Serious Discussion: Politics and YOU!

POSTING RULES!!!
*Follow these and we will all get along*
1. You may disagree, but post with a degree of respect. Do not attack someone for their beliefs.
2. If making a claim, try (i know not always easy when its seen on TV) provide proof. Wiki is fine.
3. Keep it on-topic, try to post rebuttles (replies) and ask at the end your own questions, views or statements. You should be able to split your posts to reply to people.
4. Quotes, dont quote all 1500 words (lol, seriously please dont) pick out a key-line or two and make your judgement. Or dont and just refer to the person.

-----------------------
***Onto topic***
-----------------------

Recently Australians went to vote, they received 2 pieces of paper. A Green and White one.
The green was local (house of representatives) which differs from place to place. White was the Senate (upper house) which listed all the major parties (and some questionable ones, lol).

Initially I saw this as a oppotunity to raise intelligent discussion that also may help our younger people understand politics a bit more and make informed decisions. I have given many seminars on political studies in my short life (its my bread and butter and australian/american politics i specialise in) and like to think im well informed.

Back to paragraph 1 -- Theres all those parties (white senate sheet) but WTF they mean?!
Someone I spoke to, voted "Socialist Alliance" i wont lie, i laughed at this person. How many people realised they preferenced Labour over Liberal (Coalition) in the two party-prefence? Few i a suspect, but looking at the history of Labour, why does a Right-Wing get Left-Wing votes? Thus, the crux of my issue (and my main point of this thread)

Now, Madness probably just died saying "wtf is left/right" and you can type in "leftism" into wiki and get your answer. Yet, I can explain the 4-axis of political spectrum currently being used.
Left-Wing (Liberalism, Progressive)
Right-Wing (Conservatism)

What is the difference? To Americans, Left = Democrat. Liberals are a Liberalist party, yet theyre led by someone who isnt Liberalist? Tony Abbott is a faith-based man, there is no doubt hes "Old School" and that is a good quality to have, stubborness of change. Some critise his passion to politics (personally I do, who rides a freaking bike when hes suppose to work? Private sector youd have no job doing that) yet who votes for him? Unlikely the majority of women after his quote "The greatest gift a woman can give is her virginity." What the hell statement is that? Im flat out conservative, heck, im *FAR* right winged and often labeled Facist which is fine for me. I love my country and believe in its flag and undying love of that same flag, but even Abbott makes me question his character.
My question was, whats the reverse side then? What's the greatest gift a man can give? A House? A Car? Those, like someones virginity, are subjective terms. Someone can say they gave those things and there might be receipts for them but how can you value the partnership of a pair of people? If he (Abbott) thinks like this, what's his views on same sex marriages? is there a separation of church and state in his eyes on the matter? Would legislation be passed to force the church to accept same sex people?

I've opened another can of worms with that? Probably, same sex marriage is a large issue in the community theseadys. I have a lesbian friend, shes a valued member of the community, not a criminal or a drug dealer. Pays her taxes (I assume, im not her accountant) and doesnt speed in her car while putting on make-up (I hope...) yet people blindly think that shes deserves the right like everyone else to be allowed to marry. And I know, you think im some seculist bastard, yet read on before making judgement. The church as we should be aware, is ran by (if your roman catholic, yada yada yada) the Vatican. They are their own sovereign state aka their own country. You can view this 2 ways:
1. The Church is a country, therefore its churchs on foreign soil are (a) invasion camps, spy portals or (b) embassies for those who are faith-inclined.
2. The Church is a religion, therefore its not a country and its churches are now considered private institutions that teach their religions (this can be applies to Catholics, Muslims etc...)

First i'll tackle 1 (a) and (b), being (a) was a little drastic but if we consider international law. Which there are 3 ways of a nation being sovereign, there is a judicial system and executive system and a enforcement of law system. The Vatican has none, there is no judicial system and there is no "Vatican Army" that im aware of (formal, military/police style of enforcement of soldiers) and the executive system id hardly call one. A council of bishops who vote on a new Pope when neccessay is hardly democratic, its very Facist/Communist in that reality. Perhaps (b) will quash my quandries (world play!) and if you perceive these churchs as embassies, then who is permitted on them and since under international law there is diplomatic immunity, then we have to question the Vatican's policies if they are abusing their powers and molesting people or taking advantage. Either way, then there needs to be government intervention to either fix their diplomats or to not recognise their statehood which (OMG!) leads into #2.

Most people see the church as a religion (i do also, being a man of faith) thus means they are a private institution. Therefore, via separation of state and church, the state can not and should not force the church to make gay people wed in their church. Do not judge just that statement, because my main point is coming up now. If we as people created formal laws (which in NSW we have, 1984 Act "De Facto Relationship") The URL (http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/digest.040) is a government link, showing the exact outlines of this law.
We as civilians should improve on this, we have create a new law "2010 Act, Marriage of Civilians" where that people who are of two separate entities (aka, not blood related, un-married currently and are of sound mind and judgement) may wed without persecution of their age, gender, sexuality, physical or mental influences. This process can be handled by a state-appointed official, or a judge who can decide if the couple can wed or not by reading their marriage forms etc.
There would be probably no changes made to the above 1984 Act, merely a re-naming, and creation of law so people who are not faith-based yet are male/female, male/male or female/female orientation can wed and hold the exact same values as the faith-based have enjoyed for generations.

After that lovely segway, we understand that leftism and rightism still play minor roles in our core philosophy. Youll notice that having a right-wing ideal but having a leftism approach such as myself does not mean that im a discriminative sob. Yet the mainstream media (who are majority, progressive and left) love to bonestorm the right wing. Look at America for example, FoxNews is being singled out by the Obama administration for their reasons, and CNN, MSNBC and ABC arnt. Why? Because Fox will question the administration whilst CNN and the other do not (on a regular basis).
If anyone has Foxtel/Austar (Australian Cable TV) they should watch "Glenn Beck" as I find him to be very intelligent on political issues, i will admit he and I are similiar in nature (hes a centralist, whilst a complete facist-conversative) we differ on alot of key concepts. You dont have to agree with Beck but he puts his arguments in a very well thought out structure and fair/honest opinions.

Defining this can be troublesome as theres alot of strange issues and major flaws people dont seem to realise in defining this.
Issue 1: Abortion.
Typically, abortion as a conservative is seen as bad. FALSE!
This is a miss-labeled title, I am conservative, I value choice. The stage of which you can call life will differ (Id like to hear peoples reasons/thoughts, remembering this is a free environment and your beliefs will not be persecuted) but I like to think when the child is able to life without the dependance of the mothers body, that is when the child is "alive" since it can develop on it own without dependance on another body for it to survive.
Progressives and Liberals tend to think creation is started at conception. Yet I can guarantee at least 10% of pregnancies are not planned (of the people I know, 90% dont know the exact day... but thats 3 things, (a) a biast sample, (b) not a random sample and (c) sample size doesnt reflect general population) and therefore, majority of current abortions would be then murder according to the Progressives ideals.

Issue 2: Same Sex Marriage.
I explained earlier my thought process, and again according to media belief - People (Conservatives in general) who dont think same sex marriage is right, is bad. FALSE!
If youve read above youll know my reasoning, I dont feel there is a proper separation of government and church. There may never be, but the intention of the person is what should matter. I know people of same gender orientation, i know people who dont like those people and i know people who are so indiferrent their lack of opinion annoys me. We must as people, understand and learn about what we do not know. I dont agree with forcing the church to accept gay/lesbian marriage but I feel that we should force the government to accept before-mentioned issue so that the equality of marriage is the same for all either be in or out of church belief or with another male or female.

Issue 3: Public Discipline of Children.
This is very controversial topic currently, being related to a teacher and knowing the laws behind what teachers can/cant do gives me a very informed basis to create an opinion.
Alot of progressive wanted to ban corporal punishment, yet when these same kids who are not taught respect go and spray can tag on national monuments then turn around and say that kids need to learn respect. I find their way of dealing with discipline moronic. Kids learn. Adults teach. We as adults must teach kids what is right and wrong (again, another can of worms this, individuality) and teach them respect, value and trust. School is such a vital role theseadys, and with it comes responsibility of teachers to make sure they are teacher more than just stats and figures, they're role models and examples by how to live.
Where are the parents you say? Its tough to say they dont factor in, since studies have proven (no linky sorry) that children learn the most in their first 3 years of life than at any other time. They pick up on suttle characteristics that their parents have. If one parent is very assertive and acts like this around their child, that child will more likely grow up being assertive. We as humans adapt to our surroundings and our personalities as we mature change also.
Perfect example, your child is screaming and yelling in the super-market. You:
a) Gently discipline (you smack their butt gently, but firm enough they feel something) the child and tell them that need to be quiet and behave or they wont get rewarded with a snack when they get to the car.
b) You ignore the child. Letting them carry on (lets pretend your the only person in the entire complex... forget what others think currently) and therefore, you either given in or they give up.
c) You assert your tone and authority, you use accute tone and dialog and attempt to control the situation with your words and tone over the child.

What did you choose? Reply and why? I would choose (c) myself, i belief that smacking a child sometimes is a bad thing. Its a cue of being bad, but eventually that child will learn what is right and wrong by that physical discipline. I dont agree with that. Ignoring the child is even worse, you are asserting zero authority and you showing the child that complaining and yelling are alright if you want to try and get your way. This leaves no mental cues (unlike a) for the child to know what if anything theyre doing is bad or naughty.
Why C? I feel that using your words and emotions shows a level of passion, it also proves that you can use your words to communicate your feelings across. There are millions or real-life examples you can probably name just off the top of your heads. Next time your in a line, just observe what the parent does and put yourself in that position and what would you do?

The 4-axis are defines as such;
x-axis --- cultural liberalism -v- cultural conservatism
y-axis --- individuality -v- statehood

The x-axis is how you view social and cultural issues. A progressive view is something that leftism where you believe that socialism and libetaraianism are proper. If you fall very, very far left then you have zero respect or care for rules and live in a Anarchism society (such as Greece was earlier, this is very diferent from martial law however) Whilst going very very far right you get Facism which is a complete belief in statehood and community strength. There are two central viewpoints, most which in Australia we all know well and good. First is a Christian Democracy, Abbott basically. Old School thoughts but with new age ideals. Social Liberalism, very socialism based which is gillard. She likes a large government, and that government to have its hands in alot of the pies.

Included is a URL to a picture more clearly defining that crappy description above lol.
URL: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png
Cite: Slomp, Hans (2000). European Politics Into the Twenty-First Century: Integration and Division. Westport: Praeger

So, 4 Days and had 5 people say they'll reply and nothing.
These too hard for people to read, understand. Unsure how to reply or something?
Let me know so I can cater this better to you guys (the community) as this is for you not my own ego, its large enough and stroked enough that I don't need extra here lol

Reading you Above two posts, I have come to the following conclusion of you 3 examples(?).
Correct me if I am wrong;
1. I believe that Abortion should be the parent's choice, not a religions or someone else's choice, there are many inputs into why you would need to abort, such as Age (I.E. Teens), Disabilities (child or parent, may affect the parent's choice), Abortion Should not be called Murder, due to opinion, after looking at the current law on murder, Abortion is not reckless, and the baby it is not classified as a child until the 3rd month (by law, tho killing a pregnant woman is 2 accounts of murder). therefore the 25 year minimum conviction does not occur.

2. I believe that gay and lesbian couples should be able to marry, but it is the churches decision to allow it within its walls, and the religions to allow the Parish (priest) to chose to marry outside of the walls. The law cannot be fully applied to a church with who it can/cant marry, therefore the above is reinstated. But refusal may result in public disproval of that church. It also is the religions (sadly) to allow lesbians/gays to follow its religion fully.

3. A very Controversial Topic, My thoughts are on Public discipline,
The following is based on my opinion only!
Mother:
The mother should be allowed to hit the child if required, but not with enough force to hurt the child to the point of bruises/mark.
Father:
The father should refrain from hitting the child with the same force as mentioned above, due to public protest (sexist pigs).
On Your Opinions:
You opinion on A was a fairly good choice, with gently disciplining the child and tell them that need to be quiet and behave or they won't get rewarded with a snack when they get to the car (keep in mind their actually must be a reward or this method is pointless)
To be honest, I did not consider B to be a actual good option.
Now, Option C was a very good choice and option for you (and the public), Assessing the child with a authorities tone and Controlling the child.

BUT I did not chose A, or B, Or C
I choose D
Option D- Using a Acute/Authorities tone and Dialog, And offering a reward (as in A) with a consequence if not behaving (not encouraging the wrong behaviour).

Madness

Madness wrote:

Reading you Above two posts, i have come to the following conclusion of you 3 examples(?).
Correct me if i am wrong;
1. I belive that Abortion should be the parents choice, not a religions or someone elses choice, their are many inputs into why you would need to abort, such as Age (teens ect), Disabilities (child or parent, may effect the parents choice), Abortion Should not be called Murder, due to oppinion, after looking at the current law on murder, Abortion is not reckless, and the baby it is not classified as a child untill the 3rd month (by law, tho killing a pregnate woman is 2 accounts of murder). theirfore the 25 year minimun convction does not occur.

Thats a very good rebuttle, do you think that educating young people or making the act of reproduction is the right of parents, schools or another outside source?
The "creation" of life is variant. Im sure youll find alot of mothers saying it starts at conception, others say when the child is of size and ability to survive outside the womb and then all the variable grey areas inside. People tend to value life differently, and having a blank law sometimes isnt a great answer but having multiple variations of the law is worse because people abuse the system into their favour (the easiest example is taxation).
I personally feel we need to assess peoples abilities in the stresses of raising a child. A permit or certificate (like a HSC, or TAFE course equivalent) to prove they have at least been taught skills to handle a child, the little amounts of sleep, leadership and teaching morales. Educating, care-taking and keep the child safe. There was an issue in the news (month or two ago) where a baby was accidently pricked with a needle in a McDonalds playground. My opinion is its 50% the mothers fault and 50% the owners fault.
It's the parents responsibility to ensure where his/her child does anything, its safe to their standards. Dont expect McDonalds to keep 100% of the place clean 100% of the time. It takes mere moments to scan those playground areas (I dont know the actual sites layout but ive seen enough Playgrounds and can make a sound judgement) and what about Mad? Do you feel empathy only for the mother, or can you see that its a parents responsibility to ensure where their child is, its a safe environment.

Madness wrote:

2. I belive that gay and lesbian couples should be able to marry, but it is the churches desision to allow it within its walls, and the religions to allow the Parish (priest) to chose to marry outside of the walls. The law cannot be fully aplied to a church with who it can/cant marry, therfore the above is reinstated. But refusual may result in public disproval of that church. It also is the religions (sadly) to allow lesbians/gays to follow its religion fully.

We seem to agree on the fact the church has the right to refuse who they want, for whatever reason they feel. The Law needs to separate church and state and currently, I don't agree with the process currently in place.
I will admit, even though I'm religious; the church and the idiots who condem gay marriage need to look into their own history. Jerms does history, he should know about the gay society the Romans had, most of the 1950-1970s made movies of the Roman days had some sort of close man-to-man moments that hinted this was prevalent in their society.
It's also their free will to not agree with gay people, that's their opinion but I won't have any friends who would think this way. I know people who dont believe in gay marriages, they're good people, but their opinion on this issue differs and I choose not to be their good friend (most are work friends so I have to tolerate them).

Madness wrote:

3. A very Controvesail Topic, My thoughts are on Public disiplin,
The following is based on my opinion only!
Mother:
The mother should be allowed to hit the child if required, but not with enough force to hurt the child to the point of bruisies/mark.
Father:
The father should refrain from hitting the child with the same force as mentioned above, due to public protest (sexist pigs).
On Your Opinions:
You opinion on A was a fairly good choice, with gently disciplining the child and tell them that need to be quiet and behave or they wont get rewarded with a snack when they get to the car (keep in mind their actually must be a reward or this method is pointless)
To be honest, i did not consider B to be a actuall good option.
Now, Option C was a very good choice and option for you (and the public), Assesing the child with a athoritive tone and Controling the child.

BUT I did not chose A, or B, Or C
I choose D (i exersise my right to talk)
Option D- Using a Acute/Athoritive tone and Dialog, And offering a reward (as in A) with a consequence if not behaving (not encoriging the wrong behaviour).

I do believe there's a predigous standard here, men hitting women is a disgrace, whilst women hitting me makes the male to look inferior. That is equality, not by a fucking longshot. A woman smacking their child, seen as discipline and rarely do they think if shes using excessive force. A father hits his child, and people have this doubt in their mind, because hes a man and apparantly people assume he hit his child with excessive force.
I've never raised my hand in anger ever, even when i served my country. I know i will never raise my hand in anger. There is no justice or gain in anger, it clouts judgement and that judgement is how people live (unless they live off nothing but pure emotion).
I dont agree with D, personally I feel if the child is given a reward to behave normally. This can start a trend where they act out just to get a reward, adversely this could be different. However, if you do not give a reward when the childs being well-behaved (which is probably majority of the time) this could just turn them into attention seeking teenagers who act out for attention as that will be their reward. I can guarantee there is at least one person in every classroom in the world, where theres 1 person whose loud, roud, obnoxious to the fact where they only continue that trend for the attention because attention = reward for those types of people.
Im not saying you sit in the corner, face-deep into a book and be quieter than a mouse; but you know the types who act out purely for the attention and they crave it and end up wasting their oppotunities beacuse of it.

Madness wrote:

That Concludes My Discusion.

Also may i mention Most of the Members here eigther already vote, will vote next year, or the year after. yet none of you replie?

Madness

They were busy with studies, yet a weekend passed and the post isnt that long. Their drive or ability to read something they arnt (a) forced to do, or (b) something enjoyable; then ultimately they probably wont read it in entirity.
If I chose citizenship over residency, I feel i would have voted Australian Conservative Party which probably would preference (2-party preference system is Labor, Liberal) Labor since its a typically Union/Conservative party.

Currently that's my most major problem. Gillard is a bleeding heart feminist extremist, a left-wing leader of a right-wing labor party. Rudd was somewhat left/central. He was liberal in the sense of regardless of wealth, you're all equal so they tax the highest bracket (which Im in btw) higher than the lowest bracket. Conversely, I (and Conservatives) believe that taxation is equal contribution where a % of gross-pay is your tax.
Yet the #1 problem with tax is??? Jobs, no jobs, no income to tax. Sure they tax Centrelink pay, but why tax something you're giving out to people. It's like GST, you give me 100% of an apple, i take 10% away and charge you 100% (no GST). Or you bring me a 100% apple and i charge you 110% pay. The principal is the same, but the method of understand the economics varies.

Lastly, I feel people are freaking out about "internet security" as i said before, THERE IS NO SECURITY ON THE NET!!! Everything you've ever said, is filed and logged somewhere and people who *really* want to find it, will. There's a risk about using your real name but frankly, if you say the same stuff on the net you say in real life. There shouldn't be a problem. Obviously some things you dont talk about (like terrorists etc) with any tone of seriousness because that brings attention, that issue is another problem in itself and maybe one day we can get to that problem. Conclusively, you wrote very good points Madness and Im quite impressed someone whose not even 14 yet can write articulated responses and your reasons were clearly put across. You should think about joining a debate team because theres only 1 rules about debating (its not: Do Not Talk About Debate Club, lol) is that you're only wrong if you dont present your idea clearly.

i concur.

Grover wrote:

i concur.

*shakes head*

This is why Shale never loved you...

vanhelsing wrote:

Grover wrote:

i concur.

*shakes head*

This is why Shale never loved you...

I agree.

i concur again

Ok- firstly, allow me to apologize for not responding sooner- I have had my major exams and have wanted some time to relax, that as well as some room movings around the house have left the place a little out of order for some time, but I've had my few days so I'm back to business...

Ok- let me start by explaining my current opinion about the Australian Government system- I'll add that my knowledge is only collected from some net browsing and some talks with various teachers, I watch little TV; but what I manage to catch in terms of politics would be...more than average?
My opinion is this- I am simply fed up with the Liberal/Labour duopoly. One party says "x" the other party says "X is wrong, Y is right". What fills x and y is irrelevant- the equation is always going to be the same. I don't think I have EVER heard of one party saying "X" and the other saying "X is a great idea, we will assist you". This is probably why we have this hung parliament. Australia keeps hearing the same thing over and over again and eventually don't really know what their voting for. This is not a sporting match, not some game- It's a government.
As far as I see it- all parties should be striving for a stronger country, a better life for it's citizens. The way I see it- they only care about getting in power- what they do from there seems to be "Stay in power".

That's how I see it. Semi-Mis-informed mind you, I don't follow politics a HUGE amount, but that's what I have gathered from what I have heard.

My vote went to the Socialist Alliance; and yes- I knew about the preference. But I prefer labour of Liberal anyway. I don't like them that much- but If I had to choose- it would be labour.
Why?

I am all for community- I really am. But I am NOT a fan of the uneven social-economic scale. Personal success and achievement aside- the government is in place to assist the entire country and all of it's citizens- EVEN those who may not strive for greatness, they are only acting as they have been brought up; rich kids get richer, poor kids stay poor (bar the obvious exclusions).

I am FOR taxing the rich, but only on reasonable levels- they deserve to keep what they honestly earn, but they only earn it due to the government, you have more to contribute- so contribute.

Where as a family on <75K a year; is not able to make that larger contribution to the country and need all they can keep.

So there- you now know I am a genuine socialist.


On abortion-
Abortion IMO is one of the trickiest topics for me- I value human life, but I also have seen the complications of an unwanted or poorly timed child.
As van has said; the parents should be able to cope with the stresses of a child.
In saying- I completely agree. Before giving birth- the parents should be truly capable of handling one- stable income, housing, transport ,access to health facilities and basic parenting knowledge. So- if a couple of determined as unfit to handle a child, they should not be bringing that child into the world. Therefore- ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 20 SHOULD NOT BE GIVING BIRTH.

On parenting-
Mother/father- I don't see the difference here- yes, men are physically stronger but women are entirely capable of hitting a child too hard.
I see discipline as a changing spectrum. If a child does something that is just generally 'bad' then it only be met with a stern talking to and a time-out, maybe grounded for some time.
If they are 'good' - they should be congratulated- rewarded without warning or promise on some occasions.
BUT. When a child reaches ages >5, then certain things- say; drawing on the walls, things they should know by now are wrong, then a quick smack *Same strength as Van said- hard enough to feel, but not hard enough to injure* is in order.
I was punished with a smack on the butt by both parents- and I have a healthy respect for authority and a respect for elders- it also has made me a tougher child, I am not soft and squishy like so many out there- coating themselves in anti-bacterial agents and wrapping kids up in bubble wrap when on a bike.

Also- public or not public shouldn't matter- a police officer is going to fine you whether someone is watching or not, parents should be discipling children the same. (Not that they are completely related)

On the homosexual marriages-
Religion is a belief- if that belief is "No gays"- then they can follow that belief- for whatever twisted or ancient reasons they have. SO- if a homosexual male or female wants to marry- they would clearly not be able to through that religious institution.
However- legally they should be able to- not through a religion- but through law (Hence the word legally). "Defacto" or whatever you wish to call it.
If you really want to nit pick over a true religious marriage and a simple ceremony in an office building- go for it- a marriage is for life, the ceremony shouldn't make a difference anyway.


On internet security-
GTFO MY /b/!

Simple put- Child pornography is illegal- it should be monitored and controlled with EXCESSIVE FORCE- anyone who downloads or creates such material should be met with jail terms.

Attempting to steal ID's and banking information is ALSO ILLEGAL- JAIL AND FINES.

It should be monitored- and everything you do on the internet should be open for monitoring- it is a public place as I see it. No secrets here.

Filtered though? NO.

Authorities should have the right to remove material that is illegal and all people should be able to report sites violating breaches of law- however- a FILTER would mean that no human hands are involved, a machine would determine what is and what isn't illegal. The technology for this is not fast- it is not accurate, it would only be frustrating for members of the public.


There. That's my two cents.

Now go ahead Van- criticize away.

Jerms wrote:

Ok- let me start by explaining my current opinion about the Australian Government system- I'll add that my knowledge is only collected from some net browsing and some talks with various teachers, I watch little TV; but what I manage to catch in terms of politics would be...more than average?
My opinion is this- I am simply fed up with the Liberal/Labour duopoly. One party says "x" the other party says "X is wrong, Y is right". What fills x and y is irrelevant- the equation is always going to be the same. I don't think I have EVER heard of one party saying "X" and the other saying "X is a great idea, we will assist you". This is probably why we have this hung parliament. Australia keeps hearing the same thing over and over again and eventually don't really know what their voting for. This is not a sporting match, not some game- It's a government.
As far as I see it- all parties should be striving for a stronger country, a better life for it's citizens. The way I see it- they only care about getting in power- what they do from there seems to be "Stay in power".

That's how I see it. Semi-Mis-informed mind you, I don't follow politics a HUGE amount, but that's what I have gathered from what I have heard.

There is a duopoly, the financial costs of producing a national campaign is far far steep for an independant to fund himself (unless a millionnaire) which hampers a potentially good canidate from making a difference.
There honestly is too much bastardness in parliament, there is no working to a common goal as you stated. This unlikely will change even with a "Parliamentry Change" and the only valid reason that skank of a socialist Julia Gillard is spouting that bullshit is in case you're made to vote again, she WANTS YOUR VOTE!!!

I wouldn't say mis-informed but the make an informed opinion you need belief and understanding of how things work. Dont expect me to rattle off history dates, its not what I understand or know but Im sure you'd tell me the year of fall of the Roman Empire (wild stab, 73AD? lol)

Jerms wrote:

My vote went to the Socialist Alliance; and yes- I knew about the preference. But I prefer labour of Liberal anyway. I don't like them that much- but If I had to choose- it would be labour.
Why?

I am all for community- I really am. But I am NOT a fan of the uneven social-economic scale. Personal success and achievement aside- the government is in place to assist the entire country and all of it's citizens- EVEN those who may not strive for greatness, they are only acting as they have been brought up; rich kids get richer, poor kids stay poor (bar the obvious exclusions).

I am FOR taxing the rich, but only on reasonable levels- they deserve to keep what they honestly earn, but they only earn it due to the government, you have more to contribute- so contribute.

Where as a family on <75K a year; is not able to make that larger contribution to the country and need all they can keep.

So there- you now know I am a genuine socialist.

This is where we differ A LOT lol, you're a socialist, im a facist. (Anyone who doesn't know, we're very very opposite in our views) Community is a big deal for me, but a government shouldnt balance that social-economic scale. Your statement about rich getting richer and poor getting poorer (think its poorer?) is something I wont deny, I wasnt that poor but there were days i didnt have money to eat food and so I remember going 2-3 days without food and use to no shower on the weekends to save every penny. Now I live very comfortable (upper-middle class i would call me) -- I paid last year $135,000 in TAX ONLY last financial year, want to know how much (thanks to socialistic rudd) i got back? 3k.
The average hosuehold gets 3-4x that amount, the super rich probably get alot more than that (the 3-4x) and its really the people in the middle who get the screw. I personally believe throwing money at the lower housing areas wont solve anything. They need to find out WHY they're in that situation, something about education? Offer scolarships (which they do) where if you're rural, disadvantaged you get money to study at university.

I feel a proper tax system taxes non-essentials (so petrol, fruit/veg, meat, milk and water etc are not affected) are un-taxed and a percentile of the income of a household (of 18+) so; currently the system is flawed and the above statement you made Jerms I can say is valid on the majority.

Jerms wrote:

On abortion-
Abortion IMO is one of the trickiest topics for me- I value human life, but I also have seen the complications of an unwanted or poorly timed child.
As van has said; the parents should be able to cope with the stresses of a child.
In saying- I completely agree. Before giving birth- the parents should be truly capable of handling one- stable income, housing, transport ,access to health facilities and basic parenting knowledge. So- if a couple of determined as unfit to handle a child, they should not be bringing that child into the world. Therefore- ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 20 SHOULD NOT BE GIVING BIRTH.

SELECTIVE BREEDING! WOO!
*Chops off Jerms' weiner* no more for you!
Ok ok, that was overboard and I know I take this issue to the extreme; but I lived in a bad family environment. I grew up in a bad place, around bad people, and a bad country who was so self-destructive I went mad and joined the army to have a breakdown and suffer mild forms of mental illness. If my ideals were law, Id have never lived; do I still agree with that? YES!
Why? Similiar reasons above Jerms, my parents couldnt provide basic neccessities for my sustained life. No child should ever be disadvantaged and if I could I would find every orphaned child and give them my house, I bleed liberalism with young people and I truely love young people because they deserve better than what I have or ever will have. The age part is maybe something flexible, but a TAFE (or heck, make it a Year-10 compulsary thing) course where you're taught some of the basics:
a. Financial Management (kids cost A LOT!)
b. Parenting Skills (covering how the first few years are like, how to care, spot when (s)he is sick etc)
c. Environment (hire DOCS workers to scout the family, ensure theres no drugs around, theyre of sound judgement and can tell right from wrong etc)

I can say with certainty, I wont have a child. Firstly my partner is quite old for a first child and we both agree when I go back to uni and become a teacher also, we'll use what im saving up now to adopt children and have our family built on a sound support structure. That's my choice, and others dont want to choose that and I don't ever look down on people for not agreeing with me.

Jerms wrote:

On parenting-
Mother/father- I don't see the difference here- yes, men are physically stronger but women are entirely capable of hitting a child too hard.
I see discipline as a changing spectrum. If a child does something that is just generally 'bad' then it only be met with a stern talking to and a time-out, maybe grounded for some time.
If they are 'good' - they should be congratulated- rewarded without warning or promise on some occasions.
BUT. When a child reaches ages >5, then certain things- say; drawing on the walls, things they should know by now are wrong, then a quick smack *Same strength as Van said- hard enough to feel, but not hard enough to injure* is in order.
I was punished with a smack on the butt by both parents- and I have a healthy respect for authority and a respect for elders- it also has made me a tougher child, I am not soft and squishy like so many out there- coating themselves in anti-bacterial agents and wrapping kids up in bubble wrap when on a bike.

Also- public or not public shouldn't matter- a police officer is going to fine you whether someone is watching or not, parents should be discipling children the same. (Not that they are completely related)

Im not a parent, I was using examples that I feel how I would act. I believe sometimes a physical boundry keeps the fear a little, that fear creates order. If we knew, mass killing rampages could end in us not being punished, anarchy would rule. People fear jail, they fear death (anyone who says otherwise, 99% time is lying through their teeth) and that fear keeps society in check.

I really dislike those who carry those dis-infectant bottles, theres gems EVERYWHERE! they're fucking organisms like us humans lol, we know vaccines have super tiny tracers of the virus in them. Those flu shots? Have the virus in them, they make your body learn to fight them. Why do you think babies are vaccinated each year? Builds immune system, sorry, thats how humans are. We're arn't at the stage where we can genetically alter DNA/RNA so frankly we have to deal with this. I also think having your child incased in bubble wrap ruins the childs chance at making friends, falling in love, falling out of love and experiencing life in general.

Jerms wrote:

On the homosexual marriages-
Religion is a belief- if that belief is "No gays"- then they can follow that belief- for whatever twisted or ancient reasons they have. SO- if a homosexual male or female wants to marry- they would clearly not be able to through that religious institution.
However- legally they should be able to- not through a religion- but through law (Hence the word legally). "Defacto" or whatever you wish to call it.
If you really want to nit pick over a true religious marriage and a simple ceremony in an office building- go for it- a marriage is for life, the ceremony shouldn't make a difference anyway.

The church has their right, the individual has theirs.
They are both private entities, not owned or obligated to do what the state tells them (I mean in a sense where they choose their faith and sexuality freely).
I believe in partnerships, I rarely ever refer to my partner as my wife (legally, we're de facto) because I dont think a piece of paper should ever define the love I have for another person, regardless of gender. I also won't seek church recognition until the church accepts gays and personally being a man of faith, I dont want them to because the fundamental process of freedom is choosing to accept gays or not. I as a person accept that lifestyle choice, I dont accept the government forcing the church to accept it if they dont as a whole.
We see eye to eye legally on this issue at least, and I dont think any competant and reasonable human can disagree with this. Same sex want recognition and same rights, legally we must give that to them but at the expense of the churchs freedom of speech I think not.

Jerms wrote:

On internet security-
GTFO MY /b/!

Wtf is a /b/! ??? That meant to read baby?

Jerms wrote:

Simple put- Child pornography is illegal- it should be monitored and controlled with EXCESSIVE FORCE- anyone who downloads or creates such material should be met with jail terms.

Attempting to steal ID's and banking information is ALSO ILLEGAL- JAIL AND FINES.

It should be monitored- and everything you do on the internet should be open for monitoring- it is a public place as I see it. No secrets here.

This is something Im very aware (being in the industry I am) I dont think you should store what site people go to. There should be websites ear-marked as potentially bad, the ones inciting violence against people etc. I visit very radical websites (pro-facist websites) which I dont want public (in the sense my name and websites visited can be leaked from a skillful hacker whose got it out for me) to know about.

Child porn, personally, death penalty. If you take, encourage or justify it, you're destroying a childs life and in turn, you're life must be terminated instantly. If Australia passed death penalty, I WILL GLADLY DO THE EXECUTIONS myself, the pain that comes with killing is something I never, ever want another person to feel. Every day is painful, everyday you remember, everyday you wish it never happened and justification never eases the pain but frankly, people like that dont deserve to life.

Fraud is an iffy topic, someone having their details stolen is bad! But if someone is stupid enough to fall for some of the scams I see (and some are so obvious its ludacrist how they work) frankly I have no empathy. Monetary value is just that, the feeling of betrayal I can identify with and wouldnt ever wish it to another person.

Jerms wrote:

Filtered though? NO.

Authorities should have the right to remove material that is illegal and all people should be able to report sites violating breaches of law- however- a FILTER would mean that no human hands are involved, a machine would determine what is and what isn't illegal. The technology for this is not fast- it is not accurate, it would only be frustrating for members of the public.

Ah, interesting point.
Filtering is where via (background info here folks) a public proxy, certain websites are filtered to not allow access. Think your schools, type in google "porn" and click a link, you'll get a message saying "BLOCKED" that is filtering. Schools, of cource. At home? No.

Not the government, but independant agencies should monitor websites and block anything that is detramental to society. Terrorists websites, extremist values such as infidel killings; to perhaps even guides to making bombs or torturing/killing/hurting other people shouldnt be viewable, they dont contribute to society at all. I agree with you Jerms, filtering public domain data is a violation of our right to free speech but at the same time, that same free speech should be protected from those who can be impreshionable and having to filter content in a home where theres a 40 year old father and his 15 year old son -- its impossible to see whose realling looking up that porn site, that site to make a bomb. Better to block the sites straight up.

Jerms wrote:

Ok- firstly, allow me to apologize for not responding sooner- I have had my major exams and have wanted some time to relax, that as well as some room movings around the house have left the place a little out of order for some time, but I've had my few days so I'm back to business...
(EDITED)
There. That's my two cents.

Now go ahead Van- criticize away.

I knew you were busy, I only pushed you because this was meant to create a place where you can express yourself so you can form your own opinion(s) about things. Find out from other people, tolerate their views and learn things from a different angle.

I learnt Madness is pretty cluely about some things, and each day hes impressing me with his knowledge. I bet half his teachers go wtf when he talks about politics at his depth of knowledge.

The criticism isnt meant to be demeaning however the last part made it sound that I had been? Two different views are going to create waves, but I respect what youve said and obviously I want to pursuade you to be on my side but I dont think Id force anyone. Im strong in my beliefs, and this whole thread was to make others get a strong grasp on their beliefs (politically, socially, culturally, economically and the like) because being a strong person is standing by your choices and morales.

Alrighty then! here we go keep in mind I know next to nothing of politics and I know I should but I have very little care on the matter at this current time although I have noticed an increase in my care and opinions on certain matters.

NOW! On terms of what political party I prefer out of labor and liberal, to be honest it's labor, BUT! I would really like to see some more influence come form other parties I'm sick of Labor V Liberal, mainly becuase both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbot both have absolutely no idea... perfect example of this was seen when Gillard made a speech which she almost entirely ripped of Obama, and the crowd was like "yea.... woo...." (didn't seem to be interested) then Bob Hawke got up and gave a speech, and well he was 'real' people enjoyed his speech he knew what he was talking about and you could clearly see this anyway im rambling.

I agree with Jerms to a degree I'm a for the community kind of person and agree that the richer should be taxed a little bit more then the poor.

On abortion, well.. I personally don't agree with abortion to me it's still a living human whether it can fend for itself or not especially in our society kids can't fend for themselves until there 30 with todays mothers not letting their children be touched by a Jerm i mean a germ, BUT! I believe its the mother carrying the baby's choice on the matter and the choice shouldn't be influenced by others.

With parenting well to me it's simple of your kid is playing up let them know whether it be a stern talking to or a light slap on the butt to keep them inline do it cos I'm sick to death of seeing 12 yr old kids drinking and doing drugs, and kids at school thinking they're king cheese and being a complete wanker towards the teacher's who in most cases just want what's best for the kids(coming form my own experiences). so in conclusion of that Kids NEED to be taught respect early and what is wrong and right to do.

Same sex marriages I don't care if a homosex person wants to get married by all means go ahead and do it, churches shouldn't be forced to marry homosexuals, but government should be able to that way through the law I'm not sure what it is called.

When it comes to Internet Security I pretty much entirely agree with Jerms.

Well thats my views.

Juff wrote:

Alrighty then! here we go keep in mind I know next to nothing of politics and I know I should but I have very little care on the matter at this current time although I have noticed an increase in my care and opinions on certain matters.

This is about informing you, and having your create your own informed opinion. Don't be what Jerms or I have, because makes you an idiot. Something you believe in (perhaps the NBN? b/c you want teh pr0n faster?)

Juff wrote:

NOW! On terms of what political party I prefer out of labor and liberal, to be honest it's labor, BUT! I would really like to see some more influence come form other parties I'm sick of Labor V Liberal, mainly becuase both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbot both have absolutely no idea... perfect example of this was seen when Gillard made a speech which she almost entirely ripped of Obama, and the crowd was like "yea.... woo...." (didn't seem to be interested) then Bob Hawke got up and gave a speech, and well he was 'real' people enjoyed his speech he knew what he was talking about and you could clearly see this anyway im rambling.

I've said this before, but the whole 2 party system is broke because they're both liberal. Abbott isn't a true liberal but a centralist with liberal tendencies whils Gillards as socialistic as Jerms.

Juff wrote:

I agree with Jerms to a degree I'm a for the community kind of person and agree that the richer should be taxed a little bit more then the poor.

This again, where Jerms and I differ.
I find using a percentile base, is more of a socialist's way of handling it (again, being a facist im prone to some xtreme left views once a while because you can go so far right you flip left... lol)
If I earn $500,000 and Jerms earns $120,000 and you earn $52,000.
I feel those represent average wage (yours) and Jerms' probably a combined household pre-children and has my salary also.
Currently I pay $135,000 in tax. I believe Jerms pays roughly $40,000 and you'd pay $8-15,000? (Not sure)
Let's take into account the absolute bare minimums to survive are roughly $30-40,000. Again no children involved yet.
Taxing 12-15% would make me pay $75k in tax. Jerms pays $18k and you pay $7,800.
I earn under 4x Jerms, I pay almost 4 times in tax. Returns (on essentials) wont be re-imburst at all, therefore its our baseline tax.
Let's also say that I spent $14,000 on solar panels for my home. Thats (GST) $1,400 tax. I should be allowed to claim that back.
This is where you (the tax system) can push the system like stimulus. The government says "If you earn under $100,000p.a. post-tax (So Jerms and you fall into this cat whilst I dont) you get 100% back at tax time. I earn outside this so therefore I dont get to claim back.
That just bumped your net back up $1,400 dollars. Jerms now has $20k and you got $10k-17k back.
Thus, we pumped money into our economy, gave people jobs, saved the earth slightly AND kept socialism happy! TRIFECTA WOO! lol.

Sure its napkin math and theres a billion ways you can apply this to anything. I chose solar because of the trifecta and pulled random figures out that'd help illustrate my point. Tax brackets are a stupid idea, but regardless salary you're taxed a base% and your net-income denotes what you can claim back extra (like education supplies lower incomes can claim larger percentage etc)

Juff wrote:

On abortion, well.. I personally don't agree with abortion to me it's still a living human whether it can fend for itself or not especially in our society kids can't fend for themselves until there 30 with todays mothers not letting their children be touched by a Jerm i mean a germ, BUT! I believe its the mother carrying the baby's choice on the matter and the choice shouldn't be influenced by others.

The first question -- When do *you* believe the child is alive and abortion in your mind would be im-morale? Plus nice "Jerm/Germ" lol.
Secondly, if your daughter was 16 and pregnant. What would you do?
Personally I would have drilled into her that getting pregnant before your 21 = auto-kick from house. I know how hard financially growing up is, I funded most of my own. And 16 year olds don't get paid well enough for that.

Juff wrote:

With parenting well to me it's simple of your kid is playing up let them know whether it be a stern talking to or a light slap on the butt to keep them inline do it cos I'm sick to death of seeing 12 yr old kids drinking and doing drugs, and kids at school thinking they're king cheese and being a complete wanker towards the teacher's who in most cases just want what's best for the kids(coming form my own experiences). so in conclusion of that Kids NEED to be taught respect early and what is wrong and right to do.

I think majority if not all of us here believe discipline is judgement based, but that judgement is subjected to grey areas. I have no qualms with corporal punishment, slapped on the fingers with a wooden yard-stick is a great idea. Puts fear back into the kids. However, there are places where such force can/might get abused and having DOCS workers actually doing their fucking jobs, would make it easier to punish those who do abuse their kids.

Juff wrote:

Same sex marriages I don't care if a homosex person wants to get married by all means go ahead and do it, churches shouldn't be forced to marry homosexuals, but government should be able to that way through the law I'm not sure what it is called.

/nod.
True liberalism, belief in total separation of church and state.

Juff wrote:

When it comes to Internet Security I pretty much entirely agree with Jerms.

Well thats my views.

I enjoy reading what you all think or have to say. You can reply to each other etc etc, bring up topics you see in your own lives and discuss them here. I'm trying to help you become aware of the greater surroundings and look at the big picture, this is what I deal with daily at work. These things are all about experience, research and communicating to others your ideals. Right or Wrong is subjective, but Opinions are objective in context and only gain a subjective view when value is placed onto them.

I dunno about the taxing issue...I'm sorta drawn apart by it..
I don't agree with the huge difference between rich and poor- I know that much.
I think that no one person should be earning above $200,000K a year. Obviously increased for children/spouses.
Profits for companies that exceed wages should be going back into companies.
Therefore the excess profits can increase the wages of the regular worker.

I haven't thought about this idea a WHOLE lot. But I just know that far too many people are living in luxury while so many are living in below standard conditions.

That's my socialism there in a nutshell.

vanhelsing wrote:

The first question -- When do *you* believe the child is alive and abortion in your mind would be im-morale? Plus nice "Jerm/Germ" lol.
Secondly, if your daughter was 16 and pregnant. What would you do?
Personally I would have drilled into her that getting pregnant before your 21 = auto-kick from house. I know how hard financially growing up is, I funded most of my own. And 16 year olds don't get paid well enough for that.

As soon as the thing has a heart beat it's alive in my opinion so from what I have read on the net about 18 days or something, NOTE: i have no idea when that happens, Yes if it is living killing it is immoral in my opinion.

If I had a 16 year old daughter and she fell pregnant I would be pissed like you wouldn't believe, and I will be drilling into my children's head no babies before 20! BUT! in saying that it's my daughter and I would do anything I can to help her out as I personally have really strong family beliefs in that unless under extreme circumstances family comes first.

Jerms wrote:

I dunno about the taxing issue...I'm sorta drawn apart by it..
I don't agree with the huge difference between rich and poor- I know that much.
I think that no one person should be earning above $200,000K a year. Obviously increased for children/spouses.
Profits for companies that exceed wages should be going back into companies.
Therefore the excess profits can increase the wages of the regular worker.

I haven't thought about this idea a WHOLE lot. But I just know that far too many people are living in luxury while so many are living in below standard conditions.

That's my socialism there in a nutshell.

Most major shares companies have "dividends" which is profit from investments they've made, trust me, banks make billions and only dividend very small% of those profits. 20 million Aussies paying 20-30$ a year in fee's adds up.

The problem is that as inflation increases our GDP, CEO's wages rise (22% over past 12 years) whilst the average Joe worker-bee doesnt (3.5% over same period) thats my problem with ZERO industry pay regulations, that would fix everything. People would have caps in salaries and people would be able to keep bigger profits whilst paying the poor more and the rich less.

Juff wrote:

vanhelsing wrote:

The first question -- When do *you* believe the child is alive and abortion in your mind would be im-morale? Plus nice "Jerm/Germ" lol.
Secondly, if your daughter was 16 and pregnant. What would you do?
Personally I would have drilled into her that getting pregnant before your 21 = auto-kick from house. I know how hard financially growing up is, I funded most of my own. And 16 year olds don't get paid well enough for that.

As soon as the thing has a heart beat it's alive in my opinion so from what I have read on the net about 18 days or something, NOTE: i have no idea when that happens, Yes if it is living killing it is immoral in my opinion.

If I had a 16 year old daughter and she fell pregnant I would be pissed like you wouldn't believe, and I will be drilling into my children's head no babies before 20! BUT! in saying that it's my daughter and I would do anything I can to help her out as I personally have really strong family beliefs in that unless under extreme circumstances family comes first.

With that belief (correct me if im wrong) the creation of sustained life is the third-trimester which (in the US, not here i believe?) make is illegal to terminate an unwanted baby after the fact.
I guess being under 20 yourself, you dont think these things through because you're 20 and thats not a dig at you or your age but how many 20 year olds think like I do? (Ignore im 22 for the moment) I'd say rare if at all, most people think about facebook, friends, booze and having a good time. I personally work my ass off, enjoy my time off and like to think I do a lot of good for my community.

vanhelsing wrote:

With that belief (correct me if im wrong) the creation of sustained life is the third-trimester which (in the US, not here i believe?) make is illegal to terminate an unwanted baby after the fact.

I quite honestly have no idea but yeah if its heart is beating no killing it! if not well then your not killing it so yea.. pretty much what I think in a nutshell NOTE: This is for human life, by all means kill a fish to eat it etc etc

vanhelsing wrote:

I guess being under 20 yourself, you dont think these things through because you're 20 and thats not a dig at you or your age but how many 20 year olds think like I do? (Ignore im 22 for the moment) I'd say rare if at all, most people think about facebook, friends, booze and having a good time. I personally work my ass off, enjoy my time off and like to think I do a lot of good for my community

^^ pretty much spot on there.

Hmm, well- how bout' a change of topic? Now that these few issues have been discussed.
I have an interesting one for you all-
WAR- HUH- WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

DO YOU think that war is a necessity- or can world issues be sorted out without a rifle?

Can conflicts be resolved with handshakes and hearty laughs instead of 200pound bombs and AC-130 gunships?

ME?

Yes. I think they can be. I think they should be. I think it's for the modern society to take it upon itself to strive for national arms reductions.
However- there may come a time when some people decide otherwise.
And I think every nation has to accept that some people don't think rationally (Rationally being, talking it over and coming to an agreement is better than risking world destruction- We learnt that by the 90's..I hope). The Irrational being those who make actions without attempting to resolve without force. Last time I checked- I don't think Al-Qaeda has ever made formal arrangements or documented discussions with ANY of the forces trying to kill them off.

Jerms wrote:

Hmm, well- how bout' a change of topic? Now that these few issues have been discussed.
I have an interesting one for you all-
WAR- HUH- WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

DO YOU think that war is a necessity- or can world issues be sorted out without a rifle?

Can conflicts be resolved with handshakes and hearty laughs instead of 200pound bombs and AC-130 gunships?

ME?

Yes. I think they can be. I think they should be. I think it's for the modern society to take it upon itself to strive for national arms reductions.
However- there may come a time when some people decide otherwise.
And I think every nation has to accept that some people don't think rationally (Rationally being, talking it over and coming to an agreement is better than risking world destruction- We learnt that by the 90's..I hope). The Irrational being those who make actions without attempting to resolve without force. Last time I checked- I don't think Al-Qaeda has ever made formal arrangements or documented discussions with ANY of the forces trying to kill them off.

WAR?!
The neccessity of war stems from being the fact we're human. We can be corrupted with power, we become blind from absolutes and we fall faster than we climb.
Look at every major conflict in the past 50 years and tell me one of the achieved their original purpose.
Humans are inherently going to conflict with each other. The use of weapons have exsisted throughout, first it was sticks and stones, progressed to bows and arrows now there's god knows how many nuclear bombs and ICBMs that can kill from half a earth away.

What does all this war conquer?
Chechnya took a war to Russia, 12 years on, nothings changed.
America went looking for bin laden, 10 years on, nothings changed.
Vietnam did nothing.
Iraq will spend the next century struggling until terrorists take back over and back to square one.
Hitler lead Germany out of poverty, to send them back into it.

As you can see, nothing major is ever accomplished. What about the people in these 'conflicts' get out of it? Is the military more a career or a training ground to go back into private enterprises?
Everyone from my days of being in the Chechen rebellion are either dead or fled from the country. The Russian soldiers have either transferred for desk jobs or quit and returned to being a civilian. What did they get from it? A lot (like myself) have extreme mental conditions such as PTSD and Paranoia stemming from our days in the service.

What does the 'top dogs' really think this solves? Most American President's had served at some point in their military carrers (barring a few) and does that translate into proper democratic and non-biast decisions when responding to conflicts (Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam)

Pretty much every President has involved himself in some sort of conflict or had one placed at his feet. Obama received Iraq and Afghanistan that Bush (43rd) started. Clinton had Somalia, which came from Bush (41st) inadequate first attempt. Bush 41st chased Osama first, which Bush 43 and Obama now having to deal with.
Reagan ended the freaking Cold War, and Carter before him had the American Embassy in 1979.

It's a fair assessment to say at least the human condition is to always be in conflict. Nobody wanted a World War II, the first one saw enough damage to Europe but alas, we had another. What's stopping World War III? Probably the ease of migration from country to country and travel, the ease of mass killings from long-range ICBMs, Nuclear weapons, Biological weapons and the like.

In my view, let them raise their guns, let them kill each other beacuse the liberals are fucked whatever side they sit on.
Want to reduce Climate Change/Global Warming? Kill humans.
Want to protect human inviduality? Freedom to make wars, partake in wars and fight in wars.
Frankly, whats the biggest cause of "pollution"? Human beings, cows make more per day but they dont live for 50+ years whilst humans do. The less humans, the better off the environment and yes that sounds harsh but I chose military duty and my death I would accept because I chose that lifestyle choice. As if the basis of liberalism.

Easiest way to put, war is not needed BUT it is impossible to avoid there is and will always be some fucked up psychopath that wants more power then everyone else or thinks they are the greatest or that they are being treated unfairly and instead of talking things over they will bomb cheese.

"War is the only true plague of humanity"
-Unknown Source
"As long as their is man, their will be war"
-Unknown Source

I'm not sure who said those quotes or where i got them from but they both are the truth.

Recently i went to Canberra and saw the National War Memorial, WW2 had 50+ Million die, WW1 saw 6 million people die, Vietnam had about 1.6+ million dead. I cant remember Korean numbers and the more recent wars (Afghanistan, Iraq ect). Millions are dead from war (add up suicides and old mine kills after the war and the figures go up). How can one stop war? their are many of millions of people out their trying to stop war, yet no one listens? Those 75 Million or so are all dead because they tried to stop war.

If war could be solved with politics and peace keeping, it would have been.

-Madness-

You make a very good point Van Helsing. A very good point, also- I wasn't aware you actually saw combat...I'm intrigued.
Jeff- Well done- bombing cheese is a crime against...well...CHEESE...and that just WILL NOT STAND.
I think it was M.A.S.H. (The show set in an American medic bunker during the Korean War)- a main character (He is a surgeon or something) walks in on this huge conference with all different world leaders. He walks up and grabs several of them and pulls them together, and grabs their hands and sorta forces a handshake. "There, you forgive him, he forgives you- you're both friends- what else do you need? Now if you excuse me, I have to pull a Korean bullet out of an Americans spinal cord"

Madness- If you want to understand more about the atrocities of war- Go to the Jewish War museum in Canberra. Speak to one of the survivors of the Holocaust...Well said btw. It's good to know someone of your age has such a well developed understanding and opinion on peace and war.

Jerms wrote:

Jeff- Well done- bombing cheese is a crime against...well...CHEESE...and that just WILL NOT STAND.

Quite literally have absolutely no idea why I wrote "Bombing Cheese", like no idea.. I'm not even sure what i was supposed to write hahah but it fits

Juff wrote:

Easiest way to put, war is not needed BUT it is impossible to avoid there is and will always be some fucked up psychopath that wants more power then everyone else or thinks they are the greatest or that they are being treated unfairly and instead of talking things over they will bomb cheese.

There is too much sin in this world, purity is a nieve truth that ignorant people choose to live in. Their world will be shattered soon enough and I wish people would take more responsibility in themselves as well.

I don't hold any hope for humanity on this issue, at all.

Madness wrote:

"War is the only true plague of humanity"
-Unknown Source
"As long as their is man, their will be war"
-Unknown Source

I'm not sure who said those quotes or where i got them from but they both are the truth.

Recently i went to Canberra and saw the National War Memorial, WW2 had 50+ Million die, WW1 saw 6 million people die, Vietnam had about 1.6+ million dead. I cant remember Korean numbers and the more recent wars (Afghanistan, Iraq ect). Millions are dead from war (add up suicides and old mine kills after the war and the figures go up). How can one stop war? their are many of millions of people out their trying to stop war, yet no one listens? Those 75 Million or so are all dead because they tried to stop war.

If war could be solved with politics and peace keeping, it would have been.

-Madness-

PTSD is a very, very serious condition. It effects everyone, regardless of being in war or not. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, anything that creates such a Traumatic stress and the mind and body (instinctively it goes to protect itself) choose to sometimes want to kill itself or shut off parts of its brain to protect itself. Currently theres no absolute cure, therapy doesn't fix this issue either. You must live with the pain for the rest of your life, hence why ex-military people have a hard time fitting back into being a civilian.

It's not about stopping the war, as a soldier, you're fighting to protect those at home. I fought not for myself, not for my country. I was there for my family and those I loved, being shot at was just apart of the path I chosen. War will happen, you're either with it or against it and there isn't a morale high ground or any in-between. You either support our troops, or you don't. The individual doesn't come into this at all, the individual is just a cog in the system. Removing a cog doesn't break the machine but the machine becomes harder to keep moving without it.

Jerms wrote:

You make a very good point Van Helsing. A very good point, also- I wasn't aware you actually saw combat...I'm intrigued.
Jeff- Well done- bombing cheese is a crime against...well...CHEESE...and that just WILL NOT STAND.
I think it was M.A.S.H. (The show set in an American medic bunker during the Korean War)- a main character (He is a surgeon or something) walks in on this huge conference with all different world leaders. He walks up and grabs several of them and pulls them together, and grabs their hands and sorta forces a handshake. "There, you forgive him, he forgives you- you're both friends- what else do you need? Now if you excuse me, I have to pull a Korean bullet out of an Americans spinal cord"

I don't recall that episode but I know of M.A.S.H.
Most wars today arn't between governments or countries, they're about insurgents and a foreign governments. I don't think conventional wars will ever be fought again, technology dictates too much now.

Jerms wrote:

Madness- If you want to understand more about the atrocities of war- Go to the Jewish War museum in Canberra. Speak to one of the survivors of the Holocaust...Well said btw. It's good to know someone of your age has such a well developed understanding and opinion on peace and war.

I am the son, of a Polish Jew. Her father was a Polish Jew. My great-grandfather was a Polish Jew. I've seen pictures and the pain of what war cost before I ever set foot onto my own battlefield.
The opinions of most are "peace > war" whilst I see it inversely, I think war is a way of showing your hand or forcing your enermies to show theirs. Without war, the defense sector which accounts for quite a lot of jobs would be useless. Of course, though; the act of war is something I don't think anyone can handle, there are no "Solid Snakes" in the real world.

I use to think like that when I was younger, I even tried to live like it. Then you realise that you're just someone's pawn, even if your the leader. You can't fight in a war alone, you can't win or loose one by yourself either. There is way too much risk in trying to get a group of people together also, because ultimately being human; you'll get betrayed one day. Ceasar was betrayed, Jesus was betrayed, Hitler was betrayed.

Juff wrote:

Jerms wrote:

Jeff- Well done- bombing cheese is a crime against...well...CHEESE...and that just WILL NOT STAND.

Quite literally have absolutely no idea why I wrote "Bombing Cheese", like no idea.. I'm not even sure what i was supposed to write hahah but it fits

You're a bad, bad egg Juff.

Van- You are a truly insightful and intelligent human being....I have never really considered war like that. As an inescapable evil.

And it makes so much sense.

It must just be the way Humans are- we cannot escape mass conflict...some of us could argue for hours over a sporting match or who slept with who's girlfriend (Really can't say I have been evolved with either...)
If human nature was "perfect"- one party could accept being wrong and learn the errors of his ways, the other could forgive.

But we all know it's far from perfect, not even close.

I think if a major war was to start in the next year- humanity wouldn't stand a damn chance, 'technology dictates' that if one guy shoots, shoot back- so me, you and the entire planet can die.

So- hopefully that MAD theory could keep us going for some time. "Fingers crossed!"

Jerms wrote:

Van- You are a truly insightful and intelligent human being....I have never really considered war like that. As an inescapable evil.

Yay, my child. Blessed is thee who believe in me.

Jerms wrote:

And it makes so much sense.
It must just be the way Humans are- we cannot escape mass conflict...some of us could argue for hours over a sporting match or who slept with who's girlfriend (Really can't say I have been evolved with either...)

People are just fundamentally different, there's going to be such a huge number of ignorant people who will dislike you based on the stupidest facts. I got someone hating me because I was friends with his girlfriend years before he met her... Why? I never slept with her, but he doesn't like me at all. Petty.

Jerms wrote:

If human nature was "perfect"- one party could accept being wrong and learn the errors of his ways, the other could forgive.

But we all know it's far from perfect, not even close.

If we were all perfect, then why even live? Some of the best moments in your (and everyones) life will be something that wasn't perfect and if your life has been perfect 24/7 I'd love to meet you so I can prove you wrong

Jerms wrote:

I think if a major war was to start in the next year- humanity wouldn't stand a damn chance, 'technology dictates' that if one guy shoots, shoot back- so me, you and the entire planet can die.

So- hopefully that MAD theory could keep us going for some time. "Fingers crossed!"

I don't think there will be a "World War 3" because people play politics too much and majority of people don't want to take on America's military, or the sheer numbers advantage China's army has. Australia's ass would get pulverized without a doubt. We're too big, too vacant and don't have the defenses the other first world countries have.
Also remember outside of World Wars, Australia has never been directly involved in combat. Vietnam, East Timor and Iraq ain't direct, we were there as peacekeepers primarily.