No, he did not.
???
At no stage did I say the only reason he got inâŚI said one of the main reasonsâŚquite different.
You said the majority of Australian believe climate change is a hoax, clear as day, black and white we can all read what you wrote. Stop back peddling.
The Shifty Shifters are at it again âŚ
I think he meant âhoaxâ based on the Green/Left perspective - ie we are all doomed unless we stop using coal and tax everyone for the privilege of breathing air.
If the climate change industry just started being a bit more collaborative instead of taking an âits my way or the highwayâ approach, then you may find that sensible debate can occur. However the more they continue with the abusive tactics, the more people will push back. That is just human nature.
I wonât bother responding again when itâs clear you are deliberately misquoting and backtracking. This is what you said - âHe is arguing that the only reason people supported abbot is because its all a hoax.â Really? Here is the reality: âOne of the key reasons he got inâ.
You then said âmajority of Australian believe climate change is a hoax, clear as day, black and whiteâ. However the reality is âTherefore the majority of Australians (or a very significant number if you donât accept majority)â.
Be honest or donât botherâŚ
You might take your own advice there.
Well I actually donât think your far right, I just think you enjoy stirring.
I think E12ipper is
Sorfed is a just dinosaur who is having trouble with his antiquated opinions being irrelevant.
But to answer your question . For starters I donât think abolishing the carbon tax had anything to do with why Abbot got in, I think the disarray of the labor party had everything to do with that. Getting rid of the tax has been both an economic and environmental disaster. The libs certainly did a good job of selling the idea that it was the noose around Mum and Dads neck when the reality is since itâs been abolished both power prices, production costs and emissions have skyrocketed while the largest polluters who pay almost zero tax now are allowed to run roughshod over the Australian public. I think even you behind closed doors could rationally look at the data and go yeah, still love my libs but that didnât turn out the way they said it would.
People who got sold that rotten egg leading into the election by the libs got sold just as much as they did by labor slipping it in in the first place, except this time they are actually paying for it.
I actually think there is a clearly distinction between a right wing voter who are just conservatives who feel that economic decisions and conservative values should be the deciding factor over any political stalemate.
This sort of ethos probably speaks to most of the people who post in the politics thread who are genuine right wing voters. These people do have the capacity to be both progressive, bipartisan and pragmatic with their views.
Then there is the next two stages of right wing after that who move over to the far side.
There are the aging right who have issue with progressive and pragmatic side of society and politics, a lot of people in and who vote for the national party fall into this catagory. They also tend to be the one most swayed by the print media because they donât understand how to extrapolate information from out side of the mainstream media. They also existed in a time where the morning paper was pretty reliable at reporting what actually happend but they probably never realised Kerry Packer died and Rupert owns nearly everything.
Then there is the far right. Which have two chapters. There is chapter one who basically form their entire opinion set and ethics base on the postition of their political allegiance and stick to it. Never question. The more conservative and right leaning the policy the more they will back it in. For some of these people the libs arenât right enough and thatâs why guys like Bernadi get traction.
Now this is where it starts to blur. Then there are the social far right. These are the people who vote right more because it aligns with their social beliefs, the real master race, patriot, Nazi bottom feeders. The sort of people who Pauline Hanson resonates and to a lesser extent Cory. Itâs beyond conservativism because even the real conservatives donât condone their behaviour or viewpoint. Itâs not rooted in religious ethics itâs basically white supremacy
5 Likes
Very well put Ben.
And Iâd largely agree Re: posters here.
I normally ignore your childish one liners but have some rare spare time.
Give me 2 examples of where I have deliberately misquoted.
A word of advice. Your inane requirement to provide a pointless one liner to anything you donât agree with says more about a character flaw than it does to help your cause.
Thanks for the response and I genuinely appreciate the time you took to do it. I agree with some of your comments but definitely not the majority.
1 Like
On what basis am I âfar-rightâ?
As said before the definition of âfar-rightâ has now lost all meaning - that you lump Cory Bernardi in as âfar-rightâ says it all.
He is simply a politician with traditional conservative values - values which I might add were more or less the norm as little as ten to twenty years ago.
And please stop with the Rupert nonsense. You just make yourself look like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. The idea that he is sitting in his New York office controlling the direction of various democratic countries is frankly too stupid for words.
No worries, and Iâm not surprised 
1 Like
Whats your definition of far right? (not in relation to you, but generally)
Youâd agree with me that Lee Rianon is far left, so who is the equivalent on the right side of the spectrum to Lee Rianon.
I donât think either side has to want gulags or gas chambers to be labelled âfarâ.
That if it is the position of your preferred political allegiance then you accept it and will defend it without question. And considering there are far right people within the LNP dictating a lot of the policy which you vehemently defend. You are, by association, far right.
You have been hanging around any loosely themed politics threads here for a few years now and not once have I seen you say that you didnât agree with a lnp position and by extension global right politics with the exception of the removal of Abbot. Which by and large the majority of the far right didnât agree with.
And as I said re chapter one of he far right. They have problems with progressive society. Like Corey does, which is why most people not in the far right think Corey is a neo-nazi
You mean my scything acerbically witted one liners of course, ⌠and no, I wonât bother wasting my rare spare time, chasing such things down.
If you donât believe science, I have no time for anything but one liners worth of time anymore for you or your ilk.
Been there, done that, ⌠not worth it.
There is nobody in the far right who is a part of the mainstream Liberal Party. You canât just make something like this up and then base your whole argument around it.
Far right for me in Australia would be some of the more wackier members that surround Hanson. And those Blue Patriots or whetever they call themselves - but they are a fringe group like .
Antifa.
Bernardi is definitely not far right. That is an insult. He is simply a conservative.
Ok I agree with your definition, its pretty reasonable.
But Corey isnât a member of the liberal party,
Heâs allready merged with one fringe group Family first.
He has history of meeting with Gert Wilders and Reclaim Australia people similar to those you claim are fringe and wacky far right.
By your own definition he is far right.
2 Likes
The Climate change debate is the perfect barometer to gauge where one lies on the spectrum.
It is perfectly plausible to accept the science and still be right winged aligned. Hell, you could even not accept the science and resign to the fact that moving towards a sustainable renewable energy system makes economic sense, and probably be truely more right winged.
But none of you fellas (though I actually think werewolf takes the piss more often than not) have ever put up any compelling evidence to support anything more than your âI read it in the blue right weeklyâ
Sorfed puts up graphs he canât read properly.
You though, good grief. If you had even a modicum of ability to rationalise or take any level of pragmatic objectivity to your personal analysis you would be able to look at this discussion without politics. You absolutely have an inability to do that.
There is no more a debate about ACC than there is about gravity.
4 Likes