OUT: Abbott IN: Turnbull

[Biffen 12,426]

Islam is 100 hundred times more insidious than Christianity.

Slightly different crapola,different names,same result-delusionary zealots.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Slightly different crapola,different names,same result-delusionary zealots.

No. Vastly different.

[jazza 1,323]

Slightly different crapola,different names,same result-delusionary zealots.

yeah true but zealots

i love em ,they create war and bring stable areas to the point of instability

besides when you have foxtel,there is mostly documentries about zealots

so biff

zealot=lover

zealot=hater

cast your vote{at least before youve had to many

[hardtack 10,144]

Yes, it does, otherwise I wouldn't have said it.

Facts are, males and females have different traits. They nurture differently and have different emotional intelligence. How can a child be in the best possible environment when they are deprived of one of these traits that nature provided ? How can they not be disadvantaged when the balance isn't right ? They have two of one, rather than one of each.

We now live in a society consumed by selfism. You are conditioned to basically believe everyone has the right to have whatever they please. You now even think a child wouldn't be worse off. Talk about being conditioned by groups with an agenda. I couldn't give a stuff whether a couple wants a child. My concerns are for the welfare of the child and every child having the best possible outcome. I'm hard pressed to see that depriving a child of either a Mother or Father is in their best interests.

It may be old-fashioned, but it's also common sense. And gullible Nasher accuses me of being nonsensical.

Yes, males and females do have different traits and some males have what are generally accepted as female traits and some women exhibit what are generally considered male traits; something that is not uncommon in same sex relationships...only the physical attributes are obviously different.

Another thing to consider, particularly in male same sex relationships, the child is getting a balanced exposure in their formative years at school, particularly when you consider that roughly 80% of teachers to whom children are exposed to for most of their waking hours are female. They are getting plenty of exposure to male and female role models.

Also consider that roughly 15% of families are single parent families...by your reckoning BH, that will result in a hell of a lot of messed up kids who will not have had a well balanced family environment. But I don't see any anecdotal evidence to suggest that is in fact the case...nor do I see any that says children raised in same sex parent families are in any way disadvantaged. Let's face it, if we were to really go back to what is natural, children should probably be raised by the "tribe" as opposed to being restricted to just two parents.

[Earl Hood 5,816]

Hmmm. I think I am guilty of starting this latest tedious [censored] for tat discussion on parental influence on children, sorry it started with what I thought was a good Jesus/Cory Bernardi joke back in post 833!

Can we get back to slamming Tony or maybe Scott "I can't talk about operational matters" Morrison?

[Hannibal 5,814]

Yes, males and females do have different traits and some males have what are generally accepted as female traits and some women exhibit what are generally considered male traits; something that is not uncommon in same sex relationships...only the physical attributes are obviously different.

Another thing to consider, particularly in male same sex relationships, the child is getting a balanced exposure in their formative years at school, particularly when you consider that roughly 80% of teachers to whom children are exposed to for most of their waking hours are female. They are getting plenty of exposure to male and female role models.

Also consider that roughly 15% of families are single parent families...by your reckoning BH, that will result in a hell of a lot of messed up kids who will not have had a well balanced family environment. But I don't see any anecdotal evidence to suggest that is in fact the case...nor do I see any that says children raised in same sex parent families are in any way disadvantaged. Let's face it, if we were to really go back to what is natural, children should probably be raised by the "tribe" as opposed to being restricted to just two parents.

Thanks for your considered response and yes, millions of children are in sub-optimum family situations, imo.

In truth I wanted to provoke discussion. Some dismiss anyone out of hand that doesn't just fall into line and espouse the virtues of children growing up in a gay marriage. I think there are concerns that are warranted and that it is certainly worthy of discussion, especially when a child's welfare is involved. Some, like Nasher, seemingly don't even want the discussion. And he calls me nonsensical ?

A Mother and Father is optimum for me and any other version can only be sub-optimum. Every child deserves the chance at optimum.

I'm happy to leave it there.

[Earl Hood 5,816]

Btw, shouldn't you be picketing against EAST WEST link down at Clifton Hill ?

Myth I just got back from the East West picket, finished my shift. There are about 50 protesters and 100 police, most of whom are sitting around having lattes from their own mobile police catering trucks. It is quite a bizarre sight on the Alexandra Pde median strip. I thought it was Hollywood film crew setting up when I first saw them yesterday.

Anyway we need help over here, maybe you and RobbieF could sign up for morning shift next week? Protest placards are provided free.

[Nasher 33,166]

Some, like Nasher, seemingly don't even want the discussion. And he calls me nonsensical ?

I asked you in my last post to say specifically what it is that children of same sex couples would miss out on that they would receive from a man and woman couple, and you didn't answer (because you can't). You resorted to vague notions of "how men and women are different" and the usual "I can't believe this even needs explaining" garbage you like to toss about. That seemed to be the best answer you can give, I don't see what else there is to discuss. I was happy just to drop it.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I asked you in my last post to say specifically what it is that children of same sex couples would miss out on that they would receive from a man and woman couple, and you didn't answer (because you can't). You resorted to vague notions of "how men and women are different" and the usual "I can't believe this even needs explaining" garbage you like to toss about. That seemed to be the best answer you can give, I don't see what else there is to discuss. I was happy just to drop it.

Good grief.

Vague notions ? I discussed the inherent differences in the biological makeup of males and females. How they nurture differently, have different traits, different hormones, how a child needs the gifts that both bring to the table to have a truly balanced emotional upbringing. But you don't see any of the differences between a man and a woman's emotional intelligence. You don't see it as gender specific. Good God man, you must have had a strange upbringing in Tasmania to not know the differences that men and women bring to the table.

I don't believe that there has been nearly enough study done to ensure that children aren't worse off. You have children, so surely you'd think it was a conversation worth having ? No, you just scoff at the idea. How insightful of you.

There's been research done that shows young girls who grow up in a house with a step Father mature at a greater rate than a child who grows up with their biological Father. This can be harmful to their health. There are reports of increased health issues, such as breast cancer, when a girl's development is too rapid. The unrelated male's pheromones affect the child's development. My point ? There's so much we don't know as to what the impact may be of a child being raised in a gay household. I don't have all of the answers, because there's not enough research, but I reckon as a society we'd want to know. As I said earlier, surely it's a conversation worth having. You merely dismiss any notion that the situation could be sub-optimum. You even started throwing the homophobe word around. That bit of intellectual genius tells me more about you than arguably anything else you've offered.

[Nasher 33,166]

There's been research done that shows young girls who grow up in a house with a step Father mature at a greater rate than a child who grows up with their biological Father. This can be harmful to their health. There are reports of increased health issues, such as breast cancer, when a girl's development is too rapid. The unrelated male's pheromones affect the child's development. My point ? There's so much we don't know as to what the impact may be of a child being raised in a gay household. I don't have all of the answers, because there's not enough research, but I reckon as a society we'd want to know. As I said earlier, surely it's a conversation worth having. You merely dismiss any notion that the situation could be sub-optimum. You even started throwing the homophobe word around. That bit of intellectual genius tells me more about you than arguably anything else you've offered.

This is the first post where you've offered anything of substance actually worth discussing. I'll give you a considered reply later when I have more than a fleeting minute - no doubt you're itching to hear it.

[Hannibal 5,814]

This is the first post where you've offered anything of substance actually worth discussing. I'll give you a considered reply later when I have more than a fleeting minute - no doubt you're itching to hear it.

The thrust of my argument hasn't changed. There's lots we don't know. But I do know that males and females are very different and have different qualities - something which seems to escape you. I don't have the answers, because there aren't enough studies to ponder, but common sense (or should that be rare) tells me that I shouldn't blindly accept that children raised by gays is an optimal situation.

Nature determined that only males and females could naturally procreate. This tells me this is an optimal situation. There may be other optimal situations. It may even be gay parenting. But I need convincing and my suspicion is there are no other optimal situations. Unfortunately life dictates there will often be sub-optimal situations. I also believe that many great people rise to the top from sub-optimal situations. It doesn't have to define you. I could even be convinced that while not optimal gay parenting is worthwhile and better than other scenarios. Social policy interests me, so rather than just accept the views shoved down my throat I tend to challenge them. Especially when it comes to children, as they're the fabric of society.

You haven't shown any capacity for wisdom, insight, or deep thought in this topic. For these reasons you're right, I won't wait with baited breath for your next offering.

[Nasher 33,166]

Good grief.

Vague notions ? I discussed the inherent differences in the biological makeup of males and females. How they nurture differently, have different traits, different hormones, how a child needs the gifts that both bring to the table to have a truly balanced emotional upbringing. But you don't see any of the differences between a man and a woman's emotional intelligence. You don't see it as gender specific. Good God man, you must have had a strange upbringing in Tasmania to not know the differences that men and women bring to the table.

Yes. I consider those to be vague notions which pander to outdated views on the role of the man and the woman in the household. What are you telling me that I am unable to do that my wife can? I read my kids their bed time stories, I kiss and cuddle them good night, I hug them when they're hurt or sad, I attend them when they scream in the middle of the night, I play games with them, and so on. My wife is better at disciplining than I am. I'd argue that I do just as much of the 'nurturing' as my wife does and I doubt you'd get much disagreement from her. I don't see it as gender specific, I see it as individual specific. The world you're describing is not the one I live in.

Predominantly the woman's bond is stronger with her children a) because of the hormones passed from mother to baby during birth and breast feeding during the first year or so of life, and b) because in 'traditional' families, she is simply the one home more often. Since we're talking strictly about adoption here, neither of these points have any relevance. In adopted families the child family is just as likely to bond with either parent because of the lack of natural connection.

There's been research done that shows young girls who grow up in a house with a step Father mature at a greater rate than a child who grows up with their biological Father. This can be harmful to their health. There are reports of increased health issues, such as breast cancer, when a girl's development is too rapid. The unrelated male's pheromones affect the child's development.

Remember, we're talking about gay adoption here. The alternative being intra-sex adoption. The girl with the step father has the same problem (of unrelated male pheromones) whether she's been adopted by two men, or a man and a woman. You now seem to be arguing against adoption altogether.

My point ? There's so much we don't know as to what the impact may be of a child being raised in a gay household. I don't have all of the answers, because there's not enough research, but I reckon as a society we'd want to know. As I said earlier, surely it's a conversation worth having. You merely dismiss any notion that the situation could be sub-optimum. You even started throwing the homophobe word around. That bit of intellectual genius tells me more about you than arguably anything else you've offered.

There's also plenty of research that indicate that children adopted by gay couples are in no way disadvantaged in comparison to same sex couples, e.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/children-in-gay-adoptions-at-no-disadvantage-8518004.html.

What do you think about children being raised by single parents? Do you think these children will suffer from the same "sub-optimal" emotional balance than those raised by a man and a woman? Is that your experience with the people you know who have been raised by a single parent? It's not mine. No doubt I have observed differences that could be attributed to the lack of second parent, but to say these people have ultimately been worse off for only having the influence of one of the sexes is drawing a long bow. I can't see how this differs to being raised by two same sex parents.

That said, I think if you take any two people (of any gender), you're always going to expose the child to a wider range human strengths and weaknesses. Two people of the right nature is probably better than one, but I think it's a stretch of logic to say those people must be male and female. Personally traits are random and distinct to the individual - so long as both people have the right nature, who cares what gender they are?

I don't disagree that further research needs to be done, but I do disagree with your conclusion that gay adoption is "sub-optimal". Though I also note that you've drawn a conclusion ("sub-optimal") despite also saying you don't believe there's enough research.

How annoying is it that the filter includes the word "gay"? Seems my admin status allows me to say it though.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Nasher

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Myth I just got back from the East West picket, finished my shift. There are about 50 protesters and 100 police, most of whom are sitting around having lattes from their own mobile police catering trucks. It is quite a bizarre sight on the Alexandra Pde median strip. I thought it was Hollywood film crew setting up when I first saw them yesterday.

Anyway we need help over here, maybe you and RobbieF could sign up for morning shift next week? Protest placards are provided free.

No thanks Hood I don't mix with ferals and anarchists.

What a waste of resources, all those police there when they could be doing something useful instead of looking after a bunch of misfits and troublemakers. This is just the latest in a long line of protests by the professional rent a crowd protesters, you would probably be one of the few who actually have a job; you do don't you?

[Hannibal 5,814]

Yes. I consider those to be vague notions which pander to outdated views on the role of the man and the woman in the household. What are you telling me that I am unable to do that my wife can? I read my kids their bed time stories, I kiss and cuddle them good night, I hug them when they're hurt or sad, I attend them when they scream in the middle of the night, I play games with them, and so on. My wife is better at disciplining than I am. I'd argue that I do just as much of the 'nurturing' as my wife does and I doubt you'd get much disagreement from her. I don't see it as gender specific, I see it as individual specific. The world you're describing is not the one I live in.

Predominantly the woman's bond is stronger with her children a) because of the hormones passed from mother to baby during birth and breast feeding during the first year or so of life, and b) because in 'traditional' families, she is simply the one home more often. Since we're talking strictly about adoption here, neither of these points have any relevance. In adopted families the child family is just as likely to bond with either parent because of the lack of natural connection.

Remember, we're talking about [censored] adoption here. The alternative being intra-sex adoption. The girl with the step father has the same problem (of unrelated male pheromones) whether she's been adopted by two men, or a man and a woman. You now seem to be arguing against adoption altogether.

There's also plenty of research that indicate that children adopted by [censored] couples are in no way disadvantaged in comparison to same sex couples, e.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/children-in-gay-adoptions-at-no-disadvantage-8518004.html.

What do you think about children being raised by single parents? Do you think these children will suffer from the same "sub-optimal" emotional balance than those raised by a man and a woman? Is that your experience with the people you know who have been raised by a single parent? It's not mine. No doubt I have observed differences that could be attributed to the lack of second parent, but to say these people have ultimately been worse off for only having the influence of one of the sexes is drawing a long bow. I can't see how this differs to being raised by two same sex parents.

That said, I think if you take any two people (of any gender), you're always going to expose the child to a wider range human strengths and weaknesses. Two people of the right nature is probably better than one, but I think it's a stretch of logic to say those people must be male and female. Personally traits are random and distinct to the individual - so long as both people have the right nature, who cares what gender they are?

I don't disagree that further research needs to be done, but I do disagree with your conclusion that [censored] adoption is "sub-optimal". Though I also note that you've drawn a conclusion ("sub-optimal") despite also saying you don't believe there's enough research.

How annoying is it that the filter includes the word "[censored]"? Seems my admin status allows me to say it though.

''Plenty of research'' you say ? What is the sample size and does this research discuss these children as middle aged adults ? It will take until middle age to know the true affect of these outcomes.

The below article references the link you provided with one that produced vastly different findings. I'm sure both findings are far from perfect and I agree with the tenet of the link that the article you referenced doesn't have nearly enough information to be making the determinations it does.

http://www.humanumreview.com/articles/view/postscriptum-baaf-vs-regnerus-on-gay-parenting

Nor does the one from Mark Regnerus that insinuates disastrous consequences: http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/homosexual-parent-study-summary-of-findings

You say: ''Yes. I consider those to be vague notions which pander to outdated views on the role of the man and the woman in the household. What are you telling me that I am unable to do that my wife can?''

So you're now forming conclusions of what you consider to be vague and outdated ? What research are you referencing ?

Here's another link that specifically looks at gender roles within households of varying family units.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3270818/

I don't need reminding that we're talking about [censored] adoption and that the same issues regarding pheromones faces a girl with an intra-sex couple. This is why I then immediately said, ''My point ?'' ''There's so much we don't know as to what the impact may be of a child being raised in a [censored] household''. It was one example of one affect. My point was, how many others could there be ? And yes, it affects normal adoption too. And no, I don't have a problem with adoption. Now that science knows this can be an affect on young girls they are better equipped to help prevent it. I was just providing an example of how we really don't yet know of all of the possible affects to a family dynamic within a [censored] parenting household.

You asked what I think about single parents ? It's not ideal. Do I like women deliberately having children when they're single ? No. They're terribly selfish individuals, imo. But it's a fact of life and many marvelous single Mothers bring up fantastic children who excel as adults. No better example is Shane Crawford. And clearly it's not a choice for a lot of Mothers. Utopian societies don't exist, but much thought needs to go into social policy.

The bottom link is one of the few studies I could locate regarding gender within the family unit. If anything it probably more supports your view than mine. It's made me consider a couple of my views, especially when they say, ''An examination of gender in the household is also important because many differences observed in household research do not appear to be biologically inevitable, but socially enforced.''

They acknowledge the differences in role, but I thought it may have a more biological base. The main determining factor appears to be social. They also say in their conclusion, ''Clearly, increased levels of research are needed to monitor family decision making and particularly issues of gender that may lead to changes in traditional functional roles. We argue that there is a large gap between what is currently known and what needs to be known in order to market effectively to the dynamic American household.''

There's just not enough research to determine gender specific issues and its impact on children. I'm comfortable with my cautious approach and my gut feel is that a child is better served by a Mother and Father, however I may have tempered my view slightly. You'll note that I've never referred to bullying at school as an issue. I think some children will cop a bit, but most Kids are resilient and one needs to learn how to deal with those sorts of issues. I also don't believe a child's sexuality will be affected, although they may initially question themselves a bit more during those hormone charged years. Ultimately I see no affect, as I firmly believe you're either born [censored] or not.

http://amsreview.org/articles/gentry01-2003.pdf

Edited January 10, 2014 by The Myth

[Earl Hood 5,816]

No thanks Hood I don't mix with ferals and anarchists.

What a waste of resources, all those police there when they could be doing something useful instead of looking after a bunch of misfits and troublemakers. This is just the latest in a long line of protests by the professional rent a crowd protesters, you would probably be one of the few who actually have a job; you do don't you?

Robbie

Yes I do work and pay my taxes. Got down to the Fitzroy pool early for a swim then hopped over to the picket line across the road for 30 minutes of solidarity, then off to work. It was good to catch up with a couple of local fitzroyals who have been around for years and manned the barricades to save the Fitzroy pool from oberfuhier Kennett and his henchmen. It seems Fitzroy, Collingwood and Clifton Hill are full of rent a crowd protesters, if you go by the anti freeway signs on every second or third house in these suburbs. I am sure there are a few bludgers over in Carlton and Parkville to boot.

I thought you living over in Brighton might not be too happy for $8 billion or so of tax payers money going to a tunnel you will never use. It's purpose is to allow the citizens of the leafy eastern suburbs to continue to drive one person to a car to the city and some even to the airport. And of course there is no guarantee that it will solve congestion on Hoddle street.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Robbie

Yes I do work and pay my taxes. Got down to the Fitzroy pool early for a swim then hopped over to the picket line across the road for 30 minutes of solidarity, then off to work. It was good to catch up with a couple of local fitzroyals who have been around for years and manned the barricades to save the Fitzroy pool from oberfuhier Kennett and his henchmen. It seems Fitzroy, Collingwood and Clifton Hill are full of rent a crowd protesters, if you go by the anti freeway signs on every second or third house in these suburbs. I am sure there are a few bludgers over in Carlton and Parkville to boot.

I thought you living over in Brighton might not be too happy for $8 billion or so of tax payers money going to a tunnel you will never use. It's purpose is to allow the citizens of the leafy eastern suburbs to continue to drive one person to a car to the city and some even to the airport. And of course there is no guarantee that it will solve congestion on Hoddle street.

I don't mind progress and I'm sure there are a lot of roads in Victoria that I contribute towards but don't use.

I would imagine a lot of the ferals that live in the Fitzroy area would prefer that all roads were closed and that all movement was done by bike; you got a car hood?

The same old crew are at most of these protests and they don't care what the cause is. But at least we know you are the one with a job.

[Earl Hood 5,816]

I don't mind progress and I'm sure there are a lot of roads in Victoria that I contribute towards but don't use.

I would imagine a lot of the ferals that live in the Fitzroy area would prefer that all roads were closed and that all movement was done by bike; you got a car hood?

The same old crew are at most of these protests and they don't care what the cause is. But at least we know you are the one with a job.

Robbie

Yes I do have a car, I need it for work but otherwise I ride a bike or walk, sometimes catch a tram but that is a previledge of living inner city I know. But we can keep building billion dollar freeways that just encourage people to get in their cars and drive I suppose but it is not very smart. We could spend $8 billion on public transport I suppose, getting rid of level crossings, new signalling that would speed up both trains and cars but that doesn't seem to attract votes, especially from uppity, professional types who would rather sit lonely in a car than be seen dead amongst the unwashed on public transport. I mean think about it for a second, the eastern freeway doesn't work well for 2 or 3 hours in the morning at Hoddle Street, the rest of the time it works reasonably well. It doesn't work at morning peak because 98% of the cars have one person in them all trying to go to the same place at the same time! Is the only solution more lanes and tunnels? Especially when our politicians keep saying Memlbourne will double its population in 20 years or so. Good heavens surely there are other more cost effective solutions and I suspect many of them are written on the protest placards you can see at the drilling sites in Fitzroy.

It is called public transport, buses, trains, trams and can I throw in time of use tolling of all the major freeways into Melbourne. If you put a large enough cost on driving into the city at peak hour you might find people who don't really need to be on the road at that time find alternatives very quickly and that those who do are willing to pay a bit more to get there quicker.

Anyway none of that will happen it is too complex for the Herald Sun editors and the RACV to get their small minds around.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Robbie

Yes I do have a car, I need it for work but otherwise I ride a bike or walk, sometimes catch a tram but that is a previledge of living inner city I know. But we can keep building billion dollar freeways that just encourage people to get in their cars and drive I suppose but it is not very smart. We could spend $8 billion on public transport I suppose, getting rid of level crossings, new signalling that would speed up both trains and cars but that doesn't seem to attract votes, especially from uppity, professional types who would rather sit lonely in a car than be seen dead amongst the unwashed on public transport. I mean think about it for a second, the eastern freeway doesn't work well for 2 or 3 hours in the morning at Hoddle Street, the rest of the time it works reasonably well. It doesn't work at morning peak because 98% of the cars have one person in them all trying to go to the same place at the same time! Is the only solution more lanes and tunnels? Especially when our politicians keep saying Memlbourne will double its population in 20 years or so. Good heavens surely there are other more cost effective solutions and I suspect many of them are written on the protest placards you can see at the drilling sites in Fitzroy.

It is called public transport, buses, trains, trams and can I throw in time of use tolling of all the major freeways into Melbourne. If you put a large enough cost on driving into the city at peak hour you might find people who don't really need to be on the road at that time find alternatives very quickly and that those who do are willing to pay a bit more to get there quicker.

Anyway none of that will happen it is too complex for the Herald Sun editors and the RACV to get their small minds around.

I'm glad you only use your car for work I'd hate to see you clogging up the roads with your bike like the rest of the selfish ones who refuse to use the bike lanes and ride two abreast in the main roads. You know the ones who love the infrastructure but refuse to pay for it.

It's funny you mention the fact you need your car for work because guess what, a lot of other people that drive to work do as well, but as long as you're ok all's well. Let's tax the [censored] out of the bastards anyway and make them pay for the privilege of using the roads that they pay for.

Anyway when the Libs get voted out your mob will be back and they will build the rail network like they did when they were in last time; oh! that's right they didn't did they.

Not sure why you bring up the HUN I'm not sure what they have to do with it; is it something you've read in the paper that leads you to believe they do?

[Hannibal 5,814]

We now have a population of approx. 4.25 million people in Melbourne. It's growing at between 1.5-2K per week.

How does our infrastructure cope with these increases ? No wonder people complain about cars, hospitals, public transport, etc. We don't have the capacity to keep up with the population explosion.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

We now have a population of approx. 4.25 million people in Melbourne. It's growing at between 1.5-2K per week.

How does our infrastructure cope with these increases ? No wonder people complain about cars, hospitals, public transport, etc. We don't have the capacity to keep up with the population explosion.

Or the money.

[Earl Hood 5,816]

I'm glad you only use your car for work I'd hate to see you clogging up the roads with your bike like the rest of the selfish ones who refuse to use the bike lanes and ride two abreast in the main roads. You know the ones who love the infrastructure but refuse to pay for it.

It's funny you mention the fact you need your car for work because guess what, a lot of other people that drive to work do as well, but as long as you're ok all's well. Let's tax the [censored] out of the bastards anyway and make them pay for the privilege of using the roads that they pay for.

Anyway when the Libs get voted out your mob will be back and they will build the rail network like they did when they were in last time; oh! that's right they didn't did they.

Not sure why you bring up the HUN I'm not sure what they have to do with it; is it something you've read in the paper that leads you to believe they do?

I drive for work to different places each day, not to a specific workplace as you will find a high % of those on the eastern fwy are doing each morning. I don't ride my bike on major roads because I worry about becoming a target for some grumpy bastard in a car who thinks he owns the road. Do you know anyone like that?

I agree neither side of politics has any intention to build rail they are all under the spell of the road lobby and the votes they believe it brings. So lets just keep doing what we have been doing then! No innovative thinking required to ensure we get the best value for our investments.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I drive for work to different places each day, not to a specific workplace as you will find a high % of those on the eastern fwy are doing each morning. I don't ride my bike on major roads because I worry about becoming a target for some grumpy [censored] in a car who thinks he owns the road. Do you know anyone like that?

I agree neither side of politics has any intention to build rail they are all under the spell of the road lobby and the votes they believe it brings. So lets just keep doing what we have been doing then! No innovative thinking required to ensure we get the best value for our investments.

There has been many a time I've wanted to run some of the weekend warriors off the road especially on Nepean Highway where they are out of control.

Just as a matter of interest how many protesters are there at the drill sites, 50 or 60? How many people live in Fitzroy now, 60,000 (?) so what sort of % is that, that are against it?

Then we have to look at how many of the protesters A. Live in Fitzroy B. Have a job and C. Are members go the International Socialists; are you, as a matter of interest?

I travel around quite a bit and have clients in the area and I'd have to say that I don't recall too many houses, apart from some that had them years ago, with signs about no freeways.

I'd like to see more public transport, even though I pay for it but don't use it, but it won't happen so the best we can do is make life easier for commuters. It's a bit rich you criticising others for driving their car to work when you do the same; don't you think Hood?

I use my car for work purposes but even if I didn't there us no way I can get to work unless I drive or walk that is unless they build a train line from Brighton to Bentleigh, I suppose I could walk a K to the station catch the train to the City then out to East Bentleigh and walk another K and a half to my office.

Edited January 11, 2014 by RobbieF

[Earl Hood 5,816]

There has been many a time I've wanted to run some of the weekend warriors off the road especially on Nepean Highway where they are out of control.

Just as a matter of interest how many protesters are there at the drill sites, 50 or 60? How many people live in Fitzroy now, 60,000 (?) so what sort of % is that, that are against it?

Then we have to look at how many of the protesters A. Live in Fitzroy B. Have a job and C. Are members go the International Socialists; are you, as a matter of interest?

I travel around quite a bit and have clients in the area and I'd have to say that I don't recall too many houses, apart from some that had them years ago, with signs about no freeways.

I'd like to see more public transport, even though I pay for it but don't use it, but it won't happen so the best we can do is make life easier for commuters. It's a bit rich you criticising others for driving their car to work when you do the same; don't you think Hood?

I use my car for work purposes but even if I didn't there us no way I can get to work unless I drive or walk that is unless they build a train line from Brighton to Bentleigh, I suppose I could walk a K to the station catch the train to the City then out to East Bentleigh and walk another K and a half to my office.

Gee you ask a lot of questions Robbie! By the way Tomic has just gone down to Del Potro. The Argentinenian is just too strong. I thought Bernie might have been able to soft ball him and upset his power and rhythm. But not to be.

My point is we both drive around for work, so do many others but we are not causing gridlock on the eastern or Hoddle street between the hours of 7.30 to 9.30 each workday morning. The majority of cars lined up at those times have one person in them and they are headed to a head office car park in the CBD and the car will stay there all day. Is this computing with you? Do we spend $8 billion to build a tunnell for them or do we look at some alternative, innovative solutions? Just asking.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Gee you ask a lot of questions Robbie! By the way Tomic has just gone down to Del Potro. The Argentinenian is just too strong. I thought Bernie might have been able to soft ball him and upset his power and rhythm. But not to be.

My point is we both drive around for work, so do many others but we are not causing gridlock on the eastern or Hoddle street between the hours of 7.30 to 9.30 each workday morning. The majority of cars lined up at those times have one person in them and they are headed to a head office car park in the CBD and the car will stay there all day. Is this computing with you? Do we spend $8 billion to build a tunnell for them or do we look at some alternative, innovative solutions? Just asking.

I assume you can point me to the facts to back up your statement about the single drivers Hood?

Yes I have asked some questions and so far you've dodged all of them; that tells me that you either don't have the answers or you just made up some of your earlier statements.

There are too many people living on Victoria and that's why we have gridlock, a rail system would probably be insufficient even before it was completed.

Do you ever drive in the Eastern suburbs; it's gridlock most of the time all they're doing is sharing the load.

Get over it.

Edited January 11, 2014 by RobbieF

[Earl Hood 5,816]

I assume you can point me to the facts to back up your statement about the single drivers Hood?

Yes I have asked some questions and so far you've dodged all of them; that tells me that you either don't have the answers or you just made up some of your earlier statements.

There are too many people living on Victoria and that's why we have gridlock, a rail system would probably be insufficient even before it was completed.

Do you ever drive in the Eastern suburbs; it's gridlock most of the time all they're doing is sharing the load.

Get over it.

No I don't have the statistics but I do know there are several levels of car parks under every high rise office building in Melbourne's CBD and I assume they are full of cars every day, I know the ones I go to every now and then are full and have a few spaces for visitors, the rest are for regulars. That is telling me something, maybe a percentage of workers in every high rise building in the CBD are driving to work and then home. Maybe different policies could persuade them to get there by different means. But let's not go there Robbie, lets just be angry! $8 billion of your money on a tunnel I hope it is money well spent.

PS yes you are right I don't know the answers to your questions. I don't know how many people live in Fitzroy, how many work or how many vote international socialists. Who does? And by the way who would care?