User talk:Phanatical

Time to clear house!

FFP Pill and IUD

Panatacial, do you approve of the pill/iud would you be happy if your wife would use either? I say wife as a Christian who is not a hypocrite, you would be a virgin and not have pre marital sex--203.192.92.73 12:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[ moved from user page - Alison ☺]

I wont comment on the contradicitons of your little boxes, but since you are member of FFP on the executive, you can supply with me with the names of all candidates and which are christian and which are atheist etc.

But I bet you wont because thats not somthing you will want to talk about.--Polygamistx4 14:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I had that information, I wouldn't provide it. I don't like being judged on my religion (or lack of it), and nor do most other people. Phanatical 04:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL the partys not christian, but I dont know how many are christian. Hmm very convincing argument. You should be a lawyer, I know all the evidence proves he did it, but hes inoccent, very convincing

So whats the percentage of FFP candidates at this election, who are christian and also what percenatge are AOG?--Polygamist times 4 10:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also you have not mentioned where the fFP are going to get the missing billions from cuttign petrol excise by 10c a litre! Is there even an answer on the web page? I bet there is not one.--Polygamist times 4 10:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, by claiming that mentioning candidates religious background is "propaganda", he reveals the dishonesty inherent in the "secular party" claim. It is a fact that many Greens members and candidates are Christians (admittedly I know of none who are from AoG), as well as members of other religions and no-one makes an issue of this. There is a strand of Christian theology which stresses the importance of protecting God's creation (as opposed to emphasising man's domination of it), and this is also not an issue as the Greens' political ideology is obviously secular. The reality is that FF considers being labeled as a Christian party a big electoral turnoff - and is prepared to be dishonest about its true ideology in pursuit of political power. The problem with that is that voters are generally pretty smart about such things. Chrismaltby 13:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our agenda is family values - the same family values religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam and countless others promote, the same family values the Chinese, Polish, Spanish, Lebanese and countless others have built their societies upon. If you want a Christian agenda, take a look at the Christian Democrats. If you want an extremist agenda, look at your own party. But if you want a party that will speak for the interests of Australian families, put Family First.

Phanatical 08:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Family Values" eh? Who doesn't support families - FF doesn't support certain types of families apparently on the basis of what some tribal semitic tribes wrote on scrolls a few thousand years ago. Hardly scientific, and not necessarily applicable to life today. Claims to some sort of higher authority for the position must surely invalidate the secular claim. The nuclear family idealised by the "family values" crowd is a relatively modern invention - you can't claim it has some special place for all cultural backgrounds at all times without drifting close to bigotry and racism. Phanatical, your level of debate is pure sloganeering - Greens are "extremist", FF support "family values" etc. As I said elsewhere, I feel it's important here to be honest about ones political affiliations and I give you full credit for being so about your executive role with FF. But it would be wrong to assume that a political affiliation is a stereotype and that you can refute a logical argument with affiliation based ad-hominem. Chrismaltby 11:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And what about the petrol excise cut? How will postponing the transition to a non-fossil fuel economy and risking the destruction of the Earth's climate help "families"? Chrismaltby 11:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Greens don't support families. Family First's single goal is to make Australia the best place in the world to raise a family, and our policies reflect that. Making it harder for economically disadvantaged families to buy groceries and to get pretty much anywhere is not family friendly. It's all well and good to talk about public transport and hybrid cars and all those sort of luxuries from electorates where the "poverty line" is an academic conceit, but for the families in my electorate those issues take a distant back seat to their inability to pay their electricity, water, phone, bank fees, groceries and petrol.

That is not to say we don't care about the environment. Family First are committed to making Australia the best place in the world to raise our children - and that includes making our air and water cleaner. In my childhood I spent a lot of time in the Children's Hospital suffering skin and respiratory conditions that were exacerbated by the pollutants in the air. That is why Family First NSW is committed to pushing for targets on emissions standards. Andrew Markwell has pushed for real action on climate change, including increased Government support and public awareness of a "carbon neutral" scheme. Research has shown that planting trees (natives, of course) can negate car emissions - for only $50 a year, a family could become carbon neutral. It's environmentally friendly and it raises awareness of the issues without forcing it down people's throats.

Finally, if you want to bring this back to values, making drugs easier to access and redefining the nature of "family" to completely invalidate the idea that a child deserves both a mother and a father are NOT family friendly policies. The Greens do not support families. The Greens destroy them. Phanatical 10:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Lots of angry rhetoric, not much argument. But here's a good one - "The Greens destroy [families]". I'm sure you can provide chapter and verse to back up this rash assertion. Perhaps you could compare and contrast with the family building efforts of Christian cults like the Exclusive Brethren. Chrismaltby 13:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least I am making an argument. That's because Family First is all about solutions for Australian families, and the Greens are full of anger and hyperbole. As for the Exclusive Brethren, I don't claim to be an expert about them. All I know is what I've read in the media, which hardly qualifies me to be an authority on the issue.Phanatical 14:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]