After reading all of the posts here I still stand by my original statement that this Carbon Tax proposed by Ms Gillard is a scam to raise money so that she and her colleagues can boast about having billions in the bank. But then again she will need it because everything else that she and her party have done has cost us more and more! NBN blow out; Refugee costs blow out need I go on?
Well I really liked the way the PM answered this question - NOT!!!!
During the show, if it was an issue she was happy with you got a right of reply, if she was trying to avoid it a lot of waffle and no right of reply.
I'm glad this question didn't win. Really, really glad. I don't want to be mean but this is the most ridiculous question.
You ought to ask... "How much, measured in thousandths of dollars, will BHP's share price be reduced by the carbon tax?"
How is the countdown going? By countdown I mean the percentage of people still supportive of the carbon tax. 62% 50% 40% 33% .......... So the latest is 33% and they haven't got their first electricity bill yet.
The Bulldogs full forward has near sunk the country. Lies, $$billions wasted, lies, useless pink batts & deaths, lies, deficit explosion, lies, hypocrisy at every turn, lies, idealistic & unrealistic agenda and lies. She should have gone to full back.
You are dead right. The athiest organisation question got overseas organisations to register and vote. Yes they voted to help thier collegues, but dont really care enough to comment
Still with the conspiracy theory Scott? The result is based on votes, not comments, so not sure why you think number of comments is relevant. Even if your paranoia about overseas atheist organisations is correct, only one of the three winning questions was related to religion, so what was to stop this question being one of the other two? If overseas websites are so influential, why not encourage antiAGW sites to raise the profile of this question? It really is starting to sound like sour grapes....maybe, just maybe, there are more people interested in the answers to the other questions than in this.
I voted for the Chaplain question.I considered it more important than just scoring a political barb. I did notice that voting for the two climate questions seemed amazingly coordinated. Suddenly all voting stopped on one and started on the other. Who was the puppet master?
SM will have the sour grapes when his beloved carbon tax, the panacea for all things global warming, is relegated to the policy scrap heap at the next election.
What small percent reduction in rape and murder of Afghan women is achieved by preventing Australian troops from indulging in these acts? Reducing the harm WE do helps define us as proud Australians.
Joe, If that was the sole purpose of sending troups to Afganistan I would definitely want to know. Sadly for your argument, that is not their sole nor even their No 1 purpose.
My argument is that if climate change turns out to be as devastating as much research suggests reducing that harm is what we should do as decent Australians even if we are minor players. Just as we would to reduce the harm of an "insignificant" number of rapes by our troops. Afghanistan itself may be a subject for another time and place.
The answer of course depends on how much this encourages action elsewhere and to what extent businesses and individuals realise the future is lower carbon. That may be harder to research than climate.
Hangout with the Prime Minister 
Mark Everingham
Sharing is caring
People who voted for this question