.




Both current old party leaders lie ... they lie regularly.
So to vote for them, you vote to be lied to.


Why to you vote to be deceived ... are you rusted on since there are other parties like The Greens, Independents and KAP who have not lied.


Who Do You Trust will be the question punters will be asked at the next election.

Are you brave enough to respond with an honest answer.

Niether Labor or Liberal Deserve Your Vote.



.

Poll

Would you trust this IDIOT???


"Fellow Earthians,

Never before has the Universe unfolded such a flower as our collective human intelligence, so far as we know.

Nor has such a one-and-only brilliance in the Universe stood at the brink of extinction, so far as we know.

We people of the Earth exist because our potential was there in the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago, as the Universe exploded into being.

So far, it seems like we are the lone thinkers in this vast, expanding Universe.

However, recent astronomy tells us that there are trillions of other planets circling Sunlike stars in the immensity of the Universe, millions of them friendly to life. So why has no one from elsewhere in the Cosmos contacted us?

Surely some people-like animals have evolved elsewhere. Surely we are not, in this crowded reality of countless other similar planets, the only thinking beings to have turned up. Most unlikely! So why isn't life out there contacting us? Why aren't the intergalactic phones ringing?

Here is one sobering possibility for our isolation: maybe life has often evolved to intelligence on other planets with biospheres and every time that intelligence, when it became able to alter its environment, did so with catastrophic consequences. Maybe we have had many predecessors in the Cosmos but all have brought about their own downfall.

That's why they are not communicating with Earth. They have extincted themselves. They have come and gone. And now it's our turn.

Whatever has happened in other worlds, here we are on Earth altering this bountiful biosphere, which has nurtured us from newt to Newton.

Unlike the hapless dinosaurs, which went to utter destruction when a rocky asteroid plunged into Earth sixty-five million years ago, this accelerating catastrophe is of our own making.................."

You missed the most untrustworthy pollie of all time, your mate brown the clown.


Lucky only the truly stupid believe anything he has to say.

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 7:25am:

You missed the most untrustworthy pollie of all time, your mate brown the clown. Lucky only the truly stupid believe anything he has to say.

clearly a poll on the STUPIDEST pollie needs to be held and with a speech liek that, GayBob is a shoe-in.

Yet when asked how is Bob Brown dishonest, the Regressives run for the hills.



meanwhile, the full address

Bob Brown delivers the 3rd annual Green Oration
23 Mar | General
The full text of Bob's speech is below:

http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration


Unlike the old parties, Greens have long term aims for the planet besides destroying in via greed.

Seriously - you need to run a poll to ask if there are Politicians out there you can trust?

Why go to all that trouble when EVERYONE who wasn't born under a cabbage knows the answer to that on every single front.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:18am:

Yet when asked how is Bob Brown dishonest, the Regressives run for the hills. meanwhile, the full address Bob Brown delivers the 3rd annual Green Oration 23 Mar | General The full text of Bob's speech is below: http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration Unlike the old parties, Greens have long term aims for the planet besides destroying in via greed.

then why dont YOU start a poll 'Is Bob Brown dishonest?' or is the outcome too distasteful for you? I see you ahve NEVER asked that question.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be the least trustworthy.

I sure as hell don't trust Gillard. Neither do I trust Brown. Why? He knew very well that Gillard made an iron-clad promise NOT to introduce a carbon tax. Yet he saw the hung parliament as an opportunity to blackmail the gullible Gillard into breaking her promise. Clearly, promises mean little to him.

red baron wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:27am:

Seriously - you need to run a poll to ask if there are Politicians out there you can trust? Why go to all that trouble when EVERYONE who wasn't born under a cabbage knows the answer to that on every single front.

Baby Steps ... once people admit they know Gillard and Abbott are lying to them, then they are to be asked, why reward this behaviour unless they want to be lied to.

Is it a way to remove blame from themselves.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:35am:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:18am: Yet when asked how is Bob Brown dishonest, the Regressives run for the hills. meanwhile, the full address Bob Brown delivers the 3rd annual Green Oration 23 Mar | General The full text of Bob's speech is below: http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration Unlike the old parties, Greens have long term aims for the planet besides destroying in via greed. then why dont YOU start a poll 'Is Bob Brown dishonest?' or is the outcome too distasteful for you? I see you ahve NEVER asked that question.

Longest serving leader and no lies.

Thats why Greens core support is solid.
Green supporters don't like being lied to.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:35am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:18am: Yet when asked how is Bob Brown dishonest, the Regressives run for the hills. meanwhile, the full address Bob Brown delivers the 3rd annual Green Oration 23 Mar | General The full text of Bob's speech is below: http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration Unlike the old parties, Greens have long term aims for the planet besides destroying in via greed. then why dont YOU start a poll 'Is Bob Brown dishonest?' or is the outcome too distasteful for you? I see you ahve NEVER asked that question. Longest serving leader and no lies. Thats why Greens core support is solid. Green supporters don't like being lied to.

What about his ultimatum to Gillard that forced her to break her promise? Clearly, promises mean little if nothing to him.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:44am:

I sure as hell don't trust Gillard. Neither do I trust Brown. Why? He knew very well that Gillard made an iron-clad promise NOT to introduce a carbon tax. Yet he saw the hung parliament as an opportunity to blackmail the gullible Gillard into breaking her promise. Clearly, promises mean little to him.

Incorrect.

Greens MP had stated to the Melbourne electorate that he would support Labor if required, prior to the election.

After the result, Labor new Greens were going to support them.

Greens had no bargaining so did not have leverage.


If you don't believe me, search for yourself.

Have a look at the dishonesty of greens_slime.

The original subject question is "who do you trust"

Then the poll question is "Who is the most dishonest politician"


You are a BLIPPEN dishonest little shi.

Was it on purpose, sure it was.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:48am:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:46am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:35am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:18am: Yet when asked how is Bob Brown dishonest, the Regressives run for the hills. meanwhile, the full address Bob Brown delivers the 3rd annual Green Oration 23 Mar | General The full text of Bob's speech is below: http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration Unlike the old parties, Greens have long term aims for the planet besides destroying in via greed. then why dont YOU start a poll 'Is Bob Brown dishonest?' or is the outcome too distasteful for you? I see you ahve NEVER asked that question. Longest serving leader and no lies. Thats why Greens core support is solid. Green supporters don't like being lied to. What about his ultimatum to Gillard that forced her to break her promise? Clearly, promises mean little if nothing to him.

Ditto to the last Post, Greens had already sided via Adam stating he sided with Labor rather than Liberal.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:50am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:44am: I sure as hell don't trust Gillard. Neither do I trust Brown. Why? He knew very well that Gillard made an iron-clad promise NOT to introduce a carbon tax. Yet he saw the hung parliament as an opportunity to blackmail the gullible Gillard into breaking her promise. Clearly, promises mean little to him. Incorrect. Greens MP had stated to the Melbourne electorate that he would support Labor if required, prior to the election. After the result, Labor new Greens were going to support them. Greens had no bargaining so did not have leverage. If you don't believe me, search for yourself.

Part of the agreement that Gillard signed with Brown to win office following a hung parliament result was that she introduce a carbon tax by a specific date - DESPITE having promised not to do so!

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:51am:

Have a look at the dishonesty of greens_slime. The original subject question is "who do you trust" Then the poll question is "Who is the most dishonest politician" You are a BLIPPEN dishonest little shi. Was it on purpose, sure it was.

Do you trust the most dishonest person ... who do you trust?

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

Longest serving leader and no lies. Thats why Greens core support is solid. Green supporters don't like being lied to.

Except when it comes to protecting the environment, that you are  more than happy to lie about. I told you we Queenslanders never forget and rarely forgive.

As for being rock solid, the QLD election begs to differ.

But since you can't actually recognise a lie when you hear it or tell it, you will continue to post this sort of crap.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:35am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:18am: Yet when asked how is Bob Brown dishonest, the Regressives run for the hills. meanwhile, the full address Bob Brown delivers the 3rd annual Green Oration 23 Mar | General The full text of Bob's speech is below: http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration Unlike the old parties, Greens have long term aims for the planet besides destroying in via greed. then why dont YOU start a poll 'Is Bob Brown dishonest?' or is the outcome too distasteful for you? I see you ahve NEVER asked that question. Longest serving leader and no lies. Thats why Greens core support is solid. Green supporters don't like being lied to.

Who cares if half a dozen or so out of every hundred people think Back Door Bob and his party are the bees knees. The undenialable truth is that the rest of the population DON'T.

They've seen how he plays politics and they don't like it. Why would they trust the leader of a secretive party?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:52am:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:50am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:44am: I sure as hell don't trust Gillard. Neither do I trust Brown. Why? He knew very well that Gillard made an iron-clad promise NOT to introduce a carbon tax. Yet he saw the hung parliament as an opportunity to blackmail the gullible Gillard into breaking her promise. Clearly, promises mean little to him. Incorrect. Greens MP had stated to the Melbourne electorate that he would support Labor if required, prior to the election. After the result, Labor new Greens were going to support them. Greens had no bargaining so did not have leverage. If you don't believe me, search for yourself. Part of the agreement that Gillard signed with Brown to win office following a hung parliament result was that she introduce a carbon tax by a specific date - DESPITE having promised not to do so!

So this is Gillard's issue. not the Greens.



Stop treating Gillard and Abbott as victims of being too stupid in knowing what they do.

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:57am:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:46am: Longest serving leader and no lies. Thats why Greens core support is solid. Green supporters don't like being lied to. Except when it comes to protecting the environment, that you are  more than happy to lie about. I told you we Queenslanders never forget and rarely forgive. As for being rock solid, the QLD election begs to differ. But since you can't actually recognise a lie when you hear it or tell it, you will continue to post this sort of crap.

Bob Brown didn't lie.


The policy was a Labor policy and Greens did not preference the Qld Labor candidate in that seat because they did not support that policy.

Guildford wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:59am:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:46am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:35am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:18am: Yet when asked how is Bob Brown dishonest, the Regressives run for the hills. meanwhile, the full address Bob Brown delivers the 3rd annual Green Oration 23 Mar | General The full text of Bob's speech is below: http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration Unlike the old parties, Greens have long term aims for the planet besides destroying in via greed. then why dont YOU start a poll 'Is Bob Brown dishonest?' or is the outcome too distasteful for you? I see you ahve NEVER asked that question. Longest serving leader and no lies. Thats why Greens core support is solid. Green supporters don't like being lied to. Who cares if half a dozen or so out of every hundred people think Back Door Bob and his party are the bees knees. The undenialable truth is that the rest of the population DON'T. They've seen how he plays politics and they don't like it. Why would they trust the leader of a secretive party?

Because he doesn't lie and 13% of Australians that support the Greens via their primary vote don't desire to be lied to.

Why do Labor and Liberal voters like being lied to.

Do they have suck a low opinion of themselves that they think they don't deserve honesty from their politicians.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 9:02am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:52am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:50am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:44am: I sure as hell don't trust Gillard. Neither do I trust Brown. Why? He knew very well that Gillard made an iron-clad promise NOT to introduce a carbon tax. Yet he saw the hung parliament as an opportunity to blackmail the gullible Gillard into breaking her promise. Clearly, promises mean little to him. Incorrect. Greens MP had stated to the Melbourne electorate that he would support Labor if required, prior to the election. After the result, Labor new Greens were going to support them. Greens had no bargaining so did not have leverage. If you don't believe me, search for yourself. Part of the agreement that Gillard signed with Brown to win office following a hung parliament result was that she introduce a carbon tax by a specific date - DESPITE having promised not to do so! So this is Gillard's issue. not the Greens. Stop treating Gillard and Abbott as victims of being too stupid in knowing what they do.

No, if Brown had an ounce of integrity in him he'd not have demanded a carbon tax in the knowledge that Gillard had promised not to introduce one prior to the election.

You are living in a lala land and you lot should be spray with agent orange

Kenny wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 9:10am:

You are living in a lala land and you lot should be spray with agent orange

You're referring to the Greenies, correct?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 9:08am:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:02am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:52am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:50am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:44am: I sure as hell don't trust Gillard. Neither do I trust Brown. Why? He knew very well that Gillard made an iron-clad promise NOT to introduce a carbon tax. Yet he saw the hung parliament as an opportunity to blackmail the gullible Gillard into breaking her promise. Clearly, promises mean little to him. Incorrect. Greens MP had stated to the Melbourne electorate that he would support Labor if required, prior to the election. After the result, Labor new Greens were going to support them. Greens had no bargaining so did not have leverage. If you don't believe me, search for yourself. Part of the agreement that Gillard signed with Brown to win office following a hung parliament result was that she introduce a carbon tax by a specific date - DESPITE having promised not to do so! So this is Gillard's issue. not the Greens. Stop treating Gillard and Abbott as victims of being too stupid in knowing what they do. No, if Brown had an ounce of integrity in him he'd not have demanded a carbon tax in the knowledge that Gillard had promised not to introduce one prior to the election.

You are so use to voting for a dishonest politician, you expect everyone else to be as low as you.


Greens have had a policy of carbon pricing right through the election campaign. Greens, unlike the old parties, don't sell out and don't sell out their voters.


Greens are the honest party.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 9:04am:

Bob Brown didn't lie. The policy was a Labor policy and Greens did not preference the Qld Labor candidate in that seat because they did not support that policy.

See, this is what is known as a lie of omission.

1. Labor will never ever have any chance of winning that seat, greens support was irrelevant.

2. Greens supported labor in 14 marginal seats

3. Without greens support labor would have never won government

4. The LNP were always against labor on the Mary valley dam and offered to side with the greens to prevent this environmental disaster.

5. The greens could have supported the protection of the Mary valley they actively chose not to.



You are lying scum of the highest order and that's why you lost support in an election where you should have gained massively from labor.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 9:14am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:08am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:02am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:52am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:50am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:44am: I sure as hell don't trust Gillard. Neither do I trust Brown. Why? He knew very well that Gillard made an iron-clad promise NOT to introduce a carbon tax. Yet he saw the hung parliament as an opportunity to blackmail the gullible Gillard into breaking her promise. Clearly, promises mean little to him. Incorrect. Greens MP had stated to the Melbourne electorate that he would support Labor if required, prior to the election. After the result, Labor new Greens were going to support them. Greens had no bargaining so did not have leverage. If you don't believe me, search for yourself. Part of the agreement that Gillard signed with Brown to win office following a hung parliament result was that she introduce a carbon tax by a specific date - DESPITE having promised not to do so! So this is Gillard's issue. not the Greens. Stop treating Gillard and Abbott as victims of being too stupid in knowing what they do. No, if Brown had an ounce of integrity in him he'd not have demanded a carbon tax in the knowledge that Gillard had promised not to introduce one prior to the election. You are so use to voting for a dishonest politician, you expect everyone else to be as low as you. Greens have had a policy of carbon pricing right through the election campaign. Greens, unlike the old parties, don't sell out and don't sell out their voters. Greens are the honest party.

Right, you keep on believing that tripe if you must. There, there.  :D :D :D :D

Kenny wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 9:10am:

You are living in a lala land and you lot should be spray with agent orange

Honesty in the Greens makes the old parties look even worse?

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 9:16am:

Kenny wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:10am: You are living in a lala land and you lot should be spray with agent orange Honesty in the Greens makes the old parties look even worse?

If the Greens are honest, the Pope ain't Catholic...

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:04am: Bob Brown didn't lie. The policy was a Labor policy and Greens did not preference the Qld Labor candidate in that seat because they did not support that policy. See, this is what is known as a lie of omission. 1. Labor will never ever have any chance of winning that seat, greens support was irrelevant. 2. Greens supported labor in 14 marginal seats 3. Without greens support labor would have never won government 4. The LNP were always against labor on the Mary valley dam and offered to side with the greens to prevent this environmental disaster. 5. The greens could have supported the protection of the Mary valley they actively chose not to. You are lying scum of the highest order and that's why you lost support in an election where you should have gained massively from labor.

What the Qld Election a referendum on one issue?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 9:17am:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:16am: Kenny wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:10am: You are living in a lala land and you lot should be spray with agent orange Honesty in the Greens makes the old parties look even worse? If the Greens are honest, the Pope ain't Catholic...

So what is Jerry Pope, anglican?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:52am:

Part of the agreement that Gillard signed with Brown to win office following a hung parliament result was that she introduce a carbon tax by a specific date - DESPITE having promised not to do so!

The agreement at that time was to put a fixed carbon price back on the table for discussion.

A fixed carbon price is very different to what was being refered to as a carbon tax at that time.

Abbnott would have done the same deal to get into government and then a fixed price would not have been a carbon tax and it would not have been undermined in the media on a daily basis for well over a year and people would not be saying that he was a liar because he had broken the same promise.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 9:17am:

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:15am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:04am: Bob Brown didn't lie. The policy was a Labor policy and Greens did not preference the Qld Labor candidate in that seat because they did not support that policy. See, this is what is known as a lie of omission. 1. Labor will never ever have any chance of winning that seat, greens support was irrelevant. 2. Greens supported labor in 14 marginal seats 3. Without greens support labor would have never won government 4. The LNP were always against labor on the Mary valley dam and offered to side with the greens to prevent this environmental disaster. 5. The greens could have supported the protection of the Mary valley they actively chose not to. You are lying scum of the highest order and that's why you lost support in an election where you should have gained massively from labor. What the Qld Election a referendum on one issue?

So you agree that the greens will ignore the environment if it is politically expedient to do so.

The safety of three endangered species was a pretty important issue for most Queenslanders and labor would have lost that election if it had not been for the greens.

The whole 'we care about the environment' must now be a lie, mustn't it?


This is why you lost support in QLD, you are environmental vandals and lying scum.

PRIME CREATOR

http://www.youtube.com/user/ThriveMovement?ob=0&feature=results_main

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1333669722

since greens_liquidated lacks basic integrity, I ahve asked the question for him.

Do you believe the earth is 10,000 years old longy?

This guy explains the greens pretty well and their selfish inward city dwelling way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cjRGee5ipM&feature=player_embedded

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 9:28am:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:17am: BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:15am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:04am: Bob Brown didn't lie. The policy was a Labor policy and Greens did not preference the Qld Labor candidate in that seat because they did not support that policy. See, this is what is known as a lie of omission. 1. Labor will never ever have any chance of winning that seat, greens support was irrelevant. 2. Greens supported labor in 14 marginal seats 3. Without greens support labor would have never won government 4. The LNP were always against labor on the Mary valley dam and offered to side with the greens to prevent this environmental disaster. 5. The greens could have supported the protection of the Mary valley they actively chose not to. You are lying scum of the highest order and that's why you lost support in an election where you should have gained massively from labor. What the Qld Election a referendum on one issue? So you agree that the greens will ignore the environment if it is politically expedient to do so. The safety of three endangered species was a pretty important issue for most Queenslanders and labor would have lost that election if it had not been for the greens. The whole 'we care about the environment' must now be a lie, mustn't it? This is why you lost support in QLD, you are environmental vandals and lying scum.

No I don't agree with your first claim

Now how about answering the question.

Was the election you speak of a referendum on the Dam?

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 10:04am:

No I don't agree with your first claim Now how about answering the question. Was the election you speak of a referendum on the Dam?

You don't have to agree, it is a basic fact not in question, now is it?


The destruction of the Mary Valley was one of the main issues for that election, it was not the sole issue as NO election is, so since your question was constructed in its usual infantile way, I chose to ignore it.

The greens main platform is the environment, it is why they were formed; so why were they so willing to sacrifice the environment for political expediency?

No other issue should have over-ridden the environment as far as the greens were concerned.

This is why the greens lost support in this latest election when they should have cleaned up with disaffected labor voters.

Payback is a b1tch.  ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 10:17am:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 10:04am: No I don't agree with your first claim Now how about answering the question. Was the election you speak of a referendum on the Dam? You don't have to agree, it is a basic fact not in question, now is it? The destruction of the Mary Valley was one of the main issues for that election, it was not the sole issue as NO election is, so since your question was constructed in its usual infantile way, I chose to ignore it. The greens main platform is the environment, it is why they were formed; so why were they so willing to sacrifice the environment for political expediency? No other issue should have over-ridden the environment as far as the greens were concerned. This is why the greens lost support in this latest election when they should have cleaned up with disaffected labor voters. Payback is a b1tch.  ;D

The environment of Queensland, is all of Queensland.

By ignoring the LNP's attack on other part of the environment, are you being ignorant.

Preferences were decided on a wild range of policies, not just the one issue you want to focus on.


The election was not a referendum on the Dam, repeat, not on the dam.


Greens did not preference Labor in that electorate because of the dam.

Now returning to the topic of the thread.


Why to ALP and Liberal voters vote to be lied to.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:35am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:18am: Yet when asked how is Bob Brown dishonest, the Regressives run for the hills. meanwhile, the full address Bob Brown delivers the 3rd annual Green Oration 23 Mar | General The full text of Bob's speech is below: http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration Unlike the old parties, Greens have long term aims for the planet besides destroying in via greed. then why dont YOU start a poll 'Is Bob Brown dishonest?' or is the outcome too distasteful for you? I see you ahve NEVER asked that question. Longest serving leader and no lies. Thats why Greens core support is solid. Green supporters don't like being lied to.

No but you'll prop up a government that wanted to send little kids to Malaysia, sell uranium to India, back flip on pokies reform, doesn't believe in Gay marriage and invites more US troops onto our soil.

The hypocrisy of the Greens stinks.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 6:49am:

. Both current old party leaders lie ... they lie regularly. So to vote for them, you vote to be lied to. Why to you vote to be deceived ... are you rusted on since there are other parties like The Greens, Independents and KAP who have not lied. Who Do You Trust will be the question punters will be asked at the next election. Are you brave enough to respond with an honest answer. Niether Labor or Liberal Deserve Your Vote. .

If society fails to reform bad behavior people turn out like atheists and Greens - morally bankrupt, pushing for Homo marriage and demanding marriage equality for pedo's. :(

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 10:23am:

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 10:17am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 10:04am: No I don't agree with your first claim Now how about answering the question. Was the election you speak of a referendum on the Dam? You don't have to agree, it is a basic fact not in question, now is it? The destruction of the Mary Valley was one of the main issues for that election, it was not the sole issue as NO election is, so since your question was constructed in its usual infantile way, I chose to ignore it. The greens main platform is the environment, it is why they were formed; so why were they so willing to sacrifice the environment for political expediency? No other issue should have over-ridden the environment as far as the greens were concerned. This is why the greens lost support in this latest election when they should have cleaned up with disaffected labor voters. Payback is a b1tch.  ;D The environment of Queensland, is all of Queensland. By ignoring the LNP's attack on other part of the environment, are you being ignorant. Preferences were decided on a wild range of policies, not just the one issue you want to focus on. The election was not a referendum on the Dam, repeat, not on the dam. Greens did not preference Labor in that electorate because of the dam. Now returning to the topic of the thread. Why to ALP and Liberal voters vote to be lied to.

The greens knowingly supported the destruction of the Mary valley, did they also know that labor would approve fracking and coal seam gas extraction on prime agricultural land?


You have been lied to and are too stupid to realise.

FriYAY wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 10:47am:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:46am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:35am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:18am: Yet when asked how is Bob Brown dishonest, the Regressives run for the hills. meanwhile, the full address Bob Brown delivers the 3rd annual Green Oration 23 Mar | General The full text of Bob's speech is below: http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration Unlike the old parties, Greens have long term aims for the planet besides destroying in via greed. then why dont YOU start a poll 'Is Bob Brown dishonest?' or is the outcome too distasteful for you? I see you ahve NEVER asked that question. Longest serving leader and no lies. Thats why Greens core support is solid. Green supporters don't like being lied to. No but you'll prop up a government that wanted to send little kids to Malaysia, sell uranium to India, back flip on pokies reform, doesn't believe in Gay marriage and invites more US troops onto our soil. The hypocrisy of the Greens stinks.

The Greens have stated as has been posted here many times before


the Greens support Labor only in supply and confidence motions except in extreme cases.

None of their policies, only supply and confidence.

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 10:55am:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 10:23am: BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 10:17am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 10:04am: No I don't agree with your first claim Now how about answering the question. Was the election you speak of a referendum on the Dam? You don't have to agree, it is a basic fact not in question, now is it? The destruction of the Mary Valley was one of the main issues for that election, it was not the sole issue as NO election is, so since your question was constructed in its usual infantile way, I chose to ignore it. The greens main platform is the environment, it is why they were formed; so why were they so willing to sacrifice the environment for political expediency? No other issue should have over-ridden the environment as far as the greens were concerned. This is why the greens lost support in this latest election when they should have cleaned up with disaffected labor voters. Payback is a b1tch.  ;D The environment of Queensland, is all of Queensland. By ignoring the LNP's attack on other part of the environment, are you being ignorant. Preferences were decided on a wild range of policies, not just the one issue you want to focus on. The election was not a referendum on the Dam, repeat, not on the dam. Greens did not preference Labor in that electorate because of the dam. Now returning to the topic of the thread. Why to ALP and Liberal voters vote to be lied to. The greens knowingly supported the destruction of the Mary valley, did they also know that labor would approve fracking and coal seam gas extraction on prime agricultural land? You have been lied to and are too stupid to realise.

Will Nationals preference Greens above Liberal and Labor at the next election.

Thanks for reminding me of this. Will ask on twitter.

Wonder if Nats will also support Katter above Libs and Labor.


Bigol, I could kiss you for this free kick you have given the pro moratorium side of the CSG debate.

corporate_whitey wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 10:52am:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 6:49am: . Both current old party leaders lie ... they lie regularly. So to vote for them, you vote to be lied to. Why to you vote to be deceived ... are you rusted on since there are other parties like The Greens, Independents and KAP who have not lied. Who Do You Trust will be the question punters will be asked at the next election. Are you brave enough to respond with an honest answer. Niether Labor or Liberal Deserve Your Vote. . If society fails to reform bad behavior people turn out like atheists and Greens - morally bankrupt, pushing for Homo marriage and demanding marriage equality for pedo's. :(

Pedos can and are married under the heterosexual model of marriage.

So your side supports pedo marriage mister.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 11:01am:

FriYAY wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 10:47am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:46am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:35am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:18am: Yet when asked how is Bob Brown dishonest, the Regressives run for the hills. meanwhile, the full address Bob Brown delivers the 3rd annual Green Oration 23 Mar | General The full text of Bob's speech is below: http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration Unlike the old parties, Greens have long term aims for the planet besides destroying in via greed. then why dont YOU start a poll 'Is Bob Brown dishonest?' or is the outcome too distasteful for you? I see you ahve NEVER asked that question. Longest serving leader and no lies. Thats why Greens core support is solid. Green supporters don't like being lied to. No but you'll prop up a government that wanted to send little kids to Malaysia, sell uranium to India, back flip on pokies reform, doesn't believe in Gay marriage and invites more US troops onto our soil. The hypocrisy of the Greens stinks. The Greens have stated as has been posted here many times before the Greens support Labor only in supply and confidence motions except in extreme cases. None of their policies, only supply and confidence.

The Greens are Labors little bitch. You keep them in power, you reap what you sow in this bastard goverment.

Stinking hypocrisy is all the Greens stand for. :(

tandrums because abbott couldn't get on with anyone.

Abbott empowered the Greens by not being able to negotiate.

Abbott is holding Liberals back. Please please, have him leading your side at the next election.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 11:05am:

Will Nationals preference Greens above Liberal and Labor at the next election. Thanks for reminding me of this. Will ask on twitter. Wonder if Nats will also support Katter above Libs and Labor. Bigol, I could kiss you for this free kick you have given the pro moratorium side of the CSG debate.

The QLD nationals are cowards who will always kowtow to the liberals, so they will do what they are told.

BTW Ill pass on the kiss, I have a fair idea where your mouth has been.

If you want a truly honest pollie, it's Katter, he may be crazy as a cut snake, but he won't be making any shady deals with anyone, especially the greens.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 11:12am:

tandrums because abbott couldn't get on with anyone. Abbott empowered the Greens by not being able to negotiate. Abbott is holding Liberals back. Please please, have him leading your side at the next election.

LOL, hypocrisy and sticking your head in the ground, nice combo.

What's a trandrum?

Abbott is a moron.

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 11:14am:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 11:05am: Will Nationals preference Greens above Liberal and Labor at the next election. Thanks for reminding me of this. Will ask on twitter. Wonder if Nats will also support Katter above Libs and Labor. Bigol, I could kiss you for this free kick you have given the pro moratorium side of the CSG debate. The QLD nationals are cowards who will always kowtow to the liberals, so they will do what they are told. BTW Ill pass on the kiss, I have a fair idea where your mouth has been. If you want a truly honest pollie, it's Katter, he may be crazy as a cut snake, but he won't be making any shady deals with anyone, especially the greens.

Nationals should be booted out ... as should old party members of both Lab and Lib.
And CGS is the issue to achieve this.

Booby never lies??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuSj5DdKmfA

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 11:21am:

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 11:14am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 11:05am: Will Nationals preference Greens above Liberal and Labor at the next election. Thanks for reminding me of this. Will ask on twitter. Wonder if Nats will also support Katter above Libs and Labor. Bigol, I could kiss you for this free kick you have given the pro moratorium side of the CSG debate. The QLD nationals are cowards who will always kowtow to the liberals, so they will do what they are told. BTW Ill pass on the kiss, I have a fair idea where your mouth has been. If you want a truly honest pollie, it's Katter, he may be crazy as a cut snake, but he won't be making any shady deals with anyone, especially the greens. Nationals should be booted out ... as should old party members of both Lab and Lib. And CGS is the issue to achieve this.

The nationals may be cowards, but they are vastly superior to the hypocritical greens.

If you want a new party that is not a bunch dishonest hypocrites and actually care about the environment, then you may want to switch to Katter's mob.

He has never sold out for preferences, unlike your mob.

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 11:30am:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 11:21am: BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 11:14am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 11:05am: Will Nationals preference Greens above Liberal and Labor at the next election. Thanks for reminding me of this. Will ask on twitter. Wonder if Nats will also support Katter above Libs and Labor. Bigol, I could kiss you for this free kick you have given the pro moratorium side of the CSG debate. The QLD nationals are cowards who will always kowtow to the liberals, so they will do what they are told. BTW Ill pass on the kiss, I have a fair idea where your mouth has been. If you want a truly honest pollie, it's Katter, he may be crazy as a cut snake, but he won't be making any shady deals with anyone, especially the greens. Nationals should be booted out ... as should old party members of both Lab and Lib. And CGS is the issue to achieve this. The nationals may be cowards, but they are vastly superior to the hypocritical greens. If you want a new party that is not a bunch dishonest hypocrites and actually care about the environment, then you may want to switch to Katter's mob. He has never sold out for preferences, unlike your mob.

Yet you have not proved this considering the election was not a referendum on one issue. It was a referendum on all policies.


Trying to focus on one just shows your desperation.

matty wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 11:28am:

Booby never lies?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuSj5DdKmfA

They are the coalition of Killers.


1,000,000 civilians dead ... what do you call that, swiss cheese?

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 11:21am:

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 11:14am: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 11:05am: Will Nationals preference Greens above Liberal and Labor at the next election. Thanks for reminding me of this. Will ask on twitter. Wonder if Nats will also support Katter above Libs and Labor. Bigol, I could kiss you for this free kick you have given the pro moratorium side of the CSG debate. The QLD nationals are cowards who will always kowtow to the liberals, so they will do what they are told. BTW Ill pass on the kiss, I have a fair idea where your mouth has been. If you want a truly honest pollie, it's Katter, he may be crazy as a cut snake, but he won't be making any shady deals with anyone, especially the greens. Nationals should be booted out ... as should old party members of both Lab and Lib. And CGS is the issue to achieve this.

like how it worked out at the recent QLD election where the lnp got a record makority and he greens had 10% lopped off their already insignificant vote?

The GREENS didn't do well in Queenshicksville. ;D ;D ;D god you're an idiot.

skippy. wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

The GREENS didn't do well in Queenshicksville. ;D ;D ;D god you're an idiot.

excuse me? youare saying the Greens didnt do well in QLD... hmm exactly what I said. did it really hurt that much to agree with me?

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 11:38am:

Yet you have not proved this considering the election was not a referendum on one issue. It was a referendum on all policies. Trying to focus on one just shows your desperation.

You are correct, that is why the greens and labor got hammered in this election based on their policies, they are both environmental vandals and scumbag liars.


We know what the greens did and they are paying the price for their duplicity and lies.

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:36pm:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 11:38am: Yet you have not proved this considering the election was not a referendum on one issue. It was a referendum on all policies. Trying to focus on one just shows your desperation. You are correct, that is why the greens and labor got hammered in this election based on their policies, they are both environmental vandals and scumbag liars. We know what the greens did and they are paying the price for their duplicity and lies.

By increasing 1 to 13% in the last national poll, last week?


correction
This week

The really pathetic (and hilarious for Conservatives like myself) ting is that the Greens didn't even get close to winning a seat, in an election where Labor has had its worst defeat in HISTORY. Labor's primary vote dropped by 15.6%, and the Greens couldn't capitalise enough to win even a single seat. This shows that the LNP, and Coalition more genereally (see NSW last year as well, for example) are picking up the vast, vast majority of disaffected and dissatisfied Labor voters.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:30pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:04pm: The GREENS didn't do well in Queenshicksville. ;D ;D ;D god you're an idiot. excuse me? youare saying the Greens didnt do well in QLD... hmm exactly what I said. did it really hurt that much to agree with me?

The difference is you're saying it as though its a surprise. The GREENS would never expect to do well in redneck states, so before you say anything I'll make a bold prediction, the GREENS will not do well in WA either. ::)

By the way, it has been confirmed today that the LNP has 78 seats, and Labor 7. The last seat in doubt went to the LNP, ater Labor requested a recount. So, Labor wins only 7 seats, and the Greens don't even get close to second place in any seat. What's more, they tought that they has a chance in Mount Coot-tha. Delusional. Abslutely delusional, that sums up the Greens.

Let's see how well they do in the NT later this year, then WA early next year.

matty wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:43pm:

The really pathetic (and hilarious for Conservatives like myself) ting is that the Greens didn't even get close to winning a seat, in an election where Labor has had its worst defeat in HISTORY. Labor's primary vote dropped by 15.6%, and the Greens couldn't capitalise enough to win even a single seat. This shows that the LNP, and Coalition more genereally (see NSW last year as well, for example) are picking up the vast, vast majority of disaffected and dissatisfied Labor voters.

Obviously Queenslanders are a little more logical than you matty. Their state election system rewards the two larger parties while discriminates against smaller parties.

Even against this background and the massive swing against progressive politics in Queensland, Greens vote increased 20% on the final primary poll released on the day of the election.

A stunning result.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:42pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:36pm: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 11:38am: Yet you have not proved this considering the election was not a referendum on one issue. It was a referendum on all policies. Trying to focus on one just shows your desperation. You are correct, that is why the greens and labor got hammered in this election based on their policies, they are both environmental vandals and scumbag liars. We know what the greens did and they are paying the price for their duplicity and lies. By increasing 1 to 13% in the last national poll, last week? correction This week

Yeah, lets ignore reality and go with that.  ;D

The greens LOST 10% of their feeble vote because they are liars and enviro vandals, in an election they should have got at least as many as Katter.

It is this dishonesty that voters despise in pollies and more-so in the ones that claim to be the only honest pollie in parliament.

The greens have proven themselves to be dishonest and they are reaping the 'rewards' of selling out the Mary Valley.

skippy. wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:30pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:04pm: The GREENS didn't do well in Queenshicksville. ;D ;D ;D god you're an idiot. excuse me? youare saying the Greens didnt do well in QLD... hmm exactly what I said. did it really hurt that much to agree with me? The difference is you're saying it as though its a surprise. The GREENS would never expect to do well in redneck states, so before you say anything I'll make a bold prediction, the GREENS will not do well in WA either. ::)

Qld Greens increased their vote on election day by 20% on the last poll taken before the election. A Stunning result in a tide against progressive parties in the state.

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:48pm:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:42pm: BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:36pm: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 11:38am: Yet you have not proved this considering the election was not a referendum on one issue. It was a referendum on all policies. Trying to focus on one just shows your desperation. You are correct, that is why the greens and labor got hammered in this election based on their policies, they are both environmental vandals and scumbag liars. We know what the greens did and they are paying the price for their duplicity and lies. By increasing 1 to 13% in the last national poll, last week? correction This week Yeah, lets ignore reality and go with that.  ;D The greens LOST 10% of their feeble vote because they are liars and enviro vandals, in an election they should have got at least as many as Katter. It is this dishonesty that voters despise in pollies and more-so in the ones that claim to be the only honest pollie in parliament. The greens have proven themselves to be dishonest and they are reaping the 'rewards' of selling out the Mary Valley.

Did the Mary Valley Dam go ahead?

matty wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:45pm:

Let's see how well they do in the NT later this year, then WA early next year.

And the ACT?

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:30pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:04pm: The GREENS didn't do well in Queenshicksville. ;D ;D ;D god you're an idiot. excuse me? youare saying the Greens didnt do well in QLD... hmm exactly what I said. did it really hurt that much to agree with me? The difference is you're saying it as though its a surprise. The GREENS would never expect to do well in redneck states, so before you say anything I'll make a bold prediction, the GREENS will not do well in WA either. ::) Qld Greens increased their vote on election day by 20% on the last poll taken before the election. A Stunning result in a tide against progressive parties in the state.

So even a redneck backwater like QLD the GREENS are doing much better than expected it seems.

matty wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:45pm:

By the way, it has been confirmed today that the LNP has 78 seats, and Labor 7. The last seat in doubt went to the LNP, ater Labor requested a recount. So, Labor wins only 7 seats, and the Greens don't even get close to second place in any seat. What's more, they tought that they has a chance in Mount Coot-tha. Delusional. Abslutely delusional, that sums up the Greens.

Is that why the regressive posters here are running scared

skippy. wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:30pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:04pm: The GREENS didn't do well in Queenshicksville. ;D ;D ;D god you're an idiot. excuse me? youare saying the Greens didnt do well in QLD... hmm exactly what I said. did it really hurt that much to agree with me? The difference is you're saying it as though its a surprise. The GREENS would never expect to do well in redneck states, so before you say anything I'll make a bold prediction, the GREENS will not do well in WA either. ::)

You have a ready made excuse for every failure of the greens, don't you?

The greens don't do well in ANY state outside of taswegia and the less said about that place the better.

The greens failed miserably in QLD because they supported environmental vandalism in QLD.


They are dishonest in the extreme, having brown the clown say one thing and doing the exact opposite behind closed doors.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:43pm: The really pathetic (and hilarious for Conservatives like myself) ting is that the Greens didn't even get close to winning a seat, in an election where Labor has had its worst defeat in HISTORY. Labor's primary vote dropped by 15.6%, and the Greens couldn't capitalise enough to win even a single seat. This shows that the LNP, and Coalition more genereally (see NSW last year as well, for example) are picking up the vast, vast majority of disaffected and dissatisfied Labor voters. Obviously Queenslanders are a little more logical than you matty. Their state election system rewards the two larger parties while discriminates against smaller parties. Even against this background and the massive swing against progressive politics in Queensland, Greens vote increased 20% on the final primary poll released on the day of the election. A stunning result.

A "stunning' result? This is why you guys will never get anywhere. Face facts. As far as I am aware, the Greens only received 20% or more of the primary vote in one single booth, Mount Cot-tha, and that was a drop from last election (23.5% to 20.5%). The Greens' vote overall dropped from 8.4% in 2009, to 7.5% election.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:45pm: Let's see how well they do in the NT later this year, then WA early next year. And the ACT?

Yes, the ACT will probably have a couple of Greens.

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:30pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:04pm: The GREENS didn't do well in Queenshicksville. ;D ;D ;D god you're an idiot. excuse me? youare saying the Greens didnt do well in QLD... hmm exactly what I said. did it really hurt that much to agree with me? The difference is you're saying it as though its a surprise. The GREENS would never expect to do well in redneck states, so before you say anything I'll make a bold prediction, the GREENS will not do well in WA either. ::) You have a ready made excuse for every failure of the greens, don't you? The greens don't do well in ANY state outside of taswegia and the less said about that place the better. The greens failed miserably in QLD because they supported environmental vandalism in QLD. They are dishonest in the extreme, having brown the clown say one thing and doing the exact opposite behind closed doors.

So why did Queensland selecte a Greens Senator in the last federal election?

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:45pm: By the way, it has been confirmed today that the LNP has 78 seats, and Labor 7. The last seat in doubt went to the LNP, ater Labor requested a recount. So, Labor wins only 7 seats, and the Greens don't even get close to second place in any seat. What's more, they tought that they has a chance in Mount Coot-tha. Delusional. Abslutely delusional, that sums up the Greens. Is that why the regressive posters here are running scared

What do you mean?

matty wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:55pm:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:47pm: matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:43pm: The really pathetic (and hilarious for Conservatives like myself) ting is that the Greens didn't even get close to winning a seat, in an election where Labor has had its worst defeat in HISTORY. Labor's primary vote dropped by 15.6%, and the Greens couldn't capitalise enough to win even a single seat. This shows that the LNP, and Coalition more genereally (see NSW last year as well, for example) are picking up the vast, vast majority of disaffected and dissatisfied Labor voters. Obviously Queenslanders are a little more logical than you matty. Their state election system rewards the two larger parties while discriminates against smaller parties. Even against this background and the massive swing against progressive politics in Queensland, Greens vote increased 20% on the final primary poll released on the day of the election. A stunning result. A "stunning' result? This is why you guys will never get anywhere. Face facts. As far as I am aware, the Greens only received 20% or more of the primary vote in one single booth, Mount Cot-tha, and that was a drop from last election (23.5% to 20.5%). The Greens' vote overall dropped from 8.4% in 2009, to 7.5% election.

In the environment of a mass swing against progressives.

Days prior, the swing against the Qld Greens looked disasterous ~ 5-6%

Yet Qld Greens came through in good shape.


Woo Hoo Qld Greens

matty wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:53pm: matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:45pm: By the way, it has been confirmed today that the LNP has 78 seats, and Labor 7. The last seat in doubt went to the LNP, ater Labor requested a recount. So, Labor wins only 7 seats, and the Greens don't even get close to second place in any seat. What's more, they tought that they has a chance in Mount Coot-tha. Delusional. Abslutely delusional, that sums up the Greens. Is that why the regressive posters here are running scared What do you mean?

Quote:

I think you mean gaybob has only been REPORTED a few times until the last election. Up until then, his opinion rated for very little so his lies were not comented on.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1333669722


Longweekend thinks Bob Brown should be watched since he in now powerful.

As does Abbott.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:53pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:30pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:04pm: The GREENS didn't do well in Queenshicksville. ;D ;D ;D god you're an idiot. excuse me? youare saying the Greens didnt do well in QLD... hmm exactly what I said. did it really hurt that much to agree with me? The difference is you're saying it as though its a surprise. The GREENS would never expect to do well in redneck states, so before you say anything I'll make a bold prediction, the GREENS will not do well in WA either. ::) You have a ready made excuse for every failure of the greens, don't you? The greens don't do well in ANY state outside of taswegia and the less said about that place the better. The greens failed miserably in QLD because they supported environmental vandalism in QLD. They are dishonest in the extreme, having brown the clown say one thing and doing the exact opposite behind closed doors. So why did Queensland selecte a Greens Senator in the last federal election?

As I said 10% of the voting public are intellectual feebs, even here in QLD, along with a willingness to do anything for a vote a preference deal, I'm surprised we didn't get one earlier.

But that filthy greens POS prolly won't be there when she comes up for re-election. Like I said we don't don't f#ck are with lying scumbags.

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:30pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:04pm: The GREENS didn't do well in Queenshicksville. ;D ;D ;D god you're an idiot. excuse me? youare saying the Greens didnt do well in QLD... hmm exactly what I said. did it really hurt that much to agree with me? The difference is you're saying it as though its a surprise. The GREENS would never expect to do well in redneck states, so before you say anything I'll make a bold prediction, the GREENS will not do well in WA either. ::) You have a ready made excuse for every failure of the greens, don't you? The greens don't do well in ANY state outside of taswegia and the less said about that place the better. The greens failed miserably in QLD because they supported environmental vandalism in QLD. They are dishonest in the extreme, having brown the clown say one thing and doing the exact opposite behind closed doors.

LOL a great example of why Qlders are considered inbred fools, keep up the good work nuffy.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:00pm:

matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:55pm: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:47pm: matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:43pm: The really pathetic (and hilarious for Conservatives like myself) ting is that the Greens didn't even get close to winning a seat, in an election where Labor has had its worst defeat in HISTORY. Labor's primary vote dropped by 15.6%, and the Greens couldn't capitalise enough to win even a single seat. This shows that the LNP, and Coalition more genereally (see NSW last year as well, for example) are picking up the vast, vast majority of disaffected and dissatisfied Labor voters. Obviously Queenslanders are a little more logical than you matty. Their state election system rewards the two larger parties while discriminates against smaller parties. Even against this background and the massive swing against progressive politics in Queensland, Greens vote increased 20% on the final primary poll released on the day of the election. A stunning result. A "stunning' result? This is why you guys will never get anywhere. Face facts. As far as I am aware, the Greens only received 20% or more of the primary vote in one single booth, Mount Cot-tha, and that was a drop from last election (23.5% to 20.5%). The Greens' vote overall dropped from 8.4% in 2009, to 7.5% election. In the environment of a mass swing against progressives. Days prior, the swing against the Qld Greens looked disasterous ~ 5-6% Yet Qld Greens came through in good shape. Woo Hoo Qld Greens

I feel sorry for you. You are certifiably delusional.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:01pm:

matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:57pm: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:53pm: matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:45pm: By the way, it has been confirmed today that the LNP has 78 seats, and Labor 7. The last seat in doubt went to the LNP, ater Labor requested a recount. So, Labor wins only 7 seats, and the Greens don't even get close to second place in any seat. What's more, they tought that they has a chance in Mount Coot-tha. Delusional. Abslutely delusional, that sums up the Greens. Is that why the regressive posters here are running scared What do you mean? Quote: I think you mean gaybob has only been REPORTED a few times until the last election. Up until then, his opinion rated for very little so his lies were not comented on. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1333669722 Longweekend thinks Bob Brown should be watched since he in now powerful. As does Abbott.

;D

Question for Green supporters - why are pretty much all ex-Labor voters turning to the Coalition, and not to the Greens?

matty wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:10pm:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:01pm: matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:57pm: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:53pm: matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:45pm: By the way, it has been confirmed today that the LNP has 78 seats, and Labor 7. The last seat in doubt went to the LNP, ater Labor requested a recount. So, Labor wins only 7 seats, and the Greens don't even get close to second place in any seat. What's more, they tought that they has a chance in Mount Coot-tha. Delusional. Abslutely delusional, that sums up the Greens. Is that why the regressive posters here are running scared What do you mean? Quote: I think you mean gaybob has only been REPORTED a few times until the last election. Up until then, his opinion rated for very little so his lies were not comented on. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1333669722 Longweekend thinks Bob Brown should be watched since he in now powerful. As does Abbott. ;D

You regressives have thrown everything at the Greens and we are still standing.


Now if you regressives do preference Gillard for another term by preferencing Greens last and Greens hold on or even gain ground.


Does that mean you have nothing left to stop the growth of the Greens?

skippy. wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:05pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:53pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:30pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:04pm: The GREENS didn't do well in Queenshicksville. ;D ;D ;D god you're an idiot. excuse me? youare saying the Greens didnt do well in QLD... hmm exactly what I said. did it really hurt that much to agree with me? The difference is you're saying it as though its a surprise. The GREENS would never expect to do well in redneck states, so before you say anything I'll make a bold prediction, the GREENS will not do well in WA either. ::) You have a ready made excuse for every failure of the greens, don't you? The greens don't do well in ANY state outside of taswegia and the less said about that place the better. The greens failed miserably in QLD because they supported environmental vandalism in QLD. They are dishonest in the extreme, having brown the clown say one thing and doing the exact opposite behind closed doors. LOL a great example of why Qlders are considered inbred fools, keep up the good work nuffy.

Only by southern feebs who use ad hominem instead of a valid strategy to win an argument.  ;D

You sit there in your little rust belt state, basking in the belief that you're smart.  ;D


Maybe you should argue against some of the lesser intellects in future, that way you won't have to resort to personal attack so quick.

matty wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:11pm:

Question for Green supporters - why are pretty much all ex-Labor voters turning to the Coalition, and not to the Greens?

I am not a greens supporter but it is because they like the majority of our popualtion wether it be lib or lab supporters fail to look past the present rather then look at past and future.
If they were smart they would give up on the endless struggle of hoping the next person or party in power might be the answer, each time crushing disappointment until next election where they hope and hope again.

matty wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:11pm:

Question for Green supporters - why are pretty much all ex-Labor voters turning to the Coalition, and not to the Greens?

Are you talking federally?


or generally?

matty wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:11pm:

Question for Green supporters - why are pretty much all ex-Labor voters turning to the Coalition, and not to the Greens?

I give up..why are all Labor voters turning to the ultra conservatives?

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:13pm:

matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:10pm: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:01pm: matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:57pm: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:53pm: matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:45pm: By the way, it has been confirmed today that the LNP has 78 seats, and Labor 7. The last seat in doubt went to the LNP, ater Labor requested a recount. So, Labor wins only 7 seats, and the Greens don't even get close to second place in any seat. What's more, they tought that they has a chance in Mount Coot-tha. Delusional. Abslutely delusional, that sums up the Greens. Is that why the regressive posters here are running scared What do you mean? Quote: I think you mean gaybob has only been REPORTED a few times until the last election. Up until then, his opinion rated for very little so his lies were not comented on. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1333669722 Longweekend thinks Bob Brown should be watched since he in now powerful. As does Abbott. ;D You regressives have thrown everything at the Greens and we are still standing. Now if you regressives do preference Gillard for another term by preferencing Greens last and Greens hold on or even gain ground. Does that mean you have nothing left to stop the growth of the Greens?

You ARE taking the piss, right?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:15pm:

matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:11pm: Question for Green supporters - why are pretty much all ex-Labor voters turning to the Coalition, and not to the Greens? I am not a greens supporter but it is because they like the majority of our popualtion wether it be lib or lab supporters fail to look past the present rather then look at past and future. If they were smart they would give up on the endless struggle of hoping the next person or party in power might be the answer, each time crushing disappointment until next election where they hope and hope again.

Yes, John Howard was do disappointing. That's why he was elected 4 times.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:17pm:

matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:11pm: Question for Green supporters - why are pretty much all ex-Labor voters turning to the Coalition, and not to the Greens? Are you talking federally? or generally?

Generally.

adelcrow wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:11pm: Question for Green supporters - why are pretty much all ex-Labor voters turning to the Coalition, and not to the Greens? I give up..why are all Labor voters turning to the ultra conservatives?

No, the vast majority of ex-Labor voters are turning to the Liberals and Nationals, not these ultra conservatives', to whomever you are referring.

matty wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:21pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:15pm: matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:11pm: Question for Green supporters - why are pretty much all ex-Labor voters turning to the Coalition, and not to the Greens? I am not a greens supporter but it is because they like the majority of our popualtion wether it be lib or lab supporters fail to look past the present rather then look at past and future. If they were smart they would give up on the endless struggle of hoping the next person or party in power might be the answer, each time crushing disappointment until next election where they hope and hope again. Yes, John Howard was do disappointing. That's why he was elected 4 times.

When it comes to important issues both liberal and labour go the same way, John Howard did some pretty messed up stuff but he was a war time prime minister, of course he would get re-elected they always do.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:23pm:

When it comes to important issues both liberal and labour go the same way, John Howard did some pretty messed up stuff but he was a war time prime minister, of course he would get re-elected they always do.

Except if they're robert menzies.

You know, even if you have failed high school history, you can always do a google search before posting.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:23pm:

matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:21pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:15pm: matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:11pm: Question for Green supporters - why are pretty much all ex-Labor voters turning to the Coalition, and not to the Greens? I am not a greens supporter but it is because they like the majority of our popualtion wether it be lib or lab supporters fail to look past the present rather then look at past and future. If they were smart they would give up on the endless struggle of hoping the next person or party in power might be the answer, each time crushing disappointment until next election where they hope and hope again. Yes, John Howard was do disappointing. That's why he was elected 4 times. When it comes to important issues both liberal and labour go the same way, John Howard did some pretty messed up stuff but he was a war time prime minister, of course he would get re-elected they always do.

;D ;D ;D ;D Hey puppet whos pulling your strings  JULIA  or is she tugging on something else   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

Except if they're robert menzies. You know, even if you have failed high school history, you can always do a google search before posting.

In more modern times they do

matty wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:19pm:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:13pm: matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:10pm: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:01pm: matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:57pm: ____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:53pm: matty wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:45pm: By the way, it has been confirmed today that the LNP has 78 seats, and Labor 7. The last seat in doubt went to the LNP, ater Labor requested a recount. So, Labor wins only 7 seats, and the Greens don't even get close to second place in any seat. What's more, they tought that they has a chance in Mount Coot-tha. Delusional. Abslutely delusional, that sums up the Greens. Is that why the regressive posters here are running scared What do you mean? Quote: I think you mean gaybob has only been REPORTED a few times until the last election. Up until then, his opinion rated for very little so his lies were not comented on. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1333669722 Longweekend thinks Bob Brown should be watched since he in now powerful. As does Abbott. ;D You regressives have thrown everything at the Greens and we are still standing. Now if you regressives do preference Gillard for another term by preferencing Greens last and Greens hold on or even gain ground. Does that mean you have nothing left to stop the growth of the Greens? You ARE taking the piss, right?

No


The right wing media, some of the billionaires, the shock jocks, the regressive side of politics ... and Greens support across the country is still increasing.

What if your very last weapon, preferencing Gillard and Labor federally,  doesn't work in shaking our growing core support base.

Doesn't work and returns Gillard into government.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:32pm:

Quote: Except if they're robert menzies. You know, even if you have failed high school history, you can always do a google search before posting. In more modern times they do

Since we have only been in essentially one 'war' since Vietnam it still a pretty silly statement. If however you include Vietnam in 'modern times' then you might want to consider:

Harold Holt
John Mc Ewan
John Gorton
Billy Mc Mahon
Gough Witlam

All of which were in the top job during the Vietnam conflict, but it is your story.

skippy. wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:30pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:04pm: The GREENS didn't do well in Queenshicksville. ;D ;D ;D god you're an idiot. excuse me? youare saying the Greens didnt do well in QLD... hmm exactly what I said. did it really hurt that much to agree with me? The difference is you're saying it as though its a surprise. The GREENS would never expect to do well in redneck states, so before you say anything I'll make a bold prediction, the GREENS will not do well in WA either. ::)

like they diid poorly in VIc an NSW?? hardly redneck states.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 2:01pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:30pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:04pm: The GREENS didn't do well in Queenshicksville. ;D ;D ;D god you're an idiot. excuse me? youare saying the Greens didnt do well in QLD... hmm exactly what I said. did it really hurt that much to agree with me? The difference is you're saying it as though its a surprise. The GREENS would never expect to do well in redneck states, so before you say anything I'll make a bold prediction, the GREENS will not do well in WA either. ::) like they diid poorly in VIc an NSW?? hardly redneck states.

They also didn't do poor, but keep up your lies, we expect that from losers like you.Most of the GREENS focus has been on upper house seats, and we do very well at it. Though if you wanted to count actual votes, they get more than the Nationals in total votes, so I suppose you think the Nats are failure too, nuff nuff.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 2:01pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:30pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:04pm: The GREENS didn't do well in Queenshicksville. ;D ;D ;D god you're an idiot. excuse me? youare saying the Greens didnt do well in QLD... hmm exactly what I said. did it really hurt that much to agree with me? The difference is you're saying it as though its a surprise. The GREENS would never expect to do well in redneck states, so before you say anything I'll make a bold prediction, the GREENS will not do well in WA either. ::) like they diid poorly in VIc an NSW?? hardly redneck states.

Greens increased their vote. Poorly only to regressive thinking posters.

____ wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 2:01pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:30pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:04pm: The GREENS didn't do well in Queenshicksville. ;D ;D ;D god you're an idiot. excuse me? youare saying the Greens didnt do well in QLD... hmm exactly what I said. did it really hurt that much to agree with me? The difference is you're saying it as though its a surprise. The GREENS would never expect to do well in redneck states, so before you say anything I'll make a bold prediction, the GREENS will not do well in WA either. ::) like they diid poorly in VIc an NSW?? hardly redneck states. Greens increased their vote. Poorly only to regressive thinking posters.

every vote since the august 2010 elections has showed a LOWER vote for the greens. tough luck supporting losers.

I'll be surprised if anyone votes for Gillard in her own electorate given her propensity to just plain outright lie.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 3:58pm:

____ wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 2:14pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 2:01pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:30pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:04pm: The GREENS didn't do well in Queenshicksville. ;D ;D ;D god you're an idiot. excuse me? youare saying the Greens didnt do well in QLD... hmm exactly what I said. did it really hurt that much to agree with me? The difference is you're saying it as though its a surprise. The GREENS would never expect to do well in redneck states, so before you say anything I'll make a bold prediction, the GREENS will not do well in WA either. ::) like they diid poorly in VIc an NSW?? hardly redneck states. Greens increased their vote. Poorly only to regressive thinking posters. every vote since the august 2010 elections has showed a LOWER vote for the greens. tough luck supporting losers.

A unicycle has more seats than QLD Greens do...