No More Nationals! :d (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

Qld Libs, Nats set to unite

A major shake-up of conservative politics in Queensland is looming, with the Liberal and National Parties set to merge.

The Liberals rejected the proposal outright when state Nationals leader Lawrence Springborg proposed it 18 months ago but the two parties agreed to start the process to unite in separate meetings today.

The idea was also resisted by the federal Nationals.

An election is due within 12 months and a combined conservative force is seen as the best way to defeat the Beattie Labor State Government.

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says the Liberals and Nationals will struggle to present a united front.

"What's their policy on tree clearing?" he said.

"What's their policy on daylight saving and, three, what's their policy on issues like water?"

"Now, the Liberal Party and the National Party have never agreed on those, so if they're serious about one party - and good luck to them - let's spell out their position in relation to tree clearing."

Queensland political commentator Dr Paul Williams says it is a positive step for the conservative forces but he says unification will not be easily achieved.

"It brings a whole range of questions to the fore, as well," he said.

"For example, what will this party be called? Who will lead it?

"What sort of policies will they settle on?

"How will they sell it to their grassroots members?"

Talks will now also be held at a federal level.

Edit (link, Waf): http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1649336.htm

 

[loquasagacious]

An awesome development because I dont like the nats and this seems the beginning of the end for them.

Not much else to add, the article raises some salient points the merger will certainly be difficult.

 

[Iron]

This is one of the big fears for the good Libs - If the Nats cease to be (which looks eventually certain) then they'll be flodded with these dry old coots, changing the party.

But for Qland, it looks like the state libs stand to benifit more.
Ew, state politics.

 

[Bractune]

An awesome development because I dont like the nats and this seems the beginning of the end for them.

And they most probley do not like you.
Balance is achieved.

 

[loquasagacious]

You can rest assured they dont like me.

I dont think they should get welfare, they think they should get more... so on and so forth.

 

[Bractune]

You can rest assured they dont like me.

I dont think they should get welfare, they think they should get more... so on and so forth.

Lol i'm a young national. I dont agree with all their ideals but they pretty much paid for me to walk the Kokoda trail last year ($3000+) so you know i'm not complaining.
I support anyone who wants to buy me things... no matter what they stand for:rofl:

 

[loquasagacious]

How very nationals of you.....

You like it when people give you money cough welfare dependency cough....

Also a dash of patriotism/nationalism....

 

[Bractune]

How very nationals of you.....

You like it when people give you money cough welfare dependency cough....

Also a dash of patriotism/nationalism....

Why pay for things when i can get others to do it for me? Could i have paid for it myself? Yeah. Did i want to? No.

 

[frog12986]

The meeting between John Howard and Mark Vaile has rejected the proposition, and each are deeply opposed.. Although there was a glimmer of hope for supporters of the move federally, for the moment, it is but a dream...

 

[The Brucemaster]

Why pay for things when i can get others to do it for me? Could i have paid for it myself? Yeah. Did i want to? No.

And this is why the country is going to the shit...

 

[Generator]

The meeting between John Howard and Mark Vaile has rejected the proposition, and each are deeply opposed.. Although there was a glimmer of hope for supporters of the move federally, for the moment, it is but a dream...

As a commentator said on 702, the leading figures of the Liberal Party are rightly opposed to a merger given that is suggestive of two near equal entities becoming one, but it's unlikely that they would object to the more moderate National MPs joining the Liberal Party en masse. Then again, if the Liberal Party is willing to stomach Wilson Tuckey, they shouldn't have much of a reason to refuse any Nat, with the obvious exception of Barnaby Joyce (who would never join the Libs, anyway).

For an earlier discussion, have a look at this thread (it has been locked given that this thread is a more fitting place for a possible renewal of the discussion).

 

[withoutaface]

And this is why the country is going to the shit...

Says the welfare and trade barrier loving communist.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Says the welfare and trade barrier loving communist.

I would remind you that you dont even know my first name let alone my political ideals. What you infer from an online discussion should not be extrapolated in to a generalisation on my political stance.

In any event, you have avoided the issue and resorted to ad hominem attacks, something which i seem to recall you bemoaning in a certain 'argue with waf' thread.

 

[withoutaface]

I would remind you that you dont even know my first name let alone my political ideals. What you infer from an online discussion should not be extrapolated in to a generalisation on my political stance.

In any event, you have avoided the issue and resorted to ad hominem attacks, something which i seem to recall you bemoaning in a certain 'argue with waf' thread.

1. You agreed that people bludging off other people's money were sending our country down the shithole.
2. Protected industries are paid unfairly high amounts by the end consumer.
3. You believe in protectionism.
C. According to your own judgment. your ideals are sending the country down the shithole.

There is nothing fallacious about such an argument, and if you want me to pull out the digging holes and filling them in again analogy once more I'd be more than happy to. I have inferred nothing, and could cite past posts if you wish me to.

 

[The Brucemaster]

1. You agreed that people bludging off other people's money were sending our country down the shithole.
2. Protected industries are paid unfairly high amounts by the end consumer.
3. You believe in protectionism.
C. According to your own judgment. your ideals are sending the country down the shithole.

1. Yes, but there is a difference between welfare fraud and welfare.
2. WTF?
3. Foolish generalisation, i believe in a balance between FT and protectionism.
4. Most outrageous conclusion since the Warren Commission.

There is nothing fallacious about such an argument, and if you want me to pull out the digging holes and filling them in again analogy once more I'd be more than happy to. I have inferred nothing, and could cite past posts if you wish me to.

Go for your life, if it makes you happy...

 

[gerhard]

waf, pretty sure not everyone to the left of you = communist

dont chuck a menzies

 

[Bractune]

And this is why the country is going to the shit...

Dude get a life. I won a trip from an organisation funded by the nationals and you know what? Now i've done something not many people can say they have. So you know what you can do? Get some money together go over to PNG of your own accord and walk the Kokoda trail. Then after you've done that do like hours and hours of community service to repay everyone spend nights writing speaches about how greatful you are to have gone.
If i have to "Bludge" to go to pay homage to the soliders who died protecting this country then its wastrels like you who will never do it i'm Bludging from.
Go to hell.

 

[loquasagacious]

C. He thinks you should pay for his patriotism.

Oh and also for his: hospitals, roads, broadband, etc oh and chucking a subsidy on his: wheat, rice, canola, beef, oranges, etc would also be appreciated.

 

[The Brucemaster]

C. He thinks you should pay for his patriotism.

Oh and also for his: hospitals, roads, broadband, etc oh and chucking a subsidy on his: wheat, rice, canola, beef, oranges, etc would also be appreciated.

Sorry LG but exactly who is this directed at?

 

[withoutaface]

1. Yes, but there is a difference between welfare fraud and welfare.

I've gone off the subject of welfare, slightly changed my argument to encompass something I have explicit proof of, and that is your support of protectionism.

2. WTF?

*points to near unanimous agreement among economists on the effects of protectionism.

3. Foolish generalisation, i believe in a balance between FT and protectionism.

Free trade is defined as the absence of any protection, while protectionism is defined as the presence of any, and while you support any protection, you're charging consumers unfairly high rates, and allowing protected industries to bludge off other people's money.

4. Most outrageous conclusion since the Warren Commission.

I'll phrase it out as a logically closed deduction, shall I?
P = the set of people sending out country down the shithole.
Q = the set of ways that our country is being sent down the shithole.
R = the set of instances where people bludge off others' money.

Premise 1, taken from your own argument, states that R is a subset of Q, and as such membership of R implies membership of Q.
It is also trivial that if someone supports anything from set Q, then they are part of set P.
Now, premise 2 states that protectionism is a member of set R, and thus from premise 1, of set Q.
Premise 3 states that you support protectionism, and hence support something from set Q.
Hence by the second trivial deduction you are part of set P.

The conclusion follows completely from the premises, which are what you should be attacking if you wish to destablise my argument rather than making baseless attacks that my conclusion is 'outrageous'.