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


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.

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


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...

|\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!

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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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 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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

||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 8:30pm:



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


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..

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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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?

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


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!?