As my display name suggests, I am a member of the LDP and a candidate in this election (House of Reps - Dickson). Over the past few days I've been engaging in some good discussions on this forum as a Liberal Democrat, and there's been some expression of interest in the party I stand for. So here is a quick summary of the Liberal Democratic Party and its main principles/policies. This thread is totally open to debate and any questions you may have.

Our name is perfect for us in that it best describes what we stand for. We stand for a liberal democracy. That is a democratic government with a very liberal approach to governing. So enforce basic rule of law (punish murderers, rapists, thieves and frauds) but leave the rest of us well enough alone. Instead of trying to manage our lives and our trade with one another, the government should stick to protecting us from attacks and enforcing basic rule of law, as I said. If the government only has to do a few things for us, they can do those things very well. When the government tries to do too much, they end up doing a poor job of everything.

We don't subscribe to the belief that an orderly society needs a group of elites to run everything so that chaos doesn't result from things being allowed to take their own course. We believe in the natural, spontaneous order of things. We often point to countries like Hong Kong, a place the British Empire didn't really care for, so aside from enforcing basic rule of law they pretty much just sat back and drank tea. As a result the people of Hong Kong started to do things for themselves and became productive and innovative. They transformed Hong Kong into one the most prosperous places in the world. The people did that by trading ideas, skills and work under one of the most free markets in the world.

So with that sort of philosophy guiding us, we have a number of policies which we think will make Australia a more free society with a more free market. A true liberal democracy. Here are some of as basic policies on some of the most commonly discussed issues in Australia:

The Liberal Democratic Party supports...
- assisted suicide and euthanasia
- voluntary voting and fixed parliamentary terms
- same-sex marriage and adoption
- the right to own firearms for sport, hunting, collecting and self-defence
- the re-legalisation of marijuana for adults at home
- market responses to climate change
- private property rights and the privatisation of most public land
- uncensored internet access
- expanded immigration opportunities, with limited welfare and a raise in the requirements for citizenship
- "free immigration agreements" with appropriate countries (like Japan, Singapore, Canada, Sweden etc.) like we have with New Zealand
- relaxed traffic laws (this includes speed limits and blood/alcohol limits)
- the rights of private property owners (this includes hotels and restaurants) to determine their own rules on smoking on their premises
- land clearing decisions made by property owners, not government
- privatisation of most government-owned forests
- cultivation of GM crops, subject to safety screening
- private ownership, breeding and trade of endangered species (including keeping native animals as pets)
- abolishing government ownership and control of water, water recycling subsidies and water tank mandates
- sustainable hunting of species such as crocodiles and kangaroos
- removing subsidies on recycling
- active management of national parks to control pests and bushfires and maintain accessibility to tax payers
- significant tax cuts and welfare reform (see our 30/30 tax reform plan on our website)
- relaxed industrial relation laws, including replacing the minimum wage with an income supplement from the government (also see our 30/30 tax reform plan on our website)
- replacing all welfare payments with a negative income tax (again, that's covered in our 30/30 tax reform plan on our website)
- free trade with any country that wants to trade with us
- continue the privatisation trend of the recent coalition and labor governments, including ABC and SBS
- deregulate the market with the end goal of a free market system

For detailed polices, see our website. www.ldp.org.au

If you have any questions, like why we think privatising the forests would help protect them or why allowing people to own, breed and trade endangered species would protect those species, then feel free to ask. I'm also more than happy to debate those policies with those of you who don't agree.

The Liberal Democratic Party is contesting most marginal seats in this election, as well as running candidates for the Senate in QLD, NSW, VIC, SA and WA. We are hoping to get a member seated in the Senate this election through preference deals. We are confident we can get a Senate seat with just a small percentage of the vote. So if you agree with our basic philosophy and if some of our policies appeal to you, please do vote 1 above the line for us on your Senate ballot. You don't have to agree with everything, our members don't agree on everything. Some are more liberal than others, some are less free-market than others. But all Liberal Democratic candidates sign a pledge that if elected to office they will not vote for any measure that increases the tax burden or decreased individual liberty. If that appeals to you, then help us get a Liberal Democrat in the Senate.

Quote:

We are hoping to get a member seated in the Senate this election through preference deals.

WITH WHO?
Who will you be preferencing in your seats?
Are you just another GREEN LIBERALS party like the one that stood at the last election but was just a Liberal party group trying to steal GREEN votes?

Well the LDP are as close to my requirements as any party is going to get.

Might consider enrolling and voting at the next election, if you have a candidate in herbert.

Good to see a party that does not want to micro manage every aspect of our lives, turning Australia further into a buggered up nanny state like the greens, lib or labor.

Since you are a candidate, Bob, I'm glad that you've formally, albeit belatedly, introduced yourself!

Hmmnnn....I looked you up and am now wondering: why is it that you have provided so little information about yourself on your Party's web-site, and; where else can we learn the types of things about you and your past and present associations that the electorate has a right to know?

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1227&Itemid=512#Robert_Hunter

http://www.ldp.org.au/plugins/content/contentoptimizer/51a5268a82b8347221ea5c010e3f77cf34069443_200x200_Q75.jpeg


Quote:

Bob Hunter Bob Hunter is a sound recordist/engineer in Brisbane where he has lived for the past two years. Born in Warwick, Bob grew up in Toowoomba where he was active in the cultural community as an instrumental music teacher and member of the Toowoomba Concert Band. Bob was drawn to the Liberal Democrats by their opposition to the nanny state and government control. "I was brought up being told Australia is a free country, and the Liberal Democratic Party is the only party committed to ensuring that", he says. "I put my hand up to be a candidate for the Liberal Democratic Party because I don't want my generation to be the one that sees Australia slip into an overbearing nanny state and a police state."

hahahah, luv it, this gave me a huge belly laugh.

And to the individuals who just got punked, a big long groaaans.

:)

LET ME ASSESS THE POLICIES

The Liberal Democratic Party supports...
- assisted suicide and euthanasia  WRONG
- voluntary voting and fixed parliamentary terms AGREE
- same-sex marriage and adoption PASSIONATELY OPPOSE
- the right to own firearms for sport, hunting, collecting and self-defence IT FIGURES. EVERY NUTJOB PARTY WANTS GUNS FOR 'SELF DEFENSE' WHICH TRANSLATES TO 'EVERYONE CAN HAVE GUNS'
- the re-legalisation of marijuana for adults at home DUMB - BUT PREDICTABLE
- market responses to climate change IS THERE AN ACTUAL POSITION IN THERE SOMEWHERE?
- private property rights and the privatisation of most public land DUMB. WE ALREADY HAVE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THIS WOULD ELIMINATE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO MOST OF THE COUNTRY
- uncensored internet access AGREE
- expanded immigration opportunities, with limited welfare and a raise in the requirements for citizenship NEED MORE DETAILS
- "free immigration agreements" with appropriate countries (like Japan, Singapore, Canada, Sweden etc.) like we have with New Zealand 'APPROPRIATE' IS THE KEY WORD AND MEANINGLESS IN THE ABSENCE OF RECIPROCITY WHICH WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.
- relaxed traffic laws (this includes speed limits and blood/alcohol limits) ARE YOU STUPID OR INSANE? (THEY ARE YOUR ONLY TWO OPTIONS)
- the rights of private property owners (this includes hotels and restaurants) to determine their own rules on smoking on their premises SO-SO
- land clearing decisions made by property owners, not government JUST AS EXTREME AS THE CURRENT REGIME BUT IN THE OTHER DIRECTION. DUMB.
- privatisation of most government-owned forests STUPIDER THAN MOST POLICIES IVE READ
- cultivation of GM crops, subject to safety screening MAYBE
- private ownership, breeding and trade of endangered species (including keeping native animals as pets) CANT SEE THE NEED OR THE POINT. IS THERE SOME DEMAND FOR THIS?
- abolishing government ownership and control of water, water recycling subsidies and water tank mandates THE STUPIDEST POLICY IN THE LIST. EVER HEARD OF THE DROUGHT? YOU SHOULD PROBABLY BE DISQUALIFIED ON THIS POLICY ALONE!
- sustainable hunting of species such as crocodiles and kangaroos BACK ON THE GUNS AGAIN i SEE
- removing subsidies on recycling ARE YOU THE 'ANTI-ENVIRONMENT' PARTY? DUMB!!
- active management of national parks to control pests and bushfires and maintain accessibility to tax payers IN CONTRAST TO YOUR PRIVATISATION POLICYT OF PARKS
- significant tax cuts and welfare reform (see our 30/30 tax reform plan on our website) NAIVE, GROSSLY UNFAIR AND IRRESPONSIBLE. AND THATS THE GOOD THINGS I CAN SAY.
- relaxed industrial relation laws, including replacing the minimum wage with an income supplement from the government (also see our 30/30 tax reform plan on our website) BREATHTAKINGLY STUPID
- replacing all welfare payments with a negative income tax (again, that's covered in our 30/30 tax reform plan on our website) SEE ABOVE. BREATHTAKINGLY STUPID - PART 2
- free trade with any country that wants to trade with us AS LONG AS THEY HAVE FREE TRADE THEMSELVES? NO, OF COURSE NOT.
- continue the privatisation trend of the recent coalition and labor governments, including ABC and SBS
- deregulate the market with the end goal of a free market system SO WE CAN EMULATE THE USA AND DESTROY OUR ECONOMY? ARE YOU STUPID BY BIRTH OR DID YOU TRAIN FOR IT?


IN SUMMARY...

YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND YOUR PARTY IS A DINOSAUR MAY YOU FAIL SO MISERABLY AS TO GET THE MESSAGE

skippy. wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 3:10pm:

Quote: We are hoping to get a member seated in the Senate this election through preference deals. WITH WHO? Who will you be preferencing in your seats? Are you just another GREEN LIBERALS party like the one that stood at the last election but was just a Liberal party group trying to steal GREEN votes?

Green liberals? We've teamed up with the minor parties to, yes, take down the greens and the two major parties.


Equitist wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 3:31pm:

Since you are a candidate, Bob, I'm glad that you've formally, albeit belatedly, introduced yourself! Hmmnnn....I looked you up and am now wondering: why is it that you have provided so little information about yourself on your Party's web-site, and; where else can we learn the types of things about you and your past and present associations that the electorate has a right to know?

What else would you like to know? I am happy to answer your questions about me, though I reserve the right to not answer questions I feel are too personal and unrelated to the campaign. As for submitting information, I simply submitted to the party what they wanted. I'm a party candidate. Not an independent. And as this is my first election I'm following their guidelines closely. That's why I haven't given too much information outside of what they told me to give.

Also, I don't respond to criticisms like "that's dumb". I respond to well thought out responses that attempt to provide a proper alternative viewpoint. If a Greens supporter or member wants to argue environmental policy in a civil manner, I would be more than happy to do that. Let me remind everyone, we are for protecting the environment. We just look at the evidence that shows private land is much more well protected than public land.

Your wish to privatise crown land is monumentally stupid and I do not apologise for that statement. you can try and defend it anyway you like but it remains just that.

and your wish for an fully unregulated market economy is amazingly silly given the causes of the GFC!

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 3:22pm:

Well the LDP are as close to my requirements as any party is going to get. Might consider enrolling and voting at the next election, if you have a candidate in herbert. Good to see a party that does not want to micro manage every aspect of our lives, turning Australia further into a buggered up nanny state like the greens, lib or labor.

Thanks bigol.

We were going to run a candidate in Herbert actually. I'm not sure what happened with that. I think we ended up running him in one of the marginal Brisbane seats.

If there's one thing we're against, it's the nanny state. In fact, that's our major running theme. Say no to the nanny state.

These policies are so ridiculous, I really did think someone was trying to  draw attention to the stupidity of another similar parties policies.

My apologies Mr Hunter.

But I still find it hard to believe.

:)

mellie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 5:18pm:

These policies are so ridiculous, I really did think someone was trying to  draw attention to the stupidity of another similar parties policies. My apologies Mr Hunter. But I still find it hard to believe. :)

if you used the terms gun-loving, ultra-capitalist, anti-environmentalists you'd pretty much have the LDP sorted out

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 4:49pm:

Your wish to privatise crown land is monumentally stupid and I do not apologise for that statement. you can try and defend it anyway you like but it remains just that. and your wish for an fully unregulated market economy is amazingly silly given the causes of the GFC!

See, that's a little more thought out and civil. That's good.

I'll start with the GFC, that's obvious. You said in your first response that if we deregulated the market we'd end up ruining the economy like the U.S. did. Can you point to one act of deregulation in the U.S. that had any sort of negative impact on the GFC? Because there wasn't a lot of deregulation leading up to the GFC. Bush was a massive regulator and increased the regulatory budget by 65% in real terms.

A lot of people like to point to Clinton and the Republican congress repealing the Glass-Steagal act. It's actually very fortunate that they did that because it softened the blow of the GFC a lot. Under the Glass-Steagall rules, Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase would not have been able to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns. Nor would Goldman Sachs and Citibank have their current unified form, which may have helped them survive. So it was a good thing it was repealed in time. But even before it was repealed the U.S. government made many exceptions to the rules and that had no negative effect. Europe never even had rules like in place to begin with. They just weren't necessary and they were restricting economic growth. It was the institutions that didn't take advantage of the Glass-Steagall rules being repealed, such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns, that failed most spectacularly. And it was the institutions that did take advantage of the Glass-Steagall repeal that saved them.

Onto privatisation. I just believe that private property owners have a greater incentive to protect their land than the government has to protect public land. Some of the most well kept places are privately owned. Especially if they are making money off the land, like if they own a lot of trees, there's an incentive to keep breeding more trees so that you never run out of your source of profit. The same applies to endangered species. If we allowed people to farm endangered species and make money off them, their numbers would increase greatly. The Bison is America were going extinct until people were allowed to farm, breed and trade them. Now they are everywhere. Protectionism is just a stupid policy. It's never worked to protect anything. And I believed the endangered species list, and the government holding on to land that could be sold to private owners, are protectionist policies.

|\I'll start with the GFC, that's obvious. You said in your first response that if we deregulated the market we'd end up ruining the economy like the U.S. did. Can you point to one act of deregulation in the U.S. that had any sort of negative impact on the GFC? Because there wasn't a lot of deregulation leading up to the GFC. Bush was a massive regulator and increased the regulatory budget by 65% in real terms.
||

USA has NEVER had the kind of regulation we have - especially prudential regulation in the banking sector. as a result they caused the very GFC that engulfed them. the kinds of excesses and idiiotic financial management that brought down so many banks and brokerage companies would not have happened here because of our regulation. we didnt avoid the GFC by accident. it wasnt a result of the mining boom. it was because of decades of good management and exerting prudent regulations on our financial sector.

as to private land issues.  the aregument over who looks after it best is certainly arguable but even if it were true, what about OWNERSHIP? do we really want vast tracts of this country in private hands taht denies us acces to our own country, forests and expanses? it sounds more like a policy to make a few rich and the rest of use very poor - very much the policy of much of the USA which has the dichotomy of the largest number of billionaries by far in the world while haveing the higest rate of poverty in the western world. PASS on emulating that example!

BobH wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 5:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 4:49pm: Your wish to privatise crown land is monumentally stupid and I do not apologise for that statement. you can try and defend it anyway you like but it remains just that. and your wish for an fully unregulated market economy is amazingly silly given the causes of the GFC! See, that's a little more thought out and civil. That's good. I'll start with the GFC, that's obvious. You said in your first response that if we deregulated the market we'd end up ruining the economy like the U.S. did. Can you point to one act of deregulation in the U.S. that had any sort of negative impact on the GFC? Because there wasn't a lot of deregulation leading up to the GFC. Bush was a massive regulator and increased the regulatory budget by 65% in real terms. A lot of people like to point to Clinton and the Republican congress repealing the Glass-Steagal act. It's actually very fortunate that they did that because it softened the blow of the GFC a lot. Under the Glass-Steagall rules, Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase would not have been able to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns. Nor would Goldman Sachs and Citibank have their current unified form, which may have helped them survive. So it was a good thing it was repealed in time. But even before it was repealed the U.S. government made many exceptions to the rules and that had no negative effect. Europe never even had rules like in place to begin with. They just weren't necessary and they were restricting economic growth. It was the institutions that didn't take advantage of the Glass-Steagall rules being repealed, such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns, that failed most spectacularly. And it was the institutions that did take advantage of the Glass-Steagall repeal that saved them. Onto privatisation. I just believe that private property owners have a greater incentive to protect their land than the government has to protect public land. Some of the most well kept places are privately owned. Especially if they are making money off the land, like if they own a lot of trees, there's an incentive to keep breeding more trees so that you never run out of your source of profit. The same applies to endangered species. If we allowed people to farm endangered species and make money off them, their numbers would increase greatly. The Bison is America were going extinct until people were allowed to farm, breed and trade them. Now they are everywhere. Protectionism is just a stupid policy. It's never worked to protect anything. And I believed the endangered species list, and the government holding on to land that could be sold to private owners, are protectionist policies.

not all protectionist policies are bad. here in australia we have a protectionist policy towards PEOPLE. we give them universal healthcare and the dole. in the USA, healthcare is a priviledge and the ntion of universal healthcare bitterly opposed - at the same time as people die in the streets for lack of food and care.

Onya Longy!

'Tis good that we have a common political 'foe' (for want of a better descriptor) for a change...

::)

Equitist wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:08pm:

Onya Longy! 'Tis good that we have a common political 'enemy' (for want of a better descriptor) for a change... ::)

I oppose your political ideology for the same reasons. you are extreme left, LDP are extreme right. the practical differences are few and the result is identical - disaster and a removal of human rights.

The Liberal Democratic Party supports...
- assisted suicide and euthanasia Seems Fair
- voluntary voting and fixed parliamentary terms seems fair
- same-sex marriage and adoption Seems fair
- the right to own firearms for sport, hunting, collecting and self-defence You can already have them for sport, hunting and collecting.  Self defence opens up a whole new door that leads to irresponisble gun ownership that I just cannot suppor
- the re-legalisation of marijuana for adults at home Why, drugs should not be encouraged, full stop.
- market responses to climate change Meh, pretty broad statement
- private property rights and the privatisation of most public land The problem with land is you cant make more.  Releasing public land enmass would devalue the property market and ruin any opportunity to sell or open land down the track.
- uncensored internet accessSeems fair
- expanded immigration opportunities, with limited welfare and a raise in the requirements for citizenship Would need to be assessed with the productivity commission, and to make it a policy without such consultation is irresponsible.
- "free immigration agreements" with appropriate countries (like Japan, Singapore, Canada, Sweden etc.) like we have with New Zealand What are you trying to achieve?
- relaxed traffic laws (this includes speed limits and blood/alcohol limits) I dont see how this benefits the community in any such way.  If the laws arent harsh, they arent respected.  I dont any value in doing this, and would directly undermind the culture we have tried decades to create whereby road rules need to be obeyed.
- the rights of private property owners (this includes hotels and restaurants) to determine their own rules on smoking on their premises What are you trying to achieve?  Do this in pubs they will go straight back to full smoking.  This issue isnt about the owners, its about workers.  Employers would happily expose employees to smoking without fuss.  This current rule at least protects employees.
- land clearing decisions made by property owners, not government Who protects the land in the wake of irresponsible land owners?
- privatisation of most government-owned forests I dont know much about this, what are you trying to achieve by doing this?
- cultivation of GM crops, subject to safety screeningSeems fair
- private ownership, breeding and trade of endangered species Why?(including keeping native animals as pets)
- abolishing government ownership and control of water, water recycling subsidies and water tank mandates Why?  Look at whats happened to privatised electricity.  Talk about expensive
- sustainable hunting of species such as crocodiles and kangaroos Seems fair
- removing subsidies on recycling Why?
- active management of national parks to control pests and bushfires and maintain accessibility to tax payers Good idea.
- significant tax cuts and welfare reform (see our 30/30 tax reform plan on our website) Will need to read more.
- relaxed industrial relation laws, including replacing the minimum wage with an income supplement from the government (also see our 30/30 tax reform plan on our website) Will need to read more but my inital reaction is not a positive one.
- replacing all welfare payments with a negative income tax (again, that's covered in our 30/30 tax reform plan on our website) Wow
- free trade with any country that wants to trade with us I cant agree, I dont believe in trading with countries which are not allies.
- continue the privatisation trend of the recent coalition and labor governments, including ABC and SBS Let the private market have em'.
- deregulate the market with the end goal of a free market system You need checks and balances in place by government.  I think out current makeup is fairly responsbile, and largley insulated to the GFC.

BobH wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 4:36pm:

Equitist wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 3:31pm: Since you are a candidate, Bob, I'm glad that you've formally, albeit belatedly, introduced yourself! Hmmnnn....I looked you up and am now wondering: why is it that you have provided so little information about yourself on your Party's web-site, and; where else can we learn the types of things about you and your past and present associations that the electorate has a right to know? What else would you like to know? I am happy to answer your questions about me, though I reserve the right to not answer questions I feel are too personal and unrelated to the campaign. As for submitting information, I simply submitted to the party what they wanted. I'm a party candidate. Not an independent. And as this is my first election I'm following their guidelines closely. That's why I haven't given too much information outside of what they told me to give.

Well, I'm afraid (and speaking as a former local candidate myself, in a former life), that nothing and nobody is sacred when it comes to media and electoral scrutiny...

So, for starters, I suppose we could ask you to voluntarily respond to the types of questions that have been put to Abbott and/or Gillard in recent weeks and months - including about: dress sense; accent; sporting prowess; sexuality; religion/spirituality; household and extended family structure; education; employment history; political, business and other associates and associations; driving record; and those of their past and present partners/cohabitors...

BTW, I note that some of your fellow LDP candidates were relatively more forthcoming with some of that info...

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:10pm:

Equitist wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 6:08pm: Onya Longy! 'Tis good that we have a common political 'enemy' (for want of a better descriptor) for a change... ::) I oppose your political ideology for the same reasons. you are extreme left, LDP are extreme right. the practical differences are few and the result is identical - disaster and a removal of human rights.

Awww....now I'm feeling heartbroken - shattered even!?   ::)

|\BTW, I note that some of your fellow LDP candidates were relatively more forthcoming with some of that info.||

its easy to be forthcoming when no one will give you scrutiny anyhow!

wow, "how to consign an excellent name for a political party to the historical dustbin in one easy lesson", on that list of policy positions.
Do people who make up these parties have any idea that the general electorate doesn't necessarily suddenly believe in these things because the "party" has suddenly thought them up? Gimme a break; is this another minor party who thinks they know everything.
Hey guys, when you want to start a political party, do you mind boning up a bit on what it means to be a politician.
Bye bye. (You might get a good price on selling the website domain name in the next few years. Well done.)

Verge wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:13pm:

You can already have them for sport, hunting and collecting.  Self defence opens up a whole new door that leads to irresponisble gun ownership that I just cannot support

I'm not saying we're necessarily promoting this, but would you still be against including self defence as a reason to seek a gun license if it came with a mandatory gun safety course for people seeking a gun license for self defence?


Verge wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:13pm:

Why, drugs should not be encouraged, full stop.

How does making it legal for adults to smoke at home encourage its use? And why does it matter? It's a personal choice. Adults at home, is all we're proposing. Does that hurt anybody? Marijuana is not as harmful as other drugs that are legal. I don't get prohibition. Can you give me any good reason why is should remain illegal?


Verge wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:13pm:

Meh, pretty broad statement

Well the market is pretty broad. All we're saying is the government is too incompetent to deal with the problem. Name one government solution that's not worse than the problem it attempted to solve. Because I'm not aware of one. I worry about the unintended consequences of tough government action on climate change.


Verge wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:13pm:

Would need to be assessed with the productivity commission, and to make it a policy without such consultation is irresponsible.

We've had independent studies of the plan and estimations show it would pay for itself. But of course we'd have it assessed properly before proposing legislation.


Verge wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:13pm:

What are you trying to achieve?

We just think immigrants are usually a net social and economic benefit to Australia.


Verge wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:13pm:

I dont see how this benefits the community in any such way.  If the laws arent harsh, they arent respected.  I dont any value in doing this, and would directly undermind the culture we have tried decades to create whereby road rules need to be obeyed.

I think people don't respect speeding and drink driving laws because they are too tough. People become reactionary and lose all respect for traffic laws if they deem them as ridiculous.


Verge wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:13pm:

What are you trying to achieve?  Do this in pubs they will go straight back to full smoking.  This issue isnt about the owners, its about workers.  Employers would happily expose employees to smoking without fuss.  This current rule at least protects employees.

Actually, it was customers who pushed for no-smoking laws more than employees. They claimed to speak for the employees but I've heard many accounts of workers, especially bar workers who had no problem with smoking and actually think it was better for business. What it comes down to is who should decide what behaviours are tolerated on the premises? The government or the owners of that premises? Just because you make your business open to the public, doesn't give the government the right to tell you how to run your business.


Verge wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:13pm:

I dont know much about this, what are you trying to achieve by doing this?

We're just trying to achieve better protection of the environment and better environmental management.


Verge wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:13pm:

- private ownership, breeding and trade of endangered speciesWhy?

So that rather than going extinct, they might at some point get off the endangered species list.


Verge wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:13pm:

Why?  Look at whats happened to privatised electricity.  Talk about expensive

Were Qantas, Optus, Telstra, Commonwealth bank better under government control? Water is already partly privatised. The point of privatisation is so we can get the government to spend less so they can reduce taxes. If you aren't paying so much taxes you could afford to pay electricity bills easily. Think about the savings you'd make in taxes.

more to come.... taking a break. I'll respond to the rest of your points later.

Thanks Bob. I was wondering whether you are an official LDP person.


Quote:

So enforce basic rule of law (punish murderers, rapists, thieves and frauds) but leave the rest of us well enough alone.

So we're not all Keynesians?


Quote:

- market responses to climate change

Can you elaborate please? What are your thoughts on carbon taxes?


Quote:

- private property rights and the privatisation of most public land

So no national parks or suburban parks?


Quote:

- relaxed traffic laws

I think there should be more 110 (even 120) zones, but I like the new 50 zones.


Quote:

- cultivation of GM crops, subject to safety screening

In practice does this mean a lower standard of screening? They are already legal here, right?


Quote:

- private ownership, breeding and trade of endangered species (including keeping native animals as pets)

What about those that are unlikely to be breedable or profitable in captivity? (BTW, this applies to pretty much all of them).


Quote:

- abolishing government ownership and control of water, water recycling subsidies and water tank mandates

Can you elaborate on this a bit? Would you change the current arrangements with farmers?


Quote:

- sustainable hunting of species such as crocodiles and kangaroos

You left whales and dolphins off the list. I hope you guys are not a bunch of tree hugging hippies.


Quote:

We just look at the evidence that shows private land is much more well protected than public land.

Can you elaborate on this please?

||You can already have them for sport, hunting and collecting.  Self defence opens up a whole new door that leads to irresponisble gun ownership that I just cannot support
I'm not saying we're necessarily promoting this, but would you still be against including self defence as a reason to seek a gun license if it came with a mandatory gun safety course for people seeking a gun license for self defence?||

SELF DEFENCE is the worst possible reason because it would not necessarily require anyone to say they have a defined threat already! It is not like nations having a self-defence force; it would only lead to vastly more violence. USA is a prime example of a gun-loving culture and one we do NOT want to emulate.

||Thanks Bob. I was wondering whether you are an official LDP person.

Quote:

So enforce basic rule of law (punish murderers, rapists, thieves and frauds) but leave the rest of us well enough alone. ||

dosnt that leave an awful lot of other anti-social offences missing? if your total law and order policy is to punishthe majors and ignore the rest then you would consign this country to anarchy.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:30pm:

||You can already have them for sport, hunting and collecting.  Self defence opens up a whole new door that leads to irresponisble gun ownership that I just cannot support I'm not saying we're necessarily promoting this, but would you still be against including self defence as a reason to seek a gun license if it came with a mandatory gun safety course for people seeking a gun license for self defence?|| SELF DEFENCE is the worst possible reason because it would not necessarily require anyone to say they have a defined threat already! It is not like nations having a self-defence force; it would only lead to vastly more violence. USA is a prime example of a gun-loving culture and one we do NOT want to emulate.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:33pm:

||Thanks Bob. I was wondering whether you are an official LDP person. Quote: So enforce basic rule of law (punish murderers, rapists, thieves and frauds) but leave the rest of us well enough alone. || dosnt that leave an awful lot of other anti-social offences missing? if your total law and order policy is to punishthe majors and ignore the rest then you would consign this country to anarchy.

Double tick - gun-toting anarchy was one more of my concluded criticisms of the inevitable consequences of LDP policies too...

PS And that was before I realised that Ivan Milat's sister-in-law was one of their candidates..

Equitist wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:30pm: ||You can already have them for sport, hunting and collecting.  Self defence opens up a whole new door that leads to irresponisble gun ownership that I just cannot support I'm not saying we're necessarily promoting this, but would you still be against including self defence as a reason to seek a gun license if it came with a mandatory gun safety course for people seeking a gun license for self defence?|| SELF DEFENCE is the worst possible reason because it would not necessarily require anyone to say they have a defined threat already! It is not like nations having a self-defence force; it would only lead to vastly more violence. USA is a prime example of a gun-loving culture and one we do NOT want to emulate. longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:33pm: ||Thanks Bob. I was wondering whether you are an official LDP person. Quote: So enforce basic rule of law (punish murderers, rapists, thieves and frauds) but leave the rest of us well enough alone. || dosnt that leave an awful lot of other anti-social offences missing? if your total law and order policy is to punishthe majors and ignore the rest then you would consign this country to anarchy. Double tick - gun-toting anarchy was one more of my concluded criticisms of the inevitable consequences of LDP policies too... PS And that was before I realised that Ivan Milat's sister-in-law was one of their candidates..

why is it that ALL the nutjob parties have guns as one of their policies? it is almost the litmus test for being a nutjob group!

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Thanks Bob. I was wondering whether you are an official LDP person. Quote: So enforce basic rule of law (punish murderers, rapists, thieves and frauds) but leave the rest of us well enough alone. So we're not all Keynesians?

Not since the GFC. I think to those who understand economics (of which I'm not claiming to be one, just one who listens to people who understand economics) economic central planning has proven to be a disaster. If you're really interested, read Thomas Sowell's 'The Housing Boom and Bust'. The Liberal Democrats are strong supporters of free market capitalism. Perhaps the only free market party in Australia. The Liberals aren't true support of the free market. They are as keynesian as the Labor party, who are increasingly even less free market.


freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Quote: - market responses to climate change Can you elaborate please? What are your thoughts on carbon taxes?

There have been some favourable reactions, among classical liberals, to a carbon tax if it would provide enough revenue to significantly cut other taxes. But to do that, you'd want carbon production to remain high so you could collect more taxes off it. And that kind of defeats the purpose. So the Liberal Democratic Party is not for the carbon tax.

What we mean by market responses to climate change, is that we believe the government is too incompetent to deal with the problem and it'll be cheaper and probably better dealt with by the market. Think of it like this. Who has a better chance of getting it right, a handful of elected officials or the other 20 million of us choosing to use solar, or investing in alternative energy, making our own decisions as individuals working cooperatively on a voluntary basis. I think that has always been the best way to do things.


freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Quote: - private property rights and the privatisation of most public land So no national parks or suburban parks?

We'd probably like more private parks but public parks are popular that's why we have a policy of taxpayers having more control over the parks they pay for. Some national parks charge a fee to the people who supposedly "own" them.


freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Quote: - relaxed traffic laws I think there should be more 110 (even 120) zones, but I like the new 50 zones.

What I think we're interested in is not necessarily raising speed limits, but having less speed limits. I drive along some roads where it'll go from 60 to 80 then down to 70 for 20 meters then back up to 80. I think that's clearly just revenue raising. There's been proposals for three speed limits, 50, 80 and 110. That's it. 30 km/hr apart. No more random 70 zones or 90 zones designed to catch you out.


freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Quote: - cultivation of GM crops, subject to safety screening In practice does this mean a lower standard of screening? They are already legal here, right?

Yeah, we just mean relaxing regulations on GM foods. Allow for GM foods to be cultivated, but still subject them to safety screenings. You don't need to lower the standards for screening, just allow for GM foods to be screened. I think if you do there'll be more GM foods passed because I don't believe they're as bad as most people think.


freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Quote: - private ownership, breeding and trade of endangered species (including keeping native animals as pets) What about those that are unlikely to be breedable or profitable in captivity? (BTW, this applies to pretty much all of them).

Well if they aren't breedable or profitable, then why own them? It would make no difference. So what's the harm? If we can save some endangered species by letting people farm them, then why not?


freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Quote: - abolishing government ownership and control of water, water recycling subsidies and water tank mandates Can you elaborate on this a bit? Would you change the current arrangements with farmers?

I'll look into that one for you. To be honest I don't know if the policy is any different for farmers.


freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Quote: - sustainable hunting of species such as crocodiles and kangaroos You left whales and dolphins off the list. I hope you guys are not a bunch of tree hugging hippies.

lol, well allowing hunting for crocodiles and kangaroos (which we cull every few years anyway) means hunters have something to hunt so they don't hunt other less common animals. I don't know if we have a policy on whaling actually. I assume we support it at least in private waters. I know I do.


freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Quote: We just look at the evidence that shows private land is much more well protected than public land. Can you elaborate on this please?

Well, read this article on private conservation for example. But a lot of it just rooted in common sense. Private property owners have a strong incentive to protect their own land. It's theirs. You protect your property don't you?

||What I think we're interested in is not necessarily raising speed limits, but having less speed limits. I drive along some roads where it'll go from 60 to 80 then down to 70 for 20 meters then back up to 80. I think that's clearly just revenue raising. There's been proposals for three speed limits, 50, 80 and 110. That's it. 30 km/hr apart. No more random 70 zones or 90 zones designed to catch you out.||

silly. so are the suburban areas 50 or 80? either is wrong. thats why we have 60 now.

BobH wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:57pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:28pm: Quote: - sustainable hunting of species such as crocodiles and kangaroos You left whales and dolphins off the list. I hope you guys are not a bunch of tree hugging hippies. lol, well allowing hunting for crocodiles and kangaroos (which we cull every few years anyway) means hunters have something to hunt so they don't hunt other less common animals. I don't know if we have a policy on whaling actually. I assume we support it at least in private waters. I know I do. freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:28pm: [quote]We just look at the evidence that shows private land is much more well protected than public land. Can you elaborate on this please?

Well, read http://reason.com/archives/2002/04/17/rewarding-private-conservationon private conservation for example. But a lot of it just rooted in common sense. Private property owners have a strong incentive to protect their own land. It's theirs. You protect your property don't you?

[/quote]

Hey Bob, ignoring your other policies for the moment, do you lot REALLY believe that: -

* We should happily privatise the nation's/world's oceans and allow owners to wantonly cull whales and/or dolphins that pass through same!?

* Private landowners - such as farmers and miners and industrial corporations - give a flying fancy about the long-term consequences beyond their tenure (physical boundaries and chronological timeframe)!? In the world according to the LDP, what is to stop them from clearing, strip-mining, blasting and/or industrialising - and thereby polluting the surrounding air, land and water - and not caring about the long-term consequences because they will earn enough to never have to sell their lot. After all, they can just leave it as a toxic wasteland and then just move on the the next plot in the next unwitting neighbourhood and do it all again!? Hello - is this not exactly what wantonly self-serving and destructive multinational parasites have been getting away with, throughout the 3rd world for the past several decades!? Oh, and can the neighbours just hunt them down and shoot them cos they piss them off by threatening their livelihoods and way of life!?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:53pm:

why is it that ALL the nutjob parties have guns as one of their policies? it is almost the litmus test for being a nutjob group!

Yup, paranoid proprietor-cum-predator types are particularly creepy!

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:10pm:

Equitist wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 6:08pm: Onya Longy! 'Tis good that we have a common political 'enemy' (for want of a better descriptor) for a change... ::) I oppose your political ideology for the same reasons. you are extreme left, LDP are extreme right. the practical differences are few and the result is identical - disaster and a removal of human rights.

What human rights would these be longy, Im pretty sure the Australian government lib & lab are against codified human rights and prefer a system of obligations and priveledges. To make sure they will always have control over the people of Australia and not like they have in 'proper' democracies


It's all part of labor, liberal and the green implementing and enforcing a nanny state on all Australians, facisim by stealth as it were.


Im for any party that is against big government and for basic human rights for all Australians and that is not liberal, labor or even the greens.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:30pm:

||You can already have them for sport, hunting and collecting.  Self defence opens up a whole new door that leads to irresponisble gun ownership that I just cannot support I'm not saying we're necessarily promoting this, but would you still be against including self defence as a reason to seek a gun license if it came with a mandatory gun safety course for people seeking a gun license for self defence?|| SELF DEFENCE is the worst possible reason because it would not necessarily require anyone to say they have a defined threat already! It is not like nations having a self-defence force; it would only lead to vastly more violence. USA is a prime example of a gun-loving culture and one we do NOT want to emulate.

Why does the anti-gun nuts only make reference to the USA and never to Switzerland or even Canada?

Both of those countries have a much higher gun ownership than the US but but we (Australia) are never compared to them only the US.

Personally I think we as a people are nothing like the US as far as gun ownership and usage but more like Canada, but then I don't need to make an extremist point to support my argument.



BTW I think Bob has done pretty well dealing with your and nemisis's churlish reductio arguments. Give me a party the leaves me the bugger alone and Im gonna listen to what they have to say.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 5:43am:

Why does the anti-gun nuts only make reference to the USA and never to Switzerland or even Canada? Both of those countries have a much higher gun ownership than the US but but we (Australia) are never compared to them only the US.

Do you have a source for your claim?

Ooops silly question, of course you dont.  ;D ;D ;D

lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 5:48am:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 5:43am: Why does the anti-gun nuts only make reference to the USA and never to Switzerland or even Canada? Both of those countries have a much higher gun ownership than the US but but we (Australia) are never compared to them only the US. Do you have a source for your claim? Ooops silly question, of course you dont.  ;D ;D ;D

Well it is 05:40 and I have provided sources before on yahoo, not that anyone bothered to read them.

But if you really want them and they would make a difference to your opinion, Im more than happy to expend a few hours to find them again.

If not, stay with your twee responses to my posts, it'll make you feel good about yourself and your opinions  ;D

Here you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
http://www.allcountries.org/gun_ownership_rates.html

Ooops the USA have more guns than Switzerland and Canada combined


Which is what anyone would expect! ;D ;D ;D

And didn't take long at all to find  :D :D :D

lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 5:54am:

Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership http://www.allcountries.org/gun_ownership_rates.html Ooops the USA have more guns than Switzerland and Canada combined Which is what anyone would expect! ;D ;D ;D And didn't take long at all to find  :D :D :D

Wow, you found that a country with 300 milion people has more guns than a country with 34 million (canada) and a country with 7.7 million people (switzertalnd), not quite the point of my argument, but thanks for your effort.  ;D

Please keep up the good work  ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 6:14am:

lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 5:54am: Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership http://www.allcountries.org/gun_ownership_rates.html Ooops the USA have more guns than Switzerland and Canada combined Which is what anyone would expect! ;D ;D ;D And didn't take long at all to find  :D :D :D Wow, you found that a country with 300 milion people has more guns than a country with 34 million (canada) and a country with 7.7 million people (switzertalnd), not quite the point of my argument, but thanks for your effort.  ;D Please keep up the good work  ;D

Yeah thanks as afterall it disproved ;D ;D your (oops sorry about laughing)
claim  ;D ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 5:43am:

Why does the anti-gun nuts only make reference to the USA and never to Switzerland or even Canada? Both of those countries have a much higher gun ownership than the US but but we (Australia) are never compared to them only the US.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


But we all knew that the USA had more guns now didnt we (well all of us bar one  ;D) so cant explain why anyone would make the suggestion for it to be otherwise.
Even as  a % the USA clearly win - but we all knew that too, well now someone else does!

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You are obviously the smartest person in the room, due to the fact that you knew that the US had more people than canada and switzerland put together, and you believe that I did not.

You have discounted rates of ownership and population distributions because you would have to concede your point of absolute numbers and focus on my question on why is Australian gun ownership only related to the US and not to other high rate gun owning nations.

Why is it that we were nothing like the US 200+ years prior to '97 but if we were to relax our gun laws even by the smallest degree we would immediately turn into the US?

But please do stick to that single misinterpreted point, because it does make you look very very intellegent.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 7:27am:

You are obviously the smartest person in the room, due to the fact that you knew that the US had more people than canada and switzerland put together, and you believe that I did not. Yes, you didnt realise that but that didnt stop you from your ludicrous post  ;D ;D ;D You have discounted rates of ownership and population distributions because you would have to concede your point of absolute numbers and focus on my question on why is Australian gun ownership only related to the US and not to other high rate gun owning nations. HAAA HAA HA HA HA -  ;D ;D ;D do you read the stupidity of your comments first or get a parent or guardian to check what you are posting? You don't? Well you should. Oh btw I proved to you that the USA have more guns per capita (gee I love to shoot down the big moth clowns - so easy)  :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D But please do stick to that single misinterpreted point, because it does make you look very very intellegent. Hey lot more intelligent than you with your ludicrous comments, but you already knew that didnt you :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D ;D ;D

So two questions posed, neither answered, so thanks for that.

But you did make an effort to present an infantile ad hominem reply / attack based on semantics, so once again, well done.  Maximum effect, minimum effort, the sign of a true intellect.

Maybe longy or nemisis may that the time to answer the questions, or maybe they will not, but I doubt they will present an infantile set of posts as yourself.

BTW I could make a slight change to the statement " Both of those countries have a much higher gun ownership than the US but but we (Australia) are never compared to them only the US." to Both of those countries have a much higher gun ownership than us but but we (Australia) are never compared to them only the US, if it would help you focus on the question.

Ill even concede your absolute and vast intellect if it would help you focus.  ;D

Yes I realise that you have to try and save face after your stupid post.
Perhaps a simple apology and acknowledgement that you stuffed up would have saved you, but no you chose to dig yourself further into the quagmire.
Guess you adopted the Homer Simpson (The Vigilante)when he was stuck in a hole and was asked how will we get out, "we'll dig our way out"!
And you're not satisfied with that so you go further with Chief Wiggums comment "dig up stupid"

Otto: Um, how are we going to get out of here?
Homer: We'll dig our way out!
Wiggum: No, dig _up_, stupid.



But keep trying Wiggy, it really is funny.....pathetic, but funny
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 7:56am:

Ill even concede your absolute and vast intellect if it would help you focus.  ;D

Don't forget to 'dig up'

;D ;D ;D

So that is a no, then?


Imagine how much better this would have been if you  put in as much effort to answer the questions posed, as you did in hitting the emoticon button.

But hey, we all have our own special skills in life, yours is to focus on on semantics or mis-statements and pressing the emoticon button 20 or 30 times for each post you make, just to make sure your intent is known.

lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 7:57am:

Yes I realise that you have to try and save face after your stupid post. Perhaps a simple apology and acknowledgement that you stuffed up would have saved you, but no you chose to dig yourself further into the quagmire. Guess you adopted the Homer Simpson (The Vigilante)when he was stuck in a hole and was asked how will we get out, "we'll dig our way out"! And you're not satisfied with that so you go further with Chief Wiggums comment "dig up stupid" Otto: Um, how are we going to get out of here? Homer: We'll dig our way out! Wiggum: No, dig _up_, stupid. But keep trying Wiggy, it really is funny.....pathetic, but funny ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I can see now your absolutely rational response to the fact this I wrote "the US" instead of "us" and for that I oppologise unreservedly I fully intend to seek forgiveness by writing out 1000 times, "us, not the US".

So once again please forgive my mis-statement I can asure you will never do it again, I promise that I will also make sure I will never overlook any mistakes or mis-statements that you make in the future either, which should be fun for both of us.  ;D

I agree that focusing on the semantics is a much better way to utilise these boards than to look at the overall intent

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 5:24pm:

mellie wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 5:18pm: These policies are so ridiculous, I really did think someone was trying to  draw attention to the stupidity of another similar parties policies. My apologies Mr Hunter. But I still find it hard to believe. :) if you used the terms gun-loving, ultra-capitalist, anti-environmentalists you'd pretty much have the LDP sorted out

See, even Longweekend and I can agree on some things.
The point by point critique by Longy mirrors my own thoughts apart from the morality issues, euthanasia, gay marriage, and legalising pot, are all ideas I would support, but the rest were pretty dodgy.

So the LDP can be just discounted as another Crank magnet, using the scattergun approach to policies in the vain hope of getting people who are fixated on single issues to vote for them, because Nobody but the certifiably insane could look at their raft of policies as anything but an unfunny joke.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 8:56am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 5:24pm: mellie wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 5:18pm: These policies are so ridiculous, I really did think someone was trying to  draw attention to the stupidity of another similar parties policies. My apologies Mr Hunter. But I still find it hard to believe. :) if you used the terms gun-loving, ultra-capitalist, anti-environmentalists you'd pretty much have the LDP sorted out See, even Longweekend and I can agree on some things. The point by point critique by Longy mirrors my own thoughts apart from the morality issues, euthanasia, gay marriage, and legalising pot, are all ideas I would support, but the rest were pretty dodgy. So the LDP can be just discounted as another Crank magnet, using the scattergun approach to policies in the vain hope of getting people who are fixated on single issues to vote for them, because Nobody but the certifiably insane could look at their raft of policies as anything but an unfunny joke.

Odd, that's exactly how I see the greens.  ;D

Im for anyone who is willing to leave me the bugger alone, make less laws, not tell me how to live my life and just run the country quietly.

LDP seem to be the best of a bad lot, but only time will tell I suppose.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 9:15am:

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 8:56am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 5:24pm: mellie wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 5:18pm: These policies are so ridiculous, I really did think someone was trying to  draw attention to the stupidity of another similar parties policies. My apologies Mr Hunter. But I still find it hard to believe. :) if you used the terms gun-loving, ultra-capitalist, anti-environmentalists you'd pretty much have the LDP sorted out See, even Longweekend and I can agree on some things. The point by point critique by Longy mirrors my own thoughts apart from the morality issues, euthanasia, gay marriage, and legalising pot, are all ideas I would support, but the rest were pretty dodgy. So the LDP can be just discounted as another Crank magnet, using the scattergun approach to policies in the vain hope of getting people who are fixated on single issues to vote for them, because Nobody but the certifiably insane could look at their raft of policies as anything but an unfunny joke. Odd, that's exactly how I see the greens.  ;D Im for anyone who is willing to leave me the bugger alone, make less laws, not tell me how to live my life and just run the country quietly. LDP seem to be the best of a bad lot, but only time will tell I suppose.

you forget that they want everyone to have guns, no speed limits, repeal most laws and leave water and land up to the greedy. it is a recipe for disaster that makes the Greens look responsible!

Why are the extreme right so afraid of the greens?
Is it just the fact that they are preferencing Labor, of which they had no choice, since Abbott made Denialism of scientific consensus on climate change a Liberal Party ideology under his watch.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 10:29am:

Why are the extreme right so afraid of the greens? Is it just the fact that they are preferencing Labor, of which they had no choice, since Abbott made Denialism of scientific consensus on climate change a Liberal Party ideology under his watch.

you confuse 'fear' with 'mocking'. You might spek of Abbots 'denialism' but you say nothing about Labors refusal to act. if all we measure is outcomes then the result is the same. Rather than abuse libs how about you abuse labor. AFter all you PAID for the last labor govt with your preferences and were comprehensively shafted. if you go back for more of the same - and you are - then you are just fools.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 10:09am:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 9:15am: mozzaok wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 8:56am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 5:24pm: mellie wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 5:18pm: These policies are so ridiculous, I really did think someone was trying to  draw attention to the stupidity of another similar parties policies. My apologies Mr Hunter. But I still find it hard to believe. :) if you used the terms gun-loving, ultra-capitalist, anti-environmentalists you'd pretty much have the LDP sorted out See, even Longweekend and I can agree on some things. The point by point critique by Longy mirrors my own thoughts apart from the morality issues, euthanasia, gay marriage, and legalising pot, are all ideas I would support, but the rest were pretty dodgy. So the LDP can be just discounted as another Crank magnet, using the scattergun approach to policies in the vain hope of getting people who are fixated on single issues to vote for them, because Nobody but the certifiably insane could look at their raft of policies as anything but an unfunny joke. Odd, that's exactly how I see the greens.  ;D Im for anyone who is willing to leave me the bugger alone, make less laws, not tell me how to live my life and just run the country quietly. LDP seem to be the best of a bad lot, but only time will tell I suppose. You forget that they want everyone to have guns, no speed limits, repeal most laws and leave water and land up to the greedy. it is a recipe for disaster that makes the Greens look responsible!

Here's me thinking that you had a modicum of reading and comprehension skills. But an extremist interpretation might work too, but you seem to not like it too much when others do it to the liberal party.

Maybe it's not acceptable for you to allow a differeing political opinion with policies that need to evolve, just as liberal, labor or the greens are allowed to do.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 10:59am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 10:09am: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 9:15am: mozzaok wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 8:56am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 5:24pm: mellie wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 5:18pm: These policies are so ridiculous, I really did think someone was trying to  draw attention to the stupidity of another similar parties policies. My apologies Mr Hunter. But I still find it hard to believe. :) if you used the terms gun-loving, ultra-capitalist, anti-environmentalists you'd pretty much have the LDP sorted out See, even Longweekend and I can agree on some things. The point by point critique by Longy mirrors my own thoughts apart from the morality issues, euthanasia, gay marriage, and legalising pot, are all ideas I would support, but the rest were pretty dodgy. So the LDP can be just discounted as another Crank magnet, using the scattergun approach to policies in the vain hope of getting people who are fixated on single issues to vote for them, because Nobody but the certifiably insane could look at their raft of policies as anything but an unfunny joke. Odd, that's exactly how I see the greens.  ;D Im for anyone who is willing to leave me the bugger alone, make less laws, not tell me how to live my life and just run the country quietly. LDP seem to be the best of a bad lot, but only time will tell I suppose. You forget that they want everyone to have guns, no speed limits, repeal most laws and leave water and land up to the greedy. it is a recipe for disaster that makes the Greens look responsible! Here's me thinking that you had a modicum of reading and comprehension skills. But an extremist interpretation might work too, but you seem to not like it too much when others do it to the liberal party. Maybe it's not acceptable for you to allow a differeing political opinion with policies that need to evolve, just as liberal, labor or the greens are allowed to do.

You misread me. I oppose the bulk of their policies because they are actualyl quite transparent. they DO want us to have guns liek in the USA. they are very anti-environment and oppose any subsidies to help even water use! and the law and order policy is an absurdity. I oppose the nanny state too, but speed limits are not the nanny state per se. they propose removing most laws other than for the biggies. that leaves an awful lot of crim that becomes legal. if you want to debate it then go head. I enjoy that!

I decided not to hit the quote button it was getting too big.

From what I read they don't want the gun laws like the US, but the gun laws we used to have, which were fine if they're were actually enforced.

The speed laws look to be a rationalisation of the absurd application of our current laws, which wouldn't be bad thing, either. Multiple changes in speed over very short distances is one area.

The big crimes little crimes I read different to you, I did not interpret the abrogation of 'minor' crimes, but the habit of governments in their rush to produce a nanny state making everything a crime of sorts.  Stick to deal with actual crims rather than implementing more and more laws, just to make up the numbers

I agree it pretty subjective in it statements, but I also looked at what was the overall intent and found them to be the least offensive.

Considering I refuse to vote, that is a big thing for me to find in a political party.  ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 11:32am:

I decided not to hit the quote button it was getting too big. From what I read they don't want the gun laws like the US, but the gun laws we used to have, which were fine if they're were actually enforced. The speed laws look to be a rationalisation of the absurd application of our current laws, which wouldn't be bad thing, either. Multiple changes in speed over very short distances is one area. The big crimes little crimes I read different to you, I did not interpret the abrogation of 'minor' crimes, but the habit of governments in their rush to produce a nanny state making everything a crime of sorts.  Stick to deal with actual crims rather than implementing more and more laws, just to make up the numbers I agree it pretty subjective in it statements, but I also looked at what was the overall intent and found them to be the least offensive. Considering I refuse to vote, that is a big thing for me to find in a political party.  ;D

the rationale for gun ownership is 'self-defence'. what person in australia needs a gun for that purpose? we dont have gangs as such nmor do we have a massive crime rate involving weapons. it is nothing more than the USA reason for owning guns. the safest community is a one where NO ONE has guns. it is no co-incidence that very few crimes are committed in this country with guns - real ones that is.

The speed limit one is bizarre. i find the speed limit laws to be draconian and idiotic. But LDP proposes pretty much a removal of most of them and enforcement of even less. It is nauseating that I am here supporting speed limts!! LOL

but if you look carefully you will find similar elements in most extrem parties. GUNS DRUGS and the PRIVATE/PUBLIC dichotomy. always the same and always so so dangerous.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 11:39am:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 11:32am: I decided not to hit the quote button it was getting too big. From what I read they don't want the gun laws like the US, but the gun laws we used to have, which were fine if they're were actually enforced. The speed laws look to be a rationalisation of the absurd application of our current laws, which wouldn't be bad thing, either. Multiple changes in speed over very short distances is one area. The big crimes little crimes I read different to you, I did not interpret the abrogation of 'minor' crimes, but the habit of governments in their rush to produce a nanny state making everything a crime of sorts.  Stick to deal with actual crims rather than implementing more and more laws, just to make up the numbers I agree it pretty subjective in it statements, but I also looked at what was the overall intent and found them to be the least offensive. Considering I refuse to vote, that is a big thing for me to find in a political party.  ;D the rationale for gun ownership is 'self-defence'. what person in australia needs a gun for that purpose? we dont have gangs as such nmor do we have a massive crime rate involving weapons. it is nothing more than the USA reason for owning guns. the safest community is a one where NO ONE has guns. it is no co-incidence that very few crimes are committed in this country with guns - real ones that is. The speed limit one is bizarre. i find the speed limit laws to be draconian and idiotic. But LDP proposes pretty much a removal of most of them and enforcement of even less. It is nauseating that I am here supporting speed limts!! LOL but if you look carefully you will find similar elements in most extrem parties. GUNS DRUGS and the PRIVATE/PUBLIC dichotomy. always the same and always so so dangerous.

People only require guns for self defence when there is no other option available to them, and not everyone wants that option, some people believe that the police will help them in their time of need. They'll usually end up dead but that's their decision.

I don't agree about the community with no guns being safe, maybe if you said the community with no crims was perfect safe you might have got me. You might want to check the sydney papers today, 3 drive by shootings in 6 hours does not fill me with confidence about our gun laws.

Once again I read the speed laws statement differently to you, hence my post about them being subjective.

With the liberals, labor and the greens driving headlong into an orwellian nanny state, I'm looking for something different.

The problem with anyone or everyone owning a gun is the anger equation.

If my husband or children drive me to anger atm, I either sulk quietly, cook them a crappy dinner or start yelling. This doesn't happen very often but it does happen.

If I had a gun, I just might be tempted to shoot them in a fit of rage for spitting toothpaste all over the basin that I have just cleaned, or bringing me out a white t-shirt when I have just turned the front loader on with a mountain of whites,  you cannot open the door on a front loader once it has been turned on.

You never know what might suddenly make one start spitting blood, and to have quick access to a gun?  hmmmm..maybe not a good idea.

ps--is this a sendup by the OP???

phantom

What stops you from stabbing people with a sharp knife, if you believe you would shoot people if you owned a gun?

I owned several weapons from the age of 15 up until '97 (33) and during that time i rekon I got angry at various people a couple of times a week. At no time did I even contemplate shooting them let alone do it.

Just because a person owns a gun does not automatically make them a psychopath mass murderer, no matter what john howard told you. It just makes them a gun owner.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:16pm:

phantom What stops you from stabbing people with a sharp knife, if you believe you would shoot people if you owned a gun? I owned several weapons from the age of 15 up until '97 (33) and during that time i rekon I got angry at various people a couple of times a week. At no time did I even contemplate shooting them let alone do it. Just because a person owns a gun does not automatically make them a psychopath mass murderer, no matter what john howard told you. It just makes them a gun owner.

and that is true for most people probably even 99% of them. but it is NOT true for that small minority and giving THEM guns IS a problem. and you also forget the fact that 2/3 of the fun deaths in the USA are accidents.

I think too often people take the right to own a gun as the right to use it. You can own a gun and it can just sit in your cupboard forever and never be used. What's dangerous about a gun, really? It only becomes dangerous when put into the hands of an unstable person. And that can happen with or without gun control. Criminals don't care for the law. That's why they're, you know, criminals. Gun control only restricts guns for law-abiding citizen. And it's had no correlation with declining crime rates or violent crime rates. So what's the point? If you look at the figures and they show the Howard's gun laws had no significant effect on crime rates, then shouldn't you conclude there's no need for them and they should be repealed?

In the United States they have the right to bear arms, but gun restrictions still differ from state to state. Washington DC, New York and California have much tougher laws than say Alaska, Vermont, Oklahoma and Kentucky. Yet obviously that hasn't resulted in Vermont becoming a bloodbath of gun violence while LA is peaceful and safe. No, it's the opposite. Now you can argue, what came first?. LA has always had high crime, so that's why they have tough gun laws. You can't argue LA has high crime because they have gun laws. But you can argue that LA still has high crime despite tough gun laws therefore gun control in ineffective.

Btw, the US does not have the most liberal gun laws in the world, so we shouldn't necessarily look at them as an example of what an armed nation looks like. What about Switzerland?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:21pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 12:16pm: phantom What stops you from stabbing people with a sharp knife, if you believe you would shoot people if you owned a gun? I owned several weapons from the age of 15 up until '97 (33) and during that time i rekon I got angry at various people a couple of times a week. At no time did I even contemplate shooting them let alone do it. Just because a person owns a gun does not automatically make them a psychopath mass murderer, no matter what john howard told you. It just makes them a gun owner. and that is true for most people probably even 99% of them. but it is NOT true for that small minority and giving THEM guns IS a problem. and you also forget the fact that 2/3 of the fun deaths in the USA are accidents.

THEM still have access to guns, regardless of the law, that is why they are THEM. And they are still shooting people, the current laws were never design to stop THEM.

Longy we are not the US, we were never the US, making comparisons to the US is fallacious. The US are a special little breed all unto themselves, even canada is nothing like the US and they live right next door.

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:33pm:

I think too often people take the right to own a gun as the right to use it. You can own a gun and it can just sit in your cupboard forever and never be used. What's dangerous about a gun, really? It only becomes dangerous when put into the hands of an unstable person. And that can happen with or without gun control. Criminals don't care for the law. That's why they're, you know, criminals. Gun control only restricts guns for law-abiding citizen. And it's had no correlation with declining crime rates or violent crime rates. So what's the point? If you look at the figures and they show the Howard's gun laws had no significant effect on crime rates, then shouldn't you conclude there's no need for them and they should be repealed? In the United States they have the right to bear arms, but gun restrictions still differ from state to state. Washington DC, New York and California have much tougher laws than say Alaska, Vermont, Oklahoma and Kentucky. Yet obviously that hasn't resulted in Vermont becoming a bloodbath of gun violence while LA is peaceful and safe. No, it's the opposite. Now you can argue, what came first?. LA has always had high crime, so that's why they have tough gun laws. You can't argue LA has high crime because they have gun laws. But you can argue that LA still has high crime despite tough gun laws therefore gun control in ineffective. Btw, the US does not have the most liberal gun laws in the world, so we shouldn't necessarily look at them as an example of what an armed nation looks like. What about Switzerland?

Do not make an idiot of yourself by trying to talk about US gun laws as though they had any releveance whatsoever - even to them. a 3day wait to buy a automatic pistol is hardly 'control'. USA has a massive massive violent crime rate and a culture that fuels the violence. given the risks you need to articulate an actual reason and a need for such relaxed gun laws. can you do that? other than 'i want a gun' can you give me an actual argument for guns? what groups in our society are in such mortal risk that they would need them? NONE. and part of the reason for that is that so few other people have them either. and one thing worth mentioning is that very few criminals have them either. SOME do, but most dont. do we really want to arm our criminals? the ones that rob shops with a knife or baseball bat?

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 8:32am:

lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 7:57am: Yes I realise that you have to try and save face after your stupid post. Perhaps a simple apology and acknowledgement that you stuffed up would have saved you, but no you chose to dig yourself further into the quagmire. Guess you adopted the Homer Simpson (The Vigilante)when he was stuck in a hole and was asked how will we get out, "we'll dig our way out"! And you're not satisfied with that so you go further with Chief Wiggums comment "dig up stupid" Otto: Um, how are we going to get out of here? Homer: We'll dig our way out! Wiggum: No, dig _up_, stupid. But keep trying Wiggy, it really is funny.....pathetic, but funny ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I can see now your absolutely rational response to the fact this I wrote "the US" instead of "us" and for that I oppologise unreservedly I fully intend to seek forgiveness by writing out 1000 times, "us, not the US". So once again please forgive my mis-statement I can asure you will never do it again, I promise that I will also make sure I will never overlook any mistakes or mis-statements that you make in the future either, which should be fun for both of us.  ;D I agree that focusing on the semantics is a much better way to utilise these boards than to look at the overall intent

That hole of yours just gets bigger and bigger

;D ;D ;D

Don't forget to Dig Up there.
:D :D :D

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:42pm:

BobH wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 12:33pm: I think too often people take the right to own a gun as the right to use it. You can own a gun and it can just sit in your cupboard forever and never be used. What's dangerous about a gun, really? It only becomes dangerous when put into the hands of an unstable person. And that can happen with or without gun control. Criminals don't care for the law. That's why they're, you know, criminals. Gun control only restricts guns for law-abiding citizen. And it's had no correlation with declining crime rates or violent crime rates. So what's the point? If you look at the figures and they show the Howard's gun laws had no significant effect on crime rates, then shouldn't you conclude there's no need for them and they should be repealed? In the United States they have the right to bear arms, but gun restrictions still differ from state to state. Washington DC, New York and California have much tougher laws than say Alaska, Vermont, Oklahoma and Kentucky. Yet obviously that hasn't resulted in Vermont becoming a bloodbath of gun violence while LA is peaceful and safe. No, it's the opposite. Now you can argue, what came first?. LA has always had high crime, so that's why they have tough gun laws. You can't argue LA has high crime because they have gun laws. But you can argue that LA still has high crime despite tough gun laws therefore gun control in ineffective. Btw, the US does not have the most liberal gun laws in the world, so we shouldn't necessarily look at them as an example of what an armed nation looks like. What about Switzerland? Do not make an idiot of yourself by trying to talk about US gun laws as though they had any releveance whatsoever - even to them. a 3day wait to buy a automatic pistol is hardly 'control'. USA has a massive massive violent crime rate and a culture that fuels the violence. given the risks you need to articulate an actual reason and a need for such relaxed gun laws. can you do that? other than 'i want a gun' can you give me an actual argument for guns? what groups in our society are in such mortal risk that they would need them? NONE. and part of the reason for that is that so few other people have them either. and one thing worth mentioning is that very few criminals have them either. SOME do, but most dont. do we really want to arm our criminals? the ones that rob shops with a knife or baseball bat?

Perhaps even more pertinent, is that the over-riding policy agenda of the elitist LDP is to polarise income, wealth opportunity and power - which would cause our socio-economic systems to trend exponentially towards 'individualist' exploitation, deprivation, anarchy and violence!

In which case, those 'individualists', 'egotists' and/or 'nutjobs' with the most land/assets/resources would be entitled (under their proposed recklessly-relaxed laws), to utilise an ever-bigger and ever-better armoury - and to pay mercenaries to fight for them.

Meantime, what limitations (other than grossly-inequitable access to resources) would there be on private 'individualists' in relation to seeking to self-servingly restore 'order' by utilising mass control/eradication methods such as tanks, missiles, bombs, aircraft and/or biological agents!?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:42pm:

given the risks you need to articulate an actual reason and a need for such relaxed gun laws. can you do that? other than 'i want a gun' can you give me an actual argument for guns?

The onus is really on you to provide a reasonable argument why gun control is necessary. Because I don't think you need a reason to give people freedom, but you need a damn good one to take it away.

Why isn't "I want a gun" reason enough? That just shows the sad state of affairs we're in. You now have to justify why you deserve the right to the things you want to do. So much for a "free country". People should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want unless it harms someone else or their property.

Guns don't harm anybody else until they are used violently against another person. That's when the law should kick in. Not before. Because when you enforce it before the act of violence happens, you not only punish the people who will potentially commit a violent act but also those who probably wont. 9 out of 10 gun owners would probably never use their gun outside of safe hunting and sports shooting. Yet because of 1 nut you want to punish the other 9? That doesn't make sense to me. I'm sorry, I value freedom too much. I suppose I have to think like a control freak to understand gun control.

Equitist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 12:42pm: BobH wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 12:33pm: I think too often people take the right to own a gun as the right to use it. You can own a gun and it can just sit in your cupboard forever and never be used. What's dangerous about a gun, really? It only becomes dangerous when put into the hands of an unstable person. And that can happen with or without gun control. Criminals don't care for the law. That's why they're, you know, criminals. Gun control only restricts guns for law-abiding citizen. And it's had no correlation with declining crime rates or violent crime rates. So what's the point? If you look at the figures and they show the Howard's gun laws had no significant effect on crime rates, then shouldn't you conclude there's no need for them and they should be repealed? In the United States they have the right to bear arms, but gun restrictions still differ from state to state. Washington DC, New York and California have much tougher laws than say Alaska, Vermont, Oklahoma and Kentucky. Yet obviously that hasn't resulted in Vermont becoming a bloodbath of gun violence while LA is peaceful and safe. No, it's the opposite. Now you can argue, what came first?. LA has always had high crime, so that's why they have tough gun laws. You can't argue LA has high crime because they have gun laws. But you can argue that LA still has high crime despite tough gun laws therefore gun control in ineffective. Btw, the US does not have the most liberal gun laws in the world, so we shouldn't necessarily look at them as an example of what an armed nation looks like. What about Switzerland? Do not make an idiot of yourself by trying to talk about US gun laws as though they had any releveance whatsoever - even to them. a 3day wait to buy a automatic pistol is hardly 'control'. USA has a massive massive violent crime rate and a culture that fuels the violence. given the risks you need to articulate an actual reason and a need for such relaxed gun laws. can you do that? other than 'i want a gun' can you give me an actual argument for guns? what groups in our society are in such mortal risk that they would need them? NONE. and part of the reason for that is that so few other people have them either. and one thing worth mentioning is that very few criminals have them either. SOME do, but most dont. do we really want to arm our criminals? the ones that rob shops with a knife or baseball bat? Perhaps even more pertinent, is that the over-riding policy agenda of the elitist LDP is to polarise income, wealth opportunity and power - which would cause our socio-economic systems to trend exponentially towards 'individualist' exploitation, deprivation, anarchy and violence! In which case, those 'individualists', 'egotists' and/or 'nutjobs' with the most land/assets/resources would be entitled (under their proposed recklessly-relaxed laws), to utilise an ever-bigger and ever-better armoury - and to pay mercenaries to fight for them. Meantime, what limitations (other than grossly-inequitable access to resources) would there be on private 'individualists' in relation to seeking to self-servingly restore 'order' by utilising mass control/eradication methods such as tanks, missiles, bombs, aircraft and/or biological agents!?

I think we would both agree that the LDP is a genuine extreme right-wing party. but you use the same language to describe them and the coalition!! LOL do you see now the downside to using ridiculously over-the-top extremist adjectives for those you disagree with? when a really objectionable party comes alone, you ahve nowhwere else to go. the language is the same and people ignore you.

You are the 'boy who cried wolf'.

Hey Bob, I'm keen to hear your response on this, ta!


Equitist wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 9:25pm:

BobH wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:57pm: freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:28pm: Quote: - sustainable hunting of species such as crocodiles and kangaroos You left whales and dolphins off the list. I hope you guys are not a bunch of tree hugging hippies. lol, well allowing hunting for crocodiles and kangaroos (which we cull every few years anyway) means hunters have something to hunt so they don't hunt other less common animals. I don't know if we have a policy on whaling actually. I assume we support it at least in private waters. I know I do. freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:28pm: [quote]We just look at the evidence that shows private land is much more well protected than public land. Can you elaborate on this please? Well, read http://reason.com/archives/2002/04/17/rewarding-private-conservationon private conservation for example. But a lot of it just rooted in common sense. Private property owners have a strong incentive to protect their own land. It's theirs. You protect your property don't you?

Hey Bob, ignoring your other policies for the moment, do you lot REALLY believe that: -

* We should happily privatise the nation's/world's oceans and allow owners to wantonly cull whales and/or dolphins that pass through same!?

* Private landowners - such as farmers and miners and industrial corporations - give a flying fancy about the long-term consequences beyond their tenure (physical boundaries and chronological timeframe)!? In the world according to the LDP, what is to stop them from clearing, strip-mining, blasting and/or industrialising - and thereby polluting the surrounding air, land and water - and not caring about the long-term consequences because they will earn enough to never have to sell their lot. After all, they can just leave it as a toxic wasteland and then just move on the the next plot in the next unwitting neighbourhood and do it all again!? Hello - is this not exactly what wantonly self-serving and destructive multinational parasites have been getting away with, throughout the 3rd world for the past several decades!? Oh, and can the neighbours just hunt them down and shoot them cos they piss them off by threatening their livelihoods and way of life!?
[/quote]

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 12:42pm: given the risks you need to articulate an actual reason and a need for such relaxed gun laws. can you do that? other than 'i want a gun' can you give me an actual argument for guns? The onus is really on you to provide a reasonable argument why gun control is necessary. Because I don't think you need a reason to give people freedom, but you need a damn good one to take it away. Why isn't "I want a gun" reason enough? That just shows the sad state of affairs we're in. You now have to justify why you deserve the right to the things you want to do. So much for a "free country". People should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want unless it harms someone else or their property. Guns don't harm anybody else until they are used violently against another person. That's when the law should kick in. Not before. Because when you enforce it before the act of violence happens, you not only punish the people who will potentially commit a violent act but also those who probably wont. 9 out of 10 gun owners would probably never use their gun outside of safe hunting and sports shooting. Yet because of 1 nut you want to punish the other 9? That doesn't make sense to me. I'm sorry, I value freedom too much. I suppose I have to think like a control freak to understand gun control.

that is the same argument i hear from crazy gun-loving americans and just as flawed. Shoudl I be allowed to own pipe-bombs? Attack dogs? missiles? nuclear weapons? where does the argument end?

9 out of 10 owners being responsible does NOT engender confidence.

'nuclear weapons dont kill people - people kill people'

I want one!

||Guns don't harm anybody else until they are used violently against another person. That's when the law should kick in. Not before. Because when you enforce it before the act of violence happens, you not only punish the people who will potentially commit a violent act but also those who probably wont. 9 out of 10 gun owners would probably never use their gun outside of safe hunting and sports shooting. Yet because of 1 nut you want to punish the other 9? That doesn't make sense to me. I'm sorry, I value freedom too much. I suppose I have to think like a control freak to understand gun control. ||

the argument against child porn is that it promotes child abuse. but that is only true in a very small minority of downloaders. so shoudl that be made legal under the same argument, especially if it is only viewed at home?  

some things are just DANGEROUS and need to be controlled or banned on that basis alone. guns are one of them.

Quote:

Why isn't "I want a gun" reason enough?

Maybe the same as , "I want a nuclear missile" is not a good enough reason for wanting Iran to have them.
People usually are expected to show a legitimate need, and an ability to act exceptionally responsibly, if they wish to have stuff which would create havoc if used injudiciously.

---

Equitist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:16pm:

Hey Bob, I'm keen to hear your response on this, ta! Equitist wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 9:25pm: BobH wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:57pm: freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:28pm: Quote: - sustainable hunting of species such as crocodiles and kangaroos You left whales and dolphins off the list. I hope you guys are not a bunch of tree hugging hippies. lol, well allowing hunting for crocodiles and kangaroos (which we cull every few years anyway) means hunters have something to hunt so they don't hunt other less common animals. I don't know if we have a policy on whaling actually. I assume we support it at least in private waters. I know I do. freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:28pm: [quote]We just look at the evidence that shows private land is much more well protected than public land. Can you elaborate on this please? Well, read http://reason.com/archives/2002/04/17/rewarding-private-conservationon private conservation for example. But a lot of it just rooted in common sense. Private property owners have a strong incentive to protect their own land. It's theirs. You protect your property don't you? Hey Bob, ignoring your other policies for the moment, do you lot REALLY believe that: - * We should happily privatise the nation's/world's oceans and allow owners to wantonly cull whales and/or dolphins that pass through same!? * Private landowners - such as farmers and miners and industrial corporations - give a flying fancy about the long-term consequences beyond their tenure (physical boundaries and chronological timeframe)!? In the world according to the LDP, what is to stop them from clearing, strip-mining, blasting and/or industrialising - and thereby polluting the surrounding air, land and water - and not caring about the long-term consequences because they will earn enough to never have to sell their lot. After all, they can just leave it as a toxic wasteland and then just move on the the next plot in the next unwitting neighbourhood and do it all again!? Hello - is this not exactly what wantonly self-serving and destructive multinational parasites have been getting away with, throughout the 3rd world for the past several decades!? Oh, and can the neighbours just hunt them down and shoot them cos they piss them off by threatening their livelihoods and way of life!?

[/quote]
Umm, yes and yes. lol

OK, so seriously for a moment. You are suggesting that private land owners would have no incentive to protect their land beyond their tenure. That private land owners don't care about the long-term consequences of their actions and have no desire to protect the environment for the future. So here's my question to you: do you care? Do you care about future generations and what kind of environment they will have to live it? Because if you do, do you then assume that you are the only one? It's not possible that someone with a lot of money cares about the environment? I know it hard to believe that when we see rich people all the time like Al Gore pretending to care when all he wants is to install a carbon trading scheme that will make his buddies richer. But is it possible that anybody with a bit of land cares about what happens to it after their gone? What, they don't have children? Or children who have children? Are you the only who cares? Oh righteous one?

The point is, the private sector is better equipped to conserve the environment than government. Do some research on private conservation. And just have a think about the incentives involved in owning land and making profit off that land. So as long as some private property owners care about the environment, then I trust them. Is it easier for you to trust government? Is it easier for you to believe more of them genuinely care about the environment? Why? Are they not greedy or self-interested like the rest of us? Tell me, why is political self-interest somehow nobler than economic self-interest?

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:24pm:

Quote: Why isn't "I want a gun" reason enough? Maybe the same as , "I want a nuclear missile" is not a good enough reason for wanting Iran to have them. People usually are expected to show a legitimate need, and an ability to act exceptionally responsibly, if they wish to have stuff which would create havoc if used injudiciously.

Yes but logic and sanity go out the window in the USA, merely wanting a gun is reason enough.
Hey they even offer them to new bank account applicants....at the bank too!
Great logic there!!

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:22pm:

some things are just DANGEROUS and need to be controlled or banned on that basis alone. guns are one of them.

But you need to show that that works. Does banning guns result in lower crime rates? Does banning marijuana result in less drug usage? Are we safer now because of Howard's gun laws? Do we as a whole use less drugs now because of marijuana prohibition?

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:22pm: some things are just DANGEROUS and need to be controlled or banned on that basis alone. guns are one of them. But you need to show that that works. Does banning guns result in lower crime rates? Does banning marijuana result in less drug usage? Are we safer now because of Howard's gun laws? Do we as a whole use less drugs now because of marijuana prohibition?

nice avoidance of the child porn example. that stuff generally does NOT increase child abuse except in a very small number. so should that be legalised as that is the identical argument you are making for guns.

lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:31pm:

I wish [edit]dumb, and inappropriate joke edited out by mozzaok[/edit]!

Interesting that you are rabidly anti-gun but just threatened to shoot a political canditidate because you don't agree with them.

Better make sure the federal coppers don't come knocking on your door, Im pretty sure they take a dim view of what you just did, even in jest.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:18pm:

'nuclear weapons dont kill people - people kill people' I want one!

OK, let's think about this for a moment. Let's say nuclear weapons are legal for you and I. You may want one, but how the hell are you going to get one? Any idea how much they cost? You think your neighbour is going to own one if they were legal? lol

Their so expensive that really only governments can afford them, with borrowed money of course. Even big corporations probably couldn't, and even if they could, why would they? Only government are stupid enough to waste money like that.

I seriously doubt that even if nuclear weapons were legal, they'd be everywhere. But it's a pointless discussion anyway since no one is suggested legalising nuclear weapons for citizens. I just wanted to point out that even your attempt at derailing this discussion doesn't help prove your point at all. Furthermore, the U.S. government owns nuclear weapons and doesn't use them. They are purely a defence mechanism. Just like guns in homes.

You're taking this a bit too far I think. Because all we are asking for is to include "self defence" as a reasonable reason to acquire a gun license. That is all.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:32pm:

nice avoidance of the child porn example. that stuff generally does NOT increase child abuse except in a very small number. so should that be legalised as that is the identical argument you are making for guns.

They are two completely different subject areas with completely different issues involved. So your attempt to once again derail the conversation wont work. I wont be baited. We are discussing gun control, get back on point. If you want to move off gun control then stick to LDP policies, this is an LDP thread (look at the title). Legalising child porn is not an LDP policy. So nice try, but baiting just wont work.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:35pm:

lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:31pm: I wish [edit]dumb joke edited out by mozzaok[/edit] Interesting that you are rabidly anti-gun but just threatened to shoot a political canditidate because you don't agree with them. Better make sure the federal coppers don't come knocking on your door, Im pretty sure they take a dim view of what you just did, even in jest.

It's always those who are anti-gun rights who say if guns were legal to have and to hold they would shoot people. It's like the want the laws in place for them, not for others. Like they are scared they would kill people if they had a gun. Just because you're unstable, doesn't mean the rest of us are. We can own guns without having to kill people.

Bob

It is impossible to combat an infantile reductio argument and that is what they rely on instead of a rational one.

BTW, if I were you I would have a long and private talk to 'brat about his post, friggen totally unacceptable

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:18pm: 'nuclear weapons dont kill people - people kill people' I want one! OK, let's think about this for a moment. Let's say nuclear weapons are legal for you and I. You may want one, but how the hell are you going to get one? Any idea how much they cost? You think your neighbour is going to own one if they were legal? lol Their so expensive that really only governments can afford them, with borrowed money of course. Even big corporations probably couldn't, and even if they could, why would they? Only government are stupid enough to waste money like that. I seriously doubt that even if nuclear weapons were legal, they'd be everywhere. But it's a pointless discussion anyway since no one is suggested legalising nuclear weapons for citizens. I just wanted to point out that even your attempt at derailing this discussion doesn't help prove your point at all. Furthermore, the U.S. government owns nuclear weapons and doesn't use them. They are purely a defence mechanism. Just like guns in homes. You're taking this a bit too far I think. Because all we are asking for is to include "self defence" as a reasonable reason to acquire a gun license. That is all.

there are effectively about a dozen people on the planet with access to nuclear weapons. this can be controlled. if there were 12 people with guns there would be no gun-deaths either. it is in the preonderance of such weapons that comes the risk. and it is also becaue with teh preponderance comes access to truly crazy people. that is why the world does NOT want rian to have a nuke - because they ARE crazy enough to use them.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:35pm:

lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:31pm: I wish I had a gun now. Some people are just born to be targets! Interesting that you are rabidly anti-gun but just threatened to shoot a political canditidate because you don't agree with them. Better make sure the federal coppers don't come knocking on your door, Im pretty sure they take a dim view of what you just did, even in jest.

To be 'fair' to Librat, he didn't threaten to shoot anybody specifically - rather his loose words suggest that he had 'some people' (i.e. more than one person) in his mind and/or sights...

::)

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:32pm: nice avoidance of the child porn example. that stuff generally does NOT increase child abuse except in a very small number. so should that be legalised as that is the identical argument you are making for guns. They are two completely different subject areas with completely different issues involved. So your attempt to once again derail the conversation wont work. I wont be baited. We are discussing gun control, get back on point. If you want to move off gun control then stick to LDP policies, this is an LDP thread (look at the title). Legalising child porn is not an LDP policy. So nice try, but baiting just wont work.

if you want to debate on principle then you need to actually have them. principles aply across the board and not just where they are convenient. if marijuana is ok 'just at home' then so is child porn. if guns are ok because they rarely hurt people then so is child porn.

you love guns. I get it. just dont try and make a princple-based argument out of it because it fails badly. instead formulate a policy that actually has gun controls and laws that minimse the harm rather than merely accept that it happens.

Equitist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:40pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:35pm: lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:31pm: I wish I had a gun now. Some people are just born to be targets! Interesting that you are rabidly anti-gun but just threatened to shoot a political canditidate because you don't agree with them. Better make sure the federal coppers don't come knocking on your door, Im pretty sure they take a dim view of what you just did, even in jest. To be 'fair' to Librat, he didn't threaten to shoot anybody specifically - rather his loose words suggest that he had 'some people' (i.e. more than one person) in his mind and/or sights... ::)

Looked like a valid threat against a political candidate to me

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:43pm:

Equitist wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:40pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:35pm: lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:31pm: I wish I had a gun now. Some people are just born to be targets! Interesting that you are rabidly anti-gun but just threatened to shoot a political canditidate because you don't agree with them. Better make sure the federal coppers don't come knocking on your door, Im pretty sure they take a dim view of what you just did, even in jest. To be 'fair' to Librat, he didn't threaten to shoot anybody specifically - rather his loose words suggest that he had 'some people' (i.e. more than one person) in his mind and/or sights... ::) Looked like a valid threat against a political candidate to me

it was actually a rather clever anti-gun argument. I know that satire translates poorly b ut let me try...

by promoting guns you also run the risk of being shot by them. lil.brat rather cleverly made that point.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:43pm:

[quote author=bobhunterLDP link=1280635255/75#77 date=1280720275][quote author=longweekend58 link=1280635255/60#74 date=1280719963] if you want to debate on principle then you need to actually have them. principles aply across the board and not just where they are convenient. if marijuana is ok 'just at home' then so is child porn. if guns are ok because they rarely hurt people then so is child porn.

longy you might want to reconsider that post, under NO circumstances is child porn acceptable and it is NOTHING like owning a gun.

FFS, get back on track, you are behaving like the brat.  >:(

LilBrat, please do not even joke about using violence, on anyone, anywhere, anytime, it is totally unacceptable.

Ol 64, don't try and score cheap points because someone made an inappropriate joke, and don't try and pretend a bad joke was meant to be a threat, as it just makes you look like an arsehole.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:47pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:43pm: Equitist wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:40pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:35pm: lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:31pm: I wish I had a gun now. Some people are just born to be targets! Interesting that you are rabidly anti-gun but just threatened to shoot a political canditidate because you don't agree with them. Better make sure the federal coppers don't come knocking on your door, Im pretty sure they take a dim view of what you just did, even in jest. To be 'fair' to Librat, he didn't threaten to shoot anybody specifically - rather his loose words suggest that he had 'some people' (i.e. more than one person) in his mind and/or sights... ::) Looked like a valid threat against a political candidate to me it was actually a rather clever anti-gun argument. I know that satire translates poorly b ut let me try... by promoting guns you also run the risk of being shot by them. lil.brat rather cleverly made that point.

There you go, the anti-gun nuts think it is funny to threaten to shoot someone. Looks like you mob are basing your bias own your own beliefs and behaviours, not ours.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:43pm: [quote author=bobhunterLDP link=1280635255/75#77 date=1280720275][quote author=longweekend58 link=1280635255/60#74 date=1280719963] if you want to debate on principle then you need to actually have them. principles aply across the board and not just where they are convenient. if marijuana is ok 'just at home' then so is child porn. if guns are ok because they rarely hurt people then so is child porn. longy you might want to reconsider that post, under NO circumstances is child porn acceptable and it is NOTHING like owning a gun. FFS, get back on track, you are behaving like the brat.  >:(

do NOT attribute that position to me! I am using an extreme example to prove a point. 'principles' corrs boundaries and topics. If we want to ban somethin onthe basis simply of risk and harm' then it is a valid point. the 'harm' of that material is low and certainly lower then the harm of guns. but just as we ban CP because it is intrinscally wrong, so the ban on guns exist because they are not an innocuous device.

if you want a pro-gun argument then make it but dont make it on a 'minimal harm' basis which is also the same argument for home drug-taking.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:49pm:

LilBrat, please do not even joke about using violence, on anyone, anywhere, anytime, it is totally unacceptable. Ol 64, don't try and score cheap points because someone made an inappropriate joke, and don't try and pretend a bad joke was meant to be a threat, as it just makes you look like an arsehole.

Satire and irony play poorly on forums. Thats whay i generally dont bother. few people get it and the rest are offended or misconstrue it.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:49pm:

LilBrat, please do not even joke about using violence, on anyone, anywhere, anytime, it is totally unacceptable. Ol 64, don't try and score cheap points because someone made an inappropriate joke, and don't try and pretend a bad joke was meant to be a threat, as it just makes you look like an arsehole.

Not a problem, but I wouldn't mind if you applied the same to brat when he uses cheap shots and ad hominem attacks on others.

In the interest of fairness, of course

I think I'm starting to understand. The anti-gun people think it's funny to joke about shooting people and think child porn is acceptable for viewing at home. Makes me glad to be on the side of the Liberal Democrats.

EDIT: reading back over this post, I realised some people might not understand that I just poking fun. Some people are a little sensitive. So this is just a disclaimer, I'm having a little fun with this post. So calm down.

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:25pm:

Equitist wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:16pm: Hey Bob, I'm keen to hear your response on this, ta! Equitist wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 9:25pm: BobH wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:57pm: freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:28pm: Quote: - sustainable hunting of species such as crocodiles and kangaroos You left whales and dolphins off the list. I hope you guys are not a bunch of tree hugging hippies. lol, well allowing hunting for crocodiles and kangaroos (which we cull every few years anyway) means hunters have something to hunt so they don't hunt other less common animals. I don't know if we have a policy on whaling actually. I assume we support it at least in private waters. I know I do. freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:28pm: [quote]We just look at the evidence that shows private land is much more well protected than public land. Can you elaborate on this please? Well, read http://reason.com/archives/2002/04/17/rewarding-private-conservationon private conservation for example. But a lot of it just rooted in common sense. Private property owners have a strong incentive to protect their own land. It's theirs. You protect your property don't you? Hey Bob, ignoring your other policies for the moment, do you lot REALLY believe that: - * We should happily privatise the nation's/world's oceans and allow owners to wantonly cull whales and/or dolphins that pass through same!? * Private landowners - such as farmers and miners and industrial corporations - give a flying fancy about the long-term consequences beyond their tenure (physical boundaries and chronological timeframe)!? In the world according to the LDP, what is to stop them from clearing, strip-mining, blasting and/or industrialising - and thereby polluting the surrounding air, land and water - and not caring about the long-term consequences because they will earn enough to never have to sell their lot. After all, they can just leave it as a toxic wasteland and then just move on the the next plot in the next unwitting neighbourhood and do it all again!? Hello - is this not exactly what wantonly self-serving and destructive multinational parasites have been getting away with, throughout the 3rd world for the past several decades!? Oh, and can the neighbours just hunt them down and shoot them cos they piss them off by threatening their livelihoods and way of life!?

Umm, yes and yes. lol

OK, so seriously for a moment. You are suggesting that private land owners would have no incentive to protect their land beyond their tenure. That private land owners don't care about the long-term consequences of their actions and have no desire to protect the environment for the future. So here's my question to you: do you care? Do you care about future generations and what kind of environment they will have to live it? Because if you do, do you then assume that you are the only one? It's not possible that someone with a lot of money cares about the environment? I know it hard to believe that when we see rich people all the time like Al Gore pretending to care when all he wants is to install a carbon trading scheme that will make his buddies richer. But is it possible that anybody with a bit of land cares about what happens to it after their gone? What, they don't have children? Or children who have children? Are you the only who cares? Oh righteous one?

The point is, the private sector is better equipped to conserve the environment than government. Do some research on private conservation. And just have a think about the incentives involved in owning land and making profit off that land. So as long as some private property owners care about the environment, then I trust them. Is it easier for you to trust government? Is it easier for you to believe more of them genuinely care about the environment? Why? Are they not greedy or self-interested like the rest of us? Tell me, why is political self-interest somehow nobler than economic self-interest?[/quote]

Thanks for getting back to me, Bob!

Unfortunately, I've gotta run now - as I do have kids. For the members of our household, Monday afternoons and evenings are typically full with extra-curricular activities.

Actually, school's out at 2:05 pm - so, I'll drop by later this evening, to elaborate upon your my instinctive concerns about their future in the context of LDP policy agenda...

Meantime, I see that your policy platform has drawn attention from a number of other people, of various political persuasions...

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:53pm:

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:49pm: LilBrat, please do not even joke about using violence, on anyone, anywhere, anytime, it is totally unacceptable. Ol 64, don't try and score cheap points because someone made an inappropriate joke, and don't try and pretend a bad joke was meant to be a threat, as it just makes you look like an arsehole. Not a problem, but I wouldn't mind if you applied the same to brat when he uses cheap shots and ad hominem attacks on others. In the interest of fairness, of course

I disliek all posters who attack the messenger rather than the mesage.

I have said it before, I will repeat it now, I do not see all post, or even most posts, so if you see anything that is suss, just PM me, and I will look at it for you, I do not care who people support politically, if they behave themselves, and lilbrat's post was just batshit stupid, and it is hard to imagine anyone not recognising that, but I really do not believe he was trying to do anything but mirror his "erroneous" concept of how a gun nut would think, with his crappy joke.

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:54pm:

I think I'm starting to understand. The anti-gun people think it's funny to joke about shooting people and think child porn is acceptable for viewing at home. Makes me glad to be on the side of the Liberal Democrats.

I am also starting to understand that the LDP  doesnt know what a 'principle-based' policy is. AS I said before, if you want to make an argument for guns then do so but dont pretend that the argument you use there cant be used in other areas.

You tale about 'self-defence' a great deal but have never articulated who we are supposed to be defending ourselves against.  I for one dont know of a single person who has an enemy that they would need to defend themselvees against using a gun. do you?

Quote:

I disliek all posters who attack the messenger rather than the mesage.

Thanks for that longy :)

Equitist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:54pm:

Meantime, I see that your policy platform has drawn attention from a number of other people, of various political persuasions...

Do you mean our preferences? They had more to do with teaming up against the three major parties than siding with parties that shared a similar political persuasion. Well, whatever. I'll see what you mean when you get back from picking the kids up from school. Have fun.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:01pm:

Quote: I disliek all posters who attack the messenger rather than the mesage. Thanks for that longy :)

hug? :)

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:51pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:43pm: [quote author=bobhunterLDP link=1280635255/75#77 date=1280720275][quote author=longweekend58 link=1280635255/60#74 date=1280719963] if you want to debate on principle then you need to actually have them. principles aply across the board and not just where they are convenient. if marijuana is ok 'just at home' then so is child porn. if guns are ok because they rarely hurt people then so is child porn. longy you might want to reconsider that post, under NO circumstances is child porn acceptable and it is NOTHING like owning a gun. FFS, get back on track, you are behaving like the brat.  >:( do NOT attribute that position to me! I am using an extreme example to prove a point. 'principles' corrs boundaries and topics. If we want to ban somethin onthe basis simply of risk and harm' then it is a valid point. the 'harm' of that material is low and certainly lower then the harm of guns. but just as we ban CP because it is intrinscally wrong, so the ban on guns exist because they are not an innocuous device. if you want a pro-gun argument then make it but dont make it on a 'minimal harm' basis which is also the same argument for home drug-taking.

How about you stick to valid and rational examples and compare apples with apples.

How about our gun laws have not made this country safer, they were solely developed as a knee jerk reaction by an anti-gun prime minister to isolate a section of the community who had committed no crime.

howard has stated on more than one occasion he hates and fears guns, he wore a ballistic vest when confrontng gun owners in '97 to show Australia that they were not erstwhile law abiding citizens but potential murderers and should be ostrasized and isolated.

He is extremely good at isolating certain groups within the community and painting them as villians for political gain.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:51pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:43pm: [quote author=bobhunterLDP link=1280635255/75#77 date=1280720275][quote author=longweekend58 link=1280635255/60#74 date=1280719963] if you want to debate on principle then you need to actually have them. principles aply across the board and not just where they are convenient. if marijuana is ok 'just at home' then so is child porn. if guns are ok because they rarely hurt people then so is child porn. longy you might want to reconsider that post, under NO circumstances is child porn acceptable and it is NOTHING like owning a gun. FFS, get back on track, you are behaving like the brat.  >:( do NOT attribute that position to me! I am using an extreme example to prove a point. 'principles' corrs boundaries and topics. If we want to ban somethin onthe basis simply of risk and harm' then it is a valid point. the 'harm' of that material is low and certainly lower then the harm of guns. but just as we ban CP because it is intrinscally wrong, so the ban on guns exist because they are not an innocuous device. if you want a pro-gun argument then make it but dont make it on a 'minimal harm' basis which is also the same argument for home drug-taking. How about you stick to valid and rational examples and compare apples with apples. How about our gun laws have not made this country safer, they were solely developed as a knee jerk reaction by an anti-gun prime minister to isolate a section of the community who had committed no crime. howard has stated on more than one occasion he hates and fears guns, he wore a ballistic vest when confrontng gun owners in '97 to show Australia that they were not erstwhile law abiding citizens but potential murderers and should be ostrasized and isolated. He is extremely good at isolating certain groups within the community and painting them as villians for political gain.

Do you remember the context of the gun ban? Im not going to remind you, but you need to realise that without context, even a fact can be used dishonestly. the gun ban has broad community support which in a democracy is a killer argument.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:00pm:

I am also starting to understand that the LDP  doesnt know what a 'principle-based' policy is. AS I said before, if you want to make an argument for guns then do so but dont pretend that the argument you use there cant be used in other areas. You tale about 'self-defence' a great deal but have never articulated who we are supposed to be defending ourselves against.  I for one dont know of a single person who has an enemy that they would need to defend themselvees against using a gun. do you?

Most of our policies are based on principles. I think we're a very principle-based party. But we can't be responsible for some idiots using our principles to justify policies which aren't ours. If you want to justify something with our principles, that's your problem. We don't make that same connection that you obviously do. We see guns as very different to child porn. I'm sorry. That's they way we view it.

I still object to the notion that I have to justify why I need a gun for self-defence or who I'm defended myself from. I still don't agree with you that "I want one" is not a good enough reason. I am just too much on the side of freedom. I don't care why anybody wants to do anything. I just respect their right to do it as long as they don't hurt anybody doing it.

Geez Louise, I was no fan of Howard's, but I always gave him big props for his handling of the gun issue, as did the overwhelmingly vast majority of aussies.

It received Bi-Partisan support, and it is a non issue, the people have spoken, they don't want guns in their society, unless people have a very legitimate reason for having them, and that is not going to change because a few gun nuts get together to whine about it.

Bob, if the best argument you can come up with resembles the bleating of an out of control toddler, then you may need to seriously rethink your calling.

Maybe threaten to hold your breath until you can have a gun?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:07pm:

[quote author=bigol64 link=1280635255/90#98 date=1280721837][quote author=longweekend58 link=1280635255/75#87 date=1280721077][quote author=bigol64 link=1280635255/75#85 date=1280720828][quote author=longweekend58 link=1280635255/75#82 date=1280720593][quote author=bobhunterLDP link=1280635255/75#77 date=1280720275][quote author=longweekend58 link=1280635255/60#74 date=1280719963] Do you remember the context of the gun ban? Im not going to remind you, but you need to realise that without context, even a fact can be used dishonestly. the gun ban has broad community support which in a democracy is a killer argument.

I do recall that QLD wasn't too keen on it until the feds threatened to block supply to our state.

I do recall it was an opportunistic reaction immediately after the worst mass murder in Australian history, of course a shocked nation was looking for answers and retribution.

But what has it achieved?

Do crims still have unfettered access to firearms?

Do crims still kill at will?

What was it's purpose? If it was to disarm law abiding citizens or to grandstand for political gain, mission ackomplished.

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 2:00pm: I am also starting to understand that the LDP  doesnt know what a 'principle-based' policy is. AS I said before, if you want to make an argument for guns then do so but dont pretend that the argument you use there cant be used in other areas. You tale about 'self-defence' a great deal but have never articulated who we are supposed to be defending ourselves against.  I for one dont know of a single person who has an enemy that they would need to defend themselvees against using a gun. do you? Most of our policies are based on principles. I think we're a very principle-based party. But we can't be responsible for some idiots using our principles to justify policies which aren't ours. If you want to justify something with our principles, that's your problem. We don't make that same connection that you obviously do. We see guns as very different to child porn. I'm sorry. That's they way we view it. I still object to the notion that I have to justify why I need a gun for self-defence or who I'm defended myself from. I still don't agree with you that "I want one" is not a good enough reason. I am just too much on the side of freedom. I don't care why anybody wants to do anything. I just respect their right to do it as long as they don't hurt anybody doing it.

which is EXACTLY the same argument for legalising CP and that is my point. Your personal wish for a gun is not a good enough argument. there needs to be a demonstrated need for something so powerful and dangerous. and as mozza has already said, the people of australia have already spoken on the issue.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:07pm:

Do you remember the context of the gun ban? Im not going to remind you, but you need to realise that without context, even a fact can be used dishonestly. the gun ban has broad community support which in a democracy is a killer argument.

I think the context shows that Howard's gun laws were totally irrational and spur-of-the-moment. The push for stricter gun control was an emotional reaction to a terrible tragedy. There was not a lot of time taken to assess the situation and the effects of gun control. There should have been real debate on whether gun control would have stopped Port Arthur because I believe, though I'm not 100% sure, that oldmate (forget his name) didn't own that gun legally. The gun he used was illegal. I think it proves gun laws are irrelevant to a trigger-happy maniac.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 2:07pm: [quote author=bigol64 link=1280635255/90#98 date=1280721837][quote author=longweekend58 link=1280635255/75#87 date=1280721077][quote author=bigol64 link=1280635255/75#85 date=1280720828][quote author=longweekend58 link=1280635255/75#82 date=1280720593][quote author=bobhunterLDP link=1280635255/75#77 date=1280720275][quote author=longweekend58 link=1280635255/60#74 date=1280719963] Do you remember the context of the gun ban? Im not going to remind you, but you need to realise that without context, even a fact can be used dishonestly. the gun ban has broad community support which in a democracy is a killer argument. I do recall that QLD wasn't too keen on it until the feds threatened to block supply to our state. I do recall it was an opportunistic reaction immediately after the worst mass murder in Australian history, of course a shocked nation was looking for answers and retribution. But what has it achieved? Do crims still have unfettered access to firearms? Do crims still kill at will? What was it's purpose? If it was to disarm law abiding citizens or to grandstand for political gain, mission ackomplished.

thats a bit conspiracy-theorist-ish of you. australians as a significant majority declared that they didnt want guns in the hands of people who dont have a legitimate need for them. yes, that upset people as do a lot of other laws but that is how democracy works sometimes. there is NO need for a gun for self-defence as it is not that kind of soceity that we have here. When there is an actual need then Id change my mind but the risks far outweigh any perceived benefits.

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 2:07pm: Do you remember the context of the gun ban? Im not going to remind you, but you need to realise that without context, even a fact can be used dishonestly. the gun ban has broad community support which in a democracy is a killer argument. I think the context shows that Howard's gun laws were totally irrational and spur-of-the-moment. The push for stricter gun control was an emotional reaction to a terrible tragedy. There was not a lot of time taken to assess the situation and the effects of gun control. There should have been real debate on whether gun control would have stopped Port Arthur because I believe, though I'm not 100% sure, that oldmate (forget his name) didn't own that gun legally. The gun he used was illegal. I think it proves gun laws are irrelevant to a trigger-happy maniac.

and ALLOWING 'trigger-happy maniacs' to own a gun is a solution? we cant eliminate guns but we can reduce them. we cant stop ALL criminals or lunatics from having guns but we can stop MOST. and that is the argument. who in suburban australia NEEDS a gun (outside his gun club)? can you articulate an answer to that one?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:19pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 2:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 2:07pm: [quote author=bigol64 link=1280635255/90#98 date=1280721837][quote author=longweekend58 link=1280635255/75#87 date=1280721077][quote author=bigol64 link=1280635255/75#85 date=1280720828][quote author=longweekend58 link=1280635255/75#82 date=1280720593][quote author=bobhunterLDP link=1280635255/75#77 date=1280720275][quote author=longweekend58 link=1280635255/60#74 date=1280719963] Do you remember the context of the gun ban? Im not going to remind you, but you need to realise that without context, even a fact can be used dishonestly. the gun ban has broad community support which in a democracy is a killer argument. I do recall that QLD wasn't too keen on it until the feds threatened to block supply to our state. I do recall it was an opportunistic reaction immediately after the worst mass murder in Australian history, of course a shocked nation was looking for answers and retribution. But what has it achieved? Do crims still have unfettered access to firearms? Do crims still kill at will? What was it's purpose? If it was to disarm law abiding citizens or to grandstand for political gain, mission ackomplished. thats a bit conspiracy-theorist-ish of you. australians as a significant majority declared that they didnt want guns in the hands of people who dont have a legitimate need for them. yes, that upset people as do a lot of other laws but that is how democracy works sometimes. there is NO need for a gun for self-defence as it is not that kind of soceity that we have here. When there is an actual need then Id change my mind but the risks far outweigh any perceived benefits.

Looks like you have my and Bob's replies back to front :)

I would like to try and answer my questions, if you can.

If crims still have unfettered access to guns and can still use them at will, what are the benefits again?

Looks like the last few posts are bit of a mess of quotations. I'd suggest not quoting that big long mess of quotes anymore. Time to start the quote collection fresh I think.

and ALLOWING 'trigger-happy maniacs' to own a gun is a solution?



Remember what I said about trying a valid and rational argument.

This is the same emotive & irrational argument that howard used immediatly after port arthur to introduce the gun laws.

Grandstanding on dead bodies and using politcal opportunism to implement his own prejudice ideology.

You didn't answer me yesterday bob, are you preferencing Lib/Nationals?if not, which parties are you preferencing to get into the senate?

skippy. wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 3:16pm:

You didn't answer me yesterday bob, are you preferencing Lib/Nationals?if not, which parties are you preferencing to get into the senate?

http://www.aec.gov.au/election/downloads.htm#gvt

Cant you just tell us bob?
http://www.aec.gov.au/election/downloads.htm#gvt

Can you see the little blue box at the top of the page when you make a post? if you want to post a link click on that and insert it.

There I've done it for you, now instead of me trawling through the aec website can you tell us who you are doing preference deals with?

skippy. wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 3:58pm:

Cant you just tell us bob? http://www.aec.gov.au/election/downloads.htm#gvt Can you see the little blue box at the top of the page when you make a post? if you want to post a link click on that and insert it. There I've done it for you, now instead of me trawling through the aec website can you tell us who you are doing preference deals with?

I'm interested as well, Bob.

:)

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:38pm:

and ALLOWING 'trigger-happy maniacs' to own a gun is a solution? Remember what I said about trying a valid and rational argument. This is the same emotive & irrational argument that howard used immediatly after port arthur to introduce the gun laws. Grandstanding on dead bodies and using politcal opportunism to implement his own prejudice ideology.

It was quite a valid response since LDP policy is to allow guns for virtually any reason.

skippy. wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 3:58pm:

Cant you just tell us bob? http://www.aec.gov.au/election/downloads.htm#gvt Can you see the little blue box at the top of the page when you make a post? if you want to post a link click on that and insert it. There I've done it for you, now instead of me trawling through the aec website can you tell us who you are doing preference deals with?

Well I wasn't in charge of preference deals and we haven't had a meeting yet to fully discuss what deals were made on the weekend. All I've been told as we managed to make deals with all the minor and micro parties except the Socialists, Shooters (there goes the theory about LDP being gun-nuts) & Fishers, Family First and the Christian Democratic Party.

It's different for each states but it looks like for the most part we've preferenced small parties like Building Australia, Non-custodial Parents Party, Senators Online, Climate Sceptics, Careers Alliance and CEC ahead of some of the more mid-sized parties like the Democrats, DLP, Sex Party, Family First, Shooters & Fishers, One Nation and the Secular Party. Preferenced last are the Liberal/Nationals ahead of Labor ahead of the Greens ahead of the Socialists and Communists. So as I said, the micro parties were preferenced first, then the minor and mid-sized parties, and the major parties were preferenced last (except for the Socialists and Communists, for obvious reasons).

It looks like Senators Online, Climate Sceptics, Sex Party and Secular Party preferenced us well, at least in Queensland. Haven't really spent a lot of time looking at the other states. Liberal Nationals preferenced us higher than Labor did, who preferenced us higher than the Greens did. The Liberal Democrats and Greens are definitely butting heads by the looks.

Preferences give me a headache. That's why I let others deal with it all. I've been told we were successful over the weekend, although a little disappointed with the Shooters and Fishers. The party heads seem fairly optimistic about a chance of seating a Senator if things go well on election day. I'll know more after tomorrow night when I talk to everyone.

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 4:42pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 3:58pm: Cant you just tell us bob? http://www.aec.gov.au/election/downloads.htm#gvt Can you see the little blue box at the top of the page when you make a post? if you want to post a link click on that and insert it. There I've done it for you, now instead of me trawling through the aec website can you tell us who you are doing preference deals with? Well I wasn't in charge of preference deals and we haven't had a meeting yet to fully discuss what deals were made on the weekend. All I've been told as we managed to make deals with all the minor and micro parties except the Socialists, Shooters (there goes the theory about LDP being gun-nuts) & Fishers, Family First and the Christian Democratic Party. It's different for each states but it looks like for the most part we've preferenced small parties like Building Australia, Non-custodial Parents Party, Senators Online, Climate Sceptics, Careers Alliance and CEC ahead of some of the more mid-sized parties like the Democrats, DLP, Sex Party, Family First, Shooters & Fishers, One Nation and the Secular Party. Preferenced last are the Liberal/Nationals ahead of Labor ahead of the Greens ahead of the Socialists and Communists. So as I said, the micro parties were preferenced first, then the minor and mid-sized parties, and the major parties were preferenced last (except for the Socialists and Communists, for obvious reasons). It looks like Senators Online, Climate Sceptics, Sex Party and Secular Party preferenced us well, at least in Queensland. Haven't really spent a lot of time looking at the other states. Liberal Nationals preferenced us higher than Labor did, who preferenced us higher than the Greens did. The Liberal Democrats and Greens are definitely butting heads by the looks.

Im not sure the major parties are overly worried by your 12 votes.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 4:46pm:

Im not sure the major parties are overly worried by your 12 votes.

From what I've been told, Greens are very crappy about what we pulled over the weekend. But I don't know. I'm very interested to talk in detail about the preferences deals we made over the weekend at our next meeting.

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 4:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 4:46pm: Im not sure the major parties are overly worried by your 12 votes. From what I've been told, Greens are very crappy about what we pulled over the weekend. But I don't know. I'm very interested to talk in detail about the preferences deals we made over the weekend at our next meeting.

Preference deals can bring bizarre outcomes...

Ironically, FF got over the line with Lab preferences - but the FF candidate, that I spoke to at the last Federal Election when we were handing out competing how-to-votes, had NFI that he'd been screwed on the preference deal. Nor did he appreciate who was soaking up his preferences...

I have first hand experience of how preferences can alter the political landscape in a local election. It's a long story, but: several loosely-related groups of locals with a common nemesis had put up independent candidates, who banded together on the preferences with an agenda of outsting a corrupt male LibLab candidate. Instead, we managed to outst a good long-term female independent and install a less savvy female in her place (over time, she became a typical pollie).

That was over a decade ago but I still feel guilty enough, about the role I played in that council election, to have bad dreams about it during elections - I had one such dream only last night...

Politics is a dirty business and it takes a long time to wash the stench off...

Good on you Bob for at least taking a stand, making a point and having a go. I like what you have to say about some issues and am fiercely opposed to others.

Let's see

The Liberal Democratic Party supports...
- assisted suicide and euthanasia ......I agree with this but there are some details that need working out. I assume you have a proceedural plan for this to be made lawful and transparent.

- voluntary voting and fixed parliamentary terms........Yes I agree

- same-sex marriage and adoption.......I agree with same sex marriage but have concerns about adoption

- the right to own firearms for sport, hunting, collecting and self-defence.........I agree with this 100%. I still agree with licensing for shooters with a criminal and psychiatric offenders data base. Also EXTREME penalties for firearms related crimes. There are grades of licensing and home defence should be legitimate reason for owning a firearm..eg a 1000 yard ultra magnum rifle does not qualify as a home defence firearm. Something like the new Taurus 45/410 revolver firing 410 shotgun shells might.

- the re-legalisation of marijuana for adults at home........uhm maybe, I'm not entirely convinced, certainly for medicinal purposes

- market responses to climate change....Sorry but no bloody way

- private property rights and the privatisation of most public land....Again, no way on the privatisation of public land but agree with permit and rostered access to public land for certain purposes and unrestricted access for bush walking and camping...what private property rights

- uncensored internet access....yes I agree but penalties for illegal material should still apply..eg child porn etc.

- expanded immigration opportunities, with limited welfare and a raise in the requirements for citizenship.....Nope, we are pretty much full. Keep the doors open for the cream but we would need to build a country they they would want to come to first..also as members of an international community we still need to take a certain number of refugees....reintroduce 2 years national service which involves basic military training for 3 months for all, the remaining time can be served in the military or on civil projects. Any foreign service would be strictly voluntary.....compulsory reserve service until retirement age

- "free immigration agreements" with appropriate countries (like Japan, Singapore, Canada, Sweden etc.) like we have with New Zealand.....Not sure, have not thought about this before. On the face of it I am not against it but like to examine more details

- relaxed traffic laws (this includes speed limits and blood/alcohol limits)........Why, if you are a drunk you should be off the road, I'd love to catch up with the dog that almost killed my mother 30 years ago and visit those 30 years of agonising back pain upon him...if you are a hoon you should have your car crushed, preferably with the hoon in it.

- the rights of private property owners (this includes hotels and restaurants) to determine their own rules on smoking on their premises....No, let's not go backwards with smoking...it is a social and economic evil and by it's nature has made parasites rich and murdered millions


- land clearing decisions made by property owners, not government...Urm NO, there has been well and truly enough land clearing in this country..I don't have a problem with sustainable forests with time cycles that favour the environment rather than economics

- privatisation of most government-owned forests....No no, enough with selling off what belongs to aussies...what so some grub can make money from it?

- cultivation of GM crops, subject to safety screening Sure, just what the modern world needs is another super industry that controls crucial resourses...just like oil and pharmacutical companies have our interests at heart....lots and lots and lots more testing and complete disclosure of GM ingredients in food

- private ownership, breeding and trade of endangered species (including keeping native animals as pets).....I can accept this on some level but it can't just be a carte blanche affair. Many australian animals are very primative in the way that there brains work and one favourite (koalas) have almost no brain at all..they do not have the nature to be domesticated en masse. Also prolonged human contact may have a detrimental impact on some native animals...man did not domesticate wolves..we domesticated wolf failures that had a purpose of their own for the relationship. I think we should be looking at ways to farm and commercially use native animals....BTW what view do you take on FACTORY FARMING eg battery hen farming should be outlawed in my opinion

All sounds good, excpet for the gay marriage and GM crops, to which I'm opposed.  Would need to hear details of whats involved in some of the other points, such as land-clearing and privataistaion of forests.

- abolishing government ownership and control of water, water recycling subsidies and water tank mandates....NO. This is a recipe for disaster and open conflict...private control of the the most valuable resourse on Earth...that is simply a crazy idea. Even with government control it has been badly handled with abuses on massive scales...Cubby being a primary example

- sustainable hunting of species such as crocodiles and kangaroos...Yes there should be far more harvesting of native animals...Tim Flannery is a excellent advocate for harvesting of resourse animals and views it as being far more humane than many animal farming practices....when the harvesting is done properly and humanely....I have no problem with extreme penalties for animal cruelty whether it be hunting, farming, or pest control...on that note the use of poisions for vermin control is revolting but would be necessary under the idiotic Greens

- removing subsidies on recycling....Here's a better idea, tax the bejesus out of idiotic products like bottled water and the buffoons that drink it. or companies that cannot make products last a designated period of time or spares to increase the life if products. Satndardisation and modulation across brands should be made law....in the meantime recycling is a very serious must for our planet

- active management of national parks to control pests and bushfires and maintain accessibility to tax payers....User pays and grades of access I can see an arguement for...at a basic level it should be free for Bush walking and camping...by all means earn extra money from the other public land and activities...even as a shooter I generally do not support hunting in National Parks..and definitely no hunting with dogs in State or National Parks....I'd shoot most hunting dogs on sight anyway, they are a menace

- significant tax cuts and welfare reform (see our 30/30 tax reform plan on our website)I'll have to check this out...I'm more interested in increasing and improving public services than tax cuts so on the face of it I'm probably not going to like much of what you say....I will support work for the the Dole but never something like Howard's "Work Choices" a completely shameful way he treated his fellow Australians. Work for the Dole MUST carry with it a positive social perception with no negative stigma .... this is the hard up and deparate contributing

- relaxed industrial relation laws, including replacing the minimum wage with an income supplement from the government (also see our 30/30 tax reform plan on our website).......Ok I have to check this out, I don't really understand. I believe that minimum wages should be viewed as just that...minimum for living a decent life in this society

- replacing all welfare payments with a negative income tax (again, that's covered in our 30/30 tax reform plan on our website)....Again I will have to read up on this..not sure how negative tax can help if you have no income.

- free trade with any country that wants to trade with us....There are countries that we shouldn't or shouldn't want to trade with..dictatorships etc..I'm old fashioned like that

- continue the privatisation trend of the recent coalition and labor governments, including ABC and SBS....God no, and destroy the only consistant quality programming on television. Surely you can't be serious. I'll go one step in the other direction actually.....increase funding to community TV...Briz31 Rocks

- deregulate the market with the end goal of a free market system....With corporate power the way it is now free market systems are an illusion. It's as ludicrous as speaking of a free press when a radio license costs $20-30 million.

I would also like to see the Government buy back Telstra and turn it back into a Telecommunications force that is the envy of the modern world...like it used to be before privatisation.

Correct the stupidity of selling the Commonwealth Bank and either buy it back or start a new bank. So the banking cartels don't have it all their own way.

Make voting proportional.

Look at eliminating State Governments.

Require a referendum for any and all future sales of Federal, State and Local governement/public assets and businesses.

Equitist wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:30pm: ||You can already have them for sport, hunting and collecting.  Self defence opens up a whole new door that leads to irresponisble gun ownership that I just cannot support I'm not saying we're necessarily promoting this, but would you still be against including self defence as a reason to seek a gun license if it came with a mandatory gun safety course for people seeking a gun license for self defence?|| SELF DEFENCE is the worst possible reason because it would not necessarily require anyone to say they have a defined threat already! It is not like nations having a self-defence force; it would only lead to vastly more violence. USA is a prime example of a gun-loving culture and one we do NOT want to emulate. longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:33pm: ||Thanks Bob. I was wondering whether you are an official LDP person. Quote: So enforce basic rule of law (punish murderers, rapists, thieves and frauds) but leave the rest of us well enough alone. || dosnt that leave an awful lot of other anti-social offences missing? if your total law and order policy is to punishthe majors and ignore the rest then you would consign this country to anarchy. Double tick - gun-toting anarchy was one more of my concluded criticisms of the inevitable consequences of LDP policies too...

With you all the way on the self defence issue of gun ownership Bob with a few minor caveats.


Equitist wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:44pm:

PS And that was before I realised that Ivan Milat's sister-in-law was one of their candidates..

Are yes one of the most stupid political decisions I have ever heard of. She and the idiot that canvassed her should be let go. Mind numbingly gob smackingly dumb. Law abiding gun owners don't need this trashes "help".

lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 7:57am:

Yes I realise that you have to try and save face after your stupid post. Perhaps a simple apology and acknowledgement that you stuffed up would have saved you, but no you chose to dig yourself further into the quagmire. Guess you adopted the Homer Simpson (The Vigilante)when he was stuck in a hole and was asked how will we get out, "we'll dig our way out"! And you're not satisfied with that so you go further with Chief Wiggums comment "dig up stupid" Otto: Um, how are we going to get out of here? Homer: We'll dig our way out! Wiggum: No, dig _up_, stupid. But keep trying Wiggy, it really is funny.....pathetic, but funny ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Wow! you are a deceitful Lil Brat aren't you, unless I'm giving you too much credit intellectually.

I figure you knew that % were what was being alluded to yet you did not pursue that and when openly asked to verify you sidestepped. A liar and gutless.

phantomlady wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:09pm:

The problem with anyone or everyone owning a gun is the anger equation. If my husband or children drive me to anger atm, I either sulk quietly, cook them a crappy dinner or start yelling. This doesn't happen very often but it does happen. If I had a gun, I just might be tempted to shoot them in a fit of rage for spitting toothpaste all over the basin that I have just cleaned, or bringing me out a white t-shirt when I have just turned the front loader on with a mountain of whites,  you cannot open the door on a front loader once it has been turned on. You never know what might suddenly make one start spitting blood, and to have quick access to a gun?  hmmmm..maybe not a good idea. ps--is this a sendup by the OP???

Yes you shouldn't own a gun!

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:21pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 12:16pm: phantom What stops you from stabbing people with a sharp knife, if you believe you would shoot people if you owned a gun? I owned several weapons from the age of 15 up until '97 (33) and during that time i rekon I got angry at various people a couple of times a week. At no time did I even contemplate shooting them let alone do it. Just because a person owns a gun does not automatically make them a psychopath mass murderer, no matter what john howard told you. It just makes them a gun owner. and that is true for most people probably even 99% of them. but it is NOT true for that small minority and giving THEM guns IS a problem. and you also forget the fact that 2/3 of the fun deaths in the USA are accidents.

So you have a problem with cleaning the gene pool through death by misadventure? I don't.

Other than children dying because idiotic parents have not stored firearms propery. That is a criminal tragety.

locutius wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 4:16pm:

Good on you Bob for at least taking a stand, making a point and having a go. I like what you have to say about some issues and am fiercely opposed to others.

Thanks. I'll try to provide come feedback on the comments, questions and criticisms you made. You can't convince everyone but you can at least let them know where you're coming from.


locutius wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 4:16pm:

- assisted suicide and euthanasia ......I agree with this but there are some details that need working out. I assume you have a proceedural plan for this to be made lawful and transparent.

We support the right to assisted suicide. But we don't yet have a formal policy on that because as you said, we need to establish safety measures to make sure assisted suicided is consensual. On euthanasia however, our policy as of now is to repeal the Andrews bill which removed state's rights to permit euthanasia.


locutius wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 4:16pm:

- the right to own firearms for sport, hunting, collecting and self-defence.........I agree with this 100%. I still agree with licensing for shooters with a criminal and psychiatric offenders data base. Also EXTREME penalties for firearms related crimes. There are grades of licensing and home defence should be legitimate reason for owning a firearm..eg a 1000 yard ultra magnum rifle does not qualify as a home defence firearm. Something like the new Taurus 45/410 revolver firing 410 shotgun shells might.

We are definitely open to negotiations on the rules and regulations involved in owning a gun for self-defence. Having to obtain a license would of course be in there. What guns you can then own under that license can be debated. But the first step is getting back to where you're allowed to protect yourself and your property.


locutius wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 4:16pm:

- market responses to climate change....Sorry but no bloody way

Admittedly, our policies regarding the environment and global warming will be hard to sell. There's been a massive and very successful campaign for government responses to climate change and that campaign has centred around the market being responsible for it all. So selling a free market approach to solving this issue will be difficult. But we're not the only ones fighting against emissions trading schemes, price on carbon and carbon tax. All over the world people are turning against that idea and the skepticism about what we've been sold on this issue is growing and support for less government control is definitely growing. So I'm not totally sure that my view and the view of the LDP wont be the populist view soon enough. What I think I'll do is start a thread about our environmental and climate change policies with the reasoning and logic behind those policies. Because I've gotten many questions and criticisms about those policies. I think it's best to explain the logic and reasoning behind it in more detail than I've done so far. So I wont comment on your criticisms about those policy, and policies regarding privatisation of public land (because that comes into it), but rather start a new thread on the subject.


locutius wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 4:16pm:

- uncensored internet access....yes I agree but penalties for illegal material should still apply..eg child porn etc.

I definitely agree with punishing the owner of the IP address that uploads child porn and taking down the website that hosted that child porn. But a blanket censor is not a good idea.


locutius wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 4:16pm:

- expanded immigration opportunities, with limited welfare and a raise in the requirements for citizenship.....Nope, we are pretty much full. Keep the doors open for the cream but we would need to build a country they they would want to come to first..also as members of an international community we still need to take a certain number of refugees....reintroduce 2 years national service which involves basic military training for 3 months for all, the remaining time can be served in the military or on civil projects. Any foreign service would be strictly voluntary.....compulsory reserve service until retirement age

I don't at all support compulsory national service. Nor do I agree that we are necessarily full. With the system the way it is now, we can't double our population by 2020. I agree with that. But I don't agree that means we need more central planning to build a nation that can support more intake. I think the opposite is true. We need less central planning, less regulations or development, zoning, housing etc. Let developers develop more housing communities, let people put a business in the middle of a residential area, let the growth that is witnessed by freeing up the market create jobs, housing and infrastructure for 40 million, 60 million, a hundred million people. Let the free market do it's thing.

locutius wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 4:16pm:

- relaxed traffic laws (this includes speed limits and blood/alcohol limits)........Why, if you are a drunk you should be off the road, I'd love to catch up with the dog that almost killed my mother 30 years ago and visit those 30 years of agonising back pain upon him...if you are a hoon you should have your car crushed, preferably with the hoon in it.

I don't believe in prior restraint. I believe drinking and driving is very different than drinking, driving and killing someone. I agree that if you are drunk you shouldn't be driving. But I think one drink is OK. Two might be OK for you. You have to be smart enough to know your limit or have someone around who knows your limit, or plan not to drink if you know you'll be driving. A blanket blood/alcohol limit for everyone is not an accurate test of whether someone is drunk, it's just a piggy bank. But my beef isn't against drink driving laws (which I think are OK at the moment) but more against speed zones every 100 meters, speed cameras everywhere, RBTs every weekend. I just think it's a cash grab, more than a real effort to reduce road casualties.


locutius wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 4:16pm:

I believe that minimum wages should be viewed as just that...minimum for living a decent life in this society

But only if you have a job to begin with. Many don't and some say one cause of that is the minimum wage. The minimum wage law says you must pay at least this to every employee. So those employees who don't produce enough to justify the minimum wage, because they lack skills and experience (e.g. teenagers, people with low levels of eduction i.e. usually poor people), get shafted.


locutius wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 4:16pm:

not sure how negative tax can help if you have no income.

That's the point. If you have no income, or low income, you receive a government payment instead of paying tax. Your government payment will be 30% of your $30,000 less your income. That's where the name 30/30 comes from. Also because the tax rate on income over $30,000 will be 30%.


locutius wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 4:16pm:

God no, and destroy the only consistant quality programming on television. Surely you can't be serious. I'll go one step in the other direction actually.....increase funding to community TV...Briz31 Rocks

I'd go one step further than the LDP and say all public airwaves should be auctioned off. That includes the public airwaves that are leased by Seven, Nine and Ten.


locutius wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 4:16pm:

-With corporate power the way it is now free market systems are an illusion. It's as ludicrous as speaking of a free press when a radio license costs $20-30 million.

Corporate power is the way it is now because government power has grown and corporations have lobbied the government to corrupt the market in a way by protecting certain competitors from competition.

Hello Bob, I hadn't heard of your party before, but now I have, and I kind of like it.

I agree with your policies on gay marriage and adoption, as well as euthanasia. I find it pathetic that our government can deny gay people equal rights, and that I don't have the right to end my life when I see fit.

I disagree with legalising guns, though. I am fine with guns for self defence, but for no other reason. Anyone who wishes to own a gun should be required to take a gun safety course, be over the age of 21, and not have a criminal record. There should be a limit to the number of guns you can own, and the type.

All the other stuff doesn't interest me, but you seem to have the right idea with the issues I feel passionately about.

Vanessa wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 3:54pm:

Hello Bob, I hadn't heard of your party before, but now I have, and I kind of like it. I agree with your policies on gay marriage and adoption, as well as euthanasia. I find it pathetic that our government can deny gay people equal rights, and that I don't have the right to end my life when I see fit. I disagree with legalising guns, though. I am fine with guns for self defence, but for no other reason. Anyone who wishes to own a gun should be required to take a gun safety course, be over the age of 21, and not have a criminal record. There should be a limit to the number of guns you can own, and the type. All the other stuff doesn't interest me, but you seem to have the right idea with the issues I feel passionately about.

Thank Vanessa. I'm glad you like what you've read about the Liberal Democrats now that you have heard about us. There are a lot of people like you who agree with us on issues like gay marriage and euthanasia but aren't interested so much in the economics. We have supporters and members who are socially liberal, some who are free market liberals, and some who are both. I am both but I know a lot of Liberal Democrats more interest in the free market policies, and Liberal Democrats who are more interested in the social policies. The Liberal Democrats are a big tent party comprising of liberals of all stripes and colours.

On the issues of guns, did you mean to say 'I am fine with guns for reasons other then self-defence'? Because what you actually said, that you are fine with guns for self-defence, is our policy. Our policy on gun ownership is to include self-defence as a legitimate reason to seek a gun license. It's not an official policy of ours to have mandatory gun safety courses for people seeking a gun license, but when we get to the stage of legislating gun-rights into law, we would surely welcome that into the negotiations. I personally think it is a sensible idea. I also agree with an age limit and requirements including no criminal history.

LDP isnt anti-environment. they want individual that are passionate about something to take action. they want to give Aust back some of the taxes they pay, reduce the cost of living and the whole time saying you do want is best for you, for your community, for your family etc.
business charge the full cost and customers pick on quality and price.
its a no brain win-win

sounds pretty fair
yay Aust got a libertarian party, how refreshing.

... wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 5:37pm:

All sounds good, excpet for the gay marriage and GM crops, to which I'm opposed.

How does gay marriage affect you?
I like the LDP policy that it isnt for government to decide people are going to do it anyway not matter what you think about it.
All the LDP policies support individuals it doesnt matter if your single, dating, married etc.

In a way LDP supports whatever you support at market. If people dont want to buy GM food no one is forcing them. Its voting everytime you go to the shop.

Josh wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 9:29am:

If people dont want to buy GM food no one is forcing them. Its voting everytime you go to the shop.

I've always found it interesting that people feel like their voice are being heard and they are participating in the democratic process because they get to fill out a ballot paper every three years. Yet they take for granted the power they wield every time they make any consumer decision. Choosing to buy a Pepsi instead of a Coke for example. It is essentially a vote. But you get to do it every day, many times a day. The truth is you're choices are a lot more important and influential when you go to Hungry Jacks instead of McDonalds, than when you vote Liberal over Labor.

I think that the Liberal Democratic Party will do well in the Senate in Queensland because some people will confuse it with the Liberal National Party. Well, my wife told me she did.

muso wrote on Aug 18^th, 2010 at 9:39am:

I think that the Liberal Democratic Party will do well in the Senate in Queensland because some people will confuse it with the Liberal National Party. Well, my wife told me she did.

I was talking to the Petrie candidate tonight who said he is one spot above the Liberal Nationals candidate. So hopefully people go down the list looking for the word "Liberal" and put 1 in his box, the notice another "Liberal" further down and put a 2 there.

I think a lot of Liberal voters will come to see us as an alternative to the Liberals as they become more disenfranchised with the Liberals. We're the real liberals. They are more like conservatives calling themselves liberals. We are more free market that the Liberals, we will spend less and tax less. I don't know how many Liberal swingers will get in this election but hopefully as time goes on we can get them to swing our way.

BobH wrote on Aug 18^th, 2010 at 9:55pm:

muso wrote on Aug 18th, 2010 at 9:39am: I think that the Liberal Democratic Party will do well in the Senate in Queensland because some people will confuse it with the Liberal National Party. Well, my wife told me she did. I was talking to the Petrie candidate tonight who said he is one spot above the Liberal Nationals candidate. So hopefully people go down the list looking for the word "Liberal" and put 1 in his box, the notice another "Liberal" further down and put a 2 there. I think a lot of Liberal voters will come to see us as an alternative to the Liberals as they become more disenfranchised with the Liberals. We're the real liberals. They are more like conservatives calling themselves liberals. We are more free market that the Liberals, we will spend less and tax less. I don't know how many Liberal swingers will get in this election but hopefully as time goes on we can get them to swing our way.

Hey Bob, have you signed up Sarah Palin for your page 3 policy spread yet!?

I reckon she's right up your alley (or vice versa)...

Equitist wrote on Aug 18^th, 2010 at 10:01pm:

Hey Bob, have you signed up Sarah Palin for your page 3 policy spread yet!? I reckon she's right up your alley (or vice versa)...

Page 3 policy spread? I don't get that.

We Liberal Democrats and Sarah Palin don't see eye-to-eye on a lot. Maybe on gun rights. But she's an aggressive military interventionist and not as free market as I would like. She's also against the legalisation of marijuana and liberalisation of the sex industry. I don't really get a long with Christian conservatives like her. She'd fit in with the Baptists in the country who seem to want the state to carry out God's law. I'm more on the side with some of the Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehova's Witnesses I've talked too out and about who are very anti-government. I like those sort of religious fanatics. The Sarah Palin breed can go to hell with us atheists.

BobH wrote on Aug 18^th, 2010 at 9:55pm:

I think a lot of Liberal voters will come to see us as an alternative to the Liberals as they become more disenfranchised with the Liberals. We're the real liberals. They are more like conservatives calling themselves liberals. We are more free market that the Liberals, we will spend less and tax less. I don't know how many Liberal swingers will get in this election but hopefully as time goes on we can get them to swing our way.

Ok - well you're singing my tune. I used to vote Liberal all the time until John Howard came along.  I am by choice a Centrist because I prefer to determine my own position on issues and see how the political parties match best with those.

Some of my thinking matches up with the Democrats in their heyday. I liked the fact that they had a lot more freedom to express personal opinions compared to the major parties. As long as they quoted something as being a personal opinion, that was ok.

I'm all for liberalism and democracy, but I can not see how your platform would take this country forward. Your policies are more about turning the clock back rather than planing for a sustainable lifestyle and economy. How can giving everyone a gun and going back to 1970 drink driving laws be on a political party's platform if they are serious about progress???

Change the party's name to the Australian Liberterian Party or Libertarian Party of Australia.

Sean wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 10:29pm:

Change the party's name to the Australian Liberterian Party or Libertarian Party of Australia.

I agree. Our name doesn't define us as well as a political party name should, and it's too similar to two existing political party names. I'd prefer the Libertarian Party. But high ranking members are of the opinion that the name is already out there, people are starting to recognise it and we've fought too hard (legally) to keep the name.

BobH wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 6:54pm:

Sean wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 10:29pm: Change the party's name to the Australian Liberterian Party or Libertarian Party of Australia. I agree. Our name doesn't define us as well as a political party name should, and it's too similar to two existing political party names. I'd prefer the Libertarian Party. But high ranking members are of the opinion that the name is already out there, people are starting to recognise it and we've fought too hard (legally) to keep the name.

Dunno about anyone else, but the chance of the LDP being confused with the DLP is quite high...

I wonder how many people made that mistake at the last election...

I think this post should be "un stickied" so it can disappear into oblivion. It's over, he did nothing in the election.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 4:49pm:

Your wish to privatise crown land is monumentally stupid and I do not apologise for that statement. you can try and defend it anyway you like but it remains just that. and your wish for an fully unregulated market economy is amazingly silly given the causes of the GFC!

This post surprises me coming from you LW

^^^

BobH wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 6:54pm:

Sean wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 10:29pm: Change the party's name to the Australian Liberterian Party or Libertarian Party of Australia. I agree. Our name doesn't define us as well as a political party name should, and it's too similar to two existing political party names. I'd prefer the Libertarian Party. But high ranking members are of the opinion that the name is already out there, people are starting to recognise it and we've fought too hard (legally) to keep the name.

With all due respect, when I first heard about your party everyone in my class (as it was a legal studies class) including myself assumed you to be the sort to side with labour and the greens, as a "democratic" in any party name tends to be "socialist" even if there is liberal in there.
Having said that, it is great that there is a part out there that actually represents my views (generally). Having been a member of the young liberals for a little bit, can I ask if you guys have any similar sort of thing in Melbourne, as I'd love to join.