Victorian state election Nov 29 2014

[property_girl]

Feminists have a long history of suppressing or attempting to suppress anyone who doesn't conform to their very narrow views.

As such, anyone (or any party) that supports the free expression of ideas is anti-feminist,

Quoting yourself? Obviously someone is bursting at the seams to 'freely express' himself without worrying about whether someone may be harmed by his free speech.

The KKK also likes to express its views, as do the Holocaust deniers. Free expression carries with it responsibility. That concept is difficult for some to understand.

Feminists. Yes, of course-look at Gloria Steinem. She has only ever tried to 'suppress' people's views. Why, just last year she held a forum for men who had been the victims of sexual abuse. Perfect example of suppression because they 'didn't conform to her very narrow views.'

 

[hobo-jo]

Hobo Jo, yes, I've read their page, but it's semantics really. The Libs have a laissez faire, hands off style of governing, but at least they accept we are part of a global community and that if want to be taken seriously on the world stage we have to live up to our responsibilities. God help Australia if LDP gets up; we'll be an international joke.

To suggest Liberal are hands off is an absolute joke. Labor and Liberal are both so centrist that you can barely tell them apart. Promises made that lean too far to the left or right are usually the "non-core" promises that aren't kept post election. In the 2013 election Labor under Kevin Rudd was stealing all the Liberal sound bites to try and win. Liberal promised to fix the budget and "cut" spending, which was really nothing more than shuffling around some numbers (no nominal cut in spending). It's all a big joke and gives the illusion of choice when there really isn't any between the two major parties. That is why people are voting for these smaller parties, they're fed up with the status quo and being lied to.

Many of the LDP policies relating to individual liberty are already implemented in well respected countries, but I don't think the freedom of a nations constituents should be compromised so we can "look good" on the global stage.

Feminists have a long history of suppressing or attempting to suppress anyone who doesn't conform to their very narrow views.

As such, anyone (or any party) that supports the free expression of ideas is anti-feminist,

That is a very pi$$ poor conclusion and explanation. You could equally argue that feminist groups rallying for the civil rights of women in societies where they don't have such freedoms are aligned with LDP views, so they are pro-feminist.

Really they are not pro or anti feminist, some of their positions/policies may act in support of or against the agendas of various feminist groups based on the nature of what they're pushing for.

 

[Scott No Mates]

They're only in it to f*** up the status quo.

 

[property_girl]

To suggest Liberal are hands off is an absolute joke. Labor and Liberal are both so centrist that you can barely tell them apart. Promises made that lean too far to the left or right are usually the "non-core" promises that aren't kept post election. In the 2013 election Labor under Kevin Rudd was stealing all the Liberal sound bites to try and win. Liberal promised to fix the budget and "cut" spending, which was really nothing more than shuffling around some numbers (no nominal cut in spending). It's all a big joke and gives the illusion of choice when there really isn't any between the two major parties. That is why people are voting for these smaller parties, they're fed up with the status quo and being lied to.

Many of the LDP policies relating to individual liberty are already implemented in well respected countries, but I don't think the freedom of a nations constituents should be compromised so we can "look good" on the global stage.
.

The Libs are pretty hands off. I don't know how much more laissez faire you want them to be, unless you simply don't want them to govern. How much more right do you want them to go?

During the Hawke-Keating years, the standing joke was that the Libs had no policies and, when they did, they were stolen from Labor. I'm no fan of Rudd, so I won't comment on him. They all have the same pot of money to work with. Not sure what you mean when you say that there isn't much between the major parties. If you look at their policies and their philosophies, thI are very different.

Do you really think the LDP won't lie to you? I'm not sure the freedoms you're talking about. I think we're a pretty free country. If you are talking about the right to bear arms, that has worked really well for the US--not.

When you're a non-significant party like the LDP, you can have any policies you want, because you know that the chances of your ever getting into power and actually implementing them are close to zilch. How would the LDP fund any of their policies if they're not going to tax people?

Whether you like it or not, good governments actually govern. Noone is talking about compromising the freedom of people so that we can look good on the world stage. It's a fact: if we got a government whose prime policy was NOT to govern; NOT to be part of the world community and live up to our international responsibilities regarding foreign aid; NOT to have a defence force that can participate when the world needs us; put your head in the sand re. global warming, we'd be a laughing stock.

 

[property_girl]

Cjay put me on to the LDP. Seem pretty damn good.

Pro-Guns, Anti-Feminist. Now that's a party I am willing to support.

These damn feminists who go to work, pay their taxes, raise children and, God forbid, buy property!

 

[hobo-jo]

How much more right do you want them to go?

The problem is you're only thinking in terms off left and right, when there's a larger spectrum in play.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyEIhsYpRws

If you are talking about the right to bear arms, that has worked really well for the US--not.

I'm not really "pro guns" though there are countries that have more relaxed gun laws that aren't all killing each other (Switzerland and New Zealand for example).

How would the LDP fund any of their policies if they're not going to tax people?

Most of their policies consist of changes that would result in lower expenditure, that goes hand in hand with lower taxes.

Whether you like it or not, good governments actually govern.

Your meaningless catch phrases are wasted breath.

I'll agree we have a reasonable level of freedom when government don't have a say in what I eat or otherwise consume (where it doesn't put others in harms way), who I marry, whether I live or die (and who is allowed to assist with that decision), who I associate with, the risks I take on the road (or elsewhere, that don't put others at risk), the conditions of employment I'm prepared to accept, what I choose to write or speak (when it may offend), what & how I choose to spend my money... I could go on.

On global warming, we are already a laughing stock already according to many.

 

[property_girl]

The problem is you're only thinking in terms off left and right, when there's a larger spectrum in play.

The spectrum goes from left to right. Do you want it to be more left or more right?


I'm not really "pro guns" though there are countries that have more relaxed gun laws that aren't all killing each other (Switzerland and New Zealand for example).

We have good gun laws now. Howard did the right thing with the buyback. Why tempt fate? We already allows guns; you just need a licence. Do you want unlicensed people to own guns? Not smart.

Most of their policies consist of changes that would result in lower expenditure, that goes hand in hand with lower taxes.

Yes, abnegating our international foreign aid responsibilities and ditching defence spending would result in lower taxes, but fortunately I would think that most people want to have a defence force to help out even in humanitarian crises and we have more pull in a global community if we meet our foreign aid obligations. Having no defence spending and no foreign aid--those two issues alone--would make Australia a laughing stock.

I'll agree we have a reasonable level of freedom when government don't have a say in what I eat or otherwise consume (where it doesn't put others in harms way), who I marry, whether I live or die (and who is allowed to assist with that decision), who I associate with, the risks I take on the road (or elsewhere, that don't put others at risk), the conditions of employment I'm prepared to accept, what I choose to write or speak (when it may offend), what & how I choose to spend my money... I could go on.

What do you want to eat that you're not eating now? Gay marriage and euthanasia legislation is just around the corner, so the LDP is not pushing the envelope on those fronts. You can associate with whomever you please--no issue there.--and you can take whatever risks you like on a road (as long as you're alone), so what's your beef? You can say whatever you want here in Aus as long as it doesn't promote pornography, paedophilia, rape and hate speech. That's a universal principle. Pretty fair I would say.

On global warming, we are already a laughing stock already according to many.

Yes, we have Abbott to thank for that.

If you want to kill someone with a gun or with your car; if you want to eat human flesh; if you want to incite hatred; if you want Australia to be incapable of defending itself; if you don't want Australia to aid in a humanitarian crisis, I can see why you would want to vote LDP

 

[property_girl]

Your meaningless catch phrases are wasted breath.
.

I know: I'm on fire.

 

[hobo-jo]

Seems unlikely we'll find much middle ground while you continue to twist what I say. It wouldn't be difficult to visit the LDP policy page and connect my comments with their policies. Your lack of comprehension is appalling. I'll leave it there.

 

[property_girl]

Chill Hobo Jo. I have read their policies. Well, they don't have any thought-out policies as such; they have an agenda or a general philosophy.

I thought my questions were quite valid, and you didn't answer any of them.

Anyway, we don't have to worry or fight about it, cos they'll never get into power.

 

[Ed Barton]

Deltaberry has a good point. Let's face it: what can the Sex Party achieve?

Probably more than any one individual member of the libs/labs.

 

[hobo-jo]

I have read their policies. Well, they don't have any thought-out policies as such

Oxymoron?

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies

I thought my questions were quite valid, and you didn't answer any of them.

Was that the one about cannibalism?

To provide some context I have reposted my comment with relevant policies.

I'll agree we have a reasonable level of freedom when government don't have a say in what I eat or otherwise consume (where it doesn't put others in harms way),

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1268-cannabis

(but there are otherwise many laws about food related substances as well)

who I marry,

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1158-lifestyle-choices

whether I live or die (and who is allowed to assist with that decision),

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1142-assisted-suicide

who I associate with,

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1143-civil-liberties-and-freedom

the risks I take on the road (or elsewhere, that don't put others at risk),

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1166-victimless-crimes

the conditions of employment I'm prepared to accept, what I choose to write or speak (when it may offend), what & how I choose to spend my money...

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1220-gambling

 

[Jaggannath]

I'm still wondering how the Vics could toss out what appears to be a fairly innocuous first term government compared to some other 1st termers that managed to get returned. It's hard to get a feel for it not being a local though I guess.

Wasn't Napthine another Brumby, in that he was never actually voted for as leader by the electorate, they got him by default? Can't stand the guy. I wonder how much EW Link had to do with it, it was a very polarising issue from my standpoint.

Labor and Liberal are both so centrist that you can barely tell them apart. Promises made that lean too far to the left or right are usually the "non-core" promises that aren't kept post election.

Yup, nowadays agree. Less so back then. KRudd beat Howard by basically appearing to be the same, and then playing personality rather than policy. Couldn't stand him at the time, even less now he turned out as I suspected.

That is why people are voting for these smaller parties, they're fed up with the status quo and being lied to.

It's not lies, it's a truth efficiency dividend!

When you're a non-significant party like the LDP, you can have any policies you want, because you know that the chances of your ever getting into power and actually implementing them are close to zilch.

Look at how much the Greens had to tighten their policies to become a third political power. Also, Jacqui Lambie anyone? I want what I want, paying for it isn't my problem.

 

[Corey Batt]

Oxymoron?

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies


Was that the one about cannibalism?

To provide some context I have reposted my comment with relevant policies.

I'll agree we have a reasonable level of freedom when government don't have a say in what I eat or otherwise consume (where it doesn't put others in harms way),

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1268-cannabis

(but there are otherwise many laws about food related substances as well)

who I marry,

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1158-lifestyle-choices

whether I live or die (and who is allowed to assist with that decision),

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1142-assisted-suicide

who I associate with,

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1143-civil-liberties-and-freedom

the risks I take on the road (or elsewhere, that don't put others at risk),

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1166-victimless-crimes

the conditions of employment I'm prepared to accept, what I choose to write or speak (when it may offend), what & how I choose to spend my money...

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1220-gambling

And those who say the LDP is insigificant or won't gain any power, let's not forget they already have a federal senator who is in the national news almost daily, as well as local government members.

 

[hobo-jo]

And those who say the LDP is insigificant or won't gain any power, let's not forget they already have a federal senator who is in the national news almost daily, as well as local government members.

Exactly. The minor parties are finding themselves holding the balance of power, so even if they aren't the acting government, their position gives them leverage & makes comments like this largely irrelevant:

Anyway, we don't have to worry or fight about it, cos they'll never get into power.

We'll probably never see their defence or taxation policies in full effect, but they may have enough influence to push through other changes and improve freedoms (see: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...es-samesex-marriage-bill-20141126-11uolh.html). All the more reason to throw your votes their way (those who want to see an improved level of freedom)...

 

[sanj]

If you want to kill someone with a gun or with your car; if you want to eat human flesh; if you want to incite hatred; if you want Australia to be incapable of defending itself; if you don't want Australia to aid in a humanitarian crisis, I can see why you would want to vote LDP

good to see no one is being hysterical here. for that we can all be grateful

 

[property_girl]

good to see no one is being hysterical here. for that we can all be grateful

as keating said: "well, that was like being flogged with a dead lettuce."

 

[property_girl]

... All the more reason to throw your votes their way (those who want to see an improved level of freedom)...

Freedom to do what? What do you want to do that you are now not allowed to?

 

[bob246810]

To be honest I've yet to see any significant impact on my life due to change in government. I suppose if we lived in a dictatorship or if one of the fringe parties (greens, ldp, pup) win, then life might change significantly...

Maybe there's been an indirect effect, but my life has changed far more from browsing the internet for a few hours or getting new ideas while sitting quietly on the train than a change of government.

Also as a young, unmarried and childless person, I probably don't register in the eyes of lib or labour (or most other parties, all of which seem to cater to older people with families). The only party I've seen make an effort to identify with my demography is the Greens, and I don't care for their policies either.

The most important aspect of voting this year is the fact that hot dogs seem a bit pricier. I voted with my wallet and got some from woolies instead.

 

[property_girl]

Hobo Jo, I had checked every single one of those links before I made my posts. I really am trying to understand where you're coming from. To me they are all non-policies.

You want the choice to:

. Ride a motorcycle or bicycle without a helmet
? BASE jumping from city buildings
? Individual purchase and consumption of recreational drugs
? Driving a motor vehicle without a seatbelt
? Prostitution and/or soliciting for prostitution
? Public nudity and fornication
? The consumption of pornography (not involving children or coercion)

God forbid that you get a brain injury, end up in a wheelchair, develop psychosis or end up in hospital, from any of those activities, because it is taxpayers who will be funding YOUR recovery. oh wait, the LDP don't want to tax people, so you might be up the creek getting any help on that front..

Australia needs to follow the Nordic model, as France has done and as Britain will do, when it comes to prostitution. The Nordic model makes it illegal to purchase sexual services. Prostitution levels have dropped in those countries where this model has been adopted.