Australian Federal Election 24 November 2007

catefrances

Austicman wrote:

He was unaware of the unedited photo's of the children overboard affair.

ohyeah... like im unaware my son eats boogers. pfft :rolleyes:

vital5

catefrances wrote:

ohyeah... like im unaware my son eats boogers. pfft :rolleyes:

If we vote for the right party... Sydney might get a faster monorail, like North Haverbrook :eek:

catefrances

vital5 wrote:

If we vote for the right party... Sydney might get a faster monorail, like North Haverbrook :eek:

i'd prefer to eat what genghis khan ate.

Austicman

vital5 wrote:

If we vote for the right party... Sydney might get a faster monorail, like North Haverbrook :eek:

MONO.....................D'OH!!!!

Yes son I'm the best mono-thingy guy there ever was.

catefrances

Austicman wrote:

MONO.....................D'OH!!!!

Yes son I'm the best mono-thingy guy there ever was.

NIMOY: my work here is done

GEEK: you didn't do anyting

NIMOY: didn't i?


simpson. homer simpson. he's the greatest guy in history...

Austicman

catefrances wrote:

NIMOY: my work here is done

GEEK: you didn't do anyting

NIMOY: didn't i?


simpson. homer simpson. he's the greatest guy in history...

HA ha........Just had a "Monty" Howard visual running through my head.

"Who is that man my Costello"

catefrances

V O T E G R E E N

Austicman

catefrances wrote:

V O T E G R E E N

Go to your room lisa!!!

catefrances

Austicman wrote:

Go to your room lisa!!!

Scubascott

NoK wrote:

I'm not sure if you are talking about science and research in general or research with respect to climate change. For the former, even though the changes are not enough and there should be more I think Labor has already put forward greater funding to universities and schools. Judging by how universities function there should be a roll-over of funds and an increase in research funding. For the latter, I think having greens kicking their butt and having Peter Garrett as your environmental spokesman will definitely change the amount of research funding going into climate change.

But these are mainly my opinions. I could be speaking absolute nonsense.

I was talking about research in general and climate change in particular. I have been a bit insulated from all the campaign bullshit, not having a TV and being extremely busy lately, but I spent a couple of hours comparing policies on different party websites last night. Labor doesn't even mention science under its list of policy headings.

Even in the five years or so that I have been working in a university research department I have seen the erosion of government funding for research in Australia. The CSIRO is a fraction of the size it used to be, and universities are being forced to pressure postgraduate students into finishing their projects in shorter lengths of time so that they can collect the money and enrol the next student. This results in bad science and reduces the quality of the degrees the students aree earning. Unless you want to work on a project for a big industry (cotton for example), there is bugger all funding available. Everything has to be 'outcomes based' now, which means that nobody can do blue-sky research just because there is an interesting question that they want to investigate. This means we are missing out on hundreds of potential exciting discoveries in all kinds of fields because nobody is doing the work anymore. I had hoped that things would turn around under a labor government, but it doesn't look as if that will be the case.

Ok rant over. . . I'd better go and do some more work.

NoK

Scubascott wrote:

I was talking about research in general and climate change in particular. I have been a bit insulated from all the campaign bullshit, not having a TV and being extremely busy lately, but I spent a couple of hours comparing policies on different party websites last night. Labor doesn't even mention science under its list of policy headings.

Even in the five years or so that I have been working in a university research department I have seen the erosion of government funding for research in Australia. The CSIRO is a fraction of the size it used to be, and universities are being forced to pressure postgraduate students into finishing their projects in shorter lengths of time so that they can collect the money and enrol the next student. This results in bad science and reduces the quality of the degrees the students aree earning. Unless you want to work on a project for a big industry (cotton for example), there is bugger all funding available. Everything has to be 'outcomes based' now, which means that nobody can do blue-sky research just because there is an interesting question that they want to investigate. This means we are missing out on hundreds of potential exciting discoveries in all kinds of fields because nobody is doing the work anymore. I had hoped that things would turn around under a labor government, but it doesn't look as if that will be the case.

Ok rant over. . . I'd better go and do some more work.

I agree with you regarding the scientific research factor. Working in the field of science in a university I know exactly what you're talking about. I know PhD students have been forced to finish their degree in 3 years and the new rules implemented force them to pay full fees if they want to enrol in a 5th year. Thats asking a PhD student to put all his annual scholarship on a session fee. Its pathetic.

I am currently in Paris for a few months working in a lab and you should see the amount of funding they have. The place runs like a well-oiled machine. Whats sad is that because the end of the year is approaching they have been trying to find ways to spend the excess money they have before it returns to the Institut. The lab I work in in Sydney is currently trying to find ways to survive the end of the year. Aussies are shipping out and heading overseas and Australian scientific potential is going elsewhere.

My view is that their wont be anymore rules like the one above under Labor because of Rudd's "Education policy" which offering more undergraduate and postgraduate scholarship funding. Then again you can never trust politicians.

NoK

catefrances wrote:

certainly not i.


remember when john howard said he'd never bring in a GST? i do.


liar liar pants on fire.

I just saw the FANATICS, EXTREMISTS, LEARNERS advertisement you mentioned earlier on smh.com.au. Its hilarious!

They keep pissing away our money on grotesque advertisements. At least change the colours.

Have u seen the dog lover article on http://www.ninemsn.com.au with Malcolm Turnbull?

Zoso

neither really but I prefer Rudd out of the two..

Zoso

NoK wrote:

I just saw the FANATICS, EXTREMISTS, LEARNERS advertisement you mentioned earlier on smh.com.au. Its hilarious!

They keep pissing away our money on grotesque advertisements. At least change the colours.

Have u seen the dog lover article on http://www.ninemsn.com.au with Malcolm Turnbull?

libs just shamefully attack the ALP... it gets boring really. They are really defensive.

catefrances

Zoso wrote:

neither really but I prefer Rudd out of the two..

there are more than two candidates to choose from. yeah i know with our ludicrous preferential voting system your votes, regardless of who you choose, sometimes get funnelled to one of the two major parties, but not all of them do. ive found the best vote you can cast, is the vote you cast without compromise. don't waste it. and remember: turn onto politics or politics will turn on you.

NoK

catefrances wrote:

there are more than two candidates to choose from. yeah i know with our ludicrous preferential voting system your votes, regardless of who you choose, sometimes get funnelled to one of the two major parties, but not all of them do. ive found the best vote you can cast, is the vote you cast without compromise. don't waste it. and remember: turn onto politics or politics will turn on you.

Ideally one would want to choose the candidate that best suits his/her beliefs but you must also weigh that choice on how much you want a change of government. Its tough to balance but this time around I'm gonna choose the latter.

NoK

Zoso wrote:

libs just shamefully attack the ALP... it gets boring really. They are really defensive.

Whats sad is they still have a chance. Although very effective, the whole idea of negative campaigning doesn't go with "democracy".

"I want to win therefore I shall piss on my opponent."

Scubascott

catefrances wrote:

ive found the best vote you can cast, is the vote you cast without compromise. don't waste it. and remember: turn onto politics or politics will turn on you.

What's that supposed to mean?

Our system means that you have to play the numbers. Just because a senate candidate represents my views perfectly doesn't neccesarily mean its a good idea for me to vote for them. If they have no chance of winning you rely on them to judge the best choice of preferences, so you're still not really making the choice yourself, unless you are obsessive enough to number all seventy five million boxes under the line.

I'll probably vote labor in the house of reps, but I still haven't decided what to do about the senate. That's where the real differences will be made in this election it seems. The upper house ballot seems like a foregone conclusion. The greens, democrats and the climate change coalition are all trying to get the same climate change message across, so I really hope we see some combination of those parties end up with a strong voice in the senate.

Jeanie

Scubascott wrote:

What's that supposed to mean?

Our system means that you have to play the numbers. Just because a senate candidate represents my views perfectly doesn't neccesarily mean its a good idea for me to vote for them. If they have no chance of winning you rely on them to judge the best choice of preferences, so you're still not really making the choice yourself, unless you are obsessive enough to number all seventy five million boxes under the line.

I'll probably vote labor in the house of reps, but I still haven't decided what to do about the senate. That's where the real differences will be made in this election it seems. The upper house ballot seems like a foregone conclusion. The greens, democrats and the climate change coalition are all trying to get the same climate change message across, so I really hope we see some combination of those parties end up with a strong voice in the senate.

I number all the boxes under the line.

catefrances

Scubascott wrote:

What's that supposed to mean?

Our system means that you have to play the numbers. Just because a senate candidate represents my views perfectly doesn't neccesarily mean its a good idea for me to vote for them. If they have no chance of winning you rely on them to judge the best choice of preferences, so you're still not really making the choice yourself, unless you are obsessive enough to number all seventy five million boxes under the line.

I'll probably vote labor in the house of reps, but I still haven't decided what to do about the senate. That's where the real differences will be made in this election it seems. The upper house ballot seems like a foregone conclusion. The greens, democrats and the climate change coalition are all trying to get the same climate change message across, so I really hope we see some combination of those parties end up with a strong voice in the senate.

it means when you cast you vote make sure it's a choice you can live with. that you are happy with. it doesn't matter what other people think. if you can make the choice without compromising your principles then all the better. and make an informed decision. thousands of people have no clue what the fuck theyre doing even as theyre handed the ballot papers. they vote only because they have to. or they vote only according to the flyers theyre handed at the front gate, cause they know no better. a disenfranchised constituency works in favour of that party with the best, most effective spin doctors. people believe what theyre told cause they have no frame of reference. that's what i mean by politics turning on you.