Search results

More vilification. Top work. ;)

I love it when you conservatives revert to the personal vilification. :p

Yes, it will certainly be excruciating to observe. I trust you'll be among the first to howl for his head on that day, Aaron.

Well, I don't whether that's correct or not, but it certainly appears to be an idea growing on Mr Abbott's mind for his own gaping budgetary void.

That's true. And what I said was, How could it be difficult to maintain that rage if the carbon tax was so pernicious to the public's wellbeing? And you replied that you'd never said such a thing. Which is kind of bizarre, even for you, I'd submit. Now you say, Not all of it, Mr...

Oh dear. It looks like we're already moving into the old "core and non-core promises" territory with Tony Baloney. That was a lot quicker than I expected! Translation: I'll just keep them for a bit. article here (It does go to show that Dazz's faux pas at the outset of this thread...

Hence the ETS - the last two letters translated mean non-communist.

But we have a preferential system not a 2pp-only system, meaning too many critical seats were being lost, like Tanner's in Melb.

Some of you may recall that there was strong public support for an ETS before the GFC hit. The Gillard Labor leadership team bought into the CT to stop losing votes to the Greens after Rudd's backsliding on the bipartisan-supported ETS. The Coalition jumped to the opposite direction...

A bit of a hypothetical question for you, Dazz, in light of what you say above - If you had to choose between Costello or Abbott as leader of the federal Liberal Party, right now, which one would you choose? (As it sounds like Michael Kroeger for one is quite prepared to go past his old...

Dude, I don't think anything about me could interest an imagination like yours. I'm just normal.

But you are saying that Turnbull and Gore don't actually believe the AGW thesis. They are in fact simply spreading unwarranted alarm to get rich. Right? That's just freakin' wow!

Turnbull, Gore etc are AGW for the money? Please explain. What money? This is an entirely unknown and fascinating dimension of the issue to me. Do elaborate.

Okay. Let me just try to get this straight. There is a rational AGW position - ala Turnbull & Gore - that is pro-business and non-socialist. There is an irrational AGW position - ala their foot soldiers - that is anti-business and socialist. Is this what you are saying, Sunfish?

It's just that we do see people throw around labels like socialist and communist loudly a lot on forums, but these people never define them. If I use such labels I try to carefully define them, because then people know exactly how to unpack my arguments and disagree with me constructively...

Such tolerance of opinions that don't tally with yours. How very democratic of you, Dazz. Tony would be proud.

Your argument here actually gets right to the point that I think Dazz raised when he said in his first post "it will be hard to maintain the rage that long" (or words to that effect) when considering it might take up to 3 years to repeal the carbon tax legislation. Fair enough at one level...

Sunfish ol' boot, I'm a bit daft as you know, so could you just explain for me specifically how the carbon tax (we can do the mining tax later if you like) is a socialist redristribution of wealth tax? Because I'm stumped by that claim. Seriously.

Now that's horrid and hurtful. I'm putting you on "ignore". There!

No, still struggling through Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity myself. Heard anything back from NASA yet?