On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, Michael Scott <luv@inoz.net> wrote:
> All I did was say that the government has a large debt. Whatever percentage
> of GDP or how it compares to other OECD countries does not change that. If
> it's in the billions of dollars and costs billions in interest, as a
> percentage of the government's budget, or our taxes, it is large.

If you just look at absolute numbers then by definition everything that a
government does is large.  But there is no information content in such an
analysis.

Again, all I did was say the debt was large. Everybody else tried defining what large meant. Yes, by definition everything the government does is large. The billions of dollars in interest that their debt incurs eats into taxpayer dollars in a large way. That was all I meant when I said it.
  
> I'd vote Green if their policies only related to their green matters.
> Unfortunately they don't. They are able to come up with unfunded policies
> which they never have to justify in practice.

In terms of being a "left" party the fact that the Greens advocate for
protecting the environment isn't at all relevant.  There have been lots of
right-wing "conservative" parties that want to conserve the environment.  In
fact a common Godwin violation when discussing politics is to refer to the
Nazis supposedly being positive towards the environment.  Note I haven't
bothered looking at evidence of the Nazi environmental policies as it's just
not relevant to modern political discussions.

The Nazis were in fact called a "Socialist" party. 

> I'd vote Labor if they weren't backed by corrupt unions (and I'm not saying
> all unions are corrupt).
>
> I'd vote Liberal if they weren't backed by corrupt big business (and I'm
> not saying all big business is corrupt).
>
> Unfortunately, I've never been in a marginal seat and my vote tends to have
> little to no affect. This coming state election is the exception. I'd love
> to see the Napthine government voted out tomorrow, but I dread the
> alternative. Simply because I cannot stand the absolute lack of regard for
> the environment. I could say the same for the current federal government.

You think that Labor is worse for the environment than Liberal?

No, I think the coalition are far worse than Labor. Sorry, I added the environmental bit as an afterthought and it could easily make my statement misunderstood.  

> Is that far enough Left for you, Russell? 

It's not Left at all.

One modern definition of Left vs Right is about whether the government should
provide services for poor people or whether it should just exist to serve the
rich.  Another definition concerns social issues (and you've clearly stated
your position in terms of GLBT rights).

No, you've clearly taken my position in terms of GLBT rights and completely and deliberately redefined it to suit your opinion. 

I will repeat, as a Christian, I cannot support same sex marriage. That is all I've said on GLBT rights and you've taken it as me being homophobic, an emotive term often used by the gay rights brigade to define anyone who doesn't agree with them. 

It's nice that you want to protect the environment, but you still haven't
given an example of an issue where you are on the Left side.

You've defined your "Left". I've given a brief, general, view of where I stand. I didn't say I was "Left". You said I only come into these discussions to "defend the extreme right", so please don't put words in my mouth.
--
My Main Blog         http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog    http://doc.coker.com.au/