Australian Politics Forum - In the wilderness

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49144 At my desk.	Re: In the wilderness Reply #30 - May 23^rd, 2008 at 4:15pm The cheapest way to reduce our emissions is to reduce consumption of electricity, fuel etc, for example by improving the efficiency with which we use it. There are easy and economically sound ways for the government to encourage all users to take advanatage of these cheaper options.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: In the wilderness
Reply #31 - May 23^rd, 2008 at 4:40pm

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 4:15pm:

The cheapest way to reduce our emissions is to reduce consumption of electricity, fuel etc, for example by improving the efficiency with which we use it. There are easy and economically sound ways for the government to encourage all users to take advanatage of these cheaper options.

The Libs can't find any purchase on the issue then. Cool!!!!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Neferti

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 7965
Canberra
Gender: female

Re: In the wilderness
Reply #32 - May 23^rd, 2008 at 4:47pm

Quote:

Neferti wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 5:54pm:

Quote:

I meant to add that the last one term government in Australia was back in 1939? I think.

Nope, in more modern times, that would be Whitlam (2 years 7 months) and then Keating (4 years 2 months). Grin

Just for nef- (with the exception of Whitlam's 2 terms) Australian post-1941 governments have lasted between 3 terms (Curtin-Chifley, Fraser) and 8 (Menzies to MacMahon), so one would expect Rudd's careful government to last at least 9-10 years, but more likely longer. But by then, the current Liberal Front-benchers - all from the Baby Boomer generation - will be "last century's men".

Great to see you doing some independent "research" there, Skip/Athiest. Cheesy

Well done. Shocked

Whitlam was elected twice (2/12/1972 and 18/5/1974) ... but he was still only PM for 2 YEARS, 7 MONTHS plus a few days. The Election on 13/12/1975 got rid of him for good, thankfully. Fraser got Australia back on track! Wink

A "term" in Federal Government is still 3 YEARS. Check the Constitution.

Why are you continually slighting the so-called Baby Boomers? The term Baby Boomers applies to people born between 1946 and 1964. So .... Kevin Rudd (born 1957) comes under that classification and ...... if I remember correctly, even YOU, yourself are a Baby Boomer (born 1963?).

If Rudd doesn't get cracking, he will be lucky to last as long as Whitlam did. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: In the wilderness
Reply #33 - May 23^rd, 2008 at 5:30pm

Quote:

Neferti wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 5:54pm:

Quote:

I meant to add that the last one term government in Australia was back in 1939? I think.

Nope, in more modern times, that would be Whitlam (2 years 7 months) and then Keating (4 years 2 months). Grin

Just for nef- (with the exception of Whitlam's 2 terms) Australian post-1941 governments have lasted between 3 terms (Curtin-Chifley, Fraser) and 8 (Menzies to MacMahon), so one would expect Rudd's careful government to last at least 9-10 years, but more likely longer. But by then, the current Liberal Front-benchers - all from the Baby Boomer generation - will be "last century's men".

That's not so at all. What about Gorton, McMahon and Cheating? 3 years, 2 years and 4 years (approx) respectively.

Cardboard Kev is a one term blunder.

Back to top

IP Logged

Neferti

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 7965
Canberra
Gender: female

Re: In the wilderness
Reply #34 - May 23^rd, 2008 at 6:41pm

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 4:15pm:

The cheapest way to reduce our emissions is to reduce consumption of electricity, fuel etc, for example by improving the efficiency with which we use it. There are easy and economically sound ways for the government to encourage all users to take advanatage of these cheaper options.

OK ... you go first. Wink

1. Get your electricity turned off and use candles for lighting.

2. Use the BBQ (coal, no doubt) to cook ... & boil water for your coffee and personal washing. (Clothes should be washed in cold water, but since you won't have electricity to run the washing machine, you may have to use the local fishing pond!)

3. Have cold showers, good for your health.

4. Sell the car.

I URGE you, too, to take advantage of what you spout about consumption. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: In the wilderness
Reply #35 - May 24^th, 2008 at 10:14am

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 4:40pm:

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 4:15pm:

The cheapest way to reduce our emissions is to reduce consumption of electricity, fuel etc, for example by improving the efficiency with which we use it. There are easy and economically sound ways for the government to encourage all users to take advanatage of these cheaper options.

The Libs can't find any purchase on the issue then. Cool!!!!

I don't think freediver is a Lib death. If he was he wouldn't be saying the stuff he just did. That's pure socialism.

Back to top

IP Logged

athiest

Ex Member

Re: In the wilderness
Reply #36 - May 24^th, 2008 at 12:14pm

deepthought wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 5:30pm:

Quote:

Neferti wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 5:54pm:

Quote:

I meant to add that the last one term government in Australia was back in 1939? I think.

Nope, in more modern times, that would be Whitlam (2 years 7 months) and then Keating (4 years 2 months). Grin

Just for nef- (with the exception of Whitlam's 2 terms) Australian post-1941 governments have lasted between 3 terms (Curtin-Chifley, Fraser) and 8 (Menzies to MacMahon), so one would expect Rudd's careful government to last at least 9-10 years, but more likely longer. But by then, the current Liberal Front-benchers - all from the Baby Boomer generation - will be "last century's men".

That's not so at all. What about Gorton, McMahon and Cheating? 3 years, 2 years and 4 years (approx) respectively.

Cardboard Kev is a one term blunder.

Nothought ,you and nef seem to have similar probs with maths and comprehension.
Holt McMahon and gordon were all PMs of the Liberal party If you bothered to read the post you would see they were included in the * terms from Menzies to McMahon, same gov ie Liberal, but diff PMs, but they never lost gov it was continuious until McMahon.Keating served two terms as PM deepy, and ofcouse took over from Hawke Continuing Labors rein which took that Labor gov to 4 terms in all.Its all about the party in power not the individual PM.

The length of time a gov is in is irrelivent nef, Menzies never always went the full term as is the case with most govs in our history.

This is how the history books list these stats if you two care to rewrite them goodluck.
Rudd is more popular now than when he was elected , the Libs have no leadership and no chance for many years to come.

Back to top

IP Logged

Poll
Question: How long for Libs to regain power
They are out for the count One Term 2 Terms Give us a break, just got rid of them Who cares « Created by: Smith on: Feb 28^th, 2008 at 2:08pm »