Political Thread 3
Should we start a new political thread and potentially run a pool for how many posts until fpot returns? |
09:54am 18/07/18 Permalink
potentially run a pool for how many posts until fpot returns? Give it a week. He will *have to* tell us all about the latest proof of a fascist nazi take over of the US/display his total ignorance of how the Nazi's came to power. Probably won't be able to go too long without calling someone a racist either. The crazy is on both sides, that's for sure. My personal favourite of the week was the unironically named "thinkprogress" claiming Justice Kavanaugh being appointed to the Supreme Court will end the right to vote. That's special, and not like special K. |
01:20pm 18/07/18 Permalink
05:30pm 18/07/18 Permalink
I have been enjoying this youtube channel. She reviews the body language of politicians/commentators and sees through all their bulls***. I was curious, scientific analysis it isn’t, but if red pill punditry with a liberal dose of armchair psychology is your bag then take a look |
06:56pm 18/07/18 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Off-Topic |
12:54pm 19/07/18 Permalink
07:38pm 19/07/18 Permalink
I've been trying to tell you for months. I'm fpot!
|
12:38am 20/07/18 Permalink
I'm just going to pop this here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-20/pill-testing-splendour-in-the-grass/10008522 Pill (and tablet) testing works, in several ways. It certainly doesn't give the message that it's OK to take drugs leading to more people doing it, which is the major fear of the typical political Right. So there is little reason not to support a policy of pill testing from either major side of government. |
10:09am 20/07/18 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: whining about moderation |
10:12am 20/07/18 Permalink
My curiosity is peaked, people watching is an enjoyable activity. Political based people watching is pretty boring, most of the more media savvy polies are pretty closed in their vulnerability and shut down most of their expressive body language so it's not as fun and it ends up being mostly making a lot of assumptions to fill the gaps (more so than when people are more free with their expression). So the curiosity is about what assumptions she is making and if she presents them as factual or not. |
10:14am 20/07/18 Permalink
How about instead of discussing the same old stuff, we come up with a base set of rules for a new Political Thread so we can actually try to have a fun and interesting discussion? I enjoy discussing politics (ironically mostly with infi) but lately it's just gotten too adversarial and predictable.
ideas: - we (roughly) limit conversations to the political news of the day. Sometimes topics will be interesting enough to keep talking about for a while. But there's always something new and there's few of us here that we should be able to discuss them meaningfully in the short term. - we (roughly) exclude extremist points of view. So much online discussion these days is based on what some nutjob said, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum. I think this is the biggest problem facing media in general and it'd be nice to have somewhere where we can avoid the Latest Dumb Thing to happen. - any videos posted need at least one reasonable written sentence of accompaniment per minute of video. I have a weird anti-video bias because they're so f*****g boring to watch. We've always had a "don't just post links without explanation" vibe going on because that's what Twitter is for and I think this is a reasonable requirement; if you want people to sit through a 10 minute video to get some point across you should have to put in enough effort to justify by explaining what's in the video and how it relates to the conversation and your point of view. Other suggestions appreciated. I have no idea what would work. I do not moderate this forum much any more outside of more or less random cherry picking but happy to spend a bit more effort on it if it will help (re)create a better forum environment. |
11:24am 20/07/18 Permalink
Can we tack a rule on to that?
- If your argument needs to resort to insulting the poster for their point of view, their opinion, or stating facts, you're gone. No ifs, not buts, get lost, you're not welcome here. Because this is why people can no longer reveal what they really thing about situations, the people who simply resort to name-calling and personal attacks over a person sharing a point of view, interpretation, opinion or suggestion. |
01:26pm 20/07/18 Permalink
If your argument needs to resort to insulting the poster for their point of view, their opinion, or stating facts, you're gone. No ifs, not buts, get lost, you're not welcome here. I'm on board with that if it's applied evenly and we are clear on what constitutes an insult. As for we (roughly) exclude extremist points of view. So much online discussion these days is based on what some nutjob said, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum. I think this is the biggest problem facing media in general and it'd be nice to have somewhere where we can avoid the Latest Dumb Thing to happen. Can we see an example of extremist points of view? Finally Godwin's law needs to be enforced with rigour. |
02:08pm 20/07/18 Permalink
03:09pm 20/07/18 Permalink
You know, now that I've had to go back and generate that list - because I usually just look at posts and don't notice or even look at who the author is - it's pretty clear you've been by far the worst offender of this issue. So let's just work through an example shall we Raven? Explain to me why post 9997 is banable and post 9995 which it is plainly and correctly (in perfect accordance with your reasoning for the rule) deriding isn't. Im perfectly happy to be polite and I'm serious about following the rule. But if people decide they don't want to play that game and they want to play another game well I'm not going to walk the high road. |
04:09pm 20/07/18 Permalink
I agree that personal insults are very unproductive. Some posts are plainly ridiculous and I don't think that it's bannable to simply point out that the content is ridiculous and as a result there is a serious cause for concern about the poster's mental health.
|
04:34pm 20/07/18 Permalink
Explain to me why post 9997 is banable and post 9995 which it is plainly and correctly (in perfect accordance with your reasoning for the rule) deriding isn't. Because for the examples I've only skimmed over in a basic sense, I've only used examples where people are plainly and clearly making comments about other people in the thread. It's not to say other threads don't fall in to other unacceptable behavior - like just going nuts on the namecalling of other people - but when you look at merely just people calling other participants of the discussion names and labels, they're all covered there. And they're not okay. |
06:45pm 20/07/18 Permalink
Because for the examples I've only skimmed over in a basic sense, I've only used examples where people are plainly and clearly making comments about other people in the thread. You didn't include a single one of fpot's posts, and he makes no other kind of post. you did include a post by infi post #100002 which says the following making history through retardation. Who was that targeted at? I'm perfectly happy to defend every single word I post in that thread, and I chose who I insulted carefully. There are two criteria, if you insult people, or if you persist in making ridiculous arguments which have no basis in fact (like true communism has never been tried, or attempting to psychoanalysis someone you have no actual idea about). Now lets take another example. The US gun control debate. if you're position is that only an uniformed idiot could support the existence of the second amendment, in my book you're insulting people and you should brace for impact. The reality is 5 justices of the supreme court of the united states disagree with you, and let me be further frank, no-one and i mean absolutely no-one on this forum knows more about the organization of public power and the proper checks and balances (which the 2A is) than those people. 4 justices do not, and no-one and I mean absolutely no-one of this forum knows more about the organization of public power and the proper checks and balances (which the 2A is) than those people either. The only reasonable conclusion to draw from that situation is that 1) the debate is dealing with incredibly difficult issues in which there are no easy answers and probably only sub-optimal trade offs; and 2) reasonable minds may disagree. Now I am yet to see the person on this forum who doesn't appeal to a lazy idiotic stereo type of a gun owner (southerner named Cletus) when discussing this issue on the pro gun control side. I don't particularly want to discuss gun control (and I am pro gun control for the record), it is an example, but I will say this, if you don't know what heller is and stands for, I don't care about your opinion on the matter, and if you go on to say that rednecks are holding back progress on the issue, I'm going to insult you because you damn well started it. So I will follow the rule that you suggest because I actually agree more or less completely with your reasoning. but only if we take it seriously. |
08:40pm 20/07/18 Permalink
In terms of bannable, surely the post must either be grossly offensive or inappropriate personal flaming. General sounding off is what forums are about. Don't be so precious.
|
08:47pm 20/07/18 Permalink
I'm offended and feel that being called 'precious' is a personal and direct attack on my person. So ban Infi kthx. Also, fpot hasn't even posted in this thread (yet) and already two people are s***ting on him. I'm not saying he wouldn't be doing the same (lets face it, it's likely) but it's funny you both saying 'but but but fpot!'
What about banning "What-aboutism's" Trog? Also, if we're not allowed to talk about extremists, does that also rule out politicians that take lumps of coal into Parliament? Or BCC members that live on house boats? It would have to include media tarts like Bolt and Waleed. If I say 'Turnbull was a coward for not fully supporting Marriage Equality' and someone echos back 'Yeah, but what about Gillard and Rudd!? they didn't either' (specifically referencing 2 people that have no current skin in the game) then you get a break. Now if there's a Policy that Turnbull and Shorten both have the same views on (kissing Trumps arse) it should be fair play. The trouble with any/all of these rules (bar a few very minor exceptions) is that there's way too much grey area and you'll have whingers saying "You banned me for my post but theirs is worse!" so you'd have to be willing to put up with selective modding, which I can't imagine is a fun task. Plus, even though I don't post much, and mainly lurk these days, reading some of the posters screech can be entertaining. It's just not worth joining the conversation because in the thousands of political posts here, you could probably count on 1 hand where someone has changed their view and the other hand where someone has conceded to absolute evidence, without trying to hand wave it and push on with their agenda anyway. |
10:08pm 20/07/18 Permalink
Also, fpot hasn't even posted in this thread (yet) and already two people are s***ting on him. I'm not saying he wouldn't be doing the same (lets face it, it's likely) but it's funny you both saying 'but but but fpot!' Well let's not pretend he isn't the elephant in the room. There isn't a single post of his in that last thread that isn't insulting someone. There also isnt a single post of his which deals with a substantive point. It's just a conga line of s*** sprayed at a keyboard, but it doesn't get nuked. I agree it's entertaining to watch some repeat hyperbolic talking points while thinking they've got it going on in political thought. But it's also a primary source of the issue you point out that nobody gets their mind changed. Hence the statement I'll follow it if it's applied evenly and we are clear on what an insult is. |
07:24am 21/07/18 Permalink
I believe many of fpot's personal attacks were not tolerable, and Trog condoning them was a demonstration of his bias. I think arguing the issue is good but attacking the person is poor form. Towards the end of the last thread I applied some personal attacks, but I recon I suffered far more than I gave out prior to applying insults to where they were coming from.
Even Trog with his term 'dumb'. If he is a moderator, I think he should just stay out of making comments or have another account for it. Having a person who is possibly respected making left wing comments as moderator is the reason I am even here. The balance needs to occur. Naive people need to know that there are intelligent respected people who oppose the views of the moderator and the vocal minority who support socialist and communiast views. At the extreme end of the 'term' spectrum we have "cuck" and "nazi". There is no need for either. Count up each and I'm confident we will see "nazi" has been applied far more than 'cuck'. I most likely still have a 18000000 second post limit, with no explanation. The reason fpot is mentioned is because he was getting away with very inappropriate behaviour. The reason? Because Trog is biased. |
09:50am 21/07/18 Permalink
Nmag I think you will find with his absence it will be a lot more pleasant around here.
There should be no sacred cows. |
10:54am 21/07/18 Permalink
has anyone still got that picture? 8)
|
12:48pm 21/07/18 Permalink
Gees he can't go five minutes can he.
The US setting up anti ballistic missile defences in Ukraine is a provocative act, and it's all the US's fault. Managed not to mention that Russia invaded Ukraine, stole a bunch of land, and shot down a passenger airliner murdering hundreds of people. That's not provocative. Setting up defences of an ally is. Anyway thank you for your very thoughtful video slaps. Really made me think. |
01:20pm 21/07/18 Permalink
Chomsky knows the score. Shame he won't be around much longer.
|
01:40pm 21/07/18 Permalink
Glad to be of service. Check out some more of Chomsky's docos. Like manufacturing consent.
|
01:52pm 21/07/18 Permalink
Don't make any rules for a new thread, I had a great time looking every few days for a laugh.
For the record I agree fpot was by far the worst for personal attacks when someone didn't agree with his pc-lbgti-free-money-for-everyone view of the world. |
06:11pm 21/07/18 Permalink
You have to be taking the piss raven, fpot was always the one starting the personal attacks
|
07:21pm 21/07/18 Permalink
09:46am 22/07/18 Permalink
Is anyone going to Lauren Southern Sunday night in Brisbane? (I am.) Or have you gone to one of the other shows?
Melbourne really seems to attract that loony left protester element. |
04:36pm 22/07/18 Permalink
How about instead of discussing the same old stuff, we come up with a base set of rules for a new Political Thread so we can actually try to have a fun and interesting discussion? Don't forget to post limit people you don't agree with. Should have been at the top of your list and I'm surprised it wasn't. In the same vein I am surprised you haven't at least given fpot a perfunctory post limit so you'd at least have the appearance of being unbiased. Same goes with Raven's hilariously cherry-picked list of bannable posts. You guys are absolute works of art. |
10:39am 23/07/18 Permalink
I just think she is hawt. Careful you don't want to catch racialist Nazim. |
06:17pm 23/07/18 Permalink
Get rekt Raven, this is me quoting Vash or fpot.
http://qgl.ausforums.com/index.php/439207/?agn=thr I'm not a fan of naming calling in arguments and you will see me explaining that over and over in the thread as insults rain from Trog, Vash, and fpot while Trog condones it. |
04:44pm 24/07/18 Permalink
https://www.worldgallery.co.uk/art-print/babies-collection-spaghetti-head-82310
|
05:51pm 25/07/18 Permalink
08:40pm 25/07/18 Permalink
08:17pm 30/07/18 Permalink
I laughed my ass off about that. They are stuck in the "denial" stage of grief.
|
08:24pm 30/07/18 Permalink
There was a strong correlation between stress levels and electronic news consumption. symptoms include feeling a loss of control and helplessness, and fretting about what's happening in the country and spending excessive time on social media What's been called "Trump Anxiety Disorder" has been on the rise in the months following the election, according to mental-health professionals from across the country who report unusually high levels of politics-related stress in their practices Interesting article. Would be great to see some video of counselling sessions where the patient describes "feeling triggered". The doctor could ask "But how can he get you here in Australia?" He would certainly recommend reducing the reading and watching of Trump hate content. |
09:39pm 30/07/18 Permalink
"But how can he get you here in Australia?" I suppose you missed the part of him threatening Nuclear Armageddon. It still continues to amaze me how much a blind eye is turned to Trump simply because he's triggering their political opponents. |
11:43pm 30/07/18 Permalink
I suppose you missed the part of him threatening Nuclear Armageddon. Followed by It still continues to amaze me how much a blind eye is turned to Trump simply because he's triggering their political opponents. It's a new rhetorical technique in which you prove you opponents point with out realising it. Another more plausible explanation is that people like you have spent two years working yourselves into a rich creamy froth of neverending overreaction and you're buying you're own bulls***. |
07:29am 31/07/18 Permalink
Vash, can you please link to the article where he is "threatening" to bring where we live into "Nuclear Armageddon"? Which article are you referring to?
or are you just exaggerating again? Exaggeration won't help with hysteria, we need to keep things in perspective, |
05:52pm 01/08/18 Permalink
Exaggerating Armageddon. Classic TDS symptom.
|
06:03pm 01/08/18 Permalink
That's a good question actually, what's the nuclear fallout if the USA was to bomb the s*** out of Iran/N.Korea. How many other allies/countries will it affect?
Also, if you expand 'where we live' to, I don't know, this place we call Earth. Isn't a moot point saying that him not bombing us directly wouldn't affect us? Surely, given our governments track record, any war started by the US is going to have a f***tonne of impact on Australians and our troops? If he does send bombs flying, there's a good chance someone will retaliate. How far can one nutter sitting on the second biggest nuclear arsenal go with his weapons platform? That's totally putting aside the collateral damage to those countries themselves, which IMO is not something you should put aside. Or do their innocent lives not matter simply because they're not Australians? |
06:16pm 01/08/18 Permalink
That's a good question actually, what's the nuclear fallout if the USA was to bomb the s*** out of Iran/N.Korea. How many other allies/countries will it affect? You do what they did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Detonate half a kilometre above ground and minimise fallout. |
06:56pm 01/08/18 Permalink
Thats right Scooter.
Many a decision the U.S makes, Australia is affected. There's a reason the doomsday clock is closest to midnight it's been since WW2, and it's because of Trump's presidency |
07:27pm 01/08/18 Permalink
You're going to be frankly staggered to find out I disagree scooter.
The starting point in any talking of nuclear exchange has to be an assessment of the actual likelihood of it happening and not the fevered dreams of the delusional. I'm going to make a bold claim. There will be no nuclear exchange with either NK or Iran under Trump. the talk of nuclear Armageddon is delusional. Full Stop. |
09:26pm 01/08/18 Permalink
If someone is going to nuke the US they will be throw one at Pine Gap as well.
It is a critical piece of their geolocation and spy satelite network. |
04:29pm 02/08/18 Permalink
They fly the drone strikes on schools hospitals weddings etc from there too.
|
04:32pm 02/08/18 Permalink
There is a reason the doomsday clock is closest to midnight it's been since WW2, and it's because of Trump's presidency Oh Vash, the clock has been like that way before Trump was around. Again, Vash, can you link to the article regarding Trump threatening Nuclear Armageddon on Australia? I note that you have not. Are you exaggerating? Who did he threaten Nuclear Armageddon on? Can you link to that article, if you can't find the one regarding Australia? If you can't find that article, are you interpreting 'fire and fury' from weeks ago as Nuclear Armageddon? Come on, post some of the hate-information your news feeds give you. The ones where you circle around and form a bond with other like thinkers in self righteous hatred. When Pine Gap goes up will that be Nuclear Armageddon? TDS, it's out there. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dji_82fXcAA1VsQ.jpg |
05:26pm 02/08/18 Permalink
Scooter you can see real world impacts of nuke detonations using this tool https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Created by the nuclear science/weapons flair at /r/askhistorians. It's pretty neat. |
05:54pm 02/08/18 Permalink
Who did he threaten Nuclear Armageddon on? North Korea "I have a Bigger Button" is still a live tweet. It was mostly only implied against Iran though, not a literal nuclear threat. For what it's worth i do agree with PornoPete, I don't think it will actually happen, there's far to many checks that one unhinged person wouldn't be able to pass. Well, except claiming that his presidency has no affect on Australians. If you believe that you're being obtuse or are rather short sighted. We've already been affected simply as it's given rise to some groups that (totally only IMO) are a determent to where I would like to see Australia go. It's pretty neat. Could be worse I guess. https://i.imgur.com/3Yl0NUf.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/Wh7nmJH.jpg I wonder what's worse, ramming people with a car or killing 6 and injuring 19. Still, posting the actions of a random crazy person (Lady ramming her car, or 19 year old going on a mass killing spree) is a pretty poor way to support your political argument. Yes, I get the irony of me posting both the link to the killings and that statement. |
06:23pm 02/08/18 Permalink
For what it's worth i do agree with PornoPete, I don't think it will actually happen, there's far to many checks that one unhinged person wouldn't be able to pass. I think the third clause in that sentence is where we part company. I mean this quite literally, I see no evidence whatsoever that Trump does not fully comprehend the consequences of using nuclear weapons, nor have I ever seen it. He bloviates on twiiter. But so what. that's pretty much what twiiter is for as far as I can see. The gap between that and the policy discussions that would actually take place is so massive, no serious person could possibly conflate them. the fact a lot of people do says more about them than Trump (which I note you do say it's not literal). but this is why I dont think its a good question |
06:50pm 02/08/18 Permalink
So you're saying that everything Trump does, says and acts out in public is... an act? He's playing the 'character' of 'Donald Trump the crazy person'?
While behind closed doors you think he's a more reserved strategist? Then yes, we most definitely part company there. There's no evidence to suggest that being the case, but plenty of leaks to suggest that he is indeed quite crazy and stupid. |
07:18pm 02/08/18 Permalink
When you made a new thread, you should have split it into US politics and the rest.
This latest concentration of power sounds pretty good here. |
07:59pm 02/08/18 Permalink
So you're saying that everything Trump does, says and acts out in public is... an act? He's playing the 'character' of 'Donald Trump the crazy person'? No I'm saying that the trash talk is genuine and helps make people underestimate him. I don't particularly care about leaks because as we have now seen the people doing the leaking have their own agendas to push. I'd invite you to examine Andy McCabe on this front. The reason I don't think he is stupid or crazy is the policy that gets implemented has so far been pretty sound. NK being an example. As has been his handling of Syria. And for all the s*** printed about Helsinki policy toward Russia remains strong in terms of sanctions and geopolitical strategy. For example pressuring Germany over the Nord II pipeline puts pressure on Russia. If you can start pointing to significant policy changes I'm all ears. |
08:03pm 02/08/18 Permalink
Australian intelligence services are monitored by an independent inspector-general.
Disclosing state secrets has always, and will always be an offense so no s*** Sherlock. Don't like that? Go to a country that has no secrets because they have no government. |
08:07pm 02/08/18 Permalink
just because you're paranoid doesn't mean Trump isn't after you
|
11:33pm 02/08/18 Permalink
".. and he threatened Nuclear Armageddon"
https://abovethelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/therapists-couch-e1372277484406.jpg Lets be realistic Vash https://i.imgur.com/dgHgiLg.gif |
11:57am 03/08/18 Permalink
Naw bless your little heart vash. Another bunch of books you've never read
|
09:23am 04/08/18 Permalink
They fly the drone strikes on schools hospitals weddings etc from there too. No doubt intended to be sarcastic. But yes they also control drones from there (Snowden + multiple sources). Usually the spy type but they do everything... There is a reason Australia was excluded from Trumps various trade bans. Trump initially included us, but we suddenly got excluded because... Keep in mind Canada copped sanctions and they play in their MLB, NBA and MLS... and have open borders. Pine Gap covers a third of the globe including large chunks of China and Russia. Awesome coverage of the south china sea... you know where the Chinese are deploying large amounts of ordinance. Clear skys. Right location (Tropic of Capricorn)... It will be the first thing nuked in Australia. |
07:23pm 04/08/18 Permalink
Obes isn't wrong re pine gap. I hope people appreciate how hard it is for me to agree with obes.
|
07:27pm 04/08/18 Permalink
No doubt intended to be sarcastic. But yes they also control drones from there (Snowden + multiple sources). no i was being serious. Pine Gap has a large American population. |
08:14pm 04/08/18 Permalink
Obes isn't wrong re pine gap. I hope people appreciate how hard it is for me to agree with obes. I appreciate. But. are we talking about NK or China? Is there some reason pine gap would need a *nuclear strike*? Would China be willing to accept the US retaliation? Again I will reiterate if anyone is talking as though this is an actual risk it falls to them to show *on policy grounds* why this is a likelihood that should be considered. If you're going to hitch your wagon to tweets, well I hope you have a good way of getting egg off your face. Though I doubt you know you need it. Let me amplify the hysterics here. Can anyone name an official state policy which openly acknowledges a rogue state getting a nuclear weapon? I can. But it ain't trumps policy. if people want to talk about nuclear game theory well then I think a mighty throat clearing is in order. Because otherwise if you are talking about this now (but said nothing in the past six years about the potential changes to the game theory ), you are without exception a hysterical d*******. |
09:02pm 04/08/18 Permalink
here is a much more interesting thing to talk about.
Here is an article in which WAPO claims "76% of the claims in a trump speech were false" Here is a claim that WAPO fact checked: [Elizabeth Warren] proclaims that she’s of Indian heritage because her mother says she has high cheekbones. That’s her only evidence, that her mother said she had high cheekbones. I urge you to remember WAPO attaches the phrase "democracy dies in darkness" to every page on their website. Warren claims, but cannot prove, she is native American (i.e. she's not) and has literally referred to her mother's opinion on cheekbones RE native American ancestry. the claim is by any reasonable standard true. But not according to WAPO. Trump says something which WAPO ADMITS IN THEIR FACT CHECK WARREN LITERALLY SAID AND GOES ON TO RATE IT AS FALSE. I actually can't think of a more perfect example of doublethink. But remember the #resistance would like to talk about Orwell. to make that unmistakably clear. That is a paper of record stating that a statement of trump which is irrefutably true is in fact false. much more interesting WAPO says President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims in 558 days . WAPO is distinctly unclear if the claim which is literally true (Warren has literally claimed her mother says they have high cheekbones as proof of Native American ancestry) which they rate as false counts as one of the 4.229 falsehoods. Lets run with the fact the fact that some f*****g retard at WAPO decided to fact check that in the first place as conclusive evidence they did include something that is true in the list of things that trump has said which are false. Even more interesting vash talks about Orwell (who he has never read) as though its a slam dunk against trump. anyone who doesn't want to be insulted needs to get serious about this kind of s***. Otherwise, you've proved you don't want to play the civility game. |
11:31pm 04/08/18 Permalink
I appreciate. But. are we talking about NK or China? Neither, really. Pine Gap would get hit as part of a first strike scenario whereby an enemy sought to destroy the US' ability to wage nuclear war (extremely unlikely scenario fwiw). The only state with the capability to do that is Russia. China only has a few hundred nukes (i.e. not enough to plausibly first strike the US) and as I understand it deploys them in a counter-value targeting posture, not a counter-force one. The link below shows the difference in modelling a 2000 warhead strike (assumed to be a first strike) that hits predominantly US nuclear and military targets vs a 500 warhead strike (assumed to be a second strike) which predominantly hits cities and other areas of economic value. http://i.imgur.com/Svs8wtu.jpg source: apparently FEMA, early 90s. To be clear I think the likelihood of nuclear war is just as unlikely with Trump in office as it was when when he wasn't, i.e. utterly minuscule. I just find it all super interesting. |
09:41am 05/08/18 Permalink
Your research concludes that Vash's "Nuclear Armageddon' claim is unlikely. He's following fake news again.
|
09:51pm 05/08/18 Permalink
I would love to take a wager with you Vash on the Nuclear Armageddon. You name the period and amount.
|
10:00pm 05/08/18 Permalink
https://thebulletin.org/sites/default/files/2018%2 Fake news, anything that you feel might be true but your ego forbids to acknowledge. |
11:59pm 05/08/18 Permalink
Just to quote from the document
Especially in the case of the Iran nuclear deal, JCPOA was going to "prevent" Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. By allowing them to enrich nuclear materials, without allowing international inspection and required a regime that is fundamentally dishonest to self report. There was already evidence Iran was not honouring the deal. Not to mention freeing up Iran's cash reserves allowed them to become the largest state sponsor of terror inside two years. Oh and conduct a systematic program of destabilization in the middle east. But leaving the deal was the reckless act. Yeah tell yourself what you have to guys. Seems like the outcome may have been a little "predetermined". |
07:39am 06/08/18 Permalink
No Vash, if you would like to link to where he threatens Nuclear Armageddon, please do. By doing so, you are simply linking to news. By creating outrageous claims you are creating fake news. The clock concept is flawed. It implies the clock is ticking, yet the clock can be turned back. Again, fear mongering.
|
03:07pm 06/08/18 Permalink
If you'd like to point your attention to the link i posted, feel free to. Any threat of using Nuclear weapons is basically Nuclear Armageddon due to the cascading effect any such decision would have. But i have a feeling anything you disagree with is 'fake news'
|
09:18pm 06/08/18 Permalink
See, we can't argue intelligently when you use absolutes. Consider your use of the the word "Any" for example. It's incorrect, you know it, but it fits your narrative. It's a complete exaggeration and is a false statement. This is 'fake'.
"Any threat of using Nuclear weapons is not Nuclear Armageddon " It's that simple. You provided a link to a doomsday clock article. He did not "threaten Nuclear Armageddon". Your claim is false. It is fake. |
09:34pm 06/08/18 Permalink
How safe must Democrats feel to support completely open borders?
|
11:20am 08/08/18 Permalink
How safe must Democrats feel to support completely open borders? That's the fear being fed to you. Not even the most left leaning parties support completely open borders. |
11:22am 08/08/18 Permalink
That's the fear being fed to you Says the guy linking to a literal countdown to doomsday. |
11:34am 08/08/18 Permalink
no that is a rational examination of the facts
|
11:35am 08/08/18 Permalink
What a silly Billy I am.
Conflating hyping up the risk of the end of the world and the extinction of the human race with the "politics of fear". Everyone knows immigration and gay marriage are the things people are really scared of. |
12:43pm 08/08/18 Permalink
Says the guy linking to a literal countdown to doomsday. *mild chuckle* Not even the most left leaning parties support completely open borders. That's right, whilst some far-left live in communities without doors or locks, others do live in a regular house with walls, and an entry door with a lock on it. |
08:28pm 08/08/18 Permalink
Well we can't all link to semi-literate animated visualisations of confirmation bias.
|
06:29am 09/08/18 Permalink
If an illegal immigrant murders a woman after being arrested and deported 5 times previously in a sanctuary city, does one need a "source" in order to conclude maybe illegal immigrants are a risk to society?
|
10:16am 09/08/18 Permalink
'People don't trust us': What it's like raising Sudanese teenagers in Melbourne Wall of text with feels and insight into family life contains some facts: While only a small proportion of overall crime in Victoria is committed by a person from Sudan or South Sudan, crime statistics reveal their rate of offending is six times higher than their numbers in the broader population. “I think the punishment very soft with the jail. Not strong enough. This is why the kids don’t care and so they end up back inside again. “Because everything is available there  medical, their own bed, their own bathroom, TV, activities. I don’t think there should be TV, no telephone, they should have to do a hard job. “Back home, they sleep on the floor a hundred people in one room, there’s one bucket. Because they knew how hard it was when you were in jail, when you were outside you were never going to do a mistake again.†There you have it. Mumma says jail here is luxury compared to where they come from. Incompatible culture? |
11:11am 09/08/18 Permalink
If an illegal immigrant murders a woman after being arrested and deported 5 times previously in a sanctuary city, does one need a "source" in order to conclude maybe illegal immigrants are a risk to society? If an Australian citizen murders a woman after being arrested 5 times previously in a city, does one need a "source" in order to conclude Australian citizens are a risk to society? Do you realise how dumb it sounds? |
12:53am 10/08/18 Permalink
Do you realise how dumb it sounds? Alot less dumb than "omg conservatives are going to trigger nuclear Armageddon plus they can only get elected by using fear". |
06:54am 10/08/18 Permalink
Vash would you be happy to pay 49% tax to fund immigrants arrivals and resettlements? I want to get clear on how extreme your views are.
|
08:47am 10/08/18 Permalink
You're right, we should stop Australian citizens at the border if they have a criminal record. Oh wait. It's almost as if you deliberately make simplistic and quite frankly stupid arguments. |
01:03pm 10/08/18 Permalink
Vash would you be happy to pay 49% tax to fund immigrants arrivals and resettlements? I want to get clear on how extreme your views are. No, because it wouldn't be necessary to raise taxes. Immigrants boost the economy and become tax payers themselves. |
01:55pm 10/08/18 Permalink
Holy nuclear Armageddon, that's the fear being fed to you.
Yes all a country has to do let in everyone. That's why no country on earth has an immigration act. |
10:58am 11/08/18 Permalink
Vash, would you agree that:
Not all immigrants are equal Not all job applicants are equal. Not all nations are equal. Not all employers are equal? |
03:17pm 11/08/18 Permalink
^ So wouldn't that mean that all a country has to do is let in more immigrants and it will magically become a better more wealthy country? Doesn't mean that at all. Every country needs a healthy amount of immigration, not too much and not too little. As a society becomes more educated and progressive, people have less children, which is when you need to increase immigration to offset the loss in population growth. But this is talking under the current Capitalist framework which requires never ending growth to keep itself going. Something im sure we can all agree isn't sustainable well into the future. I agree with all those Nmag, im not sure what your point is though. |
04:07pm 11/08/18 Permalink
So Raven
Took us 100 posts to get back here. Let's talk about your rules of discussion. if you've got some rules that will prevent "capitalism is the root of all evil" I'm all ears. In the meantime there are two kinds of people, retards who think capitalism is the root of all evil and everyone else. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on climate change. Because if you think you don't have to hear from climate change skeptics I'd like to hear why I should have to suffer Champagne socialists. I won't mince my words any argument you can come up with for barring climate change skeptics applies a fortiori to a socialist |
07:16pm 11/08/18 Permalink
Don't try and engage raven, he just likes chiming in with a "pox on both their houses, i'm a programmer so i could totez organise society" nonsense from time to time.
Having said that, this thread has been dominated by f*****g retards for some time. Dazed and nmag are barely better than vash. you're better than them porno, call them out when they are being retarded |
09:56pm 11/08/18 Permalink
you're better than them porno, call them out when they are being retarded Heh thats funny. The better man disregards the lesser man. Hence why porno is ignored by half the forum. (though that isn't many considering the activity here) |
10:36pm 11/08/18 Permalink
Vash you are the living, breathing embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
just shut the f*** up for a bit please. like I also want dazed and nmag to also shut the f*** up. but please, please know you are on their same level of stupid. |
10:42pm 11/08/18 Permalink
you're better than them porno, call them out when they are being retarded I'm quite comfortable about where I stand in the order of things. I've reduced fpot to a gibbering retard while he can't even read my posts. Don't hate the player Baby. It's especially enjoyable to know vash thinks he talks about things I don't want him to. |
11:06pm 11/08/18 Permalink
You know what I'm saying don't roll around with the pigs, you get dirty and the pigs like it. People read this s*** other than vash and his /r/latestagecapitalist stooges. When they go low let's go high. Vash ain't worth debasing yourself for.
That doesn't carry the day. Edit: appreciate the hypocrisy of telling of telling someone(s) to stfu and then telling someone else to take the high road. I'm a complicated guy. |
11:14pm 11/08/18 Permalink
I disagree.
I think it is important to have people like vash spew their retardation as often as possible. As he says a bunch of people block my posts. Which is amazing. I'd love to compare notes with people about policy topic they've discussed with high court Judges. For example discussing human rights abuses in North Korea with Michael Kirby. I've done that. Pretty sure it's not a long list of other people on this forum who've done that. But lots of folks are apparently walking the high road. Sounds suspiciously like "I don't want to read opinions I don't agree with" to me. I enjoy the irony of folks like trog who'll jump down your throat about the experts blocking someone like me. It proves a very clear point in mind. |
12:15am 12/08/18 Permalink
Taggs, you should play the topic, not the person, or stfu yourself.
|
12:29pm 12/08/18 Permalink
I think it is important to have people like vash spew their retardation as often as possible. Vash is like this thread's CNN. The more he talks the more he is ridiculed. Keep up the good work! |
02:49pm 12/08/18 Permalink
Another right wing scare campaign debunked |
11:16pm 12/08/18 Permalink
Rather than saying ‘I provide the same care to everyone regardless of difference,’ cultural safety means providing care that takes into account Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples’ needs. Oh but wait. Debunked maybe isn't the word for that little guy. Confirmed might be. Other than medical I wonder what those needs might be.... It's fun watching someone who obviously struggles to tie their own shoelaces talk about lesser men. And just for kick the definition of cultural safety from the actual code which definately doesn't require an acknowledgement of white privilege. Cultural safety concept was developed in a First Nations’ context and is the preferred term for nursing and midwifery. Cultural safety is endorsed by the Congress of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nurses and Midwives (CATSINaM), who emphasise that cultural safety is as important to quality care as clinical safety. However, the “presence or absence of cultural safety is determined by the recipient of care; it is not defined by the caregiver” (CATSINaM, 2014, p. 9). Cultural safety is a philosophy of practice that is about how a health professional does something, not [just] what they do. It is about how people are treated in society, not about their diversity as such, so its focus is on systemic and structural issues and on the social determinants of health. Cultural safety represents a key philosophical shift from providing care regardless of difference, to care that takes account of peoples’ unique needs. It requires nurses and midwives to undertake an ongoing process of self-reflection and cultural self-awareness, and an acknowledgement of how a nurse’s/midwife’s personal culture impacts on care. In relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, cultural safety provides a de-colonising model of practice based on dialogue, communication, power sharing and negotiation, and the acknowledgment of white privilege. These actions are a means to challenge racism at personal and institutional levels, and to establish trust in healthcare encounters (CATSINaM, 2017b, p. 11). In focusing on clinical interactions, particularly power inequity between patient and health professional, cultural safety calls for a genuine partnership where power is shared between the individuals and cultural groups involved in healthcare. Cultural safety is also relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health professionals. Non-Indigenous nurses and midwives must address how they create a culturally safe work environment that is free of racism for their Aboriginal and Torres That was such an epic debunking. When a fact checker doesn't go to the primary documents it's a huge red flag. So much less |
06:54am 13/08/18 Permalink
You seem to be confusing things I've said with things trog said.
That aside, some of the false-equivalencies and hyperbole in other posts on the last page or so (from both sides/camps) have been rather ridiculous. But it's quite evident we've resorted back to post after post of namecalling and that some people just can't help themselves. |
11:13am 13/08/18 Permalink
I'd support some guidance around our discussion. I don't mean forum moderation, I mean just having a go.
- Avoid name calling and stupid words like "dumb, idiot, retard". - Avoid some commonly used but offensive terms like "nazi, leftard, cuck, snowflake, racist". - Avoid grossly exaggerating with absolutes like "all, none, every, never" unless they are accurate. I'm sure I've broken some of those points but I try not to. It's understandable that at times, emotion may override the brain and venting occurs. Whilst I don't agree with Vash's and fpots left wing views I don't hate them for it. They mean well, we don't agree... on its goes. I appreciate the left has this 'benevolent' thing, and it is a nice thing. I believe when you do the maths you need worthwhile return on funds and risk, and I don't personally believe the return is there for wide ranging benevolence. This Trump and American politics gets too much air time. Why can't we discuss more local things? Why do we give so much money to Indonesia? |
06:06pm 13/08/18 Permalink
Well I think donations to Indonesia are to make sure our mining companies continue to have access to Indonesian resources.
Sorry to hijack your question but this started doing the rounds recently on social media. What are your thoughts on the $444 million dollar donation to fix the barrier reef given to a group that didn't ask for it with oil company relations and no legal tender for the grant? |
03:41pm 14/08/18 Permalink
I think the grant will be about as effective at preserving the reef, as the carbon tax is in addressing it's 'goals'.
|
05:11pm 14/08/18 Permalink
i dont know about you, but im enjoying all the salty liberal tears and dummy spits going on today.
delicious! |
08:54pm 14/08/18 Permalink
Can we use 'red pilled' and 'blue pilled' terms?
https://s15.postimg.cc/nqef87pp7/The_Oracle16.jpg https://s15.postimg.cc/7tk8orhej/14x3n2.jpg last edited by sLaps_Forehead at 21:16:55 14/Aug/18 |
09:15pm 14/08/18 Permalink
i dont know about you, but i'm enjoying all the salty liberal tears and dummy spits going on today. The accessibility of social media over the last 15 years has given people with gripes, who want more free stuff, an excessive sense of entitlement, and who have a great deal of free time on their hands, to communicate and essentially circle jerk, protected in their safe space by ever increasing political correctness. Not all that different to noisy children in a household wanting more, and throwing tantrums when they don't get it. Vocal minority. I know adults who struggle to pay their bills, who can't distinguish between 'wants' and 'needs'. When the money runs low, it's the fault of government. Wealthy people are to blame. In our home we have no net-flicks, no stan, no cable TV. We have multiple houses in the Sydney property market and both drive cars well under 30k each. We studied hard, and worked hard, we chose careers for $$ not love. I work with people who complain they are poor who have all net-flicks, stan, cable TV, and drive 50k cars, do an annual cruise, and then go pay $200 to get fake eyelashes, got to 4 concerts a year, and believe capitalism is the root of all evil. The state of their household finances is not my fault, it is theirs, plain and simple. It is easy for them to blame the successful. The reluctance to take responsibility for their actions is likely the cause of their own financial pain, plain and simple. |
11:24am 15/08/18 Permalink
$200 to get fake eyelashes Small price to pay for self-esteem |
01:17pm 15/08/18 Permalink
The state of their household finances is not my fault, it is theirs, plain and simple. It is easy for them to blame the successful. The reluctance to take responsibility for their actions is likely the cause of their own financial pain, plain and simple. None of what you have used in this example is an indicator or supporting evidence of the claim that capitalism either is or isn't a problem or without issue. Whether or not or how they spend their income in this way is completely unrelated to the issues we're seeing with the massive inequality and cost-of-living issues many are seeing. Mind you, spelling Netflix as "net-flicks" shows an obvious disconnect from society - this is a company with a $150b market cap we're talking about, not some niche company a few hipsters support. last edited by Raven at 14:21:42 15/Aug/18 |
02:20pm 15/08/18 Permalink
None of what you have used in this example is an indicator or supporting evidence of the claim that capitalism either is or isn't a problem or without issue. Not what he wrote. Whether or not or how they spend their income in this way is completely unrelated to the issues we're seeing with the massive inequality and cost-of-living issues many are seeing. I don't think you can separate competent handling of personal finances from "cost-of-living" as easily as that. The complaint he is plainly making is people with high discretionary spending habits (ie enjoying the fruits of capitalism) whining about capitalism. It doesn't follow that there are no problems whatsoever with the housing market. |
03:02pm 15/08/18 Permalink
In our home we have no net-flicks, no stan, no cable TV. We have multiple houses in the Sydney property markethttps://i.imgur.com/XaFZvGb.png This account is so good edit: PS: Remember when Pauline was the biggest racist in Aus political landscape? Yeah make Australia great again, lets go back to those good old days. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-15/anning-speec |
08:05pm 15/08/18 Permalink
But how will you show everyone you're not racist redhat?
|
07:38am 16/08/18 Permalink
Yeah could be that.
Could also be the overwhelming evidence that the majority of the media had no interest whatsoever in balanced coverage of their candidate. like for example fact checking as false a literal quote of Elisabeth Warren. in which Warren explains her family have high cheekbones "like the Indians do" But let's revisit this "no insults" rule shall we Raven. Do you think your post is an insult or not? Some people might think implying that a whole group of people are living in self ordained ignorance and are angry that the bubble is being poked as opposed them having a coherent political philosophy qualifies as an insult. Just sayin' |
12:17pm 16/08/18 Permalink
If that's your reading of that passage of posts, but I think close examination might reveal a different interpretation. But no that's not what I'm doing.
I'm pointing out the fact you bemoan people not expressing their opinion because they get insulted and then rely on a tired, lazy and provably wrong stereotype. I can see why that might touch a nerve. |
05:15pm 16/08/18 Permalink
The irony is if we did have a socialist society these morons wouldn't be having their $200 eyebrow dye jobs and streaming media galore. It would be state sponsored two channel tv with no internet access.. ask North Korea or China.
In other news, Trump is by far the best thing that's ever happened to the US and I wish we could have similar here. I, along with most of my peers, are university educated, with decent incomes and net worth's, and all of us agree what he has done for the US would be fantastic here. Reducing company tax rates, leaving the stupid paris agreement, bringing manufacturing and jobs back by leaving one sided trade agreements. |
07:29pm 16/08/18 Permalink
Like most people, like generations before ours, when we purchased our first house we had to:
- Move 'away'.. further 'out' to a rougher nastier neighbourhood - Buy a place that was worse than what we grew up in, and was worse that what we rented - Make s*** loads of sacrifice to get the deposit - Once purchased, make s*** loads of sacrifice to pay mortgage that was higher than paying rent - To know that you have liability. You can't just take off and go rent again. This thing needs to be payed off for about 10 years to break even if you wanted to pull out of deal. All these issues were there then, and still apply. The market was easier then, and it was easier each decade previous. The trend is likely to continue, unless implosion. It is tough now, but it's over rated to think it was sooo much easier back then. It was soo much easier in my parent's time, and it's likely to be soooo much harder for generations to come. About half the people I know my age still rent. Buying isn't for everyone. Some like shares instead of property. Some like the flexibility of renting. Many had to move out of Sydney to buy, and say themselves, they could never afford to move back into the market, that was 10-15 years ago. There are lots of regional towns with lots of jobs with lower priced property in NSW. Sydney is a mess anyway. It's overloaded infrastructure.. with unit blocks going up rapidly. It's been wild. The thing that will bite a new home buyer now, more than the wages slowing, is the banks holding back lending too much to people who can't pay it off. They offered an outrageous amount to us more than a decade ago and it was pretty shocking. We didn't use what they were offering, it was scary... the risk. but they don't care, and I'm sure many people are way in over their heads. When these interest rates go up, and then start creeping up, could be lots of defaulting happening. Raven, I'm not really into marketing, and how brands like to use sexie spellin' to whore tha warz. Stuff nflikxz. It's the small recurring unnecessary little luxuries that generally add up to more than the 'larger' costs in a household budget. How about, personalised plates, getting nails done, registering 3 cars and two motor bikes for one person, choosing to live alone, 'cause it's nice'. Pets, hobbies, holidays,... latest iphone, run aircon day and night, eating out often.. daily $4 coffees. It all adds up. We will be out of the game when we sell a house this year, and then we just have our home. Media typically runs stories about tenants getting a bad deal. Ask a landlord for some horror stories. Contrary to media hype, the NSW rental bond board tribunal tends to favour the tenant regardless the news you read. The things tenants can do to a house in a lower socioeconomic area, and get away with it are fascinating. |
08:01pm 16/08/18 Permalink
The irony is if we did have a socialist society these morons wouldn't be having their $200 eyebrow dye jobs and streaming media galore. It would be state sponsored two channel tv with no internet access.. ask North Korea or China.Noone wants a socialist society in the way you're talking about. That word has been (mis)used way too often so any discussion with that word is now almost pointless. I listened to a Sam Harris podcast recently where he was talking to a dude who raised a fascinating point about the term "affirmative action". When asked, everyone basically says they agree with/support "affirmative action. But when they're asked the same question using a common definition of the term "affirmative action", they tend to disagree. When it was explained like that I realised that is basically what is happening with pretty much every common term in the political spectrum these days - left, right, socialist, capitalist, progressive, conservative, greeny, corporatist, Nazi, fascist, etc, etc. People use them to reference something that is happening in a particular context (that often mostly only exists inside their own head or within their own closely held filter bubble) and as a result just results in strawman arguments that are nearly totally irrelevant. [edit: it's entirely possible this has been happening for eleventy thousand years and I've only just realised this] This is a big shame because it disguises the fact that, in reality, it seems increasingly likely that most people are really not that far apart in their opinions of How Things Should Be Done (excluding extremists of course). It creates the appearance of this huge gaping chasm between viewpoints when the reality is probably closer to a small disagreement about numbers or something. The rest of your post has bugged me for a day or so and I can't figure out why, other than a kneejerk reaction of surprise that Australians would think like that (are you trying to convince us it's OK that you think Trump is good because of your credentials, or yourself?!). But the one thing I'd say it it's obviously far too soon to tell whether or not any of the three things he's done are going to have a net positive effect on the US economy; it will take a while to figure that out. So I'm curious as to why you think these actions he's taken make it "the best thing ever"? |
11:35am 18/08/18 Permalink
People use them to reference something that is happening in a particular context (that often mostly only exists inside their own head or within their own closely held filter bubble) and as a result just results in strawman arguments that are nearly totally irrelevant. other than a kneejerk reaction of surprise that Australians would think like that teehee. Noone wants a socialist society in the way you're talking about. That word has been (mis)used way too often so any discussion with that word is now almost pointless. So when Ocasio-Cortez talks about ending captislism what does she mean exactly? |
01:26pm 18/08/18 Permalink
What I said the other week when I got all insult-y was really douchy and I regret saying it. I tried to make a point I legitimately believe but in trying to say it I made a real a****** of myself. I'm bowing out of this thread for a while (fpot might be smarter than all of us!?!).
Enjoy all. |
01:56pm 18/08/18 Permalink
Before you do go I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
I listened to a Sam Harris podcast recently where he was talking to a dude who raised a fascinating point about the term "affirmative action". When asked, everyone basically says they agree with/support "affirmative action. But when they're asked the same question using a common definition of the term "affirmative action", they tend to disagree. I'm pretty confident I know the pod cast this is from. Why don't you ask trog if he's referring to the discussion with Mr Klein. Then ask yourself whether or not a discussion of bubbles is being had honestly in that post. |
02:35pm 18/08/18 Permalink
Could also be the overwhelming evidence that the majority of the media had no interest whatsoever in balanced coverage of their candidate. it's times like these that surveys ought to come with a free-form, "and what do you mean by that exactly?" follow-up question it may be arrogant to simply dismiss the views of a group as large as 51% of Republican voters without a fair hearing, but "enemy of the people"? it's such a cartoonishly forceful (and oddly specific) accusation against the press that cannot just have occurred spontaneously to that many people if Trump hadn't said it not simply biased or prejudiced, but an actual enemy of the people - as though America were actually overwhelmingly conservative and a small elite were desperately trying to convince people that this isn't the case |
03:11pm 18/08/18 Permalink
Vash was really asking for more capitalism all along. Who knew a single tweet could undermine years of posturing?
enjoy a video by an actual economist on the point. it's times like these that surveys ought to come with a free-form, "and what do you mean by that exactly?" follow-up question Yeah it is oddly specific. but nevertheless look at the results closely. 51% of Republicans agree with the statement. ok, that seems high for a "cartoonishly forceful" statement, I'll agree. But we live in a time, where there is confusion about who qualifies as a nazi. so the fact that it is hyperbolic is neither here nor there. What is much more interesting, is that if it were the case that it is pure hyperbole, you'd expect to see Republicans, and then everyone else. But you don't. 1 in 4 independents agree with the statement. Are they just sayin in cause trump dun sayed it? or could have something to do with the utter collapse in trust in the media? It might have something to do with the new york times running a story they claim justice Kavanaugh may have misled Congress when he said he wasn't primarily involved justice Pickering' confirmation when he may have in fact been involved in booking the rooms in which his confirmation took place. if a paper of record wants to shill for a political party that's their prerogative. But when in the same week they subscribe to a joint editorial in which they extol the virtues of a free press, maybe they should eat the accusation of enemy of the people. |
04:04pm 18/08/18 Permalink
He explicitly mentions Denmark within the first minute. and his list of countries includes Norway and Sweden. So you're factually wrong out of the gates. Well done. His point, which cuts directly against vash's repeated ad nauseum claim (and your own fractionally more sophisticated versions), is that all of those countries enjoy specifically *private* property rights at least as strong as the United States. All of those countries are under no illusions about how wealth is generated and it is neoliberal free market capitalism. The fact that they have welfare programs doesn't undermine that. It also cuts loudly and directly against capitalism is an endless downward spiral. Most importantly you'll note he is neoliberal and he strangely doesn't say he rejects their welfare policies because "that's socialism and socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried". Notwithstanding Paul "the economy may never recover from Trump" Krugman's opinion. But I'm sure you didn't need that to be explicitly spelt out to you, you're just asking to make sure we are on the same page. |
09:04pm 18/08/18 Permalink
I listened to the talk and he does mention Denmark, I think 3-4 times but where is he mentioning Sweeden and Norway? Can you please post a screenshot or the timing of other nordic countries mentioned in the speech?
|
12:53am 19/08/18 Permalink
They employ the nordic model though, I think is the point |
02:06am 19/08/18 Permalink
Thanks jim, but the he does very clearly state he is talking about the list of countries in the top quartile of that list.
I listened to the talk and he does mention Denmark, I think 3-4 times but where is he mentioning Sweeden and Norway? Can you please post a screenshot or the timing of other nordic countries mentioned in the speech? The list "socialism works in Europe" is taken from an index of economic freedom and he refers to the top quartile of the list. Norway and Sweden like I expressly stated are in the top quartile of that list. Seeing as sir redhat can presumably read he can pull his finger out and enter the website on his slide himself. Or he can childishly pretend the Nordic countries aren't free market capitalist economies, in spite of how they self report. That's open too him too. |
09:29am 19/08/18 Permalink
Nordic countries don't have wage fixation either.
|
09:45am 19/08/18 Permalink
Sorry to hijack your question but this started doing the rounds recently on social media. What are your thoughts on the $444 million dollar donation to fix the barrier reef given to a group that didn't ask for it with oil company relations and no legal tender for the grant?Yeh this is pretty interesting. It sounds kind of lame on the surface. I do think the government should have access to some pool of money they can just hand out randomly with little oversight just in the interests of being able to Get Some Things Done, but this should be obviously limited and carefully scrutinised. edit: I think this is wayyyy too much money for one organisation with no tender process though. There was an interesting discussion on Hack on JJJ last week about it; they talked about there being a panel of scientists that will be responsible for deciding how the money gets spent, etc. |
10:29am 19/08/18 Permalink
I think the $444m allocation was obscene. Parliament is supposed to appropriate funds by passing laws. Slush funds for pet projects and pork barrelling are the opposite of that. If you want to hand out money with zero over sight do it with YOUR OWN money.
|
10:45am 19/08/18 Permalink
Malcom loves pumping money into dumb s***. |
07:10pm 19/08/18 Permalink
The tweet seems silly in the context of this forum, unless it was Vash just taking the piss out of himself. Would anyone even remotely worth discussing anything with, actually make an argument like that? I'd love to see evidence of someone actually doing what that tweet seems to parody (other than links to Vash's previous posts)
|
08:22pm 19/08/18 Permalink
No one is pretending the west of europe is not capitalist. Yes but they are pretending the only argument against implementing the so called Nordic model everywhere is people calling the Nordic system socialist. Which the tweet rather plainly encapsulates. As the fellow in the video points out it's not clear the Nordic model or European "socialism" is worth adopting, let alone the actual practicality of doing it. |
09:58pm 19/08/18 Permalink
I think the $444m allocation was obscene. Parliament is supposed to appropriate funds by passing laws. Slush funds for pet projects and pork barrelling are the opposite of that. If you want to hand out money with zero over sight do it with YOUR OWN money.the "best" part is apparently they didn't even /ask/ for the money!? what does that say about what possible plans they might have for such a huge amount? they're literally going to have to make it up as they go along. why not increase CSIRO funding for reef research or something |
02:51pm 20/08/18 Permalink
They say they didn't ask for it, and were surprised or shocked or something but I read somewhere they met with political big wigs weeks prior to the grant. The video above rants about them having a staff of 6 and then goes on to list all these founders who are apparently involved. There is some hype in there. It will be interesting to follow. How does throwing 144m improve the reef? To my understanding the condition of the reef is more reliant on weather.
|
06:09pm 20/08/18 Permalink
i would think not driving very large ships into the reef is good for it.
|
07:46am 21/08/18 Permalink
It’s on
Dutton to get thumped, either now or at the election |
09:28am 21/08/18 Permalink
Aligns with the list of organisations involved.
|
09:30am 21/08/18 Permalink
Dutton is goneski. A good outcome. Surprising numbers though, i thought Turnbull would be gone
|
09:50am 21/08/18 Permalink
This is just the beginning. Only 7 votes need to change.
|
09:56am 21/08/18 Permalink
eh, not exactly a thumping, but good enough for now
|
10:45am 21/08/18 Permalink
He was also quoted last week saying he would not rule it out.
|
05:17pm 21/08/18 Permalink
08:25pm 21/08/18 Permalink
Hey I recognise that guy, he's on Penn and Teller.
On the liberal front, Mr Potatohead may challenge for leadership again. |
02:20pm 22/08/18 Permalink
enjoying the libs destroying themselves.
good work team! |
07:41am 23/08/18 Permalink
libs destroyed themselves when they elected malcolm leader.
|
08:56am 23/08/18 Permalink
looks like Dutton has the numbers now
I’d honestly rather have Abbott back. Abbott! |
09:44am 23/08/18 Permalink
This is a fantastic show. Both Trump & the LNP self destructing at the same time. Bring on the elections.
|
11:21am 23/08/18 Permalink
Turnbull is so arrogant and detached that he thinks this coup somehow resulted from manipulation of ministers. The only thing surprising is that such an incompetent and weak leader was allowed to stay in that position for this long. I think he has the even weaker leader Bill Shorten to thank to be honest.
|
01:55pm 23/08/18 Permalink
The rest of your post has bugged me for a day or so and I can't figure out why, other than a kneejerk reaction of surprise that Australians would think like that I think it's bugged you because the people most vocal about Trump being bad think that those that did / would vote for him are all slack jawed yokels who are uneducated and backwards. Out of the 10 engineers I work with, 7 would vote for him, including one guy that's a US citizen. My point is there is a lot of quiet support for policies like: Exiting free trade agreements that result in loss of local manufacturing Tightening immigration policies Reducing company taxes in order to encourage local business to employ local people Removing the steady creep of PC nonsense in to our lives More specific to the US, but a strong foreign policy around middle east and china issues rather than the steady erosion of any strength or conviction under Obama All these policies are key Trump policies, which he actually has pushed to implement. That's why I, and a lot of other people I know support him. Is he a loud obnoxious d***? Yes, but in terms of the welfare of the country, outcomes and results are a lot more important than having a "nice" personality. The main stream media does nothing except constantly deride his character, rather than look at what actions he is taking: which are those he promised in his election campaign. Their aim is quite obviously to try and get people to focus only on his character, in the hope he is not reelected. last edited by BiKESEAT at 16:43:08 23/Aug/18 |
04:41pm 23/08/18 Permalink
libs destroyed themselves when they elected malcolm leader. I agree. They elected him leader but didn't let him lead. He ended up bending over and getting f***ed by the right of his party (long before he became PM), looked a fool and ultimately drove the party to a point that they're so desperate they chose to turn to Dutton, of all people. |
07:02pm 23/08/18 Permalink
he was too progressive with his non 1950 ideas.
|
07:06pm 23/08/18 Permalink
The main stream media does nothing except constantly deride his character Yeah, wasting their time. He does that himself. I'm not sure how you can completely separate the man, and his actions, from his policies though. I'm also not sure how anyone is so willing to turn a blind eye to all the rorting he's doing while in office. I guess people have different priorities though. |
07:06pm 23/08/18 Permalink
Nailed it, lots of the right wing didn't want him in the first place but he had the popularity. If the libs think this is going to win them the next election they are f*****g kidding themselves |
07:25pm 23/08/18 Permalink
Turnbull is a failed Labor party applicant whose ambition instead lead him to leadership of the Liberal Party. Shame in the backbenchers who put him in power with his high immigration, renewable energy subsidies, gay marriage, Republic agenda, social programs, big deficits.
The people who supported his agenda were never voting Liberal so good riddance. |
07:53pm 23/08/18 Permalink
arent all of those things positive things for society?
|
08:12pm 23/08/18 Permalink
arent all of those things positive things for society? For Labour Green voters yes. Don't resonate well with Liberal voters. |
08:16pm 23/08/18 Permalink
Exiting free trade agreements that result in loss of local manufacturingExcept his tariffs so far have cost more manufacturing jobs as they have only served to drive up the price of steel in the US making it even cheaper to make s*** overseas and Trump still doesn't understand that Tariffs are paid for by the US and not the country he is putting them on. The Libs have basically f***ed themselves. I honestly dislike Shorten and think he is one of the three worst politicians in the country alongside Joyce and Abbott but he has basically been gifted the next election by the Libs who have allowed toxicity to fester in their party. Turnbull seriously looks like he is happy this is happening, he has put up with their s*** for too long and has better things to do then try to run a turd of a party. |
09:21pm 23/08/18 Permalink
I think it's bugged you because the people most vocal about Trump being bad think that those that did / would vote for him are all slack jawed yokels who are uneducated and backwards.Fair point, but I don't think that's it. tldr: ultimately I guess I think it's that I feel like character is actually a pretty important feature of humans; someone with good character will make good policies based on good reasons. I think it's because he's such a horrible specimen of a human being I can't figure out why anyone would vote for him, regardless of what his policies are. He's a lying sack of s*** that is just telling you what you want to hear. He's literally just throwing all sorts of s*** at the wall and some of it is sticking. It's such a f*****g amazing strategy I can't believe noone has tried it yet but I guess until now politicians actually had some limits. By FAR the most interesting thing left to come out of his presidency, in my opinion, is finding out how long a politician can bald-faced lie to the public before they start catching up with him. In such a position of power it's inevitable that he can get away with it for ages and the distortion field of that power will actually deflect it (or maybe even make some if it come to pass!!), but there simply must be a reckoning at some point. My point is there is a lot of quiet support for policies like:Are any of these policies are interesting or controversial? Maybe the trade agreements one, but the jury will be out for YEARS on whether what he's doing with foreign trade is going to be a net positive or negative. Almost any Republican talking head would have had similar policies and they would have done it without being the sort of horrible person he is. The main stream media does nothing except constantly deride his character, rather than look at what actions he is taking: which are those he promised in his election campaign. Their aim is quite obviously to try and get people to focus only on his character, in the hope he is not reelected.I don't know what news you're watching dude. They don't need to deride his character. He literally opens his mouth or mashes his phone and does it himself (haha or he's implicated in MASSIVE CRIME by HIS OWN LAWYER). Almost everything I read is based on the actions he's been taking. I actually think some are good too! I think the tariff stuff he's done is totally ham-fisted so far but there's certainly rationale behind it with China at least. He originally had a stance on reducing H1Bs which I think would be a good idea but I don't think he's made any progress on that. In any case it's already clear that his character is not relevant to American voters. He knows it. He f*****g told it to everyone's faces. The only questions remaining re: his re-election are: 1) from above, whether his lies start catching up with him. I am not sure 4 years is enough time for this to happen. 2) whether the few dramatic changes he's managed to effect (really just the tariffs so far, right?) start having noticable economic impact. Also not sure 4 years is enough for some of them. I guess maybe whether or not there is some legal fallout too but I find all that staggeringly uninteresting |
11:17pm 23/08/18 Permalink
What do we think about this Dutton Section 44 thing? ("Federal Labor has legal advice Mr Dutton might be in breach of section 44 of the constitution because of his interests in childcare businesses that receive government subsidies.")
This has only been in the news for the last couple of days, right? Or did it come up way before and I just missed it? The timing seems... coincidental |
11:25pm 23/08/18 Permalink
The change in the childcare arrangements is definitely a problem for him because subsidies are directly paid to providers now. He should sell them.
|
11:32pm 23/08/18 Permalink
haha or he's implicated in MASSIVE CRIME by HIS OWN LAWYER) Which massive crime is this? You see taggs. All I ask is that you acknowledge your own bubble before telling everyone else about theirs someone with good character will make good policies based on good reasons. I'd like to see a shred of evidence of this. In practice it's the opposite and everyone knows it. Politicians make policies that appeal to people and those people think specifically those politicians have good character as a result. The reality is that you don't get to the sharp end of politics without having a ruthless streak. . He's a lying sack of s*** that is just telling you what you want to hear. He's literally just throwing all sorts of s*** at the wall and some of it is sticking. It's such a f*****g amazing strategy I can't believe noone has tried it yet but I guess until now politicians actually had some limits. This is literally delusional. Find me a politician who doesn't routinely do literally all of that. As for its to soon to tell for Trump economics this is a line I've seen Krugman truck out. It's a liberal dogwhistle which actually means "we were wrong but we can't admit it." What's even better is this steaming pile of dog s***. I guess maybe whether or not there is some legal fallout too but I find all that staggeringly uninteresting Long post for someone who's not interested. What he actually means is he doesn't want to be systematically dismantled and have the brute fact of his own fine bubble living demonstrated to him. |
07:17am 24/08/18 Permalink
not sure what you meanjust that one reading of it is that you're saying that Labour/Greens voters tend to vote for things that are positive for society and that Liberals do the opposite (edit: I know this is not what you are saying, but it was just funny in context (edit#2: because many people believe that is actually what happens)) |
09:50am 24/08/18 Permalink
The change in the childcare arrangements is definitely a problem for him because subsidies are directly paid to providers now. He should sell them.sounds like the latest news is that he's in the clear, but now everyone's throwing their hat in the PM ring Possibly some of the funniest stuff about this are all the completely f*****g clueless Australians (or possibly Russian trolls I guess) that are picking random Peter Duttons on Twitter to hurl abuse at this dude is crushing it the good news (for me!) is all this s*** is wrecking the dollar |
09:55am 24/08/18 Permalink
The Trump hatred is strong because of his "actions". I've heard it all now. |
10:03am 24/08/18 Permalink
I can understand why the Solicitor General advised there is no breach. Dutton is receiving a payment entitled to any complying Australian by law. It is similar to receiving a Medicare rebate. It is not a benefit to his personal advantage which the Bob Day case related too - he was a landlord to the Commonwealth.
I shorted the dollar yesterday and made about 90 pips. But that is more related to strengthening of the USD - Global markets could not give a toss about Australian politics. |
10:05am 24/08/18 Permalink
Yeah except they chose the wrong one. Again. Should have been Dutton, he talks a lot of sense.
|
01:35pm 24/08/18 Permalink
Dutton would have been disastrous for their chances at the next election and I'm sure most knew that which is why he isn't PM.
With Morrison at the head the Libs are left hoping that the trouble makers that instigated this like Abbott and Dutton lose their seats at the next election since there is clearly no one with the balls to deal with them directly. The far right faction will continue to be a toxic force in the party driven by the Murdoch media and the threat of One Nation. IMO Libs are in the same boat as Labor was when Shorten was playing puppet master with Rudd and Gillard. Instability will continue in the party until the narcissists get their way or are driven out. |
02:54pm 24/08/18 Permalink
It's supposed to be a conservative party, that's what made it so successful in the Howard era. What we have now is a joke, they may as well be the labour party.
|
03:22pm 24/08/18 Permalink
Dutton would have been disastrous for their chances at the next election and I'm sure most knew that which is why he isn't PM.yup. I wonder if they'll ever get to the point where it forks into separate parties? I am pretty happy that after all this Dutton s*** someone else managed to come out on top |
03:54pm 24/08/18 Permalink
Scomo is a complete c***.
i hope this ends in complete oblivion for the libs. |
05:49pm 24/08/18 Permalink
It's no surprise he's not going to call an election. the Libs would be obliterated.
Was impressed by Di Natale's speech. The Greens are pretty much the only party in there who aren't in it for themselves. |
05:52pm 24/08/18 Permalink
Libs need a dose of opposition as punishment for ever giving Turnbull the job. Perhaps a new breed of conservatives can rise from the ashes of the jettisoned MPs.
|
06:02pm 24/08/18 Permalink
Amazes me that Australia can have such staunchly conservative, religious and d***ish people as PM. Scomo, really! And the other choice was Dutton! Boggles the mind. Are they reflective of the country as a whole?
Lolz 100 Of The Best Tweets From This Week's Australian Politics Disaster |
06:51pm 24/08/18 Permalink
Amazes me that Australia can have such staunchly conservative, religious and d***ish people as PM. Scomo, really! And the other choice was Dutton! Boggles the mind. Are they reflective of the country as a whole?https://i.imgur.com/aYY2zJL.jpg Other than enjoying the liberals eating themselves with some organic quinoa flavoured pinot grigio, the other thing that's been thoroughly enjoyable this week is the simpsons memes. https://i.imgur.com/0yxschy.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/4rfHMoi.jpg |
08:08pm 24/08/18 Permalink
The good news is there is still plenty of time before the next election for both parties to each have another leadership spill. It's good viewing!
|
08:19pm 24/08/18 Permalink
that's what made it so successful in the Howard era Nah, The mining sector was booming it was fat loots for everyone. It took no skill to govern, pork barrel central. |
08:49pm 24/08/18 Permalink
Will Julie Bishop go? She looks great in Imperial Star Destroyer Grey
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/12/05/23C29F9800000578-2861764-image-a-18_1417757566613.jpghttp://www.starwarsarchives.com/wp-content/gallery/tesb-sc026-the-empire-in-pursuit/Scn026-Empire-in-Pursuit006.jpg |
11:49pm 24/08/18 Permalink
jbish goes alright for an old duck.
|
04:37am 25/08/18 Permalink
Is there a fresh crop of young whippersnappers coming up through the ranks in the parties? Feels like we really need a refresh. I think what France did in that respect is a decent idea to follow. Get the old guard out and get some fresh blood in.
Just to discuss Bikeseat's post, as I think this is an interesting view point. I understand and agree with attack the argument not the character, however character does inform judgement, decision making and action. So, when your job involves you doing a lot of decision making based on your best judgement, it's valid that your character is called into question. This is no different to how my character can be questioned in my job, albeit on a infinitely smaller scale. Character is routinely examined and questioned in all things, just look at character witnesses or references for one. Is it really the case his policies here have any real benefit? Or am I brainwashed by liberal media? Exiting free trade agreements that result in loss of local manufacturing -> This might not bring local manufacturing back, as automation and other macro trends are removing them anyway. The solution is retraining and new jobs, not prolonging old jobs? It seems to me there's some luddite aspects to this. Or if it does bring jobs back it's at the expense of other jobs. As per the steel / nails example in Oliver's video. Not to mention the various other benefits of free trade, and the negatives of trade wars. Tightening immigration policies -> This seems to be rooted in identity politics to me, or racism / xenophobia, depending on your views. Personally, having lived in 3 diff countries now, and still living in a foreign country, I'm all for no borders and global citizenship. Though I can understand being against extremist cultures, I am too. Reducing company taxes in order to encourage local business to employ local people -> Is there any evidence this works? I saw articles / data that showed the corporation tax cuts Trump did in the US were used for executive pay outs / bonuses, and hardly any went to employees or employment. There was no employment growth to link to the tax cuts. It seemed to me the whole 'trickle down economics' theory has been debunked. Removing the steady creep of PC nonsense in to our lives -> This seems to be rooted in identity politics to me. What PC things are you not happy with? Are you fundamentally against gays, women, certain races, gender fluidity, etc? Personally the only thing I've had some trouble accepting recently is the gender fluidity, but I don't fully understand it and that doesn't overpower my core notion that people should be free to live as they wish, as long as it's not hurting others. More specific to the US, but a strong foreign policy around middle east and china issues rather than the steady erosion of any strength or conviction under Obama -> Bit of a minefield this one, is it arguable that the previous outward strength shown under Bush had much real benefit? As opposed to Obama's restraint. The costs are well known, many Americans, and many more civilians, dead and mucho money / resources expended. Though in some ways I suppose that's valuable to them for the military economics and maintaining combat capability. Conceptually I think soft power is just as, if not more useful, than hard power. "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." innit. I appreciate Oliver is liberal media / comedy, but he doesn't seem to be lying or misreporting anything here. |
10:19pm 25/08/18 Permalink
So, when your job involves you doing a lot of decision making based on your best judgement, it's valid that your character is called into question. This is no different to how my character can be questioned in my job, albeit on a infinitely smaller scale. Character is routinely examined and questioned in all things, just look at character witnesses or references for one. The point at which the analogy breaksdown, is that there is some reason to believe a character witness has some insight into the persons character. It is not possible to judge a persons character on the strength of micromanaged stage appearances. Their express purpose is to convey a particular message and everything is geared around that (and to obscure personality traits that undermine this image I might add). A Character witness conversely generally has to have known the person they are vouching for personally for over three years (and the longer the better). Exiting free trade agreements that result in loss of local manufacturing If this discussion is being had in the absence of Chinese currency manipulation and long running brazen IP theft, its radically incomplete. John Oliver is a late night comedian with an agenda. His video is blocked in Australia, does his video address either of these points? Does his video address which direction capital investment should be flowing in a healthy globalization? I'm going to bet it doesn't. Tightening immigration policies This links back into trade and it should be your first stop in providing analysis. I'm all for no borders and global citizenship. If you are really for this, you need to acknowledge you are the extremist. The international system has as its core unit nation-states and peace is founded on non-intervention in a foreign countries internal affairs except if very limited circumstances. Like it or not this comes with the concomitant that borders and national identity are real and to be respected. Reducing company taxes in order to encourage local business to employ local people you'd need to have some explanation for why wage growth is rising, and why unemployment has been steadily dropping. and it started happening after a program of deregulation and tax cuts. Removing the steady creep of PC nonsense in to our lives -> This seems to be rooted in identity politics to me. What PC things are you not happy with? Are you fundamentally against gays, women, certain races, gender fluidity, etc? If you wanted to know why PC nonsense needs to be ferociously argued and beaten that wording couldn't be a more perfect example. I doubt you meant it, but I hope you can appreciate how close that is to "if you don't have anything to hide you have nothing to fear" (full disclosure I don't see a difference). Here is an 8000 word essay by Francis F**uyama on why identity politics needs to be burnt at the stake and the earth salted. I note Obama has come out against identity politics recently as well. As has nancy pelosi stressing they need to push an economic focus. Bit of a minefield this one, is it arguable that the previous outward strength shown under Bush had much real benefit? As opposed to Obama's restraint. The costs are well known, many Americans, and many more civilians, dead and mucho money / resources expended. Yes but is bush the right comparison? Trump's foreign policy doesn't appear to have had much in common with Bush's, at all. I'd also quietly suggest that civilian deaths is probably not a great yardstick to judge Obama's legacy by, neither Syria nor Libya compare favorably to Iraq and Afghanistan. |
09:34am 26/08/18 Permalink
Exiting free trade agreements that result in loss of local manufacturing The problem with "free trade" agreements is that every country sidesteps them with subsidies and unequal tarrifs. Unless every country removes all tarrifs, this is a step by step approach, where America has got ahead of itself and been taken advantage of by China and the EU (and NAFTA). Where countries have gotten angry by America imposing tarrifs, it is actually America just increasing in retaliation to the other country's existing tarrifs. It's a short-term battle to try and get movement on the larger global tarrifs philosophy. Tighter immigration policies? It is insanity to have porous borders in any welfare society. A national border goes to the essence of national sovereignty. Unrestrained immigration is so regressive, I can see major social upheaval shortly as people get sick of their cultural displacement whilst they are taxed heavily. Europe will be first: Spain, Germany and Italy and France are all awash with immigrants who are being paid for by resident taxpayers. This is making the US very nervous. Up until very recently (mostly) Mexican immigrants have been a welcome addition to US society and culture. Company Taxes What is the argument for higher company taxes? Companies pay their profits in dividends to shareholders. Aside from overseas withholding tax the dividends ultimately are taxed in the hands of individual taxpayers, using dividend imputation. I would make company tax 15%, and get the rest from from individuals and super funds when they report their dividend income. This gives company more free cash flow for investment. Identity politics is the mainstay of the liberal/democrat movement. They are not quitting it any time soon. I used to watch John Oliver for the jokes; now I grudgingly watch John Oliver to stay current with liberal lunacy. He lives in a typical millionaire Hollywood bubble where ideas sound good but don't work in application. That in the end is the saddest part of the entertainment industry. It used to be about jokes taking the piss out everyone - now it is one giant sermon from the pulpit. And being offended about jokes against any identity in the protected category. |
10:02am 26/08/18 Permalink
Identity politics is the mainstay of the liberal/democrat movement. They are not quitting it any time soon. I disagree. I think Obama stating that the position that someone should not need to be a particular race or gender to have a standing to discuss a topic is a big rebuke. Or at least as big as you're going to get from him. As they start properly understanding how toxic it is to their electoral chances you'll see them move to more class based issues. I used to watch John Oliver for the jokes; now I grudgingly watch John Oliver to stay current with liberal lunacy. The final straw for me was him using a tax dodge Trump pioneered in New York to buy his multimillion dollar apartment. While waffling about underfunded social programs. He doesn't even pretend to be principled. It's just theatre and nothing more. Theatre carefully designed to tell a certain segment of society what they want to hear. To be honest he reminds me of Charlize Theron on arrested development. |
11:27am 26/08/18 Permalink
I think it's outrageously ignorant to believe that the information provided by mainstream and social media is adequate to form an assessment of a persons character.
|
11:30am 26/08/18 Permalink
Federal 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 44 (-5) ALP 56 (+5) Nice. |
10:57pm 26/08/18 Permalink
turn back some of the boats What do you mean? The boats are stopped. Kevin Rudd's 50,000 illegal arrivals every year are no more. |
09:00am 27/08/18 Permalink
I think Obama stating that the position that someone should not need to be a particular race or gender to have a standing to discuss a topic is a big rebuke. Or at least as big as you're going to get from him. Then he goes and shows public support for Ramaphosa in South Africa. The guy is either a walking joke or a dangerous propagandist. |
09:48am 27/08/18 Permalink
A boat rocked up just yesterday bro
|
12:43pm 27/08/18 Permalink
one boat.... would you rather 50,000
|
12:44pm 27/08/18 Permalink
Boats were such a minor part of the problem i was never really concerned by them.
|
02:48pm 27/08/18 Permalink
one boat.... would you rather 50,000was it 50,000 illegal people per year or boats per year? either way is that a real number or an exaggeration for effect? The highest I can find in this report is 25k but that is a big outlier. |
05:59pm 27/08/18 Permalink
50,000 illegal arrivals in total during the Rudd Gillard Rudd govt.
I think I said 50k per year earlier but I was wrong. It's a boatload more than the 13 illegal arrivals that have reached australia since Coalition came to power. |
06:29pm 27/08/18 Permalink
I'm trying to figure out what I think is a reasonable amount of illegal immigration versus how much I'd like the government to spend trying to stop it. Obviously the more they spend the more they can stop, but there has to be a point at which it's just too much to spend. I guess it's probably hard to drill down and get enough data to figure that out.
It is insanity to have porous borders in any welfare society.FWIW, my visa/residence permit for the UK has a thing on it saying "NO PUBLIC FUNDS". Obviously [genuine] refugees/asylum seekers need some level of support, but it's not like these people (or most legal immigrants for that matter, like I was in both the US and UK) can just turn up into any country with a welfare programme and start taking taxpayer dollars. |
07:04pm 27/08/18 Permalink
I'm trying to figure out what I think is a reasonable amount of illegal immigration versus how much I'd like the government to spend trying to stop it. Obviously the more they spend the more they can stop, but there has to be a point at which it's just too much to spend. I guess it's probably hard to drill down and get enough data to figure that out. It's not the number I object to, it's the method. The issue I have is that we have people crossing through often as many as a dozen other countries before they get here, but they decide that nah, none of those countries are good enough - they want to get all the way to one of the best countries in the world. I'd be happy to see a high number if we changed the system - make the system such that you have, say, 20 signatory countries, and if you claim asylum you'll have a very high chance of your claim being accepted - BUT, and this is the bit that has to be done right - the country you're re-settled in will be handled by an appointment system, and you WILL NOT be permitted to be re-settled in the country you claim asylum in. That means that if you want a chance to end up living in Australia, you can't come here and apply for asylum. Watch as the boats (and, hell, probably most other claims) stop overnight if a policy like this were adopted. I'd also prefer we see a system where we integrate people in to country communities, not in to populated cities. It really should come with conditions: Unless you meet the requirements for an in-demand skilled work visa, there should be a provision to restrict people from residing in any town of a population over, say, 250,000. |
07:16pm 27/08/18 Permalink
I'm trying to figure out what I think is a reasonable amount of illegal immigration versus how much I'd like the government to spend trying to stop it. Obviously the more they spend the more they can stop, but there has to be a point at which it's just too much to spend. I guess it's probably hard to drill down and get enough data to figure that out. FWIW, my visa/residence permit for the UK has a thing on it saying "NO PUBLIC FUNDS". Obviously [genuine] refugees/asylum seekers need some level of support, but it's not like these people (or most legal immigrants for that matter, like I was in both the US and UK) can just turn up into any country with a welfare programme and start taking taxpayer dollars. In Australia they do. "Refugees" can't get welfare on day 1 in any country, but they can Get it in Australia. Just destroy all documentation and throw the dice on the open seas. |
08:53pm 27/08/18 Permalink
This is way more complex than it looks. Germany tried doing something similar to this and it was a fiasco. It ends up radically changing the demographics faster than the locals can adapt. It could be made to work if you had some upper limit that was enforced for each town, but as trog points out there comes a point where you can't justify the cost. Cities are better able to deal with pop growth. |
09:27pm 27/08/18 Permalink
And also there comes a point where the immigrants cannot be physically controlled. They will go where they want to do.
|
09:44pm 27/08/18 Permalink
And also there comes a point where the immigrants cannot be physically controlled. They will go where they want to do. Maybe the market can solve it? We could easily reduce the amount of British coming in and take more people from other countries. |
10:22pm 27/08/18 Permalink
No I think we should try democratic socialism. What we can do is vote to have you put them up and then you have to.
It's democratic says so in the name |
08:09am 28/08/18 Permalink
In Australia they do.That looks like it falls under 'some level of support' for 'genuine refugees'. It's not the same as citizen welfare, and if you believe in ANY asylum/refugee programmes presumably you also have to believe in providing them some level of support, right? And also there comes a point where the immigrants cannot be physically controlled. They will go where they want to do.For skilled visas that have a regional requirement I imagine they have a process in place to check up on this though, surely? The problem seems to be that the duration for those regional migration visas simply isn't long enough for people to set down roots and decide to stay there as they just keep f*****g off to the cities - but that's not just an immigration problem. Trying to get and keep people into the regional areas of Australia I think should be a major priority for everyone. |
11:56am 28/08/18 Permalink
That looks like it falls under 'some level of support' for 'genuine refugees'. It's not the same as citizen welfare, and if you believe in ANY asylum/refugee programmes presumably you also have to believe in providing them some level of support, right? I wonder if refugees in Turkey and Jordan get that? Trying to get and keep people into the regional areas of Australia I think should be a major priority for everyone. Better they WANT to move there because there is a job and suitable infrastructure. How do mining companies get staff to their remote locations? Ultimately the vast majorty of immigrants will end up in a major city, cities that are already bursting at the seams. Unless the state governments are going to designate other smaller inland cities like Toowoomba or Ballarat or *shock* Canberra as the new megatropolis 3m+ population centres, there is no way to sustain the current immigrant inflows. |
11:00am 29/08/18 Permalink
We need to stop these illegal French women from getting into the country and raising children to be all French and s***.
|
04:16pm 29/08/18 Permalink
I wonder if refugees in Turkey and Jordan get that?I don't think we should judge our behaviour by that of others. Especially Turkey! Perhaps there's a reason those countries are in the general-purpose mess that they are, and our country is so awesome?!! Better they WANT to move there because there is a job and suitable infrastructure. How do mining companies get staff to their remote locations? Ultimately the vast majorty of immigrants will end up in a major city, cities that are already bursting at the seams.Well it's a chicken and egg problem, right? Mining companies can only do it but offering gigantic perks but once the mining has dried up people tend to move back. The government can at least have a crack at it by making regional living more appealing to Australians. There are a zillion levers they can f*** with. Anecdote: I was in Tasmania for a holiday a couple weeks back. It's fkn gorgeous and awesome and I couldn't figure out why people aren't flocking their in droves. Stayed at a BnB a bit out of Hobart and the owners happened to be WoW playing gamers, so I talked to them about their Internet - they were on NBN and their Internet totally sucked; I think I clocked it at less than 5Mbit. They also mentioned their biggest problem was power failures. Admittedly this is in a small town but it made me realise that "regional Australia" really can begin an hour out of a capital city before you're suddenly on unreliable power and Internet (and probably water). Unless the state governments are going to designate other smaller inland cities like Toowoomba or Ballarat or *shock* Canberra as the new megatropolis 3m+ population centres, there is no way to sustain the current immigrant inflows.Well we've been sustaining something like it it for decades now without civilisation collapsing so I have high hopes for the next decade. The only real question is whether or not our government is going to be continue to be distracted by the s****how of political leadership battles, instead of actually doing their job and providing leadership. To directly ask: do you think we should have zero immigration? If not, what level of immigration are you comfortable with? Edit: Asking in the interests of not finding out what our differences are, but what our similarities are. Unless you want zero immigration then I suspect we're probably not far off each other and it's just a numeric difference. Using the below as reference: http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/lookupattach/d27d95c7eac6fac8ca2582b20017d8df/$File/Components of annual population growth (a)(b), Australia.GIF |
10:11am 30/08/18 Permalink
I don't mind some immigration and I don't mind being nice to some refugees. A great deal of it is around the ability of our infrastructure to cope with increased load of all population growth. Currently I feel we have a some catching up to do with infrastructure to catch up to our current population. There is the argument around assimilation/integration v's cultural diversity, and all that balance. I recon if we had the infrastructure keeping up with demand, the issues around assimilation/integration v's cultural diversity would be of much less concern than they might appear to be at times. I can think of some instances where assimilation/integration v's cultural diversity were an issue when the infrastructure could easily cope with it, but they were isolated and probbaly get too much air-time in media.
We should be as choosy as we can afford to be. One thing that makes us different is isolation. We are a long way from others and surrounded by water, if we were attached to Indonesia, there would likely be a huge "wall"... same with NZ. Also, there are ways to encourage increases in local breeding without relying so much on imports for growth. I think Julie would probably been the best to take them into election early next year, general popularity wise. No kids apparently, so she has not achieved MILF, or GILF status. |
05:57pm 30/08/18 Permalink
|
06:38pm 30/08/18 Permalink
07:52pm 30/08/18 Permalink
Cringey ABC political comedy. *shudder*
|
08:03pm 30/08/18 Permalink
100% correct yet.
On one hand proclaims to be christian, but so easily is a complete c*** to fellow humans when money is involved. This is my least favourite kind of politician, and human. |
08:11pm 30/08/18 Permalink
Scomo, Tone, Dutton and Corey are all xl c**** guided by god.
|
06:51am 31/08/18 Permalink
I pretty much hate Scott Morrison but now that lefties are already attacking his faith I'm starting to like him. Can't help yourselves.
|
09:38am 31/08/18 Permalink
Cringey ABC political comedy. *shudder* little bit, but some of the lyrics got a chuckle from me. I like that we have the freedom to take the piss out of all hypocritical political and religious figures and their ideas, except the ones we're not allowed to |
11:00am 31/08/18 Permalink
be careful taking the piss out of someone who is not white or christian, the ABC will come after you.
|
12:05pm 31/08/18 Permalink
Yeah it great how politicians get mocked on the ABC. I'm sure a detailed explanation of why bipartisan policy gets attacked single sidedly will be here any minute.
I don't recall Rudd catching any of this on his sunday church doorstep interviews it's all his policy |
04:14pm 31/08/18 Permalink
Yeah Rudd got a free run in the media.
That song wasn't attacking religion. |
09:46pm 31/08/18 Permalink
Well why don't you link to an article not in the Australian which blasts his grotesque displays on church steps and linking it to his refugee policy.
Next link me to a church doorstep interview Morrison has ever done. Ever. I note Fairfax, I assume unironcially, published Rudd bemoaning leadership instability. Plus you think I have a problem with people attacking "religion". |
10:58pm 31/08/18 Permalink
That song wasn't attacking religion. It's not clear to me why you made that comment, even after re-reading the previous ones again. Nevertheless, if you were to replace Scott Morrison, Jesus and Christianity in that sketch with say, Imran Khan, Mohammad and Islam you can no doubt imagine the s****torm in Australia, let alone the calls for your hanging by bluetick twitteratti elsewhere |
04:07am 01/09/18 Permalink
Turns out you don't even need to change the religion Jim.
You can change Morrison to Pope Francis and refugees to child sex abuse victims and the NYT will claim you're "weaponizing" child sex abuse. |
03:11pm 01/09/18 Permalink
I find it hypocritical from leaders of either side of politics to claim they're Christians.
As a head of state, it's highly likely you will send people to kill and be killed. I don't know how you can publicly stand up saying you're following the teachings of Jesus and still hold that position. edit: let alone all the other s*** that goes against the teachings of jesus. |
08:30pm 02/09/18 Permalink
Very glib redhat.
Have you ever spoken with a Christian about how they reconcile those things? Jesus didn't preach naive pacifism. |
06:59am 03/09/18 Permalink
You don't need logic when you have religion.
Lets us pray for science and fact and to shun unproven perceptions. Amen |
07:42pm 03/09/18 Permalink
"unemployment rate has fallen to its lowest level in almost six years at 5.3% and was expected to further decline in the next couple of years to about 5%" |
05:28pm 04/09/18 Permalink
You don't need logic when you have religion. Yeah but the video isn't a call to shun religious thinking in public life. Its literally the opposite. But they would of course moan in virtually all other contexts if he was to fail to approach public life in a secular way. Otto von Bismarck was the undisputed realpoltik and a devout Lutheran. He managed to reconcile the roles. Paul Keating is a devout Catholic and I'd take him over any sitting politician in a heartbeat. The greatest leaders of all time to date were all religious. As long as they are secular thinkers and not theocratic there is no reason to think a religious person can't be perfectly effective, and frankly the idea they can't be secular when secular politics is an invention of religious politicians is frankly dumb. |
07:38pm 04/09/18 Permalink
I don't think all the people who stand under the roof of a church actually believe in god.
|
10:04pm 05/09/18 Permalink
I don't think they all do either. There would be some who just do it, cause 'that's what we do'. Some who do it because perception is important. True believers, a mix.
|
08:11pm 06/09/18 Permalink
I don't think all the people who stand under the roof of a church actually believe in god. I'm not sure what your point is. The two people I mentioned are well known devouts of their respective faiths. It isn't up for debate. The fact that some people in a church are fakin it is irrelevant to specific people's faith. It's also irrelevant to whether a person of faith can believe in secular governance. Secularism is about seperation of state and church not the banning of religious conviction for public servants. |
07:38am 07/09/18 Permalink
I understand some can be devout believers, however I think generally the god loving vote is out there. It's generally good for image.
|
06:09pm 07/09/18 Permalink
I understand some can be devout believers, however I think generally the god loving vote is out there. It's generally good for image. I really don't understand what you're talking about. The discussion was whether religious people can take high office without being hypocritical. My answer to that is yes and I think the burden of proof is on someone who says otherwise, as secularism is religious political leaders tool for achieving it. Secularism is not an atheist invention. Things that are completely irrelevant to that question include: Some people are nominal Christian/Muslims/other Some people vote according to their religious scruples |
08:59am 08/09/18 Permalink
First of all devout catholics can just see a priest and be absolved. Second, nearly everyone just a couple of generation ago had some kind of religion lest they be called a heritic or something. |
06:33pm 08/09/18 Permalink
i am changing my opinion on ScoMo now he wears a sports cap in all his appearances and he likes the sports balls.
wait, no im not, hes still a complete c***. |
06:48pm 08/09/18 Permalink
Yep that's a rational appraisal how good is current discourse
|
11:09pm 08/09/18 Permalink
First of all devout catholics can just see a priest and be absolved. Second, nearly everyone just a couple of generation ago had some kind of religion lest they be called a heritic or something. Third of all the American constitution is secular and was written nearly 300 years ago. Fourth of all the Australian constitution is modelled on it. Fifth of all you start listing the specifically Catholic justification for the capital gains tax. or financial deregulation. Or enterprise bargaining. and if it is just a case of seeing a priest, why is it hypocritical to engage in high-level politics? Seems like they have a built-in justification bro. Morrison vows to safeguard religious freedom means he is not secular. Yeah ok. You need a dictionary before you comment more. Or you can nail your manifesto to parliament door if thats not dramatic enough for you. Grow up. Get back to me when he wants to compel a state religion. |
11:14pm 08/09/18 Permalink
Hey hey stop bagging Scomo, he's going to save our housing bubble! Not so hard to raise policy objections. |
10:56am 09/09/18 Permalink
durka durka! Morrison jihad!
https://s22.postimg.cc/hs2lea2ht/Dmi_Ad_AEUYAAe-dm.jpg last edited by sLaps_Forehead at 11:05:20 09/Sep/18 |
11:04am 09/09/18 Permalink
Oh anonymous Havana man who's definantly not engaging in internal politics tells "journalist" what "journalist" wants to hear.
When the words "my policy on climate change is that God will fix it" come out his mouth, I'll believe it and not a second before. Morrison also oversaw a drought relief program to farmers as treasurer. So it's not you know excatly accurate to say he simply told farmers the pray. |
12:17pm 09/09/18 Permalink
05:24pm 09/09/18 Permalink
Are you a shire boy PP? Why are you so desperate to defend scomo? I'm going to assume you're capable of seeing the light years between your picture and the claim. I'm not defending scomo perse. I'm attacking feckless morons such as Ballard who've suddenly discovered there may be a politic elements to religion but the in the same breath will lecture on Islamophobia. The only thing missing from that clip was a bunch of retards dressed as handmaidens. Give it time. |
06:17am 10/09/18 Permalink
Still waiting for the criticism of the greens senator. Thanks for making my point for me.
I suppose we should congratulate Tom for his courage. He couldn't even mock a Muslim ironically. I wonder why. |
08:35am 10/09/18 Permalink
Rodney: "I'm not even Muslim Tom".
ABC fails again. |
05:30pm 10/09/18 Permalink
My favourite part is him sarcastically saying he's never read the Quran or spoken to a Muslim, as though it isn't literally true of him. I'm sure Tommy has spent hours doing both o_O.
I'm sure the research into the Pentecostal church for the refugee song is an epic meditation of comparative theology based on thousands of hours of interviews of Pentecostal evangelicals. |
05:45pm 10/09/18 Permalink
Is there anything on ABC Comedy that isn't "politician grade" cringey?
Hey I wrote this folksy song with the theme of paying out a white religious dude - it's ok to laugh, he's "privileged". |
06:07pm 10/09/18 Permalink
i find it both hi-larious and true.
this show is gold. |
06:58pm 10/09/18 Permalink
Dutton, champion piggy snout in the trough, jobs for the boys, i did nothing wrong, just helping out mates, honest, no privilege.
|
06:00am 11/09/18 Permalink
05:30pm 11/09/18 Permalink
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MEQ2v-8CQE It's much easier mock made up opinions. The world really needs another government-funded Jon Stewart knockoff. There is only every other late night host in existence. The part I really like is the idea vice isn't an openly racist s****tain on journalism. |
02:19pm 12/09/18 Permalink
see I think that falls foul of mighty all knowing ravens rules sweetheart.
turns out it's hard to disagree with someone. Specially when y0 boy is an empty vessel. Just to make that clear The days of "andrew bolt therefore it's over" died in 2015 b****. too many pundits dun nailed their s*** to the mast. you f*** heads made your bed. Now you get to lie in it. |
06:42pm 12/09/18 Permalink
Is there anything on ABC Comedy that isn't "politician grade" cringey?I think there are two problems: 1) most political comedy is lame and fairly uninsightful, because it's watered down for the masses, so the comedy seems to be generally really low-grade family sitcom style stuff. The Daily Show and Colbert Report are the only political comedy shows I've enjoyed because of the sheer skill and in-depth knowledge of the hosts. A lot of the big names in Australian comedy (although my knowledge is like 4 years out of date now really) are mostly the Wil Anderson giggly types that I simply don't find entertaining. 2) presumably most political comedy is only funny when you're aligned with the general theme of the comedy. e.g., It was easy to like the Daily Show because they dunked on Republicans a lot (though they're an eminently dunkable lot). They did hit on Democrats and everyone else but certainly not to the same degree, and maybe if they had done so more often I might not have enjoyed it as much? Although I'm not sure about that. Maybe I'm being unfair but I certainly haven't seen any Australian comedy that has "organically surfaced" in my social mediaz (except for those Australien Government ones which are generally great!) I haven't watched the Daily Show or the Jon Oliver one for ages (it was blocked in the UK so it was too hard to watch); is it still good? |
10:36am 14/09/18 Permalink
The stand out exception for me is Sammy J. That guy is a genius.
|
11:21am 14/09/18 Permalink
ABC could just put Shaun Micallef on a loop
|
07:40pm 14/09/18 Permalink
I find him entertaining. |
07:16pm 15/09/18 Permalink
Thanks for the perspective PP, infi. I'll ponder it.
Thoughts on Obama's speech? And the FEAR book? |
07:34pm 15/09/18 Permalink
There's nothing more ex than an ex politician.
|
07:49pm 15/09/18 Permalink
My view on Obama's speech is that claiming the economy as his work is laughable.
Again for the record I don't see the long term benefit of a trade war. But it is undeniable China manipulates the world trade system. I also view the WTO's efforts as being largely futile so far. Peter Theil is interesting on this point. There is no compelling reason trade with China should be as lopsided as it is. The point is you can see the pricing in of the trade wars in the market. They adjust everytime he discusses it. So the idea that Obama has any credible claim to the state of the economy two years after the fact when markets are adjusting literally within minutes is absurd on its face. here is wapo admitting through visibly gritted teeth trumps policies are working. As for yet another book which suspiciously tells certain folks exactly what they want to hear. Well I look forward to debating whether the "spirit" of the book is true again. Was entertaining with fire and fury. *Edit*. While we're sounding out opinion what's yours of how democrats have conducted themselves during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings? |
08:42pm 15/09/18 Permalink
Two points worth noting: the consequences of economic policies can sometimes take a very long time to manifest, like turning around a cruise liner. Obama can justly try to take credit, if he can link it to a specific policy he enacted. Most US economic policy goes through congress so I am not sure how and President can claim it, unless the idea was theirs to begin with.
Secondly, all major trade blocs, US EU China and Japan are far from free trade - awash in tarrifs and subsidies. Australia and NZ s*** all over them in that respect. Trade is giving China a bit of what they don't like: retaliatory tarrifs. Their response just two weeks ago was to devalue their Yuan. China have a centralised economy they are prepared to weaponise (one that is subject to a massive debt expansion leaving it precariously placed) but the US has an innovation economy filled with booming companies repatriating money and US dollar hegemony in which all resources are denominated. There is no way China can win a trade war. Their currency cannot usurp the USD because they are still completely corrupt and opaque. The Trade war should be a good reminder to them that their economy is dysfunctional. |
06:32am 16/09/18 Permalink
the consequences of economic policies can sometimes take a very long time to manifest, like turning around a cruise liner. Obama can justly try to take credit, if he can link it to a specific policy he enacted. Most US economic policy goes through congress so I am not sure how and President can claim it, unless the idea was theirs to begin with. *Edit*. I should add I don't think Obama's economic legacy is particularly bad. Coming out if the GFC was always going to be tough on whoever got the office. I also think his reforms around banks were needed to prevent deposit taking institutions blurring into investment banks. But the idea he takes serious credit for growth happening well after his financial reforms while there are obvious candidates which are more proximate is silly. And let's not think he's doing anything other than campaigning. */edit* Well that's kind of my point. Trump can point to a solid program of deregulation and tax cuts, and the effect can be seen almost instantly in the markets. And while it can certainly take time for policies to bring about change, I don't think they generally do take that long to start taking effect. When you look at Australia's deregulation of banks there was an explosion of lending within the year. Obama like you say would need to point to policy, but would also have to have some plausible explanation as to why his policies really started kicking off after trumps started coming through, and why trump haven't had the effect claimed. I'm yet to hear any of that. Hence his generic claim is laughable. As far as trade wars go. I accept that it is probably less risky than it seems if the target is China. The trade deficit with China is so lopsided that China's ability to punch back is actually pretty weak. But there still will be consequences and where the chips finally end up landing seems pretty unclear to me. Hence I said I can't see the long term benefit to it. And even of access to China is unfair throwing tariffs around can't plausibly be claimed to be moving us toward more open trade. |
09:06am 16/09/18 Permalink
ooooh, Scomo (c***) is launching enquiry into old peoples homes.
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE (hey infi). |
03:45pm 16/09/18 Permalink
I am fine with it. Always happy to weed out poor performers. I am not worried in the slightest, the commission is welcome for a tour any day to learn what 5 star living is like.
Hopefully it addresses the massive funding cuts imposed over the past 5 years. |
04:10pm 16/09/18 Permalink
Some idiot at work who can't contain them-self when Trump is on ABC News TV at lunch "no longer works here". One of the many allegations provided in statements by colleagues to combat her unlawful dismissal claim was breaching "A-Political Policy".
When TDS (combined with shooting your mouth off) affects your ability to pay your bills. https://www.mklimited.co.uk/images/customer-images/poppers_opt.jpg |
06:20pm 17/09/18 Permalink
“I’ve never bought this idea that the permanent immigration intake is the thing fuelling population growth. Because it’s not borne out in the actual maths,” Mr Morrison said. “When it comes to population growth at the moment, there are 10 extra people that have got on the bus. Just over four of them are temporary migrants. Just under four of them were born here, a natural increase. And only two of them are permanent migrants.” Scott Morrison confirmed complete retard. 6 is a bigger number than 4 you absolute s****tain. |
07:03pm 17/09/18 Permalink
I am fine with it. Always happy to weed out poor performers. I am not worried in the slightest, the commission is welcome for a tour any day to learn what 5 star living is like.is this the case for most of the places and (like with most things) there's just a few bad apples that are f*****g it up for everyone? |
03:08pm 19/09/18 Permalink
is this the case for most of the places and (like with most things) there's just a few bad apples that are f*****g it up for everyone? Yes the media is full of anecdotal stories but the data suggests incident rate is still really quite low. The consequences of even once case of mistreatment is tragic and naturally evoke a strong emotional reaction. As with any form of law enforcement and regulation, there will be bad people who do bad things and this cannot be prevented - it can only be punished. But auditing can detect a) the provider's reporting and corrective actions following bad behaviour and b) ensure facilities are properly resourced and have proper procedures and education. Just as I closely watch the conduct of my childcare provider for my child, families must also closely watch the conduct of aged care providers. But families these days can often see care as a means to spend less time being involved. I hope those the businesses in it for the money and not for the passion of caring for people are removed one way or another. |
01:04pm 20/09/18 Permalink
It's no longer Michelle Guthrie's ABC.
https://www.theneweconomy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Michelle-Guthrie.jpg From various sources... Kevin Rudd ✔ @MrKRudd What on earth is the government’s explanation for Michelle Guthrie’s apparent sacking as head of the ABC. The ABC’s future is owned by all Australians. The secretary of the ABC section of the Community and Public Sector Union, Sinddy Ealy, said the board had done the right thing. In October last year, Guthrie used a speech at an ABC Friends Public Conference dinner to criticise Marks and other free-to-air television bosses for attempting to deny Australian children "the right to watch Play School and Peppa Pig" through their government lobbying efforts. At the ball she accused Marks of unfairly criticising the ABC. It was, sources say, their first conversation. It turns out Guthrie had good reason to be agitated. The day after the Canberra ball, Milne formally asked her to resign. Sources close to Guthrie say the former Telstra executive nominated her "leadership style" as the main stumbling block. Guthrie responded by saying she didn’t want to resign and would undertake executive coaching to fix the problem. However, it appears Milne had made up his mind. Guthrie was then told she needed to go for three main reasons: low staff morale; her travel to Singapore; and poor feedback from executives working for her. Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺 ✔ @PaulineHansonOz I hear Michelle Guthrie is looking for a new job and the ABC is looking for a new Managing Director. This seems like a great chance to bring in someone who will help the ABC become more fair and balanced. I nominate @PMOnAir. -PH Months out from a federal election and halfway through her five-year tenure, the 52-year-old was sacked by ABC chairman Justin Milne, who said in an interview on ABC’s news channel on Monday that he didn’t want to go into the "ins and outs" of the decision yet questioned her “leadership style” and criticised her political relationships in Canberra. Nor will Guthrie be missed by many ABC staff. Veteran radio broadcaster Phillip Adams brutally dismissed her as a charmless and absent manager who had trashed staff morale and infected the ABC with "managerial nonsense". |
08:32pm 24/09/18 Permalink
The ABC does some stuff well: news and investigative journalism. But their political and social activist bias is pathetic.
|
08:35pm 24/09/18 Permalink
Heh Tom Ballard endorsed the Victorian Socialists.
Because f*****g of course he did. |
08:34pm 25/09/18 Permalink
The ABC does some stuff well: news and investigative journalism. But their political and social activist bias is pathetic.I only read the ABC website so maybe I'm missing some of the so-called bias that is present on TV that some people seem to complain about it. Is there stuff on the website you think they could improve? |
10:43pm 25/09/18 Permalink
Try watching QANDA, Insiders or The Drum sometime.
|
11:01pm 25/09/18 Permalink
To be honest I don't put huge stock in their investigative reporting at the moment.
I watched the Sarah Furgeson 4 corners report into Russian hacking. Utter train wreck is putting it politely. Just putting out there that there has been no investigative reporting into FISA abuse. You could run the argument it's US politics. But then what is the compelling reason to report on Russian Hacking by that standard? |
09:17am 26/09/18 Permalink
Try watching QANDA, Insiders or The Drum sometime. I don't see that as bias, I just see that as what we see everywhere repeating over and over: That smart, educated people more frequently end up coming to the conclusion of left-leaning ideas. Right-leaning arguments tends to be ungrounded, irrational and easy to caricature and ridicule because of flaws that and rejection of facts that so frequently plague policies, often pushing selfish agendas. Unless you want a panel of uneducated or selfish people on Q&A, the simple fact is the arguments are going to regularly go this way with right-leaning guests getting slammed and with egg on their faces. That's not bias, that's just how it is. |
10:41am 26/09/18 Permalink
Tell yourself what you have to Raven.
|
11:47am 26/09/18 Permalink
I notice they never had Lauren Southern or Stefan Molyneux on while they were in Australia, or Nigel Farage. I wonder if they'll have Ann Coulter or Gavin McInnes on to wipe the floor with the pseudo-intellectuals they like to trot out.
|
01:00pm 26/09/18 Permalink
hah, i enjoyed that post very much, because i agree with it!
|
07:00pm 26/09/18 Permalink
What about Emma Alberici's trainwreck tax analysis which confused revenue and taxable income, or Andrew Probyn's unhinged conspiracy theory that has been categorically denied by key participants?
Their investigative journalism has had some shockers in recent times. |
05:30am 27/09/18 Permalink
hah, i enjoyed that post very much, because i agree with it! That kid get back to you about the minimum wage "opportunity". I mean leftwing people being the soul of generosity and all. Their investigative journalism has had some shockers in recent times. Yeah the Alberici debacle is a classic example of bureaucracy at work. You'd think the economics editor would have some economic credentials. She had the role because it's on band X and she had years of service y. |
07:56am 27/09/18 Permalink
What about Emma Alberici's trainwreck tax analysis which confused revenue and taxable income,I didn't see the original story that was taken down, only this one. Did she confuse them or conflate them? I can imagine the latter quite easily, being done to make the point that companies just f*** with their revenue/income fields through accounting magic, with the intent of convincing the audience that we should tax the living s*** out of them even harder. Although I think for me at least it has the opposite effect - furthers my questions about if this is the case, why do we bother with company tax on profit at all edit: also how about the trainwreck that is the current ABC board/leadership shenanigans?! chaos! |
05:19pm 27/09/18 Permalink
No, she fundamentally mistook the two as it was central to her false claim that Australia's largest companies by value hadn't paid tax in 10 years which even ABC internal editorial review judged was wrong and pulled.
Yep, Milne is an idiot. |
05:57pm 27/09/18 Permalink
No, she fundamentally mistook the two as it was central to her false claim that Australia's largest companies by value hadn't paid tax in 10 years which even ABC internal editorial review judged was wrong and pulled.but that claim (companies don't pay [corporate] tax) is still present in the other article I linked above? |
06:08pm 27/09/18 Permalink
I'll see if I can dig up the old one via wayback or something, that article was substantially rewritten iirc.
|
06:26pm 27/09/18 Permalink
The linked article makes it clear they are talking about rolling historical losses forward to offset taxable income. Though it still appears to be confusing revenue with profit.
This article gives a good explanation of the issues with the story. it makes the obvious point that when talking about avoiding tax pick Qantas which is a loss making business is an objectively stupid example Indeed she talks about airlines in general which is a famously low profit Industry. It seems pretty obvious to me she doesn't know what she's talking about. |
10:06pm 27/09/18 Permalink
I'll see if I can dig up the old one via wayback or something, that article was substantially rewritten iirc.no biggy. I'm just curious as I've been thinking about this a lot recently and I'm trying to convince myself that corporations tax makes sense by steel manning arguments for it, but the more I do the more I think it's a dated relic that doesn't take into account modern accounting practices that allow companies to fairly trivially and totally legally manipulate their profits so what is even the point of it? that is why I wonder what the ABC article was about; I assume it's a "f*** these guys for avoiding their corporations tax obligations" when I feel like a better approach might be "f*** corporations tax altogether". then I keep thinking, well you can't just blow it away overnight.. but why not? if we are working under the assumption that the corporations tax game is totally rigged at the pointy end of town (and surely we can all agree that it is, right? even I am doing little things to manipulate my taxable income while contracting), then what purpose is there in gradually phasing it out? can we just burn it down and replace it with (for example) a consumption tax on corporations or a federal payroll tax or increased income tax or something? At the moment corporations tax just feels like more paperwork for small businesses that can't afford accountants or don't understand money (which appears to be almost all of them). I assume someone, somewhere, has the World's Biggest Excel Spreadsheet that models all this stuff. I'd love to see what it looks like when you start messing with these variables. |
09:12am 28/09/18 Permalink
the thing about Company tax is that it accelerates the revenue capturing process for government. In some cases companies can make profits but not declare dividends to their shareholders. They choose to instead retain the profits and reinvest them in the company. This will either result in larger profits later on and thus larger dividends later on or an increasing share price as the capital valuation of the share rises.
This is why the government uses company tax to capture tax on profits generated every year. I can understand the rationale otherwise they will be relying on taxes paid by individuals and super funds from dividends received or capital gains tax on shares sold for a profit. |
09:22am 28/09/18 Permalink
the thing about Company tax is that it accelerates the revenue capturing process for government. In some cases companies can make profits but not declare dividends to their shareholders. They choose to instead retain the profits and reinvest them in the company. This will either result in larger profits later on and thus larger dividends later on or an increasing share price as the capital valuation of the share rises.I can see how it gives the /impression/ of accelerating it but (and I think this was Alberici's point/complaint) when a company can just rejig their finances on an as-needed basis it makes their tax revenue unpredictable at best and unreliable or non-existent at worst. I mean I'm sure their modeling already takes this into account, probably pretty accurately (one would hope). Whereas if it's more linearly related to their revenue in some meaningful way, at least it's predictable (whether or not the tax is paid by the company, or it simply filters down to citizens via income tax, CGT), and - most importantly, I think, in the context of the ABC article and the public view - it is perceived as being fair (it is clear that the general public do not care that corporations tax is paid on profit only and want to see more money flowing out of them /somehow/). This is why the government uses company tax to capture tax on profits generated every year. I can understand the rationale otherwise they will be relying on taxes paid by individuals and super funds from dividends received or capital gains tax on shares sold for a profit.Well I would argue they already do that; individual income tax accounts for the lions share of government revenue. If the company tax is offloaded into the hands of citizens (something which you have argued for!! and I increasingly agree with, but for slightly different reasons) then it simplifies operations for business (one of my primary motivations) and I would imagine increases the predictability of recurring revenue for the government (instead of large random chunks based on whatever the company files in one particular timespan it's coming out of citizens' paycheques regularly as PAYG). |
11:50am 28/09/18 Permalink
Is there any reason whatsoever to assume that taxing revenue would be more predictable than taxing profit? I can't imagine there would be. Alberici makes the claim that QANTAS, as a loss-making business avoids paying tax. That is straightforwardly factually wrong, tax avoidance is dodging paying tax that is rightfully owed. Treasury and the ATO pullled Alberici up on that exact point. you don't "avoid" tax if you don't make profit because you don't have taxable income. The revised article makes it's slightly clearer that its because they are offsetting historical losses. But I'm waiting(/fully expecting never to hear) to hear a plausible explanation of what's wrong with that.
And by the stats you just posted up, the easily avoidable tax which evil companies never pay is still by a long way the second biggest source of revenue. So people aren't avoiding it that much. People are moving revenue around at the moment because (entirely sensibly) only profit is taxed. You're kidding yourself if you think tricks can't be played with revenue streams. |
01:35pm 28/09/18 Permalink
I'll try make sure i respond more fulsomely next week trog but worth considering that companies don't pay tax, people do. What that means is company tax incidence ultimately falls necessarily on these groups: equity, employees and customers. There's no free lunch in taxing corporations (not to say you shouldn't tax corporations, only to say do it eyes wide open).
tax incidence means those that bear the economic burden of a tax are not necessarily those who are legally obligated to pay it. have a great long weekend all. |
09:31pm 28/09/18 Permalink
(and I think this was Alberici's point/complaint) Alberici's crude and ignorant point was that she made reference to companies with high revenues who did not pay tax. Many of the companies she referred to were Australian based. Qantas was a prime example and she alleged that they were skimping on their national duty to pay tax because they had not made a profit in the last financial year. Alberici she did not seem to understand the substantial losses carried forward by Qantas from prior years where they were engaged in mass industrial disputation. Once she made this error I completely switched off from the article because it demonstrated she had economically illiterate. It is also amazing that with the vast resources of the ABC a person of that intellect is all they can scrape together for the position of Economics Editor. Judith Sloan, Robert Gottliebson and Alan Kohler are all far better economics journalists. Whereas if it's more linearly related to their revenue in some meaningful way, at least it's predictable (whether or not the tax is paid by the company, or it simply filters down to citizens via income tax, CGT), and - most importantly, I think, in the context of the ABC article and the public view - it is perceived as being fair (it is clear that the general public do not care that corporations tax is paid on profit only and want to see more money flowing out of them /somehow/). Companies are not a magic pudding that can be taxed without consequence. If companies perceive they are being taxed unfairly they close down and move their operations elsewhere (or just close down, and the operators go back to being an employee for someone else, or work in the black economy). I am a supporter of multinational companies paying their fair share of tax and I do agree that tax laws need to be amended so that confected tax avoidance arrangements are not allowed (the two main strategies are transfer pricing and thin capitalisation - and even our great Australian BHP has been accused of transfer pricing). For multinational companies who simply use Australia as a retail outlet I would be very supportive of even introducing a deemed profit margin on their retail turnover. It is not good enough for multinationals to be recording zero Australian profit year after year when we know they are conducting economic activity in Australia. I don't want to underplay the scale of activity and jobs they contribute but when using Australian infrastructure and our safe rule of law and national security, a price must be paid for that. It can be argued they are paying payroll tax and potentially other indirect taxes but without some basic withholding tax in Australia, all profits are essentially of offshored to Ireland, Holland or some other tax shelter. I do not think these "deeming" rules however should apply to Australian domestic companies aside from the obvious prohibition of tax avoidance arrangements. Well I would argue they already do that; individual income tax accounts for the lions share of government revenue. If the company tax is offloaded into the hands of citizens (something which you have argued for!! and I increasingly agree with, but for slightly different reasons) then it simplifies operations for business (one of my primary motivations) and I would imagine increases the predictability of recurring revenue for the government Placing my Treasury Department hat on for a minute, company tax presently contributes about $83 billion in budget revenue. If hypothetically company tax was reduced to zero then that profit would flow to the shareholders, some of whom are foreign. Presently foreign withholding tax (the default tax rate for dividends taken offshore, where the taxpayer chooses not to lodge a tax return) is 10% so the tax take for foreign shareholders would be more than halved. Secondly as I alluded to above, eradicating company tax would result in the retention of more profits and lower dividend distributions. This in turn boosts the company's balance sheet and in turn its share price, thus allowing shareholders to grow their own personal wealth without paying any tax on that growth from year to year. The only time this net growth in wealth would attract tax is on disposal of the shares by capital gains tax which presently attracts a 50% discount for assets owned for more than one year. It would create a whole new negative gearing style strategy where companies make decisions based on how they can boost their net equity and reduce shareholder dividends - and this would be bad for retirees who rely on that dividend income. It is a delicate balance between retaining revenue which is essential to the federal budget and stimulating economic investment with a competitive tax rate. |
10:34am 29/09/18 Permalink
That is straightforwardly factually wrong, tax avoidance is dodging paying tax that is rightfully owed. You don't seem to understand the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Alberici makes the claim that QANTAS, as a loss-making business avoids paying tax. And it's true, and is probably true for most companies. The statement "avoids paying tax" doesn't imply they avoid paying ANY or ALL tax, it implies they avoid paying SOME tax, and would be unlikely to be untrue. |
11:01am 01/10/18 Permalink
From what I hear, businesses tend to say that Australia is a b**** of a place to operated in because company taxes and other operating costs are relatively high.
If you don't like these companies, stop buying their stuff. |
01:05pm 01/10/18 Permalink
You don't seem to understand the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. ATO agrees with me chum. Tax minimisation is what you think I'm talking about. |
03:08pm 01/10/18 Permalink
No, they really don't - and though you've provided no evidence to support that claim whatsoever, I'm sure you'll continue to believe whatever you want. Of course, once again, you can't post a single response without resorting to name-calling.
It really is time you were permanently banned from here. |
04:53pm 01/10/18 Permalink
Yes they do.
here is their discussion of tax avoidance. Claiming past losses is absolutely not a contrived scheme to avoid paying tax. It is a perfectly legal and most importantly intended result of the tax system. This statement was released right after the article. Tax evasion is criminal tax avoidance may or may not be. Tax avoidance can be perfectly legal but still an obvious unintended outcome of the legislation. I understand the concept very well because I've been formally educated in tax law. I'm sorry about being snarky (but quietly note your last substantive post). But the plain fact is she wrongly described the tax system's operation on Qantas and the article was amended to fix it. Now you could have a debate about rolling historical losses forward but the fact is the impact of a loss on a company probably won't fall into neat tax periods, so I struggle to see the issue. |
05:21pm 01/10/18 Permalink
juice media from Melbourne do really fine work. remember when the crazy government wanted to ban satire? Hilarious
|
04:40pm 04/10/18 Permalink
why do those ads always look lip synched
|
09:44pm 04/10/18 Permalink
Hello, world
Working backwards from the previous thread over just the last three pages, the following are all examples of what should be bannable offenses irrespective of the poster, the criteria being posts that attack the poster not the argument or the idea: http://qgl.ausforums.com/index.php/439207/?agn=thread&id=3488653&startid=9960#9970 Just returning to this lovely thread and had a quick gander at these, glad to see the current discourse is at the same spot it's always been. I wonder if phooks will be in here soon to detail the very strong link between cruelty to animals and psychopathy. Probably not the resistance ends are justified because the end of the world is here with Nazis. Yeah I mean sure it's part of the diagnostic criteria for sociopathy/conduct disorder and pretty weird tactic, but this is a specific behaviour to be taken into consideration both for whoever the person/s is, what they did to the animal/s specifically, etc. Unlike patterns of behaviour over tiem lolz gotem but no worries soon jordan peterson sam harris and alex jones will redpill the deep state, all those PC race-mixing rubble-rousers in black lives matter, feminism, antifa, decolonisation, menslib etc will be DEALT WITH |
09:45pm 06/10/18 Permalink
oh and our doctors are still trying to do stuff with our offshore child torture camps. and since "stopping the boats" we have set a great example in violating international laws and encouraging our regional neighbours to do the same actually increasing refugee problems and working against our own regional peace and security yaaaaay
too bad all those illegals are from s***hole countries and not hot au pairs or white SA farmerz amirite hahah ha so sad there are no other options |
01:29am 07/10/18 Permalink
Top 10 Tips for Staying Safe from false rape accusations: |
01:50am 07/10/18 Permalink
The strategic costs of off shore detention include Australia not getting a set on the UN human rights council.
Good to see save the children are focused with laser beam precision on the important stuff. Why on earth would Australia want to sit on a human rights council headed by Saudi Arabia? We could sit around condemning Israel all day I guess. And omg it reduces incentive to join the refugee convention. What Indonesia were just about sign but saw manus island and decided not to join up? Yeah ok. Makes sense of you ignore 40 years of Indonesian policy in the area. It's been a while phooks. Welcome back glad to see you were drinking on a Saturday night. A man should blow off steam. When I say man of course I mean self identified non toxic masculized hetero non toxic whiteness shouldn't be reinforced in the ultimately performative exercise of non labour fully cognizant of the variable ethnographies essentially obliberated by competing epistemologies. |
09:31am 07/10/18 Permalink
thankfully you qualified that male designation. but you did not preface the use of the word with a trigger warning.
|
03:35pm 07/10/18 Permalink
I offer a thousand prayers for your speedy recovery. I will respect your privacy in this difficult time.
|
03:40pm 07/10/18 Permalink
it's ok i will be self-caring in my rainbow cry closet.
|
03:43pm 07/10/18 Permalink
i'd rather deal with brown ppl than saffas tbh
|
06:18pm 08/10/18 Permalink
10:05pm 09/10/18 Permalink
02:22pm 10/10/18 Permalink
We can start by auditing this text
|
05:47pm 10/10/18 Permalink
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6259015/I #istandwithscotty We should all be free to enjoy breakfast beers without it being reported on. |
07:00pm 10/10/18 Permalink
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-10/nsw-premier- The New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian says she wants immigration to the state halved, warning her Government cannot keep up with the infrastructure demands. These days, it's PC to say this as even the immigrants from overpopulated 3rd word s*** hole countries are complaining about the lack of infrastructure. 10 years ago it was called racist. Hard to say it's racist when people of all races are asking to improve infrastructure. Infrastructure here is now playing a huge catch up game. Instead of improving important infrastructure, I remember a government spending epic amounts on building a desalination plant (that does not work) and giving schools a new COLA or music hall, while the maintenance of existing school assets were well known to be behind. Handing out flat rate $900 to most tax payers.. all under the guise of "saving us from the GFC" ... hahaha what a crock of BS... selling minerals to China saved us from the GFC. I saw a greens poster today "Vote Greens to stop puppy farms". People will do that, they will vote greens to stop puppy farms. With little regard to our infrastructure or immigration rates. Puppy farms!! They must stop!! Less puppies, more humans is what we need!!! Less puppies, more humans is what we need!!! Less puppies, more humans is what we need!!! Take to the streets. We need less puppies and more immigrants. |
07:26pm 10/10/18 Permalink
ABC Fact check
D*** smith comes out with an interview about slowing immigration. ABC fact check result? http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/10360438-16x9-220x124.jpgIncorrect. ABC then have a wall of text explaining D***'s view is pretty much correct however, he said "highest" but we are "3rd" highest, so D*** is incorrect!!! Average person hears D*** is going to carry on about too much immigration in some ABC TV interview, skims over the concluding "incorrect" graphic on ABC front page, and moves on. |
03:56pm 11/10/18 Permalink
#istandwithscotty despite being awesome and having brekky beers, hes still a complete c*** and a disgrace. |
04:17pm 11/10/18 Permalink
Happy for them to use my taxes to fly them back to their home country. Happy for it to be premium economy even.
|
05:44pm 11/10/18 Permalink
It's not the kids I have a problem with. It's the fact that we have to house them and bring their criminal parents and their criminal parent's second cousin 3 times removed's dogs as well. That's the left though. Simplify to the absurd and make it about kids when the issue is several thousand times more complex and consequential.
|
12:21pm 12/10/18 Permalink
100,000
I'm getting Uber's so quick these days. |
11:51pm 13/10/18 Permalink
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-14/nsw-young-na lol, these guys should have realised you're supposed to hide your love for a white ethno state. They could have flown under the radar that way. |
02:49pm 14/10/18 Permalink
Geez itd be great if all parties could say radical ideology has no place in their forum.
|
04:33pm 14/10/18 Permalink
I'll try make sure i respond more fulsomely next week trog but worth considering that companies don't pay tax, people do. What that means is company tax incidence ultimately falls necessarily on these groups: equity, employees and customers. There's no free lunch in taxing corporations (not to say you shouldn't tax corporations, only to say do it eyes wide open).Belated reply, sorry. I actually read your reply with some confusion because I thought I'd addressed that issue, but when I re-read what I wrote, I most obviously didn't. I think I had looked up some of infi's previous posts on the topic where IIRC he basically said the same thing and explained why company tax should be reduced (i.e., specifically because it's people that pay it anyway). I found that a compelling argument and wanted to cite it but I guess I completely forgot to write it or accidentally deleted the paragraph?! But, in a nutshell, yes. I guess I see company tax as an abstraction layer that we put on top of the people-taxing system, like you say next: tax incidence means those that bear the economic burden of a tax are not necessarily those who are legally obligated to pay it.The company tax seems to be a way for us to abstract away the complexity of figuring out which of those stakeholders (equity, employees and customers - although I think I would also add in executives, as they are kinda in a class of their own in large corps) should bear this burden and in what proportion - and then the actual mechanics of doing so (dealing with collecting the money, corrections when updates are made to corporate filings, etc. I think that complexity can largely be dealt with now with the automation tools we have available, although centralising the risk of errors is hard to pass up on. My finances are way more complicated than the average citizen but pale in comparison to that of a large corporation; I know what a pain in the ass it is to have to deal with corrections when an upstream entity has to file amendments and the thought of inflicting that on citizens is probably enough of a reason alone to have a corp tax. I still think it would be an interesting modelling exercise to run it through the Giant Spreadsheet of Doom to see what impact it would have on total revenues, possibly with some minor tweaks to the income tax brackets. |
05:24pm 14/10/18 Permalink
lol, these guys should have realised you're supposed to hide your love for a white ethno state. much more interesting in the current zeitgeist than company tax is how little of mein kampf you'd have to change to slip past someone's ideological blinkers. Turns out you can basically do a find replace of chapter 12 of Adolf Hitler's autobiography from "international Jewry" to "patriarchy" and you'll do just fine. The ABC in-depth coverage is minutes away. We can be assured of that. they've got their best dragonkin on the case. They'll uncover the enemy in our midst. Trust no-one. I guess we've finally found some common ground redhat. if you keep your longing for a white ethnostate sufficiently coded, the sky's the limit. plus morning browns is something more people should get behind. but seriously, its funny how the only people who hear the dog whistle politics are the people who denounce dog whistle politics. |
06:44pm 14/10/18 Permalink
purveyors of the best identity politics.
|
10:30am 15/10/18 Permalink
Literally dog whistle politics in the senate today. Maybe that ethno state isn't too far off.
|
05:59pm 15/10/18 Permalink
but seriously, its funny how the only people who hear the dog whistle politics are the people who denounce dog whistle politics. the fellows over at 4chan really do produce fine work. riddle me this. if the metaphor is that racists speak in a tone that only racists can hear, how can you hear it? |
07:15pm 15/10/18 Permalink
Riddle me this. If ABC News posts an Opinion piece and a Story regarding extreme right trying to infiltrate a right wing political party, when will they balance things up by an Opinion piece and a Story about extreme lefts trying to infiltrate a left wing political party?
Are The Australian Greens Party really Communists? Those are just a few examples of the crossover between these three political movements. The only real difference between the Greens policies and those of the CPA and the Socialist alliance are that the latter two are open and honest about their Marxist doctrine but the Greens aren’t. The Greens try to cloud their hard-Left Marxist ideology with a thin veneer of Green “environmentalism”.https://www.minds.com/blog/view/809618315281121280 or the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEXLZjMuHI0 |
08:33pm 15/10/18 Permalink
Because it's a statement used by white supremacists constantly, you seem smart I'm sure you can figure it out. Wait, this needs a hashtag, #notallwhitesupremacists? Riddle me this. If ABC News posts an Opinion piece and a Story regarding extreme right trying to infiltrate a right wing political party, when will they balance things up by an Opinion piece and a Story about extreme lefts trying to infiltrate a left wing political party? Are you comparing nazis with socialists? ffs |
08:57pm 15/10/18 Permalink
How do you know that? How do you know what white supremists talk about?
My understanding of the term is that is a troll designed to elicit precisely this: Literally dog whistle politics in the senate today. Maybe that ethno state isn't too far off. Looks like 4chan is kicking goals with both feet to me Next you'll be telling me the ok symbol is a whitepower signal. The fact that the greens et al reliably respond to this kind of s*** demonstrates its worth. |
09:08pm 15/10/18 Permalink
Not sure what your argument is other than you like arguing.
Funny that you love defending nazis though. |
09:29pm 15/10/18 Permalink
I'm just saying for someone who definitely isn't a white supremacist you sure seem down with the slang.
Like a lot of people worried about dog whistles only racists can hear. Funny that you love defending nazis though. Bless your heart. Go find a single sentence in which I've "defended Nazis". |
10:11pm 15/10/18 Permalink
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/coalition- Litterally in the MSM dude. Geez itd be great if all parties could say radical ideology has no place in their forum. Defending, diversion, whatever. |
10:31pm 15/10/18 Permalink
Litterally in the MSM dude. Yeah so a greens senator saying something is white supremacism is literally my point. They need something to distract from how rapey their branch leaders are. Hey lot of male feminists in the greens. Defending, diversion, whatever. Yeah so the story was about how Nazis didn't get into the national party. So thank you for bringing to our attention that the nationals aren't Nazis. Not quite defending Nazis to acknowledge the bleeding obvious. But you get out there and find the Nazis under the bed mate. |
06:45am 16/10/18 Permalink
if you keep that up, you will break his algorithm.
|
09:49am 16/10/18 Permalink
Am I missing something here or does redhat not know Nazi is short for national socialists? |
01:07pm 16/10/18 Permalink
Are you comparing nazis with socialists? ffs I didn't say "nazis". I said "extreme left" and "extreme right". Point being, we can assume some with a biased view will regard "extreme right" as criminal and immoral behaviour, and "extreme left" as law abiding moral behaviour. The more shepherding provided to the flock from sources like ABC the more the flock are likely to bleat this mantra. Conflicting with the flock, I believe there is criminal and immoral behaviour at both ends of the political spectrum. I can understand this may be hard to digest, with the bias and lack of objectivity and all. I'd like to see the ABC provide the same level of coverage for the criminal and immoral behaviour from the "extreme left" as they provide regarding the "extreme right". ABC has a legal obligation to provide unbiased coverage. They are expected to provide coverage for all Australians, not tailor coverage to market towards their most supporting readers (the left). Guardian (being the most left wing major news publisher) who operate "independently" is well within their rights to tailor coverage to market towards their most supporting readers. To their socialist and communist comrades. ABC is not. I read lots of local news sources. The cross linking and referencing between ABC and the Guardian is another flag for concern in regards to how the tax funded ABC conducts itself. Here, have some art. https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/10382990-16x9-940x529.jpg |
06:43pm 16/10/18 Permalink
Am I missing something here or does redhat not know Nazi is short for national socialists?Yes, but that's a bit like saying that North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Ostensibly that's the full name; in practice it really isn't. |
11:43pm 16/10/18 Permalink
Yeah but the trouble with that argument is that north korea is socialist. But every socialist will swear black and blue it isn't true socialism.
But even saying the Nazis werent socialists flirts with the true socialism has never been tried trope. Until I hear a a refutation of Hayek central point in the road to serfdom, they count as socialists in my book. I read a some history buffs over at the ABC claim they weren't socialist because wait for it. They killed trade unionists. Trouble with that argument. So did Stalin. So did Mao. And our old mate Kim and Pol pot. And Castro. Well you get the picture. If you're going to hang your hat on Nazis killed left wing activists you'd need some plausible argument as to why literally every other socialist regime did too. The typical move is to say oh but they weren't really real socialism. |
07:56am 17/10/18 Permalink
Yes, but that's a bit like saying that North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Ostensibly that's the full name; in practice it really isn't. Do you find it curious that it's only totalitarian states that put "Democratic" in their name? |
09:57am 17/10/18 Permalink
my legal weed farm thanks them
Do you find it curious that it's only totalitarian states that put "Democratic" in their name? not so much curious as ironic. |
08:09pm 17/10/18 Permalink
strange occurance in qld politics yesterday. both sides got a decision right (to legalise abortion). was worried coz some out of touch old people were allowed airtime to voice their dangerous sky daddy views, but thankfully the right decision was made.
|
06:34am 18/10/18 Permalink
i don't subscribe to skydaddy views but i am replused by the idea of forcibly removing a baby from the womb and chopping it up. life is a precious miracle. try watching an abortion sometime.
|
09:45am 18/10/18 Permalink
Seems like a sensible reform to me. I doubt many women will be using a 22 week abortion as a contraception substitute, and I find it less likely again someone other than the people directly involved will be best positioned to judge the merits of taking the pregnancy to term.
It's no doubt a vexed issue, but access to safe legal abortions seems like a positive thing to me. |
12:22pm 18/10/18 Permalink
Yer the actual process is a bit icky, but nowhere near as icky as having a rape baby or having to raise a potato
|
01:07pm 18/10/18 Permalink
I was actually worried it wouldnt get up at all.
|
02:26pm 18/10/18 Permalink
the question now is: how many LNP MPs will lose their preselection?
|
02:31pm 18/10/18 Permalink
Mores costs to the tax payer: Michelle Guthrie sues ABC over dismissal. Guthrieââ‚à Big news on Guardian. Bigger than: "Queensland man charged with raping young English woman on working holiday" "Scott Morrison accuses Labor of acting in 'antisemitic way'" "Prince Harry and Meghan given royal treatment in Melbourne" Sydney Morning Herald: Missing from front page. The Age. Which is from polling found to be more trusted than the ABC. It's bottom right. You have to scroll down to see it. ABC. It's 2nd headlining story. This is all at peak social media time (Around 5:30 pm). They will likely push it down with some news flashes and soft news at about 6:30 or 7:00 pm like regularly. Or they will "Update" it (very loose term), and pin it up there in opening view as a testimony to their commitment to the article. and on ABC, if it's a secret leaked document. Why are they so quick to release it: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-18/asio-jerusa Fits with their agenda? Some things are secret for reasons. There will be increased threat here do doubt should this go ahead. The ABC leaks it because it suits their political bias. |
05:30pm 18/10/18 Permalink
Only won 50-41 which seems kinda closer than it should have been I figured a good number of LNP would come across and support it - but only three? the question now is: how many LNP MPs will lose their preselection? three |
07:21pm 18/10/18 Permalink
Haven't been on since the dinosaurs died out, however, there still seems to be some dinosaurs left in Qld.
last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 20:14:54 18/Oct/18 |
08:13pm 18/10/18 Permalink
The top reason for abortion is that baby is unaffordable or "not ready for responsibility". Say what you want about when life begins but the only logically consistent position is that it begins at conception and so that justification to me is woefully inadequate.
|
02:05pm 19/10/18 Permalink
There are more controls in place to allow people to drive a registered car on a public road, than there are in regards to who is suitable to breed. For example, if you are 2nd or 3rd generation long term welfare hack, or a hardened criminal, should you be allowed to breed? Why should the law abiding contributors fund the existence of parasites? I believe parasites breeds at a higher rate.
OR Lets try something simple? Is supporting exponential human population growth a good thing? |
05:43pm 19/10/18 Permalink
cool, let's have this debate
the only logically consistent position is that it begins at conception it's more logically consistent that life began about a billion years ago and it's a continuous process (hat tip George Carlin) if you mean "a" life, then conception still isn't a great candidate - a better one would be the moment the respective egg and sperm came (heh) into being... but then where did they come from? |
08:22pm 19/10/18 Permalink
if you mean "a" life, then conception still isn't a great candidate - a better one would be the moment the respective egg and sperm came (heh) into being... but then where did they come from? Its airtight reasoning. I personally think the toast I had this morning really came into existence when the copper ore in the wiring of the toaster was mined in Chile. |
11:55am 20/10/18 Permalink
^ this is also logically consistent
|
12:20pm 20/10/18 Permalink
Sorry I meant to say the toast came into existence when electromagnetism did. My toast is about 14 billion years old. Everything that may or may not have happened in between is irrelevant because this essential element of my toast is this old.
|
01:33pm 20/10/18 Permalink
Haha lnp is now looking to not reselect the 3 lnp politicians who crossed floor for "conscience" vote.
|
03:30pm 20/10/18 Permalink
Bloody oath. They granted themselves a conscience vote. The party didn't.
|
03:36pm 20/10/18 Permalink
suits me them remaining out of power.
|
04:11pm 20/10/18 Permalink
Anyone else enjoying the demise of the liberals in wentworth? mmmmmmmmmmmm
Yeah but the trouble with that argument is that north korea is socialist. But every socialist will swear black and blue it isn't true socialism. But even saying the Nazis werent socialists flirts with the true socialism has never been tried trope. Until I hear a a refutation of Hayek central point in the road to serfdom, they count as socialists in my book. I read a some history buffs over at the ABC claim they weren't socialist because wait for it. They killed trade unionists. Trouble with that argument. So did Stalin. So did Mao. And our old mate Kim and Pol pot. And Castro. Well you get the picture. If you're going to hang your hat on Nazis killed left wing activists you'd need some plausible argument as to why literally every other socialist regime did too. The typical move is to say oh but they weren't really real socialism. This from Mr "The Chinese Communist Party are not really Communists" f*****g lol. |
05:29pm 20/10/18 Permalink
I had to vote today in Wentworth, was a right inconvenience tbh.
Pleasantly surprised to see an LDP candidate on the ticket. Who knows what will happen. Interesting times. Edit: as a guy who is pretty overconfident generally in life I've never understood how people are so sure on their stance on abortion. It's such a fkn hard issue and both sides have legit arguments. This isn't a pox on both their houses copout it's just the argument just goes to a fundamental question of life and our existence. What I'm trying to say is regardless of your opinion on the issue if you can't at least understand where the other side is coming from then I feel bad for you as a human. |
06:56pm 20/10/18 Permalink
Sorry I meant to say the toast came into existence when electromagnetism did. My toast is about 14 billion years old. Everything that may or may not have happened in between is irrelevant because this essential element of my toast is this old. this is the most logically consistent position yet |
07:17pm 20/10/18 Permalink
It’s the biggest swing in election history against a sitting government. LNP massively on the nose. How do you lose this safe a seat. |
08:12pm 20/10/18 Permalink
It all started with allowing Turnbull to run as a Liberal.
|
08:29pm 20/10/18 Permalink
LNP massively on the nose. How do you lose this safe a seat. 117 years. It all started with allowing Turnbull to run as a Liberal. way too progressive and forward thinking for a liberal. |
09:34pm 20/10/18 Permalink
way too progressive and forward thinking for a liberal. watered down the RET three times. what leadership. mr republic never even pursued a republic. malcolm stood for malcolm. just like rudd. removing the cancer turnbull is necessary and bloody. opposition will do them good. |
09:41pm 20/10/18 Permalink
11:54am 21/10/18 Permalink
watered down the RET three times. what leadership. mr republic never even pursued a republic. malcolm stood for malcolm. just like rudd. removing the cancer turnbull is necessary and bloody. opposition will do them good.It seems like the broader problem is the coalition is at war with itself. Turnbull was just the latest leader who proved unable to reconcile two sides. I don't think Morrison will be able to either, but it seems unlikely at this point that they'll get voted back in next election. |
12:23pm 21/10/18 Permalink
As tempting as it is to dive into the abortion issue (again? for the nth time? can't remember), I was thinking about the three Liberals that crossed the streams to help it get through.
Is there such a thing as a website that breaks down MP-specific campaign promises/policy points and tracks it against what they actually vote for? I would be very interested in something like this. |
12:31pm 21/10/18 Permalink
as a guy who is pretty overconfident generally in life I've never understood how people are so sure on their stance on abortion. Because it's easier to scream baby murderer/misogyny cum supporter of coat hanger abortions for teen rape victims than it is to acknowledge it's a vexed issue with no clear answers. |
01:26pm 21/10/18 Permalink
Had a peek at the new Wentworth elect's website. Policies seem pretty solid. Looks like she'll mostly vote with Labor/Greens which is good.
|
03:04pm 21/10/18 Permalink
Bloody oath. They granted themselves a conscience vote. The party didn't. Is that true? Everything I have read has said otherwise; https://www.sbs.com.au/news/lnp-get-conscience-vot |
10:11am 22/10/18 Permalink
The parliamentary wing so separate from the organisational wing. It just so happens that the organisational wing controls preselections
|
10:18am 22/10/18 Permalink
Good result for Wentworth. It's some of the most expensive real estate in the nation. They can house the Naruvians there. I hope they sell off their yatchs, car collections and empty holiday houses around the world in an effort to curb climate change. The ones with lawns who voted for the left wing independent could fit tents of migrants offering work at discount rates to help keep low wages down. The mansions could adopt whole Naruvian families. The try-hard lefty artsy types renting in apartments there could sleep a Naruvian or two on their lounge while complaining "It's so hard to get into the housing market. Oh no I need to live in this suburb, I can't move out there! are you crazy?"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Wentworth_electoral_division.png |
11:31am 22/10/18 Permalink
The parliamentary wing so separate from the organisational wing. It just so happens that the organisational wing controls preselections Ahh, the no true Scottsman defence. Got it. |
06:23pm 22/10/18 Permalink
No that is actually how politics works. Can't have politicians pre-selecting themselves, then we would never get rid of them!
|
06:33pm 22/10/18 Permalink
Yeah you would, it's called an Election.
|
10:12pm 23/10/18 Permalink
Yeah you would, it's called an Election. Do you have any idea how a politician becomes a party candidate? The party controls that - not the parliament. Unless a politician is independent they owe their entire political existence to their party. So when they thumb their nose at their party's rank and file policies, there will be consequences. |
10:40pm 23/10/18 Permalink
Seeing left wing voters angry at libs cause of NBN. Do they not realise that city folk are heavily subsidising the roll out into unsustainable (financially) regional towns? That ideology was dreamt up by Labor. Once that policy was dreamt up it's politically difficult to say "Well if you basket reweaves in Northern Rivers NSW want faster internet you will need to find the money yourselves".
User Pay is a right wing philosophy. Making high income earners pay for welfare hack towns to have faster internet is a socialist ideal. I remember 20 years ago a Greens voter (from here) explaining to me how Sydney traffic is crap, Canberra is SO much better, and in Darwin if a couple of cars queue they upgrade a road. That's because the people in the big city congestion (Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane) are paying for Darwin's infrastructure. If Govt funded (defence) etc did not exist in Darwin the city would be a a little unsustainable (financially) village. If govt was not based in Canberra (half way point chosen between Sydney and Melbourne) they would probably have dirt roads instead of the finest road system in the country. Further evidence we are a "socialist democracy" with excessive government. |
12:10pm 26/10/18 Permalink
How many here are women?
How many here are as good looking as me in a cowboy hat? |
11:56pm 26/10/18 Permalink
Hahahahaha, still a post limit...after how many years since even being anywhere near here...lol. I'm honoured. Glad I retired this year after 4 decades of punching the clock. Don't need to worry as much about infi still being a d***. |
12:06am 27/10/18 Permalink
How many here are as good looking as me in a cowboy hat? LOL Grats on retirement though, that's awesome. |
08:14am 27/10/18 Permalink
LNP massively on the nose. How do you lose this safe a seat.Remember the massive landslide victory in QLD not long ago? Fair few safe seats went in that one too and for far less egregious reasons I'd say. |
06:06pm 28/10/18 Permalink
I remember 20 years ago a Greens voter (from here) explaining to me how Sydney traffic is crap, Canberra is SO much better, and in Darwin if a couple of cars queue they upgrade a road. That's because the people in the big city congestion (Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane) are paying for Darwin's infrastructure. If Govt funded (defence) etc did not exist in Darwin the city would be a a little unsustainable (financially) village. If govt was not based in Canberra (half way point chosen between Sydney and Melbourne) they would probably have dirt roads instead of the finest road system in the country. Ha someone does not quite understand how funding is managed for road projects. The only ones directly funded federally are national high network projects and anything that went through Infrastructure Australia and was endorsed and prioritised (or it was a pork barreling election commitment). |
06:11pm 28/10/18 Permalink
Oh and because I can't edit my previous post now (sadly) I'm adding another one.
The reason Canberra traffic is so good is because it was a genuinely master planned city selected as a greenfield site midway between Sydney and Melbourne to become our capital. All the really busy and congested cities grew organically without planning until post the horse and buggy era. Where as Canberra was planned from the get go, where to put shops, where to put residential, how to promote people living near employment etc. That and it has around 1/10th the population of Sydney. |
06:25pm 28/10/18 Permalink
Oh and because I can't edit my previous post now (sadly) I'm adding another one. so you mean they intentionally designed a sterile city? could be just all the public servants. |
06:57pm 28/10/18 Permalink
07:02pm 28/10/18 Permalink
Thanks taggs. It feels great. Very liberating.
|
11:04pm 29/10/18 Permalink
Some more 'balanced' news from ABC today These people are not white supremacists, they're Western supremacists, they believe in the great values that built the Western world … Free speech is the cornerstone of Western civilisation. This is an effective strategy to appear non-racist while also propagating the myth that Western civilisation is under attack through migration. It's western 'culture', not 'civilisation'. Shadow Immigration Minister Shayne Neumann has called for McInnes' visa to be denied on grounds he poses a "significant risk" to Australia. Greens and Labor opposing free speech. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-30/gavin-mcinn You only have the watch a few hours of ABC TV to see how much air time they give to the far-left. |
09:30pm 30/10/18 Permalink
yes less free speech for that guy please
|
01:44am 31/10/18 Permalink
Oh and because I can't edit my previous post now (sadly) I'm adding another one.The planning I'm sure helped but the population has got to be the biggest factor. I only spent time in Canberra for the first time ever a couple months back and actually really enjoyed it; the way the city is laid out is really nice and it's a really pretty environment. But like most modern cities you're f***ed without a car (they sure missed a trick to build rail between all the city "nodes" during the so-called planning phase). And once the population hits some critical mass people will be simply stuck in traffic like they are everywhere else. I'm not sure what that point is but there's obviously both a lot of physical room for growth there and still a long long way to go before it turns into a "big" city. I don't know why more people don't want to live in Canberra; it's really nice, for now. Maybe we just hate our politicians that much we literally cannot stand being that close to them. |
04:30am 31/10/18 Permalink
You can ride a pushbike pretty easily around Canberra. The point is that it's not a user-pay-system building that city. When you go there, you can basically think.. wow, we (people who do not live there and our parents etc) paid for most of this s*** and we don't live here. It's built around politics and public servants. They have it pretty good there, but its located in a cool dry s*** climate.
Not long ago the Airport was upgraded. Some bridges and a road turned into a major freeway that heads around the east side of it. I'm pretty sure there are no tolls on that new road. Whats it called Majura Highway or something. Before it gets too busy they upgrade things. There is space available. It's a tax funded mecca of public service and supporting industries. The major cities funding this opulence are choking on the 100,000 a year immigrants. 2010 Article: There are many descriptions that could be applied to the Greens, but none seems more accurate than Jack Mundey’s own description of “ecological Marxism”. This description sums up the two core beliefs of the Greens. First, the environment or the ecology is to be placed before all else. This is spelt out in the first principle in the Greens Global Charter: “We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.” [vi] Secondly, the Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism when applied as a political movement. New South Wales senator-elect, Lee Rhiannon, is a former member of the Moscow-aligned Socialist Party of Australia. Her parents were prominent members of the Communist Party. Member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, was a radical student activist. He once attacked the Greens as a “bourgeois” party. Writing on a Marxist website in the 1990s, Mr Bandt attacked capitalism, arguing that ideological purity was paramount. It is clear from his 1995 comments - “Communists can’t fetishise alternative political parties, but should always make some kind of materially based assessment about the effectiveness of any given strategy come election time” - that Bandt views the Greens as a vehicle for his ideological pursuits. |
09:45pm 31/10/18 Permalink
The planning I'm sure helped but the population has got to be the biggest factor. I only spent time in Canberra for the first time ever a couple months back and actually really enjoyed it; the way the city is laid out is really nice and it's a really pretty environment. Yeah I don't know why rail didn't get more of a look in when the city was planned. Especially since it was all in the early 1900's when Trams were introduced in Brisbane in 1897. I know they've looked at light rail in the last few years though. You'll notice many roads have nice wide medians. Those will be set up for additional lanes in the future without need for kerbside property resumption. So it can handle traffic growth pretty well. |
10:07pm 31/10/18 Permalink
Yeah I don't know why rail didn't get more of a look in when the city was planned. Especially since it was all in the early 1900's when Trams were introduced in Brisbane in 1897. I know they've looked at light rail in the last few years though. You'll notice many roads have nice wide medians. Those will be set up for additional lanes in the future without need for kerbside property resumption. So it can handle traffic growth pretty well.yeh there is tons of room. but adding new lanes only works up until the point that it doesn't :D I'd much rather seem them use that extra space for light rail now. Canberra seems like the last big city in Australia where they could still fairly easily build in a rail system (in fact now that I think about it, when I was there recently there was a lot of work happening on one of the highways near where I was staying; the people I was with mentioned they were actually doing this?! so maybe it's all under control and that is literally what they are doing right now). |
05:04am 01/11/18 Permalink
Canberra has busses, cycle-ways, and roads that outshine all (?) of the other large cities that are funding it's existence. I have visited detention centres in Australia, they are not much better than Nauru Unfortunately, these children will likely be placed in detention here, in Australia, where conditions are much the same.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/01/i-have-visited-detention-centres-in-australia-they-are-not-much-better-than-nauru Umm that's because the conditions are not that bad. Some detention centres have about 4 different sections with varying levels of security. Families are typically housed in the lowest security levels. The lowest is actual housing near the centre where they are free to come and go. If a detainee is in a higher end security part (or centre), there is good reason for that. Most are in lower levels. Also they are not all boat people, there are white pommy backpackers who overstay visas. There are some potentially very nasty people. All the people in the centres eventually get processed. The people who look after them there are entrusted to try and make the people as comfortable as possible while they wait. There are advocacy groups, governance and counsellors crawling all over these places. The huge swells of people the labor government let in (not stopping the boats) choked up the processing. The security are more like counsellors than prison officers. The people in these places are bored and frustrated. The carers do their best to keep the clients occupied while they wait. Some people are entitled to refugee status and appreciative to be cared for, and some people are opportunistic non-entitled dodgy people clogging it up for those entitled to refugee status and very angry that their plans to foil a nation have been halted, and a small amount are very dangerous people awaiting to be collected by the rightful party. The majority are in lower security and patiently waiting it out. |
11:16am 01/11/18 Permalink
You only have the watch a few hours of ABC TV to see how much air time they give to the far-left. Who on the far left is calling for violence? And who do you classify as the left equivalent of proud boys that the ABC is airing every few hours? |
06:48pm 01/11/18 Permalink
Who on the far left is calling for violence? so when you say its ok to punch Nazis.... *edit* oh and slaps, that video. whoeee. Provides deeeep insight into how useless those honest government ads people really are. I'd call it propaganda but it's not subtle enough. |
11:05pm 01/11/18 Permalink
The mass disruption to business and peoples lives generated by public servant union members striking (eg train drivers) is more harmful to a nation than a handful of individuals who want to punch some other individuals in the head.
|
11:17am 02/11/18 Permalink
The point nmag was that you don't have to go to the far left to find people calling for violence.
I thought it useful also to point out redhat appears to have forgotten the time he called for violence while mysteriously struggling to find evidence of left wing people calling for violence. Eric holder apparently didn't get the memo. |
11:28am 02/11/18 Permalink
My platform is ausgamers. Who on the far left is getting airtime, who needs to have their story told in the interests of free speech that also calls for violence.
|
06:40pm 02/11/18 Permalink
See the video above your post redhat.
|
07:04pm 02/11/18 Permalink
Odd how fox news can go on about the 'incivility of the left' when their own camp of political followers like to mass murder & mail pipe bombs to political opponents. Hypocrisy at its finest. U.S politics has gone beyond a joke now.
|
08:23pm 02/11/18 Permalink
There's no show without retarded punch.
Scalise won't ring a bell because it's been memory holed for capitan anti-thought over here. And trying to lay Pittsburgh on trump lol. Trump caused the killing because in the words of the killer he was "controlled by the Jews." Funny how suddenly nobody wants to talk about BDS. |
10:16pm 02/11/18 Permalink
Redhat, do you really think the employees and journalists working for the ABC have a voting profile that aligns with Australian voters? They are operating with a left bias because their market has left bias, and because they have a left bias. That is not what they are paid to do.
|
10:31am 03/11/18 Permalink
See the video above your post redhat. Yep, none of this is in australia. Let alone the ABC. Redhat, do you really think the employees and journalists working for the ABC have a voting profile that aligns with Australian voters? They are operating with a left bias because their market has left bias, and because they have a left bias. That is not what they are paid to do. Do you think any channel 7, 9, 10, sky news has any voting profile that aligns with aussie voters? What metric is that? ABC is the most trusted news source in Australia, if they were as left as you think then the majority of aussies are lefties, in which case their voting profile does align. |
06:25pm 03/11/18 Permalink
ABC News is more left than the average voting aussie. |
08:01pm 03/11/18 Permalink
Yep, none of this is in australia. Let alone the ABC. Given the conversation is about who should get travel visas is there some reason airtime on the ABC is a relevant concern? So far as I'm aware nobody was complaining the proud boys weren't getting sufficient airtime in the ABC. you've made that up on your own. As for the ABC being a trusted news source. Well that can be distinguished from the knuckle dragging retards they invite on the drum or QANDA. For example I hold Leigh Sales and Annabelle Crabb in high regard. But there is no reason to give Peter Fitzgibbon or Jane Caro regular airtime. More can be deduced about the real world by staring at a picture of your own a****** than the combined utterances of borh of them. But they get airtime. Hey so while we are distracting from who has literally advocated political violence, did you see new york has registered the largest increase in anti-Semitic attacks in the US and that in the last two years (think about that time frame it's important) not one has been attributed to the far right? You can find that in the NYT with the Google machine. Apropos of your mum. uk labor dont condemn anti-Semitism after Pittsburgh. because Palestine makes it complicated. Just sayin brolio. But just you fuss over whether a band said it's ok to be white in 1963 See taggs this is why I don't go nmag to hard. We have a disagreement about the general level of political sophistication of the average ausgamer. I think nmag is representative. |
08:07pm 03/11/18 Permalink
Odd how fox news can go on about the 'incivility of the left' when their own camp of political followers like to mass murder & mail pipe bombs to political opponents. Hypocrisy at its finest. U.S politics has gone beyond a joke now. Dude, it was one redneck retard part-time stripper, who was obviously off his meds. |
07:55pm 04/11/18 Permalink
09:15pm 05/11/18 Permalink
speaking of how relevant the ABC is...
|
04:21pm 06/11/18 Permalink
speaking of how relevant the ABC is... Far out infi. It's like the ABC read this More can be deduced about the real world by staring at a picture of your own a****** than the combined utterances of both of them. and said hold my beer. A sex clown who creates "political spaces" by drawing eyes on her butt cheeks and getting people to stare at her a******. F*** me. |
01:26pm 07/11/18 Permalink
one nations snagging of Mark Latham seems to be going well.
|
07:08am 08/11/18 Permalink
speaking of how relevant the ABC is... The only thing more embarrassing than that mentally ill person with child's face paint is Tony Jones sitting taking whatever it is seriously. |
07:56am 09/11/18 Permalink
speaking of how relevant the ABC is...and yet it's still the most trusted source of news for australians. why are people so enraged about the ABC being so successful and popular? what did you think of the Turnbull stuff on Q&A last night? or is that not relevant either? |
08:57am 09/11/18 Permalink
Striving to avoiding fake news doesn't mean they aren't biased. They need their reputation so they can heard sheeple to their socialist, communist, anti-capitalist, anti-competition inspired opinion articles, and fluffy articles peddling socialist values. Like finding minorities who deserve a medal for championing stereotypes. and handing govt funds to lefty journalists who write a wall of text about 'feels' and 'equality'.
https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/941d02b5205f819e8644541d6055f906 ABC applies bias in what they choose is news, big news and not news. |
02:06pm 09/11/18 Permalink
Guess it depends. Do you think the part where Turnbull ripped the quality and balance of journalism at the ABC is relevant? Or was that just sour irrelevant grapes. |
08:43pm 09/11/18 Permalink
https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/10484032-3x2-940x627.jpg
Bystanders were yelling out, "just shoot him, just shoot him!" as officers tried to avoid being stabbed. Everything is fine in Melbourne. Nothing to see. Please move on. I wonder if the people yelling "just shoot him, just shoot him!" vote Greens? |
11:24am 10/11/18 Permalink
I wonder if the people yelling "just shoot him, just shoot him!" vote Greens? As a Greens voter i would have also said shoot him. Who wouldn't having a knife come at them? |
07:11pm 10/11/18 Permalink
what did you think of the Turnbull stuff on Q&A last night? or is that not relevant either? I don't watch QANDA - haven't for years. But I am sure listening to Malcolm talk about how hard done by he was and how he doesn't know why it all went wrong for an hour would have been captivating. Radical Islam is infiltrating every Western democracy because we welcome muslims with opens arms unlike their attitude to Christian Westerners in their countries. |
10:10pm 10/11/18 Permalink
I wonder if there's an element of declared vs revealed preferences in the discrepancy between survey results claiming ABC is most trusted news vs relatively low consumption ratings-wise (I think low consumption, could be wrong).
|
09:04am 11/11/18 Permalink
As a Greens voter i would have also said shoot him. Who wouldn't having a knife come at them? Those were calls from bystanders while he was thrusting the knife at police. The cops weren't yelling "shoot him". As a Greens voter you vote to make it easier for families like his to come here. A vote for Greens or Labor is a vote for more. "Due to post limiting, you can only post 1 message every 36000 seconds. You will be able to post again in 5027 seconds." 15/11/18: "Due to post limiting, you can only post 1 message every 85400 seconds. You will be able to post again in 55355 seconds." I'm being PC'ed. More wildlings |
01:25pm 11/11/18 Permalink
For more what, Nmag? Brown imigants. You going to call for the ban of greek immigants too mate? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2017_Melbour https://i.imgur.com/t75V7oe.png |
03:57pm 11/11/18 Permalink
See taggs?
Nmag says something dumb and then sir redhat trips over himself to win the let's say stupid s*** stakes. |
04:23pm 11/11/18 Permalink
Double ad hominem and no engagement in the conversation, super well done champ!
|
06:02pm 11/11/18 Permalink
Oh I'm sorry I thought dribbling an accusation of racism was as hominem. I know you must get confused when it's the only move you have.
But I'll leave to you to post cartoons as a substitute for serious intellectual engagement. |
06:06pm 11/11/18 Permalink
It doesn't count if redhat does it.
|
06:43pm 11/11/18 Permalink
No I know it's "contributing to conversation" when you call some one racist and draw an objectively retarded comparison to another crime. Specially after you think you're joining a pile on.
It's intellectual depth and courage like that you see once in a generation. |
07:13pm 11/11/18 Permalink
It's easier for the left to process life if they can boil a relatively simply nuanced issue like Islamic immigration into racism. It absolves them from knowing anything about anything.
|
08:12am 12/11/18 Permalink
I've already explained a couple of times that I'm not into discrimination by race. I don't fit Redhat's generalised stereotype. I've met plenty of white wildlings.
I'd like the next 100,000 migrants (we let in annually) to be excellent contributors to our society, not charity cases. Run the nation like a business, not a charity*. I'm happy for Somali, Pakistani, Mexican, Sudanese, Indonesian, or Martian people who meet our specific employment demands to come, but the dregs can go to some other place. A more lawless place where they will feel more "at home". There are educated people from civilised nations struggling to get here. *Actually charities run like a business... Investigate before giving. Check their annual reports. Guardian top billing: Barns, who as a barrister has advised and appeared in cases involving anti-terrorism laws, told Guardian Australia that attackers rarely interacted with Islamic leaders nor regularly attended mosques. He said the comments from Dutton and Morrison were “scapegoating, racist and simplistic”. His comments appear to indicates he does not understand the term 'race', has a poor recollection of those incidents where radicalisation occurred in a religious structure, and thus his comments are not worthy of top billing news. However the Guardian operates from advertising and donations from the gullible so they are free to push their left wing barrow as hard as they like. Running it as top news. during peak time. Unlike the ABC who are government funded. ABC: Australian National Imams Council secretary Sheikh Moustapha, who told ABC Radio Melbourne it was "really wrong and unfair" to suggest his community wasn't doing enough to prevent radicalisation. "We've been doing whatever we can in our capacity to eradicate extreme thoughts and potential acts of terror," he said. "Obviously extremism and radicalism exists. It exists in Islam and a lot of other faiths and ideologies. It's not something we are denying. Holy s***.. which ones? Lets sort them out too... Are those Hillsong'ers planning an attack? Maybe he is referring to the radical Hindi's or violent Buddhists, or something? Maybe he means the Jewish community? Maybe he means radical atheists? Who is "a lot of other faiths and ideologies"? http://teaminfocus.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Screen-shot-2010-10-13-at-2.09.45-PM.png Is that not a reasonable follow up question for a credible journalist? |
05:13pm 12/11/18 Permalink
07:29pm 12/11/18 Permalink
Speaking of "it's ok when we do it".
Those greens and all that male feminism. hook it up to my veins. |
01:41pm 13/11/18 Permalink
Are some terrorists mentally healthy?
|
07:10pm 13/11/18 Permalink
The donalds are in meltdown over the mid terms. Absolutely delicious.
|
09:12pm 13/11/18 Permalink
What are you talking about? The predicted blue wave did not eventuate. Trump cannot be impeached. And now the Democrats can show their true colours harassing Trump for 2 years. This is pretty good.
|
09:48pm 13/11/18 Permalink
The donalds are in meltdown over the mid terms. Absolutely delicious. Imagine my shock when I hear nothing but crickets from the left about what's going on in the Florida election right now. Speaking of "it's ok when we do it". No surprises that its always the sexually frustrated, beta male white knights that are the rapists. |
07:18am 14/11/18 Permalink
Imagine my shock when I hear nothing but crickets from the left about what's going on in the Florida election right now. what would they say about it? |
02:37pm 14/11/18 Permalink
I imagine to be consistent they'd blame Russia for trucking in ballots in private vehicles for the Senate seat that is being led by the Republican candidate and having that joke Brenda Snipes as the election supervisor. |
08:32am 15/11/18 Permalink
Well the hill broke it's silence to fact check trump on whether you get a voter ID when you buy cereal.
thats a genuine person who writes English for a living presumably has a college education of some type. There is a certain inevitability to trump. |
09:25am 15/11/18 Permalink
michael avenatti arrested for domestic violence.
It's like wiping your ass with silk. A fine rarefied schadenfreude. Believe survivors yo. |
08:36am 17/11/18 Permalink
Creepy lawyer is actually a creep. Who would thought....
|
09:30am 17/11/18 Permalink
No stop infi. He was a male feminist. He was passionately committed to breaking down the patriarchy.
One female's face at a time. |
09:45am 17/11/18 Permalink
checking in... I am really fine. To be honest watching other people descend into madness is my ultimate relaxation. |
09:44pm 17/11/18 Permalink
infi right now:
https://i.imgur.com/sAOQUms.png?1 Its crazy how we can take amusement in the same thing. You actually think its the left that is descending into madness. Ignorance is bliss i suppose. |
08:53am 18/11/18 Permalink
https://i.imgur.com/y9TFRiB.jpg |
02:49pm 18/11/18 Permalink
------- Sydney traffic is WORSE than New York City with drivers losing up to 151 hours a year stuck in traffic Sydneysiders lose up to 151 hours per year stuck in traffic According to a traffic index, it is more than counterparts in New York City TomTom Traffic Index 2016 found Sydney to be the most congested city Turkey's Istanbul took out the global top spot with the most traffic The least congested city in the world went to Kansas City in US Sydney came in 21st on the global list, with Melbourne coming in 75th as Australia's second most gridlocked city. Wollongong on NSW's south coast is Australia's most gridlock-free city, narrowly beating out Canberra and Newcastle. The top five worst cities for traffic in the world, according to the index, are Istanbul, Lodz in Poland, Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro and Moscow. and for fade to black
yes 'directly'. There is a stack of federal redistribution on top of that. Do you think ACT somehow made enough money to build the city of Canberra? "ACT transport minister Meegan Fitzharris said the territory would provide up to $100 million to improve the highway, after the Turnbull government also promised $100 million for the road in its May budget." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/politics/act/act- So... who's voting Greens, Labor or Liberals? I looked up some of Labors recent performance: A $900 bonus will be paid to taxpayers with taxable income up to and including $80,000. A $600 bonus will be paid to taxpayers with income exceeding $80,000 to $90,000. A $250 bonus will be paid to taxpayers with income exceeding $90,000 to and including $100,000. ------- ANTIFA and NeoNazi's or whatever you call them can beat each up up all day for all I care. Both are nuts. Getting emotional about far left or far right ain't good as feels conflict with logic. The categories are both over generalised anyway. I bet some of those mad white supremacists dudes are passionate about climate change, and could probbaly weave a basket. What did the Greens achieve last time they had Government? I'll look it up and come back. ---------- 85400 seconds I've seen behaviour from Vash and Fpot far worse than mine, but I don't think they get penalties like 85400 seconds. I don't even get an explanation or anyone pointing out what I did that warranted the increase. So, I can only assume someone gets "Troggered" easily. ------- Today on ABC News. Wildlings feature in many articles. https://i.imgur.com/xTjaOxu.jpg |
03:26pm 18/11/18 Permalink
07:50pm 22/11/18 Permalink
So her action was to go to someone other than police? Yeah, no. Sorry, but when you're claiming something as serious as that and your report doesn't end up being handled by the criminal justice system, something's awry. And if a corporation goes acting on something even the police can't prosecute for, something's seriously wrong.
|
08:00am 23/11/18 Permalink
Oh but raven we have to listen and believe survivors. Don't you know the greens tell us we live in a pervasive rape culture.
Things like due process and criminal justice are just oppressive tools of the patriarchy. According to every green statement on the issue. Except where it's one of their own of course. The accusation is the evidence. |
09:21am 23/11/18 Permalink
Can we talk about that MS Excel spreadsheet that Trog (I think) promoted? The one that testing revealed that it had questions almost like:
Do you breath air and drink water? = vote Greens. It appeared to be built by Marxists who wrapped their socialist views in environmental values. |
11:24am 23/11/18 Permalink
08:42pm 23/11/18 Permalink
Uh
>Stop over development >affordable housing for first home buyers.. I would like to see how they propose to make that work They are using a high rise construction pics as a symbol of over development yet high density residential is one of the best types of development for the environment, making better use of less land. If they were smart they would have used a pic of the sprawling development on the outskirts of Melbourne around Cragieburn as an example of ugly residential development |
03:05pm 24/11/18 Permalink
I wonder if the australian gov will ever stand up for west papua.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjU8R8oj328 |
06:59pm 24/11/18 Permalink
^Juice media makes far too many well made points. Fake news, lefty agenda!#$@& enemy of the people!
|
07:24pm 24/11/18 Permalink
I wonder if the australian gov will ever stand up for west papua. There is just no danger of them expressing a un-pre-approved opinion whatsoever is there. Literally watching the end on the shining at moment. Jack is make a more eloquent political speech than they ever will. (And he is screaming random noises at the sky, lol get it). We could always send some greens candidates over. Hard to worry about copper mines when your children are being raped. Just saying. |
08:00pm 24/11/18 Permalink
If they were smart they would have used a pic of the sprawling development on the outskirts of Melbourne around Cragieburn as an example of ugly residential developmentThe flip side though is West End and Newstead which are pretty ugly examples of high density development. I used to be a big advocate for more high density housing like that but after being gone for a while and coming back and seeing what these places have become I think they're kinda horrible looking (although maybe it's just because they're all exactly the same black-and-white painted prison-looking buildings). I heard someone complaining (anecdotal!!) that it's hard to get kids in schools in West End because there's this big overpopulation now there because of the housing and they haven't kept pace with increasing services in the area? Certainly traffic over there sucks balls (although it always did, but now it seems way worse) |
11:31am 25/11/18 Permalink
west end is rooted due to over population for so many reasons (traffic is the main one)
|
05:56pm 25/11/18 Permalink
It might look ugly but it s still a better use of land from an environmental point of view.
Also scomo must be pretty worried after the spanking the libs took in victoria |
08:51pm 25/11/18 Permalink
I heard someone complaining (anecdotal!!) that it's hard to get kids in schools in West End because there's this big overpopulation now there because of the housing and they haven't kept pace with increasing services in the area? Certainly traffic over there sucks balls (although it always did, but now it seems way worse) Craieigburn has this problem with high schools. They've built plenty of primary schools, but Craigieburn started really being built up big about 8 years ago - I've been there 6 years now. The issue a lot of people are having is that their kids are now entering being high-school aged, and they've not built a single new high school in the area, despite having built something like 11 primary schools. Traffic around one of the local Christian P-12 colleges is an absolute nightmare in the morning, and unfortunately it's on the main road that leads South in to the city. Let's put aside the fact why religions should be able to operate within schools to begin with, and it's all kinds of mess. Complaining about them building high-rises in Craigieburn is a bit of a red herring anyway because it will never happen - the land is not stable enough. It's 200-300m ASL, the depth they'd have to dig down to get through all the clay would never support high-rise buildings. Hell, the volume builders have to put practically every single single story building on a P-class slab just to deal with the ground shifting. |
09:51am 26/11/18 Permalink
Should the people on this island be culturally enriched? Do they need Jesus, automobiles, reality TV, ipads and the Kardashians?
https://i.imgur.com/hDXuXdd.jpg |
10:27pm 29/11/18 Permalink
Guardian today
Headline sub text Labor warns demanding proof of identity at polling booths is a ‘pathway to voter suppression’ Headline sub text The government wants to build a decryption key for all your apps and give it to Peter Dutton ABC 3rd article from the top (big news).. "Opinion" headline Two forces are colliding to make this the end of Trump's presidency as we know it |
10:53pm 05/12/18 Permalink
Well it depends on if you support back door access to prevent terrorism and perverts.
As I understand it the legislation was amended in committee to include precautions requiring judicial oversight and access to decryption for only serious offence. There are certain messenger companies who will never be subject to Commonwealth jurisdiction so just switch to one of those if you are doing super secret squirrel stuff. |
04:25pm 07/12/18 Permalink
trog started a thread here.
To be fair to the government strictly speaking it doesn't require decryption or a backdoor into encrypted messages per se. It requires companies to give access to information where it is not encrypted. The talk of messenger apps is most likely misguided. The way the act is worded I would expect them to make a hack for the phone keyboard software, like a keystroke logger. I should add I don't think this makes it better. Just that it doesn't technically require breaking encryption. With that said it seems like crap legislation to me. The explanatory memorandum which you should read instead of the documents trog linked to doesn't make a persuasive case in my opinion. It's never a good sign when they reach for the worst examples and then offer no data to support it. |
08:19pm 07/12/18 Permalink
The Greens are against the proposed encryption laws. Just sayin'
|
08:37pm 07/12/18 Permalink
Senator Jordan Steele-John for example tweeted this: Far from being a 'national security measure' this bill will have the unintended consequence of diminishing the online safety, security and privacy of every single Australian .
Not true. A "technical capability notice" may only be issued in relation to either a national security matter or in relation to law enforcement of an offence carrying a maximum jail term of 3 years or more. So if you are not accused of of related to such an alleged offence or matter, the Act will never concern you. The final bill as amended and passed is here. Interestingly there is not strict judicial oversight but there is provision at 317WA for a review of a technical capability notice during what is titled a consultation notice by an ex-judicial officer. The Attorney-General must have regard to the report in deciding to issue the notice. Politicians who think we can ignore the issue of encrypted data in law enforcement are a downright danger to society. At the same time, parliament is the least agile institution in society. There already exists communication means that ASIS and co will never ever be able to access. But lots of lazy criminals do not cover their tracks and will fall foul of these laws. |
09:23pm 07/12/18 Permalink
I don't agree this is an accurate construction of the act infi
A "technical capability notice" may only be issued in relation to either a national security matter or in relation to law enforcement of an offence carrying a maximum jail term of 3 years or more. So if you are not accused of of related to such an alleged offence or matter, the Act will never concern you. National security matter is defined super broadly and the provider will not have committed the crime so it does not link to the commission of a crime directly. I also haven't seen a good argument around the risk of facilitating crime it creates. Someone with more technical knowledge than me can confirm this but unless I'm mistaken the wannacry ransomware thing was as a result of the NSA losing control of one of their backdoors into windows. It is undoubtedly true that smartphones can be used to conduct crime but I think there are better ways for dealing with it. By way of example make it a 10 year jail sentence not to open a phone when accused of a crime. Heh Well it depends on if you support back door access to prevent terrorism and perverts. The Greens are against the proposed encryption laws. Just sayin'https://i1.wp.com/www.whaleoil.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Dg51HD_VMAA5B0_.jpg?resize=450,517&ssl=1 Just sayin' |
09:45pm 07/12/18 Permalink
Nah, the purview for misuse is too broad and likely. Just like the police, ato and even local councils being able to access opel (go card) records in nsw without a warrant it's just another erosion of the fundamental human right of privacy. It'll lead to unintended consequences at some point guaranteed.
Make em work for it. Wish we had an equivalent if the 4, 5 and 6 amendments on that front. |
08:01am 08/12/18 Permalink
I think the best way to restrict misuse is for the applicable offences to be defined by Schedule. 3 year jail offences are not serious offences in the grand scheme of things.
|
08:21am 08/12/18 Permalink
By way of example make it a 10 year jail sentence not to open a phone when accused of a crime. Yes pls tell me more about your end game mr greens are facsists. |
06:36pm 08/12/18 Permalink
Oh gee let me guess who said that bit of dumb. |
07:40pm 08/12/18 Permalink
Yes pls tell me more about your end game mr greens are facsists. You realise the police could already do that right? They could already get a court order requiring the phone get opened and contempt of court would follow if you didn't. I'm sure you knew that though. |
11:01am 09/12/18 Permalink
I also haven't seen a good argument around the risk of facilitating crime it creates If the conduct is sanctioned, it is not a crime. Technical capability notices generally will not affect Joe Average due to the stringent tests required before approval of the notice. It must be issued by an intelligence chief, and approved by the Attorney General after a review from an ex judge. This is very strict. I cannot see from the Act how a widespread misuse can occur unless it is by intelligence agencies or providers acting unlawfully once they obtain a capability. This is more a compliance and enforcement issue than it is a legal one. |
11:05am 09/12/18 Permalink
I understand that the intelligence agency using a capability in accordance with the Act is not criminal infi.
The issue I'm worried about is not intelligence agencies using it in accordance with the Act, though I think that is a risk (that particular individuals will abuse a capability) The issue I'm worried about is intelligence agencies losing control of a capability and criminals using the capability, as happened with wannacry. I'd also be worried about the incentive it creates for technology companies not to fix vulnerabilities in their software if they know a particular exploit is being used by an intelligence agency. |
12:29pm 09/12/18 Permalink
They could send you to jail for 10 years? Yeah ok. |
04:32pm 09/12/18 Permalink
S 319 NSW crimes act, perverting the course of justice, maximum sentence 14 years.
You don't know what you're talking about. |
05:17pm 09/12/18 Permalink
So why don't they just use that instead of what you're suggesting?
|
07:33pm 09/12/18 Permalink
They do. Concealing or tampering with evidence has and always will be a serious crime.
I'm suggesting essentially sentencing guidelines, which is why I don't think the access bill necessary. The laws that exist already can be clarified and are effective. |
07:48pm 09/12/18 Permalink
Today on ABC News Victoria Police release CCTV footage of 'brutal' St Kilda assault that left two men unconscioushttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-11/victoria-po Police said the brawl in St Kilda involved up to 20 young men of African-Australian appearance. (ABC News) ABC balances things up by putting Trump ANALYSIS - Trump can't ignore Mueller now that a Russian is behind bars Then comes out with... Cronulla riot 'hero' Craig Campbell still paying the price 13 years on A story covering only the part where the "rednecks" went mental. Omits the events leading up to it, and the reprisal attacks that occurred shortly after. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/riot-re Serhan had pleaded guilty to being the driver of a car carrying three men, who assaulted a 26-year-old man outside the Woolooware Golf Club in Sydney's south-east on December 11, 2005. Facts tendered stated that the man, named only as Dan, was walking with two girls, when he heard Serhan's passengers yell out "Get the Aussie dogs", and "Get the Aussie sluts." Dan then confronted the men to protect the girls, one of whom was his girlfriend. Magistrate Leslie Brydon said that police could not determine who had inflicted four stab wounds on the victim. and there were far more. The reprisals attacks were pretty nasty. Far worse than the highly publicised "Riot". ___________________________________________ and today (Wednesday)..... Today on ABC news we drop the actual "news" about the stomping in Melbourne https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-11/victoria-po and continue to run the article regarding a police officer who was at Cronulla doing his job 13 years ago. ___________________________________________ Not in Australian news due to suppression order Cardinal George Pell, the third-highest ranking member of the Vatican and the top Catholic official ever to go to trial over the church’s sex abuse scandal, was found guilty Tuesday in Australia of charges of sexually abusing two choir boys in the late 1990s a “suppression†order to prevent “risk of prejudice†banned any press coverage of the trial in Australia, where the gag order remains in placehttps://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/cardinal-george-pell-convicted-sex-abuse-australia.html?fbclid=IwAR2N6J9FhSjqRqoXVASA37hYnaVTpX5kStMA2HAwjBt8moXui7pFYMi-68E |
09:33pm 11/12/18 Permalink
I cannot see from the Act how a widespread misuse can occur unless it is by intelligence agencies or providers acting unlawfully once they obtain a capability. This is more a compliance and enforcement issue than it is a legal one.There is something of an assumption that the only misuse that might occur could come from within |
09:57pm 11/12/18 Permalink
Today on Facebook
If the government was really serious about conserving water then they would place a holt on all of these greedy developers building houses and wrecking every bit of open land and building high rise and these grey boxes called houses nearly on top of one another that will be showering use flushing toilets etc, instead of telling you the consumer on TV about conserving water. It's just also the greedy State Government also getting backhands from these large developers which are most likely backed by the wealthy Chinese and overriding the local councils and rate payers that don't want this type of development which not only is sucking up the water resources but also the limited electricity supply which will create blackouts in the summer temperatures with air conditioners ......SO HOW DUMB ARE THEY?...and also these stupid greenies that are saying "Dont Raise the dam wall" what are they going to drink and survive if we run out of water to provide for all these extra people we are bringing into this country which in the end it will end up a third world country if it's not controlled by educated government. Also it's creating an over supply and pushing down property prices Yoon K Lee...Well from you being a university brain I wouldn't expect anything more or different an answer from people like yourself that has no idea whats happening with the over development in the suburbs and cities and provide people like yourself with social benefits that has been just handed out to the likes of you so you can just bludge on the system and have a good time doing nothing productive and just going to the beach Yoon K Lee ...I am positive this also applies to you..To all the school kids going on "strike" for Climate Change. You are the first generation who have required air-conditioning in every classroom. You want TV in every room and your classes are all computerised. You spend all day and night on electronic devices. More than ever, you don't walk or ride bikes to school but arrive in caravans of private cars that choke suburban roads and worsen rush hour traffic. You are the biggest consumers of manufactured goods ever and update perfectly good expensive luxury items to stay trendy. Your entertainment comes from electric devices. Furthermore, the people driving your protests are the same people who insist on artificially inflating the population growth through immigration, which increases the need for energy, manufacturing and transport. The more people we have, the more forest and bushland we clear and more of the environment is destroyed. How about this... Tell your teachers to switch off the air-con. Walk or ride to school. Switch off your devices and read a book. Make a sandwich instead of buying manufactured fast food. No, none of this will happen because you are selfish, badly educated, virtue signalling little turds, inspired by the adults around you who crave a feeling of having a "noble cause" while they indulge themselves in Western luxury and unprecedented quality of life.” Wake up, grow up and shut up until you are sure of the facts before protesting or commenting. |
12:40am 15/12/18 Permalink
More than ever, you don't walk or ride bikes to school but arrive in caravans of private cars that choke suburban roads and worsen rush hour traffic For once i agree a bit with Nmag. |
07:32pm 15/12/18 Permalink
I didn't type any of that. Hes goes on about technology a bit much, but he makes some interesting points. It was written in relation to water rates going up and water shortages or something. |
09:23pm 18/12/18 Permalink
"President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said." "As a result, U.S. officials said there is no detailed record, even in classified files, of Trump’s face-to-face interactions with the Russian leader at five locations over the past two years. Such a gap would be unusual in any presidency, let alone one that Russia sought to install through what U.S. intelligence agencies have described as an unprecedented campaign of election interference." hmmm. |
09:39pm 13/01/19 Permalink
#russiacollusion smoking gun. There, we've got it guys. Drumpf is finished.
|
10:02pm 13/01/19 Permalink
pretty jerky behaviour holding government staff to ransom to get his dumb wall that no one wants.
|
06:06am 14/01/19 Permalink
pretty jerky behaviour holding government staff to ransom to get his dumb wall that no one wants. No one except 77% of republican voters haha. ...taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said. With fake news being probably the biggest catch phrase of the last 2 years I would have imagined by now you guys on the left would learn to have named sources but I forgot that you're actually not interested in facts. I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right. - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, new darling of the extreme left |
11:16am 14/01/19 Permalink
We've seen some classic biased ABC information perversions in recent weeks on ABC news website.
ABC gives organised gang violence on beach in Victoria a minor-article, and then days of coverage regarding some 'right wing' people who got s***** about the organised gang violence. How nasty the people are who got s***** about the organised gang violence. On and on it went. Very little coverage of why they were protesting. ABC goes on and on with headlines about Trump's wall holding things up while other news outlets are providing a more balanced approach with their commentary. ABC launches into 'rights for juveniles in justice' regarding the careful way a prison is recaptured whilst pushing down the main reason why the staff were on strike. |
09:32pm 14/01/19 Permalink
Apparently also two random guys giving a seig heil salute equals a Nazi rally.
At least ABC didn't fall for that one. |
09:37pm 14/01/19 Permalink
does anyone know whether a translator in a diplomatic setting even could be subpoenaed? not that I think Trump should have anything to hide, but surely that kind of thing would be privileged?
|
10:57pm 14/01/19 Permalink
does anyone know whether a translator in a diplomatic setting even could be subpoenaed? not that I think Trump should have anything to hide, but surely that kind of thing would be privileged? It's an interesting idea. My gut tells me they would either be classified or have some sort of presidential exemption. I would love to know the answer. |
11:11pm 14/01/19 Permalink
Brexit FAILED!!! they're still staying in EU by the British house of the commons.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46885828 |
11:16am 16/01/19 Permalink
What makes you say that "Brexit failed"? The vote was on May's Brexit deal with the EU. It was opposed by both pro-Brexit and anti-Brexit supporters.
The default situation is now there would be a no-deal Brexit unless May (or whoever replaces her if she resigns or loses the prime ministership) either calls off/postpones Brexit or is able to get another deal accepted by both the UK parliament and the EU. |
07:11pm 16/01/19 Permalink
as a brexit_newb, why would the EU offer any more? Britain is leaving regardless, or will otherwise be forced into an embarrassing climbdown and stay in
|
09:06pm 16/01/19 Permalink
EU have no reason to offer more. No Benefit, no pressure, absolutely no willingness. They have a few good reasons to not offer anything (discouraging other member states from pulling the same s*** primarily)
UK gets to leave, if they want, but EU isn't going to give then a gift for doing so. |
10:47pm 16/01/19 Permalink
If the EU screws the UK they gain political power through the implications that other member states will experience similar consequences for leaving. The EU loses a huge market in the UK though and hurts the economies of the EU member states in the process. Of course, the EU is a socialist joke so obviously political power is more important to them than prosperous citizens. Here's to hoping somehow the UK gets out from under the heel of not only the EU but also their treasonous MPs who are doing their absolute best to sabotage the process.
|
11:00am 17/01/19 Permalink
why people offer concessions in any divorce? for a smooth transition and for life afterwards.
|
01:48pm 17/01/19 Permalink
Yes the EU socialists that impose austerity measures.
The bruxelles bankers that run the EU are obvious socialists. The free trade that is completely socialist. Single market=socialist. And who can forget the EU troika, the hotbed of socialist institutions? IMF, ECB and Euro Commission yeah baby, f*****g marx all up in this b****. Do tell how the EU is socialist dazed. |
08:02pm 17/01/19 Permalink
Their never ending quantitative easing sure sounds like a socialising of millionaires losses.
The one thing that makes millionaires richer than capitalism? Socialism. UK will thrive leaving EU. EU is on life support. Follow Daniel Lacalle on Twitter. |
10:06pm 17/01/19 Permalink
Their never ending quantitative easing sure sounds like a socialising of millionaires losses. Is it though? You can't really call the EU a Marxist socialist institution from an economic point of view. It is architypally neo liberal. We're it does have cross over with socialist thinking is its rule by dictate cultural attitudes. They are openly hostile to people retaining a national identity. This is pretty funny They have a few good reasons to not offer anything (discouraging other member states from pulling the same s*** primarily) Member states are supposed to tell the EU what to do, not the other way around. Ironically I think that's exactly what they are trying to do and it's likely to bring about the exact situation they want to avoid. Euro skeptic parties are doing well all over Europe. And moving to "punish" states for exerting their legitimate authority only gives them more fuel. And pro euro leaders are in serious trouble. See Macron for example. What a total stunned mullet he turned out to be. |
09:24am 18/01/19 Permalink
Great ideas when left to the people:
"Boaty McBoatface" is a good name "Leave the EU" is a good idea |
12:42pm 18/01/19 Permalink
Remember when the Italians demanded an election and instead installed Mario Monti as a completely democratically illegitimate PM? I didn't realise that behaviour was democracy. Or are we now jumping on the calling blatant socialism "social democracy" bandwagon to make ourselves feel better?
|
02:29pm 18/01/19 Permalink
Dazed thinks anything that isn't democratic is Socialism.
hurr durr |
02:45pm 18/01/19 Permalink
Imagine changing PMs without a general election.
Mamma mia, what kind of socialist banana Republic are they running over there in Italia? |
03:38pm 18/01/19 Permalink
Dazed thinks anything that isn't democratic is Socialism. Hurt durr didn't vote for popularly elected office. God it never fails to disappoint. Watching a retard high five himself and miss is really very entertaining. Mamma mia, what kind of socialist banana Republic are they running over there in Italia? Revolving door PM's in Australia has literally never been an issue for Australian politics. It in no way undermines faith in the system. |
09:58pm 18/01/19 Permalink
Imagine changing PMs without a general election. Imagine not understanding how your own system of government works. |
10:03pm 18/01/19 Permalink
you are correct it ended in December - i shouldn't have characterised it as never-ending. There is no medium-term prospect of rate rises or ECB redemptions though. A return to QE is inevtiable for the EU. The place is a basket case.
|
10:49pm 18/01/19 Permalink
Imagine changing PMs without a general election. Mario Monti was never elected to a seat in the Italian parliament, champ. Imagine being this smug with this little knowledge of the situation. |
02:29pm 19/01/19 Permalink
Sorry my bad i thought he was elected and then they gave him some sort of honorary seat after.
It's not far off someone serving as PM from the house of lords though. |
03:46pm 20/01/19 Permalink
It's not far off someone serving as PM from the house of lords though. When on earth was the last time that happened? Is it even possible any more? I suspect it wouldn't be, or it would be so impractical you wouldn't do it even if you could. |
04:57pm 20/01/19 Permalink
Post world war 2, im not sure what the premises are though.
If it could happen post WW2 you could imagine it happening in brexit. |
05:55pm 20/01/19 Permalink
I'm not sure that's right
this page seems to indicate the last pm to lead from the house of Lords was 1901. It maybe there was a peer who was pm after 1945. In any event it would be a major departure from a century long constitutional convention. Which is a major major deal in British politics. I don't think brexit would trigger that. It would cripple parliament. It would just be a continuous stream of no confidence votes. |
06:38pm 20/01/19 Permalink
https://i.imgur.com/jUqn8lN.jpg
hurr durr 'He said, “Something is wrong with the economic system of our nation. . . . Something is wrong with capitalism.” Always careful (perhaps too careful) to announce that he was not a Marxist in any sense of the word, King told the staƒ he believed “there must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism. . . . ”' https://www.uni-five.com/upload/doc/82818file.pdf |
06:14pm 22/01/19 Permalink
Just goes to show you can be a clever person and still believe in a completely failed and debunked child like ideology. Einstein and Orwell too.
|
06:24pm 22/01/19 Permalink
Seems like most people are rather supportive of the proposed 70% tax rate.
Let's get rid of some of that fat from the top. |
06:45pm 22/01/19 Permalink
Seems like most people are rather supportive of the proposed 70% tax rate. Most people are in favour of someone else richer than them paying the ir bills. Most people are in favour of getting someone else's money for no effort. Well you could blow me over with a feather. |
07:04pm 22/01/19 Permalink
70% just sounds like a strawman to scare people from the idea of taxing people according to their means
|
07:19pm 22/01/19 Permalink
No it is real thing. The new Democrat poster child, waitress turned congresswoman, who is now on the Congressional eco omics committee suggested this. It's pretty funny.
|
07:24pm 22/01/19 Permalink
I like her, she's hot It's going to be amazing when a large number of people on this forum beclown themselves because of trump with tits |
07:45am 24/01/19 Permalink
She's pretty cool. More descriptive & honest than Trump but that isn't saying much really.
Shame the presidential age limit is 35, she could ride that wave of popularity to the presidency easily. |
07:26pm 24/01/19 Permalink
Elect an extreme socialist President. What can possibly go wrong?
|
08:19pm 24/01/19 Permalink
She wants to MAGA. like back in the 60s. Oh things were so rosey then! The top marginal tax rate in 1960 was 91%, which applied to income over $200,000 (for single filers) or $400,000 (for married filers) – thresholds which correspond to approximately $1.5 million and $3 million, respectively, in today’s dollars. Approximately 0.00235% of households had income taxed at the top rate. Obviously she doesn't go far enough with her watered down neoliberal top tax rate. |
08:41pm 24/01/19 Permalink
Elect an extreme right President. What can possibly go wrong? Oh.
|
08:47pm 24/01/19 Permalink
Trump is stopping being a c*** to us gov workers. Still no money for dumb wall none wants. Lulz
|
10:30am 26/01/19 Permalink
Question is, why didn't he get the wall through before the democrats took the house?
|
05:24pm 26/01/19 Permalink
I wondered the same thing, and the best I could identify - the White House was busy dealing with other issues in congress: taxation, ObamaCare, earlier budget disputes.
I don't think it is an adequate answer. Trump should have rammed the Wall through while they had control. $5b is peanuts for the US. It is disgraeceful that the Dems have held the President to ransom over his flagship policy. |
05:37pm 26/01/19 Permalink
Didn't he say he'd own the shutdown if it happened?
Apparently he's the man of the people and is more honest than other politicians. |
05:44pm 26/01/19 Permalink
It takes two to tango (or not tango).
|
05:50pm 26/01/19 Permalink
Still no money for dumb wall none wants. Does that include the 700 miles of wall Pelosi and Schumer voted for before now? Just asking. |
09:37pm 26/01/19 Permalink
"dumb wall none wants"
Spook getting his fake news from biased sources. |
12:00pm 27/01/19 Permalink
it's not real news unless the title of the publication has some guy's name
|
08:02pm 27/01/19 Permalink
Yes it's important to listen to credible sources.
For example how else would I know 3000 Hamburgers wouldn't literally be a mile high? thank you Washington Post. Afterall democracy dies in idiocy. |
11:27am 28/01/19 Permalink
i havent really read it in the news. i just always have such high hopes for society, and im projecting my own views on america. People couldnt really think building some retarded wall will fix anything. Could they?
|
01:41pm 28/01/19 Permalink
It always goes back to being about the democrats heh. 'BUT BUT THEY WANTED A WALL BEFORE@!*&'
Reminds me of a certain Government here. Not sure what Trump's play is here. He could have had the wall easily. Now his polls are diving and the government is shutting down. Is it just an oopsie or is he actively trying to sabotage the U.S due to certain individuals he's mingled with? |
01:57pm 28/01/19 Permalink
People couldnt really think building some retarded wall will fix anything. Could they? Is the 700 miles of existing physical barrier retarded? Yes or no. Obama built, and boasted of building, a s*** load of it. Actually let's go even more basic. Do you know anything at all about restricting physical access to things? |
03:47pm 28/01/19 Permalink
First black president fence good
Orange president fence bad |
03:53pm 28/01/19 Permalink
oh, i full support any obama fence. that is obviously a much more sensible fence.
i appreciate that he didnt have to force hundreds of familes to the wall(LOLZ) to pay for his fence. last edited by Spook at 16:41:54 28/Jan/19 |
04:39pm 28/01/19 Permalink
I'm guessing existing fences are across built up areas like San Diego and also where the border runs across land?
|
04:51pm 28/01/19 Permalink
i appreciate that he didnt have to force hundreds of familes to the wall(LOLZ) to pay for his fence. Gee I wonder what changed? Obama would never engage in sending government workers to the wall to ram through unpopular policy. Except for those times he did of course. I'm guessing existing fences are across built up areas like San Diego and also where the border runs across land? 0_o the border with Mexico is almost entirely a land border? A little beside the point in any event. Physical barriers are either 'retarded' or they aren't. I don't pretend to know much about physical security, but I'm willing to bet $100 right now anyone saying walls are retarded knows almost nothing about the situation on the American border with Mexico or any of the policy challenges faced there. |
05:09pm 28/01/19 Permalink
i know that building a wall will do 1/10 of f*** all to stop people south of the wall, moving to north of the wall.
just like in australia with stopping the HUGE BOAT PEOPLE INFLUX. |
05:28pm 28/01/19 Permalink
i know that building a wall will do 1/10 of f*** all to stop people south of the wall, moving to north of the wall. How? How do you know? What reason is there to think the Australian situation is comparable? |
06:16pm 28/01/19 Permalink
Spook you're right there.
The big problem lies within the U.S. The drug war fuels crime in Mexico. Legalise drugs, and you kill off the incentive for drug smuggling, shrinking the influence of the cartels, and eventually Mexico can get its s*** together where people no longer want to escape it. But the U.S is just too retarded and right-leaning to ever consider such a policy. |
07:14pm 28/01/19 Permalink
Legalise drugs and endemic multi-billion dollar crime syndicates will *just go away*.
See the world is easy and full of bigots when you live in platitudes. Jon Stewart had a point about bulls*** mountain. He was just confused about how much real estate there is there. |
07:38pm 28/01/19 Permalink
0_o the border with Mexico is almost entirely a land border? the Rio Grande (i.e. the border with Texas) is what I was alluding to it may or may not be 'retarded' to fence the entire American side of this river, but I'm led to believe it does raise some significant engineering and eminent domain type issues |
08:19pm 28/01/19 Permalink
'Significant issues' is not the same as 'retarded'.
The point I'm driving at is that there is a fairly significant paucity of serious discussion of those significant issues. Instead we hear from the people against *all the way up to the speaker of Congress* that a wall is retarded/ an immorality. Last I read trump was seeking funding for around 200 miles of barriers, so it's not even clear he intends to build a single continuous wall coast to coast. |
08:49pm 28/01/19 Permalink
08:24am 29/01/19 Permalink
Retarded indeed. Israel I mean yeah kinda is that really what they should emulate |
05:59pm 29/01/19 Permalink
Id humbly suggest reading the graph in light of this comment
i know that building a wall will do 1/10 of f*** all to stop people south of the wall, moving to north of the wall. Rather than as a statement suggesting the policy justification is the same as Israel's |
06:24pm 29/01/19 Permalink
Cheeky mexicans have been developing their own tech to defeat the wall. |
07:20pm 29/01/19 Permalink
Would that be the Mexicans border patrol apprehended according to the story?
I wonder if placing a barrier in their way gave border patrol more time to catch them? I wonder if forcing them to climb alerted border patrol to them being there at all? |
07:36pm 29/01/19 Permalink
If we didn't have a moat hundreds of kilometres wide between Indonesia and us there would likely be two walls with a no-mans-land between. Currently we have a giant moat cluttered with very expensive war ships. "A wall of war ships".
|
08:28pm 29/01/19 Permalink
10:54pm 29/01/19 Permalink
so something like this Where one side keeps people in? Where there are landmines buried along the extent? Yes. Being anti-Israel is a bit cliched by now I would have thought. |
09:34am 01/02/19 Permalink
being pro Israel in every instance is equally boring
given that Israel actually requires anti-missile systems it’s expected that they have comprehensive border security as well, I just don’t think the cost benefit is the same for the US |
01:10pm 01/02/19 Permalink
Guardian journalist writes "The Australian has a real knack of taking improbable angles on contentious stories to suit its own agenda". hypocrisyDictionary result for hypocrisy /hɪˈpɒkrɪsi/Submit noun the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case. "his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life" |
06:36pm 01/02/19 Permalink
given that Israel actually requires anti-missile systems it’s expected that they have comprehensive border security as well, I just don’t think the cost benefit is the same for the US Again policy justification and mechanics of implementation can be separated from the question the graph was really obviously answering. Nobody is claiming the US should exactly replicate Israel's border security arrangements. Or north Korea's. |
07:16pm 01/02/19 Permalink
A wall isn't going to stop those tunnels they keep building. |
08:35pm 01/02/19 Permalink
I love how you and red hat post content in which the wall forces people to do s*** that makes them easier to catch.
Tunnels are much harder to dig than to find and collapse. |
08:48pm 01/02/19 Permalink
10:54pm 01/02/19 Permalink
Really?
Kenneth Hayne didn't smile enough at a photo op? Get a job a****** Maybe smh could hire Fabio to say "I can't believe it's not journalism". |
12:04pm 02/02/19 Permalink
obviously the DMZ comparison was a bit of hyperbole there
Again policy justification and mechanics of implementation can be separated from the question the graph was really obviously answering. Nobody is claiming the US should exactly replicate Israel's border security arrangements. Or north Korea's. Fair enough, but the graph was put there to imply that a barrier system could virtually eliminate irregular border crossings. Israel's particular barrier though is part of a suite of deterrents that includes the use of lethal force. The corollary is that the policy objective of virtually eliminating irregular border crossings into the US might require a similarly lethal border (not necessarily with the same countermeasures) because people are willing to put their well-being at risk to get in I doubt the American electorate has the stomach for their federal agents actually firing upon refugees and migrant workers So what about something less than a completely sealed border? As you point out a wall would slow people down by forcing them to climb or dig. But again would the American public have the appetite for how much this would actually cost? $5 billion wouldn't put up a cyclone fence along that border |
01:04am 03/02/19 Permalink
If we could confine ourselves to actual proposals that would be great.
For a start the Israeli's use of lethal force is not indiscriminate or even particularly common in my estimation. The idea that a willingness to use lethal force is an integral component of a walls effectiveness is absurd on its face. Youth detention manage it somehow. So I reject the idea using a wall means ICE would have to become lethal. As for the cost, who knows. I doubt the American people will care that much even if the budget gets doubled. The barrier doesn't need to end illegal immigration to be justified. Neither does it need to run the full length of the border. |
10:08am 03/02/19 Permalink
If we could confine ourselves to actual proposals that would be great. why? in as much as Trump's improv theatre performances amount to proposals, what would they actually deliver for the promised cost? I think we agree that a 'shoot to kill' policy has indeed not been proposed, and a wall that is physically impermeable for its entire length would not be achieved for the money |
04:06pm 03/02/19 Permalink
Well let's end on a point of agreement then.
Good talking to you. |
04:52pm 03/02/19 Permalink
What a prick. Handshakes and pats on the back all around after voting against a royal commission into banking about 25 times! |
06:02pm 03/02/19 Permalink
Clive Palmer wrote me a letter. Something about Chinese communist government using it's state owned companies to buy control of Australia infrastructure. Not to trust Libs or Labor. He seems like a funny man. Is he offering much free stuff?
|
09:54pm 06/02/19 Permalink
If our infrastructure was state owned, it wouldn't be able to be bought up by the Chinese. Checkmate free market fundamentalists.
|
10:16pm 06/02/19 Permalink
I'm glad you support Trump withdrawing troops from Syria, Vash. That's the most reasonable position you've ever had to be honest.
If our infrastructure was state owned, it wouldn't be able to be bought up by the Chinese. Checkmate free market fundamentalists. Yeah because the only way you can stop foreign purchase is by placing them in the hands of the state. What you're advocating is national socialism by the way. Make up your mind who you hate. |
10:27pm 06/02/19 Permalink
Nah National Socialism is Nazism.
Democratic Socialism is a completely different beast. Get your facts straight. |
10:48pm 06/02/19 Permalink
Venezuela's oil companies are state-owned #justsayin
|
10:52pm 06/02/19 Permalink
Australia missed out on trillions in Government revenue during the mining boom by not nationalising the mines. #justsayin
|
11:07pm 06/02/19 Permalink
The thing about nationalising assets is it is usually accompanied by total abdication of rule of law, a tin-pot ruler, and millions of people die. And that's a bad thing.
|
11:13pm 06/02/19 Permalink
Norway's rule of law & democratic process seems intact after the state took majority ownership of it's oil production. Don't see anyone dying either?
“The overarching concern for Norwegian authorities is that petroleum wealth and petroleum activities should benefit the Norwegian society at large, now and in the future”. Investing Norway's oil money in foreign private companies is strictly monitored If only that happened here in Australia. Our budget would be in far better shape. But then again you'd just have the liberals come along and give tax cuts to all, just as Howard did. Leading to the budget situation we have now. |
11:22pm 06/02/19 Permalink
Hehe
If only that happened here in Australia. Our budget would be in far better shape. Norway uses the same budget spending targets we do. And dipping into the sovereign fund to balance the budget is illegal |
08:14am 07/02/19 Permalink
https://news.grabien.com/story-ocasio-cortez-fixin “Yeah, I think the first move we need to do is kind of break the mistaken idea that taxes pay for 100 percent of government expenditure,†Ocasio-Cortez answered. “It’s just not how government expenditure works. We can recoup costs, but oftentimes you look at, for example, the GOP tax cut which I think was an irresponsible use of government expenditure, but government projects are often financed by a combination of taxes, deficit spending and other kinds of investments, you know, bonds and so on.†In summation, Ocasio-Cortez, the archetypical socialist believes that taxes don't pay for 100% of government expenditure because the government can borrow money to use then admits taxes pay for that government borrowing. This is the golden child of American socialism and isn't it a slow motion train wreck. |
08:38am 08/02/19 Permalink
The train wreck started in 2016.
The real MAGA is the progressive movement that's taking off. The 70% marginal tax rate is smart, to pay for the new green deal and other social programs that pretty much all first world countries already enjoy. |
09:54am 08/02/19 Permalink
https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/fe Sensible decision by the courts. This will have a big impact on any new coal mine approvals. |
04:54pm 08/02/19 Permalink
Yes, Vash. Socialists are idiots. You don't need another Youtube video to elucidate that.
|
08:54am 11/02/19 Permalink
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/fran France forced to drop 75% supertax after meagre returns. OP sounds dumb. |
01:28pm 11/02/19 Permalink
Tax wealth, not income. Probably too much too ask for an explanation of how that will functionally differ from "tax income repeatedly and indefinitely" |
06:17pm 11/02/19 Permalink
It sure sounds like a much bigger pot to grope at for welfare, social programs, boondoggles and other non-producing efforts.
|
06:30pm 11/02/19 Permalink
Tax wealth, not income. How can you tax wealth though? It's much easier if you just tax future gains rather than existing wealth. The anti 'Socialist' propaganda is strong from the right. They've done a good job of tainting the meaning of the word. Anything that benefits the poor & middle class has been labelled as 'Socialist' Or Venezuela this and that. Boring. Thankfully, the people are waking up. |
06:32pm 11/02/19 Permalink
It's addressed in this book. |
07:12pm 11/02/19 Permalink
How can you tax wealth though? It's much easier if you just tax future gains rather than existing wealth. Oh my, my brain just melted a little bit. Tax 'future gains' not existing wealth. The Dunning-Kruger effect made (perhaps congealed?) Into flesh and bone. Shorter version, it would require international tax information sharing at least amongst advanced economies. So not going to happen in other words. But here is the thing. If I was trying to make land the exclusive purview of the ultra wealthy, your tax is how I'd do it. Slug someone a percentage of the valuation of their house each year. Here is a totally unpredictable large lump sum of cash to pay on top of your mortgage each year.... Who other than the ultra wealthy is going to be able to do that without risking bankruptcy? Especially at the start of their repayments. *Edit* oh and didn't in anyway answer the question. |
07:23pm 11/02/19 Permalink
Shorter version, it would require international tax information sharing at least amongst advanced economies.they already do this. Not sure I have copies of the forms but when I opened my UK and US bank accounts I had to sign documents disclosing where else I had previously had tax obligations including giving up my Australian TFN and other identifiers. I don't know how active they are about it. I don't think it's that useful though because if you're rich and hiding income it's not going to show up through those mechanisms anyway; it just feels like another pointless bit of paperwork that makes life difficult for the average citizen How can you tax wealth though? It's much easier if you just tax future gains rather than existing wealth.One of the economists I read is OK with wealth tax but thinks inheritance taxes are better |
09:27am 12/02/19 Permalink
The anti 'Socialist' propaganda is strong from the right. They've done a good job of tainting the meaning of the word. Anything that benefits the poor & middle class has been labelled as 'Socialist' No, it's the left that have the compulsion to label their junk "anything that benefits the poor and middle class" instead of the socialist garbage it is when they all demonstrably do the opposite. |
09:31am 12/02/19 Permalink
The massive cry being had by the right over anything and everything AOC has said is just beautiful to watch. It's disgusting and depressing watching just how much they have to twist and misrepresent much of what she's said - hell, they've gone as far as to disseminate modified versions of her bill to try to discredit her.
AOC may be the best thing to have happened to US politics in decades. |
11:17am 12/02/19 Permalink
Shorter version, it would require international tax information sharing at least amongst advanced economies. A New World Order? |
12:44pm 12/02/19 Permalink
The massive cry being had by the right over anything and everything AOC has said is just beautiful to watch. It's disgusting and depressing watching just how much they have to twist and misrepresent much of what she's said - hell, they've gone as far as to disseminate modified versions of her bill to try to discredit her. Called it. It's going to be amazing when a large number of people on this forum beclown themselves because of trump with tits |
01:17pm 12/02/19 Permalink
The anti 'Socialist' propaganda is strong from the right. They've done a good job of tainting the meaning of the word. Anything that benefits the poor & middle class has been labelled as 'Socialist' The second you start carrying on about how 'socialism' is bad and doesn't work makes it abundantly clear you have no idea what you're talking about. The flawed arguments and comparisons then come in thick and fast - usually in the form of pointing at countries that aren't remotely socialist at all in the sense of what's being aimed for. They're quick to label anything they can possibly as 'socialist' which includes everything from gay rights and abortion rights, to workers rights, collective bargaining, and public health programs. The mere idea that things like public health and education systems can be somehow bemoaned and labeled for the purpose of criticism by simultaneously labeling them as 'socialist' programs equating them to the failures of completely different branches of governments who have called themselves 'socialist' but had massive problems with corruption and theft just speaks volumes of the lack of any solid argument to be had when criticising 'socialism'. It's also odd how under a social democrat, New Zealand doesn't seem to be falling to pieces... What is ultimately the most pathetic and consistent thing about those who criticise socialism is that their arguments always come down to two things: - Tell everyone how s*** the proposed idea is while also; - Almost never offering an alternative solution to the issue it's trying to address to begin with, while insisting that "let things work on their own" is the most ideal, workable method. That the "free market" will work for the best - enabling absolutely no direction and planning to ensure a specific outcome. |
02:05pm 12/02/19 Permalink
Heh
You know it's funny tiraids about anti socialism are singularly incapable of capturing the actual argument and have a worse ideological memory than a goldfish. The reason Venezuela is routinely brought up and not New Zealand is that the current mouthpieces of democratic socialism all expressly Praised Venezuela as a viable successful economic model. Or in bernie Sanders own words Or Jeremy Corbyn's. And I'll bet you 500 bucks right now AOC before 2012. Now that the people it was meant to help are forced to kill zoo animals to avoid starvation, why shouldn't those folks be held to their words? And why isn't it cause to second guess their policy prescriptions? It's also the most egregious example of not real socialism doing the rounds. |
02:59pm 12/02/19 Permalink
Sigh. Annnnd once again you blame 'socialism' and Venezuelas current state on a problem that is *nothing to do with socialism*!
Their primary export was oil. They relied on it for the majority of their income - and built a system based on that being viable. And then that disappeared. If you can not understand that that has nothing to do with socialism, then you are beyond helping. It would be like if Australia exported only two things - Coal and Sheep - and suddenly everyone stopped using coal and stopped wanting Sheep for any purpose. We too would be f***ed. It would make *absolutely no difference* what system of government policy we based things on. You are trying to pin the issues faced by particular countries on 'socialism' when the problems they have developed are not remotely related to socialism - they just happened to be a country that implemented a number of those facets in other, unrelated areas. Venezuela is f***ed because it has no exports and had not only high expenditure to cover the programs they ran, but because of massive corruption that removed the wealth they needed to enable them to import the necessary products for their society to run. Why is that so hard for you to accept? |
04:52pm 12/02/19 Permalink
Yeah so you go find a single economist of any worth who shares your opinion.
oil was a scapegoat in the collapse of the Venezuelan economy If you can't see that the massive wealth redistribution required concentrating political power to an such an extent it created the corruption problem then you are beyond helping. <- this is a foundational concept of American constitutionalism. It is the reason for separating powers to prevent and contain corruption. And if you have any doubt of the link between wealth redistribution and power concentration go read trogs article. Noah Smith concedes it's likely Warren's plan will require constitutional amendment. I'll add that makes her plan almost certainly a non-starter, but wouldn't be a slippery slope to Venezuela. If you can't see that Venezuela over reliance on oil was created by using it as a political vehicle then you are beyond helping. If you can't see that using price controls on basic goods forced native farmers out of business and further increased reliance on borrowing against oil reserves to import basic goods you are beyond helping. The oil price collapse only destroyed Venezuela. Saudi Arabia managed to survive it and it is hardly a diversified economy. *Edit* oh and now that I think about it, if the "socialism has nothing to do with it" argument holds any water why didn't the price collapse in the 70's destroy Venezuela's economy? */Edit* Socialism is *squarely* to blame for Venezuela's problems. Chavez and Maduro used absolutely standard socialist techniques and suffered the same result as those that came before them. And the people I named called it socialism until it went horribly but utterly predictably wrong. Now it's got nothing to do with socialism. In the spirit of charity I'll concede any social safety net being equated with socialism in the Marxist sense is tiresome. But the politicians I've named are expressly socialist in the Marxist sense. Now if you are unwilling to accept their description *of themselves* I don't know how to help you. |
05:36pm 12/02/19 Permalink
why do you waste your time using reason?
|
05:42pm 12/02/19 Permalink
Because it's really funny that he is what he thinks I am.
|
08:06pm 12/02/19 Permalink
It's just because in socialist countries they haven't had leaders like Vash and Raven that would definitely 100% not run a corrupt administration and definitely 100% would know exactly how to control an economy so complex that every economic forecast ever done in the history of ever is accurate at a maximum 6 months in advance.
|
02:34pm 13/02/19 Permalink
You see, If you follow the logic of the right, you will find they'll agree the Scandinavian countries are Socialist. Considering they scream Socialism at the proposed social programs by AOC & Sanders.
Anything they dont like = Socialism. If they want to play that game then they cant claim the Scandinavian countries aren't Socialist. |
03:35pm 13/02/19 Permalink
Heh
Speaking of selectively applying terminology. "Socialist" utopia Sweden had a wealth tax and got rid of it. From trogs article again. There’s also the possibility of capital flight — wealthy people moving their money out of the country, straining the economy. It was partly because of capital flight that some European countries, such as Sweden, got rid of their own wealth taxes in the 1990s and 2000s. Sounds to me like it would be an empty symbolic gesture that would be easily avoided and levied at the exact people most able to avoid it. But on the socialist point, why would a socialist country be worried about capital flight? I mean they don't believe in all.that horey capital is needed for wealth generation, capital is the tool of the bourgeoisie to keep the horrid prols in check. To ram the point home to capitan tone police, it didn't bother Chavez. |
04:34pm 13/02/19 Permalink
Mitch McConnell forcing a vote on the new green deal is f*****g epic.
The guy is the Sun Tzu of Parliamentary process. Dems voting against their own policy. It's like a fine fine wine. |
08:56pm 13/02/19 Permalink
Why don't the people who want to live in a more socialist country just FO to a more socialist country?
|
10:49pm 13/02/19 Permalink
Why don't the people who want to live in a more socialist country just FO to a more socialist country? No need. Australia is sufficiently Socialist by right-wing standards. If i was in the U.S though, i'd be moving. |
11:13pm 13/02/19 Permalink
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-14/coalitio This caretaker government is so desperate to cling to power despite its inability to govern. |
08:02pm 14/02/19 Permalink
i have enjoyed watching SCOMO fail horribly becuase hes such a scare mongering c***. Does he have any redeeming features as a human being? I just love that hes a good christian fellow, says a lot for christianity.
|
09:33pm 14/02/19 Permalink
08:07am 15/02/19 Permalink
heh |
03:14pm 15/02/19 Permalink
Why do you have this obsession with America Vash? Are you American or are you just triggered by the endless cheap American orientated news rubbish pumped out by agencies like ABC and The Guardian? They voted that guy in, even if you think it was the Russians.. why care so much? Why not care more about local atrocities and unjust social issues?
They can wave their flags and mount their eagles, and land on as many moons as they like, they are a nation of war mongers. They are likely controlled by Israel. They are not free. They have issues far worse than we do. I regard the social issues they have, and the economic issues they have as building a case they live in a "s*** hole country". Their pride is delusional. It's ingrained in their culture. They brainwash themselves with their nationalism. The term "World Series Baseball" just about explains it all for me. Even without the guns, and the s*** economy, and amount they spend on "Defence"... the issues they have with African American racism/social issues alone is enough to give them a "Your nation is almost a s*** hole country" award. These Mexican Walls and North Korean things, and China trade deals are really just distraction from the real issues. The real issues in that place exist within their borders. There are reasons some nut cases got motivated enough to run a few planes into American buildings. They piss people off with their meddling. They apparently arm both sides of some conflicts to encourage conflict. Whilst I'm not personally that keen on Palestinians as a people, I can certainly see why they are so pissed off with Israel. we in turn get drawn into all this crap because we are part of the coalition wrecking havoc in regions that we should have little to do with. |
05:42pm 15/02/19 Permalink
You could be a Socialist yet Nmag.
American politics interests me for the trainwreck it is. And we all should have an interest in what other countries are doing since climate change needs strong action *now* |
05:52pm 15/02/19 Permalink
to give them a "Your nation is almost a s*** hole country" award. Can you point to single historical period which trumps pax Americana for peace and prosperity? There is a correct answer to that btw |
06:56pm 15/02/19 Permalink
04:21pm 16/02/19 Permalink
Socialist paradise in the USA not feeling too good California is socialist now. Their non government controlled market based utilities company just went out of business because they were lighting fires. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/14/ca |
06:10pm 16/02/19 Permalink
Ah. The stupidity of conservatives. Ah Socialist Norway. Home of no minimum wage laws, lax gun laws, and school voucher programs. funny how those little facts never get the same attention as 'nationalizing' s***. |
07:29pm 16/02/19 Permalink
Norway runs social programs off the back of a massive sovereign wealth fund, funny how you avoid this fact.
|
08:46pm 16/02/19 Permalink
Yes and when ever they want to deliver a service they adopt a market based approach.
Here is a riddle for you redhat. if nationalizing oil wealth is so amazing, and public institutions rely on this, why does the entire group of 8 universities outrank every Norwegian university? you can trip over a better university here than you can find at all in Norway. But if norway is the ace in the hole you think it is, why don't the rest of the so called nordic model countries have massive sovereign welfare funds? The nordic model doesn't turn on oil wealth I'm sorry to tell you. It turns on free-market capitalism and a welfare state (and strict controls about government debt and spending). Until you produce a point by point rebuttal of this video. we don't have anything further to talk about RE socialism. But I will continue to mock you. |
09:08pm 16/02/19 Permalink
You could be a Socialist yet Nmag. I'm sure you're fully carbon neutral Vash or are you a chardonnay socialist where it's do as I say, not as I do. |
11:48pm 16/02/19 Permalink
"Well socialism works in Europe" stopped watching right there.
|
10:08am 17/02/19 Permalink
Yeah, I know you did champ. It doesn't have as many pictures as piketty so I understand how you got confused.
|
10:26am 17/02/19 Permalink
"Well socialism works in Europe" stopped watching right there. Had to unblock our local troll to see it. Can confirm, wasn't worth watching. Typical of PP, doesn't want to see the whole picture. 'Hurr durr their universities aren't in the top 8, gotcha!' Now if we cherry picked how poorly the Capitalist homeland the USA is doing on many areas... |
12:07pm 17/02/19 Permalink
Can confirm, wasn't worth watching. Yes because it graphically displayed the mutilated corpse of your argument. Either that or your socialist reasoning has lead to believe corporate tax rates should be significantly lowered |
01:18pm 17/02/19 Permalink
So Morrison is basically asking for more boat people with all this crying about the Medievac bill which only affects existing Refugees. He claims the bill will attract people smugglers but fails to realise his rhetoric is going to be the cause if the boats arrive again. So typical of conservative politicians to start banging on about Immigration when they're failing hard in the polls.
|
02:35pm 17/02/19 Permalink
BOM BOM.
Socialist Denmark has a lower corporate tax rate than the US. ZOMG TYPICAL CONSERVATIVE NEED RACIST DOGWHISTLES. |
02:56pm 17/02/19 Permalink
So Morrison is basically asking for more boat people with all this crying about the Medievac bill which only affects existing Refugees. He claims the bill will attract people smugglers but fails to realise his rhetoric is going to be the cause if the boats arrive again. So typical of conservative politicians to start banging on about Immigration when they're failing hard in the polls. it's a master stroke. if t he bill was rejected, morrison is strong on border protection. and now it passed, morrison is strong on border protection. this could win the coalition the election. why didn't bill just disappear for a few months - he could have been PM. |
03:10pm 17/02/19 Permalink
Ye, its sad that all this government has going for them is strong immigration policies. Fear based politics works.
|
03:41pm 17/02/19 Permalink
The coalition significantly reduced refuges drowning at sea. It's a noble thing to do. It's good to care about people Vash.
People are important, we need more of them, everywhere. Vash can house a couple dozen in tents in his backyard. The yard without fences at the house without walls. |
03:54pm 17/02/19 Permalink
When does AOC say the world is going to end again. 10 or 12 years time.
|
04:10pm 17/02/19 Permalink
When does AOC say the world is going to end again. 10 or 12 years time. Haha. The difference between evidence based policy vs irrational fear based policy. The mexicans are coming to take our jerbs etc etc. AOC was being somewhat hyperbolic with that statement but its not far from the truth when looking at the long term impacts of climate change. But thats one topic you like to avoid, since it backs you into a corner every time. |
04:53pm 17/02/19 Permalink
So if that's hyperbole, what is the actual date? I still have some outstanding VHS with Video Ezy and need to know if these overdue fees are gonna be a problem.
|
05:00pm 17/02/19 Permalink
Haha. The difference between evidence based policy vs irrational fear based policy. The mexicans are coming to take our jerbs etc etc. Because you are literally only capable of thinking in cliche I'm sure you thought this was amazing. She released her new green deal (or alternatively the most retarded document public politics had ever produced) structured around her time frame. So her signature policy suggestions are based on her "somewhat hyperbolic" timeframe. Notice in your f*****g retarded world Mexicans taking jerbs is the politics of fear but the world ending is 'evidenced based' hyperbole. The oxymoron is intentional by me. I'm pretty certain you're too f*****g retarded to understand what you did. Climate change won't box me in vash. I'll simply quote Noah Smith trogs favourite economist. |
05:15pm 17/02/19 Permalink
You realise aoc's retarded green new deal uses the same line. Is that a dog whistle?
|
05:19pm 17/02/19 Permalink
Yes it really is evidence based hyperbole. Because the world will end, as we know it, if we dont battle climate change right now. Will it be in 12 years? who knows. But it will happen, so it's based on existing evidence on the impacts of climate change.
It's already evident right now. Not sure how much more convincing you conservative types need. |
05:20pm 17/02/19 Permalink
So we know something bad is gonna happen? We have been trumpeting about it for some time now. But the sky hasn't fallen yet. Let's double down and say 10-12 years. But we don't really mean it - we still don't know.
And we have educational institutions parotting this horses*** to our kids now. We should tell them the fable of Chicken Little. Very instructional. Another good one is The Boy who Cried Wolf. |
06:03pm 17/02/19 Permalink
And we have educational institutions parotting this horses*** to our kids now. And so they should. Are you still in your delusional bubble thinking its a chinese / UN conspiracy? Illumanti, new world order? What else have those conspiracy theorists thought up? |
06:07pm 17/02/19 Permalink
So the world will end at *some point* in the future.
Not the politics of fear. When alternative facts aren't enough you can turn to 'not facts' |
06:29pm 17/02/19 Permalink
Let's keep polluting the world for endless growth. Don't try to change anything or make anything different. |
06:38pm 17/02/19 Permalink
So the world will end at *some point* in the future. Gee it almost sounds like something we should get on top of, like, now? Considering how bad humans are at tackling a slow growing problem such as this, the hyperbole statements are required to wake people the f*** up. It certainly isn't fear based politics if something is predicted to happen, with very solid scientific evidence. Now lets compare it to Trump's Wall rhetoric, Or Morrison's refugee fear, for a bill that contains no incentive to get people smugglers back in business. Funnily enough, an election is coming soon... And The Australian's front page is full of anti ALP and scary refugee talk. This is how your side of politics works. |
06:40pm 17/02/19 Permalink
It certainly isn't fear based politics if something is predicted to happen, with very solid scientific evidence. The sun operates on a well understood process of nuclear fusion in which hydrogen is converted to helium. It will eventually run out of hydrogen and when it does it will begin to expand and cool. This expansion will completely engulf the earth inside the sun at temperatures that will reduce every molecule on earth to gas or plasma. There is not a single fact in those sentences that is not the subject of total scientific consensus. This will happen. The only way for human life to continue will be to create interstellar travel. This may happen *at some point* in the next few billion years. Sounds like something we should get on top of now. Vash a prediction without a timeframe is prophecy. Which explains why you like them so much. The time frame is *critical* to how the response is tuned. lets compare Trump's wall rhetoric. You name me a single thing he says that could possibly be as scary as the f*****g end of the world. The hyperbole is hyperbole it isn't evidence based or justified. the hyperbole statements are required to wake people the f*** up. This is exactly the politics of fear. The only difference is that its coming from the flapping lips of someone you agree with. You are utterly unprincipled on this, along with everything else you discuss. |
07:46pm 17/02/19 Permalink
Gee PP, did you really just try to compare the immediate danger of climate change with an event that could take place billions of years in the future?
The effects of climate change are evident *now* The scientific consensus is that it will worsen greatly in the next few decades, and currently at a rate faster than we anticipated. This is an irrefutable fact. Even if the timeframe is in 20 years, 30 years. It doesnt matter. The point of it being irreversible is right now, or in the next couple of years. The politics of fear is creating a problem that doesn't exist, and using it for political gain. Trump & Morrison in a nutshell. AOC's deal will maximise our chances of reversing it, especially enacting it in a nation with the highest emissions. I agree with her based on the facts presented. You should too. |
07:58pm 17/02/19 Permalink
Lulz I'm sure all the politicians, billionaires and Hollywood types will sell their jets and can their business class flights.
You are a joke just like the bartender chick. |
08:06pm 17/02/19 Permalink
Yeah theres the strawman. I use a computer that uses electricity and emits carbon emissions. Ya got me.
Bernie uses a private jet to get around. Got him too. It's almost like you need legislation & infrastructure overhaul to beat climate change instead of focusing on whether the leftist drives a car or travels by plane. |
08:12pm 17/02/19 Permalink
It starts with leading by example, otherwise that makes you a hypocrite. Leftists are so good at planning out other people's lives and telling others what to do.
|
08:32pm 17/02/19 Permalink
Yeah you see when conservatives like you try the 'gotchas' on people like Musk or Bernie, because they fly a private jet everywhere, they don't exactly have an alternative to getting around to do their business.
The changes come from changing your habits that dont impede on your ability to do your job. Like changing your diet and how you use energy at home and in the workplace. And on a much bigger scale, legislation & infrastructure. |
08:40pm 17/02/19 Permalink
It starts with leading by example, otherwise that makes you a hypocrite. Leftists are so good at planning out other people's lives and telling others what to do. I agree with infi, inefficient transport is a massive blindspot of the left movement, mostly because many are complicit in burning fossil fuels for convenience. |
08:51pm 17/02/19 Permalink
Gee PP, did you really just try to compare the immediate danger of climate change with an event that could take place billions of years in the future? Yes vash. To demonstrate this point. Even if the timeframe is in 20 years, 30 years. It doesnt matter. The timeframe either matters or it doesn't vash. Seeing as you *repeatedly* say it doesn't it is very clear you've chosen. But here is the thing. It does matter. as for the facts presented by AOC you can start presenting them anytime little buddy. For example how will a federal jobs guarantee avert climate change? this The point of it being irreversible is right now, or in the next couple of years. is this The politics of fear is creating a problem that doesn't exist The IPCC report is crystal clear on this vash. It *does not say* the world will end in 12 years or that climate change will become irreversible in 12 years. It says we have 12 years to limit climate change to an aggregate increase of 1.5 degrees. |
08:56pm 17/02/19 Permalink
Do you have any examples? Musk and bernie are two examples i use because a private jet is necessary for them, i think. Im sure there are hollywood leftist examples that would stand out as being unnecessary use of fossil fuels, but i cant think of any off the top off my head. |
09:02pm 17/02/19 Permalink
And this is why people block you PP. Cant argue worth a fish. Its funny you accuse me of being the epitome of the Dunning Kruger effect, when i feel its well on display from you. Abit of projection & insecurity perhaps?
You tried to compare a threat to human life in the near future with an event billions of years in the future. We know it'll happen in our life time. We have strong evidence that requires we take full action right now. The Green New Deal is the only policy presented that meets the need for said action. Again, you don't see the full picture. AOC's statement is based on truth, as you stated from the IPCC report, we have 12 years before its irreversible, which leads to 'the end of the world' so, it's a true statement if we cannot stop climate change before the 12 year cut off. |
09:15pm 17/02/19 Permalink
All of Hollywood Vash, open your goddamn eyes. Lead by example. If Leftist opinion-leaders are insisting on their fellow citizens reducing their convenience and quality of life, then the elites should make the first cuts.
That is standard Marxist behaviour to ask the serfs to make the first sacrifices, so I am not surprised about you saying. |
09:21pm 17/02/19 Permalink
All of Hollywood Vash, open your goddamn eyes. Lead by example. If Leftist opinion-leaders are insisting on their fellow citizens reducing their convenience and quality of life, then the elites should make the first cuts. Yet you haven't named one. I totally agree with you that wealthy leftists should sacrifice their luxurious lifestyles if they strongly believe in action on climate change. But for using private jets to do their job, like the constant fly in & fly out to movie sets and what not, seems fine to me since there is no alternative mode of transportation that wouldn't impede on movie studio timelines. |
09:31pm 17/02/19 Permalink
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/plane-carryi We have no time for movies when the survival of the world is at stake. |
09:35pm 17/02/19 Permalink
In an ideal world, if humanity was presented with strong evidence of destruction, everyone would spring to action and change their lifestyles and vote in progressive leaders. We dont live in an ideal world.
Instead we dont do anything because hollywood actors arent. |
09:45pm 17/02/19 Permalink
And this is why people block you PP. Cant argue worth a fish. Its funny you accuse me of being the epitome of the Dunning Kruger effect, when i feel its well on display from you. Vash one of the features of the dunning-krugger effect is that someone suffering of it under judges the ability of a professional and over judges their own ability. In this case telling someone who is literally paid hundreds of dollars an hour to argue for people that they can't argue. You are not capable of insulting me. In your attempt just now you literally demonstrated my point. You tried to compare a threat to human life in the near future with an event billions of years in the future. It's called a reduction to absurdity argument vash. To prove a point you are quite perfectly incapable of grasping. The timeframe of climate change governs the appropriate response. For example We know it'll happen in our life time Next year 12 years 20 years 30 years, in our lifetime. These time frames are getting progressively looser vash. The difference between one decade and three will *profoundly affect* the appropriate response. You are also incapable of reading words on a page. as you stated from the IPCC report, we have 12 years before its irreversible, which leads to 'the end of the world' so, it's a true statement if we cannot stop climate change before the 12 year cut off. I didn't say this and neither did the IPCC. The IPCC said 12 years to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. Not the end is here in 12 years. In an ideal world, if humanity was presented with strong evidence of destruction, Not the politics of fear. The actual evidence isn't scary enough in an ideal world the evidence would be much more scary |
10:13pm 17/02/19 Permalink
Hehe. That must've hit you deep. 'Im being paid alot of money to argue, therefor you cant say i cant argue'
Yet you fail so hard with such simple concepts. The limitations with your career is how literal you take every statement. You simply cant look at the big picture. This isn't a court room. So you just defined yourself as true to the Dunning Kruger effect. You're not a professional researcher into climate change. And you under judge the professional opinion of climate change scientists. The IPCC said *irreversible* by 12 years. As in, it can't be reversed. The path to the 'end of the world' cant be reversed. So... looking at the big picture (something you struggle with) its safe to say by that time, we are pretty screwed. But because the IPCC doesn't say the exact words 'its the end of the world' its all good. It's just politics of fear. |
10:32pm 17/02/19 Permalink
Do you have any examples? Musk and bernie are two examples i use because a private jet is necessary for them, i think. Im sure there are hollywood leftist examples that would stand out as being unnecessary use of fossil fuels, but i cant think of any off the top off my head. Was about to say leo but... https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/14/leonardo-dicaprio-t lol looks like outrage did something after all. Cars are not a good solution in cities, but the vic greens want to encourage private electric cars through subsidies. Propping up road transport which kills over 1000 people per year and contributes more than double to emissions as coal fired power plants do is completely nuts. As a side note. How is musk anything like bernie? Save us billionaires pls. |
10:53pm 17/02/19 Permalink
Thats admirable of Leo. I dont put Musk anywhere near Bernie in regards to their politics, but more so as an example for their need to use private jets for their line of work.
If society gets serious enough on climate change, i wouldnt mind seeing private jets regulated and a tribunal can decide if they require it for their job, and provide evidence on why flying commercial isn't feasible for them. Also this just in the news: After spending a week attacking Bill Shorten over border protection, the Coalition now trails Labor by 51 to 49 per cent. Politics of fear, it works! |
11:06pm 17/02/19 Permalink
Low skilled illegals coming from the southern border do take jobs from low skilled Americans, disproportionately affecting Latino-Americans and African-Americans. Being a neo-Marxist you'd think you'd be in support of your minority proletariat a bit more. Not only that a flood of low skilled illegals depresses wages and helps corporations. These are the blindingly obvious repercussions of a porous border that, to be frank at this point is utterly embarrassing to argue. |
08:45am 18/02/19 Permalink
These are the blindingly obvious repercussions of a porous border that, to be frank at this point is utterly embarrassing to argue. They're also blindingly obvious repurcussions of having terrible policies on minimum wages and labour laws - where people are willing take whatever they can, and there's no enforcement around laws on who you can employ. The Republicans are constantly talking about 'American jobs', while wanting no regulation on the market/industries which would allow them to enforce those jobs going to Americans, because they're all about not interfering and letting people go overseas to get things cheaper if that's what they want to do. It's just silly really, the way they're all about one issue until it doesn't help them, and then when their own policies work against one another, they need to come up with an altogether different solution. Reality is, you have a *crapload* of businesses using illegal employment - but this isn't enforced. So they blame 'immigration'. It's like... holy s***, it's *your* employees, and mostly in fact Red voters seeing such a benefit in employing these people because they're cheaper - so your solution is to just prevent them coming in? No. Go after the people breaking the law by actually enabling them working in the US! |
01:53pm 18/02/19 Permalink
They're also blindingly obvious repurcussions of having terrible policies on minimum wages and labour laws - where people are willing take whatever they can, and there's no enforcement around laws on who you can employ. The Republicans are constantly talking about 'American jobs', while wanting no regulation on the market/industries which would allow them to enforce those jobs going to Americans, because they're all about not interfering and letting people go overseas to get things cheaper if that's what they want to do.in which laws that aren't enforced are enforced Fwiw I have some sympathy with treating employers more harshly than illegals in that situation. But remind me which side of politics wants to abolish the enforcement agency of the laws you're talking about? |
06:06pm 18/02/19 Permalink
07:13pm 18/02/19 Permalink
their board is just filled with labor and greens appointees
|
09:47pm 18/02/19 Permalink
their board is just filled with labor and greens appointees Just like the IPA with LNP stooges? And now the ABC takeover is in process. The difference between Getup and the IPA, Getup rallies people and informs them on how to vote in their best interest. The right leaning media convinces people to vote against their best interests, and people are surprised when they do a 'who to vote for' quiz, which for the majority of people, ends up being Greens or Labor. This is the biggest issue with how our, and much of the world's democratic process works. The IPA & LNP look after corporate interests only. |
02:25pm 19/02/19 Permalink
The IPA doesn't run political campaigns.
|
02:28pm 19/02/19 Permalink
The IPA doesn't run political campaigns. Sure. Abbott was basically ticking off the IPA checklist. And News Corp parrots much of their policy proposals as well. So, while the IPA doesn't campaign directly to the public, it does so through News Corp & the LNP. |
02:37pm 19/02/19 Permalink
IPA don't man polling booths in IPA T-Shirts making it look like they are some sort of independent interest group when in fact they are the mouthpiece of a political party.
They don't run paid political advertising pretending to be an independent interest group. They are a think tank influencing public policy.
|
03:08pm 19/02/19 Permalink
Yep, because they wouldn't be successful doing so. Its better to try to get through their message via the media.
Getup is effective because they resonate with the average voter. |
03:16pm 19/02/19 Permalink
Literally incapable of thinking outside of cliche
|
04:58pm 19/02/19 Permalink
Yep, because they wouldn't be successful doing so. Its better to try to get through their message via the media. That and they receive huge money from foreign sources. I thought you were against foreign interference in elections? Or is it only when it is a fairy tale involving Trump and Russia? |
10:04pm 19/02/19 Permalink
They aren't a political party? I dont care where they get their money. They aren't running for Government. Abolishing foreign and corporate donations to political parties on the other hand, would only strengthen democracy. Heh 'fairy tale' How many indictments are they up to now? 37? |
12:36pm 20/02/19 Permalink
Hey guys it's ok if the lobby group I fuilly support which is in no way connected to the ALP and Greens is funded by overseas sources.
By the way I am totally against foreign donations in Australian politics. You need to listen to yourself. |
01:02pm 20/02/19 Permalink
How many indictments are they up to now? 37? Literally zero for conspiracy to alter the election. Hey guys it's ok if the lobby group I fuilly support Important to note vash will not be able to name a single policy they advocate for, much less have engaged with the mechanics of their operation. Reading isn't a strong suit of his. IPA support "corporations" (which more than a little ironically getup is. ACN: 114 027 986) = bad Getup is 'grassroots' getting people to vote for their own best interests = good. |
01:39pm 20/02/19 Permalink
Hey guys it's ok if the lobby group I fuilly support which is in no way connected to the ALP and Greens is funded by overseas sources. How do you intend to regulate a private activist organisation's donors? Sounds like you're walking that fine line of Authoritarianism there buddy. |
01:49pm 20/02/19 Permalink
Who you going to vote for Vash? Greens?
What if all the people in detention centres, on unemployment benefits, physically able people on disability pensions, and jail inmates ran on treadmills 5-6 hours day generating power for nearby towns? Would that help climate change? https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--CviCzhGnk8/VegbQ_OAaVI/AAAAAAAAA20/40eUdAY1_-Y/s1600/refugee-www-scarfolk-blogspot-com.jpg |
03:21pm 20/02/19 Permalink
Who you going to vote for Vash? Greens? Naturally. Only party thats serious on climate change. http://climate.anu.edu.au/news-media/australians-i Proof that people vote against their best interests. |
04:01pm 20/02/19 Permalink
Proof that people don't balance issues the same way vash does.
I wonder how many people in the study could accurately identify energy generation's contribution to overall emissions. |
04:49pm 20/02/19 Permalink
Naturally. Only party thats serious on climate change. If they were serious Vash they'd propose solutions that a) will get them elected and b) are fiscally feasible. As usual though, you ask a socialist how they are going to pay for it and they can never give you a budget. |
08:26am 21/02/19 Permalink
Proof that people vote against their best interests. Declared vs revealed preferences. |
01:48pm 21/02/19 Permalink
Declared vs revealed preferences. Is it even a case of that though? That poll offers no insight into what their other preferences are. Most people capable of thinking like adults choose between preferences in a principled way. Would like to see != Literally the only thing that matters at an election. Those things can all be true and not justify voting green. Given greens have never polled above 11% (currently less than 9) I'd suggest most people's declared preferences are more like climate change is too important to leave to bats*** insane tambourine tappers. |
03:45pm 21/02/19 Permalink
Yeah, the boiling frog metaphor applies here. Without the immediate danger evident, (though it's already obvious to most educated people) border control scare campaigns will continue to keep voters tamed. |
03:52pm 21/02/19 Permalink
I care about climate change because I clicked a button on an internet survey.
*Continues comfortable life whilst telling others what they need to cut back on* |
03:56pm 21/02/19 Permalink
I care about climate change because I clicked a button on an internet survey. Hehe. You truly believe its all a joke don't you? Can you provide your own set of evidence refuting NASA's? |
04:03pm 21/02/19 Permalink
Without the immediate danger evident, (though it's already obvious to most educated people) border control scare campaigns will continue to keep voters tamed. Not the politics of fear. It's remarkable how vash's posts have all the hall marks of cult like behaviour. No depth. Everyone who doesn't agree (which is over 90% of the population) has been conned, but he has access to real truth. I doubt he's ever visited NASA.com much less engaged any of their commentary on climate change. I've never seen a press release from NASA stating every building in the United states has to be rebuilt in 10 years or 'the world will end'. |
05:19pm 21/02/19 Permalink
Heh.
The term politics of fear denotes when leaders (or candidates for leadership) use fear as a driving or motivating factor for the people, to get them to vote a particular way, allow excesses in spending, or accept policies they might otherwise abhor. PP clearly doesn't understand what politics of fear is. The large majority clearly support more action on climate change. The politics of fear is to make people vote for something they otherwise disagree with. Voter manipulation. AOC stating the seriousness of climate change is not politics of fear. It's engaging with a concern that most people agree with. Nazi leader Hermann Göring explains how people can be made fearful and to support a war they otherwise would oppose: The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.[7] One example. Have you had a good look at NASA's climate change page, PP? I've read through it all. |
06:14pm 21/02/19 Permalink
So you wouldn't agree that stating the world is literally going to end in 12 years constitutes politics of fear?
|
06:19pm 21/02/19 Permalink
So you wouldn't agree that stating the world is literally going to him in 12 years constitutes politics of fear? No, i wouldn't. Because it isn't far from the truth. As i stated earlier, thats the point where the damage is irreversible. Using hyperbole to get a point across is not uncommon, and far from politics of fear. |
06:25pm 21/02/19 Permalink
The term politics of fear denotes when leaders (or candidates for leadership) use fear as a driving or motivating factor for the people, to get them to vote a particular way, allow excesses in spending, or accept policies they might otherwise abhor. Proof that people vote against their best interests. Without the immediate danger evident, (though it's already obvious to most educated people) border control scare campaigns will continue to keep voters tamed. Because it isn't far from the truth. So not the truth. Vash you have repeatedly engaged in the exact logic you quoted. You flat out state it is ok to exaggerate the immediacy of the danger (dangerous things create *fear*) because people won't vote for the policies you think are needed (or vote against their own interests as you put it). you say it is ok to 'wake' people up so that AOC can spend close to $100 Trillion. You freely acknowledge people wouldn't ordinarily vote for that kind of program (and in fact don't). Your quote says using fear as the motivating factor to change peoples mind. What the f*** is the purpose of literally stating the world will end in 12 years if not to generate fear. As for NASA's page I frankly don't believe you, but if you have it should be trivial to link to the part that says the world is ending in 12 years. As for quoting Nazis well how totally unsurprising is that. Mind you if the yardstick is making people do things on a war footing is it interesting that AOC refers to mobilizing the country in the same way as world war 2. See when you *read* the documents it informs you vash. Helps you not to make my arguments for me. |
07:06pm 21/02/19 Permalink
You morons against gender/diversity quotas should probably use those big brains of yours to oppose small business procurement quotas too
|
09:38pm 21/02/19 Permalink
big businesses have far better capacity and capability, so clearly choosing suppliers based purely on merit would mean small businesses lose out. yet here we are with a 10% quota
if you're not making the link, Bishop left because LNP is anti-women, in the same way a govt that doesnt 'support' small businesses would be anti-small business |
09:51pm 21/02/19 Permalink
AOC can spend close to $100 Trillion There's the politics of fear perfectly captured. Proved my point nicely. Nothing more i can say to you PP beyond repeating myself. You'll get it one day hopefully. |
10:08pm 21/02/19 Permalink
Man Vash I don't know how you're even still in this thread dude. Props for the resilience
|
10:13pm 21/02/19 Permalink
Yeah she wants to eliminate all fossil fuels usage in 12 years (except for politicians and elite Democrats donors), increase top tax rate to 70% and legalise abortion up to dilation. Nothing extreme or controversial here guys. Totally electable.
|
10:16pm 21/02/19 Permalink
Yeah she wants to eliminate all fossil fuels usage in 12 years (except for politicians and elite Democrats donors), increase top tax rate to 70% and legalise abortion up to dilation. Nothing extreme or controversial here guys. Totally electable. Still waiting on why you think climate change isnt worth being serious about. Until then, you can't oppose such ideas. Phooks, i have no idea either. There's no changing people's minds about these things, despite such clear cut evidence. It just convinces me more how lost conservatives are. |
10:45pm 21/02/19 Permalink
Still waiting on why you think climate change isnt worth being serious about. Until then, you can't oppose such ideas. You think entirely eliminating the fuel that has powered our massive technological advance and rise out of poverty over the last 300 years is even achievable let alone responsible? That is "homeless-guy-on-bath-salts" crazy. To think that US democrats are even willing to entertain it demonstrates how removed from reality they are. They think they are actually gods. |
10:54pm 21/02/19 Permalink
You are not answering the question. You're doing the same thing all conservatives do. Flailing about the complications that come with tackling the problem, instead of offering any alternative to beating the 12 year cut off time. So can you answer my question or not? |
11:01pm 21/02/19 Permalink
Do you like nuclear power Vash? Yep. Especially with new research showing it's potential at being completely renewable. Im hoping the Greens eventually change their stance on that. Having said that, we dont need Nuclear to be fully energy independent of fossil fuels, especially in Australia. The main concern i think people have with Nuclear, particularly the Greens, is that if the world adopts Nuclear universally, then that leads to the problem of more countries having the potential to develop nuclear weapons, and the increasing risk of technical failure as more plants are built to offset fossil fuels. Those risks dont exist with other renewable choices. |
11:39pm 21/02/19 Permalink
So can you answer my question or not? I don't believe the boogey-man of climate change is worth removing the use of all fossil fuels. |
11:53pm 21/02/19 Permalink
Could you possibly provide any reason why? Or proof that makes you think this way? |
12:59am 22/02/19 Permalink
The politics of fear is stating the cost of her policies. Yes ok. You keep using that phrase. But it doesn't mean what you think it means. But you've also said unless people are woken up they won't pay for get policies so it's ok to exaggerate. Do you have any conception of how stupid you actually are? Could you possibly provide any reason why? Or proof that makes you think this way? Still waiting on the link to NASA saying the world ends in 12 years. I know it can't happen because it doesn't exist but it's interesting to watch a dribbling retard demand evidence while having linked to none whatsoever. |
06:28am 22/02/19 Permalink
How you can watch AOC and still associate with the left is testament to how shamelessly stupid the left are. I mean, she literally and very obviously displayed her utter lack of understanding about financing a government yet here we have special people riding her policies nonetheless. Then they have the hide to call someone fearmongering for putting a number next to her bats*** insane ideas. Laughable.
Another socialist hero praising not-real-socialism. Same as he did for Venezuela nearly 30 years later. I would probably stay home from the sheer embarrassment of being so utterly and disgracefully wrong on so many separate occasions. |
08:11am 22/02/19 Permalink
Could you possibly provide any reason why? Or proof that makes you think this way? I don't believe Chicken Little types who want us to throw out all of our modern convenience in some sort of Amish penance. It very much reminds of standard Marxist strategy to impoverish the proletariat while the leadership lives in luxury. I see climate change as another Marxist con-job. |
09:27am 22/02/19 Permalink
Waffle waffle.
PP missing the point entirely yet again. and dazed doing the same thing Infi is doing. What's your solution to climate change, dazed?
Haha wow. Blew my mind with this little nugget. NASA is full of Marxists right? All those scientists are flocking to the red's cause. And you have the audacity to call me crazy. |
09:33am 22/02/19 Permalink
How you can watch AOC and still associate with the left is testament to how shamelessly stupid the left are To be fair it's a generalisation applicable to both sides of politics. The classic example on the right is the fervent family values candidate who's f*****g rent boys on the side. But to my mind the lesson to learn from that is that moral grandstanding in a pluralist society is inevitably hypocritical. So better to keep to dispassionate policy formation. Still it's been abundantly clear we can't have nice things for a while now. So instead it's fun to watch people make hypocrites of themselves. And as far as AOC is concerned it's unfolding exactly like I said it would. |
09:45am 22/02/19 Permalink
I don't criticise scientific institutions for doing their job (except of course when they falsify data like the IPCC), but the data is being used by Leftist politicians for Marxist objectives - control and impoverish the masses and then enrich the elite.
As I said earlier, I will believe Climate Change is a real threat when I see the leaders and gloablist elites wearing sacks and riding horses. |
09:49am 22/02/19 Permalink
I don't criticise scientific institutions for doing their job (except of course when they falsify data like the IPCC), but the data is being used by Leftist politicians for Marxist objectives - control and impoverish the masses and then enrich the elite. You realise that climate change is mainly going to affect the poor? It's very interesting suddenly you're concerned about the poor. The rest of your political philosophy is at odds with that. Infact your philosophy supports and enriches the elite at the expense of the impoverished. |
09:55am 22/02/19 Permalink
i am extremely concerned about the poor, and their best chance in life is education and then employment. Exactly what the minimum wage prevents. Exactly what deindustrialising our economy will prevent. It sounds like you are looking forward to our impoverished society. But I am looking forward. When the experts are wearing sacks and riding horses I will know they think Climate Change is serious. let me know when you have jumped on board. |
10:02am 22/02/19 Permalink
Yeah telling everyone to convert to sacks & riding horses is really going to go down well. Or, we could utilise our technology to make the economy greener, our infrastructure & transportation, and our diets.
Such an outlandish idea i know. i am extremely concerned about the poor, and their best chance in life is education and then employment. Thats great. Then you should support the green new deal. It will create an immense amount of jobs. |
10:08am 22/02/19 Permalink
I don't believe Chicken Little types who want us to throw out all of our modern convenience in some sort of Amish penance. It very much reminds of standard Marxist strategy to impoverish the proletariat while the leadership lives in luxury. I see climate change as another Marxist con-job.nobody wants that |
10:43am 22/02/19 Permalink
Waffle waffle. Narrator voice. He didn't. Poor vash. When pushed even a little the world is full of Nazis. Politics of fear is pointing out policies cost money. God what an empty shell that noggin of yours is. Haha wow. Blew my mind with this little nugget. That link to NASA saying the world will end in 12 years will surface any second now. |
10:54am 22/02/19 Permalink
nobody wants that i'm guessing you won't be flying to San Fran for any more conferences then? We should all do our bit right? 2032 is the end remember. |
11:03am 22/02/19 Permalink
PP you're doing your thing, and thats fine. But really you need to expand beyond literal thinking if you want to discuss politics with intellectual honesty.
Also, $100 trillion is higher than the yearly global GDP. But AOC somehow is going to spend more than the world's combined GDP. Politics of fear is using numbers you pulled out of your ass to make AOC seem scary. And she really is to you and other conservatives, which means shes doing exactly the right thing. |
11:07am 22/02/19 Permalink
"but it's better than the Big Turkey types who just want to grind up the bodies of the poor and put them in furnaces; their high fat content make them an excellent source of energy. It reminds me of the subtle capitalism to increase your power by eating your own babies, which is what all billionaires do in secret.
LIZARD PEOPLE" edit: man it's annoying that this video is so big, why isn't it the width of the iframe |
11:07am 22/02/19 Permalink
i'm guessing you won't be flying to San Fran for any more conferences then? We should all do our bit right? 2032 is the end remember.I literally just said "nobody wants that" (I fly Qantas and usually buy carbon credits when I fly. edit: also I'm avoiding the USA, including conferences. I'm putting my money where my mouth is and not supporting their country with my dollars, which a) is the only option for non-US-citizens and b) should be perfectly aligned with your principles) |
11:09am 22/02/19 Permalink
I will wait to watch the political and financial elites make the first sacrifices. Tell me how you are going with yours too. Climate change champions needs to lead by example. Or do they tell every one else what to do?
|
11:09am 22/02/19 Permalink
I didn't expect Infi to go that direction, i thought he could come up with at least something to justify his climate change stance. But he went for the ole Marxist deep state conspiracy that all tin hat crazies go for.
|
11:19am 22/02/19 Permalink
I didn't expect Infi to go that direction, i thought he could come up with at least something to justify his climate change stance. But he went for the ole Marxist deep state conspiracy that all tin hat crazies go for. Tell us all about your carbon-free existence Vash. |
11:26am 22/02/19 Permalink
So if i emit even 1mg of carbon, that makes me a hypocrite right? Can you even see the flaws in your logic? |
11:30am 22/02/19 Permalink
I trust you will be leading by example and shun all evil modern conveniences - even filthy public transport. Just like AOC is. *rolls eyes*
massive hypocrits lecturing others. I literally just said "nobody wants that" trog, aren't you concerned about the world ending in 2032? |
11:51am 22/02/19 Permalink
I trust you will be leading by example and shun all evil modern conveniences - even filthy public transport. Just like AOC is. *rolls eyes* Are you trolling? You have to be. We dont need to give up modern conveniences to beat climate change. But im wasting my time here explaining anything to you. |
11:57am 22/02/19 Permalink
PP you're doing your thing, and thats fine. But really you need to expand beyond literal thinking if you want to discuss politics with intellectual honesty. It's not clear to me what this even means. Is this meant to absolve you of backing your statements with evidence? Still waiting for the link. If the statement it not to be taken literally then it is only capable of making a problem appear more serious or urgent than it really is. Which you have said ad nauseum is justified to make people change their votes. That is the politics of fear you chump.
It's becoming increasingly clear you haven't read a word of the green new deal vash. Or any commentary about it. You support it as a knee jerk because of who put it forward. the price tag is the reason the plan is absurd on its face. She is talking about paying for it by printing money. Keep in mind one year of her plan would cost more than 6 times the entire TARP program. here is noah smith trogs favourite economist back of the envelope for it He estimates 6.6 trillion a year, over 12 years is 79.2 trillion. Or about global GDP. And keep in mind he says himself he was a being conservative and assumes no bumps in the road (like accidentally triggering hyperinflation). A blow out of 25% on 'remaking the entire economy' is if anything generous. |
12:03pm 22/02/19 Permalink
See, i already addressed what you're saying PP. This is the stuck literal thinking part, which you wont break out of any time soon.
So i'll just have to repeat myself, if that helps. The IPCC says that irreversible damage will occur in 12 years time, you linked it yourself. The statement 'The world will end in 12 years' Is hyperbole, and even AOC would say it is. It's not meant to be taken literally. If there is irreversible damage to the climate, it will cause huge downstream effects on sea levels, food security, loss of life from floods, heat waves, blizzards. countless things. More deaths will be caused by climate change if not addressed than any war in history. Now if that doesn't wake you up, then nothing will. But you just keep jabbing at that 'End of the world' statement fella, instead of thinking about anything beyond it. Cool, you found one economist who estimates it's 7x more expensive than what other economists are saying. Edit: Joseph Stiglitz supports the green new deal btw. |
12:15pm 22/02/19 Permalink
The IPCC says that irreversible damage will occur in 12 years time, you linked it yourself. No it doesn't vash. And it is not what I said. For the millionth time it says global carbon emissions have to be reduced by around 45% to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. That's what it says. It doesn't say irreversible. And it doesn't say catastrophic climate change will definitely follow if the targets are not met. The actual document doesn't paint the mad max bulls*** you do because it's produced by level headed experts. Cool, you found one economist who estimates it's 7x more expensive than what other economists are saying. Please tell me you not confusing annual cost with total cost. You find some who says the total cost will only be 11 trillion. The universal health care proposal alone is 32 trillion over ten years. Which had been costed by Obama's treasury. Hehe Joseph Stiglitz / first Google result. I didn't pick an economist at random vash. I picked one who is sympathetic to AOC. . So why don't you take it up with trog who Noah Smith is and see if you can get trog to say Noah Smith is engaged in the “politics of fear”. Noah Smith a “conservative” my god that's awesome. |
01:37pm 22/02/19 Permalink
You think society could be improved, yet you participate in it? Curious!
|
01:56pm 22/02/19 Permalink
PP, how you're a lawyer is beyond me. But its good you're finally thinking beyond literality. The IPCC report *clearly* states irreversible damage if we dont reduce remissions by that time. Scientific, technical and socioeconomic aspects of current and future residual impacts of climate change, including residual damage, irreversible loss, and economic and non-economic losses caused by slow onset and extreme eventshttps://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/11/AR6_WGII_outlines_P46.pdf Future climate-related risks depend on the rate, peak and duration of warming. In the aggregate, they are larger if global warming exceeds 1.5°C before returning to that level by 2100 than if global warming gradually stabilizes at 1.5°C, especially if the peak temperature is high (e.g., about 2°C) (high confidence). Some impacts may be long-lasting or irreversible, such as the loss of some ecosystems (high confidence). {3.2, 3.4.4, 3.6.3, Cross-Chapter Box 8 in Chapter 3}https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/summary-for-polic Annual cost indicates total cost. Very simple PP. Also while the up front cost for Universal health care is high, it's actually saving money, so you can pretty much wipe that entire $36 trillion cost from Noah Smith's predictions. On its current trajectory, the United States is projected to spend $7.65 trillion annually on health care by 2031, according to the Mercatus study. That number would drop to $7.35 trillion if Sanders’s plan were implemented, the study found. Over time, that adds up to a net savings of about $2.1 trillion. It's almost like googling for something is a bad thing? We can't have ourselves learning now can we! |
02:13pm 22/02/19 Permalink
trog, aren't you concerned about the world ending in 2032?aren't you concerned about Big Coal using boat people as slave labour on their diamond farms while they snort prescription painkillers paid for by selling nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia what kind of conversation are you trying to have here dude. I'm tired of falling for every strawman you prop up - but I have nothing better to do today so why not. you've made the same false claim like 10 times in the last couple hours. noone is trying to revert us back to the Stone Age. (well maybe the Amish.) it is not an inevitable effect of renewables. coal plants won't vanish overnight while we transition (although they will keep failing every couple weeks like they have done all summer); we can still keep them trucking along and cheer along as their required output slowly decreases as we bring on more alternatives, all the while maintaining our quality of life well, actually, I don't think we will maintain our quality of life I think our quality of life will improve, as we'll have cheaper power and cleaner air and less blackouts maybe everyone you meet IRL that claims to care about the environment lights their Medicare-funded medical marijuana with a burning iPhone X they set on fire with hundred dollar bills while they're flying on private jets (with whale skin hub cabs, and all-leather cow interior) while eating avocado on toast, bemoaning the cost of housing while they breathe slightly faster than they need to thus outputting more CO2 because they read on a hipster blog (actually it was a chalkboard at their local latte place) that it improves their chi but the rest of us normal people don't do that stuff, we just want to have our current lives and enjoy our creature comforts - while knowing our government is putting its fingers on the other side of the scale for a change, moving away from favouring the traditional energy monopolies, who have enjoyed centuries of tolerance, favouritism, and outright kickbacks by our political system the thing is though: it's looking more and more like it doesn't really matter any more. renewables are just cheaper (by most LCOE metrics), are still getting cheaper, are still improving technologically. modern smarter grids will be more resilient, more decentralised and cheaper. (anyone that calls themselves a Libertarian should be first in line to put renewables on their home on that basis alone, right?!@!) . at this stage the only thing that can stop renewables is the government actively obstructing them (happening in some places in the USA), but even some half-assed guidance and scale-tweaking from the government would massively improve their uptake. not that I owe it to you, but here is a list of things I have done/do to try to help reduce my carbon footprint. some of these are financial sacrifices, others are time sacrifices. - I walk or ride everywhere I can, and bus/train almost everywhere else. I still drive but only to places that are hard to reach by public transport - I have worked from home for the last 5 years so my commute travel footprint is low - I have significantly reduced the amount of (primarily red) meat that I eat. I am by no means a vego (I love meat) but I started doing one day a week vegetarian and it has massively changed my diet - I used to pay extra for a renewable component for my electricity (I don't seem to have that option any more but I just got an email today from my provider telling me my 1 year plan is up and I'm losing some discount, so I'm gonna shop around now that I have some time to look at options) - I usually (not always) pay for carbon offsetting on things like flights and trains (when available) - I recycle obsessively and favour products that use recycled/recyclable packaging - I am currently in the process of planning how I can do a compost bin in my apartment because I'm so sick of throwing out so much food waste that I know is going to sit in landfill (it seems bonkers we don't have a council-run compost programme) - I am currently in the process of trying to buy my first home; one of the primary search parameters is how effectively I can equip it with solar and batteries so I can run the AC all day guilt free and have a free electric car I could do more, but I could do much less (I wish I drove everywhere in air conditioned comfort in this weather; why do people live in this sweat soaked hellhole, I can't believe I used to like it) |
02:44pm 22/02/19 Permalink
(b), Australia.GIF){kind=link}
