Red, Green and Pauline: How Hanson was held back

Matt says:

07:31am | 13/04/11

While I back Sarah’s views on equality, we run the risk of the bigots and racists not listening in class. Much the same as Sarah appears to have dozed off during English grammar.

Peter says:

07:31am | 13/04/11

Didn’t you notice the Election Results,  Sarah?

The Progressives got a hiding.

rob foster says:

07:47am | 13/04/11

Sarah Bath is strawman troll.

DJ says:

07:47am | 13/04/11

No Sarah, YOU are missing the point. Hanson says what a large section of Australians think. The Greens are in the main ideological fruit loops and they have only risen to some prominence through an even split in the 2 party preferred vote in this country.

Ripa says:

07:56am | 13/04/11

Dear Sarah
It’s WON not ONE, perhaps you could have benefitted from the education revolution, you dimwit.

Kevin says:

08:03am | 13/04/11

Punch wouldn’t have the guts to publish a similar post from a fictional character purporting to represent the Libs or ALP.
Keep misrepresenting the Greens, Rupert will be pleased.

dovif says:

08:11am | 13/04/11

Sarah

Is that why the Progressive party have about 30% of the votes in the federal poll, and the mini Progressive have 12%

It seems Australia has spoken and the progressivesare not listening

dovif says:

08:11am | 13/04/11

Sarah

Is that why the Progressive party have about 30% of the votes in the federal poll, and the mini Progressive have 12%

It seems Australia has spoken and the progressivesare not listening

Tom says:

08:33am | 13/04/11

@Matt and Peter, you’ve both been had.

The Original Oz says:

08:37am | 13/04/11

We have now reached peak Green. All future elections will see the Greens rapidly losing numbers in parliaments Australia wide. The rabble are getting their fifteen minutes of fame. Lets just hope they don’t wreak too much damage before they can be voted out.

Barry says:

08:54am | 13/04/11

@Ripa
First Rule of Engaging in Spelling Police Action:  Always check your own spelling!  It’s benefited not benefitted.  P.S.  I don’t really care about spelling, but calling someone a dimwit for a spelling mistake, and then making a spelling mistake yourself deserves to be pointed out.

remlap says:

09:22am | 13/04/11

Troll was trolling okay until “we want to remove the barriers by compulsory Gay appreciation classes in High schools.”

And thus, obvious troll was revealed.

It is amusing that some people still can’t see the forest for the trees.

Ripa says:

09:24am | 13/04/11

Barry,
seriously
the difference between ONE and WON compared to benefited, its not about spelling police, the whole word is wrong you dope.

J Bowden says:

09:54am | 13/04/11

I don’t who “we” is but is certainly is not my community or anyone I know.
We do not want gay marriages or any sort of teaching at schools that gay relationships are normal in any way.
Gays will never be treated with respect as the majority of people consider their lifestyle abhorrent.

Peter says:

10:56am | 13/04/11

Though I am not a fan of Ms Hanson but as you alledge she is injecting ‘poison’ what do you call the hissing of the Greens - their venon is more dangerous than a million ‘King Browns’. The Green’s policies are regressive in a most suttle way. Ms Bath says ‘we want an equal society’ which is another way to say ‘we know better so shut up, sit down and conform’.

fml says:

11:08am | 13/04/11

@DJ,

If Pauline is saying what a large section of australians are thinking, why was she not voted in?

Obviously NSW doesnt think so. Please stop thinking just because you and your mates down at the pub have a picture of Pauline on the toilet door, that your thoughts extrapolate to the rest of australia.

fml says:

11:09am | 13/04/11

@ JBowden,

Sheep cant talk or vote, so they dont count.

Bloggs says:

11:49am | 13/04/11

Pauline got more votes.  Doesn’t that get right up your nose!

grumpy old man says:

12:40pm | 13/04/11

Sarah, if your policies were what the majority of Australian citizens wanted, then you would hold enough seats to form a Government. The fact that you don’t hold enough seats indicates quite clearly that your policies are not what the majority of Australian citizens want. You do not have the numbers.
As for compulsory gay appreciation classes, have you actually thought through the implications of what you are saying? Do you not understand that one of the benefits of living in a fee society is the freedom to think and live how you wish to, without being brainwashed as to what is or is not acceptable? Have you not read any history and formed a view of what happens in a society then governments decide to nominate parts of the population as unacceptable or one part is more equal than other parts?  Do you also have a plan to run heterosexual appreciation classes amongst homosexuals? left handed appreciation classes amongst right handed people and vice versa?
I hate to think what passes for rational thought inside your skull. Do you honestly, really, think that what you are saying is remotely sensible, practicable or good for mankind ?

undertow says:

01:48pm | 13/04/11

Grumpy Old Man.

Stop.

Re-read what “she” originally posted.

If, for one minute, you actually think that this person actually believes the tripe they have posted, then your thinking is as blinkered as this troll’s.

The only reason they have posted what they post, is to present their impression of the “other side” and allow folk such as yourself to justify your own impression. In this instance, to create a character that embodies their views of the “loony left”.

Congratulations. You have put emotion before reason. You and many others.

Little Joe says:

03:20pm | 13/04/11

Sarah ...... you do not speak fo me and you do not speak for a majority of Australians ...... you speak for dim-witted egotists who inflict their views on society through marginal voting and ignorant journalists. Personally I know very few people who are for Gay Marriage and I think that I would rather students attend English, Maths and Science Classes than obfuscating ‘Gay Appreciation Classes’. But I guess that is why you are cheering about one seat. And the only reason you won ..... not one you illiterate .... a seat in Federal Parliment is because the Libs gave you their preferences. Greens are vile and venomous, they have NOTHING and represent very few in society.

chip says:

04:29pm | 13/04/11

@little joe

Thanks for my daily dose of irony.

Knemon says:

04:57pm | 13/04/11

DJ @ 07:47am - You really should think about what you’re saying before commenting on politics. Hanson represents no one…The Greens probably represent the views of 2 million Australians (possibly more) of all ages.

T says:

05:25pm | 13/04/11

No silly Sarah, ‘YOU’ and the ‘REST’ of your dopey airhead green mates want all of this; not mainstream Australia. You and your like do not represent Australians; you never will. The only reason you lot are where you are is because we have an existing political party which is the most ineffective, inefficient, incompetent and selfish political party Australia will ever have. So, stop blowing you own trumpet darlin, like you and the rest, your all make believe and don’t really exist in the world of reality. Oh, by the way, yes I’m a homophobe and there are many of us sweety pie!!!!!

Greg says:

10:09pm | 13/04/11

Gee your a piece of work watermelon.  I would have hanson any day over a green supporter at least you know what she stands for.  You lot just lie and cheat to gain a foot hold before making a total ass of yourselves.

andy says:

12:30am | 14/04/11

I must register my appreciation for Sarah Bath here. So obvious, yet garnering so many earnest replies from angry conservatives. “Gay appreciation classes in High schools.” hahaha, oh man.

PeeJayH says:

05:25am | 14/04/11

Typical garbage that comes from Greens so much of the time. If Australian people agreed that their policies were progressive & were the best for Australia then Brown would be PM. reality is Brown in particular & the greens in general are a total embarrassment to this country. I struggle to find anything at all in their policies that I can bring myself to agree with…& I’m a typical Aussie. I’m no Pauline Hanson supporter, but she says a whole lot more sensible things than what ever comes out of Bob Browns mouth. Most of what Sarah has said in her comment here…I couldn’t disagree with more. As for “we want gay marriage and we want to remove the barriers by compulsory gay appreciation classes in High schools”...NO WE DON’T, that high school stuff sickens me to the core!!

Jenny Stirling says:

01:03pm | 13/04/11

The ALP did not preference the Greens - the voters did so never mind about candour from the Greens, this paper should have more candour.

Tubesteak says:

09:06am | 13/04/11

Oh dear god, the horror, the horror.

I think it’s best now with all the loonies corralled and silenced. Well, mainly, the Greens have a bit of a say but not for long and funnily enough, they’re nowhere near as loony as One Nation.

john says:

09:27am | 13/04/11

@Tubesteak “Greens have a bit of a say but not for long and funnily enough, they’re nowhere near as loony as One Nation. “

So the greens are looney. I knew it.

Mouse says:

11:57am | 13/04/11

“representative of the views of their voters”  What, like our distinguished Independents?  Like our current minority Minority government? Yep, that’s working like a well oiled machine isn’t it?  lol

Tubesteak says:

12:12pm | 13/04/11

john: we’re all looney but some are more looney than others.

john says:

02:07pm | 13/04/11

@Tubesteak Ah-ha!  I knew at some point in time that people inside mental institutions are there for their own protection from society.

Finally the tables turn, people condemned as looney are actually “normal”. And the people who think they are sane intellectuals with degree endowments or success in life are actually the real loonies.

So in a political sense anyone that wins political power is a looney and the public is just as nuts for putting them their in the first place.

James1 says:

02:31pm | 13/04/11

john makes my brain hurt.

Daniel says:

09:10am | 13/04/11

Jeremy, couldn’t agree with you more on this. Labor in NSW is corrupt and got wiped like it deserved. It was time for the NSW Labor to take its medicine. This totally proves in NSW a Vote for Greens ISN’T a vote for Labor!!!

Faye says:

09:35am | 13/04/11

Absolutely Jeremy, how convenient they forget about Fielding now his tenure is almost over. Under NSW Labor corruption, nepotism, factionalism and union thuggery were the order of the day, what would have been rotten and unprincipled is The Greens preferencing them. Although Luke Foley conveniently fails to mention that The Greens did preference a couple of lower house candidates, decisions made on a case by case basis by local branches - Nathan Rees was one Labor candidate who benefited from Greens preferences.

I’m astounded by the lack of introspection from the ALP. It really us about time you started looking at why you were annihilated last month rather than blaming others, guys. Have you really learnt nothing?

Knemon says:

05:11pm | 13/04/11

Well said CJ Morgan - Most Punchers are smart enough to see through trolls like Sarah Bath, and the ones that can’t shouldn’t worry you.

Just Listening to Hanson, she is now complaining that she is treated differently to others and she wants a recount…I’ve got good money to say she doesn’t even understand how preferential voting works, in fact, voting full stop!

Lily J says:

08:02am | 13/04/11

@Harold,
Who is forcing you eat anything other than what you choose?  Perhaps best to avoid the MSG though, it appears to be affecting your thought processes.

TChong says:

08:33am | 13/04/11

Hey harold you knocking the extended family ?
And the uncles name is spelt with an L ,= Uncle clap, nothing else.
Just like in Get Smart, “not craw, craw ! “
The fans of Get Smart will know.

stephen says:

09:29am | 13/04/11

And, Mr. Chong, llllloving it.

fml says:

11:18am | 13/04/11

@harold,

you followed politics when you were a child?
I was in the park kicking a ball around.

Patrick says:

01:10pm | 13/04/11

This post is so cliched i almost suspect it is satire

Rose says:

01:20pm | 13/04/11

That’s exactly the problem with Hanson, she is stuck in the ‘50s. The rest of the world moves through the years, learning and growing while Hanson and her supporters remain ignorant of all that the world has become. Apart from minor issues, multiculturalism is working, the boat people are not invading- their numbers are relatively small still, and the new cuisine from other lands makes eating far more fun. For those of you that want to turn back the clocks, I feel sorry for you. The world is a wonderful place filled with mostly wonderful people and your ignorance is isolating you from all the good things that this enlightened Australia has to offer.

Johor says:

01:42pm | 13/04/11

Seems as if any Tom, Dick or Harriet in Oz can have a political point of view and freedom to express it without snotty opinionated criticism from nobodys excepting poor old Pauline. Yet there must be enough people around who share her views to have got her to 20th place. She would have got my vote to just to spite her critics and because the system is skewed anyway. As Morris West once famously said, “Australia is only a democracy on election day, thereafter it is a bureaucracy.”

Tony of Poorakistan says:

01:45pm | 13/04/11

Roase

Head out to the northern suburbs of Paris of an evening, dressed in western fashion. Or even Birmingham or Amsterdam.
If you make it back safely, then, and ONLY then, can you tell me that such immigration is for the good of the receiving country.

James1 says:

01:51pm | 13/04/11

I doubt it somehow Patrick.  Only a true racist would use words like “ching chong chao” in describing what I assume is Chinese food.

Honestly, I’m suprised it even made it through the mods.  I’m thankful it did though, because it gave me an amusing image of Harold tied to a table, being forcefed a delicious Szechuan hotpot, and forcing himself to hate every spoonful.

James1 says:

02:06pm | 13/04/11

Johor, she has every right to express her opinions.  However, she also needs to accept that every other person has the right to respond.  Disagreeing with someone is not the same thing as denying them their free speech.

This gets raised every time we have this discussion on The Punch.

fml says:

02:27pm | 13/04/11

@Tony,

I have, been all over paris, while drunk and disorderly and i am still here. Me think doth protest too much.

Rose says:

04:21pm | 13/04/11

Seriously Tony!! This is Australia and here multiculturalism is working, and has worked for many years. All the way along we have had to put up with people protesting about the influx of Italians, Greeks, Asians and now Africans and Middle-easterners. While the insecure have been whingeing and whining, the rest of us have accepted them, adapted, watched the newcomers adapt and basically just got on with it. We will not let people like you destroy this country with your small-mindedness and ignorance. I count among my friends people from many different countries, cultures and religions and will forever be grateful that a country like Australia is big enough to accept those who come and that that has allowed me to meet such a variety of people. Maybe if you stopped focussing on people’s backgrounds and just learnt to get along with others as equals you would feel much better about it all!

Seano says:

08:43am | 13/04/11

“She says what many, many Australians think. “

I love the way yet another failure at the ballot box is somehow a resounding endorsement for Hanson. It’s not, she lost, again.

AFR says:

09:51am | 13/04/11

“She says what many, many Australians think. “

Less than 3% actually.

CJ Morgan says:

10:13am | 13/04/11

Evidently, those many, many Australians don’t live in NSW.  Wonder where they all are?

Vicki PS says:

10:20am | 13/04/11

“She says what many, many Australians think.”

Pauline secured only a slightly greater percentage of the primary vote in the recent NSW election than the percentage of people who fall more than 2 standard deviations below the mean in a normal distribution of intelligence—around 2%.

Ergo, either many, many Australians don’t think as well as they think they do, or Pauline is a witch.  Or a duck.

fml says:

11:11am | 13/04/11

@tony,

Referendum? Why waste heaps of tax payers money to keep things just as they are?

Greg says:

11:12am | 13/04/11

If her view on immigration really do only have 3% support, why not have a referendum?

What are all the progressives so scared of? If they won a referendum, they could put mass immigration as a constitutional requirement, and destroy the anti-mass-immigration movement forever.

The truth is that a lot of people who want immigration reduced still don’t vote for Hanson for a range of reasons. A lot of people just vote out of habit, misguided loyalty or peer pressure.

AliceC says:

11:29am | 13/04/11

‘Why can’t we have a referendum on immigration?’

For starter, referendums cost $$$$, and this is what we elect MPs for, to make/change laws. If we had a referendum for every law that people disagreed on, the country would go broke!

What would the question be on this referedum anyway?

Seano says:

11:34am | 13/04/11

If her views barely represent 3% of support why have a referendum? And where do we draw the line on tiny minority special interests groups getting a referendum on their pet issue?

A complete waste of public time and money so that a tiny minority of bigots can have their say. And I’m sure claim after the fact that they’d been robbed in some way as Hanson and her supporters have been doing here.

BTW Which progressives are calling for “mass immigration as a constitutional requirement”?

The great thing about democracy is they’re run by majorities. Hanson has had her say and yet again been rejected by the voting public it’s about time Hansonites accepted the umpires decision.

James1 says:

11:36am | 13/04/11

Greg, why not just maintain the flexibility we have now, whereby the government sets numbers according to needs?  Why set it in the constitution, thereby making any future adjustments and changes subject to future referenda?

Seems a rather impractical idea to me.

Greg says:

11:52am | 13/04/11

No AliceC, we elect MPs to represent us in Parliament, and they are not doing that. They only represent themselves, their party, and the people who fund the majority of their election campaigns.

The cost of referenda is trivial, especially when you consider how much money is wasted on plasma tv stimuli and other ineffective policy bribes.

We don’t need a referendum on every law either, just the ones that have a major, fundamental (and often irreversible) impact upon the nation.

Like, for instance, when the politicians decide to vote in a new people.

As for the question, all it has to ask approval for is something like:

Net immigration and the release of new permanent residency visas shall be no more than 0.2% of the total existing population base in any calendar year.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

11:55am | 13/04/11

James
 
what makes you think it is being set according to need? Are you seriously telling me that we have a workforce need for those being brought in on these ludicrous extended family reunion programs? I could ask how many date-pickers and camel-jockeys do we need, but perhaps I’ll leave it to you to enlighten us as to what jobs they are doing ?

James1 says:

12:19pm | 13/04/11

Tony, our immigration program makes me think that.  You are focusing on a smaller aspect of Australia’s migration policy, and making invalid generalisations on that basis.  The Family Stream part of our migration program is only 20-25% of what our skilled migrant intake is.  The bulk of migration to Australia is through the Skills Stream, and is adjusted regularly according to our needs and current areas of skills shortage.

Within the Skills Stream, again a majority are classed as “professionals”, and include such categories as accountants, doctors, and nurses.  Other large areas within the Skills Stream include associate professionals and tradespersons.

While it has issues, I still maintain that we need to be able to adjust this aspect according to need, as governments regularly do.  Setting it at a fixed rate via a constitutional amendment just seems like bad policy. 

On a personal level, my grandmother came over as part of the Family Stream.  She worked in a hospital kitchen for twenty years, before becoming a self-funded retiree.

Greg says:

12:19pm | 13/04/11

Seano, as I just explained, Hanson’s views on immigration are shared by the majority of the population, not just 3%.

The only way to prove or disprove that claim is via referendum, where people tend to vote for or against the issue, regardless of what their preferred party wants.

In a democratic country, giving people the opportunity to vote is not a waste of time and money, particularly when hundreds of times more money is regularly wasted on efforts to deny the people’s will.

While the people continue to get ignored by party politicians, there will always be a market for people like Hanson. She, or somebody with similar views, will be running for election ad infinitum while the immigration issue remains unresolved.

I never said that progressives are calling for “mass immigration as a constitutional requirement”, I said that is the only way that people like Hanson will stop running for election, which seems to upset progressives so much.

James1, the constitution restricts the power of politicians, which is a good thing. They have too much “flexibility” already, and it just allows them to ignore the people.

The power hungry ALP wants mass immigration to branch stack the electorate at the national level, to ensure lots of welfare dependent ALP voters. The money hungry Coalition wants mass immigration to reduce labour costs and increase business profits for their big business mates.

The average Australian citizen suffers from lower wages, higher house prices, increased traffic congestion, and overcrowding, and that’s even before taking into account the social problems introduced by culturally incompatible immigrants.

This “bipartisanship” just removes the ability of the people to vote for their preferred lower immigration policy.

In contemporary politics, where there are huge financial and legal obstacles to competition, major parties hold an effective duopoly, so bipartisanship is anti-democratic.

AFR says:

12:45pm | 13/04/11

A referendum on immigration? Are you dead set serious? Apart from the fact we only ever have a referendum when there is a proposal to amend the constitution, are we going to hold one everytime people like Tony, Greg, and the 2% who support Pauline Hanson don’t like a policy? Also, how do you wish to pose the question? Australia has a long history of voting down referendums, partly becuase we don’t like change, and also because we have the shits that it is wasting our time and money.

Seano says:

01:37pm | 13/04/11

@Greg - you keep claiming a majority and yet you can’t win an election.

What do we do about every other minority special interest group who have an axe to grind and want a referendum? We’d permanently be at the polls giving special interest groups a chance to be most likely defeated because no referedum has got up in this country without bi-partisan support from the major political parties.

If you want to change government policy I suggest you win an election. Until then suck it up, Hanson was irrelevant before the election and she’s just as irrelevant after, crying about yet another loss wont change any opinions.

Aasq says:

01:44pm | 13/04/11

For the umpteenth time, Tony, what would this referendum question be ?

Tony of Poorakistan says:

01:49pm | 13/04/11

AFR
 
Greg stated it nicely. 
 
There is no other way to get the immigration issue put to the people. Neither the Tweedledee or Tweedledum parties will raise it as they have vested interests that do NOT include what is good for the average Australian.

Greg says:

02:16pm | 13/04/11

@ Seano, read what I wrote. How many times do you need to have a simple concept explained to you?

I claimed that a majority would support a reduction of immigration in a referendum. As already mentioned, the incumbent parties have placed significant barriers to competition in elections, so those victories might take a bit longer. I haven’t noticed Party Seano winning any elections recently either.

“What do we do about every other special interest group who have an axe to grind and want a referendum?”

Answer - give them one. Other countries like Switzerland have referenda
all the time, so do many US states (multiple referenda questions at almost every election).

The cost will be negligible, especially with electronic voting. (Even though costs never seems to be an issue for those who want multiple republic referenda). If necessary, put a restriction that the same issue can’t be voted on again for another decade if it’s unsuccessful. That way, the proponents won’t want to risk a vote if they are not confident of winning it.

As for Australian referenda history, many of them have failed with bipartisan support as well, because entrenched politicians never ask the right questions.

As for Hanson, I am very comfortable with yesterday’s outcome, and I think it will be for the best in the longer term. I never really wanted her relegated to state politics, when the federal stage beckons.

Seano says:

03:23pm | 13/04/11

@Greg

1. You constantly claim a majority support without any proof what so ever. If this was such a hot button issue why such a low turn out for Hanson, why does she continually fail at the ballot box? Because most people don’t care about her, carping or her divisive rhetoric.

2. You claim significant barriers, I claim votes. Simply put if your ideas had enough support you’d get the votes. Or if there were lots of votes in these ideas then one of the majors would have adopted them. You haven’t been dudded you’re been beat at the ballot box. Again.

3. So we should change our whole political system that has served us well for 100+ years because you’ve got an axe to grind one one issue? Please. It costs millions to run a referedum and we don’t have electronic voting your suggestion is pie in the sky nonsense movitivated by a refusal to accept the umpires result.

You’re suggesting that we take on a model where decisions could be made on a passing whim. Ridiculous. We elect politicians to run the country and represent the majority view. Hanson has not been elected yet again because she does not represent enough people.

4. “I haven’t noticed Party Seano winning any elections recently either.”

Well that’s a dumb comment since I haven’t stood for an election.

“As for Hanson, I am very comfortable with yesterday’s outcome, and I think it will be for the best in the longer term. I never really wanted her relegated to state politics, when the federal stage beckons.”

Just like at state level she’s failed federally before, she will again. She lacks anything in the way of policy or ideas and she’s already had her say (time and time again) not enough people are interested and the are plenty who are sick to death of her circus.

undertow says:

03:30pm | 13/04/11

The. Federal. Stage. Beckons.
Her Federal curtain call was over a decade ago and there was no encore. She just keeps fronting up for whatever pantomime has need of someone to play Pierrot for the Harlequinade. Only problem is, the Harlequinade fell out of favour over a century ago and nobody wants to include it in their pantomime any more, no matter how entertaining the slapstick is.

Greg says:

04:05pm | 13/04/11

@ Seano,

1. As I’ve already written, the only way to prove or disprove that the majority of Australians want a reduction in immigration is to ask them that question. They don’t get asked that question in an election. On the contrary, there is always a bipartisan effort to avoid the issue.

As for the NSW election, immigration is not a state issue, and Hanson did not campaign on it.

2. Even the ABC psephologist Antony Green admitted that Hanson would have won yesterday if she had been allowed to put her name above the line. A lot of her votes were counted as informal because voters put the ‘1’ against her name below the line instead of above it. The major parties know that people get confused between different federal and state voting processes, and they use that to their advantage. It is a systemic barrier.

As for stealing Hanson’s policies, wasn’t John Howard accused of that, just before he was re-elected at the 1998, 2001 and 2004 elections? Do you think that he did that to reduce his votes?

  3. Our political system has not served us well for 100+ years. That’s the point. We elect politicians to run the country and represent the majority view, but they don’t. And it’s not just me and it’s not just one issue. There are millions of people who would like to have their say on dozens of issues, without having their opinions filtered by unrepresentative party politicians.

Of course Seano is the exception, obviously believing that he is too stupid to think for himself, and eager to outsource his thinking responsibilities to others.

4. “Well that’s a dumb comment since I haven’t stood for an election” Duh! Oh really? But I have?

Are you really “sick to death of her circus” Seano? Good, that’s what I want to hear! That’s why, win or lose, it’s always good to see Hanson running for public office.

Seano says:

04:51pm | 13/04/11

@Greg

1. As I’ve written if her policies had any more credence she would have either won an election or had her “policies” adopted. Neither has happened she is a failure on both fronts.

2. What “if” means buckleys if the Greens had directed their preferences she would have had buckleys.

3. Oh bollocks. We have a stable democracy and a quality of life many envy. Hanson formed a party once to represent the views you are whining about. They are now a political irrelevance because precisely because she does not represent anywhere near the majority view. She has represents a small and very vocal minority who can’t accept NO for an answer.

4. Dumber and dumber.

“Are you really “sick to death of her circus” Seano? Good, that’s what I want to hear! That’s why, win or lose, it’s always good to see Hanson running for public office. “

You must enjoy failure.

Greg says:

05:51pm | 13/04/11

@ Seano, you are like a moth to the flame aren’t you? Just can’t stay away, no matter how badly and how often you get burned.

1. So you have switched away from talking about popular support for immigration, have you? Attempting to change the topic again? Gee, I wonder why?

As for Hanson, she did win an election. She won an ultra safe ALP seat, as a disendorsed Liberal, after campaigning against affirmative action for minorities. Can’t your insect-like moth brain retain that much information?

Obviously not, given that you don’t even remember the information in my last post about the Howard Liberal government stealing Hanson policies.

2. A clear demonstration of absolute ignorance about Green preferences. I’ll type a bit slower so that you understand – Green preferences were completely irrelevant to the NSW election result. They were not distributed. Not a single one. You are completely out of your depth. Again.

3. So you really think that people are happy with the current state of politics in Australia? Really? You don’t get out much, do you?

Anyway, the point here is if there is any scope for improvement. Do you think that we have achieved democratic perfection? Have you always been able to vote for a candidate who represented your views to the letter, and then kept their promises after they were elected? Maybe you should change your name to PollyAnna.

4. Is that all you got? Hahahahaha! Love your work, Seano!

It’s always good to see Hanson running for public office because it’s always a win/win, not failure. The irony of the diversity lovers who cannot handle the diversity of opinion from a single dissident candidate, and the intolerance of those who hypocritically demand it from others.

Unfortunately, in contrast to the urban myth, Hanson will not get any financial profit from running in the NSW election. If she had, it would have been worth every cent.

PTom says:

05:52pm | 13/04/11

Greg,

You might want to read how the voting in NSW State works.

It is optional preferential voting OPV meaning you can put 1 or mor numbers above or below and 1 only is a formal vote.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/02/nsw-preference-flows-under-optional-preferential-voting.html

http://votensw.info/polling_places/casting_a_vote2/legislative_council

What bugged Hanson was informal votes for her that means people putting cross not numbers.

Under OPV Parties don’t decide who gets you preference above or below.

mel says:

06:33pm | 13/04/11

Tony of Poorakistan says: “I could ask how many date-pickers and camel-jockeys do we need”. A racist who likes Pauline Hanson! Who would have thought!

Greg says:

06:57pm | 13/04/11

@PTom,

I know how NSW state voting works, and your links confirm this.

Voting a single ‘1’ below the line was an informal vote. You needed to vote for at least 15 candidates below the line to make a valid vote.

However, voting a single ‘1’ above the line was OK, and a valid vote.

This seemed to be the main point of confusion for people, although there were also some people who lodged invalid votes by using ticks or crosses (which was invalid either above or below the line).

The system was designed to stop minor parties swapping preferences, and to advantage the major parties.

Seano says:

07:18pm | 13/04/11

@Greg

“So you have switched away from talking about popular support for immigration, have you? Attempting to change the topic again? Gee, I wonder why?”

Misrepresenting what I said doesn’t give you a point or a win, it just makes you look silly.

If repeat for the intellectually challenged, if Hanson’s views had popular support she’d be in a parliament right now! The popular support you claim is a myth of your own making. People with 3% popular support don’t get to set the political agenda so suck it up.

Hanson’s brief past glory pales into insignificance when measured by her constant failures.

2. No it is you who is out of his depth, the lack of a a preference deal between Labor and the Greens was the only thing that got her close. Either way, I’ll type this slow for you, she still lost, she is a loser which is not surprising considering the quality of her supporters.

3. I don’t think the Australia people see Hanson as an alternative despite your spiteful rhetoric. This would be demonstrated by her constantly failing at the ballot box, only a moron would equate yet another failure at the ballot box with mandate to continue.

4. You talk about me not handling the diversity of opinion yet it is you who started with the invective in a lame attempt to shout down the fact that you cannot get away from, she lost, again!

You can whine all you like about diversity of opinion but Hanson has had her say, no one sensible is listening.

Shaz says:

09:34pm | 13/04/11

Hi Greg which races would you like to reduce or exclude?

Greg says:

09:51pm | 13/04/11

Seano, you have so many words, but still nothing to say.

I have already answered all your claims, and it’s not my fault that you can’t comprehend a reasoned argument. I’m happy for people to read the posts, and make up their own minds about who is flondering out of his depth.

But here is a hint: it’s the person who can’t understand that Green preferences were not distributed, and had absolutely no impact on the outcome whatsoever. Here is another clue: that means that if every single Green vote preferenced the ALP ahead of Hanson, the result would still be exactly the same.

If you don’t believe me, ask anybody else. Nobody else, not even Green supporters, would be stupid enough to make your mistake.

Greg says:

11:10pm | 13/04/11

Shaz, just about all of them for the rest of this decade until some degree of control is restored.

After that, probably focus on those races that are not assimilating, as indicated by over-representation in welfare dependency and criminality statistics.

Seano says:

11:20pm | 13/04/11

“Seano, you have so many words, but still nothing to say.”

Clown, so many words and you can’t accept that you lost. You have no mandate and you never did. 3% is SFA, that’s what Hanson stands for SFA.

“I’m happy for people to read the posts, and make up their own minds about who is flondering out of his depth.”

That would be you champ. You lost get it, lost, a loss is a loss. It is not a mandate to go federal, it’s a loss. I can’t say it any more clearly for you chump….you lost. Got it now? Lost.

“But here is a hint: it’s the person who can’t understand that Green preferences were not distributed, “

Oh *Yawn*, clearly I was talking about the Greens failing to do a deal with Labor despite calls to do so that is after all what the article is about genius. As the article states the Greens didn’t get full value and Labor got none. I’ll repeat that for the terminally challenged….did not get full value. She should never have gotten as close as she did.

You know what’s really stupid genius, losing for the umpteenth time and not being able to take it on the chin.  I’ll keep saying it until you get it…you lost. You have no mandate. You’re toast. Stick a fork in her, she’s done. The fat lady has sung. Game Over!

PS. Please go federal, another a failure there might finally get it through to you morons.

Nathan says:

10:47am | 13/04/11

No, the Punch would never publish an article criticising the Greens for preferencing Labor. Never, ever…....

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/preference-deal-paints-the-greens-as-a-pack-of-frauds/

Whatever are we supposed to think? I guess we’re not….

not a breeder says:

09:01am | 13/04/11

wow James, socialism, ecstasy and sodomy ... where do i sign up?

undertow says:

09:30am | 13/04/11

I prefer the good old days of rum, sodomy and the lash…

Wait, am I in the wrong thread? ‘Scuse me while I trot off to the ADF comments.

Ando says:

09:55am | 13/04/11

“a disaster for young men who are having trouble with their high sex drive and considering sodomy as an alternative”

I bet there our thousands of men champing at the bit for some male on male sodomy wainting for the greens to give the go ahead.

James1 says:

11:22am | 13/04/11

“socialist Islam”

Yes, because radical Islam sits very comfortably beside a political system that believes religion is the opiate of the masses, and is an invention of the ruling classes designed to keep workers happy thinking that they will collect a reward for the downtrodden lives in the afterlife.

Also, why are you so concerned with sodomy?  As a heterosexual man, I must say I never think of it.  All this handwringing over sodomy I see makes me wonder why so many “heterosexuals” have sodomy on their minds.

Tripper Smurf says:

11:42am | 13/04/11

Us young males usually dont resort to sodomy to satisfy hormonal urgers.  For that there is always Mrs. Palmer and her five daughters and that comes with the added bonus of not having to look at another naked male, something most straight guys would like to avoid if possible.

mel says:

02:05pm | 13/04/11

And when you think about sodomy, is it just male-male sodomy or does male-female sodomy get a rise out of you too?

Seano says:

08:53am | 13/04/11

I think you are mistaken. I personally sit centre left but this time round voted LNP and wish Barry well. But there are a lot of very tough to solve problems in NSW and Barry will have to be a miracle worker to make enough head way to stop Labor making a come back at the next poll in four years.

I’m not implying Labor will win, not even close they earned their long time in the wilderness and personally I don’t like their choice of leader but historically when one of the majors gets routed they come back at the next election.

The interesting thing to my way of thinking will be the election in 8 years time, will Barry have a record of solving problems and progress in NSW that he can point to or will be in the same boat we are now. I’m hoping for the former but expecting the later.

James1 says:

11:02am | 13/04/11

“Pauline Hanson’s speeches have always been about equal treatment for all races under Australian law.”

Just so long as you’re not an Asian.

Greg says:

12:41pm | 13/04/11

Wrong James1.

Hanson has always called for all Australian citizens to be treated equally under the law. Including those of the Asian race.

It is the ALP who want to discriminate, and call it “affirmative action”.

James1 says:

01:01pm | 13/04/11

Why is there a “danger” of Asians “swamping” us then, Greg?  If all races are the same to Ms Hanson, why warn us of the “danger” posed by one in particular?  Why not warn we are in danger of being swamped by Irish?  Or Italians?  If all races are to be treated the same under Australian law, which I assume includes migration law, why single out Asians as a danger?

BTW, I can’t stand affirmative action - almost as much as I can’t stand Pauline Hanson’s brand of ill-informed, lowest common denominator populism.

Greg says:

02:36pm | 13/04/11

Hanson has always said that all Australian citizens should be treated equally, and potential immigrants are not Australian citizens.

Immigration policy should be determined to benefit existing Australian citizens, because that is the Australian government’s duty and responsibility, and because no other government will do it (they look after their own citizens first, as they should).

Australia is what it is because of its people. If you change the people then you change the country. Some people will be more culturally compatible than others. Some will integrate and assimilate, and others won’t.

And absolute numbers matter. Relatively small numbers may be beneficial, and just spice things up a bit, but too many will fundamentally change what you started with, and destroy the original nation.

It is not an issue with being racist toward Asians, it is about protecting the culture and identity of existing Australians. Asians are entitled to the same rights as non-Asians, including the right to their own space where they can practice their own culture without compromise.

Hanson said that she didn’t want Australia “swamped” with Asians. She didn’t say she hated Asians, or that they were inferior to Australians.

The issue was the protection of Australian culture and identity, not the vilification of other races. Any nation that doesn’t protect itself is doomed to extinction, as has been proven throughout history.

James1 says:

03:08pm | 13/04/11

That is an intellectual distinction which I do not think Ms Hanson would be capable of making Greg.  I think she meant exactly what she said - that Asians are a danger and thus undesirable.  That some races are more dangerous and undesirable than others.  These are fundamentally racist things to say.

James Hunter says:

03:29pm | 13/04/11

onya tom,
pity a few more of the common pertators herin had not actually read what Pauline has said rather then commenting on the reports of the trash media.
A little bit of ignorance goes a long way and looking at some of the comments today maybe there is after all no hope for either truth or common sense.
At least Pauline does not go and speak at ralleys held by radical muslims nor walk in street parades with them. The greens are making themselves a laughing stock and not before time.

Greg says:

04:24pm | 13/04/11

James1, of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I have met with and spoken with Pauline Hanson outside of the media glare, and I have formed a different opinion.

I have never heard her say, or even seen her quoted as saying that “Asians are a danger and undesirable” or that “some races are more dangerous and undesirable than others”. Maybe that’s just something that you think she might have said, given your acknowleged prejudice against her.

Of course, I am willing to stand corrected if you can provide a link to a quotation from a reputable source, but I would be very surprised if it were true. It just doesn’t sound like something that she would say, although it does sound like something her opponents would accuse her of saying.

James1 says:

04:54pm | 13/04/11

“We are in danger of being swamped by Asians”, from her maiden speech.  It implies that Asian migration is a danger, and that Asian migrants are undesirable.  At least that is how I took it.  Do you have an alternative interpretation?

Also, my prejudice against her is informed by living in Toowoomba at the time of One Nation’s heyday.  I saw drongos with One Nation bumper stickers abuse Asians from their cars.  I had old ladies tell me at busstops that they are sick of all these immigrants.  I would tell them I find that offensive, as both my parents migrated here.  These sweet old women would tell me they weren’t talking about the good immigrants, but meant all the “darkies” (well, the more polite ones used that word).  They would always go on to discuss their love of Pauline Hanson, who would get rid of all the “darkies”.  While I know it is not fair, I tend to judge people by the company they keep.  And One Nation kept some very bad company.

On a related matter, thanks for the civil discussion on this issue.  It is not often I can exchange this number of posts on such an issue without it degenerating into name calling, and as such I look forward to debating with you in future.

PTom says:

06:00pm | 13/04/11

Don’t forget the one the other day.

I drove here, and did not come by boat.

mel says:

07:00pm | 13/04/11

Greg talks about: “It is not an issue with being racist toward Asians, it is about protecting the culture and identity of existing Australians” and about things that might “destroy the original nation”. Oh the irony of it all! We’ve missed the boat on protecting the cultures of the ‘original nation’ (or should I say aboriginal nation). And did you know that asians have a longer history in Australia than Europeans (I’m thinking of the trepang trade here)?

Maybe you’re right though, let’s get rid of these johnny come latelies, the ones who won’t assimilate (the british are the least likely to give up their original citizenship), the visa overstayers (the largest number of illegal immigrants are, of course, UK backpackers) and hard core criminals (which is the biggest group in prison (those of anglo/celtic descent!)

Or are you just scared of the ‘darkies’?

Horrified says:

08:41pm | 13/04/11

Greg; “Hanson said that she didn’t want Australia “swamped” with Asians. She didn’t say she hated Asians, or that they were inferior to Australians.”

No, of course not, since complaining about being swamped with Asians isn’t racist at all. Right. I guess you would have no problem if an Asian politician complained about their country being swamped with white Australians.

“The issue was the protection of Australian culture and identity, not the vilification of other races. Any nation that doesn’t protect itself is doomed to extinction, as has been proven throughout history.”

Except what makes you think 1)that your culture and identity are shared by other Australians?, and 2)only white Australians form Australian culture and identity?

Greg says:

10:43pm | 13/04/11

James1, yes I do have an alternative interpretation. The emphasis is on “swamped” rather than on “Asians”. Asians may have been the fastest growing and most visible immigrant group at the time, but the focus wasn’t on Asians, and on the danger of being overwhelmed by a foreign culture, no matter what the foreign culture is.

At the time, the political elites were insisting that Australia was “part of Asia” (not that neighbouring Asian countries have ever agreed with this), and the proximity of hundreds of millions of Asians meant that they were the most likely threat to Australian culture being overwhelmed by a foreign culture.

In fact Asian culture is probably relatively more compatible than a lot of others, as has been shown by the increasing problems with other immigrant groups in more recent times.

You have already admitted that guilt by association is wrong, but before they could vote for One Nation, these “drongos” you saw would have voted for the ALP or Coalition. Did you ever wonder why these other parties were never blamed for receiving their “drongo” votes?

It’s entirely natural that people prefer their own kind. They always have, just like elsewhere in nature. Eagles fly with other eagles, and sparrows nest with other sparrows. That isn’t hate. It’s nature.

The Chinese culture will be maintained by the Chinese in China. The Japanese culture will be maintained by the Japanese in Japan. Arabic culture will be maintained by the Arabs in the Middle East. Why is multiculturalism only forced on countries with European majorities? Where else will Australian culture be maintained if not in Australia?

Why is it so unreasonable that a people would want to preserve their own culture, celebrate their achievements, and be proud of their identity and ancestry? This isn’t denied to any other non-white racial groups, yet whites are expected to feel guilty, accept blame for any problems experienced by other races and apologise for everything.

Yet all of these concepts are considered inappropriate opinions and suppressed within the national political dialogue. White Australians experience these feelings, but nobody is allowed to represent and articulate them in mainstream society.

So drongos vent their frustration by shouting abuse at Asians from their cars. I don’t endorse this behaviour, in fact I actively discourage it whenever I can. Not for moral supremacist or politically correct reasons. I encourage these people to redirect their frustration to those that really deserve it, and away from Asian immigrants who are innocently walking down a street.

I am always willing to explain why I support Hanson’s policies to anybody who is willing to listen, although a lot of people resort to name calling when they have no rebuttal.

As the saying goes, a racist is somebody who is winning an argument against a liberal.

Greg says:

11:29pm | 13/04/11

Mel, the original nation is the Australian nation. There was no nation before British settlement, only a disparate bunch of rival stone age tribes, with no towns or cities, no buildings, no common language, no economy and no civilisation. They hadn’t even invented the wheel yet.

The British settlers were pioneers, not immigrants. They created and built their nation out of the wilderness, they did not just gatecrash it when all the hard work had been done.

As the closest non-Australian relatives of the original settlers, the British are the easiest to assimilate. We already share the same language, heritage and ancestry.

As for the visa overstayers, these are the best type of illegal immigrants. They don’t destroy their ID papers. They don’t destroy the planes that they arrive on. They don’t claim asylum and demand welfare payments. And they eventually go home again.

As for hard core criminals, I think that you will find that angloceltic Australians are vastly under-represented as a proportion of the population. But don’t worry, they are apparently to blame for the over-representation of other ethnic groups in prisons.

Greg says:

11:51pm | 13/04/11

Horrified, take a pill, have a lie down and try to compose yourself.

As already explained in this thread, there is nothing immoral in people wanting to preserve thir own culture. It doesn’t mean that you hate other races.

And you are right in guessing that I would have no problem if an Asian politician complained about their country being swamped with white Australians.

But as Australian national identity has been diluted, the link between culture and nationality has deteriorated. A cultural schizophrenia has been imposed on the nation, with the usual impact upon social cohesion.

But I know that my culture is shared by most other European-Australians. I live amongst them, and there is no serious conflict. That is not always true for others with the same nationality, but a different culture.

Horrified says:

05:39am | 14/04/11

Greg says:
“Horrified, take a pill, have a lie down and try to compose yourself.”

Oh be quiet.

” As already explained in this thread, there is nothing immoral in people wanting to preserve thir own culture. It doesn’t mean that you hate other races.”

It absolutely is immoral if you define your culture along racial lines, and at the exclusion of other races.

” And you are right in guessing that I would have no problem if an Asian politician complained about their country being swamped with white Australians.”

Really? Well, at least you’re consistent. Doesn’t change the fact that it was a disgusting thing for Hansen to say. Personally I am more worried about Australia being swamped with the likes of her.

” But as Australian national identity has been diluted, the link between culture and nationality has deteriorated. A cultural schizophrenia has been imposed on the nation, with the usual impact upon social cohesion.”

Not in the slightest. The only way to argue this is if you are someone who mourns the passing of the White Australia policy.

” But I know that my culture is shared by most other European-Australians.”

I would be cautious about saying things like that. I am a European-Australian, and very few people I know share your ‘culture.’

“I live amongst them, and there is no serious conflict.”

I would imagine you live among them since you obviously don’t live with non-European Australians. Have you ever met a non-European Australian? Pathetic.

“That is not always true for others with the same nationality, but a different culture.”

Have you ever met anyone outside your racial/ethnic group or culture?

BTW, multiculturalism isn’t forced onto Australia; we ARE multi-cultural, and non-white/non-Europeans have as much right to live in this country and are just as Australian as you are. If you can’t accept that, well, then maybe you should do what the loathsome Hanson promised to and leave.

I must say it has been a pleasure reading your posts. I detest Hanson, but every so often someone comes around and says that not all of her supporters are ignorant or racist. But then I read posts by you and you clearly prove that her supporters are absolutely racist and ignorant.

You praise Marine Le Pen, which is itself contemptible. You write ‘Or Cabramatta, which has been ethnically cleansed of European Australians’, which was a shock as I wasn’t aware that European (you mean white) Australians have been systematically murdered based on their ethnicity or race. As the grandchild of Holocaust survivors, all I have to say is that if you are willing to use the term ethnic cleanse to describe European (white) Australians moving to other suburbs, then you are not only horrifically ignorant, and completely out of touch with history, but you’re an absolute joke as well. I know from now on that if you are unhappy with the Australia’s political/cultural/social situation, things must be pretty good.

Oh, and as for the anti-semitic nonsense, not only does AIJAC not represent the Jewish community in any way, shape or form (I actually think they are a hate group), but it appears that the only people you think should live in Australia are white Christians. I will tell you whom many Jews regard as a racist nutter; Pauline Hanson, and you as well obviously.

Tom says:

11:18am | 14/04/11

@Horrified, ““It absolutely is immoral if you define your culture along racial lines, and at the exclusion of other races.”

Horrified, you have just called the Chinese immoral. You are a disgusting racist.

Greg says:

12:29pm | 14/04/11

@Horrified

“It absolutely is immoral if you define your culture along racial lines, and at the exclusion of other races.”

Oh, you mean like Jews do?

“I am a European-Australian, and very few people I know share your ‘culture.’”

Don’t get out much, do you? That’s not surprising, as you have self-identified as being a member of an exclusive minority widely considered to have an extremely insular and ethnocentric culture.

“Have you ever met a non-European Australian?” “Have you ever met anyone outside your racial/ethnic group or culture?”

Of course I have. I get out more than you seem to, although even if I didn’t, how could I possibly live here and not meet one?

Australian national identity has been diluted, the link between culture and nationality has deteriorated. A cultural schizophrenia has been imposed on the nation, with the usual impact upon social cohesion. What part of this do you deny? Are you denying that the country has been infected with multiculturalism, or are you claiming that all of the incompatible cultures are really all getting along together?

I don’t remember Australians ever voting for multiculturalism. In fact, it has been unpopular in just about every opinion survey that I’ve seen, and becoming increasingly more unpopular as more people suffer from it. If Australians don’t want it and have never asked for it, how has it not been forced upon us?

Unlike more recent immigrants, European-Australians settled and built the nation out of the wilderness. That gives them a greater right to benefit from what they and their ancestors have built. Why should they leave? And where else is there that has not also been flooded with freeloaders?

So you are another grandchild of Holocaust survivors, there seems to be a lot of you. But if your grandparents survived the Holocaust (ie nothing happened to them), why does that qualify you for any special entitlements?

As for ethnic cleansing, it means the removal of an ethnic group from an area, and does not specify the means of removal. At least, that’s the definition for non-white people. I suppose if white people are forced out then “white flight” is the preferred term, given the need to shift responsibility onto the victims. So it’s not just me, a lot of people are unhappy with the Australia’s political/cultural/social situation, and the numbers are growing all the time.

I’m interested to hear your definition of anti-Semitism – how exactly is it anti-Semitic to criticise the publication of a hate list by a group of Jews that even you admit are a hate group? And are you sure that the AIJAC does not represent the Jewish community in any way, shape or form? You seem to agree with their hatred of Hanson, and I don’t remember any Jewish people writing posts to The Punch to criticise the AIJAC. Of course I could be mistaken – feel free to post some links demonstrating mass Jewish criticism of the AIJAC.

But I do remember plenty of people criticising all One Nation supporters when one nitwit member claimed to be a Grand Wizard of the KKK (before he was expelled as a member). Maybe you can explain your rules for when guilt by association is OK, and when it isn’t, and the associated ethnic and racial dependencies?

mel says:

01:59pm | 14/04/11

Greg believes that the British are the easiest to assimilate, probably because he is descended from that group. The problem, as I mentioned earlier, is that they don’t assimilate. It seems to me that, more than any other culture, the British wish to impose their culture and beliefs onto Australian society. That’s the last thing a vibrant, multicultural Australia needs: the dead hand of British culture forcing its dull uniformity onto us.

It’s funny how easily one can wave away objections to foreign cultures taking over Australia when you’re part of them, isn’t it Greg?

Greg says:

02:34pm | 14/04/11

Mel, the British are the easiest to assimilate because Australia was built by the British and their descendents. We already have a similar culture and heritage. That’s why we use the English language and the British legal system. That’s why we have a parliamentary democracy. That’s we share the same Queen as head of state. That’s why we have the British Union Jack in the uppermost corner of our national flag.

The British and Australian cultures share similar values and are the most compatible. The British don’t need to impose their culture and beliefs onto Australian society, because most of Australian society already has a very similar culture and beliefs. It has nothing to do with who I am descended from.

And as I’ve already written before, the British settlers did not “take over” Australia, they created it. They built a nation where none had previously existed.

Where is your evidence to support your bizarre claim that the British don’t assimilate? Are they walking the street wearing sinister face masks? Are they conspiring to commit terrorist acts? Are they forming ethnic gangs and bashing people? Are they over represented in gaols? Are they over represented on long term welfare dependency? Are they over represented in importing drugs from Asia?

If so, feel free to provide your proof.

Anthony says:

09:17am | 13/04/11

Are you talking about the shooters party?

Daniel says:

09:05am | 13/04/11

Greens policies will only protect Australia from the free market nutters that now run Australia Ie: Labor and Liberal.

john says:

09:30am | 13/04/11

@un-PC “Seems to me the only one injecting poison here is you, Luke.  What’s the matter?”

He probably hasn’t been laid for ages, and wants to sink the boot into Pauline and blame her for his impotence.

Tom says:

10:08am | 13/04/11

Tin foil hats anyone?

Pretty Damn Obvioius says:

10:47am | 13/04/11

Sarah Bath is a conservative troll you moron.
Wake up.

The Original Oz says:

02:10pm | 13/04/11

Labor failed to adhere to a commitment???? Is any one surprised by that after the most notable Labor commitment breach “there will be no tax on carbon under a government that I lead”. pretty big commitment breach there and all done to satisfy the whackjob greens party. And the Greens now want Labor to honour their commitments to them when they can’t honour a commitment made to all Australians. Hate to tell you but under no circumstances are the Greens worthy of anyone honouring commitments to them.

Knemon says:

05:18pm | 13/04/11

“shooting in some national parks” - LOL. You’re kidding iansand, at least I hope you are?

James1 says:

11:31am | 13/04/11

“She is no threat to Australia…I doubt any politician loves Australia more than she does.”

Printing money and driving up inflation is a major threat to Australia.

Jim says:

12:01pm | 13/04/11

I remember that James1…it must be taken into context that she was a layman, very passionate but a layman all the same. Many people did not know the ramifications of printing extra money until she suggested that and the media had a field day around it.

In typical Autralian media fashion though, not many of them explained why it was bad, just kept saying it was bad.

I’d say the atypical layman today would still think it was a reasonable suggestion!

James1 says:

12:09pm | 13/04/11

Fair call Jim, but I would contend that we are much better off with, say, Rhodes scholars and university graduates who already know these things in positions of power.  Our current treasurer and PM are perfect examples of what happens when laypersons takes control of the nation’s coffers. 

In any case, Greg below has decided to contend that Ms Hanson was misquoted on her “People’s Bank”.  As such, I await correction on this matter.

Greg says:

12:50pm | 13/04/11

Jim, you don’t remember Hanson saying that she wanted to print money, because she never did.

I have already posted the facts below, and corrected James1’s mistake.

But despite the fact that Hanson has never endorsed money printing (and it has never been a One Nation party policy), most people don’t seem to realise that money printing already happens, and has been happening in ever increasing amounts for decades.

Both ALP and Coalition governments have presided over massive money printing, and they still do. It happens in every developed country, and in plenty of undeveloped countries too, with the most infamous recent example being Zimbabwe. The next example will be the USA.

“In typical Australian media fashion though, not many of them explained why it was bad, just kept saying it was bad”.

Yes, well that’s what they always do. If they explained why it was bad, then they might also have to explain the whole truth, including why governments all around the world have been doing it for years. Better to just criticise Hanson, and hope that not too many people understand the truth.

Jim says:

01:51pm | 13/04/11

Thanks for the clarification below Greg! It’s amazing (scary) to think how much influence the media has on how we percieve things…I’d bet that if you asked 1000 people if Hanson suggested printing money, then 999 would say yes.

I still can’t see how Hanson’s opinions are more dangerous than Labor’s proven criminal activities and the Greens extremism…please enlighten us Luke (whoever you are)

James1 says:

02:30pm | 13/04/11

Its not so much her opinions that are dangerous, JIm, its her whole political persona and lack of intelligence and education.  Without a deeper understanding of how things fit together, and without an understanding of both the detail and the bigger picture, we get populism.  With populism, we get stupid decisionmaking, profligacy, and bad governance.  We have enough of that already, without making it even worse by handing over the reins (to whatever degree) to a high school dropout as easily manipulated by clever bastards with agendas as Ms Hanson is.

Greg says:

03:06pm | 13/04/11

James1, there is a significant difference between being inarticulate and being unintelligent.

It’s obvious that Hanson is not your typical smooth talking politician, but we already have a surplus of those, and we don’t need any more. In any case, anybody who has not had media training and is put under the spotlight by a hostile journalist can be made to look silly even before the editing process begins. Even experienced politicians can get ambushed, and they often do.

Hanson was politically niave, she thought that the media was neutral, and went like a lamb to slaughter. Just like the average person would.

But like many others, she can see where the country is heading. Like many others, she believes her own eyes, ears and experiences, rather than the reports from ivory tower academics, journalists and politicians with vested interests.

The unintelligent people are the ones who can’t see the obvious,  ignore all the lessons of history and are convinced that human nature is different this time.

Playing semantic games makes no difference. What is the difference between a populist decision versus a democratic one? When is an uprising a demonstration of people power versus a mob riot? Remember that one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.

The fact is that Hanson is not easily manipulated. That is self-evident. How many other peope in the history of this country have suffered so much persecution and abuse, after taking on the power elites? Even after having trumped up political charges quashed, she still has not been suppressed.

And if Hanson is so obviously wrong, why is it that her enemies always resort to ad hominem attacks? It’s always about red hair and fish and chip shops, or it is about attacking what she never said, rather than what she did say.

James1 says:

04:06pm | 13/04/11

“Even after having trumped up political charges quashed, she still has not been suppressed.”

Personally, I think that is because she pockets a nice wad of cash every time she runs.  Pays the bills, and it sure beats working.

“Playing semantic games makes no difference. What is the difference between a populist decision versus a democratic one? When is an uprising a demonstration of people power versus a mob riot? Remember that one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.”

I don’t buy into that type of relativism and moral equivalence - I think there is a real difference between freedom fighters and terrorists.  I also think there is a real difference between populism and democracy.  Democracy - particularly Westminster style democracy - is about balancing interests in society, not the rule of the majority.  Otherwise, how could any democracy possibly justify a capitalist economic system, wherein resources tend to flow to those who own resources?  Wouldn’t a purely populist system simply take the resources, and distribute them evenly?  Sometimes the interests of individuals, whether or not they constitute a raw majority, need to be sacrificed in the interests of the greater good.

“And if Hanson is so obviously wrong, why is it that her enemies always resort to ad hominem attacks?”

I don’t know.  What they should be doing is explaining how short-sighted things like protectionist economic policies are, and how they actually make Australia less competitive, and damage chances at economic growth and innovation into the future.  Perhaps they should be explaining why agricultural subsidies are bad economic policy in the long term, and that we should not be subsidising our farmers to grow unprofitable crops on unsuitable land, and instead removing these subsidies to force said farmers to move to models of agricultural production which are actually viable and profitable on the international market.  Perhaps they should be explaining the problems with a racially selective immigration program that excludes people on the basis of their “Asianness”.

“But like many others, she can see where the country is heading.”

Many, if not most, would dispute this.  It all depends what facts you are talking about, I guess.  There are many, many examples of multiracial and multiethnic societies that have worked, there are many, many examples of ones that haven’t.  This time around, only one thing is certain: it will be different.  Human history never repeats itself, every age is different.  We can only use history to guess at what will happen and to guide our actions, and I think that in this case the historical facts can lead to both sets of conclusions.

Personally, I think it all depends on how we manage it.  And telling Asians that they are a “danger” that could “swamp” Australia is not the way to do it, either in terms of the Asians already here, or the ones living in other countries.

Greg says:

05:21pm | 13/04/11

James1, it seems that you are susceptible to believing urban myths. Hanson does not “pocket a nice wad of cash every time she runs”. I’m not sure if she even exceeded the threshold required for public funding in the recent NSW election, but even if she did, she still only gets reimbursed for campaign expenses that she can show receipts for. Not a cent more, with no potential to profit.

Everybody also seems to forget that even though her fraud conviction was quashed, she was still forced to re-pay over $500,000 in campaign funding, even though she has already distributed the money to individual candidates. This came out of her own pocket, and she was nearly bankrupted, which conveniently would have made her ineligible to contest any more elections.

I wasn’t arguing moral equivalence, I was demonstrating the use of spin and semantics. People often use such terms interchangeably to suit their own agenda, and knowing this helps in reading between the lines.

As for economic protectionism, it is a necessary and essential requirement to maintain national sovereignty. Agricultural subsidies are needed because there is never a level playing field. Australian produce prices are inflated by all of the extra taxes levied here that do not apply in other countries. Not just extra taxes on goods and services, but also taxes to support everything from environmental impact studies to workplace relations arbitration. Taxes that support the way of life that Australians have voted for.

So-called free trade allows other countries to subsidise their exports in order to destroy competing industry in Australia, and then raise prices once that aim has been achieved. Free trade increases our imports and exports local jobs, and is not sustainable, although it can cause a lot of damage before the end comes.

Whilst human history never repeats, as Mark Twain wrote, it often rhymes, and the one constant that doesn’t change is human nature. Human nature which ensures that all races of people have a preference for their own kind, and rewards tribal loyalties.
The financial industry often quotes the well known saying: “This time it’s different”, usually to justify a booming bull market just before it crashes. Like what happened during the dotcom bubble.

The outcome is always eventually the same with multicultural societies as well. No great nation or empire has ever arisen from multicultural origins. On the contrary, multiculturalism is a clear signal of impending collapse.

As for Asians or others being offended by our immigration policies, how many Australians are offended by Chinese or Japanese or Indian immigration policies? It is almost impossible for an Australian to migrate and receive citizenship of these countries, certainly much more difficult than vice versa. Do you find many Australians fretting over this and making racism accusations?

James1 says:

08:04pm | 13/04/11

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on those matters Greg.  On your last point though, I do not hesitate to call Japan and China racist societies, and I would not flinch from calling their policies racist is some areas.

I also believe that Australia is better than that, and that our political culture does not need to stoop to the kind of xenophobia so prevalent in Japan and China.

Greg says:

11:05pm | 13/04/11

James1, I have no problem with different opinions, especially if they are held after hearing and at least considering a range of viewpoints. It is only the mandatory conformity demanded by political correctness that I despise, and the associated criminalisation of politically incorrect opinions.

As far as China and Japan are concerned, I mentioned them because Australia always seems to be held up to some imaginary international standard, unlike most other non-European countries.

I don’t have a problem with Japanese or Chinese immigration policies. They protect their culture from foreign contamination, which they have every right to do, and I’m sure that they don’t lose any sleep over accusations of racism or xenophobia.

It is stupid to hate somebody just because they were born into a different race, but racism isn’t restricted to that definition anymore.

Racism is now singing “Baa Baa black sheep”. It is eating a ham sandwich in the presence of a Jew or Muslim. It is not apologising for something that your ancesters were alleged to have done. It is not accepting guilt for any problem experienced by other races. It is wanting to celebrate Christmas or Easter. It is refusing to be ashamed for being born white.

If that’s the new definition of a racist, then I don’t care who calls me one.

Rob L says:

12:47pm | 13/04/11

‘Our current treasurer and PM are perfect examples of what happens when laypersons takes control of the nation’s coffers. ’

Define layperson for me again? University graduate= layperson? I’m pretty sure PM graduated university.

James1 says:

03:44pm | 13/04/11

She graduated in law, Rob.  Swan clearly didn’t deserve to graduate.

I stand by my comment.

Jack Richards says:

02:22pm | 13/04/11

You sure are a lefty - one of the one’s who didn’t bother to go to school because you already knew everything.

You constantly use the preposition “of” instead of the verb “have” or it’s contraction ‘ve i.e, would have, or would’ve etc.

It’s actually “harebrained” not “hairbrained”. Do you know what a hare is? Have you ever seen one run? If you have, then you’ll know why someone like you is “harebrained”.

It’s “tacitly” not “tacticly”. Do you know what “tacit” means?

It’s also “albeit” not “albiet”.

The use of the phrase “to come up” is completely redundant. Have you ever heard of “redundancy” - and I don’t mean getting sacked from your dead-end job.

As an ex-English teacher, I give you 1/10 for this effort.

James1 says:

03:10pm | 13/04/11

“one of the one’s”

Please tell me you didn’t use an apostrophe to signify a plural in a post criticising grammar, Jack.  Please tell me that is some kind of contraction.

Tripper Smurf says:

03:45pm | 13/04/11

Hi Jack,

Thanks for the somewhat archaic English lesson, but when my academic, including my phD studies are spell and grammar checked, I fail to see the issue. Especially when you attempt to use a few mistakes as an excuse to denigrate all leftists instead of realising that alleged poor spelling and grammar are largely an affliction that effects people of all political persuasions, left or right. 

In fact people like yourself often become people who edit my work, as they cant think for themselves, have nothing of value to contribute and therefore feel the need to nitpick other people, to catch out any of the mistakes MS Word has missed.  Admittedly my posts on punch are not up to the same academic standards, but then again they same amount of attention to detail is no where provided either, especially as the above comment was typed in about a 90 second period.

As an ex-English teacher you may also be aware of the fact that English is a evolving language.  The use of ‘of’ in the way I have done so instead of ‘have’ has become accepted common practice.  Purists like yourself may not enjoy this, but the rest of society will continue to speak the language this way.  In fact my mother, who coincidently is also an English teacher had this argument with one of my teachers while I was at school, and the situation hasn’t changed in your favour since

If you have any feedback of what I was actually saying instead of the way I have said it, please feel free to contribute, otherwise keep your thoughts to yourself.

Jack Richards says:

03:47pm | 13/04/11

Sub-editor’s error that slipped through the proof-reading. I no I should of bean moor attentshonative and knot gotted my grammer wrongly like I done - as Tripper Smurf would say.

Jack Richards says:

07:08pm | 13/04/11

Well Tripper, if your posts have been spell and grammar checked, I suggest you bought the checker from a Nigerian 419 Scam artist. Your English is nearly as bad.

Insofar as saying that the prepositional idiom “of” is generally accepted as a cogent replacement for the parts of the auxiliary verb “to have”, you couldn’t be more wrong. No-one, in any sort of professional writing capacity, would accept an error like that. It’s just plain ignorance of standard English usage.

Your assertion that my criticism of you is “archaic” ... well, are you saying that illiteracy is something of which to be proud? It’s enough to give a “purist” like me a cerebral haemorrhoid!

Incidentally, “phD” is actually written “PhD”. Do you know what it means? It’s got nothing to do with soil acidity. If you’ve (sorry, “you of”), got one, then I’m a Soviet Cosmonaut.

Do you know the difference between “effect” and “affect”? “No where” is one word i.e. “nowhere”.

For someone who purports some sort of pseudo-intellectualism, you sure are a dope. Did you get your phD on-line for $20?

With regard to the import of your original post, the thoughts are confused, poorly expressed, poorly structured, full of spelling and grammatical errors, and I have no idea what your point is.

The only things I agree with are that you do need an editor and that it’s a pity Pauline Hanson wasn’t elected.

Jack Richards

B.A. (Hons.) Dip.Ed. M.A. M.Ed.
p.s. No, I don’t have a phD, but I do have a Ph tester for my garden – will that do?

Tripper Smurf says:

08:03pm | 13/04/11

Jack, sorry you dont understand simple political concepts.  If you actually took the time to read what was actually being said rather than nitpick on spelling and grammar you might have more insight into what other people are trying to express in their opinions.

If you actually read what I have written above, I feely admitted I do not spend the time to spell check my posts to the punch (a fact you seemed to of overlooked with your pathetic anti-Nigerian remark).  No doubt someone like yourself does have the time do so.  I unfortuantley do not have this luxury while I am completing my PhD studies and working full time to support these studies. 

My punch time is largely dictated to how busy I am, and what I can read and then type in that time.  Often this means just reading cause there is no time to type.  It does mean that I dont pay the same due dillegence to my posts here as I would any academic work that I undertake, which takes precedence over any website.

Despite these limitations, I have also freely admitted that spelling and grammar are not my strong suits, however its apparent, from your replies riddled with bad assumptions and generalisations, that reading and comprehension are not yours.  For example I stated in my second post that my PhD studies were spell and grammar checked, not that I have a PhD already.  (not to mention who the hell says you of?  give me a break!!)

Its is also not hard to see that in my original post, my main points were the following:

1. I am not part of the constituency that would readily support Hanson
2. It would of been more representative of the actual votes had she got in
3. Her winning a seat would prevent her running again in an election for a while.
4. Some of her ideas arent that bad
5. Governments since 1998 have factored in her ideas and some of them have become accepted by all political mainstream parties.

Now you also mention that to use ‘of’ instead of ‘have’ is acceptable outside of professional writing.  Sorry, but unless I was contributing an actual article to the punch, I dont see this being professional.  In fact my managers would think it unprofessional for me to be posting such from work.

Given that my PhD studies are in the field of International Relations, following on from my previous studies in Political Science, International Business and yes a Dip in Education (so I could have something to fall back on if absolutley required and to keep the English teacher mother happy)  Im certain that any bad spelling and grammar that creep in while I am writing my thesis, will easily be overcome by the wonders of Microsoft Word and a good editor or three.  In fact both of these valuable resources, and many more, are at my disposal, for which I feel blessed.

Not to sure about the $20 internet deal, seems like a waste of a good $20 but I suppose the option may still be available to yourself should you feel the need.

Meanwhile in about 20 months from now I should be finished my studies (finally!)... so when are you taking off to space Comrade?

PS. To answer your questions (as you obviously really needed to know)

PhD stands for a Doctor of Philosophy. As philosphy is largely subjective however I do sometimes laugh at myself for doing one.

Affect is something that affects you and effect is the effect you get.

No where is two words, but often, especially in the younger generations it is made into one.  About two hundred years ago Some Thing was the way that they wrote the word that we now call ‘something’
Blame society, tv or bad teachers but either way these changes to our language are constantly occuring.

(Mind you those last two are things you have said, and in none of the posts I made here have I said it… So Im assuming, like most English teachers you have your pet hates about what you feel is the murder of the English language, what is in effect the most bastardised language to ever affect the world.)

Oh and I dont have a green thumb, and never pretend that I do, so Ill leave the soil acidity testing for yourself to take care of.

But please get back to me on when you are going into space next, although you may need to find a new country to go into space for.  The Soviet Union has been defunct for almost twenty years now.

Cazza says:

02:05am | 14/04/11

@ Jack Richards

In the infamous words of Paul Keating… “Just because you swallowed a fucking dictionary when you were about 15 doesn’t give you the right to pour a bucket of shit over the rest of us.”

Amen

Jack Richards says:

06:38pm | 14/04/11

Well Tripper Smurf, it looks like you have spent a bit more time constructing your last response. But again, you make so many fundamental errors that I’ll have to point a few out to you:

1. If people express themselves fluently, succinctly and cogently, then I have no problem understanding what is said. But when it’s full of childish spelling and grammatical errors, redundancies and verbosities, it completely misses the mark.

2. You “feely admitted” did you? A very “touchy feely” comment.

3. “Anti-Nigerian” am I? There lurks a suspicion of ... RACISM! When all else fails, pull that rabbit out of the hat, hey!

4. “Unfortuantley” - that damned spell checker again!

5. “dictated to how busy” another prepositional error. BY the way, what should it be?

6. “who the hell says you of” please refer to your earlier post i.e. “The use of ‘of’ in the way I have done so instead of ‘have’ has become accepted common practice… By your logic, it would be completely acceptable.

7. It would of been… There you go again - after I have been at pains to point out this error. Really, son, how stupid are you?

8. “Her winning a seat would prevent her running again in an election for a while.” Really! What an insight. You should go on “mastermind” and you special subject should be “The Bloody Obvious”. This is a classic of moronically redundant thinking.

9. “Now you also mention that to use ‘of’ instead of ‘have’ is acceptable outside of professional writing.” No, I didn’t!

10. “Not to sure about the $20 internet deal, seems like a waste of a good $20… Ask Justice Einfeld; he bought quite a few!

11. “philosophy is largely subjective” Oh dear! “Philosophy” means to be a “lover of wisdom/learning” and you can have “wisdom” in many ways other than troublesome teeth. If you’re studying for a PhD, you should at least know what it means.

12. “No where is two words…” And which ignoramus told you that? If that’s true, then my Macquarie Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary, Rogets and Hartrampfs are all wrong.

13. “Affect is something that affects you and effect is the effect you get.” You really should invest a hundred bucks and buy a good Macquarie Dictionary and thesaurus. There is a good book on basic grammar called “Living English” which I would recommend as well.

14. “for yourself to take care of. Ending on a preposition!! As Winston Churchill famously said, “That is something up with which I will not put!” Churchill was a wonderful writer: incisive, succinct and crystal clear. I have never had any trouble comprehending what he had to say.

15.  “the most bastardised language to ever affect the world.” It is not “bastardised” in any way, except by people who can’t speak it properly, like yourself. It does, indeed, have lots of borrowings, and lots of synonyms and homonyms and it’s really easy for the uneducated to make constant malapropisms, as you do. Incidentally, in your candelstein meatings at the Univercity, does any of yous pour over stuff what’s been wrote? You no, when I were at uni, I would of if I could of.

I’ll be leaving for the Cosmodrome just as soon as you get your Ph above 6.5.

Just for your edification, I am no longer a teacher and haven’t been for many years. I’m an orthographer now. Do you know what that is?

Your last post was a bit better. If you “had of bean” one of my Year 9 English students, I’d have given you 4/10.

I take your point: spelling and grammar doesn’t matter at all. We can all live in total confusion like those Apaches riding across the plane and those pour natives who had no luxuries other than coarse mating on the floor.

James1 says:

11:25am | 13/04/11

“we need incentive to earn more”

Nah, not if Pauline got in.  We could just print more money.

CJ says:

11:35am | 13/04/11

May I suggest that you get your facts correct prior to spewing forth your bile, hover this is acceptable considering your obvious intellectual abilities.  Foley along with all recently elected MP’s no longer receive the entitlements to which you refer, they are on 9% super like the rest of us and have no lifelong perks.  With regards to boat people, again my little imbecile, boat people account for less than 1% of net migration into this country, by far the biggest illegal’s are nice ‘white folk’, how will you cope with that?  If you and your brain dead ilk are representative of this country, and our elected leaders pandered to your views we would revert to the dark ages.  Now go and have a cup of tea and listen to Alan Jones.

Greg says:

11:37am | 13/04/11

Doesn’t matter how many times you tell the lie, James1, the truth remains that Hanson never had a policy to print money.

Unlike the ALP and coalition, who don’t just have money printing policies, but have actually been doing it for decades.

James1 says:

11:59am | 13/04/11

Was she misquoted Greg?  Please correct my analysis of what she said, if you can.  I was under the impression that one of the possible ways of funding her proposed “People’s Bank” was to print money.  I might be wrong, but I thought that was a One Nation policy while Ms Hanson was in charge.

If I am wrong though, as always I am happy to be corrected.

Greg says:

12:38pm | 13/04/11

James1, here are the facts:

The truth is that David Ettridge suggested during a media interview that the government could print the money to provide the $150 million start up capital for a people’s bank. It was never a One Nation policy, never endorsed by Hanson, and Hanson immediately dismissed the suggestion ( ie as soon as she was asked about it, on the same day).

At the time it was said, in 1997, Treasurer Costello had increased (printed up) the national money supply by nearly $56,000 million in the previous 12 months. Costello was among Ettridge’s critics, even though he had printed up 370 times more money, and intended to do the same every year.

Meanwhile, more recetly US Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who has printed up US$2 trillion in the past two years. That’s more than 13 billion times more than Ettridge suggested, even before allowing for exchange rate differences. Search on “quantitative easing” to find your proof.

So yes, printing money is inflationary, but every government does it, and has done in massive numbers it for decades.

Yet people still criticise Hanson for something that she never said, and was never her party policy, and even if it was her party policy would be no different to what the Australian government has been doing for decades.

James1 says:

12:56pm | 13/04/11

I stand corrected Greg - I guess it was only an idea floated by a One Nation member, as opposed to a One Nation policy.  Thanks.

I am well aware of the inflationary policies in the US at the moment, and it scares the pants off me.  Given that their three options are inflating their way out of their debt, defaulting on said debt, or slashing spending and increasing taxes, and further given that only the first option will spread the pain around the world, instead of concentrating it in the US, I am pretty sure they will continue down that path.

Interesting times ahead.

Greg says:

03:18pm | 13/04/11

James1, I think that we can rule out the third option of decreased spending and increased taxes in the USA. The voters wouldn’t like that.

Of course, foreign creditors won’t like the inflationary or default options, but they don’t vote and even China isn’t ready to take on the US militarily (yet).

Most peopledon’t seem to realise that the GFC has not happened yet, it only got postponed in 2008.

Cazza says:

02:41am | 14/04/11

@ Greg:  Strength and courage aren’t always measured in medals and victories and is most often measured by the reaction of one’s enemies.  Going by the vitriolic reactions against PH on this Blog alone, I’d say she has a very powerful influence.  The TRUTH is always powerful.  The sheer guts of the woman is mind boggling.  No matter what is thrown at her, all the trumped up lies, denigrations, nasty innuendos, disparaging remarks, assumptions… she bounces back… and the 2 major parties (now 3 but not for long) hate her for it! 

And you are right.  Many people after they voted said the same thing, they didn’t know how to vote for PH properly. IMHO the preference vote should be abolished as very few people know who the party they vote for is preferencing - and quite often it’s for a party you wouldn’t want to give your vote to in a drug induced psychedelic fit.

I wish her the very best of Aussie luck in any future endeavours!

AlexVV says:

12:00pm | 13/04/11

Totally agree that the cure for having Greens elected to parliament is to have Greens elected to parliament. The cure to our society’s ills being the end to regressive policies that only benefit the rich.

Funny how people think the Greens have ‘superficial environmental branding’. You’d think they’d been trying to hide their applaudable stances on number of social justice issues for years now.

Green means more than trees. Green can also be the colour of money.

HappyCynic says:

01:17pm | 13/04/11

Funny how she always picks country seats to stand in… seats that experience almost no impact from multiculturalism but are filled to the brim with simmering and stupid old farts who all seem to “remember the good ol’ days” and who laughably think a racist old dinosaur like Hanson is “ahead of her time”.

I wonder how she’d do if she decided to stand in a nice traditionally conservative urban seat like Wentworth (Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs)?  Or a seat that actually has some legitimate complaints about the impact of other cultures moving in on “their” territory.

Greg says:

01:54pm | 13/04/11

HapyCynic, you have missed the point. Try looking up the existing MPs from those electorates, and then you will realise why Hanson will be well placed.

But seats like these have been impacted by multiculturalism, with thousands of refugees from urban multiculturalism having shifted there.

Do you really expect her to contest seat like Wentworth, with it’s high Jewish population, after their unprovoked “Gotcha” attack? Or Cabramatta, which has been ethnically cleansed of European Australians?

I suppose you would also expect Julia Gillard to contest Kooyong or Tony Abbott to contest Port Adelaide?

HappyCynic says:

02:38pm | 13/04/11

I don’t think that “unprovoked Gotcha Attack” was anything more than pointing out the really painfully obvious truth about Hanson to all those who aren’t aware of history.  The jewish people more than any other, have a long history of dealing with nutters like Hanson and have taken on the responsibility post WW2 to ensure nutters like her remain on the fringes where they belong.

And yes I do expect Pauline Hanson to at least run in a seat that has the issues she seems stuck on.  Appealing to the ignorant that multiculturalism doesn’t work is too easy, the ignorant will believe anything about a subject they don’t understand as long is it’s spelled out in really basic syllables and as long as it blames everyone else except the ignorant for their problems.

Greg says:

03:37pm | 13/04/11

HappyCynic, I guess you would be happy then if Hanson published lists containing the names and addresses of Jews then, “pointing out the really painfully obvious truth about Jews to all those who aren’t aware of history”? Or would that be anti-Semitic? Or an invasion of privacy?

Not that she has criticised Jews. Not ever. Not even when some of them published their Gotcha list.

But maybe she should ask Jews why multiculturalism is so good for Australia but so bad for Israel. Or why the Israelis are “so ignorant” for accepting this? Or why Israel should be a Jewish state but insist that Australia seperate chuch and state? Or why even land rights for Aborigines is so important, but land rights for Palestinians can be ignored. Or what is the difference in supremacist claims between the Master Race and God’s Chosen People?

You know, the sorts of questions that the Greens have been asking lately. What happened to the Green’s Gotcha list?

Feel free to explain, using as many syllables as you like.

HappyCynic says:

03:54pm | 13/04/11

Greg you forget that Jewish Australians are not all Israeli Jews nor are they even Israeli citizens.  The opinions in the Jewish community are as diverse if not moreso than than the general community when it comes to Israel and dealing with the Palestinians.  This you might know if you’ve ever met any.

Also that silly ‘attack’ you’re pointing out was not the work of the jewish community but of a newspaper and personally I consider it to be an invasion of privacy though it did raise some interesting features about Hanson’s supporters.  But hey way to lump a whole ethnicity with the ‘crime’ of only a handful of people.  Do you generalise like this often?

Also you don’t need to attack jewish people to be branded as a racist nutter by jewish people.

Paulb says:

03:54pm | 13/04/11

Happycynic, the Jewish people have a lying psychopath like Netanyahu for a PM, and before that were class acts like the murderer Sharon and the Irgun terrorist Begin.  They aren’t too good themselves when it comes to dealing with “nutters’ of their own making.  You should look at some of the statements by Avigdor Lieberman for a living example of a true nutter active in an elected (well partly elected in an apartheid kind of way) government.  Greg you are absolutey right in what you say, you just aren’t allowed to say it.  Some of us are more Chosen than others.

HappyCynic says:

04:51pm | 13/04/11

@PaulB

No we do not.  In Australia the Jewish people have that ranga woman in Canberra for a PM.  In the US we have a President (Barack Obama), in England, some Tory fella etc.

Do not lump all jewish people with Israelis, we are not one and the same.

Idiot.

stephen says:

05:11pm | 13/04/11

It’s the one’s who don’t openly criticize Jews, (but who secretly want to) yet are perfectly happy to admit to a nodding audience that the Jew will save us all and make the whole world rich ,(knowing full well, and with a hint of further tradgedy) that such an expectation is not only wrong, but a wholly dangerous and stupidly racist point of view.
Jews are capable of as much foolish action as the rest of us, Greg.
The difference is, the rest of us have something to apologize for.

Greg says:

06:42pm | 13/04/11

HappyCynic, you didn’t answer any of my questions. Should I assume that you don’t have any answers? I have met many Jews before, and I am always interested in understanding their opinions, and most of them seem more forthcoming with them than you.

I realise that Jewish Australians are not all Israeli Jews or even Israeli citizens, but they are all entitled to be, aren’t they? Israel guarantees the “right of return” to all Jews, even if their ancestors haven’t lived in the country for thousands of years.  Of course, this “right of return” doesn’t apply to Palestinians who were exiled over the past 50 years. Isn’t this a discriminatory immigration policy? As a beneficiary of this policy, could you please explain why is this good, but why Hanson’s policies are bad?

The “Gotcha” attack was actually the work of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, and published in their magazine the Australia/Israel Review. Not just any old “newspaper”, but one specifically used to represent Jewish and Israeli viewpoints. You wouldn’t be trying to cover that up, would you?

But if you read my post you will see that I did not accuse all Jews of publishing the Gotcha list, only some of them. And all of the authors and publishers were Jews, weren’t they?

But why can’t I lump a whole ethnicity with a crime? Isn’t that what Israel did to Germany after WW2, in order to demand reparations? Please explain the rules for when this is acceptable and when it isn’t.

Could you also explain what somebody does need to do to be branded as a racist nutter by jewish people, and if any special exemptions apply?

Babindarob says:

01:57pm | 13/04/11

Another thing Qld has is that preferential voting is not compulsory

Babindarob says:

01:58pm | 13/04/11

Another thing Qld has is that preferential voting is not compulsory

john says:

03:46pm | 13/04/11

@Reg Whiteman “self-serving lickspittles in the ALP, the Greens, and the Coalition.”
Yes we know…. its the same pollies that give us a hot beef injection over a barrel after we vote them in.
.....and then tell us we will like it alot and it won’t hurt a bit.  After a while we desensitise and we all want more.

Edward James says:

05:29pm | 13/04/11

http://bit.ly/EJ_PNewsAds
opps sorry above after two goes is the correct link Edward James
the links do matter they are as important as the phone number !

james milton says:

09:38pm | 13/04/11

Errm.. interracial marriage is not ‘multiculturalism’ per se. Multiculturalism is the government spending billions of our money to create ghettos in which entire chunks of the population can live in a bubble, a mini version of their ‘homeland’.. usually these people have a low work participation rate, they don’t assimilate or learn or respect their host country, and they are financially supported by the average taxpayer. Look at the UK or France for good examples. Australia has it’s areas too, though luckily we haven’t gone as far off the deep end as some European nations.

DS says:

06:03am | 14/04/11

Yeh, those horrible Muslims. I wasn’t aware that some preacher or a terrorist group were such a threat. As for the Bandidos, they are Muslim and if so, so what? Since when has religion been a motivating factor in organised crime? Fool.

Greg says:

12:31am | 14/04/11

“Don’t contradict with venom and insults, counter with reasoned debate and facts. “

They don’t do that Arnold. They don’t have any.

Greg says:

02:41pm | 14/04/11

Hahahaha!

She is not a stereotypical imitation of a Greens member, created by a conservative to ridicule the Greens, she is a real one!

She is not trolling absurdities to denigrate the Greens, she is actually serious! Yes, really!

Keep the posts coming Sarah. Don’t hold back. Show everybody how the inner mind of a real Green party member works. Please.

Greg says:

12:32pm | 14/04/11

He he.

Even a far-left ALP politician isn’t extremist enough for Marilyn.

Seano says:

08:30am | 14/04/11

Yet more desperation and sour grapes. Worrying? Laughing would a better description.

Greg says:

10:59am | 14/04/11

Desperation and sour grapes? In your dreams Seano!

I’m enjoying the drama immensely. I stand by what I said before, I don’t mind if she doesn’t win a recount, because it frees her up for federal politics. That’s a win.

But if she wins a recount, then that’s also a win. She can’t lose.

But Seano has been proven wrong once again. It’s not over. The fat lady has not sung. The “bullet” isn’t dodged yet.

And you get to agonise over your worst nightmare for another 40 days.

And then, even if she doesn’t win a recount, we have the next federal election to look forward to.

Your “laughing” has a manic edge to it Seano, you must close to the edge now…........

Seano says:

03:41pm | 14/04/11

You said she would win before the election. You where wrong.

You claimed a mandate based on 3% and a loss. When any sane person knows that such an appaulling result means she has no such mandate. Yet again you where wrong.

Now you’re deperately clinging to a recount and then claiming she will take her poor figures to Canberra if she doesn’t get through on that. Laughable.

Desperate, sour and clearly unhinged.

Greg says:

04:43pm | 14/04/11

“You said she would win before the election. You where wrong.”

No I didn’t. You are wrong again. For the umpteenth time.

But here is your chance. Post the date and time and the article where I said she would win. That should be easy. But if you can’t do it, or if you refuse to try or avoid the issue, then that proves you wrong. Once again.

“You claimed a mandate based on 3% and a loss.”

Wrong again. As above, refer to the post where I quote “claimed a mandate”. Should be easy, unless you are wrong, and relying on another manufactured memory.

“Now you’re deperately clinging to a recount”

No I’m not. As I have repeatedly said, my preference is that she campaigns for the next federal election, rather than being pensioned off in the NSW Legislative Council. I’m capable of waiting for delayed gratification. And if Hanson can stretch out the final result by another 40 days, keeping all the anti-Hansonists fretting on a knife edge, then so much the better.

These posts and the NSW election are just a warm up. A federal election with Hanson will irritate people like you even more. Priceless.

Anyway, what would you do without her? Your life would have no meaning. What would you be outraged about? Who would you moralise over? You want her to run again, don’t you? You want the chance to make a single post where you don’t look stupid, a futile ambition, but that hasn’t stopped you so far.

Go on, admit it to yourself, even if you won’t admit it to anybody else.

Seano says:

06:34pm | 14/04/11

@Greg

Sorry chump, I’m not about to waste hours of my time re-reading through the bigotted drivel that you post because you’re too low to admit that you said she would win, I don’t dance to your tune. You said it. It’s not surprising that someone not willing to accept the umpires decision is too gutless to admit he was wrong.

You’re equally too gutless to admit that you were claiming a mandate on immigration and that your clinging to the recount as well as Hanson going to Canberra was a cowardly two bob each way.

Hanson lost, she remains irrelevant and so do you.

Greg says:

11:18am | 14/04/11

deedeewhy, for a culture that is allegedly not based on material values, there does seem to be a strong demand for the white man’s handout money.

Anyway, the length of time that a culture has existed is not necessarily anything to be proud of. It is more relevant to ask what achievements or progress has been made, or has the culture just stagnated for thousands of years.

Assimilating into a stone age culture would have been a backwards step, and the country would not have developed into a first world nation, which can fund all the benefit payments that current Aborigines enjoy.

I am familiar with many Aboriginal communities, and I know that there is no single culture. There are still competing rival tribes and skin groups, often fighting eachother, just as they have for thousands of years.

If you have absorbed some left-wing romanticised version of Aboriginal history, which says that there were no intra-Aboriginal wars, then you are the one who is ignorant.

john says:

11:38am | 14/04/11

@deedeewhy “As the Punch is not a friend of Aboriginal issues, I dare you to even post this.”
I don’t think whether punch will post or not is the issue, of course they will publish it, the million dollar question is who will actually care what you right about.

Greg says:

03:08pm | 14/04/11

Deedeewhy, are you completely oblivious to your own hypocrisy?

You accuse me of generalising, even when I didn’t, and then proceed to declare that Europeans “annihilate all those around them”, are a “sorry lot of human beings” who try to dominate and exploit the vulnerable.

Not content to restrict your vilification to Europeans, you even claim that all “non Aboriginal people base their whole existence on material values”.

Not much generalising there, hey?

I’ve never denied that “there are hundreds of black people in this country who are qualified and hard working people”. But so what? Do you want me to criticise them for having “material values”? Why is this a good thing for them, but a bad thing if non Aboriginal people do it?

And why are Aboriginal tribal wars “nothing compared to the history of wars that the Europeans indulged in”? They all killed eachother. Apart from the difference in military technology used, the outcome is the same. So why are Aboriginal tribal wars noble and virtuous, and European wars evil and sinister? When will you abandon your snide and nasty, racist remarks?

For God’s sake give us a break from all these false white guilt accusations. Stop blaming whites and demanding apologies for all your community problems. We cop it every day of our lives, and people like you keep feeding on it, just so you can feel morally superior.

Greg says:

06:07pm | 14/04/11

Deedeewhy, no I’m not taking it personal, I rarely do, and never do from an anonymous poster. What you don’t seem to realise is that I’m throwing your own words back at you, but it all seems to have gone over your head.

As for guilt, don’t worry, I don’t feel or accept any guilt at all. I only said that I was tired of all of the accusations. Just saying that white people are sick of constant criticism coming from certain quarters.  You know, same old never ending bash, same old never ending song.

As for snide and nasty racist remarks, how would you describe remarks like “Europeans annihilate all those around them”, are a “sorry lot of human beings” who try to dominate and exploit the vulnerable and “base their whole existence on material values”?

Just imagine if a white person said something similar about Aborigines. He would be sued for racial vilification. Andrew Bolt is being sued just for saying that fair skinned part Aborigines are choosing to identify as black to receive the victimhood entitlements, and the truth is no defence.

After initially denying Aboriginal tribal wars, you changed your story to say that they “were nothing” and that Aborigines “come out smelling like roses” compared to Europeans. I’m not making it up, go back and read what you wrote.

And how do you know how big the scale of Aboriginal conflicts have been? The history was never accurately recorded before white men came, but the viciousness of the conflicts still continues today:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/yuendumu-rioters-seek-enemies-exile/story-fn59niix-1225930341000

As for the remainder of your little rant about your victimhood and blaming all your problems on the white man who pays for your welfare, it doesn’t rate a response.