the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party

[GTSHoon]

That explains everything!

[4liters]

it was probably piloted by a lizardman from the Illuminati too

[GTSHoon]

Obama had a hand in it as well, we all know hes an islamic extremist after all

[Aaron75]

This is why I don't like compulsory voting ..... it drags the intellectual sludge off the bottom of the barrel and gives it an equal voice. When the biggest polluters spend millions on adverts every election cycle telling us all that it is in our best interests to let them keep polluting, guess who their target audience is? The idiocracy who wouldn't usually vote if it wasn't compulsory. It's a miracle that some of these people can even cast a vote without accidentally stabbing themselves in the head with the pencil.

[DougieK]

I wasn't going to bother because there are degress to which I agree and disagree, but once again opinion and hyperbole and being presented as facts, many of which are incorrect.

So here goes.....

Yes, the Greens (in Victoria anyway) have a stated policy that they will work towards an end to recreational hunting on public land. So they're not just anti duck shooting, they want to make it a criminal offence to go out into a local forest and take a feral rabbit or goat, or even a prized deer, for food. Yet they want to DE-criminalise the taking of illicit drugs. Go figure.

After voting for Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party at the last state election, I read their policies on their website and they declared that they did not believe in anthropogenic climate change and were clearly pro coal. Longer term & globally, these sort of policies will have a more significant impact on fishing, hunting, and life as we know it than most of the Green's anti shooting and fishing policies.

Point being its worth researching a little deeper than just a party or candidate's name, and specifying your own preferences by voting below the line by your own choice than following some muppet's HTV card. Who knew Derryn Hinch was an animal right's campaigner?

The comments about the Green Party wanting to ban hunting on public land is accurate. I have not seen any science to back up this movement. The anti duck shooting is backed by solid studies regarding duck populations. I disagree on the ban on hunting feral species and believe that the money brought from sustainable hunting is beneficial to the long term conservation of hunting areas.

Bang on the money. Illicit drugs in this case being the decriminalisation of Marijuana, not other drugs. This has been trialed and is extremely successful in Europe and several US states.

The Greens are not anti fishing and I'm sick of hearing "DAY TAKEN OUR ROOODDSSS!!!!". The only statement made in their policy document relates to sustainable practice. It reads as such

20. The end of fishing practices that are unsustainable, or that adversely affect nontarget species.
You can read the whole document here http://greens.org.au/policies/vic/animals

All in all, Queasy has made some very good statements that are largely factually correct.

i have said it before and i will say it again when you are 0.50% of the problem you realy ain't the problem at all

At what point do you become a problem? You have just admitted fault, so when do we start to be part of the problem? is it 1%? what about 2%? what about 10%? Everyone emitted greenhouse gas contributing to elevated levels of Co2 in the atmosphere is part of the problem. It is a global problem and without a global solution we're pretty much done.

Perhaps, but given Australia's ranking as the world's 5th largest coal producer, and larger emitters such as China asking why they should do more when a developed country like Australia does so little, I would argue we are a lot more than 0.50% of the problem.

Yes. Coal was a neccessity 100 years ago. It isn't anymore.

i would be asking if a small country like this one can afford too just how dose making my power bill $120 a 1/4 dearer save anythingi am on a fixed income and there is no more things i can switch off as it is i have been walking around for the last 5 years with a head light and all the house lights off .and yes i am talking about the carbon tax all it did around here was make pensioners cold and poorer than the were .

There are people who are genuinely struggling. Trying to tell me you can't power your lights when a month you bought a new boat is probably not the way to play the poverty card. viewtopic.php?f=70&t=15761

Both Mum and Dad are aged pensioners and Dad is on disability due to a hip replacement that made things worse than better. Some smartarse at Social Services told them that cause they have solar panels fitted it could be regarded as an income!!!! I called them to sort it out and was told that it was a misunderstanding, I call Bullsh*t on that as I would not be surprised at all if there was some truth in it.

Any income legally should be declared. The income from solar panels will not be enough to affect pension or disability payments unless they also have other sources of income. You can earn up to $400 a fortnight before a disability payment starts to become effected. (information from 2012, may be out of date). The 'smartarse' was likely trying to save your parents from a whole heap of legal crap and financial hardship if they recieved income and did not declare it.

This is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard, let alone on a fishing forum.
'anthropogenic climate change' is rapidly being exposed for the scam that it is. Pretty much every alarmist prediction has turned out not only to be wrong but many cases the opposite has happened....no more snow, rains never gonna fall again, cyclones will be more frequent, etc, etc, etc
Coal has lifted nations out poverty,

I'm not even really sure where to start with this. There is a whole bunch of really really good information provided by NASA here http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

we have bucket loads of it and the ridiculous demonizing of it is mostly done by rich people who want to keep the poor down.

Cos so many poor people own coal mines. I seriously cannot comprehend how you've come up with this. You're being fed wolf tickets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBiJfWbffZU

Even you admit it requires 'belief', as opposed to indisputable facts - hell if you don't subscribe to the theories, you are a 'denier' - cant get more religious than that.

The science on climate change is really really solid. I can link an almost unlimited number of scientific studies but you're not going to read them. If you do decide to do some reading the NASA link above is a good place to start.

Shooters and fishers are desperately needed to counter the greens in senates state & federal.

I actually agree that the key to successful politics is balance. Conservationist (not conservative) goals will succeed if both the extreme left and extreme right factions of each party have an opposition to point out the ridiculousness of their claims.

Re the carbon tax didn't it benefit lower incomes as they got rebates tax cuts ect which exceeded the additional costs.

Don't let fact get in the way of generational political indoctrination, but you are correct.

Everybody please, for the love of all things outdoors, do some research before making claims about who is trying to do what. The Australian political climate is very challenging the last few years, and before you vote you should at least know what you're getting yourself into.

I'm going to conclude this post by sharing something I put up on Facebook a few days ago....

Australia has had five prime ministers in five years, the poor yanks look as though they'll have to choose between two options both of which have more disapproval than approval, and the UK leaves the EU. It seems like a ridiculous amount of instability. One might even call it absurd.

But it's not surprising.

You can't feed a society exaggeration, hyperbole and propaganda for over a decade, and then claim surprise when people don't seem to be making rational decisions on the basis of well established truth.

There's a cost associated with not telling the truth. There's a cost associated with polarized, adversarial public discourse. There's a cost associated with media more concerned with profits than the public interest.

It is, apparently, time to pay the piper

[Scraglor]

I wasn't going to bother because there are degress to which I agree and disagree, but once again opinion and hyperbole and being presented as facts, many of which are incorrect.

So here goes.....

Yes, the Greens (in Victoria anyway) have a stated policy that they will work towards an end to recreational hunting on public land. So they're not just anti duck shooting, they want to make it a criminal offence to go out into a local forest and take a feral rabbit or goat, or even a prized deer, for food. Yet they want to DE-criminalise the taking of illicit drugs. Go figure.

After voting for Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party at the last state election, I read their policies on their website and they declared that they did not believe in anthropogenic climate change and were clearly pro coal. Longer term & globally, these sort of policies will have a more significant impact on fishing, hunting, and life as we know it than most of the Green's anti shooting and fishing policies.

Point being its worth researching a little deeper than just a party or candidate's name, and specifying your own preferences by voting below the line by your own choice than following some muppet's HTV card. Who knew Derryn Hinch was an animal right's campaigner?

The comments about the Green Party wanting to ban hunting on public land is accurate. I have not seen any science to back up this movement. The anti duck shooting is backed by solid studies regarding duck populations. I disagree on the ban on hunting feral species and believe that the money brought from sustainable hunting is beneficial to the long term conservation of hunting areas.

Bang on the money. Illicit drugs in this case being the decriminalisation of Marijuana, not other drugs. This has been trialed and is extremely successful in Europe and several US states.

The Greens are not anti fishing and I'm sick of hearing "DAY TAKEN OUR ROOODDSSS!!!!". The only statement made in their policy document relates to sustainable practice. It reads as such

20. The end of fishing practices that are unsustainable, or that adversely affect nontarget species.
You can read the whole document here http://greens.org.au/policies/vic/animals

All in all, Queasy has made some very good statements that are largely factually correct.

i have said it before and i will say it again when you are 0.50% of the problem you realy ain't the problem at all

At what point do you become a problem? You have just admitted fault, so when do we start to be part of the problem? is it 1%? what about 2%? what about 10%? Everyone emitted greenhouse gas contributing to elevated levels of Co2 in the atmosphere is part of the problem. It is a global problem and without a global solution we're pretty much done.

Perhaps, but given Australia's ranking as the world's 5th largest coal producer, and larger emitters such as China asking why they should do more when a developed country like Australia does so little, I would argue we are a lot more than 0.50% of the problem.

Yes. Coal was a neccessity 100 years ago. It isn't anymore.

i would be asking if a small country like this one can afford too just how dose making my power bill $120 a 1/4 dearer save anythingi am on a fixed income and there is no more things i can switch off as it is i have been walking around for the last 5 years with a head light and all the house lights off .and yes i am talking about the carbon tax all it did around here was make pensioners cold and poorer than the were .

There are people who are genuinely struggling. Trying to tell me you can't power your lights when a month you bought a new boat is probably not the way to play the poverty card. viewtopic.php?f=70&t=15761

Both Mum and Dad are aged pensioners and Dad is on disability due to a hip replacement that made things worse than better. Some smartarse at Social Services told them that cause they have solar panels fitted it could be regarded as an income!!!! I called them to sort it out and was told that it was a misunderstanding, I call Bullsh*t on that as I would not be surprised at all if there was some truth in it.

Any income legally should be declared. The income from solar panels will not be enough to affect pension or disability payments unless they also have other sources of income. You can earn up to $400 a fortnight before a disability payment starts to become effected. (information from 2012, may be out of date). The 'smartarse' was likely trying to save your parents from a whole heap of legal crap and financial hardship if they recieved income and did not declare it.

This is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard, let alone on a fishing forum.
'anthropogenic climate change' is rapidly being exposed for the scam that it is. Pretty much every alarmist prediction has turned out not only to be wrong but many cases the opposite has happened....no more snow, rains never gonna fall again, cyclones will be more frequent, etc, etc, etc
Coal has lifted nations out poverty,

I'm not even really sure where to start with this. There is a whole bunch of really really good information provided by NASA here http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

we have bucket loads of it and the ridiculous demonizing of it is mostly done by rich people who want to keep the poor down.

Cos so many poor people own coal mines. I seriously cannot comprehend how you've come up with this. You're being fed wolf tickets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBiJfWbffZU

Even you admit it requires 'belief', as opposed to indisputable facts - hell if you don't subscribe to the theories, you are a 'denier' - cant get more religious than that.

The science on climate change is really really solid. I can link an almost unlimited number of scientific studies but you're not going to read them. If you do decide to do some reading the NASA link above is a good place to start.

Shooters and fishers are desperately needed to counter the greens in senates state & federal.

I actually agree that the key to successful politics is balance. Conservationist (not conservative) goals will succeed if both the extreme left and extreme right factions of each party have an opposition to point out the ridiculousness of their claims.

Re the carbon tax didn't it benefit lower incomes as they got rebates tax cuts ect which exceeded the additional costs.

Don't let fact get in the way of generational political indoctrination, but you are correct.

Everybody please, for the love of all things outdoors, do some research before making claims about who is trying to do what. The Australian political climate is very challenging the last few years, and before you vote you should at least know what you're getting yourself into.

I'm going to conclude this post by sharing something I put up on Facebook a few days ago....

Australia has had five prime ministers in five years, the poor yanks look as though they'll have to choose between two options both of which have more disapproval than approval, and the UK leaves the EU. It seems like a ridiculous amount of instability. One might even call it absurd.

But it's not surprising.

You can't feed a society exaggeration, hyperbole and propaganda for over a decade, and then claim surprise when people don't seem to be making rational decisions on the basis of well established truth.

There's a cost associated with not telling the truth. There's a cost associated with polarized, adversarial public discourse. There's a cost associated with media more concerned with profits than the public interest.

It is, apparently, time to pay the piper

I got a strange amount of satisfaction from reading this post. BUT, you are obviously being paid off by big wind pharma

[Tackleberry]

i would be asking if a small country like this one can afford too just how dose making my power bill $120 a 1/4 dearer save anythingi am on a fixed income and there is no more things i can switch off as it is i have been walking around for the last 5 years with a head light and all the house lights off .and yes i am talking about the carbon tax all it did around here was make pensioners cold and poorer than the were .

There are people who are genuinely struggling. Trying to tell me you can't power your lights when a month you bought a new boat is probably not the way to play the poverty card. viewtopic.php?f=70&t=15761


[/i]

it might help if you had some fact's why don't you ask what i had sell to get said boat , and ask me how long i have been turning off my lights

you make it sound like i have just started doing it .

[Mutley and Scruffy]

Politics...people best vote for who they want...and don't talk about it in public!

[Raulfc7]

Politics...people best vote for who they want...and don't talk about it in public!

Oh but people feel the need to stand on their soap box and tell the world everything according to them......

[4liters]

I wasn't going to bother because there are degress to which I agree and disagree, but once again opinion and hyperbole and being presented as facts, many of which are incorrect.

So here goes.....

Yes, the Greens (in Victoria anyway) have a stated policy that they will work towards an end to recreational hunting on public land. So they're not just anti duck shooting, they want to make it a criminal offence to go out into a local forest and take a feral rabbit or goat, or even a prized deer, for food. Yet they want to DE-criminalise the taking of illicit drugs. Go figure.

After voting for Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party at the last state election, I read their policies on their website and they declared that they did not believe in anthropogenic climate change and were clearly pro coal. Longer term & globally, these sort of policies will have a more significant impact on fishing, hunting, and life as we know it than most of the Green's anti shooting and fishing policies.

Point being its worth researching a little deeper than just a party or candidate's name, and specifying your own preferences by voting below the line by your own choice than following some muppet's HTV card. Who knew Derryn Hinch was an animal right's campaigner?

The comments about the Green Party wanting to ban hunting on public land is accurate. I have not seen any science to back up this movement. The anti duck shooting is backed by solid studies regarding duck populations. I disagree on the ban on hunting feral species and believe that the money brought from sustainable hunting is beneficial to the long term conservation of hunting areas.

Bang on the money. Illicit drugs in this case being the decriminalisation of Marijuana, not other drugs. This has been trialed and is extremely successful in Europe and several US states.

The Greens are not anti fishing and I'm sick of hearing "DAY TAKEN OUR ROOODDSSS!!!!". The only statement made in their policy document relates to sustainable practice. It reads as such

20. The end of fishing practices that are unsustainable, or that adversely affect nontarget species.
You can read the whole document here http://greens.org.au/policies/vic/animals

All in all, Queasy has made some very good statements that are largely factually correct.

i have said it before and i will say it again when you are 0.50% of the problem you realy ain't the problem at all

At what point do you become a problem? You have just admitted fault, so when do we start to be part of the problem? is it 1%? what about 2%? what about 10%? Everyone emitted greenhouse gas contributing to elevated levels of Co2 in the atmosphere is part of the problem. It is a global problem and without a global solution we're pretty much done.

Perhaps, but given Australia's ranking as the world's 5th largest coal producer, and larger emitters such as China asking why they should do more when a developed country like Australia does so little, I would argue we are a lot more than 0.50% of the problem.

Yes. Coal was a neccessity 100 years ago. It isn't anymore.

i would be asking if a small country like this one can afford too just how dose making my power bill $120 a 1/4 dearer save anythingi am on a fixed income and there is no more things i can switch off as it is i have been walking around for the last 5 years with a head light and all the house lights off .and yes i am talking about the carbon tax all it did around here was make pensioners cold and poorer than the were .

There are people who are genuinely struggling. Trying to tell me you can't power your lights when a month you bought a new boat is probably not the way to play the poverty card. viewtopic.php?f=70&t=15761

Both Mum and Dad are aged pensioners and Dad is on disability due to a hip replacement that made things worse than better. Some smartarse at Social Services told them that cause they have solar panels fitted it could be regarded as an income!!!! I called them to sort it out and was told that it was a misunderstanding, I call Bullsh*t on that as I would not be surprised at all if there was some truth in it.

Any income legally should be declared. The income from solar panels will not be enough to affect pension or disability payments unless they also have other sources of income. You can earn up to $400 a fortnight before a disability payment starts to become effected. (information from 2012, may be out of date). The 'smartarse' was likely trying to save your parents from a whole heap of legal crap and financial hardship if they recieved income and did not declare it.

This is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard, let alone on a fishing forum.
'anthropogenic climate change' is rapidly being exposed for the scam that it is. Pretty much every alarmist prediction has turned out not only to be wrong but many cases the opposite has happened....no more snow, rains never gonna fall again, cyclones will be more frequent, etc, etc, etc
Coal has lifted nations out poverty,

I'm not even really sure where to start with this. There is a whole bunch of really really good information provided by NASA here http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

we have bucket loads of it and the ridiculous demonizing of it is mostly done by rich people who want to keep the poor down.

Cos so many poor people own coal mines. I seriously cannot comprehend how you've come up with this. You're being fed wolf tickets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBiJfWbffZU

Even you admit it requires 'belief', as opposed to indisputable facts - hell if you don't subscribe to the theories, you are a 'denier' - cant get more religious than that.

The science on climate change is really really solid. I can link an almost unlimited number of scientific studies but you're not going to read them. If you do decide to do some reading the NASA link above is a good place to start.

Shooters and fishers are desperately needed to counter the greens in senates state & federal.

I actually agree that the key to successful politics is balance. Conservationist (not conservative) goals will succeed if both the extreme left and extreme right factions of each party have an opposition to point out the ridiculousness of their claims.

Re the carbon tax didn't it benefit lower incomes as they got rebates tax cuts ect which exceeded the additional costs.

Don't let fact get in the way of generational political indoctrination, but you are correct.

Everybody please, for the love of all things outdoors, do some research before making claims about who is trying to do what. The Australian political climate is very challenging the last few years, and before you vote you should at least know what you're getting yourself into.

I'm going to conclude this post by sharing something I put up on Facebook a few days ago....

Australia has had five prime ministers in five years, the poor yanks look as though they'll have to choose between two options both of which have more disapproval than approval, and the UK leaves the EU. It seems like a ridiculous amount of instability. One might even call it absurd.

But it's not surprising.

You can't feed a society exaggeration, hyperbole and propaganda for over a decade, and then claim surprise when people don't seem to be making rational decisions on the basis of well established truth.

There's a cost associated with not telling the truth. There's a cost associated with polarized, adversarial public discourse. There's a cost associated with media more concerned with profits than the public interest.

It is, apparently, time to pay the piper

Solid.

As someone who used to work in the agricultural sector I cannot emphasise strongly enough how indescribably ****** we are unless we stop climate change. It's one thing to whinge about carbon taxes, the loss of coal mining jobs and the like but we can't survive without food and our food production is utterly dependent on a stable climate.