SMASHPOLL: The 2010 Federal Election

[Dekar289]

on global warming, i wish i knew whether or not we will be reincarnated so i could decide whether or not to care

 

[Shaya]

The best part is that frozen methane on the bottom of the oceans are starting to show signs of melting as the acid levels of the water also rise.

Last time there was a "blow out" in such deposits, 96% of the ocean's species went extinct, and 70% of the land's species died as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event)

Oh wait, most of the ocean is already extinct due to over fishing so people can eat their bacon (farmed pigs love those fish guts!), so global warming will only end up killing the land inhabitants! No PROBLEMS. I've already been near Luke a few times, I can handle what about 90% of all other life could not! Especially all the plants that provide our oxygen... amirite?

lalalalalalalalalalalalalallalala

 

[Pete278]

The problem is that thermal imagery shows that the Sun is also heating up, so its hard to tell what percentage of global warming is actually our fault. Course, we could just ignore bickering on that bit and stop it, since there's no way the Sun is causing all the heating, but still.

 

[...Ellipsis...]

Don't know if anyone watched the gruen transfer but there pro greens add was very good.

 

[C~Dog]

Yeah that ad was amazing O:

Made me actually care about something political for once.

 

[CAOTIC]

This is your answer. Consider what a reduction of coal use would mean to them. What could their agenda be?

Remember when cigarette companies had a campaign perpetuating ignorance to the dangers of smoking?

oh, oh, oh! when can we start debating marijuana legalization? because that's what the world's conservative governments have done and are currently doing to mj use, demonizing the product, after they found out mid-last century that there was a link between pacifism and recreational/medicinal mj use.

it is only now that progressive regions of the world have started to reverse this trend, since there are strong arguments for re-legitimizing mj use

 

[Shaya]

More love and peace man.

<3

From what I understand NSW is bringing in new laws which classify marijuana as similar to extacy. In other words a more severe drug.
This would means things like "12g or less is confiscated without incrimination" would be rescinded.

Time to move to Adelaide.

 

[luke_atyeo]

I dunno about you guys, but I have seen firsthand what that **** can do to people, and its not pretty.

 

[CAOTIC]

^ true in the same way that cigarette smoking and alcohol is, if not administered properly (or in cig smoking's case, at all). however, mj has many positive benefits, and its illegalization has been the cause of many deaths caused by the black market trade, which was created by its illegalization.

in your statement referring to what **** it can do to people, i can easily argue conversely that the people i know that are the most controlled and responsible personalities i've ever known, do not become unpretty with it. i don't think there is a definite causal link between mj use and behaviours such as anxiety/depression/aggression and so forth; i think those attributes would have pre-existed before the use of mj itself.

alcohol and cigarette are far more destructive, but is widely legal because our institutions have deemed it to be so. i'm personally all for a cig ban but even then, i wouldn't like to deny people of their civil liberties, much in the same way i wouldn't like to deny people the right to mj, especially when there are benefits.

controversial topic, but i think it can be managed here well.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hoK6NztH3eQ&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hoK6NztH3eQ&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[...Ellipsis...]

Agree with everything Cao just said, alcohol and cigarettes are far worse for the people taking the drug and the people around them.

 

[Nova]

One of my brothers is diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic and has been smoking weed for 20 years.
Psychiatrists have told us weed is pretty much soley to blame for him developing the condition.
But it's dumb.
Someone who isn't me has had it heaps of times and doesn't suffer thoughts of Goverment agencies out to get them or have insane ideas of people spying on them in the shower (or UFO's -_-).
I think conditions such as Paranoid Schizophrenia & other Psychiatric conditions are underlying and simply set off by certain drugs.

It depends on the person.
Some can handle it & actually benefit; some it apparently destroys.
Growing up around it my whole life - I've seen it do both. *Shrugs*

 

[xXArrowXx]

as long as its in designated smoking areas..
i dont think it will be good tho :/ since it would be legal more people would use it and there would be more abuse problems.
also dont like the side effects of long term use. ide prefer it to only be used spareily for medical reasons.

 

[Zigsta]

I was going to Null vote and rank my favourite Pixar characters instead.

This guy's awesome.

 

[isthattim?]

cigarettes shouldn't be illegal, however you should have to register as a cigarette smoker so that our health care system doesn't accidentally operate on you/give you medical assistance.
I also believe that dangerously/unhealthily overweight people should also (at the very least) pay significantly increased amounts of tax that goes straight into the health system.

 

[dainbramage]

Not particularly, since there are multiple isotopes of different elements produced as waste, and they all don't have half-lives of a billion years. Also I assume you know that the radiation, even though it is been released over a long time, can still be deadly or at least strongly mutagenic in many of these isotopes. So when your concrete decays before the waste what then. Also the chance for a ****-up in nuclear power is far greater than in other forms of current power generation. Like Chernobyl, and yes I am well aware that the reactor there was a **** one and they don't build them like they used to, but the risk is still present. I personally, would rather they wait until they can adequately deal with the waste (which should be in the next decade or so) before they start creating more nuclear power plants and waste. There current method of sticking it deep underground and forgetting about it isn't the best.

Edit: It can still **** up the stuff down there, seep into water tables should i continue?

Hey, do you know what else produces radiation? THE URANIUM DEPOSITS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE. Over half the radiation you'll recieve in your life is from atmospheric radon that you breathe in. This comes U238 decaying in NATURAL URANIUM DEPOSITS. Nuclear waste aint got anything on that.


Meanwhile if we want to get rid of CO2 emissions we NEED to use nuclear.



EDIT: Also modern nuclear reactos use water for both cooling and moderation. If the reaction starts accelerating, AND the safeties don't go off, the water will evaporate and stop moderating the reaction, and the reaction will stop. It's impossible for a chernobyl-type meltdown to occur. The worst that can happen is that some irradiated water escapes.

 

[Toby.]

If you had read the thread you would see that Liam (Ellipsis) is actually in favour of Nuclear power now...so no need to get worked up.

 

[luke_atyeo]

nuclear power murdered my father and ***** my mother

 

[Toby.]

That's not how she tells it.

 

[dainbramage]

If you had read the thread you would see that Liam (Ellipsis) is actually in favour of Nuclear power now...so no need to get worked up.

Mostly had caps for emphasis. Shift is easier than [\b]. Though re-reading it I do sound like I was RAEG!ing.

 

[Shaya]

dainbramage is too cool to rage though.

mains falco and doesn't afraid of anything.

 

[tibs7]

People should be watching abc1 atm. Good doco on population/ immigration.

 

[redrighthand]

Sad that my/our generation (to those somewhere around my age) is so obsessed commercial television. ABC is where it's at yo.

 

[tibs7]

Going by this debate. I do not like bob brown. Sorry cao.

Commercial tv isn't that bad but abc is so **** Interesting

 

[Toby.]

So what is the gist of the documentary?

 

[Shaya]

**** Smith had a grand daughter who, whilst **** smith was having a highly intellectual conversation with his family about global warming, said "OMG WHAT ABOUT DAH POPULATION" (in cutesy words or something).

And then **** Smith started harassing politicians about their views on population growth.
Extended into immigration a bit.

Mostly talking about how of course immigration will never be halted because back pocket of all politicians is held by property developers.

Quite a few key figures in all spectrum of Australian life interviewed.
Talk about the aging population reason for baby bonus grants and high immigration (280k a year or something) isn't going to "economically save us" from baby boomers on the pension when our water supplies, agricultural limits and price of living is sky rocketing due to the increase of demand in all areas due to ... more people living in Australia.

Growth v Inflation argument blah blah blah

 

[...Ellipsis...]

I'll tell you what would be awesome, recycled water. Unfortunately people in Australia are really stupid and don't want to drink pee water. Everyone in Europe is doing it and we're the driest continent, we should get in on the action.

 

[unreon]

they don't seem to realise that pee water is still water.

I wish I lived in Europe; everyone there is so smart and reasonable. :/

PLUS THE WOMEN :DD

 

[CAOTIC]

Going by this debate. I do not like bob brown. Sorry cao.

Commercial tv isn't that bad but abc is so **** Interesting

did i say i liked bob brown or something? have you met him personally? or are you merely being entertained in a certain way through television edits? (much in the same way the media like to exaggerate what 'awful' personalities gillard and abbott are). food for thought. you haven't yet really demonstrated anywhere in this thread some depth behind your thinking, critical analysis, or the acknowledgement of differing perspectives, so there is nothing to apologize about ...especially since i don't know how much thinking you are really put into your opinions.

edit: this is nothing personal ofc, nawwwww tibi, you know i could give you wubs all day <3<3<3<3<3

also tim: i'm aware there's some form of cigarette state tax already in place, along with alcohol, no? haven't researched it, but might be important to clarify.

 

[xXArrowXx]

i thought that debate thingo was very thought provoking.
bob brown seems alright. abit idealistic but he seems like a smart poliction.

need to decrease the population growth. - more educated, more women working
need to make our energy source more efficent. - nuclear or renewable sources
need to make less waste more renewable stuff. - many smalls ways to do this. yeah recycle wii water
need to fill shortages in work force. - dont stop imigration, more educated, more women working

whether australia is crowded or not atm (which i believe it is)
we should be more sustainable and have population controling plans. because i get the feeling that the stats aren't very reliable, it should be planned for the worse.

 

[luke_atyeo]

lol, dont we populate like something less then 10% of australia

 

[isthattim?]

also tim: i'm aware there's some form of cigarette state tax already in place, along with alcohol, no? haven't researched it, but might be important to clarify.

yes cao, cigarettes and alcohol (along with petrol) are among the highest taxed consumer goods in australia, however the amount of tax paid by a typical cigarette consumer is still insufficient to compensate for the increased utilisation of health services by said individual meaning the non-smoking population picks up the slack.
my point is that a personal decision to kill oneself slowly (and not just lung cancer, cigarettes decrease your life expectancy and significantly increase morbidity in a myriad of interesting ways) shouldn't allow an individual to clog up the health care system.
i think someone previously said "i don't stab myself repeatedly in the kidney then expect to be able to go to hospital and demand a new kidney"

tl;dr smokers don't pay enough extra tax to make up for the increased utilisation of health services. i.e. non-smokers pay for smokers healthcare

 

[luke_atyeo]

the thing you dont realize tim, is that teens believe smoking is a cool thing to do. It'ls like cigare- wait...
well whatever, its something they want to try because their parents hate it.

 

[swordsaint]

thats not always true. a lot of people pick up smoking from their parents/home. obviously not all, but a lot do.

 

[luke_atyeo]

wow... just wow...

 

[...Ellipsis...]

Ah, what Scott is said is quite true.

 

[tibs7]

I was apologizing because I don't like bob brown/greens and you like them (i think). He was bringing up stats like '100 yrs from now we will spend about 3-4 trillion on our ecosystem' or something along those lines...why bring up something that will happen in 100 yrs? I didn't approve of why he was saying really.
No it wasn't by tv edits. It was on q&a on abc and was live so I don't believe they edited anything he said....also you know I haven't met him, so there was no point in saying that .

@Shaya: **** smith is legend, took the criticism so well unlike some of the others. A small Australia ftw imo.

 

[Toby.]

I believe the point of bringing up what will be happening in the future is because the solutions to problems down the track have to be initiated now.

A small Australia seems to be a very flawed idea. I better watch the documentary.

 

[tibs7]

Yeah ok but 100 yrs? To far.

 

[xXArrowXx]

yeah but not all of australia is livable. we do have room for more a few people atm. we need more infastructure for alot more. infastructure takes awhile to build so planning 100 years ahead might not be enough.
the problem is having this acurate plan for 100 years time. i can see people looking back in 100 years time and complaining that it wasn't enough or too much :/
it shouldn't really be about a number, it should be about whether we pass all the minimum criteria of being sustainable.
yeah not small australia, its sustainable.

 

[isthattim?]

in 100yrs we'll all be living on the moon or under the sea, using nanotechnology and fusion to manufacture whatever the **** we want and injecting nanobots into our body to turn us into immortal, invincible ubermensch.

planning 100 years into the future? who knows what the future holds, at the very least we'll have vast wind and solar farms in the middle of the pacific ocean converting sea water into hydrogen and oxygen to power our fuel cells. best case scenario, fusion power and with the cost of energy no longer an object there will be virtually limitless natural resources and war will be obsolete.
of course we will need someone to unite against
possibly someone on mars.