Sismis wrote:There is a lot of work to be done in this area. We do need to focus on more sustainable/higher output farming. We also need to look after the people on the land. Farming could be the only area where we can sustain a competitive export advantage.
First step should be to put together incentives to change the way we utilize these resources.if the farmers need to change we need to help them. It has not been the easiest time on the land over the last decade and you really cannot blame the ones who have made it through (many didn't) for looking at how they can maximize $$.
Farming has contributed a lot to Australia over the duration and by the look of it will continue to do so long after the mining boom.
Choppy wrote:Hi. Where does it say 'wipe them out' in the Report? It calls for cuts in water allocation...not wiping out farmers. That is an inference made by the extremists that did the burning in the first place. Some businesses will probably have to go, of course, but on a whole the industry can continue to exist and do so far more sustainably. In fact, it is those who become sustainable that will survive. Arguably called natural selection, my friend.
All this talk of wiping out farmers completely is just hyperbole.
First of all can you learn to quote?
And second I like how you ridicule me for saying it will wipe farmers out but then in the next breath state that of course some business will probably have to go. If you're going to troll me at least don't contradict yourself.
And before you jump down my throat when I said farmers clearly I didn't mean all. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that it would wipe all farmers out.
Essendon Football Club- We arent arrogant, just deluded.
And second I like how you ridicule me for saying it will wipe farmers out but then in the next breath state that of course some business will probably have to go. If you're going to troll me at least don't contradict yourself.
And before you jump down my throat when I said farmers clearly I didn't mean all. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that it would wipe all farmers out.[/quote]
hahhaa...mate you are just tying yourself in knots here.
Boncer: "Of course they need to but most of the suggestions in the report would wipe farmers out."
One minute you are telling me I fail to quote...but above is exactly what you said. I'm really struggling to follow your logic....
Choppy wrote:hahhaa...mate you are just tying yourself in knots here.
Boncer: "Of course they need to but most of the suggestions in the report would wipe farmers out."
One minute you are telling me I fail to quote...but above is exactly what you said. I'm really struggling to follow your logic....
By quote I mean use the quote button.
Not going to bother with the meat of my post? Going to focus only on one small irrelevant point?
HA..."one small irrelevant point".............?
Farmers being wiped out is the heart of the debate...not an irrelevant point!
All the hyperbole around farmers being wiped out (which you seem to subscribe to; again not sure where you get your 'facts') is what has inflamed this whole debate.
Choppy wrote:hahhaa...mate you are just tying yourself in knots here.
Boncer: "Of course they need to but most of the suggestions in the report would wipe farmers out."
One minute you are telling me I fail to quote...but above is exactly what you said. I'm really struggling to follow your logic....
By quote I mean use the quote button.
Not going to bother with the meat of my post? Going to focus only on one small irrelevant point?
HA..."one small irrelevant point".............?
Farmers being wiped out is the heart of the debate...not an irrelevant point!
All the hyperbole around farmers being wiped out (which you seem to subscribe to; again not sure where you get your 'facts') is what has inflamed this whole debate.
Uh you would see I addressed your comment on me saying Farmers being wiped out. My quote comment was on your inability to use the quote button. Something which you seem to have rectified.
Read my earlier posts and you'll see I've already posted the clarification you are seeking.
But by all means continue with this rather poor troll. It's been amusing for me.
Essendon Football Club- We arent arrogant, just deluded.
I'm not an online dictionary. However since you now seem intent on picking small points rather then looking at my larger argument I will tip my hat to you dear boy and say good day. No doubt others are sick of this thread popping back up to the top due to our continued bickering.
Essendon Football Club- We arent arrogant, just deluded.
Bolt claimed on a dozen occasions or more that I had challenged but had failed to name even 10 "stolen" children. Usually he failed to mention that I had sent him some 260 names. He never mentioned that I had asked him to supply a definition of what counted for him as a stolen child and that he had refused. On one rare occasion when he did acknowledge that I had sent him more than 200 names, Bolt claimed that the names I had sent him all came from Queensland. They did not. He claimed that in these cases neglect had been proven at court. In fact, as I had already made clear to him, having Aboriginal blood was itself sufficient proof of neglect under Queensland's 1865 Industrial Schools and Reformatory Act. Bolt also claimed that the children in the "half-caste" homes in interwar Darwin and Alice Springs were sent there because of neglect. As the documentary collection shows beyond ambiguity, they were not. The policy set out in 1934 was explicit: "It is the policy of the Administration to collect all half-castes from the native camps at an early age and transfer them to the Government Institutions at Darwin and Alice Springs."
