StarGateWars Forums

As you may or may not know, Australia is now possibly (havnt decided if we go back to voting or not) in a hung government since WW2.


What is your opinion on hung governments?

Can minority governments work effectively on a federal level?



As we all know the Australian Sex Party will love a hung government.

Should be first over the line and none of this preference thing.

Personally I'd hang the lot, all the same different dog, same leg action.

And no Sex Party in my electorate

just goes to show how fed up people are with all the mainstream parties.

I want first past the post and voluntary voting.

i dont think that either government wouldve had enough power to be able to hold onto it for the 3 years
next election and ill be able to vote, unless its in the next 6 months
i think that it has the potential to work, and things may just go the 'right' way, and things might get fixed, like our policy on climate change (currently none D:)

Baxter wrote:i dont think that either government wouldve had enough power to be able to hold onto it for the 3 years
next election and ill be able to vote, unless its in the next 6 months
i think that it has the potential to work, and things may just go the 'right' way, and things might get fixed, like our policy on climate change (currently none D:)

Policy on climate change won't actually work until something that is open, clearcut and will not hurt the average person comes into play. I am also belwildered how you can tax a molecule you cannot actually see.

Why should I, a tax payer, be punished for the resources I have and use when I am effectively carbon neutral already. And no, I am not carbon neutral because I am worried about global warming, personally I think it is just the cycle the Earth is currently in- I just grow my own food etc because I love to.

Baxter wrote:i think that it has the potential to work, and things may just go the 'right' way, and things might get fixed, like our policy on climate change (currently none D:)

what do you mean by "our policy on climate change (currently none D:)"?

that you need to put a policy in because the world will end due to"climate change"?

if that's the case, i hate to break it to you but, anthropogenic climate change (otherwise known as, man made global warming) is a lie which was exposed by Climate-Gate and the break down of the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit....thankfully.
you may also want to check out "The Great Collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange", which proves people are not buying this crap any more....

but it wont end there, they will now push "overpopulation" on us even though fertility rates in the west (and most of the world) are dropping.

Ghoul wrote:

Baxter wrote:i dont think that either government wouldve had enough power to be able to hold onto it for the 3 years
next election and ill be able to vote, unless its in the next 6 months
i think that it has the potential to work, and things may just go the 'right' way, and things might get fixed, like our policy on climate change (currently none D:)

Policy on climate change won't actually work until something that is open, clearcut and will not hurt the average person comes into play. I am also belwildered how you can tax a molecule you cannot actually see.

Why should I, a tax payer, be punished for the resources I have and use when I am effectively carbon neutral already. And no, I am not carbon neutral because I am worried about global warming, personally I think it is just the cycle the Earth is currently in- I just grow my own food etc because I love to.

Any climate change policy is BS. Why? Because climate change is not human caused/humans have little to no effect. (In the sense of CO2 emissions).

The only climate change policy persay, is energy reform. I.E Real renewable energy sources, (None of this solar BS) and viable energy sources i.e Nuclear. But that isnt about the climate. It is more about national security and sovereignty.

We ma have another vote in 6 months depending how much Gillard pisses off the public and when the independents get tired of her.

if i were you, id watch "an inconvenient truth" or talk to any climatologist, meteorologist or scientist some-what related to these fields
each and every one of them will agree, our climate is changing because of human intervention

what they speak of has actually been tested small scale, and its true, CO2 emissions do affect temperature, even when everything else is constant

it is true in theory, its true in lab-tests, why cant it be true in real-life?

Baxter wrote:if i were you, id watch "an inconvenient truth" or talk to any climatologist, meteorologist or scientist some-what related to these fields
each and every one of them will agree, our climate is changing because of human intervention

did you just sight Al Gore's film as definitive proof and did you just say every climatologist, meteorologist, scientist related to the field agree?

you are behind the times (not trying to provoke you, just simple statement about how little the mainstream news and politicians tell us about whats true and whats not).

here, have a read of this: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monck ... rrors.html

and then watch this. you will hear from experts smash the myth of "man made climate change", and just for the record, these guys are climatologists, meteorologists and scientific experts who are related to the field who do not agree with Al Gore and his fake green mob:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 369613647#


and just for the record, Al Gores film was debunked in a UK court room because a father didn't want his child being subjected to lies at school without hearing the other side of the argument.




methinks we'll need a topic split for this one...

PS, i watched an inconvenient truth when it was first shown on Sky Tv in the UK and i was also sold about climate change until just over a year ago when i started hearing it was all lies so i researched further and found out what they are not telling us, which is that a global carbon tax will be paid directly to the world bank...you tell me how that will stop "global warming" or "climate change"...and just for the record, the earths climate is always changing

lol......

1stly I have watched the film... 5 times maybe more.
2ndly....I have talked to many scientists in this field.... and they all agree the extent what CO2 has is insignificant.

what they speak of has actually been tested small scale, and its true, CO2 emissions do affect temperature, even when everything else is constant

it is true in theory, its true in lab-tests, why cant it be true in real-life?

The problem with small scale testing it is highly inaccurate to the real world. As they do not factor in everything, i.e Natural processes ect...

Yes CO2 does keep in heat, its a good thing, if we didnt have GHGs we would die. (CO2 is a GHG) However, CO2 itself is insignificant.

Ask yourself this, what % of GHGs is CO2.
Correct me if i am wrong but H2O is the one of the largest contributing factors.

Ask yourself this, is there a pattern?
Look at the graph, not just what the movie tells you, look it at from a larger prospective. What he is doing is well practically lying to you. I.E Selective graphic shots.

Communism is true in theory... why cant it be true in real life?


KMA beat me to the post....

the film was aimed at Baxter, who REALLY needs to see it...

type faster next time

5 times? your worse than me

for you

viewtopic.php?f=167&t=173302


and i cant watch that movie, its an hour long!!!
im on a 20gb limit among 7 people here, and speed isnt too crash hot either
(goddamn i hate australian internet)

Baxter wrote:for you

viewtopic.php?f=167&t=173302


and i cant watch that movie, its an hour long!!!
im on a 20gb limit among 7 people here, and speed isnt too crash hot either
(goddamn i hate australian internet)

And it will only get slower and more expensive with the NBN

actually, the NBN will make it faster, though i think it will become more expensive
if an internet filter is put in place it will reduce speeds of the fibre, but not to current speeds