Australian Politics Forum - Liberal Democratic Party

BobH

Moderator

Offline

Posts: 174

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #90 - 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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #91 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:54pm

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

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 1^st, 2010 at 9:25pm:

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

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 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?

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...

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #92 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:58pm

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

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

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #93 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:58pm

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.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #94 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:00pm

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?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

mozzaok Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 6741 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Liberal Democratic Party Reply #95 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:01pm Quote: I disliek all posters who attack the messenger rather than the mesage. Thanks for that longy
Back to top	OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma! IP Logged

BobH

Moderator

Offline

Posts: 174

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #96 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:02pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: Liberal Democratic Party Reply #97 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:03pm 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?
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #98 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:03pm

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

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

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. Angry

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #99 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:07pm

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

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

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

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. Angry

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.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

BobH

Moderator

Offline

Posts: 174

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #100 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:11pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #101 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:13pm

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.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

mozzaok Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 6741 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Liberal Democratic Party Reply #102 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:15pm 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?
Back to top	OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma! IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #103 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:15pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #104 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:15pm

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

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.

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.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged