Lord farking Crockton!

Chook.

Chook,

Everyone knows what a Carbon Tax is for and will lead to a market based mechanism. The issue is, we dont need either and its being rammed down our throats. Only the banks need it....

[Guest]

Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment. If you want to fix that, stop mining companies from emptying their mercury and other toxins into the rivers surrounding mines, for one.

If you are naive, then you say that this is a way for Julia and her ship of fools to pay down the debt they've racked up.

If you are not naive then you accept that this is a U.N. mandated tax as at least 10% of it will go into their coffers. Whether that's to get KRudd a job with them after the next election or just a rider to a treaty one of our former P.M.'s has signed, I don't know.

Either way, to quote Tony Abbott, "my daughters will not be having sex before marriage that's why I'm against RU486."

No, wait, he said "this is a bad tax."

[Guest]

I read a simple explanation for how a carbon tax will reduce pollution and bring about a cleaner environment.

Company A builds/sells [product X] using coal energy and non environmentaly sound practices resulting in high carbon output = sells product for $100 which includes carbon tax.
Company B builds/sells [product X] using green energy and environmentaly sound practices resulting in low carbon output = sells product for $80 which includes carbon tax.

Company B sells more product and is more profitable.
Company A has a choice, change it's practices or lose sales.

Either way as more product is sold by company B, there will be less carbon/pollution as a result = cleaner air and water. And the net result for the environment will be increased should company A either change it's practices or go belly up.

Chook.

[Guest]

Chook, I agree with you -- in theory. In theory, Communism works. In theory, mind you.

When the leader of the GALP (Green Australian Labor Party - a hybrid of the toxic slug of the Australian political system) exempts or promises (like she did about the tax in the first place) to exempt everything even closely related to "big pollution" then there's little point in bringing in a tax to do what she has basically hamstrung before it's implemented.

This has nothing to do with my opinions on heterogenic global warming/climate change/the idiocy of taxing Carbon Dioxide btw, it's just basic economics.