A recent flurry of opinion polling today reaches a climax with results from ACNielsen and, unexpectedly, Newspoll, which normally reports on Tuesday. The former rains on the recent Coalition polling parade somewhat with a survey of 1403 voters showing no change in the primary vote situation from last month: Labor on 48 per cent, Coalition on 39 per cent. Nonetheless, the two-party result has narrowed just slightly, from 58-42 to 57-43, while Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister lead is down from 51-43 to 48-42. Bryan Palmer’s newly updated graphs can be viewed here.
Newspoll offers a similar result, with Labor leading 56-44 on two-party preferred. However, it’s better news for the Coalition in relative terms – the previous Newspoll three weeks ago had Labor with a quirky-looking lead of 60-40. The Coalition primary vote is up from 35 per cent to 39 per cent; Labor’s is down from 52 per cent to 46 per cent; Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister lead is down from 47-38 to 46-40.
Oh yes, “Public enlightenment minister” Weller.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/477#comment-13933
“What im saying is that i can understand if a President etc wanted to change the way the country was run it would need to shut down media that is owned by capitalist that want to keep enslaving the people.”
yes i can understand if he wanted to do that. All dictators have to do that in order to silence opposition. So?
what was the winery comment???
Mr Speaker you will have to do a bit better than that.
As I said before “thank goodness for the Greens and their principals”
not trying to put words in peoples mouths .
Bill I should apologise for bagging your idealism; At least you are active, out there on the hustings, a political activist in the real world while others like me have long ago tossed in the towel through dissolusionement with the ‘party’, or ‘party’s and allowed ourselves to be swallowed up in the capitalist competition for ‘a better life’ at the expense of our next door neigbbours or others cornened into ghetto like suburbs that have long ago lost their economic and social utility beyond acting as holding pens for Centrelink recipients.
Go for it Bill- I owe you more respect than i have shown in recent posts.
Preferences deals have nothing to do with idealism. ATL voting requires preferences to be submitted to the AEC.
Your ideals and values are represented by the party you vote or stand for, that should be enough!!! Who you do pref deals with, who you sit next to on the bus and who made your sandwich are irrelevant to your values!
Bill
You have missed the point of much of this latest thread, I believe. We were talking about doing preference deals. No one, myself especially, has said that any Green should do ANY deals. All I stated that if the goal of the Greens is to run the country one day (it is certainly not to assist the government of the day to lead, on the basis of their senate voting since first Federal Election contested), then this is never going to happen.
Actually, you may read too fast to catch details (or, more likely, I write too much :)) but I actually commend the Greens for choosing values over pragmatism.
I understand the sensationalist argument of your “racism” and “homophobia”, but, to apply your logic to FFP and ONP, they both preference major parties, so obviously their “racism” and “homophobia” are not as entrenched as your hatred of their parties.
Bill, I have heard you give serious rants about “the religious right” and Christians on this site, with perhaps more vilification than I have seen by anyone else on the basis of race, gender or religious beliefs. I contend that Greens appear just as bigoted and narrow-minded about such groups and it puzzles me.
In my discussions on the street with swinging voters, the concerns they have about the Greens included a perception of being soft on drugs and porn. Some would hold these as closely as you hold yours but I have not seen the same vilification here.
My point is simply that people join and vote for parties because they believe in them (obviously). It doesn’t make people evil or stupid because they don’t agree with you. A growing popularity of a point of view, moral or otherwise, does not make it “right”… Hitler was democratically elected.
When you rail against what you call the “religious right” (FFP) you just come across as a bigot, and yet, I don’t think you are. After researching FFP after you introduced me to your views, you were, I think wrong, Bill. I think you would be in a minority here that would consider FFP to be from the right. They are plainly centrist. If this were not true, both sides of politics would not be listening to them any more than they presently listen to ONP (who are more comfortable with their tag).
If FFP are morally conservative, that is no more an evil than being morally liberal. To suggest this, by definition, is bigotry. Their morals, like those of ANY politician, will influence debate as much as any other. They are Left on IR, Left on immigration, Left on social justice, right on economics, education and Law and order… having trouble picking the problem here Bill? They are not liberal on Gay marriages, nor are Liberal, Labor and the Nationals. Why single them out here???
Certainly, my point remains: The Greens can never achieve majority government in Australia without preferencing parties who don’t agree with their “principles”.
Over to you..
I am into ideology and politics
Generic Oracle I do not have anything against Christians ( there are many members of the greens who are Christian ) My problem with FF is that
1. They are the political party of the AOG and other pentecostal churches ( there are pentacostal Catholics Anglicans etc who also support FF) That would not be a problem but you need to experience them first hand to understand where im coming from.
2. They have never supported the YR@W campaign in Kingston ( if they were left in IR you would think the would ) I have been told they are hostile to this campaign
3. I have family members who are gay – So not accepting of gay people and preaching they are evil and can be changed to be is disgusting
4. They split families ( there is much evidence of this )
5. The ministers are rich while the majority of parishioners stay poor
6. They fit the description of a cult ( they are being watched by cult observing groups )
7. A member of this church told my wife that she has been fighting cancer most of her life because she or her parents must have been evil.
I could go on. What i am trying to say is that i would hate so see a party with this type of mentality behind it gain support. The other thing that is interesting is the bagging FF gives the greens on issues but they sit back supposedly squeaky clean. They are not!
Both parties are trying to attract FF to win government, not because they are a center party.
I would be interested to talk to a FF candidate that is not tied some how to any pentecostal church or sect
This shows the senate candidates in 2004 and their church connections.
http://www.signposts.org.au/2004/09/21/putting-the-family-first/
I doubt any candidate does not have the same connection in 2007 either
Bill
Nothing new mate. Sounds like you have a personal axe to grind here. A lot of this doesn’t ring true with me. I have friends who are Christians and are pretty sure the church they attend is one of these AOG churches and you do not describe them, nor their friends. However, I respect your personal experiences and can understand the root cause now of your more emotive opposition to the AOG.
Again, my core arguments were political (this is, after all, a political website). I remain impressed by the policies and positions held by this party, they are very important to our major parties in this next election and I think in a democracy, they have every right to be there. They obviously have strong support for a new party that seems to be growing its voter share.
Their policies are centrist, populist at times, but nevertheless the sort of politics that your average punter has an interest in and Steven Fielding is working hard (not a bad count currently of private member’s bills to his name).
Anyway, Bill, thanks for sharing and I doubt that anyone can convince you differently but I will remain giving FF the benefit of the doubt at present. Though your ranting has not drawn me closer to voting Green unfortunately..
Fielding has been centrist at times, and it’s difficult to move too far away from populism when you go on about FAMILIES en masse. Still, media reform – where was the benefit to families in that?
Generic
Shouldnt the voter have all available information regarding who is backing/behind the nominated candidate/s
Why is FF so ashamed of their links to AOG
Hi Bill,
Who would the Greens preference then if it is all a moral imperative to you? Both the Liberal and Labor party have done far worse things to gay people than Family First. Family First has not outlawed gay marriage whereas Libs and Labor have. I always vote below the line and as a gay man I can tell you I will put Labor and the Libs below FF for that very reason. I would not vote, join or campaign for those two parties at the moment for that reason too (they may change, I may change, who knows). So are the Greens and Democrats morally bankrupt on the issue of gay marriage if they did preference deals with the Libs, Labor or FF? Of course not! Greens and Dems are paradigms of tolerance and progressiveness on gay rights. It’s throwing the baby out with the bath water to cripple your chances of electing a “good” candidate by ruling out any deal.
It would only be immoral if the Greens did a preference deal deliberately to get FF (or any other party) in ahead of themselves, which is completely nonsensical since that is not why political parties exist. This is why it is impossible for a preference deal to be immoral.
Besides, FF aren’t that bad. Not everything I disagree with in the world is *pure* evil.
Nothing Bill says ever makes sense.
1 – “That would not be a problem but you need to experience them first hand to understand where im coming from.”
Ok so we have to trust Bill on this one. He is afterall, completely unbiased.
2 – They have never supported the YR@W campaign in Kingston
Oh no! and those dastardly liberals didn’t either I bet!
I like this bit the best, he starts his points list with “My problem with FF is that” … (list) then.. “4. They split families ( there is much evidence of this )”
Family First split families!!
and..
6. They fit the description of a cult ( they are being watched by cult observing groups )
Family First is a cult!!!
Oh, I see, Points 3-7 are all about the AOG, Bill changed topics.
The Speaker
Very funny 🙂 but I wonder why other facts like “Family First eat babies” and “Family First want nuclear waste in childcare centres” was missed??
Dembo
Good points about Lib/Labor, still think FF’s stance on Gay marriage would be no more favourable than current Lib/Labor position, but no different. Thus I was questioning why FF was singled out.
Gusface
It appears to me that Australians in general have an inexplicable bias against evangelical Christians, that it doesn’t seem to have towards athiests, secular humanists, gay political groups, evangelical environmentalists or even militant unionists. I can only guess that the party did it more to reduce the chances of political infighting amongst Christians themselves if it was a “Christian party”.
A parallel is that the ALP is made up of card carrying Unionists, gets the vast majority of their funding through unions, elects unionists to the front bench but goes to great lengths to say that they are not beholden to the union movement. Now remember, they are union members, imagine how purely diabolical it would be if they were Christians!!!
I keep making the point here that ALL politicians have beliefs and values that influence them and their parties. You are kidding yourself if you think you ever get filtered intellectual purity when making decisions. It is simply discriminatory to suggest that one party be made to reveal that candidates/members go to church on Sunday. There are Christians in ALL parties.
Should we therefore expose every humanist, buddhist, muslim, hedonist, pagan and Paris-worshipper in all parties? What point would that serve?
An example. Drew Hutton, Green Candidate in Brisbane, has been outspoken in the past about being an Anarchist. Now, like others here, I am a political tragic and interested in Democracy, but when I read this in the Courier Mail in 2004 I was a little anxious. Unless he has significantly changed his values since candidacy, what place does he have in a democratic government, when core beliefs denounce involvement in organised government? This, in terms of policy, in my mind, is far more important to me than the fact that Steve Fielding goes to church on Sunday!!! I couldn’t care less about that… I care about a commitment to “getting the democratic machine working”.
I think that opposition to FF revealing church involvement (which there is rightfully no compunction for candidates to do) is more about bigotry and xenophobia than a commitment to fairer democracy. Let ’em go to church I say! Just keep putting out smart policy!
I think that opposition to FF revealing church involvement (which there is rightfully no compunction for candidates to do) is more about bigotry and xenophobia than a commitment to fairer democracy. Let ‘em go to church I say! Just keep putting out smart policy!
Thats great Generic Oracle as long as they don’t bring the church to our government, schools, workplaces , hospitals etc
Its not about exposing it is about being open
The Speaker Says:
June 29th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Nothing Bill says ever makes sense.
The AOG and other pentecostal churches political arm is FF. They are entwined. So the candidates beliefs would also be entwined and if they ever got to the stage of having control of government their beliefs would be put on us. Strange though that they believe God will give them what they want ( they also believe in the power of positive thinking and the prosperity gospel) yet God seems to not give them 50% + 2pp. Their core church beliefs are bad for the community and family.
I wish people that seem to like FF would study them a bit deeper. Its amazing that most Greens are studied until people can bad mouth them yet FF gets no such treatment.
# Gusface Says:
June 29th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Generic
Shouldnt the voter have all available information regarding who is backing/behind the nominated candidate/s
Why is FF so ashamed of their links to AOG
This is exactly what i mean. Be open where your backing comes from etc. At this time my backing comes from the Greens , YR@W Kingston and possibly the AMWU. oh and i am a member of the Friends of Aldinga Scrub and the Onkaparinga Community Coalition.
Generic Oracle Says:
June 29th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
The Speaker
Very funny 🙂 but I wonder why other facts like “Family First eat babies†and “Family First want nuclear waste in childcare centres†was missed??
Now you are minimizing what myself and others have experienced with these type of churches. I would say most members of AOG/FF are honest in their beliefs and themselves. We mostly do not like the Mormons or JWs coming to our doors preaching their brand of religion yet we now have a political party that in time will do just that. Can anyone explain to me why most Catholics, Anglicans , Baptists , Uniting just to name a few do not support FF ? I would love to see a AOG minister renounce his wealth give all to the poor and be as Jesus was then be a candidate. I would support him or her 100%
BILL, BILL BILL What are you doing ?
“Thats great Generic Oracle as long as they don’t bring the church to our government, schools, workplaces , hospitals etc”.
Broadly speaking Western culture, ideals, values, morals etc upon which our ‘democratic’ social system is based, even now, are an inheritance of church/christian discourse. Its a bit late to kick ‘the church’ out of our Government, schools, workplaces, hospitals, etc dont you think ?
Generic Oracle Says:
June 29th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
“We mostly do not like the Mormons or JWs coming to our doors preaching their brand of religion yet we now have a political party that in time will do just that”.
If that happens Oracle, we can choose to do what we do with the Mormons and JWs-say ” I cant talk right now, Im trying to repair my blow up doll so it dosent cheat on me with my neighbour again” and close the door.
Same goes for Federal elections, say “no thanks’ by voting for someone else. My point is this is a democracy and tolerance of varying extremist positions on a range of issues is part of the game-
Stereotyping and vilifying any group on the grounds of questionable assumptions, as Bill has done with FF, is going to draw strong reactions, and so it should in MHO. FF havent come to my door, and when/if they do i will respond with a cheeky ‘no thanks’ and, as is my right, choose to close the door.
Interesting discourse all round.
Strop, I think with your last post you meant “Bill”, though. The quote was his.
Bill, on simple argument, I must say I rarely hold credence with those that begin “most people of group Y believe X”, as in “Most Anglicans/Catholics/Uniting Church members do not vote FFP”. I am not aware that you are running polls, and for this particular response, the sample size had better be quite large.
I admit there are far more Catholics and Anglicans, according to the last census, than actual FFP first preferences in any election, but QLDs 7% FFP first preference actually covers more than those indicating “Pentecostal” on the last ABS data for QLD, and that is assuming that every single “Pentecostal” person voted for them, which is a dubious assumption.
The rest either came from other Christians or other non-Christians, not affiliated with pentecostalism, which doesn’t seem to support the assertion that it is a “pentecostal party” as you have suggested.
Agree with Strop. We are a democracy, a polite “no thanks” preserves dignity whilst exercising democratic rights. We all do precisely that at the booth. One would hope 😉
I maintain that I am interested in Family First, certainly on the basis on policy and political positioning. If they are churchgoers, I am cool with that. They do seem intent on working with the government of the day and have support (and an ear) on both sides of politics, which is filling the old (and, I believe, important) role of the Dems, so, in the light of this and, ironically, Bill, your obvious bias, this has driven me to consider them more for my vote and, despite my Green conscience, away from the Greens.
A very stimulating discussion and this will certainly be an interesting election!! (stocking up early on popcorn and beer!!)
1. Most non pentecostal voters who voted family first did not know the links between FF and AOG
2. The amount of interest in green candidates and their political history and beliefs on here has been on a large scale much bigger than our vote size. FF should also be looked into this way
3. People should not be victimized by their sexuality as we are in the 21st century not in some religious dark age.
4. Generic Oracle Says:
Very funny 🙂 but I wonder why other facts like “Family First eat babies†and “Family First want nuclear waste in childcare centres†was missed??
That is just silly and minimizes what people have gone through with these type of churches
5. People need to separate pentecostal churches from mainstream churches when discussing this topic
6. Again if FF is attacked or shown to be linked to AOG its me being biased but if the Greens are attacked by people on here or FF themselves then thats OK. seems a bit hypocritical to me.
7. I want openness in political parties. If it is no shame to show that a group is behind you and financing you then why hide it?
“We want influence that alters the perception of God and the church; an influence that goes beyond the four walls of the church and penetrates the heart of men and women who are without hope . . . influence that gives us real access to the realms of politics, media and the entertainment world . . . to create leaders and people with influence that is so pervasive it cannot be stopped, so attractive it cannot be ignored, so contemporary it cannot be ridiculed and so authentic it cannot be rejected.”
– Ashley Evans, Paradise Church pastor and co-founder of Family First
A volunteer was disciplined for answering “yes” when asked whether Family First backed lesbians being burned to death.
Gee thats Democratic
http://baliset.blogspot.com/2004/10/family-first-one-christians-view.html
A AOG member who is upset that FF denies its links with the AOG and Christianity when the proof is that the links are there
Bill, the great irony is that you say FF are intolerant and what not, but look at how intolerant you are of them and how much effort you’re putting into demeaning them.
Being a candidate for public office… I do worry. A lot of the stuff you say on here could very easily be exploited by your opponents.
Whoops. I apologise for putting your name to something Bill posted Generic.
Bill you appear to clutching at straws of evidence to support your position on it but I admire your passion and persistence.
tolerance only seems to be for the right side of politics.
# STROP Says:
June 30th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Whoops. I apologise for putting your name to something Bill posted Generic.
Bill you appear to clutching at straws of evidence to support your position on it but I admire your passion and persistence.
thank you and it helps to win the biggest poster on poll bludger too! theres always a positive!
Bill can you explain to me these comments by Peter Singer, who is a Victorian Greens founder and co-author of the book “The Greens” with Bob Brown ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
Singer states that Dekkers believes that zoophilia should remain illegal if it involves what he sees as “cruelty”, but otherwise is no cause for shock or horror.
Read the “Zoophilia” section – is this Greens policy ?
Remi I do not support the comments of Peter Singer in regards to Zoophilia
Remi
Wow. An eye-popping read!!
Bill
Maybe you are right!!! Maybe candidates SHOULD reveal more about their backgrounds. Especially after reading Remi’s link above!!
One of the main thrusts of your arguments appears to be your personal experience with some members of this AOG church, extrapolating that to represent the Family First political party..THEN stating that preference deals should not be made with such a party.. THEN stating that those who do deals have no morals.
My understanding is that some AOG people made some disparaging remarks about a gay relative of yours and a friend with an illness/disability that was told that she/her parents must have been evil as a reason given for the condition. Well, this sounds both weird and undignified and I fully understand your feelings, though not your extrapolation to an entire political party.
However, if we were to apply your same reasoning to the article linked by Remi:
1. Peter Singer is a prominent member of the Greens movement, having been a founding member of the Victorian greens and lead senate candidate in 1996.
2. Peter Singer espouses views including support for sexual relations between humans and animals, lobbying the UN to give Great Apes “person status”, favours euthanasia of infants and adults with disabilities and other rather interesting though fairly repugnant views, I would predict, to many of our posters here.
3. Apparently he is held in high esteem by Greens (just found him glorified on the Greens website). So how could we support a party that endorses this man?
4. How could anyone preference the Greens, in good conscience, in the 2007 Federal Election?
Now Bill, I am NOT saying your reasoning is valid, I am just trying to show you how your same reasoning can be used with equal effect to attempt to damage the Greens.
You may support animal sex, Great Ape rights and share the Darwinian/ecological basis to remove disabled people from our populations and think these higher values than parties who refuse to endorse gay marriage.
Here, I could be offended, because I am a person with a disability and globalise this view to the Greens party… but I shan’t. Precisely because I believe you are clutching at straws, your argument is emotive rather than substantial.
By the way, the argument above is marginally stronger, I believe, since the points above relate to a senior Greens figure, whilst I believe the issues you had with people in the AOG were not FF candidates/leaders.
Generic Oracal, get a grip, why are you telling lies about Peter Singer? No where does he support animal sex like you say, talking about clutching at straws, you are the master.
You might think making outrageous, slanderous, accusations to distract attention form Bill’s well researched and presented exposay of extreamist, secret, minority cults, to take attention away.
The fact remains Family First are a threat to the democratic process with a lot to hide by the sounds of it.
While you like to “having sex with animals” our democracy is under threat from Family First and the church meddling in state affairs.
Thanks to Bill for his good work.
THE SWING REQUIRED ?
I have done some homework on the notional 2PP swing question for anyone who can’t be bothered doing it or want a synopsis of what you could learn by going to the AEC and/or the experts sites (eg. Adam Carr) regarding 2PP swing history in 2001-2004.
There are 10 Coalition marginal seats where the swing required (based on current Notional 2PP margins) was achieved in previous elections (2001 or 2004). These were –
Kingston (0.1), Macquarie (0.5), Wakefeild (0.7), Makin (0.9), Braddon (1.1), Hasluck (1.8), Stirling (2.0), Bass (2.6), Solomon (2.8) and Dobell (4.8). 0nly Dobell would require a 2PP swing above 3.3%.
There are 5 other Coalition marginal seats where a 2PP swing of 3.3% to Labor would gain the seat- These are Bonner (0.6), Wentworth (2.5), Moreton (2.8), Lindsay (2.9) and Eden Monaro (3.3).
0ther Coalition seats I have nominated (15) require a (notional) 2PP swing ranging from 4.0 (Bennalong) to 8.6 (Hinkler). Labor will be hoping for gains amongst these seats to square up with inevitable losses (eg Cowan). These are Bennalong, McMillan, Deakin, Corangamite, Herbert, Boothby, Page, Blair, Latrobe, Longman , Cowper, Robertson, Gippsland, Flynn and Hinkler.
Current polls indicate a national 3.3% 2PP swing to Labor is very possible, probable in some seats. A 2PP swing of 3.0% would strip the Coalition of 13 of the seats nominated. Should be an interesting election this time around based on these figures. And, yes, I do remember Beasley lost an election despite winning the National 2PP battle.
Generic Oracle:
“Apparently he [Peter Singer] is held in high esteem by Greens (just found him glorified on the Greens website). ”
can you point me to this page? My ace google skills aren’t cutting it this morning.
d
Family First’s only elected member to parliement has a disgracefull record as far as attendance and voting against famalies goes.
“Fielding has been a part-time senator for the families he claims to represent. He was absent from 43 votes in 2005 and 105 Senate votes in 2006. Many of the votes he ignored were family friendly, concerning eradicating poverty (June20, 2006), the effect of petrol prices (August 10, 2006) and improving antenatal care in rural Australia (August 16, 2006).
http://www.vic.greens.org.au/2007-election/preferential-treatment-is-all-part-of-a-political-ruse/
Envy/ Darryl
Just reprinting Remi’s wikipedia link above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
Darryl: http://www.vic.greens.org.au/about-the-greens/brief-history
Envy, actually if you have an issue it may be worth taking this up with Wikipedia. The quotes in text about Singer are:
“Singer stated that “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals” and “Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[13] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals” though he does make the statement: “”I don’t support sex with animals, I think it’s a lot more fun to do it with humans”. A decision apparently based more on preference than ethics or morality, perhaps.
Envy, you sound less restrained than Bill. Look, I was objectively researching FF after a discussion with Bill a month ago. It was clear to see that his opinions are based mostly on narrow personal experience with an organisation that may or may not be instrinsically linked with FFP. I see no threat to democracy through their policy nor their senate votes and, I suggest, if you are truly a political tragic, neither do you.
More ironically, I am a passionate environmentalist, though strident bloggers here and elsewhere have clearly dissuaded me, and perhaps others here, from considering them at the next election. I didn’t think the “greens were extreme” but am now starting to wonder. My point above was simply demonstrating how Bill’s discourse in discrediting FF could just as easily be used to discredit ANY party. I’m sorry if you missed my absurdity.
If there are lies above, then they are not mine and show that you didn’t read the link posted by Remi.
My aim is certainly not to slander anyone, so whether Peter Singer condones sex with animals, is sympathetic or otherwise is actually not my point. Simply that you can’t extrapolate a political party and make judgments about other parties preferencing on the basis of your own limited experience, nor on the apparent beliefs of one candidate.
Nice work, Strop.
I personally don’t think Wentworth is that marginal, as there was a large anti-Turnbull protest vote last time that will return to him, and also Turnbull is cautious enough to devote significant resources to Wentworth that other candidates don’t have.
In fact, in a big swing 5%+ I think Turnbull could be “last man standing”. He then just needs to relax about the whole wealth thing (he’s so paranoid about it)…
Whatever Singer’s views on bestiality, he has certainly taken view on speciesism, that I consider to be extreme. One of the reasons I cannot support the Greens is because his views pervade a lot of enviromentalist thought.
A single and brief example: protests to the World Bank on the development of hydro-electric and irrigation schemes in India because of the problems in relocating Bengal Tigers. While the preservation of species is important so are the concerns of the poorest of the poor in India. http://pudang.tripod.com/articles/emag.html
First world Greens imposing their power and will on third world peasants is not an attractive sight.
Also hilarious work on the Peter Singer stuff. I love Peter Singer and am a committed environmentalist, but on paper you could definitely argue the Greens promote sex with animals while FF are just a socially-conservative church-backed political party. Beware the perils of the sound-bite debate!
Generic Oracle said:-
2.” Peter Singer espouses views including support for sexual relations between humans and animals”,
Where does he espouse that??
Still trying to deflect attention from your Family First/AOG.?
I suppose you also think Eternal Brethren, another extream, christian, fudamentalist cult (under police/AEC investigation for criminal activities) are not a threat to our democratic way of life?
Bob Brown says :-
“After criticism, Fielding has begun attending more votes. He has voted against increasing the use of renewable energy; against ending old-growth logging; against assessing the effect of Gunns’s Tasmanian pulp mill on endangered species; and against Australia contributing fairly to global efforts to keep temperature rises to less than 2C. He voted against my amendment banning junk-food ads during children’s TV viewing hours. He voted to abolish student unions and to increase foreign ownership of the Australian media. And when I moved to stop more salary hikes for politicians until the wages of childcare workers increased, Fielding stayed out of the Senate.
Perhaps if you were’t so obsessed with exotic sexual activities and event 11 years ago, you might like to research properly and not misquote people to deliberatly smear the Greens.
I guess it’s par for the course that the Greens are subject to “shooting the messanger syndrome” , because their polacys are so good,
as the voting public have aknowledged, despite the smeer campaigns waged againts them by just about everybody in the media and untruth tellers like Generic Oracle
Great Ape personhood is not something I would consider ‘extreme’. Unorthodox, perhaps, but I’m tentatively a supporter. Individualism, theory of mind, complex social interaction and language have all been observed amongst great apes. The more we know, the less different to us that they appear. Richard Dawkins and Jane Goodall are other supporters.
Envy
I was present on another well-known blogsite, now “silent” due to partisan politics. I liked the site and this one and do not wish the same. Thus, I politely decline further discussion on the issue, if that is ok with you.
Those who know me know that I have supported Greens, Democrats, Liberals, Labor and Family First, when they merited it and criticised them when I felt they hadn’t.
This was, originally, an academic/political debate about polls and preferences and I, like others here, felt that Bill was not giving a measured, nor particularly “researched” argument. My points above, which you have missed (and Dembo, thanks to you and BTW I agree with you about the sound bites!! understood completely) were simply to illustrate that using Bill’s same reasoning, ANYONE can be made to look more extreme than they are. In other words, he was using, in the language of debate ” A slippery slope sequence” to elicit an absurd outcome.
You have taken the crust of the debate and missed the point. I am not flag-waving here for any party, never have. I am simply saying that tolerance, by definition, means showing dignity to all who hold other views, even if you vehemently disagree with them. Ideally, too, on a website like this, you would also reference sources, as I have done.
I wish this not to descend into some mirky war between Greens and FF, I don’t think anyone does. So I won’t continue this discourse with you, if that is OK?
That’s to be expected when you can’t defend your position
Envy said: I suppose you also think Eternal Brethren.. are not a threat to our democratic way of life?
That should be “Exclusive” Brethren and no they aren’t a threat to our democratic way of life. Their anti-green advertisements are infact a legitimate part of the democratic political process.
Is it just me, or is anyone who opposes the Greens EVIL THAT MUST BE DESTROYED ?