I got sick of the over 100 pages URL bug, so figured I'd just remake the thread.
A link to the last page of the thread is here:http://http://www.ausgamers.com/forums/general/thread.php/3444246?p=0112
So, those politicians, eh?
Pretty dumb and stuff, right?
(You may continue the discussion now :P )
Mate, infi lives in the real world. Hashtags are good only if you're some sort of ivory tower latte sipping intelligentsia. I treat muslims with respect too. Remember that time I called them savages? And remember the time I condoned the indefinite imprisonment, torture and refoulement of them for uhhh reasons? That's respect mate. Respect from the real world.
infi is a dyed in the wool dumb, racist patient zero lolbertarian. Nothing he says is worth even considering except to make a mental note of it so you know in the future you're dealing with a complete moron. Someone so stupid that he was given every opportunity to succeed in life by his precious daddy yet still f***ed it up. That's why Russell Egan Sr. has him hidden away in a little office pushing papers around so he can get paid his allowance without becoming too much of an embarrassment. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the staff and lower management talk about him openly. People laugh at you everyday infi.
The thing with extreme lolbertarians is that they're always
c) so obviously coddled their whole life by their mummy, daddy or whatever.
Whenever the absurdity of their drivel is pointed out, they'll always respond with some sort of I live in the real world type bulls***. Which is hilarious, because if they were anymore detached from the real world they'd be on Mars.
The s*** you prattle on about is pointless and dumb. Whenever anybody says something that refutes it you just ignore it . This is a behavioural pattern that has been going on for years. Discussing anything with you is a waste of time because you're incapable of taking on any new information. All you can think and say is what you've been told to think and say.
Known torture apologist places sociopath in charge of social services. Just another day in the LNP.
infi has two little cheerleaders. How cute.
faceman and infi: unlike chaplains, offshore detention and f-35's, paying a tax for power generation (which is a debatable claim in the first place) to assist transitioning to renewable energy is worthwhile if you'd like to keep living on this planet
you're both probably still denying the science though so your position is no surprise
Poor people don't live in houses.
If you take away their homes, it will incentivise them to bootstrap their way to success so they can afford a home to live in. It's basic economics.
the 1950's called
Are you clutching at straws so badly that you're actually doing the whole communism thing? Usually I'd suspect this to be someone's end game before they finally stop embarrassing themselves and stop posting but there's a lot more space between now and rock bottom for you isn't there you little boy? This must be a hard time of year for you. Watching everyone getting together and having a fun time. Laughing, drinking, socialising. Meanwhile you're still holed up in your dark little windowless room wishing you could be a part of it but knowing you never will be. Your mum's basement must be the saddest room in the whole entire world at the moment :(
hurr hurr communists, hur hur hur
Geez you're a dummy.
It's just beyond parody at this point. If it wasn't for brool and infi there'd be nothing left to laugh about.
for whatever it's worth... that's pretty anecdotal fade =]
I'd totally be happy with being the guy who sits in the office issues orders to the coal miners who have to go get dirty and do hefty work. We all get paid the same after all!At the moment, wouldn't the office person probably be paid more?
pigs can't climb ladders and paint sentences on walls, which renders your point moot
heh nice meme. But mate, I live in the real world, and in the real world if everyone looked after themselves and just showed some responsibility there wouldn't be any need to look after other people. Bootstraps mate.
There's other places on the internet where it certainly is possible to have a meaningful debate about politics where people from both sides of the fence are willing and able to calmly put their points forward and then discuss them. It certainly isn't here though. Here we have the absolute dumbest of the dumb sitting on the right hand side. There's no point spending any time reasoning with them. You can't reason people out of positions they haven't reasoned themselves into in the first place.
You ask how is it helpful to engage in such puerile garbage and I say it isn't. But any sort of helpful or worthwhile discussion between both sides of politics here is simply impossible. There once was a time where I tried. I'd provide links and stuff to back up my claims, but it would simply be ignored and replied to with the same circular argument bulls*** every single time. So now I just make fun of them without using swear words (I was getting nuked when I used swear words).
*actually maybe that wasn't you.
^ they sure do like dem guns a lot.
Hey but I heard there were some guys in unions who did some illegal stuff. This means that all unions and everything to do with unions is terrible forever. The free market and job creators should be ruling freely because I am pretty sure no business leaders have ever done anything illegal or unethical and we should all leave it to them.
Another reason I hate unions is that I am completely inept as a manager and don't know how to manage or train my staff and have all these pesky unfair dismissal laws that I have to follow. It really exposes me as a completely useless mook which is terrible.
Unions exist as a business disguised as a movement that cares about workers but in reality are only paid to care.Another brilliant insight from the mewling little unemployable child. Tell me, what other nuggets of wisdom can you share with us? You must learn all sorts of things in your basement.
You call it exploitation but free people can marry who they want and work for who they want.heh peak lolbertarian right here.
Only basement dwelling VictoriansYou certainly called that one nicely.
Looks to be a lot of clone tool markings surrounding the text.
You're pretty dumb mate.
happy little miners for gina
newsdotcomdotau, providing confirmation bias to dumb people with terrible opinions since... whenever.
One moron who doesn't know how to manage and one clueless shut in who has never worked in his life. They both don't like unions. Colour me surprised.
The problem with asking brool a question like that is he's a compulsive narcissistic liar who will come up with some bogus bootstrap bulls*** that makes him seem like a working class hero.
The truth is he is a full spectrum loser who has given up on life. His sole purpose and only reason for living is to try and make other people as lonely and miserable as he is. Oh, and the occasional trip to SE Asia where he pays children to have sex with him.
I really don't know a whole lot about that IPA thing. Some libertarian magazine or something. I still know it's a worthless pile of s*** though. infi likes it.
Trying to claim some sort of unfounded Murdoch media conspiracy is peak level dumb, though. It's documented clearly, the motive for them is there and the results of it are clearly at work with the two posters before me. The sole reason it exists, and also the sole reason it succeeds, is that it provides confirmation bias to people with s***** opinions. I think when morons see something written in print or even published on a what they believe to be classy website it helps reinforce their really terrible views to a point where they're actually confident enough to utter them out loud. Perhaps even to angrily defend them in their own special impotent way. I'm not sure if it's breeding new garbage, or simply allowing pre-existing garbage to come out of the woodwork. Someone go find that out for me.
Yeah not really interested in your opinion on anything basement boy so perhaps you should just save your breath.
> wants the government involved in regulating everythingstrawman argument.
I like the way you'll just selectively ignore posts so you can continue prattling away undisturbed with your inane bulls***.
trickle down does work, just ask any economy that has embraced capitalismHoly s***.
So judging by infi and brool's alarmist frothing I'm guessing whatever happened in Greece is a good thing?
Tell us something we dont know.
wow, where to begin with that. it's tricky to work out exactly what you don't know and what you're just lying to yourself about to deal with the dissonance
as far as the article you linked though...
png was rated one of the most corrupt countries in the world in 2012. peter o'neill comes along claiming his party will fix that and appoints an anti-corruption watchdog. 2 years later that very watchdog accuses *him* of fraud, so he shuts it down and sacks the police chief and several commissioners. this is an ongoing issue
this is the guy who's comments you're latching onto
he 'believes that most of the refugees are not genuine'. except it's not defined by one's belief, it's defined in international law. what he claims to believe is not relevant in a fair and fact-based decision
he says that immigration officials were liaising with the governments of asylum seekers' home countries such as Iraq and Iran. yep, you're going to get some legit info there, cos those countries are bastions of rationality and fairness when it comes to dealing with their subjects
"How can you trust the government of Iran to tell you truthfully if somebody is likely to face persecution when they return home?" Sales asked.
yep, sounds legit
Tensions boiled over on Manus Island earlier this month when as many as 600 detainees launched a hunger strike.
yep, sounds like the behaviour of people who led a decent life in their homeland and just want to live large in australia without any good reason
An absolute classic example of an impressionable moron seeing something resembling his warped views in print and thinking that vindicates them in some way.
anyone engaged in self-harm instantly loses credibility. it is behaviour intended to trigger media and political coverage to their situation. these refugees acting out are not interested in refuge from danger in their exit country, they are interested in arriving at their DESTINATION country and pissed off that they haven't gotten what they paid people smugglers for.You're a worthless c***.
I was going to say that as usual everything you posted brool is either a bald-faced lie or at best a distortion of the truth and that I'm sure someone else will be more specific about it but I was beaten.
It amazes me that even after years of discussion on this topic how wrong you still get it. You still spout the same bulls*** that was bulls*** over a year ago. And then I look at all your other dumb posts, and how you get things wrong all the time due to general dumbness and a complete lack of critical thinking skills and I think to myself, well, I guess that's how he lives his life. In a nice protective little bubble where it doesn't matter how dumb you are, or how wrong you are, or how big of a worthless pile of garbage you are. You even have the nerve to lie about how you got there yourself, no help from your family no siree. But that's bulls*** as well. You've obviously been coddled your whole life and if you hadn't you'd be what brool is. A useless failure who does nothing every day but hate life. You're a real piece of s*** infi.
To be fair I don't think we have. We've simply created a lesser version of the torture that they face in their home countries so we can bravely offer them the option to either put up with it or go home.
it must infuriate fpot and the rest of the easy-entry-full-benefits brigade no-end that they are so sure with their superiority complex of enlightenment that they are right and this policy is horrible and a serious violation of conventions etc. yet is is so popular with australian voters.I stopped reading there. I might read the rest later if my stomach can handle it.
Dude, you're a parody. You advocate, or act as an apologist for, state sanctioned torture. They've had two deaths in custody. One was a murder shrouded in mystery and doubt about the validity of the arrests of the alleged perpetrators. The other guy died of an infection. Why is it that people in a first-world detention centre (so-called) die of third world diseases? You have a basic understanding of how antibiotics work don't you? So you realise just how preventable his death was, surely. The only way this guy could have died is if his pleas were ignored for an extended period of time. It's madness. Some guy who has killed his whole family and raped their corpses should be entitled to the medical treatment that this person was denied. That sounds like hyperbole, but it isn't.
Whatever happened to those stories about child sex being filmed that Morrison was cross about? Never heard much about that. Or any of the other horror stories that came out. But of course, they're only allegations aren't they? They'll remain that way because they'll never be investigated. Until some sort of royal commission or something happens, but it never will, because who gives a f*** about those reffos? I'm referring mainly to our two major parties, because let's remember it was Labor who first proposed this offshore plan. I actually think the public are becoming more aware about it, which is good.
by and large these people running from persecution aren't stopping once they reach the endzone so to speak - they want the best country they can think of
but whatever, we ought to welcome our fair share anyway. and I've never been sure what the advantage of offshore processing even is
Keeping people locked away indefinitely in inhumane conditions is torture. Denying people access to medical treatment and allowing them to die of an infection is torture. These are only the things we know about, because everything else is kept a secret. Now call me paranoid, but after the cavalcade of lies the government has been telling the public, I find them to be less than trustworthy when it comes to keeping asylum seekers safe, and I feel personally that there might be some weight to the allegations that are flying around.
Saying they are free to leave at anytime is really f*****g dumb. But hey it's you so what else can I expect? Having a choice between indefinite detention in an inhumane detention centre or going back to the threat of imprisonment, torture and murder is not a choice. Free will doesn't exist when the person making the choice is under duress, which is exactly the situation these people are in. You mention that they're given food and shelter, like that is some kind of salient point. Do you want to know what other regimes have given their prisoners food and shelter in the past? I bet even you're capable of thinking of the answer to that one.
however the right to enter a country of which you are not a citizen is not one of those rights.As Pete pointed out, it is a human right to enter a country without a visa for the purposes of gaining asylum. You still cannot grasp this concept, or you are simply continuing to ignore it. That's what you do - ignore the things that legitimately contradict the lies you constantly repeat and harp on about. The nice protective little bubble that I previously mentioned.
Now after you either ignore this post, or do another one of your braindead, simpering, torture apologist replies full of your usual bulls*** I am going to stop replying to you, because conversing with you is pointless. You're a waste of time.
technically possible, but the governor would sack him
When you get a job basement boy (I'd say family as well, but I think you are firmly in the forever alone category) and don't just have your mummy paying for everything and driving you around everywhere you may just understand how tight money can get.
Thing is though, you'll never understand, because you're an unemployable cretin who will never be employed by anybody :(
rofll labor just won queensland lmao!!!! Omg this is comedy goldheh. Does it get any sadder than this guy?
^ my money is on Turnbull because he lost the leadership challenge by a bee's d*** last time and he leads most "preferred opposition leader" polls last time I checked (which admittedly was not recently)
I can't wait to watch the "OMG DA LEADER" brigade scratch their when tony is rolled, a new leader is installed and the parties policy remains the same.Where to begin?
It's a Golden Age.
Imagine a world where you can speak something that isn't brain-dead empty rhetoric.
Do you honestly envisage a world in which lolbertarianism works as intended?
Who leads this world?
Who decides who gets to be the leader?
Does the leader get all the spoils of being a head of state or just has a basic workers' salary, no leader's residence, no security etc. No Air Force private jet?
Are there even elections in the lolbertarian world? Can an alternative party get elected on a non-lolbertarian platform or is lolbertarianism compulsory?
How is the flat living wage calculated?
How is each person's output valued?
You have no comprehension of how many functions a free market performs automagically and you expect a Corporate elite to calculate all this without disaster and corruption occurring.
lolbertarianism sucks and communism also sucks. Don't really think there is much room for discussion on that. The difference is that Vash is supporting an ideology that aims to help people that aren't him. infi is supporting one that will only help people like him. At worst Vash is naive, at best infi is a complete c***
One of those spill things might be happening.
For those of us on the sane side of politics it's good times. We will either drink the delicious schadenfreude flavoured tears as the LNP switches leaders now, or the potentially sweeter tears from the absolute bollocking the LNP will get if Abbott remains leader. Scotchgard those boots.
fpot, you should go and find some choice quotes from infi during the Labor Leader shenanigans.I had a look and it's pretty much infi getting every one of his predictions wrong interspersed with brool (then known as petethepossumman) frothing away in an uncontrollable frenzy. So pretty much the same thing we have now except substitute the ill-deserved smugness of that time with the sweet and salty tears of this time.
They also need to stop the torture and refoulement of children for the crime of being brown.
edit: and adults
They also need to stop the torture and refoulement of children for the crime of being brown.
what we need is a 'control group' of white boat people to test this theory
I nominate poms
So the reserve bank lowered its rates, which apparently means the economy is slowing. I thought axing the carbon tax was meant to make the economy better?
You do realise how absurd it is for a perpetually unemployed basement boy to whinge about a welfare state strawman don't you? Of course you don't.
What makes paper money worthless, yet gold valuable? Honest question.
My guess is because gold is finite and naturally limited by it's rarity. Reason I ask is that they seem equally worthless to me in a practical sense.
Still not really getting it. Say you have a vault full of cash and a vault full of gold roughly the same value as the cash. What makes the gold more tangibly valuable than the cash? You did mention rarity, but if controls are in place regulating how much money is printed shouldn't that take care of that problem? Steel is more durable (except against tarnishing but it makes up for that in strength imo) than gold and you can just paint it a gold colour to get the beauty. Just personally I see gold as arbitrarily valuable as cash and I've never really seen a compelling argument otherwise.
I do get that if you go nuts printing money you're going to f*** yourself with inflation.
Nothing quite like watching infi fret and flounder (and lie) when his hypocrisy is pointed out. Except maybe for watching brool pretend that he has actually left his basement.
I don't talk down people who use welfare.That's a recent lie. A historical lie is where you spent months maybe even a year denying you called the middle-eastern culture savage even when it was typed out in blue and white on this very forum. You're a liar and a bad one at that.
i have never made reference to the middle east being cultural savageshehe, man you're pathetic. I'm not even going to bother posting the quote. Everyone knows you're a liar now I don't need to prove anything.
Fpot its time to come clean man. Brool is a sock puppet isn't he. I won't be angry, just impressed.Nah but sometimes I find myself on my knees thanking god we have access to him and his dementia. We should all be thankful really. He's a true one of a kind gronk.
There's also that time infi was gifted an extremely lucrative deal that benefited his dad's aged care business while his known to be corrupt mate Santo Santoro was aged care minister. I still bemoan the fact I'll never get to hear the angry phone call your corrupt mate Santo gave you after you said you'd 'hit the jackpot' on social media.
edit: of course I only keep bringing this up because there aren't any articles floating around out there about me being a morally bankrupt, corrupt, government handout accepting s***bird. That's a thing infi has actually proposed.
I don't even know what you are suggesting the alternative conduct should be... just don't claim it... to be honourable?Isn't this one of the basic tenants of your lolbertarianism? That government rules and regulations can practically be abolished and that taxes can be drastically cut because in a free market system people will act honourably and safely and will make up the tax shortfall through voluntary donations?
lolbertarian.txt. Old skool.
p.s. falsely accusing an individual by name of illegal behaviour is defamatory and could get you sued. luckily you're a nobody with no money and not worth suing.You know who isn't a nobody and does have money? The news organisations that accused you. The reason you didn't take any action against them is because you want as little attention as possible because the allegations are true. You're a slimy, dishonest piece of s*** and you're capable of much worse than what the newspapers printed about you.
p.s. falsely accusing an individual by name of illegal behaviour is defamatoryAlso in writing isn't it libel?
There will be quite a few people that will be very upset to have ethanol in their fuel.
f*** it let's just put wine in the car
"The only issue"froth harder bro.
Not really, he should have said haven't, not hasn't.
Watching you two cheerlead for each other is something quite special, though.
HurricaneJim has described scenarios that already exist that would only be further exacerbated by welfare cuts and you describe it as hyperbole? The thing is, people didn't survive perfectly well before the introduction of welfare. That's why it was introduced. Hell, if you didn't have the support of your mum you'd be homeless yourself. That's what amazes me about you. You're so steeped in your own self-loathing that you seem to actively campaign against your own interests.
The mistake frothing at the mouth lolbertarians always make is to accuse the non-believers of being dependent on welfare themselves and therefore desperate to preserve it. They just can't fathom thinking about things that don't at least indirectly serve their own interests. Yet they're always the ones most reliant on welfare themselves, be it brool who is dependent on the government to keep him paid and his mother to keep him fed, or infi who would pretty much be brool if it wasn't for being in possession of an impossible to fail doesn't matter how much of f*** up you are parachute into his father's family business.
David Hicks = innocent. Good thing they kept him locked up and tortured for so long.
There was no law against what the Nazis didThere is no law against
Is there anything else to do right now in this thread except laugh at the hilarious incompetence of the current government and to make fun of the complete idiots who voted them in?
When you post one of your infi-isms and someone asks for evidence - rargle gargle it's a well known fact you're an idiot for not knowing it froth froth froth.
When someone posts something completely credible that hurts your ridiculously extreme right wing ideals - where's the evidence? I need to see it! Which in itself is fair enough - except that when it's posted you'll either completely ignore it or come up with some asinine bulls*** that in your mind dismisses it.
You're a joke.
Either it's true, or it isn't and there people within the party willing to make up sensational lies because *reasons*. Kind of reminds me of the time you said the adults are back in charge and predicted a new golden age. You dummy.
Is it the worst democratically elected government ever?
I'm pretty happy with Feds - boats are stopped, carbon tax gone, plan to stop the debt (which was blocked by Labor). They could have cut harder on welfare but you can't win em all.Poe's law.
As in, if someone wanted to be funny and do a really good impersonation of a dumb racist who is completely devoid of a clue they would write exactly what you did
This is a metaphor for your life isn't it? The amount of frothing you subjected us to with the LNP and then their inevitable failure which in turn is your failure too. Then instead of learning from your mistakes you just double down with even more failure. You've been doing this your whole life haven't you?
No no no, you are suppose to write your usual tired old "you live in a basement" etc etc troll. I personally preferred the "OMG DOORRR" trolling.What makes the whole basement thing tired? As long as you keep making your absurd posts that only a basement dwelling misanthrope could make they'll continue to stay fresh. I know they get to you because you're starting to make up lies about attending conferences and bumping into people on the street and I think you may have even mentioned your made up job again recently.
Which brings me to another point. Well a question really. Why do you post? Do you actually think anything you ever say has any merit? I guess you do. But if you're being honest with yourself, do you think it might be your narcissistic personality disorder fooling you into thinking that way? Because I'm here to tell you with the utmost certainty that you speak nothing but total garbage. Every single post you make just makes you look dumber and dumber. More and more worthless. All you're doing is delivering schadenfreude. It's gotten to the stage where I'll see you as the last poster and I know I'll have some stupid s*** I can laugh at. So thanks.
See trying to make fun of me for being gainfully employed when you're not is tired.
I've never claimed to be any sort of expert. I just comment on what I see in your posts. I don't think I'm that far off base personally. Again I'll ask - why do you post? It hurts your position and it hurts you. Want to know why I think you post? Because you are in fact a basement dwelling loser, and no one ever pays any attention to you in real life. People pay attention here though. Only because you are so extraordinarily f***ed up that it's impossible not to. You're willing to settle for negative attention because you know it's the only attention you'll ever receive from now until you die alone without a single person giving a f*** let alone noticing.
Maybe they should have put comedy or something in the url to make it more obvious.
Wow, a you've got too much time on your hands style comeback. That's pretty lame even for you infi.
So what's the deal here. With Brool gone are you the last insane babbling idiot left or what?
spook is quite happy to let poor little children go hungry and unclothed. why do you care so little about the children spook?There is no place on the internet where this would be said unironically except for the deepest and darkest of lolbertarian reddit echo chambers and this forum.
It's a shame no-one warned you about how s*** this government was going to be in the three years you were endlessly frothing about them.
if the party was true to their values this government would have been way better. abbott is too scared to cut the budget hard and instead has to resort to piss weak tax grabs like a deposit tax.They tried to stick to their true values but their true values were blocked in the senate because they're completely insane. If you weren't a teet-suckling LNP supporter you would have been able to see that they're a pack of incompetent boobs who when thrust into the limelight weren't able to hide it like they did while in opposition. Everyone pre-election knew this would happen - everyone that isn't as dumb as a sack of bricks that is.
Yeah but fpot, Labor aren't that much better.They're so much better and were so much better it isn't funny. You can't even point at that phantom debt bulls*** anymore because the LNP have done so much worse even in that regard.
Five year old attempts suicide in fear of going to Nauru
As she has now attempted self-harm she has lost all credibility and should be sent to Nauru for state sanctioned torture immediately.
There is strong evidence that the coaching you speak of is occurring Toll (Scott Morrison said so).
How did our country get to this point? The libs are as nutty as the tea party. Such a disconnect from reality in the confines of their comfy wealthy electorates.Think of a prissy little private school kid. The kind who constantly f**** things up yet never faces any criticism or consequences for their actions. Daddy's special little boy.
Now daddy's special little boy is going to copy the traits of daddy, so he's dumb, racist - a real one dimensional thinker. This person doesn't think for themselves, they're told how to think. This training doesn't happen overnight. It's a lifetime thing, so by the time it's fully engrained it's impossible to remove like a tick with titanium jaws, forever trapped in the mind of this well trained little doggy.
They've managed to bluff their way through private school. Pay To Win. Their prize a golden ticket to the TC Beirne School of Law. Congratulations Junior, daddy says, you made it all by yourself.
More bluffing, they pass. Into the real world they go. All of a sudden things are different. Criticism, attention - cruel mistresses of the limelight suddenly cast upon them showing every flaw like a black light on a cheap motel mattress. It's the classic hothouse flower. Able to flourish within the safe confines of daddy's bosom but shown hopelessly wanting when pulled screaming away from it.
So what does prissy little Junior do? Screams so loud he is brought back in. Into daddy's office safe from the realities and confusions of the real world. In daddy's office it's impossible to fail. No-one says any mean things. Except of course for daddy's staff, who on one hand enjoy the endless font of hilarious incompetence to make fun of, on the other suffer greatly working for a complete and utter boob.
The person I described is the personification of the LNP. A sheltered little miscreant. A dumb racist piece of garbage who is only interested in serving themselves. An incompetent yes-man surrounded rose petal who wilts in even the dimmest of sunlight. Both belong at the bottom of a drop toilet.
Watching our precious little basement boy come back from his one month shame break with a renewed vigour is kind of inspiring to me. Looking forward to listening to his desperate flailings until his father figure is booted out of parliament and then we have three years of brool tears to look forward to. Gonna be awesome.
It really sucks that nothing is open on public holidays like Good Friday because businesses simply can't afford to open due to over the top penalty rates...When you get a job you'll find out why penalty rates exist bro. Public holidays are a good chance to catch up with mates and socialise.... oh wait, you've never done that and never will because you're a pathetic little cretin whiling away his days till he dies cold and alone.
Holy s***, literally nothing but bulls*** comes out of your mouth you know that?
edit: like, you contradict yourself really badly because you're just so dumb
It really sucks that nothing is open on public holidays like Good Friday because businesses simply can't afford to open due to over the top penalty rates...
I drove all the way to Carnegie today in inner-city Melbourne and there were a lot of shops open
These are the sort of mistakes a really dumb and ineffective liar makes. It also reminds me of the time you proudly proclaimed you don't have a license or a car but I guess you got your s*** together and obtained both because you just have so many places to go don't you?
Watching infi and brool bumble through their own lies and cheerlead for each other is a particularly tasty vintage of schadenfreude.
The problem with this is that the conservative side of politics on this forum don't bring anything to the table. It's true, I personally don't either but that's because about two or so years ago I realised that I'm pretty much dealing with children here. They don't know how to think critically, they don't know how to think independently, they don't understand what constitutes credible evidence when presenting an argument, they don't know how to argue against credible evidence when confronted with it. Their entire thought process when presented with any sort of information is - does this conform with my predetermined world view, or does it go against it? If it's the former it is gospel and anyone who goes against it is a fool. If it's the latter then it's propaganda and part of some sort of left-wing conspiracy.
When someone finally arrives on this olde forum with conservative views who can actually form an argument and think for themselves a bit we might have something. For now we have nothing but a couple of insult pinatas who are dumb beyond belief.
The federal government has been aware of physical and sexual abuse of asylum seekers on Nauru for more than a year but failed to take appropriate action, workers from the detention centre have alleged.
Scott Morrison belongs in jail. Really.
I support a Royal Commission into the rampant physical/sexual abuse in detention. I would love to know why large numbers of detainees who are apparently just "poor" "innocent" and "desperate" people looking for a break are engaging in such activitiesA normal person would feel shame after saying something this dumb but you're well beyond shame aren't you brool?
Hey brool, it's almost as though you're universally dumb. There doesn't seem to be one thing or one area where you show any kind of aptitude at all. Yet, you suffer from a disorder that fools you into thinking you are in fact competent if not skilled at things and to also say this as loudly as possible. Creates some pretty interesting little scenarios which I didn't think were possible.
Look at the clever little doggy, saying what he's been trained to say.
it's mind-boggling that you consider anyone to have gotten smashed in that article, and that you would even consider sourcing your point of view with the daily mail
rational wiki sums it up nicely:
The Daily Mail (aka, Hate Mail, Daily Fail, Daily Heil, Daily Moan and so on), is a reactionary tabloid rag masquerading as a "traditional values," middle-class newspaper that is, in many ways, the worst of the British gutter press (only Rupert Murdoch's Sun is worse). Its weighty Sunday counterpart is the Mail on Sunday.
Remember the brool and infi thought process policy though Jim
Their entire thought process when presented with any sort of information is - does this conform with my predetermined world view, or does it go against it? If it's the former it is gospel and anyone who goes against it is a fool. If it's the latter then it's propaganda and part of some sort of left-wing conspiracy.
I thought it was a bit dopey of christine milne to get drawn into that level of back and forth where she'd take a swipe at the number of sales without apparently knowing the figures, but that hardly constitutes getting smashed - it was a minor back-pedal to bring things back on topic again. I thought more relevant to anyone getting 'smashed' was the amount of stammering and hesitation throughout the process from julian clarke, as he tried walking the tightrope between justifying continuing to run at a loss for reasons other than tax avoidance, and acting as a propaganda outlet
So your tactic brool is to keep saying and doing really dumb things, have people call you out on it again and again and instead of adjusting your behaviour you just keep on doing the dumb things and start saying that it's sad and old when people point it out. The LNP were able to train you like a little doggy how come you can't learn other things?
I linked to the dailymail because it had the video of it that i wanted, but i watched it live on TV. She definitely got smashed. Lets not play the "oh, you posted a link from this news organization, therefore its wrong" game. It's sad and old.
it would've made sense to used a video that actually showed her getting smashed then, or mention prior to being called out that you saw it happen elsewhere and that your link doesn't actually demonstrate what you're talking about
the fact you used daily mail is just additional amusement and clearly wasn't suggested as the basis of your being wrong as demonstrated by the use of the conjunction 'and'
My link does demonstrate her being smashed though.nah there's nothing in the text to even suggest that nor in the video
P.S Jim, are you ever going to nuke Fpot's off topic person personal attacks/s***posts, or is nuking only reserved for when i post something you dont agree with?another worthless troll, it's pretty clear I don't agree with you here for example yet your posts haven't been nuked
The only person being smashed is you brool.
I linked to the dailymail because it had the video of it that i wanted, but i watched it live on TV.You watched it live on TV? Interesting that you'd wait till 12:09am to post about it. I guess you saw it happen, waited at least eight hours, and then put your excited post about it up on the internet for all to see.
I think you're lying brool and didn't watch it live on TV.
Today's LNP hilarity
Tony Abbott has said that only the Coalition could stem the flow of asylum seeker boats because other governments would âsuccumb to the cries of the human rights lawyersâ.Anyone still falling for their bulls***?
I'm sure you're aware, but the whole people smugglers angle is a red herring racist people use so they don't have to say "I don't want dem browns coming here because I am a dumb racist". They use the people smugglers red herring to make people think their views are somewhat sensible, noble and borne out of a respect for law and order. A few people smugglers exploiting the situation to make a bit of money out of extreme human misery is a drop in the boat compared to the LNP which exploits the human misery to help themselves stay in power. Labor did it too, or tried. This is why I can't fight off the somewhat hyperbolic notion that our nation is a slobbering joke.
there's no reason to be surprised, claiming that you are is just another s***heel troll - I've never removed your posts on the grounds I don't agree with them
It's paywalled for me.
I would be earning more by staying in government yet that is honorable? I dunno....Too bad you're really dumb and can't make it there in the real world hey? Instead you've parachuted into the impossible to fail confines of daddy's office. Yet you still have the audacity to falsely portray yourself as a tenacious businessman.
Problem I see with this is that parents who refuse to vaccinate their children do so because they believe they're doing the right thing. They think that vaccinations cause autism, or have a high chance of bad side effects, or that they're implanting government tracking devices or any of the other myriad of reasons. How is taking money away from these people going to help? There may be some who'd change their stance but aren't they essentially being bribed to (from their point of view) put their children in harm's way?
The answer, as always, is more education and for it to be delivered in the right way. Getting through to anti-vaxxers is kind of like getting through to 9/11 truthers though. It's impossible to reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into in the first place. Is there some sort of phase 2 to this plan? Once the phone calls start coming in about the missing money the staffers say sure your money is gone, but if you attend this seminar we can start you on the process of earning it back. That seminar would be a good and proper 'Why Vaccination is a Good A Thing' session designed for an audience of complete numbskulls taking them through all the bulls*** they've been fed and answering all questions they might have. That's the only way I can see this plan actually helping people and not just being some cost-cutting exercise wrapped up in a faux save the children bow and ribbon.
Arguing from analogy requires the proposed requires the proposed objects of comparison to be relevantly similar.what
An extra the proposed and that was meant to say relatively right? :)
Good thing prison is the only way a government could coerce a person otherwise we'd have a problem here.
Jesus you're dumb.
Low income families don't "need" the childcare benefit.I sure am glad we have a man inside daddy's impossible to fail office who is qualified to make statements on behalf of low income families like this.
That's an obvious parody account made by a dumb racist that hasn't been active since christmas time. You've really blown the lid open on this while refugee thing brool. Thanks for that.
Also when you lock people up indefinitely for no crime in s***** conditions these sort of things happen brool. Imagine if they locked up a bunch of white people for no reason. How long do you think it would be before they rioted? At soonest hours, at latest days. I know you've been locked in your basement a long time now so confinement seems normal to you, but actual people enjoy their freedom to go outside and stuff. It can send them kind of crazy when that's taken away for no reason.
So without childcare benefit which has only been in 25 years, society as we know it collapses?Strawman argument. It's like you have some sort of pathological need to use strawman arguments. You use them literally 100% of the time. I know self-reflection and honesty are not really your thing, but you should ask yourself why whenever you're trying to make one of your 'points' you use logical fallacies.
It's because you can't argue your thoughts rationally because they're all dumb and wrong
Being told by a little basement boy still completely dependent on his mother that the spoon-fed easy times will soon be over and we're all going to have to toughen up will never stop being hilarious. Here's some steps to you can take brool to stop being so hilarious -
1) get a job
2) read a book that hasn't been authored by Ayn Rand
3) go get laid by someone over the age of 10.
It's basically child abuse.You're an expert in that field.
pyne's first comment in that screengrab is an example of the balance fallacy
it's not a case of silencing a dissenting voice, it's a case of not supporting pseudoscience - which is the correct course of action for an educational institution
People who are vocally against violence against women, even overwhelmingly so, are also against violence in general. To suggest they aren't is absurd. You're creating things in your mind to get angry and indignant about.
I got banned for attacking people in this thread. That's a damn shame because holy hell making fun of the human excrement that post in here and then watching their feeble attempts to fight back was amusing. I know it's childish and maybe even a bit mean, but I think when you're as bad as they are you've pretty much got a license to say whatever you want. Kind of like Marv feeling free to kill hitmen in Sin City. Guess I'll have to tone it down a bit but why ruin my fun? It's not like I'm impeding any sort of worthwhile discussion or anything.
Those newspaper covers are amazing in the most terrible way possible. That 'Australia Needs Tony' with the Australian flag in the background is a real highlight. Looking forward to seeing what they produce next year.
So because in your esteemed opinion this thread is worthless you deem it practical to post attacks against people.Well you have to admit it's pretty damn funny. Watching yourself and brool completely sell yourselves out to the LNP leading up to the election, completely ignoring every piece of advice and warning given to you was hilarious because anyone with a brain knew what was going to happen. Then we had the honeymoon period. The six months or so of you two repeating their slogans and statements verbatim and both of you becoming snivelling little apologists.
The best bit though was when it finally dawned on you. When they hit rock bottom and all of a sudden you both changed your tune, hoping and praying that people would forget the events I described. However instead of learning from your mistakes you just doubled down saying we actually need a more extreme version of the LNP to succeed.
And here we are again. The LNP have thrown you another little doggy treat, and like a good little doggy you've gobbled it up and have begun to prime yourself into election mode and the whole process is about to repeat itself. The reason I post is because I've never seen behaviour like you two anywhere - in real life or the internet. The pathological lying, the pathological denial. It's quite something.
No it's what I said. Seeing someone who has been insulated from reality their whole life speak their mind freely is really funny and I get a whole lotta enjoyment from provoking you and seeing just how low you will sink to keep the little bubble that surrounds you intact.
What was wrong with how that was handled?
I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to it. Depp brought some dogs over, some guy said bugger off back to the states and then the dogs buggered back off. Seems like a pretty minor blip when we have concentration camps running. Are we angry with the government or media here?
so politicians can have every little sordid detail of their lives splayed in the media but mega-millionaire celebrities breaking the law are entitled to privacy? pull the other one.Can you once, just f*****g once, present an argument that isn't a strawman? Please.
It is blindingly obvious that he was against invasion of privacy in general.
lol what the f***? What the f*****g f***? What in the actual f***?
I think you may have said the dumbest ever thing on the internet, and that's quite a thing.
You know what this thread is also not against? Setting koalas on fire and then selling their ashes on the chinese medicine black market. Don't believe me? Then show me in this thread where someone has spoken against it. Just shut up and stop embarrassing yourself.
In my opinion it was the right move. Depp is a rich man and hence a powerful man. If this was kept behind closed doors then he may have been able to use his power and wealth to have the issue hushed and the dogs may have stayed. This is an unacceptable risk - rabies is very very bad. By making the public aware of the situation it made it impossible for Depp to wrangle his way out of the situation. I was also amazed (in a bad way) at that shot of inside Mick Doohan's house, but it's our pathetic excuse for news organisations that are to blame in this situation imo.
I'm against invading the privacy of anyone. Looking forward to seeing the cunning trap you think you've set for me here.
It was the right move to disclose Depp's infringement to the media... But it's still the media's fault. LOLYep and I explained why. As usual you're just having a little tanty froth and not pointing out any flaws with what I said. You're a joke mate.
Lolbertarians - always advocating other people bootstrapping themselves to success from the safety of their daddy's impossible to fail office.
Lolbertarians - always complaining about those pesky laws and government intervention exposing their incompetence. But when it comes to grinding those into the dirt that they've been doggy trained to believe are irredeemably evil? They can't be big or powerful enough.
The difference between these people wanting to come back and infi is that there is hope they'll be rehabilitated and become normal human beings one day. There's no hope for you infi.
You do support the torture and imprisonment of those who are illegally brown though.
Also I'm not supporting terrorist scum. I'm supporting their right to a fair trial before they're punished for their crimes. The way you've worded it is a ridiculous exaggeration of my position in a failed attempt to legitimise yours. Known as a strawman argument. Maybe tomorrow you'll stop using them.
If you didn't support any form of torture then you'd stop posting because reading your posts is... well...
You can't support the indefinite detention of people in inhumane conditions, the refoulement of asylum seekers back to genocidal regimes and the punishment of those without trial and say you don't support torture. Now I know about your little defense mechanism where you'll deny facts and reality to keep your precious fantasy world alive but there are some people out there who are able to accept them. You should try it some time.
It's like we have our very own boltcomments generator in here.
So now not only do people face punishment without trial, they now also face it without even receiving a charge. What a brave new world we live in. By the way, what's with the random capitalisation on they? That's a thing crazy people do.
I find your position completely absurd to be honest. For starters they're wanting to come back because they regret their decision. Surely that means they aren't going to try and suggest they were there on holiday. If they were planning that story they'd just come back. I think they know they will be wearing handcuffs on their flight back.
Maybe I've watched too many courtroom shows, but couldn't a plea deal be offered where if they plead guilty to whatever terrorism charges they end up facing they can get out of jail one day? Plus if they come back and face trial, doesn't that also remove some terrorists from the pool and also act as an encouragement for anyone else who is willing to defect back? Less terrorists is a real no brainer, but if other people are over there feeling the same way see people's citizenship revoked it's going to encourage them to stay there right? Sure they'll probably end up KIA, but they might kill a few people before that happens.
It just seems like an overwhelming positive. A disillusioned enemy willing to come back and sing like a canary. It would be a shame if it was squandered due to stupidity.
That comic is great. Sums up infi brilliantly. The guy on the left needs to be a hateful bigot for it to really be him though.
"The institution of marriage came from religion, it was adopted by the state and I have always been a firm believer in the separation of church and state and the main reason for that is it protects the church and I think the church’s institutions do need to be protected."Surely this quote isn't real. Surely. I am too scared to check.
if God's law is not the driving force now for marriage policy why cannot marriage be between multiple partners....Why is this an interesting point?
I'd have no problem whatsoever with polygamists being allowed to legally marry with multiple partners. I see this issue brought up often as a type of slippery-slope argument by those who are resistant to the idea of homosexual marriage being legalised.
We must stop the flow of cash to these evil people smugglers!!!!!!!!
"On-water matters": Petter Dutton has invoked the controversial secrecy rule to defend not comprehensively answering claims that Australian officials paid $30,000 Ã¢â¬â in cash Ã¢â¬â to the crew of an intercepted asylum-seeker boat to return to Indonesia.
edit: and while I'm here I guess...
Scott Morrison was made aware in December 2013 of serious allegations of sexual abuse at Australiaâs detention centre on Nauru, almost a year before a full review into allegations was commissioned, a Senate inquiry has heard.
Both articles report unverified one sided evidence. Hear say and rumor. Just the usual Guardian dross.Such a well trained little doggy.
Are you suggesting it isn't one sided unverified evidence in both reports?Are you seriously strawmanning, again?
The Guardian are reporting on first hand accounts of people who have actually spent time on Nauru Island and from someone who witnessed the cash trading hands. They have sought comment from the LNP, but instead of the truth they've been handed operational secrecy bulls***. You see it's okay to dismiss allegations if they're isolated and bizarre, but when there is an overwhelming torrent of them flooding in about truly disgusting criminal behaviour being almost commonplace then it's time to exit your safety bubble and stop mindlessly dismissing them. Also remember the two who have died in custody? One murdered in very murky circumstances, and one dying from an infection because he was denied medical treatment. What does that say about the safety of the conditions there?
If asylum seekers and people smugglers could in any way damage the funding or rigor of the border security program it would be good for their business. They are witnesses with a vested interest.Ahh yes. It's all a big coordinated conspiracy between doctors, asylum seekers, social workers, charity workers and whistle blowing guards to undermine the sanctity of Australia's benevolent border protection program which is truly the most poignant and pure display of altruism of our time. How dare they damage it with their allegations.
I would love for these allegations to be tested because I know some if not most of them are going to stick. You know who doesn't want them tested? Scott Morrison, who kept the details of serious sexual assault allegations under wraps for a year instead of investigating them immediately. You know who else doesn't want them tested? You, because you get all indignant and frothy about the allegations simply being printed, which is the first step to them ever seeing a courtroom. Instead of accepting them and welcoming an investigation you'll instead paint the victims as the perpetrators, calling them liars. This is the mark of a truly despicable piece of s***, so indoctrinated with the smell of their own farts that they're willing to forgo rationality, logic, empathy and just plain old common sense so they can live in their fantasy world a little bit longer. You're a child trying to play adult dress up and you're failing badly at it.
The government must clarify what has occurred here.Their track record of honesty and transparency so far has been unparalleled so I have complete confidence this will happen. I mean, it's not like they started lying even before they got elected and up to this point in time now is it?
You're a weirdo.
I tried to google just how much the unnecessary added expense was and I really couldn't find anything. Surely you've come across it in your travels. How much more am I paying for a steak roundabouts?
Calling it now, once the claims that the government paid asylum seeker boat captains to turn around are undeniable they will say that it was all part of a larger operation. Kind of like purchasing from a low-end drug dealer to gain trust so you can meet/get to the high-end drug dealer.
Also slaps_forehead you forgot to say how much these unnecessary halal expenses are adding per steak that I buy.
Any chance he could be booted for this? He deserves to be.
Utterly f***ed up.
F*****g lol. Labor has been screaming about the Liberals apparently paying people smugglers and not denying it due to "operational matters" now its been exposed Labor did pay people smugglers and are now refusing to deny it citing "operational matters"This is actually a good post.
I reckon Labor have done this. I'd like to hear their motives though. The LNP are all the way in on their stop the boats campaign so I guess they would try literally anything. What amazes me about them doing it is they were too stupid to realise this would have the potential to piss off everyone. Even torture apologists will get on board the hate train because of the muh taxdollers!!! aspect of this latest stunt.
Labor were never spewing stop the boats rhetoric, except right at the end of their term in a desperate attempt to win the election. Is this when the payments took place?
Sorry I don't have a uni paper on who buys off the plan investment developments. I just talk to real estate agents and telemarketers every week. I know I know, anecdotal evidence ain't worth s*** on an internet forum. I guess you're right.lol
Abbott government pledges to appoint a windfarm commissioner in leaked letter
The Abbott government will appoint a “windfarm commissioner” to handle complaints about turbine noise and a new scientific committee to investigate, again, their alleged impacts on human health, in a late-night deal with anti-wind senators over amendments to renewable energy legislation.
Pretty sure they'll be placing a witch doctor in the position of minister for health very shortly.
top contenders for abbot govt scientific committee to investigate wind farms: carl phillips, andrew wakefield, stephanie seneff, judy carman, gilles-eric seralini, mark and david geier, russell blaylock, laura hewitson, deepak chopra and shiva vandana. overseen by prince charles
Dr Oz would also have to be in the running.
That speech in front of the Australian flags he gave was absurd.
You really do need everything explained very carefully don't you?
He's not saying we're a fascist regime. He's saying that the government are using the same tactics a fascist regime uses because they work very well on dumb people. Like yourself. You're the poster child for gullibility.
You're such a dumb ass.
That 'Australia Needs Tony' one... amazing.
I can't believe ABC transported a known terrorist sympathiser and convicted criminal to QANDA, THEN shortlisted his question, THEN didn't brief any of the guests he would be asking a question. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!It's a bit like giving a convicted racist his own TV show.
convicted criminal to QANDAThis is Zaky Mallah we're talking about right? What was he convicted of?
I can't believe ABC transported a known terrorist sympathiser and convicted criminal to QANDAPresumably, having terrorist sympathisers on the show gives a more balanced viewpoint than not having them. Isn't that what you were arguing for?
We should also get on pedophiles and holocaust deniers to get a balanced view I guess...This but unironically.
We should also get on pedophiles and holocaust deniers to get a balanced view I guess...what is your definition of balanced, exactly?
The ABC just published this which is a good read and I think nicely sums it up: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-25/green-zaky-m
Is this the part where you pretend to be ignorant of how David Hicks got off despite having clear evidence against him despite us having a 2 page discussion about it previously?I remember that thread. That's the one where people took the time to carefully explain things to you and instead of listening you frothed hard and had aa little tanty right? Oh wait that's every thread.
http://m.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/keaArgument from authority logical fallacy.
So is it literally every single post now infi?
Someone just posted this to Facebook and it GREAT!
tldr: it is David Hicks asking a question of John Howard on Q&A. Before he responds to the question, Howard's first comment is "isn't it a great country that allows this kind of exchange to occur?" and "it ought to make all of us very proud that we live in a country that allows that sort of exchange". (The rest of it is kind of boring though.)
If it is and it's so obvious how come you can't argue your point by identifying a pattern of bias but instead post s***** logical fallacies? See that's a pattern with you. There will be all these things that you say are just totally obvious, yet you're never able to adequately explain why. This is puzzling because obvious things are usually easily explainable by even the dimmest of individuals. This is how I know you're really dumb.
The pattern of bias is there every week when two (usually one) "right leaning" guest faces off against 3 left-leaning guests plus tony jones (does he even pretend to be balanced?). You are entitled to hold your opinion that QANDA is balanced.So again you're saying you're unable to produce anything substantial to back up your opinion and instead will just continue to drone on with your usual whiney dross?
By the way I don't have an opinion on QANDA because I don't watch it.
Politics have changed dramatically since then so it's possible. The problems Labor experienced seem almost quaint compared to the absolute nonsense that is going on now.
Kind of reminds me of the start of Breaking Bad compared to what happens in the final seasons. When the drama is happening in season one you're thinking to yourself this is pretty nasty. When you're into the later seasons you look back and almost laugh at how inconsequential it all was. School halls and pink batts compared to torturing asylum seekers in concentration camps (Labor started this I know but the LNP escalated it) and rampant science denialism.
Then uhhh, how do you know all these things you're saying? What the f***?
So you've established that the show is a joke and rubbish and that the host is bias and froth froth froth just by reading the guest lineup? What a virile and robust critical thinker you are.
Hey, they wouldn't happen to be media reports produced by News Corp where a pattern of bias and utterly terrible journalism has been solidly established, would it?
There is absolutely no evidence of any bias or unbalanced discussion on QANDA in that article. Care to point it out to me?
I guess you're right - reading second hand accounts will give you a basic overview of what happened in the show. You have an incredibly strong opinion of the show and have accused the host of bias. For a reasonable person to develop such an opinion one would think they'd have to watch the show plenty to gather the evidence for such an opinion.
This is another example of you caught out being dumb, and as always, very entertaining to watch you fret and flounder for your last five or so posts where you make up some weak bulls*** as you go along to try and get out of it.
The Bolt Report is far more balancedYeah, just be quiet and sit down you wretched little clown.
I honestly don't know what to think about helmet laws. For children I guess it is a no brainer. I remember Ha posted some pretty solid evidence against the effectiveness of helmets preventing death in bicycle accidents.
I thought you were talking about the guy who proposed a budget with a $250 million shortfall and said because of the measures he has taken people will simply give that money away to fill the gap.
"reality has a well-known left bias"
How is the protest their fault?
Why do I need a helmet to go to the shops at 10kph on quiet streets?here's my rationale - putting on a helmet is such a tiny, tiny effort and has the potential to save you from serious injury or possibly even death. I think while other taxpayers are responsible for paying for your healthcare, citizens have a duty to try to act in a way as to minimise their burden on the system. I think putting on a helmet is a low cost, low effort, low stress mechanism for reducing risk (yes, I'm aware there is research that it may or may not reduce it a lot, but all the evidence says it does provide some benefit; how much is an argument for academics).
I just see it as the same kind of thing as seatbelts.
In the US I'm happy for people to not wear helmets (where I am even motorcyclists don't wear helmets) because they pay for their own healthcare (I wear a helmet when I ride) and assume the burden of financial risk (largely) themselves.
I would add that in other countries I have been in where bike riding is a bigger deal (i.e., european ones) there is a MASSIVELY different culture towards bikes. In the Netherlands bike riders can never be at fault, which makes drivers a lot more careful. (Interestingly this came up in Melbourne recently but it looks like it's unlikely to get adopted in similar form: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-25/laws-drivers
That kind of culture - bikes as first class citizens - is significantly different than the climate here in Australia (and in the US) where bikes seem to be seen largely as an annoyance. (edit: by drivers)
I'm not going to lose my s*** about it because I do see the civil liberties argument. But it's just such an easy thing to do.
I like the way infi still hasn't produced any evidence of bias or hateful vitriol yet is still prattling away about like an idiot.
I wonder if Q&A will invite their terrorist friend back?You know what's funny? That man has never been convicted of a terrorist offence. Which means not only can you produce no evidence to back up your whiney rants, you're also resorting to hyperbole and dishonesty to compensate. You have no integrity, no critical thinking skills. You're dumb, you're racist. Nothing more than a sheltered little daddy's boy who has no idea how the real world works. A complete and utter failure as a human being. F*** it must suck to be you.
Pope is pretty much right on the money most of the time.
The bias is every week. Every week left wing guests outnumber right wings guests. Every week.I had a quick look at the figures. Out of the most frequent guests in the show there have been 157 who you could reasonably identify as right-wing, and there have been 149 you could reasonably identify as being left-wing. Germaine Greer has been on there nine times compared to Pyne and Turnbull's 21 each.
Have you got anything compelling to contend that instead of froth froth froth?
I love this excuse. Why don't you wear a helmet when you're in a car or at cricket?because the risk profile is completely different. It is worth noting that when you're in a car there exists a safety mechanism which you are required by law to partake of - seat belts. Wearing a seatbelt is one of the more effective methods of stopping a bunch of common injuries in cars.
At cricket, if you're a player there are any number of safety devices that many of the players wear. I suspect they don't need to legislate wearing a box while facing a fast bowler these days. (If you mean as a spectator the risk profile is so staggeringly low - you're probably way more likely to get punched in the head by a drunk idiot or fall off the stands trying to get to a beach ball than hit by the ball in the stands.)
The apologist is strong in this one.
He couldn't have possibly anticipated that he was going to be asked that question and therefore it is completely okay that he just rambled on for a bit instead of answering it properly.
edit: just to expand a bit on that. What you said is probably true. Even if it is he is showing such a complete lack of guile and tact with his response. It's just a bunch of nonsensical garbage that means absolutely nothing. Hence the 'this is what happens when you ask dumb people hard questions'.
ftr, he was at some sort of grocery conference thing. Gives some context to his answer but it still makes no sense.
QANDA is a flawed concept if it vets audience members, knows about their terrorist and misogynist tendencies, and allows them on to speak in any case.How do Zaky's misogynist tweets compare to to the misogynist comments made by Tony Abbott the Prime Minister of Australia?
Also I see you're still prattling away with no evidence to back up your claims.
More apologist comments. Will they ever stop.
I think the disparity in the severity of the comments is pretty comparable to the status of the two people in question. One a worthless dumb ass and the other a worthless dumb ass who is the Prime Minister of Australia. The point was that you seemed to object to misogynist comments from one person yet will fall over yourself to apologise for the other. I was just wondering if you could please explain that.
I pretty clearly explained how the comments are different and gave my reasoning for why I am comparing them. You're doing that thing where something is too hard for you to answer so instead you'll keep repeating dumb things in an effort to bore me out. The true mark of a dumb coward.
You don't think Abbott has made misogynist comments? Interesting, because he quite clearly has and I think any reasonable person would agree with me.
I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons.
There are heaps more. Check out his wikiquote page - it's also full of science denying and other nuttery. I didn't post them all as I'm on my phone and copy pasting is a pain. I know you're easily confused so I'll just let you know each quote is a stand alone quote, they're separated by linebreaks.
Are you going to go to the next level in apologist posts and try to tell me those quotes are not of a misogynist nature? Or is this the bit where you check out of the thread for a while for just long enough so you can continue on with your rehashed bulls***?
edit: they're in the same league because some comments are coming from a nobody and the others are coming from Minister for Women Prime Minister of Australia Tony Abbott. I'd expect a child to understand this.
It's actually your denials that are absurd. Every single position you take is absurd. From your support of asylum seeker torture, your rabid opposable to QANDA, your climate change denialism, your support for the government to be an autocratic powerhouse when it comes to squashing people you feel are beneath you compared to your infantile whinging when it comes to how they deal with you. You're never able to back up a single thing you say. Ever. The reason for that is you allow yourself to be lead by people who are able to tap into your racist, bigoted personality. I weep for your child. Being raised by you, they're destined to fail as a human being.
edit: they're obviously not comparable in isolation. Do you not understand how Minister for Women Tony Abbott should be held to a much higher standard than random mouthy d******* though?
What areas will women never be able to match males in due to physiological reasons?
Sport that requires strength and endurance played at the highest level is one I can think of. What else can you think of? Ethics in game journalism perhaps? (lol)
fpot you are entitled to your view of the world. it's always amusing to read/see how the other half think - it gives me an insight into the leftist superior mindset. and i thank you for that.The funny thing is not being a dumb racist s*** heel with no ability to think critically does make me superior to you and does actually make me feel good about myself. And I thank you for that.
That sure was a lot of words that amount to nothing more than men work the jobs and women raise the babies because history says so. I saw a lot of sciency sounding words but not a lot of science. About 80% of it needs a citation required tag on it.
I found your historical argument to be particularly on the nose. Do I need to go through the literally countless examples of things that have changed throughout the course of time that were once regarded as unalienable fact? I don't think I do, but perhaps you should ponder on some of the more obvious examples.
One question about your logic. I've observed you literally raging about how violence against women is given so much focus compared to violence against men. The obvious reason women gain more attention is because they are more physically at risk. How come your so willing to ignore that fact when you're raging against the white ribboned machine, yet willing to hang it from the highest mast when you're trying to make your point up there?
fpot and Viper: No, sorry, but there's research done by actual scientists not gender studies ideologues, that shows a difference in interests in even newbornsThen post it.
By the way, you're sounding a lot like brool atm. He's a very rational brain.
To be fair fpot the military is another one cant match males although only in certain branches.Yep I'd pay that one too.
So that's sport and military, and only in specific areas of sport and military.
edit2: sorry for all the edits but I just woke up and haven't coffeed yet. Where in my post did I attack you Rukh? I attacked you're argument and the way you presented it only. Ironically, you're the one who attacked me, accusing me of abandoning logic and science and instead resorting to feels and authoritarian leftism or some nonsense.
Abbott was elected on a platform of lies and dishonesty that appealed to dumb racist people, such as yourself.
In case it isn't obvious, these are infi's tactics to keep his little fantasy bubble intact -
1) hold utterly reprehensible and indefensible views and be very vocal about them
2) when these views are proven to be wrong with evidence, resort to an endless stream of logical fallacies (strawmen are his favourite)
3) when this is pointed out and the argument has gone full circle he simply starts repeating the same dumb things like nothing ever happened
4) finally when there is nothing to say to him except "holy f*** I can't believe how dumb you are" he will play the victim card and have a bloo bloo bloo about all the abuse he is copping
So what do you do in real life when you're face to face with someone with your stupidity laid on the table and nowhere to hide? Oh I know, you leave your high paying job in the public sector and instead go and work for daddy. When you're in daddy's office and you're the owner's son it doesn't matter how dumb you are does it?
See this is why you're a complete piece of s***, and why I have no qualms about giving you the abuse you deserve. People bring it up like it's a negative, and the option to simply ignore you is a valid one I suppose. I'm not going to lie and pretend I am doing this for some noble reason. It's because I actually do get pleasure from doing it. If you were dumb in some sort of harmless way I'd be a prick, but you're a malicious hateful piece of garbage, and you'd be doing nothing but eating s*** your whole life if you weren't so well protected.
In other gronk related news the LNP acting on advice from its team of witch doctors have cut funding to wind power. I read a comment that it was actually a smart move because other countries have found that wind isn't the way to go and this will allow them to focus on solar.
Abbott government extends renewable energy investment ban to solar power
Utterly bizarre. What could be the reason for this?
The entire Q&A "debate" is utterly bizarre. It hinges on the notion that radicals, extremists, f***wits and criminals shouldn't be allowed to have a voice in a debate. This is stupid.
Sure, you want to minimise exposure to those kind of elements. Radical and/or extreme views are often completely useless. But, and here's the important thing, sometimes they are not, and radical views are important and need to be heard. There are many examples of views and ideas that are radical completely reshaping our society.
Of course, many of them (probably even most of them) are useless, counter-productive, antagonistic, or just plain dumb. Arguably clownshoes that was on Q&A fits into one of these categories. However, it's important that even ridiculous opinions are brought into the discussion from side to side, just in case.
If they turn out to be good (e.g., "we should maybe think differently about slavery", or "maybe we should wash our hands before delivering babies", or "maybe gay people should be allowed to get married", or (coming soon) "maybe all religions should be tax exempt because they're useless woo"), then those crazy opinions could turn out to be the first step in sweeping social changes which will improve the quality of life of everyone.
Sure, many of them will turn out to be bad. But only letting people that you agree with into the conversation is just creating another filter bubble. Having people with contrary ideas - even if they're dumb ideas from anti-social clownshoes jerks - is an important part of the process, if only so the spotlight can be shone on them to really highlight how big a trainwreck of a human they are, or whatever.
Loving the irony of infi's misinformed tirade against Keating coupled with the extra irony of infi putting him on a pedestal just a few posts ago when he was talking about his QANDA stuff.
Keep delivering infi.
So many of those memes are made by people who have no idea how to get their point across. So much of the gamergate s*** was like this. I have no idea what side that meme is pushing. Are they agreeing that the Pope is dangerous? I know people who probably would agree with that who are not rabid Fox watchers; as the head of an insidious organisation that is based on fiction, has squillions of dollars and is responsible for all sorts of nefarious activiities it's not exactly a hard sell.
Or are they saying that the Pope is not dangerous and it's ridiculous of Fox to call him that?
The second last line is an attack on some Christian group (the "phone conservatives"). But then it ends with a call to action against Fox news? IT IS A SMORGASBOARD OF FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE
Hey infi what does esoteric persona mean?
I can, it isn't cheap and in fact costs a lot of taxpayer money.hahah unlike coal?!
One argument that I heard that I do think justifies the cut to wind and solar that has just been announced is that private industry is already massively investing in solar technologies. This does seem to be true - there are commercial entities now building sustainable businesses based on the current generation of wind and solar tech.
Of course if our state-run power companies didn't have their head up their asses they'd have been deploying solar en masse in Qld, at least in the last few years. I've seen they're starting to try to do it - there's those (pretty good!) ads from Origin or whoever about the guys stealing electricity off other rooves. I think they see the writing on the wall - if they don't own the solar infrastructure, someone else is going to.
That would be a fair comment to make if they weren't already giving massive subsidies to the well-established coal, oil and gas industries.I don't think they're talking about stopping subsidies for solar/wind/etc. They're just talking about specific investments into certain aspects of renewables (e.g., "let's build a wind farm"). I believe (but am not sure) that subsidies are arranged differently.
I would like to see some investment in different areas - e.g., let's build a solar tower thingy, let's try a new novel type of wind turbine to see if it's more efficient, lets test this new kind of solar cell.
This is all based on the fact that I think the mandate of the CEFC is to invest in new and emerging clean energy technologies. Wind and solar are established and proven - you could say it's actually a feather in the cap of wind/solar that they're already so awesome we can just start deploying them now!
(Arguably it is a stupid thing to do by the Liberal party at this point when they seem to have a clear anti-anything-but-coal agenda - it goes without saying that it just makes them look more bumpkin than ever and they definitely should have approached it differently. )
The subsidies given to coal industry are based on the diesel tax paid for use on private roads. Farmers get it too. Why should diesel tax be paid for travel on roads constructed by private operators on private property? Diesel tax is for road maintenance and development - a user pays tax. So it is not "costing" taxpayers because the tax should never have been levied on those taxpayers. To the best of my knowledge, this is the primary source of alleged taxpayer support.I would have thought you'd be against any form of subsidies as a general policy...?
if solar and wind was viable then excluding them from CEFC investment wouldn't matter.Yeh - that is my point, and (I believe) the point of the government.
weird observation to make when they specifically said they want the CEFC to be used for emerging technology.I mean purely from a political point of view. Just gives people more dirt to flick at them.
Nah the adults are back in charge and it's a new golden age. Open for business!
Remember when people were actually seriously saying this?
This very simple concept confuses you Obes and for that I am sad.It is /not/ a very simple concept at all!
Taxes on fossil fuels are, or should be, about dealing with externalities (amongst other things). The answer to the question "Why should diesel tax be paid for travel on roads constructed by private operators on private property?" is completely and utterly obvious to anyone that knows what an externality is. If you don't believe in externalities then fair enough - you can assign subsidies at random or to whoever you care to assign them to at your discretion.
Even in the situation where the diesel was manufactured by those private operators on their private property by their own privately owned equipment, it still would be a ludicrous position to take, because (amongst other reasons) CO2 goes into the atmosphere which we all share.
Except that fuel taxes have always been about road maintenance and development. If you want to rewrite the narrative now and tell the voters these taxes will not be spent on roads anymore feel free...Yes! Because now we are quite confident that burning fuel is bad for the planet, so adding more tax to help deal with that and shift us to alternative energy sources makes sense (to me). At least we've fixed the fuel index pricing thingy which is a start.
So when our highways fall into disrepair you will just propose nothing be done (or do you suppose the money will be taken from elsewhere??)What sort of argument is this called again?
it is a question. trog has suggested removing all fuel tax from funding roads. what is the alternative?heh, wow.
So infi, just so we're clear - would you still describe climate science as religious dogma and do you still believe it to be a left-wing wealth distribution conspiracy?
Hey infi. There was some text following that Yes! and it had some pretty important stuff in it. Maybe you should read it because to not to would be obtuse.
climate change to me is an uncertain proposition and i don't believe it should be a basis for raising the cost of living. there are plenty of economic incentives already for people to reduce waste and save power because doing this lowers costs.Well congratulations, you're an idiot, because it is not an uncertain proposition.
Here's the reality that is too hard for you accept.
Climate change is a real thing. It is happening now. When the full effects of it hit we are going to look back at this time and in particular people like you and curse the fact that you ever slithered from your mother's filth. You know those big events in history, that when looked back in hindsight seem so avoidable if only there weren't people with their heads up their arses pretending they weren't going to happen because they might have to sacrifice something to stop it? This has the potential to be one of the biggest. The right-wing knows it's most rabid supporters are pretty much dumb across the board. They knew a disinformation campaign would be very effective. They were right (no pun intended!)
Even if it was uncertain. Even if it was 50/50, it would still be worth taking drastic action. We're only playing with one dollar here. Once we lose that dollar we're f***ed. It's amazing the standard of proof (ie. tabloid Murdoch bulls***) you'll accept when it comes to believing all your dumb s*** compared to the absolute abundance of highly credible evidence you'll ignore when it doesn't conform to your dumb little world.
What is actually wrong with you? How did you get like this? I started posting all that daddy's boy s*** as a half-joke. Just something to rile you up. But it's true isn't it? You live in a cosy little world where you've been spoon fed life by heinous pieces of s***, haven't you? What is it with people like that. Reminds me of the Bob Dylan line... helpless like a rich man's child.
i guess the voters will be the judge of that.Well no, voters don't judge reality. They will give a pretty accurate summary of how dumb we are as a nation and how effective the LNP et al disinformation campaign was.
yes, in addition trog, supported adding more taxes. we shall be all taxed to s***.Options are: a) be taxed to s*** b) let everyone do whatever they want regardless of the cost to anyone else.
Failure to tax the utilisation of limited resources (that pollute) is basically how tragedy of the commons occurs.
(As a slightly related aside: from what I've read, the majority of road upkeep is needed because of the larger trucks and transports, which do a disproportionate amount of damage (based on the fuel they consume) to the roads, simply because they are massively heavier than regular civilian vehicles. I have read convincing arguments that indicate that there should be significantly higher taxes or rego or whatever on these vehicles because without them road maintenance costs would be significantly lower, and the fuel tax does not scale appropriately. I haven't looked into this in great detail though but it seems reasonable on the surface.)
So when our highways fall into disrepair you will just propose nothing be done (or do you suppose the money will be taken from elsewhere??). We do know that the fuel taxes collected will be funding Clean Energy bureaucracy. I enjoy seeing where these fantasies lead, inside people's heads. A continued degradation of our highways would surely end in civil disturbance (rioting).and
trog has suggested removing all fuel tax from funding roads. what is the alternative?I have no idea where you got this from. What made you think I said anything about stopping road maintenance? In any case, I said "adding more tax".
But see my above post (which I wrote before seeing these comments). It's not clear to me at the moment that a fuel tax is fair in the sense that at the moment many civilian motorists are subsidising the roads for shipping companies. (It's almost like this is an extremely complicated situation and there are a billion variables.)
To be clear, I never said, nor am advocating, removing taxes on fuel. Quite the opposite. I'm saying we should tax it more, and taxes on fuel should be considered to be funding for dealing with the externalities. (FWIW the fact that the tax on fuel goes to road maintenance is something that was done a billion years ago; it is possible to change how specific revenue generated from specific taxes is spent. )
Kinda interesting, negative gearing in the firing line again: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-16/reserve-bank
i read from this that you were in favour or rewriting the rationale using fuel tax to fund roads. And furthermore adding to the Australian taxpayer burden (and thus the overall size of govt, unless you are proposing tax reductions elsewhere).Yes, but I do not believe that increasing tax requires an increase in "the size of government"; that seems to be a popular libertarian meme in the USA particularly. I can see why it is seductive but it's just typical anti-big-government bulls*** (I am not pro big government)
one thing fuel and road haters (typically mass transit high speed rail types) fail to remember is that we will always need roads. when we invent hover cars maybe not so much but while rubber hits the ground we will always need roads. and well-funded roads reduce fatalities and increase productivity. so if we are not funding roads with fuel excise, or we in fact stop using fuel, have a think about how roads will be funded.This has nothing to do with anything but I can see why you'd drop the strawman that high speed rail is bad because it aligns so neatly with the Liberal party's message. No idea why you'd do it in a conversation with people that actually are in the habit of tearing terrible positions apart for sport though.
Holy f*** you're dumb.
so what happens with the more taxes collected? why collect them if not to spend them?I am not saying not to spend them - you're putting words in my mouth to make it seem like I'm advocating a massive pork barrel project at the expense of the taxpayer. Contrary to popular small government groupthink, it is possible for government to collect revenue and spend it wisely, on (for example) things that are not helicopter rides to party fundraisers.
There is a direct analogy that can be made to the private sector - a company that has a good year and increases their revenue does not need to then go and blow it on randomly increasing headcount or whatever. They can return it to the shareholders. Similarly, government can spend money on things that improve the quality of life of citizens without necessarily becoming a huge bloated monstrosity. Of course there are examples of profligate waste (see: helicopter rides). The size of the entity may wax or wane but it doesn't really matter - what matters is outcomes.
Anyway, let's just stipulate that the above is true. I'm basically just saying extra more taxes collected on those that burn more petrol could go into any number of projects that help reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. It could go to the Clean Energy Finance Corp where it could be used to directly fund more energy research, carbon sequestration plants, funding for electric charging stations to help build out our charging network... whatever. What matters though is that we accept that burning fossil fuels has these externalities and we start dealing with them.
if you are suggesting that fuel taxes not be spent on roads then how should roads be maintained?the bit you quoted literally says "adding more tax"; I am not proposing we suddenly stop maintaining roads.
it is no strawman because it is your direct quote.the strawman is bringing up high speed rail and saying I'm making the conversation about letting the roads generate into a Mad Max-esque unmaintained desert wasteland
Transfield: Nauru detention centre operator receives dozens of sexual and other abuse allegations/
The company responsible for running the Nauru detention centre has revealed it has received dozens of allegations of sexual and other abuse at the facility.
I haven't seen it mentioned here, but everyone knows about the Border Force Act right? It makes it punishable by imprisonment for people to report on sexual abuse allegations. Here's a link to an article about it.
How can this be considered to be anything but 100% evil? Not only is the government turning a blind eye towards abuse allegations, they're now actively trying to suppress them from coming out by threatening people with prison. How is this not the worst thing ever done by an Australian government since they attempted genocide against indigenous Australians? How is it not one of the worst things done by any modern western government?
The scary thing is it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they'll be re-elected. Can you imagine another term with these muppets at the helm?
apparently Abbott has told Bishop to stay out of trouble from now on
it's got to be against some kind of convention for a prime minister to discipline a speaker publicly
put Malcolm in already
a criminal and rape supporter, not interested in genuine comment but grandstanding. LOLI too found Scott Morrison's appearance distasteful.
At least in America every second term, they get a leader (President can't get a 3rd term ... FDR is the only exception!)Doesn't make any difference though; they are still just figureheads of the party and everything they want to do is stymied by the fact that the political system here has been reduced to a completely ineffective two party system. There is no subtelty to politics.
I thought this recent slashdot comment summarised things well:
I think the biggest problem is that a two party system completely dumbs down the whole process of government and removes nuance. If you're pro-gun, you pretty much have to be a Republican and if you're pro-gay, you pretty much have to be a Democrat.The scariest fate I can imagine for Australia is one where there's just the Liberals and Labor. Fortunately our political system seems more innately resistant to the effects of the two party system. But it's one of the reasons why I built that voting thing a while back.
I just hope Australians turn out to be better than Americans at democracy and we see more people voting independents and smaller parties.
At least Bernie Sanders looks like the goods for the US. Dude needs a haircut advisor though.
This article about Uber is pretty interesting: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-30/lack-of-taxi
The 69-year-old bought a taxi licence with her husband 20 years ago in the hope of funding a comfortable retirement, but that now looks unlikely.It is an interesting side of the Uber debate. I don't think the government owes people a guarantee that their investment is going to pay off but certainly by failing to enforce a fair playing field - which is entirely 100% their obligation while the laws are as they are in Qld - is not appropriate.
I was recently in BNE and got Ubers basically everywhere. I was in town one night and saw a taxi rank near the Vic that was as long as I've ever seen it. Then I walked around the corner and got an Uber, and felt a lot of guilt until I got home and realised it cost me probably half of what a cab would have paid. I did get a couple taxis while I was there too to try to balance things out but it's clear that as long as Uber is tolerated, the value of the taxi license is pretty close to zero.
I am not sure how they can transition these licenses over in a fair way, short of having the government pay these people off, which does not seem particularly appropriate. I haven't seen any transition plans; wondering if anyone else has?
What an odd observation 'the government paying them off" coming from the land of free enterprisethat is not an observation, nor something I said, so not sure why it's in quotes
The only reason Uber is a thorn in the Governments side is that Taxis have to pay a license fee of $20,000 +/- and uber basically do as they please at half the price."As of October 2014, standard Taxi Licences are selling at around $525,000.00 plus Stamp Duty (approximately $17,700.00 based on a purchase price of $525,000.00) plus GST if applicable" (source). It is not a mere $20,000 license fee; as noted in the article I quoted these are massive major life investments for many people that probably came at the expense of buying property.
If you protect taxi licenses because they are considered investments, does that mean you have to protect every other possible investment?The investment was sold based on the knowledge that the government was going to regulate the industry. They have been able to do this relatively easily in the pre-Uber days, so it's never been an issue before. Now there is a new entrant in the market that is not operating according to the rules that the government promised when those licenses were sold.
But infi I thought the adults were back in charge and the age of entitlement was over?
Yes, after Abbott used every weasel tactic in the book to evade the truth he did eventually accept her resignation. Point was that it happened and the adults were meant to be back in charge and the age of entitlement was meant to be over.
What about Abbott's daughter getting the scholarship in extremely shady circumstances which would have had you drowning in your own froth had it happened under Labor? Nothing was done about that apart from prosecuting the whistle-blower. And then later on she was able to enter her painting of Abbott late in an art competition after he intervened. Or are you just going to cherry pick what entitlement means in your own little truth evading endeavour?
They are operating according to the rules, the rules as they are don't apply to their service.The rules 100% should apply! It sounds like you've been drinking the Uber kool-aid - it is a taxi company. You request a car, they come to get you and take you to your destination. All that s*** about "ride sharing" is bulls*** (although some cities do have a "share" option in Uber; I noticed it in LA recently).
Again, I bought my Stocks in X business because it was a solid business that has never had an issue before, operating within government regulations. Why should I be allowed to lose money on that if another Business comes along that simply destroys X's market share if Taxi's are given that same treatment?because Other Business is breaking the law
That's all it comes down to - Uber is breaking the laws in almost every region it is running. Where it has not been explicitly granted a method to operate (like it has here where I am currently in Columbus), it is typically violating a number of city laws about unlicensed car services.
This is not really up for debate; it's a simple matter of fact. I don't want to sound like I'm pro-taxi/anti-Uber, but I think there is a valid case for those people complaining who made an investment when the government guaranteed they'd protect it by stopping other actors from breaking the laws.
Those people should have a) not hedged their bets on a taxi license investment or at the very least b) monitored the market of their investment, noted any changes/trends and adjusted their investments accordingly. That's the risk management innit.I don't disagree, but the state of affairs AS THEY STAND RIGHT NOW, is that Uber is an unlicensed taxi company and they are operating illegally. The compact taxi license owners have with the government basically says we'll play by the rules as long as you make sure everyone else plays by the rules. The market has to be fair otherwise it will degenerate into chaos.
Again I do think the industry needs to be changed. I think a p2p license like we have here in Columbus is a perfectly valid solution, although I think Australian p2p drivers should have to have more insurance. S***, Uber prices in Brisbane could go up by 50% and it'd still be significantly cheaper than a taxi.
Bishop should be getting investigated for criminal misuse of taxpayer funds. You can argue "oh it was within the rules" all you want, but at the end of the day these people are not children. They are entrusted with high powers and strong discretionary spending so they can serve the citizens of Australia. There should not need to be a 30,000 page document that details how and when their funding can be used.
I am 100% in support of government officials being able to charter a helicopter if they need to. But it must be a dire need.
I've also read comments indicating that Bishop will now get some ridiculously high government pension as well as, most ironically, an ongoing travel allowance?
Turns out they are indeed breaking the law. Uber drivers seem to be getting fined for it, however Uber is picking up the tab. So, the laws are being followed, they are just either inadequate to prevent Uber from operating or they should be scrapped to allow companies like uber to operate free of fines.Yeh. They are cherry picking people to fine. Last I checked we (govt of Qld) had fined Uber like $1.4m. I love the idea of taking all that phat US VC money and bringing it into the country via fines.
Clearly they can stop it more or less instantly - a handful of cops with phones would be enough to shut down Uber and hand out punishing fines for a few days until they get the message. Hell, every transgressor is not only listed on a map, but they'll come to you if you press a button. So I don't buy that it's hard to enforce the laws, which is something I think taxi drivers also have a fair claim to be whining about.
I'm going to take my lecturer's opinion on what constitutes entrapment over yours.It's an interesting point and not one I considered. I guess though you could argue that by running the Uber app in driver mode you might've already committed the crime?
it should be noted in France they just arrested the Uber execs, which I thought was a pretty funny way of shutting down the service.
The point still stands though, the laws are supposed to be a reflection on the will of the community. If it is the communities will that Uber be allowed, perhaps the laws should be changed to allow it.The argument against that is that back in the bad old days of unregulated taxis, they were much less safe. Maybe society has matured so this is less of a concern. Certainly I've been to countries where you are strongly warned not to get in an unlicensed cab.
As you note I think whether or not Uber is safer than a taxi is an interesting point - when I was in BNE I was surprised to see many taxis had an entire thing painted on the side now basically claiming that unlicensed cabs are unsafe (thought I had a photo but don't seem to - maybe someone could get one? They were yellow cabs). Which I thought was a bit of a stretch with no data.
The Platform owners however have no excuse, last I checked Uber was valued at $17b or something insane.That valuation is only so high because - so far - it seems that legislators will cave before Uber does and find ways of legitimising their operations. It will rapidly spiral downwards if a few more cities take a Parisian-esque hardline approach to it. Plenty of cities are pushing back though it seems not very hard because the reality of the situation is that most people think taxis suck and are relieved beyond words to have a better option.
The valuation point was only to show that they have the resources to be compliant if they wanted to be.weerrlll, being compliant to the old way of doing things is against everything they're claiming to be - a middleman provider that is "disruptive" and doesn't have to comply with these old crusty regulations.
Further, it is explicitly by NOT being compliant that they can justify their lower prices and so on. They don't want to lose any of their VC war chest paying for things that they're telling the VCs they don't have to pay for which is why they'll make so much money. (Also as an aside, their valuation has very little to do with how much money they actually have - you want to look at their capital raising figures, which are probably on TechCrunch or something; the valuation is just a function of that.)
But yeh, to get back to your point, maybe enforcement is a little more difficult than I think it is, but it's certainly not impossible and as evidenced by the $1m+ fines Qld has already handed out, it's clearly highly lucrative. The Qld government needs to stop pussyd***ing around and make up their minds - step up their game on enforcement, or rejig the legislation (which I think is going to be the long term outcome, and those with existing taxi licenses are basically boned). Either way the current uncertainty is bad for everyone.
Bronwyn Bishop would retire on a taxpayer-funded salary of $225,000 plus 10 free domestic return flights per year, if she were to take the Prime Minister's hint and quit Parliament at the next election.The age of entitlement is over.
As someone who doesn't know a single thing about Linux, why is it a bad idea?
As someone who doesn't know a single thing about Linux, why is it a bad idea?The only reason it is bad is because they can't run Office, around which much of the world turns. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem - need more people to switch to open document formats so more people are comfortable switching.
Google Docs has done a lot to help break that up. LibreOffice/OpenOffice are pretty good but aren't yet compatible enough for all purposes.
I think it's too hard to tell if it's more expensive or not; certainly it's easier now than it ever has been. The entire city of Munich, Germany switched over to Linux over a decade ago; they've actually got their own Linux distribution called LiMux. They claim to have saved EUR10m as a result (though MS have published a "study" which claims they've lost money, though there's a lot of criticism about their methodology and assumptions).
Basically avoiding to have to continue to pay windows licensing fees etc and keeping hardware longer will probably save a lot of money. But it has to be a long term project; if you try it for a year it'll probably cost more in the short term.
The cost savings are only part of it though - in the wake of the NSA stuff I expect to see more countries move away from Windows, especially given the hella invasive default Windows 10 settings.
I can't see how using Linux is more expensive than paying Microsoft $14 mill for XP, red-hat does cost but if the Government had a single server (man im pullin this out of my arse) one server to rule them all so to speak that would be about $3000 then again normal Linux is free.It should be noted that there are very few Linux distributions that are supported for as long as XP. Even the LTS (long term support) releases of Ubuntu are only supported for (iirc) 3 years. Sure, it's open source so you can just "fix it all yourself" right?!
edit: disclaimer: I think our governments should switch to open source as a simple matter of principle, but I also fully support them paying to keep older versions of software running. The cost of large scale enterprise migration to new Windows versions - especially from XP - will be huge. But if you don't break the chain at some point you're vendor-locked forever.
Not sure why you think Linux has such short support lifecycles.I just meant compared to Windows. Imagine trying to get a modern Linux application to run on a five year old version of Debian that has only had security patches. I don't have mad lunix sysadmin skillz but I know my way around and I often struggle to get new software to run on a VPS that's only a couple years old because it turns into a dependency mess as the developers assume you're running the latest version because why wouldn't you!
Say what you want about Microsoft, they bring new meaning to the words long term support. Almost every application written for any version of Windows you can simply just run and it will work. It is a staggering achievement and viewed in this light the idea of the government spending a few more million dollars on what is already no doubt a multi-million dollar investment makes total sense to me.
Of course this is much less of a problem in the enterprise anyway especially if you're fixing your application platform early on. I don't know if I agree if GDocs is "better" but I certainly think it's more than adequate for the vast vast majority of users.
I really don't get why alcohol fuelled violence is such a big deal. If it's that common surely the police can just stand around after 1am in a few hotspots and just start arresting people and throwing them in jail to get them off the streets.
Trying to think how many actual fights I've ever seen while out boozing and pretty sure I could count them on one hand with fingers to spare, but that's probably selection bias based on where I go.
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE ALERT
I worked in pubs as security for years at many different venues. In my opinion alcohol fuelled violence is pretty rampant. The thing is though it usually seems to come from the same people. We'd be forcefully evicting the same people over and over. What really causes it is the disconnect between the security teams, whose objective is to keep the place as safe as possible and assist in RSA, and management who are interested in short term profits and the appearance of looking cool. On one hand we'd be evicting and refusing entry, on the other bartenders (under the instruction of management) would be getting people absolutely blind. To be fair, most of the time, even in cases of when we kicked out their mates, management would have our back. But it was their overall philosophy in how they dealt out the service.
Have you seen the alcohol related death statistics trog? It's pretty compelling.
I have not, but I have seen stories like yours above. I just don't get why if it's the same people getting evicted over and over these people are not in jail? Like, assault is assault, right? Why are the police not dragged in immediately? I guess it's not security's job to hold these guys, just to get them out of the establishment.
Because it is not a good thing to have police attend your club/pub. In the eyes of management it gives the venue a bad reputation because of the police attention.
The main reason it is the same people getting evicted is because of their friendship with management or money. This is only speculation, but I think management's objective was to have them in, empty their wallets and then rely on the security team to get them out should they need to. We had a very physically good team (not me) and they weren't kicked out literally 100% of the time so I guess it seemed the economically viable option for them.
You're foolish or faced with an extreme situation (witnessed rape,murder) if you hold someone as a security guard. When someone is in your custody they're your responsibility. If they get attacked, or hit by a car, or struck by lightning your entire life is f***ed so you'd be crazy to hold someone for something like assault. It's only very seldom that we'd hold someone for the police. I think it may have only happened once and we stalled him rather then held him really.
In my experience, there are people who simply aren't compatible with being in licensed venues. It's not strictly the alcoholics. Some just sit and be quiet and drink till they're asked to leave, which they do peacefully. There are just some violent, anti-social people who don't know how to party, who don't know how to control themselves. Because of $$$$$ management don't manage them properly and they create a massive problem which has demanded the sort of draconian action we see today.
Yeh fair enough; totally take the point about security holding people & agree it's not a good idea or their responsibility. I do think places that regularly have problems should have access to some sort of police liaison that they can call on.
I would imagine that it would be a short-term hit to their reputation though - once it becomes clear that it's not a place you can go without actually getting arrested for being a f***wit maybe it'd bounce back. Compared to the reputation that they'd get if they became known as being a place where people punch on regularly and THEN someone gets killed in a brawl, that would be much worse.
I certainly saw a few people get carted out of the RE into police cars and it didn't seem to impact the RE's business!
unless it's a bushfire or flood. or breaking up. then its ok.Bushfire and flood is broadcasting an emergency situation to as many people as possible efficiently as possible so it's okay. Breaking up via SMS is just as sucky as firing someone over SMS.
I know toll already addressed this but holy f*** you just said another really dumb thing infi.
haha, now you're doubling down on the dumb like you always do. Gonna triple down?
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.Our wonderful offshore concentration camps accommodate this one quite nicely.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.We have this one covered with a rampant misogynist naming himself Minister for Women, one woman in the cabinet and the LNP bravely saving the family institution from the perils of same-sex marriage.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposedhttp://i.imgur.com/RdN26nK.jpg
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.Fossil fuels anyone?
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.https://newmatilda.com/2015/06/02/art-being-george-brandis-how-destroy-sector-without-even-really-trying. Amongst other things like disinformation campaigns against the work climate scientists are performing.
Ready for some Australian journalism?
WHEN SHARKS ARE EATING PEOPLE, IT'S TIME TO CULL
Keating knew it, the government must know it. The only conclusion I can bring is that the current government is being corrupt and taking money too keep coal going, OR they are simply incompetent and think that supporting and expanding the coal industry whilst shunning renewables is the way forward for Australia. Either way, it's a s*** government.Never attribute to malice, etc. I mean, except for Bishop, and all the others that have been abusing the spirit of the entitlements.
Ready for some Australian journalism?that is just clickbait s***, written entirely to be outrageous so people will share. What piece of s*** wrote that and what pieces of s*** published it.
Look at David Leyonhjelm, he is pretty much the definition of what Liberals should be. He has some crappy policies and some I agree with, they all genuinely come down to his true Liberal political position.Except for his crazy anti-windfarm weirdness and his willingness to take money from tobacco companies and then push their agenda, I agree that one or two of the things he has said in the past have not been terrible.
An Australian doctor has been brought to tears by the abuse and trauma he witnessed in Nauru's immigration detention centre.No doubt some kind of left-wing conspiracy to discredit Operation Sovereign Borders.
the position of a strict atheist is arguably questionable in the context of our current body of knowledge. agnosticism is probably more sensible, at least for now :)
I also could win the lottery... but right now the odds are pretty stacked against me, and everyone else who will play it.It's still worthwhile buying a ticket though.
Agnosticism is just hedging your bets despite all available evidence. I also could win the lottery... but right now the odds are pretty stacked against me, and everyone else who will play it.
You're not describing agnosticism - you're maybe describing the way some people incorrectly use the claim of being agnostic
The key is belief vs knowledge
Dyson Heydon, the royal commissioner under mounting pressure to quit over his links to the Liberal Party, was on a panel that awarded a young Tony Abbott a life-changing scholarship to Oxford University.
I don't think so at all. As the article says, it sets a personal relationship between the two. Surely after everything we've seen it's now been established that the LNP are capable of literally anything when it comes to dishonesty and corruption and the subsequent concealment.
Bringing down Bill Shorten you'd assume would be Abbott's #1 priority. His only hope is that the Labor dump him so he can use that to win the next election. Why wouldn't he use every underhanded trick in the book to achieve that goal? Also, remember that Heydon himself said this -
It is fundamental to the administration of justice that the judge be neutral. It is for this reason that the appearance of departure from neutrality is a ground of disqualification because the rule is concerned with the appearance of bias, and not the actuality, it is the perception of the hypothetical observer that provides the yardstick.
So are you just resorting to stumbling in with the occasional apologist post now or can we look forward to seeing some more full time dumb in the near future?
GST to be applied to international purchases above $1000: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-21/gst-to-be-ap
"What it effectively means is that we're going to have taxation officials travel around the world and visiting these companies and asking them to register for GST purposes."this is dumb as f***
f*****g retarded yet all premiers agreed. more bureaucracyMy favourite part is how I assume this decision was made because we had that period of the really strong Aussie dollar, which motivated a lot more people to shop overseas. Now thanks to the unceasing assault on the value of the dollar by the Reserve Bank, the dollar sucks and buying overseas is no longer an attractive proposition.
“We all know back in the 60s Aboriginal people didn’t have much money, they didn’t always receive the respect they deserve but they were in the real economy and they did have pride.
Then of course the welfare economy came in and that has done untold damage to a couple of generations to Aboriginal people. All the serious leaders of Indigenous Australia know that sit-down money has been poison, all of them know that chronic welfare dependency can lead to very serious personal dysfunction."
lol 'Border Force' officers are performing brown people checks in Melbourne today. I feel much safer already!
yeah nice niave comment mate. guess youve never heard of a thing called a death cult before? there here mate and there on the streets. our white boys in blue are just keeping us safe you on team australia or what?
The operation has been cancelled.
What an absolute s****torm of a f*** up.
heh, the LDP.
I have to ask a question. At one point I was naive. I thought Labor was the social government and the Liberals were the fiscally responsible government. From what I can see, Labor are from from socially progressive, and the LNP are far from fiscally responsible. Has it always been this way? Were the LNP always like this? At the moment the LNP are almost comic book evil. Everything they do seems to hurt someone or arguably everyone. Labor are also a f*****g joke and playing the role of LNP lite.
I never became politically active until I saw what was happening to asylum seekers. Has that issue alone thrown politics into turmoil or has the bulls*** always run this thick?
like the protestors, I'm not sure what operation fortitude even is, but I'm against it
Those stupid protestors.
Australia's $55 million operation to resettle hundreds of refugees from the tiny Pacific island of Nauru to Cambodia appears to have collapsed in a diplomatic embarrassment for the Abbott Government.
Get a load of this pile of apologist drivel from convicted racist and champion of the people Andrew Bolt.
MY God, how can Prime Minister Tony Abbott survive against this crazed army of professional hysterics shrieking over fake “scandals”?ughhhhhhh. So dumb it's painful.
So apparently Transfield have been retained as security providers at our concentration camps and they're also taking over the welfare role Save the Children were providing.
I guess that's one way to stop the child rape allegations.
how on earth does Bolt have his own show?Because providing confirmation bias to people with terrible opinions is a very lucrative business.
The whole reason Bolt and Murdoch media exist is so dumb racists can see their views put up in lights. To them it legitimises their racism. I doubt anyone remembers, but infi once let slip that he believes the middle-eastern culture is savage, and that the savage treatment they received at Gitmo was justified for that reason. He spent literally years lying about it. Denying it ever happened when it was all online in black and white. Some racists out there are proud of it and will be completely open. Most are cowardly little men and women who instead instead speak in dog whistles and innuendo (except for when they occasionally f*** up). This is the target audience of Bolt et al. It is the only reason he exists in a public sense.
Imagine how else they could have spent that $50 million. They could have used it to upgrade their concentration camps to something that isn't a living hell. Instead they put it in the hands of a violent and corrupt regime.
'AUSTRALIA NEEDS TONY' front page is still the winner.
The Australian Border Force removed about 30 detainees from the Maribyrnong Detention Centre in a raid early on Friday that a witness described as "brutal and intimidating".
Which means high savings interest rates too 12-14%. Which would make our Aussie dollar the carry trade of choice for the entire world. Which would make it shoot way above parity with USD, which would destroy our tourism, education and exports sector.Well, our economy didn't collapse when the Australian dollar was super high a few years back, right? We had stuff that people wanted at the time.
On the tourism topic - after being in the US for a while and talking to a s***load of Americans about Australia, I don't think the value of the dollar impacts their decisions too much. I mean I'm sure it has some effect but many Americans seem to have never even left the country - or if they have, it's to places like Mexico or the Bahamas or the Caribbean where the US dollar is accepted anyway - so the concept that their money is not all that matters is totally foreign to them. The biggest common obstacle for Americans to come to Australia seems to be that it is just so so so far away.
The FED has been pumping monopoly money into America for seven years with virtually nil inflation. This shows how weak the US has been. Similar strategies in EU and Japan have also not resulted in inflation.My uncle (who has been a magic finance dude his whole life) was talking about this recently and how he can't see how the US dollar is going to stay as high as it is.
I've been watching "the economys" much more closely while I've been overseas and have been fascinated by its movements and spasms. But it seems making predictions is a suckers game because there's just too many variables.
Imagine that. Instead of a years long fear and disinformation campaign efforts were instead focussed on
a) taking in as many refugees as possible
b) ensuring their journey here is safe
c) setting them up so they can benefit from our prosperous society
Instead vast amounts of money were spent on a campaign of lies to make people believe asylum seekers are an economic threat. Then even more money was spent on concentration camps where they're held indefinitely in inhumane conditions. More people have died at Manus Island than have been resettled. Maybe Abbott should be looking at himself when he makes Nazi comparisons.
dem wimmin been annoying yer by speakin too loudly?
Because of this buggy forum I can't actually bring up your old posts. But you do remember the last time you posted in this thread don't you? It was a bizarre little rant about how women were naturally nurturing and gravitated towards those roles and how men were the opposite. This is obvious bulls*** and you were called out on it. You started accusing people of succumbing to their feels and abandoning science and logic. You said there were actual studies done by actual scientists that proved you right. Myself and viper both asked you to post them but you mysteriously stopped posting. Funny that. There's also the thing where you actually think gamersgate was about ethics in games journalism (I chuckle when I write that) which is almost descending into Poe's Law territory. Basically you acted exactly like infi and brool do when their beliefs are questioned - giant rants with heaps of scare quotes with no evidence to back it up.
But please. Do point out the problems with what Larissa Waters and wimmin of her ilk have said. It will make for good reading I reckon.
Unless I see some blue underlined text I am not reading your giant walls of yawn.
And again with GamerGate...it has ALWAYS been about a lack of ethics in gaming journalism.everyone says this but 99.9% of stuff I've read about gamergate has had nothing at all to do with games journalism. I still don't know what it means to be "pro gamergate" or "anti gamergate" because as a movement, it has failed miserably
as I understood it, the "pro" camp is the one that believes gamergate (i.e. collusion in games journalism) is a real thing
the "anti" side is the one about sexism in gaming culture - it does seem that this side has managed to co-opt and define the term more successfully, however it may have started
At a certain point when you have all these refugees flooding across borders, perhaps it's time to say "You know what, Syria? We're taking this land from your country - forcibly. These people are going to get their own state, which they control."It's kind of ironic people now are all like "wtf are all these refugees? we need to do something about Syria?!?!" but back in the day when they were civil warring and citizens were getting blown up by their douchebag government everyone was all like "nah f*** those guys we don't need another Iraq". Pity you can't A/B test reality!
Why can't we build these things now?
I like that poem because it shows there have been so many Abbott f*** ups that you can rhyme them.
Wow.Easy there dude it's just a joke. Not like
Even if they're closed tomorrow it doesn't make what I said wrong - they were still built in the first place.
Nope nothing in that article whatsoever about Manus and Nauru being closed. You're lying again.
Blah blah blah. The same s*** you've been saying for years because you're a well trained LNP doggy. Good boy.
Holy s***. I actually remember when I took the time to respond to your rabid dishonest frothfests. It's because once upon a time I thought you were just a regular dumb person who had been misled.
Now I know you're really nothing more than a drone. A worthless little shill trained how to think and what to say. Nothing anyone says to you will ever make a difference. You don't know how to process new information. All that resides in your brain cavity is a festering pile of s*** that occasionally escapes out your mouth.
Gonna complain about how you're being abused again princess? Here's how to make it stop. Learn how to think critically. Strive to be more than a well trained little doggy. Don't be a dumb racist coward. Good luck.
I think I've answered the questions in your last post a dozen times now.
So I've noticed you've been pretty tame in this thread for a while now but wow you're back with a vengeance today aren't you? Bringing back all your years old lies and dumbisms with renewed vigour. Good for you.
If you say so. wanna bet 20 bucks? Lets call it 10 years. If Turnbull hasn't led the liberal party between now and 2025 you owe me 20 bucks.
There's a doings a transpiring.
oh yeah it's on
if "the c***roach" is making a move too then there's definitely something substantial there
i agree with all of this in principle, however in this case tony is s*** and malcolm isn't, so go malcolm
The Party selects a Leader before Elections
No it doesn't
The only person in that list who isn't an outright failure in their portfolio is Morrison and he is hardly a success.
If that is who you are saying is abbotts camp, then good riddance to bad rubbish.
Is not loyal to his leader. Speaks out publicly against Cabinet policy.
Abbott's cabinet produced policy?
don't forget Wyatt Boy
haha the Turnbull for Leader media masturbation has started again.
So about that 20 bucks Faceman...
Turnbull isnt a Conservative hes a Turnbull.
Turnbull is a conservative. He wants to occupy the center which is about as conservative as it gets. Abbott is the fringe dweller by a societal standard, not Turnbull. If Abbott is representative of the LNP then the LNP needs a f*****g reality check.
Pretty funny really. Abbott must be getting a look in for the shortest ever term.
So they did eventually hit rock bottom.
why would you want to sack morrison? he stopped the boats and saved lives!Poe's law.
^ this guy likes kids washed up on australian shores. :(Ahhh vintage infi. Where he will descend into his own personal vacuum and simply repeat verbatim slogans he has heard his leaders say.
Speaking of quadruple levels of dumb, Bolt -
MALCOLM Turnbull has replaced Tony Abbott as Prime Minister because the Liberals let his bull weaken their nerve and bury their judgment.
In short, “we need advocacy, not slogans”.
That's pretty funny, for that analysis to have purchase you have ignore the last 8 years of sloganeering that people have routinely polled they are fed up with. So even if Turnbull could be accused of being overly verbose, which I don't think he can (or at least I haven't heard any programmatic specificity awkwardly balanced by shaking sauce bottles fairly or otherwise), The electorates attitude toward it has changed.
Anyway I quietly observe faceman doesn't want to talk about 20 bucks anymore.
i honestly dont know how fpot and nerf and the greens can support the people smuggling industry.
Take a day off mate. Your troll is hanging out.
Well we didn't get a public Abbott meltdown. I guess we'll just have to settle for infi's meltdown instead.
Please continue melting down, infi.
The best meltdowns are the ones where the meltdowner isn't aware what's going on. They think they're being all cool calm and collected.
MORE MELTDOWN INFI. MORE.
infi wanting to close manus island and naru is not, nor able to be considered, the same as endorsing people smuggling.
However I would give you what you think you want, and suggest that often the people who own the boats are caught up in something they don't fully understand either.
I would suggest that the number of actual "vile pure evil mustache twirling people smugglers" that exist in real life is close to zero.
The reality is that the problem is complex so its solution will be complex too. By offering an obscene false dichotomy the Libs (and by extension people like you) have attempted to make torture camps seem like the only reasonable solution.
You are living on bulls*** mountain exactly as Jon Stewart described, where our problems are amplified and the solutions simplified and bear only a tangential relationship with reality.
that has to be the most naive poppyc*** i think i have ever heard.
This is another little LNP trope, you are plugged into brutal reality where you have to go all jack bauer to get s*** done. Have you ever even been to the south of Java? How do you know? The only evil people smugglers the government has been able to turn up so far are illiterate 16 year old fishermen.
The reality is you don't know what you're talking about.
on the current trajectory all camps will inevitably close because the boats have stopped arriving.
Not without severe damage to thousands of people. And it hasn't stopped boats.
Anyway troll is troll.
I love how the article is so directly referable to actual people and not abstract "people smugglers"
It's ok to admit you backed the wrong horse infi.
GIVE ME MY MONEY
Also from this his turnbull site
SpyCatcher Case – Turnbull teams with Communists
LOOOOOOOOLLLL. I've read spy catcher. The idea that fighting to get it published helped communists is beyond dumb. Peter Wright was literally exposing the communist ring of five and thatcher was trying to cover up the fact that russia had infiltrated at the highest level the palace, MI5 and MI6.
Get a job man. here is an actual conspiracy theory and you let it through to the keeper?
What I don't understand is why it's so hard to catch people smugglers (who are scum, taking advantage of peoples misery). Is it that hard to plant a "refugee" in Malaysia/Indo and arrest everyone involved? I really don't think their operations are too complex for governments to track and monitor.Presumably there's little incentive for these countries to bother, otherwise they're stuck with the refugees
While the Abbott thing is kind of entertaining, I remain unconvinced that Turnbull will be the golden boy that everyone wants him to be. If he just carries on with the Liberal party policies and it's just business as usual, possibly nothing of interest will change (ABC already reporting "Turnbull keeps same-sex marriage, climate change policies") other than we have someone less objectionable as PM.
The most exciting thing, to me, is that it again highlights the general unwillingness of Australians to put up with bulls***. Hopefully it further encourages people to look outside the two large parties for candidates that better reflect their views - if you're going to be voting for a dysfunctional large party that is unable to keep pace with the varying agendas of its large constituency, you might as well vote for a smaller party that is prepared to focus on the few things you really care about.
Here's my idea for the "immigration" problem (although I hope that the current crisis in Europe has put our problem into perspective):
We establish an entirely new town for "onshore processing". I call it Gateway.
Gateway would optimally be positioned somewhere on the northern coast of Australia. Close to Darwin, but far enough away so that it's not possible to get there by walking.
Any refugees, asylum seekers, "illegals" or whatever emotionally charged word you prefer (I'm going to use the term PNA - Potential New Australian) are sent to Gateway (optimally, they'll be aiming for it themselves). Before the PNAs are allowed to go through to the rest of Australia, they are required to spend some period of time (e.g., several months?) in Gateway, living, working, and acclimatising to the country.
Unlike offshore processing centres, which as far as I can tell are basically worse than actual prisons, Gateway will be basically set up like any small Australian town. It will have pubs and post offices and hospitals. PNAs will be housed in modest but liveable accommodations. It will be the sort of place where newcomers to Australia will have their first experience being a little bit more realistic.
Gateway, however, will be too remote for PNAs to easily leave. So it one sense it will still remain a closed and isolated environment where their statuses as asylum seekers can be determined. This will be immigration authorities and opportunity to filter out truly undesirables (e.g., actual criminals, people who can't behave in an Australian environment, etc).
Gateway will not exclusively be a town for immigrants. Australians will be incentivised to live there - for example, by tax incentives to go there and start small businesses. They will have the opportunity to pay below market rates to hire PNAs to work in their businesses. This will only be useful to some types of businesses, but hopefully the incentives can be tweaked to create an productive environment for employers.
The official language of Gateway will be English. I would like to imagine a Gateway in which there are no churches, mosques, etc, but instead centres of shared faith so that the lesson of tolerance of others is one of the first things that happens.
The requirements to leave Gateway would probably be complicated. I think being able to pass the citizenship test should be part of it (though I'm not saying that leaving Gateway should be enough to confer citizenship). A reasonable command of English should be required. A "clean" history of your time in Gateway - no criminal record, etc.
Here are a few of the advantages:
- instead of exporting vast vast sums of money to other countries to run crappy detention centres, all the money we spend on immigration will stay in Australia, to the benefit of Australians and the PNAs.
- instead of having to create laws to prevent people from talking out about how s*** our offshore processing centres are, we can try to create a nice environment where these people from shattered s***** third world countries can feel comfortable and safe and hopefully actually start developing the love of Australia that the rest of us share.
- PNAs will have the opportunity to learn what it's like to live in Australia. They will be exposed to our culture in a controlled and managed manner which will hopefully improve their chances of integration, removing the isolation.
- In addition to being, like, a better and more humane thing to do for the immigrants, hopefully this would go some way to mitigating the terrible terrible fear that Australians seem to have of immigrants, by providing some confidence that they have come through something of a naturalisation process.
- if it works we might never have to hear "stop the boats" rhetoric again (note: recent events mean this advantage may be outdated)
- might cost more up front? Does building a town cost more than $1B/year? What if a significant amount of the labour is provided by PNAs?
- maybe it won't work
Please tear this idea apart so I can improve it!
yeah could be the liberal party is wrong and you are right, but I doubt it.
Turnbull can't change those things overnight and be consultative. failure to really listen to the party is a key reason tone has been shown the door. gay marriage can really only be reset by taking it to an election.
As for Trog's idea I don't see any reason, if you're willing to bring them the mainland, why you wouldn't just bring them to a city or existing rural town. Everything about the plan sounds needlessly expensive in an attempt to physically isolate people. Unless there is a compelling reason isolate them, the fastest possible way to get them used to Australian culture is to immerse them directly in it. Not to provide a sanitized government simulation of it.
Also the idea of denying specific religious sites to people who are literally fleeing religious wars isn't likely to go well. I doubt there is much Australia can teach the average Afghani or Syrian about sectarian violence.
Unless there is a compelling reason isolate them, the fastest possible way to get them used to Australian culture is to immerse them directly in it. Not to provide a sanitized government simulation of it.I don't think history backs up that working that well. What has happened in the past is that when groups of people are dropped into a new culture they tend to stick together geographically. This is most noticable in the US in areas where they had a lot of sudden immigration when the country was welcoming immigrants with arms wide open. e.g., there are Italian parts of town, German parts, Croatian, Greek, etc.
I take the point about immersing them in it right from the get go but there are some specific bits of evidence that shows that it doesn't work in some cases (e.g., the many stories about students from non-western cultures not understanding how to use our toilets, or various other things). I think some training wheels should be provided and doing it in a controlled environment away from the stress of regular society would help there.
The physical isolation part though is partially that I do think there needs to be some intake control on immigrants. I do think that people who come to this country illegally should be subject to different processes than those that come legally. While our border security stuff often gets a bad rap there are actually good reasons for many of the rules. I'm ultimately pro-immigration but I think there needs to be processes around it. We want to encourage the best and the brightest to come here and stay here.
Also the idea of denying specific religious sites to people who are literally fleeing religious wars isn't likely to go well. I doubt there is much Australia can teach the average Afghani or Syrian about sectarian violence.,Yeh, I don't know. It's quite specifically not denying them, but rather requiring that they all learn to get along right from the outset. It seems like a nice simple low-budget filter to exclude people that are likely to be f***wits (although as a raging atheist of course I'd think that :P ).
there are Italian parts of town, German parts, Croatian, Greek, etc.
It happens here in Australia as well Footscray in Melbourne is a prime example, very Vietnamese. I remain unconvinced that it is to be explained solely by reference to immigrants. Footscray is mostly a heavy Vietnamese area because they were largely refugees and at the time of mass immigration Footscray was a slum. So I would assume cheap housing was an important part of that.
But then that serves as time to pause. Because they were allowed to setup and bring their culture, Footscray, I would argue, was flat out improved. If you want a bowl of Pho it's the place to go. It's now getting gentrified because the Vietnamese came and built something out of a slum. The price of entry was a culture shock in the 80's.
I am suspicious of the idea of training wheels for integration, sticking with the metaphor, training wheels aren't a substitute for riding a bike. You could do what your suggesting and I would *still expect* to see trouble with integration in mainstream society. Gateway is going to be light on dudes wearing "I grew here, you flew here" tee-shirts. That is the s*** they need to learn to deal with.
It's quite specifically not denying them
It might not be requiring that they convert or die, but part of the problem they are fleeing is not being able to express their religious identity. Sacred sites are a prominent feature of any religion you care to name from Aboriginal culture through to Islam. Demanding they give that up isn't reasonable.
What happens when Muslim prayer time clashes with Christian etc. It sounds like a recipe disaster which you would then say "oh look what religion did". In reality however allowing people fleeing savage sectarian violence a break from "integration" is a reasonable request. In essence you are demanding people from groups who are literally crucifying each other to share a public space and just let by gones be by gones. It is totally understandable if you have just fled 20,000 kms from Muslims stringing your children up, you might not be that keen to be forced to spend time with a bunch more of them. (not all Muslims etc)
I suppose what I'm concerned about is the distinction between integration and assimilation. I think your plan sits right on the line, though I'll freely admit its a fuzzy line.
Expecting people to just let the past go when the past is so violent and so extreme sounds more like assimilation to me. finally I would direct you to article 4 of the refugee convention.
a final quick point:
I do think that people who come to this country illegally should be subject to different processes than those that come legally.
This statement needs work, because irregular maritime arrivals are exerting rights guaranteed to them under the 51 convention. We have bound ourselves at international law to extend protection to those asking, and specifically said that they will receive no prejudice for failure to observe immigration formalities. see specifically article 31.
If you want to "incentivise" a particular method of arrival you are flirting with breach of article 31.
All good points!
It might not be requiring that they convert or die, but part of the problem they are fleeing is not being able to express their religious identity.Yeh but they are also from a society where tolerance for other religions is basically a completely foreign concept (note: obviously just referring to middle easterners that are from s***** zones where this is a problem; this is not a general immigration issue).
It might not be requiring that they convert or die, but part of the problem they are fleeing is not being able to express their religious identity. Sacred sites are a prominent feature of any religion you care to name from Aboriginal culture through to Islam. Demanding they give that up isn't reasonable.I feel like you are massively putting words in my mouth or at least misunderstanding me. This is not a new concept; I've seen multi-faith centres are scattered all over the world (e.g., I mostly see them at airports but have seen them at unis and a few other places).
What happens when Muslim prayer time clashes with Christian etc. It sounds like a recipe disaster which you would then say "oh look what religion did". In reality however allowing people fleeing savage sectarian violence a break from "integration" is a reasonable request.Well, maybe they don't all need to be in the same building. I've heard that in Jerusalem there are areas where there are mosques, churches, and synagogues all in the same area and everyone happily gets along - I don't know what the deal is, it seems really unlikely but apparently it's legit!
(In any case - I'm not sure I agree. This is, to me, an EXTREMELY low bar.)
I suppose what I'm concerned about is the distinction between integration and assimilation. I think your plan sits right on the line, though I'll freely admit its a fuzzy line.Oh yeh I'm not really interested in assimilation (... except as it pertains to people casting off 2000 year old stupid religous beliefs anyway). Your example about pho is precisely why. I think having different cultures is awesome.
If you want to "incentivise" a particular method of arrival you are flirting with breach of article 31.I don't know the articles or particularly care about them - clearly we're already incentivising one method over another; any legal distinction is spurious. Whatever system we have now based on whatever laws exist is broken. I'm not exclusively talking about people that arrive by boat anyway (iirc the majority of "illegals" didn't even arrive by boat?)
Thank you for your response.
I feel like you are massively putting words in my mouth or at least misunderstanding me
I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth, though It's certainly possible I misunderstand. You appear to be advocating that all religion be conducted in a building that must be shared by all religions and they aren't free to create their own. This is in an attempt to foster cross faith tolerance and integration. I put it to you that forcing tolerance is an oxymoron.
I've seen multi-faith centres are scattered all over the world (e.g., I mostly see them at airports but have seen them at unis and a few other places).
But prayer rooms in an airport or university is subtly different from dealing with extremely traumatized people trying to start a new life in enforced isolation from the population at large.
You may consider it an extremely low bar, but you don't have your identity tied up in your faith and you have never been threatened with death over it (I assume). It is perfectly understandable that people who have been persecuted for this exact element of their identity are going to be more sensitive than most about slights against them real or imagined. And lets not mistake for a second that the Abrahamic religions have sharp points of the theological disagreement. We are free here to have these discussion in the abstract because people are better able to separate their identity from the requirements of theology. This is a critical first step, which I would argue can't be skipped.
To give an example: The church down the road from me actively helps people integrate by giving examples of how to get along, and this is critical, in a place where they feel safe. They help people disentangle theology and identity and allow for more dispassionate abstract analysis of differences between faiths. All I'm saying is that it is a situation where expecting anything more than baby steps is probably fanciful.
I don't know the articles or particularly care about them
That doesn't make any sense. They specifically articulate a framework for dealing with people fleeing war and ethic violence. Why you wouldn't want the received wisdom of the leaders of the world dealing (including Harry Truman, Churchill, Charles De Gaulle etc) with this exact problem is beyond me (in the wake of ww2).
The system we have at the moment is broken as you say, and in no small part because Australia doesn't even try to uphold its obligations.
clearly we're already incentivising one method over another; any legal distinction is spurious
If the legal distinction is spurious then
I do think that people who come to this country illegally should be subject to different processes than those that come legally.
is a non sequitur. Spurious distinctions are usually poor reasons to distinguish people. *edit* To clarify; When we classify people illegal, in breach of the convention, to justify treating people differently based on method of arrival (with respect to immigration requirements), then it is the classification not the convention that is spurious.
You can't hold out that you will not classify convention refugees as illegal and then validly claim that their (improper) illegal status justifies discriminatory treatment.
I'm not exclusively talking about people that arrive by boat anyway
I'm not either, the point is that, regardless of how they arrive, if they are convention refugees, failure to observe formalities doesn't make them illegal.
Successive governments have explicitly removed "illegal" from the migration act precisely because its an ambiguous term that carries strongly negative connotations. The overwhelming majority of people read "illegal" as "criminal" and this is a cause of a great deal of misinformation. I understand you have rather strong views on the proliferation of misinformation.
But prayer rooms in an airport or university is subtly different from dealing with extremely traumatized people trying to start a new life in enforced isolation from the population at large.Sure. I don't know which one is better. I guess the gist of what I'm hoping to achieve is to basically strip everyone of stone age notions of religious-inspired intolerance against other sects before they enter Australian society.
This is a critical first step, which I would argue can't be skipped.Well I agree with this and it's why I thought it was worth mentioning as effectively a cornerstone of the whole plan.
That doesn't make any sense. They specifically articulate a framework for dealing with people fleeing war and ethic violence. Why you wouldn't want the received wisdom of the leaders of the world dealing (including Harry Truman, Churchill, Charles De Gaulle etc) with this exact problem is beyond me (in the wake of ww2).Are they working anywhere in the world at the moment? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're putting out but it seems that whatever way of doing things we have now, is broken and in need of change basically everywhere.
Successive governments have explicitly removed "illegal" from the migration act precisely because its an ambiguous term that carries strongly negative connotations. The overwhelming majority of people read "illegal" as "criminal" and this is a cause of a great deal of misinformation. I understand you have rather strong views on the proliferation of misinformation.Yeh I am trying to use "illegal" in quotes mostly because I don't know what the terminology is. Maybe "conventional" and "unconventional" are better terms.
Anyway what we have now sucks and I hate hearing about it. I'm embarrassed and want to see our government trying something else.
Are they working anywhere in the world at the moment? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're putting out but it seems that whatever way of doing things we have now, is broken and in need of change basically everywhere.
I agree that the refugee convention could be updated to reflect more modern issues. But if the issue is "borders trump human lives", that isn't a modern issue. The refugee convention would work a lot better if governments attempted bona fide implementations.
Take for example the European drownings. You would think that the med is dangerous passage of water listening to the headlines. But the truth is millions safely traverse it each month. Refugees are denied access to safe transport by European countries refusing to allow irregular travel. Even when irregular travel is perfectly reasonable. People don't tend to hang around to make sure their visas are in order when madmen are coming to crucify you.
The problem to be addressed is the mass migration of people running away war zones, something you might argue the great power leaders of world war two were more than a little acquainted with. How they elected to deal with it may well be helpful in informing our response. Just sayin.
The problem to be addressed is the mass migration of people running away war zones, something you might argue the great power leaders of world war two were more than a little acquainted with. How they elected to deal with it may well be helpful in informing our response. Just sayin.e.g., the creation of the state of Israel? :)
E.g The Marshall plan :)
As long as those countries are (basically) theocracies or dictatorships I do not see that as fundamentally workable. All the billions of aid dollars that have been plunged into the Middle East have not borne fruit. I think the conditions in which the Marshall plan was executed were staggeringly different to what we see now in the Middle East. Certainly I would have preferred to see a variant of that plan executed in the Middle East vs our previous plan (one way export of high explosives and shrapnel) but I suspect most of it would have been soaked up by the tin pot dictators and theocratic leaders.
Stupid world politics! Fix your countries people! Really makes you appreciate how trivial most of our problems in Australia are.
The point was simply that because they didn't get everything right, doesn't mean they don't have valuable insight to be distilled. Our problems are not so foreign to human knowledge that we need entirely original solutions.
Anyway thank you for a nice conversation.
goodbye Joe, goodbye Joe, Joe, goodbye, goodbye Joe
It needs to keep going so we can see Facey writhe around in agony with a commie pinko at the helm of the liberal party.
Brool is also conspicuously absent
This thread will die off now, Turnbull will be having far less stuff ups thats for sure.I think that is a risky claim; a lot of Tony's bad moves weren't (just) because he's intrinsically a terrible person - it's because the politics of the Liberal party are too wide spectrum and, fortunately, it seems Australians aren't going to put up with that s***. Whether Turnbull can make our lives better will be largely dependent on his ability to convince the rest of the party to start ditching some more of their bats*** crazy policies.
really? Can anyone confirm this?
If he's not posting then he is banned. He'll try starting a new account pretty soon.
well he probably is banned (or autoblocked I didn't know that was a thing on QGL omg have I been autoblocked?) but, if facemans wailing was any indication Brool's response would have been special.
A heady mixture of denying he even likes the liberals, while at the same time blasting Turnbull as zombie stalin christ reborn (but totally doesn't care, like at all.). the allcaps phrase "comedy gold" would have likely had a run. "butthurt" may even have been dropped. C'est la vie.
On the surface it sounds kind of silly - they talk about a $5.5m "plan" (not clear if that is $5.5m of loans) but I feel the costs of administering such a system would be insane compared to the value people would get out of it. You can only get $10k a year out of the scheme - that amount of money is not hard to find.
I would rather see them just give money directly to existing university-attached accelerators and let them deal with it.
I'm genuinely interested Scooter, I had to work with survey gear, a total station and an RTK kit cost my old firm about 250k all up.
Would you just need the jigger to get goin?
10k would buy me about 1/15th of the Equipment I would require to start my own Surveying Firm.Well the plan is targeted towards people in the 'softer' industries, hoping that they can turn ideas into money. Anyone that has a business that has more serious infrastructure requirements isn't really on the radar.
The fact that a rational empathetic conversation considering real world factors is seen as a bad thing by faceman is disturbing.
Not really the guy runs his own conspiracy theory website.
I could give a f*** what hard right lib tards think of Turnbull.
Turnbull is another Kevin Rudd.
Maybe, maybe not. Abbott certainly was. The centralized chaos that was Rudd's hallmark was Abbott's as well. Except Abbott couldn't do the talky talk.
Turnbull's approach to the latest teenage d******* with a gun, is a marked and welcome change from Abbott practically masturbating with the Australian flag while repeating "Death cult" three times.
Turnbull has also appointed a civil servant as his chief of staff. There is also already signs that portfolios are being properly delegated.
So not really very Ruddy when you look at the evidence. But carry on infi. Maybe you can get an aussie flag and have a wank using your sweet Abbott tears as lube.
I dislike Turnbull because he is not a true Liberal, just a guy who wanted to be PM (just like Rudd).I don't know enough about what makes a 'true liberal' to comment (I'd be interested to know what makes him not a true liberal, if you feel like explaining it?) but it's hard to disagree with the last part. I'm certainly skeptical of him and even more skeptical of how many Australians suddenly think all their problems are over because he's now in the top job.
However, I do feel like the Liberal party ultimately had little choice because it was clear that Abbott was just so, so, so unlike-able, to the point that his politics or general "worthiness" as PM became a back-seat issue. I've mentioned before I think that this highlights the growing dissent with the two big parties in Australia and their influence in politcs, which I think is great, and I hope it leads to more people voting for smaller parties and we end up more like Norway and less like the USA.
Someone who joins the party once they decide they have made enough millions to become Prime Minister to cross it off their bucket list - is not a true liberal.How about answering the question of what makes a real liberal you dummy.
How many walls did you build at your minimum security elderly facility infi?
somewhere between zero and f*** all?
I luuuuurv how someone who should be exactly what the libs aspire to, if the rhetoric is taken seriously, doesn't measure up to the true beliebers.
Respect for dynastic wealth is what most actual LNP supporters seem to mean by reward for hard work.
The polls are amazing. I am guessing it is still short term euphoria from having not-Tony Abbott as PM. I eagerly await the transition to the new rational Liberal party. They are talking some talk so far, but whether or not they walk the walk is another question.
I think more interestingly it shows how completely boned Labor are because of Shorten. Tanya Plibersek seems to be the only other contender in the party but I confess I don't know many of the others very well.
Is anyone else confused by Obes rant?
I think he doesn't like Abbott, but maybe also is luke warm on Turnbull and Hockey?
If you say so Viper.
I don't really see how you get to "Australia is on a path to destruction" from "Abbott's first budget was extremely politically damaging", but that's just me.
I sometimes wonder if facey is an elaborate troll account.
Yet that have zero actual clue about what it takes to get by from day to day. Hell most 18 yr olds have no clue, but I guess you have to start somewhere.
This may well be true, but if they pay tax particularly income tax, then it falls to those that would deny the vote to demonstrate a good reason.
"wasting" their vote doesn't really cut it. Everyone here will have done an informal or donkey vote at one point or another.
F*** the senate tickets with 200 people on them, some of whom make you email them to get their policies, mean that the vast majority of Australians vote with at least some degree of ignorance.
there is probably a degree of cynicism on behalf of shorten, pollies rarely act outside their self interest.
Welfare counts as taxable income faceman...
Well considering who is in charge of immigration laws I'm more than willing to accept them as an alternative.
A domestic violence victim is at the hospital. A doctor treats their injuries and assesses them as physically okay. The domestic violence victim, as is often the case due to emotional abuse that is also occurring, insists on going home. How does the doctor then compel them to stay?
Because they're legally compelled to and could be charged with deprivation of liberty if they don't.
I'm thinking you're going to be dancing around your rather stupid comment for a few more posts so perhaps I'll just try to explain in the simplest terms why it's not a very good point. It's because you're comparing the legal rights and required level of care of a baby and an adult. I guess you're also comparing a rather large and powerful entity like the government to a single abusive spouse, but which one of those can cause more harm is arguable.
I'm actually kind of curious about exactly what you're accusing doctors of here. Do you mean doctors in general or just the doctors involved in the Asha case? Do you actually know of any contentious domestic violence cases they've dealt with or are you just making stuff up? Are you saying that they may actually hold disdain towards domestic violence victims but see this Asha case as some way to boost their moral credibility?
Honest question, did you read that comment somewhere and agree with it or was it just one of your own thoughts? I'd be curious to see who it was and read the whole thing if it's the former. Smells like Bolt to me.
Shut the f*** up toll
Also, shortages is what happens when it's a socialist country
Every communist country in the history of communism has had perennial issues with essential item shortages. It's what happens when you attempt to centralize national distribution of everything.
It happened in Russia and China. You can't credibly argue that Russia was a boot lick of the US in the 40's and 50's.
It currently happens in Venezuela and Bolivia, neither of which have significant sanctions. Venezuela received some in the wake of violent crack downs on protesters, (socialists love to wail about true democracy while they have no power. they are authoritarian without exception when they gain power.) but shortages of essentials predate the 2014 US act.
Toll on what planet is the great leap forward not classic communist thinking?
Heh? Tell that to Cuba
You mean like their dysfunctional agricultural sector?
The evidence showing the inability to centrally distribute essential commodities is overwhelming dude. You're currently in denial of plate tectonics/gravity territory.
They're feeding their people, and looks like they're taking extra steps to improve that.
No they aren't, they are heavily reliant on imports.
Where as, in Africa, many countries are starved by the private sector, with the profit sent overseas
Find me an example of this.
More specifically find an example of this where the functions of the state haven't totally broken down.
More over people have tried socialism in Africa, Muammar Gaddafi was a Marxist revolutionary. Libya under his rule was a total disaster.
Robert Mugabe was also a Marxist revolutionary, pretty hard to put a cogent defense of Zimbabwe's current state of affairs.
Meanwhile in Kenya, where they adopted free market capitalism they have among the highest living standards in Africa.
Gaddafi & Mugabe are in the same box as Kim Jong, pulling money out of the powerful government to give themselves ridiculous wealth.
you can add chavez and Evo Morales to that list. Important to note though that Lybia under Gaddafi experienced poverty relief in the early years. But once all the caplitalist pig dogs had been robbed and there was no useful economy it became authortarian to hold on to power.
I wonder if now that the oil price has tanked something similar might happen in Venezula. Now there is no "fat cats" left to steal from, the hard work of creating productive economy begins, oh and would you look at that. Now the "democratic socialists" are accused of human rights abuses of their critics. That train is never late. here is a chart of oil prices, and guess which year they tanked? 2014. Coincidence, I think not!
Dude you need to face it. Socialism in the sense of nationalize everything is a defunct economic system. It has never been successfully implemented in the history of the world.
Yeah Tonez can't really look back and say "nailed it". He f***ed up about as bad as its possible to do. Too many vanity projects. Too little consultation.
Abbott has delusions of grandeur like Kevin Rudd.
The last horse crosses the line. Everyone who wasn't a rusted on lib could see Abbott was Rudd 2.0.
I'm in favour of social capitalism, or whatever you want to call it, essentially capitalism with the added regulations needed to ensure it's fair, people are protected and no-one is hurt.Which begs the question, what is an acceptable level of regulatory control the government should have over private markets? Who knows... but it isn't none or practically none. For me the answer to that question is something still being decided. It's why an open mind is essential. Something like a super tax in France having a negative effect and failing isn't something to be celebrated by one side and treated like some sort of defeat by the other. It should be something learned from.
The fact that we aren't 100% renewable by now is evident of that.
The fact you haven't gotten your way is evidence of a broken democracy? Yes wel,l you keep using that word democracy but I don't think it means what you think it means.
It's important to remember that all of the failed socialist/communist states offered up as ruinous examples, say Venezuela, Soviet Russia and Cuba, didn't actually implement real socialist models. Rather they were half-baked, ill thought out and poorly implemented attempts, generally as a guise for basically authoritarian (and very kleptocratic) dictatorships.
Dude saying that soviet russia didn't implement "real socialism" is roughly the same as not eating meat isn't a "real vegetarian" diet.
the USSR was absolutely the end game of hard socialists. How else do you explain Jeremy Corbyn employing seamus milne? the guardian columnist who always says "oh but soviet russia wasn't that bad". Total government control of production is socialism, everything else is socialism lite IE the perversion of real socialism.
Corbyn is happy little socialist (lite) that I'm sure Vash would queue for hours to fellate.
That article is a bunch of gobbledyg*** Vash.
to build socialism it is essential, along with building new material foundations, to build new human beings.
It's not the theory that's wrong, it's just the people it rules over. Fix them and all will be well. What could possibly go wrong there?
It holds up Chavez the gold standard and less than two posts ago I demonstrated Chavez's project is suffering the same fate as the soviets.
It was real socialism, and the reason clowns like you like to try and distance yourselves from it was its unmitigated failure.
Anyway, I'll let you think about what needs to be true for your opinion to be correct.
Every attempt by people to set up a Marxist socialist state has ended in total disaster, but all these people never got it quite right. they never implemented "real socialism"
so the list of people who have f***ed it up so far
but no you know better. All these people who were waaaay smarter than you tried and failed, but its not a problem with the theory.
It also has to be true that in Australia, where we just turfed out a first term government in QLD for savage attacks on social welfare, isn't a 'real democracy' but rather a pretend one with all the key characteristics of one. again just because you have an anti fossil fuel hobby horse that isn't reflected in the current polity doesn't provide evidence for a broken democracy. it's evidence that most people disagree with you.
What do you do when even the most menial of tasks is not viable and entire professions that currently employ millions of people are destroyed faster than new work can be invented? What happens when even 30% of the work force is just utterly unemployable in any meaningful way within the timeline of a single generation?
In that scenario, if it actually comes to pass, I'll concede you're almost certainly looking down the barrel of revolution.
But the argument that technological progress is bad for overall employment tends to turn out to be false. Hence the Luddite fallacy.
Being on the cusp of massive economic change calls for cool heads, not revolution and romantic appeals to thoroughly debunked systems.
For example you can cut a decent living from being a talking head on youtube these days.
This guy has a whole production team behind him now. His job was literally unthinkable less than ten years ago. I read an interview with him saying (and just pause to soak this in) he didn't want to go to TV because the audiences weren't big enough.
*Edit* It's enough already Vash,
You refuse to provide hard argument or data and instead supply platitude after platitude. You fiat insistence that capitalism is doomed and the sky is falling is starting to become persuasive evidence against socialism in and of itself.
The point of the Youtube guy was to point out new opportunities are coming out of this which didn't exist, not that we can all be artists.
I've been working on legal form automation at the moment, and while true that it could minimize labour it can't remove it altogether.
A person somewhere still has to fill out the form. part of the solution will be revaluing what we consider to be labour.
I'm not sure I agree that there is a finite number of productive things a human can do.
again less than 10 years ago who would have considered this productive?
I am not saying that the economy isn't on the brink of some big changes, that we probably aren't well prepared for. I am saying that socialism *will not* be the answer.
The more I read of Chomsky the less time I have for him. He is all to willing to engage in pseudo intellectual babble. His only major contribution the so called "universal grammar" has been debunked.
If you read a historian like john lewis gaddis, you find out that actually Stalin wanted to build the workers paradise. In particular now we know: rethinking cold war history is an excellent resource on the matter.
I couldn't give a toss what a wanker like Chomsky wrote about the USSR in 1986. Anything written prior to 1992 needs to be controlled against the fact the soviet union was the single greatest information management system ever created. Doubly so for Chomsky who has been preaching the US media's self censorship for the last 40 years.
You say none of the examples I provide are really real socialism either. Well allow me to retort.
Vash posted to this article
It claims, as you do, that soviet russia wasn't really the really real dope socialism we all be craving.
He charts this path by drawing on Hugo Chávez’s conception of the “triangle of socialism,” whose three elements are:
Would you look at that. It's not really real socialism because it doesn't measure up to Hugo f*****g Chavez's conception of socialism. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela (also not real socialism according to you and vash). On the Chavez and Venezuela point, If you don't think that is real socialism then you don't know what you are talking about. I've a close friend who was a branch manager of Socialist Alliance in Queensland and he won't shut up about how awesome Chavez was. He is a nearly full time socialist activist, you don't know more about the topic than he does.
it also says that it doesn't measure by Che Guevara standards, but frankly the standards of a racist homophobic war criminal are a matter of supreme indifference to me.
The point is that in over 100 years people smarter than either viper or vash working with the same source material you guys have have failed to construct a proper really real socialist state.
if you've been trying and failing at something for a century most sane reasonable people would stop and say "hey maybe its time to try something else".
If, after a century, its never been successfully implemented the smart money is going to be on it can't be implemented.
Heck, The Chinese Government is still called The Communist party. There is absolutely zilch that is Communist about China, and yet we still call them Communists.
Spoken like someone who doesn't know what the f*** they are talking about.
Bankruptcy laws were only introduced in china in 2012 because of the implications of having private debt. IE they were opposed politically because Communists find the idea of insolvency to be a construct of capitalism (which it is).
people were only allowed to start making contracts (ie legally binding promises between private citizens) in 2000, and even then the state retains the ability to rewrite contracts that are socially unacceptable.
They have adopted markets but they haven't ditched communism. not by any stretch of the imagination.
You are fundamentally ignorant of the s*** you preach about Vash, and you have the hide to call others "illogical".
I think we might be arguing past each other here a bit hoggy.
As I said, I'm not disputing that the gap between human and robot capability is shrinking, that is certain.
I remain to be convinced that we have entered an abandon all hope ye who enter here phase.
I said reconsidering what we are willing to call productive is something that will have to happen. What people are willing to pay money for changes a great deal over time.
Where we might find a bit of disagreement is in the solution.
Politicizing the means of production has a long well demonstrated history of failure. Why is there any reason to suggest that even if the worst possible technological unemployment scenario comes to pass adopting socialism will help?
Yeah Pete, I don't agree with your views of what socialism is in theory, or the notion that any of those dictatorships have actually been legitimately attempting to implement real socialist models, so by no stretch are they some kind of benchmark or example of socialism. I can't be bothered arguing about it with you though. I'm not even pro socialism really.
Fine Viper. You don't have to argue. But we don't have a difference of opinion. You are factually wrong.
If you think the Soviet Union and current Venezuela aren't socialist(proper) then you don't know what the word means. Just as Vash has proved repeatedly.
Enjoy your ignorance guy, Hear its bliss.
You really shouldn't be.
Does this help raven?
"the soviet union is an example of a socialist state".
I highly doubt they'll lose the next election. If they do it might be Scott Morrison which since the departure of Abbott is a classic example of a worst case scenario.
Just for you viper.
Why Chomsky is an AssHat.
At 0:38 he literally claims that the weight of evidence is in favour of Neanderthal life being less violent than modern urban life.
Wonder what else he could be wrong about? With an attitude like that probably a lot.
What does the evidence actually say? Seems kind of believable to me. Higher population density, readily available weapons ranging from knives and firearms to less available but have actually been used nuclear weapons that can instantly destroy cities. We've had wars that killed 70 million. We have African genocides that kill a million that some westerners when asked in the street may not even know about.
I guess maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by modern urban life.
Minimum wage is destroying the labor market in Seattle and Portland.
I mean you don't really need a citation any more than you need to look around Australia and wonder where the labor market has vanished to because of our minimum wage
I'm not actually even 100% convinced a minimum wage is a good thing but (sigh as usual) you are spreading fud
good luck finding one that isn't by a conservative scaremonger based on no or incomplete data though, just FYI. Here is someone looking at the data. There are a lot of people saying "OMG $15/hr min wage is killing Seattle" but ignoring the fact that $15 is the final step-up amount and it won't hit that for a few years.
There is a growing welfare element to America which creates ghettos just like in Australia.Admittedly I haven't spent much time in Australia recently (just got back from a month in BNE) but I haven't seen any 'ghettos' recently that I would say are anywhere near a match to the free market libertarian dream that is, say, San Jose. The 'welfare element' you are referring to is a symptom of the problems of having an oligarchy; people are dropping out of the middle class.
After two years in the US having a lot more first-hand experience of the reality of the poverty line there - particularly in some of the richest cities in the richest state - trying to draw a comparison between .au is too weird for words. We live in a utopia
edit: well, I don't :(
In raw numbers we may be killing more but as a mortality rate (which is the figure that matters) it is not even close.
You are Massively less likely to meet a violent end at the hands of another human then at any other time in history.
I might add that Pinker includes both world wars in that.
even with the brutality of ww1 in mind a solider was more likely to be killed in the crimean war than ww1
The raw facts are that war, even when conducted on a global scale, is becoming less lethal to soldiers, and far far less lethal to non-combatants.
The reason that is a particularly good touch stone for Chomsky is that the premise that underpins his point of view (anarchism) supports a lot of his other bollocks.
For example hunter gathers not having wars is just flat out factually false. Australian Aboriginals had wars. There is overwhelming evidence in support of this.
But more to Chomsky. His anti Americanism often reaches absurd levels, and the basis of his objection is seated directly in his left leaning anarchism. He doesn't believe in rule of law, so his anti-americanism is truly about as base reactionary as its possible to get. If the US wasn't top dog he'd be barking ineffectually at who ever was.
Here is an exchange with sam harris in which he refuses to accept the possibility that the Clinton administration bombing a pharma plant in 1998 was the result of bad intelligence.
Rather he would have us believe that the ensuing medicine shortage and associated deaths were not only intentional but the actual point of the attack.
IE a crime on a greater scale than 9/11 perpetrated as an act of personal vengence by clinton for al-quedas early embassy bombings.
But lets do a quick fact check. Here is the wiki page. As we can clearly see there wasn't a complete lack of evidence. There was certainly enough evidence to justify looking more closely, and in the context, probably to act (the strike happened in August, in December of that year operation desert fox began, there was a justified concern at the time Iraq was developing and seeking WMD, because Hussein had refused to allow weapons inspectors to examine properly). An ingredient of VX gas found in a soil sample taken from beside the factory that produces no products that require the ingredient. He also massively over-egged the consequences of bombing. But no his reading of the facts is:
Clinton bombed al-Shifa in reaction to the Embassy bombings, having discovered no credible evidence in the brief interim of course, and knowing full well that there would be enormous casualties
He attempts, prior to making this blatantly false and frankly absurd statement, to suggest that intention has no moral significance. Therefore even if he didn't tip his moronic hand in the above quote, he sees accidentally killing 20 people as morally equivalent to intentionally killing 20 people.
Harris correctly points out that is a breakdown of moral reasoning so catastrophic it defies description.
The central importance of intention to moral reasoning shouldn't need to be explained to someone as distinguished as chomsky. Intention is so important, it is legally enshrined in almost every legal system on earth.
He might know a bit about linguistics, though as I said his major contribution has been debunked. There is no evidence of an abstract grammar that applies to all human languages.
Politically, he might wow runny nosed undergrads, but to anyone who takes even a second to review the facts of his claims, he is a base shallow reactionary who should shut his asshat mouth.
It should follow uncontroversially, I have solid reason not to give a f*** about Chomsky's opinion of the USSR.
Yeah I don't know about that slaps.
I was talking to the tax partner at major law firm a few weeks ago and he was non-plussed about labors plan.
For a start the stuff about crowding out new home buyers, wasn't really a cogent rebuttal.
Foreign investment can be seen as distinct from domestic seeking to capitalize on negative gearing for the obvious reason that foreign investors aren't going to be able to claim deductions against all the losses from over seas.
Moreover creating a run on new properties, doesn't mean old properties will suddenly start turning over like crazy.
The crowd out he seemed to be alluding to would be a driving up of new dwelling prices, while at the same time not seeing any significant reduction in existing dwellings.
The tax partner also pointed out that if you structure your ownership model correctly claiming losses against existing dwellings through a new dwelling vehicle would still be possible  under labor's plan .
I'm not claiming to be an expert on negative gearing, but I will say this. Speaking with the partner, who had earlier that day gave an interview to fin review, had to explain to the journalist the difference between revenue and capital accounts for tax purposes. I'd treat most commentary on the subject with a high degree of skepticism. It's a highly technical field which even dedicated finance journos still screw up.
I am also not claiming there isn't scope for reforming negative gearing.
Only that after talking about it with a highly qualified expert on the matter, the situation is complicated.
Even with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight you can't see how dangerously incompetent Abbott was/is. It's really quite astounding. And the way you'll lend weight to your opinion with your story about how you were talking to some Liberal voters and they like totally agree with you.
Even with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight you can't see how dangerously incompetent Abbott was/is. It's really quite astounding. And the way you'll lend weight to your opinion with your story about how you were talking to some Liberal voters and they like totally agree with you.I actually think Turnbull is turning out to be almost more dangerous. As infi notes he seems to be able to talk the talk but there's little evidence of anything else. At least Abbott was visibly and obviously terrible in almost all aspects. If he makes the Liberal supporters think everything is all OK and fine as is just because he's smooth then we're still in the same s*** position we were before - we have a crappy government making terrible policies with a clueless opposition.
tldr: vote Greens.
I voted greens last time, but their actions over the carbon tax with Gillard made it difficult to justify. The price isn't high enough so we will try and force no carbon price at all... Maybe under de natalie that kind of BS will stop, but who knows. I think I'll vote independent if there is a decent candidate in my electorate next time.
I don't have a huge problem with the slow pace of change though, The art of good government is to make change while preventing excessive unintended consequences. Often the best way to achieve this is to do nothing, and let people change on their own. Frankly I'm a bit surprised a staunch conservative like infi would find that unappealing, but hey what would I know.
Turnbull has announced a 1 billion AUD innovation fund.
He has also dramatically change rhetoric about terrorism which I view as extremely important to dealing with the problem.
Blindsiding his treasurer with an early budget was probably pretty ill advised.
But more over Abbott's "achievements" where what exactly?
Sign some FTA's that had been negotiated and finalized by the previous government (taking credit for the China FTA is beyond laughable, that thing had been in the works for 10 years Abbott's government had nothing to do with its successful conclusion.). Last I heard turning up and sticking your John Hanc*** on a bit of paper is low bar for achievement.
He stopped the boats (though they don't discuss "on water matters" so we don't really know that). My views on considering this an achievement are well known here.
Ditching the carbon tax was nothing but putting of the inevitable.
and he did all this while reducing spending as a percentage of GPD from 26% to 25.9%.
Frankly Turnbull could turn up to parliament covered in children's blood and still be doing a marginally better job.
But 1 billion more than Abbott. The defense contracting stuff is also heavily focused around innovation and research and touted to be in the billions.
The point is that he is making policy. The senate voting reform was all him, and its a big improvement.
People seemed to expect Turnbull was going to be a messiah or something. He ran specifically on a platform of a traditional consultative Westminster cabinet. That means finding compromises and that takes time. He never promised to be all things to all people all the time. That alone makes him electable in my view. Rudd, Gillard and Abbott all told everyone they could have everything. When candidates start talking like that you need to stop listening.
Anyway 15 weeks of campaigning. Everyone will have ample opportunity to s*** all over him.
You'd think after 72 pages of jibberish and bulls*** you dimwits would've come to some sort of conclusion, or do most of you just sneakily enjoy acting like the 2 year olds you constantly bicker about.you are literally what is wrong with the Internet
What is Turnbull doing with income tax?
most likely nothing, as his state-based income tax idea will die quickly and in the ass at COAG, they need to put GST back on the table
What a fine state of affairs it is when the argument is about which government wastes money slightly less than the other wasteful government.Always has been and always will be the argument.
Hes going to draw on the benefit(land value increases) to all the areas that will get Train Stations along the way. So the Very Fast Train will have to stop often in-between the Very Fast bits.Can't figure out what your point is here. This is true of every form of travel over any sort of distance.
The advantage with rail (as seen in Europe) is that having those stopping points provides amazing benefits at those points - towns that were just dots on a map become tourist destinations and viable cities in their own right when suddenly they're not just s***holes in the boonies, but commute points to the big cities.
Arguably France/Europe is different to Australia but I tell ya, if we're running up national debt anyway we might as well get some decent infrastructure out of it.
^ I can't believe I am disagreeing with you infi over the LNP winning.I dunno, I think I am on infi's side here. Completely anecdotally there are a s***load of people that want to enter the property market (or move in the property market) but are unable to do so because of the stupid ass high prices.
People are sicker than ever of things they perceive as being "advantages for the rich" and it doesn't help that Turnbull is a 1%er from way back.
I have to wonder if Labor are on to something here; they may have picked the right time to make this a major focus of their platform.
But I agree that Shorten is not an inspiring leader and they need to find someone else.
I don't really think you can analogise from Europe to Australia RE fast trains.
I'm sure cooma is the tourist hub time forgot and could boom again if we drop 100 billion dollars connecting it to a world class rail network.
I think the issue around the fast train stopping everywhere is that if you want to get to say Sydney from say Melbourne, the train can travel at 1000km per hour and it won't get to Sydney before a plane if it has to stop for 30 minutes every 100kms.
But perhaps the major issue, which might explain why have been talking about high speed rail for the last 20 years and haven't gotten it (an explanation that doesn't involve a vashesque capitalism is f***ed and the LNP irrationally wants to kill us all with global warming and so hates rail) is this.
One perhaps rather obvious finding is that whatever type of high-speed line is envisaged, the corridor must serve a large and dense population base as this provides for an attractive train frequency which will generate the revenue to justify the investment. High-speed rail is most competitive with road and air between 500 and 800km as this is where the highest elasticities of demand are observed. The ability to charge higher fares because of shorter journey times coupled with a high-quality service, such as Germany's ICE, helps to boost revenue still further.
My emphasis. The conditions where it's most competitive don't exist in Australia.
Western Europe can fit in Queensland and has a population an order of magnitude higher than all of Australia. That factor heavily stacks the economics in favour of cars and planes. The money could be spent much more intelligently on metro rail in major capitals.
Here is another article saying more or less the same thing. HSR in Australia has all the hall marks of a white whale. If you service regional Australia it can't compete with air travel. If you don't, it won't produce the supposed economic benefits.
Australia is too large and too sparse to make HSR a worthwhile investment.
Yes I can see people being willing to commute from Albury because of the amenities and climate Albury proudly boasts :P.
Maybe there is a combination that could be made to work. But consider that the only consistently profitable run on the western Europe HSR network, according to that article, is paris-lyon.
two cities in excess of 2 million in population about 500 km from each other. Or striking the exact characteristics I articulated above. coincidence? I think not.
If there was a workable combo I suspect it would have been found by now. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of HSR. The shanghai maglev is on my bucket list, but I'm not kidding about HSR being on the talking points for two decades. I seriously doubt there is a sweet spot to be found in Australia for it.
My emphasis. The conditions where it's most competitive don't exist in Australia.Australia's population is only going to go up. If we're all complaining about property prices one solution is to shift the supply model to where property is cheaper by making it more attractive in other areas. We can do what the US has done and basically complete f*** up their transport network (i.e., it's roads or expensive flights and those are your two options), or we can do what Europe did, plan in advance and put down some good infrastructure which will benefit business and citizens alike.
I mean it's probably already too late; I think the logistical challenges are probably insurmountable even for one leg
But consider that the only consistently profitable run on the western Europe HSR network, according to that article, is paris-lyon.Well, that's not what I got out of it at all - it just says that line generates 'significant' revenue. It still talks about the other things being profitable, just "profitability of new lines is lower than forecast". FWIW Eurostar is popular and profitable (London-Paris and London-Brussels) last time I checked.
I still am not convinced they have the model right here anyway; tickets are surprisingly expensive in a lot of cases and there are always plenty of spare seats. I suspect that, like many giant bureaucracies, there's a lot of inflated salaries in the pointy end of the org chart that are not earning their keep.
I have a socialist approach about this (and I just hate cars and roads) and don't care about the profitability that much anyway, I just think it's something necessary to have a smoothly running civilisation. Seriously after 2 years in the US I can't figure out how they get anything done because their transports networks seem so stone age compared to Europe. (I got the train from London to Paris last weekend to go to a friend's birthday. It is so nice.)
and yeh, if it's the difference HSR between $59b on another porkbarrel military industrial complex project building machines that are obsolete literally before they've even put pen to paper on the drawing board
Australia's population is only going to go up.
Yes but everyone freaked out about 50 million. Western Europe has more like 200 million. Australia's population categorically will not see that before 2100.
Well, that's not what I got out of it at all
Hope that helps.
I have a socialist approach about this (and I just hate cars and roads) and don't care about the profitability that much anyway, I just think it's something necessary to have a smoothly running civilisation. Seriously after 2 years in the US I can't figure out how they get anything done because their transports networks seem so stone age compared to Europe. (I got the train from London to Paris last weekend to go to a friend's birthday. It is so nice.)
Your medium hatred not withstanding, neither the willingness to be socialist about it, what evidence do you present that random HSR is worth having regardless of cost. Including metro rail opportunity cost I might add. Moreover if your willing to hang the cost, what becomes of the airline workers you make redundant? They move to albury and work the railway. I doubt it somehow.
I like the eurostar too. but government funded vanity projects don't tend to end well. Look at the snowy mountain scheme. We currently pay them not to make electricity because of the environmental damage done by restricting flow on the Murray.
HSR for the sake of HSR is a ridiculous proposition.
HSR isn't particularly economic, it isn't particularly environmentally friendly. If it doesn't serve some greater social need what is the point? If you want to make satellite cities why not just spend the 114b it'll take on making a satellite city? Running train tracks through a dead town and hoping it'll come back to life seems like a silly gamble to me.
Manus Island.... gonnneee.
Now only two
Moreover if your willing to hang the cost, what becomes of the airline workers you make redundant? They move to albury and work the railway. I doubt it somehow.That argument keeps coming up but then Europe has the best selection of airlines anywhere in the world, and it's not all budget carriers making no money either
all your other comments are valid, if you ignore the fact that HSR exists and is pretty successful in Europe and Japan :) I'm not saying it'll be useful tomorrow (nor am I saying build it for the sake of building it), just that if you start planning for it today maybe we'll be ready in 30-50 years when we actually need it. my entire point is that it /does/ serve a great social need
I say build it just for the sake of building it because f*** the horrors we've faced over the last few years... I need a nice new shiny thing to make it better.
Imagine another 5m people between Melbourne and Sydney...Assuming these people aren't just springing out of the ground, where would they be living otherwise?
That argument keeps coming up but then Europe has the best selection of airlines anywhere in the world, and it's not all budget carriers making no money either
So you take the only example I can think of that has a higher density population than western europe and say hey look it works here and here.
You could subsidize a fast train if you wanted to I suppose, but you have to pick between a competitor with air travel or white elephant regional development arguments. I might point out that often the experience of HSR to regional centers is an even bigger drain on the economy as their workers go to the major centers to work.
As I said, the only *consistently* profitable run in western Europe is paris-lyon.
The eurostar achieved profitability after 20 years of handouts, and it's operating on pretty pathetic margins. 59 million profit from ticket sales totaling 850 million.
The main reason eurostar is profitable now is that they had 4.1 billion GBP of debt forgiven two years ago.
HSR operates so far as I can see on razor thin margins in countries where conditions are nearly perfect. The idea that it wouldn't be an epic drain on the public purse here is absurd.
As I said. it's a project in Australia that has been suggested on and off for the last 20 years and no one has found a model that is profitable. Pointing to countries which have *fundamentally* different logistical markets and needs and saying look it works there is ridiculous.
keep in mind here profitable is exactly equal to sustainable. How long do you think it would politically tenable to sink billions of dollars annually into a project if it doesn't deliver on its economic promise?
Immigration and relocation due to real estate and lifestyle availability.
I'd say it's baffling how you never seem to be able to answer even the simplest of questions but it's just one of your defense mechanisms isn't it?
What you gave an answer to is 'where would these people be coming from?'. I guess in a roundabout way you did answer my question because the answer to it is somewhere else. If they're living in these new train station cities and not elsewhere wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the reduction of population strain in that area would offset the strain they put in this new one? Because if these cities are planned well and the required infrastructure put in place everything should be hunky dory right? Or are there unintended consequences I'm not thinking of? It seems to me, contingent on it being done properly, that the scenario of HSR being built with new towns popping up is pretty much a universal positive. The only downside is of course the astronomical cost and very good chance it might not actually work out that way (yet).
We're going around in circles; I understand population density isn't a thing and I've said repeatedly I'm not talking about building it for today, but for tomorrow. Please explain to me once again in a more condescending manner how few people live in the outback?
As I said, the only *consistently* profitable run in western Europe is paris-lyon.
How long do you think it would politically tenable to sink billions of dollars annually into a project if it doesn't deliver on its economic promise?Literally forever because it's become de rigueur? How long is it going to be tenable in Europe where they continue to sink billions of dollars into it in further expansions despite all these apparently non-profitable lines (which btw is dispelled by the same article you're referring to which says many of them are profitable, just not that profitable?!?) ? (Before you say it again, yes I know the population densities are different and I'm not literally saying we should drop everything and run a line from Brisbane to Perth tomorrow, just that we should maybe start thinking about lining up some routes and preparing some corridors and preparing some funds to do an experimental track somewhere to see how it goes)
Please say why it will be helpful tomorrow?
Other than just a fiat insistence it would be good you haven't articulated that. At all. Name a European city that was saved by connecting HSR.
The article I posted was quite clear the opposite happened in regional Japan and in France.
High-speed rail projects often run into trouble when they’re sold on a promise of promoting regional equity and fostering regional development. Evidence suggests the opposite is true. The Shinkansen network delivers much of Japan’s workforce to Tokyo. When the Paris to Rhone-Alps line was introduced to France’s TGV network, train travel increased to Paris by 144 per cent, while travel in the opposite direction grew by only 54 per cent.
So why have it?
which btw is dispelled by the same article you're referring to which says many of them are profitable, just not that profitable?!?
It absolutely did not say that.
just that we should maybe start thinking about lining up some routes and preparing some corridors and preparing some funds to do an experimental track somewhere to see how it goes
We have literally been doing that for twenty years and haven't found a viable corridor.
To make my position crystal clear.
Europe has to subsidize its HSR network. It is able to do this through other non-HSR rail assets, as well as redirecting profits such as they are from the good line to the bad ones.
Eurostar was built as a PPP and is a poster child for how not to do that. The subsidies in Europe are tenable because while not profitable, their lines aren't total economic disasters. This is because they have dozens of cities with more than 1 million people spaced less than 800km apart (Australia has zero). However when one looks to Spain for example they are disasters. Spain is hardly a model to emulate for economic management.
Even the "pro" article I posted said this:
Finally, the report warns that because the array of parameters is so complex, each potential corridor must be analysed individually to determine the best solution. Nevertheless the case for investing in 300km/h lines is very sound.
So in Europe where they can service upward of 200 million people who all sit right in the sweet spot for HSR viability (in terms of population density and distance) they still have to be extremely careful not to create lines that bleed cash and have no prospect of ever repaying their initial construction costs.
I am the first to say st pancras to gare du nord is flat out better then gatwick to Charles de Gualle.
But you don't have to tinker with that recipe much for it to lose its appeal. Getting the train from london to berlin, for example, is worse then getting a plane.
So far as I can see there are two arguments in favour HSR in Australia
1. A good competitor with air travel for melbourne/sydney and sydney/brisbane.
2. stimulation of regional economies.
In response the first one it can only compete with air if city center to city center is about three hours. Beyond that nobody is going to choose it unless it is significantly cheaper. Now the Chinese currently charge 10 us cents per km per person. They are building their HSR for about 20 million usd per km. Keep in mind that the 2013 labor plan priced melbourne sydney at about 50 billion AUD, so around 60 million AUD per km (or around 45USD or about double the cost the Chinese can achieve). We would have to charge a good deal more than 10 us cents per km per person.
Melbourne to Sydney is about 850 km That works out to $85 USD (about 111AUD) one way from melbourne to sydney, you can get flights for that. City center to city center melbourne to sydney is not likely to be under three hours with current 300kph technology. For it to be a better deal the train will need to under cut airtravel. Again Europe's airtravel sector isn't in the toilet because there are well over 200 million people living there. demand far out strips overall supply. That is not the case in australia. Moreover melbourne sydney, brisbane sydney subsidise QANTAS's international operation. They really do need that run to be profitable to be viable as a company. Now the idea that we undercut private industry, on one of their critical routes, at massive public expense for a marginally comparable service, to me, is insane.
As for the second one in australia because of population density and distance, if you pursue it you rule out the the first option. Now, there is mixed evidence at best that connecting regional towns to HSR actually improves their economy. I've given clear evidence of the opposite. Given that, why should the government be gambling the epic amounts of money it would take to build when there is a very clear risk you'll end up with a perverse result and actually weaken regional economies? You could just dump the 50 billion straight into those economies.
Given the utter fiasco that has been the NBN, you'd think people would be willing to rethink this attitude:
Literally forever because it's become de rigueur?
HSR in Australia even on the melbourne sydney corridor is very likely to bleed billions in operational costs, much less construction. There is no supporting low speed rail infrastructure which Europe has coming out the ass. the 2013 labor plan envisaged profitability at 89 million annual passengers (given eurostar services 12 million people and achieves 10 million annual passengers, that would require brisbane sydney melbourne have a combined population in excess of 100 million people, which is totally happening this century) sometime after 2050. so in other words subsidies to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars every year for nearly 40 years. On what planet is there a social need in Australia HSR can service that justifies that kind of cash? Cash which can't get spent on other much more urgent projects.
So if you want to know why I talk about the population density point, its because it is the clear governing factor determining viability for an HSR project. Australia doesn't have it, and isn't likely to have it for at least the next century. You aren't talking about infrastructure that will be useful "tomorrow", you're talking about infrastructure that will be useful after everyone on this forum is dead.
You aren't talking about infrastructure that will be useful "tomorrow", you're talking about infrastructure that will be useful after everyone on this forum is dead.Yeh, I am not using tomorrow in the literal sense. I'm using it in the massively large scale infrastructure sense, which, like geological timescales, is much longer than people typically think about things.
I just can't see a future in which we don't end up like the USA without HSR, barring some great technological revolution. By "like the USA" I mean with giant road networks everywhere and cities and states designed for and around cars, rather than people. It's an investment in the future. I can't think of a sadder future for Brisbane than it turning into something like an American city.
There are a zillion technical and financial reasons not to do it; I just think it'll make life better for Australians down the track, and I'd rather my tax dollars (well not that I'm paying any lately) got spent on something like that instead of $50b of submarines and however many $b on broken jet fighters.
Maybe Australian population growth will hover at zero because of the usual social factors in well off countries and the massive opposition to immigration amongst seemingly everyone. In which case I would agree there's no point in doing it. I'd have no problems with this outcome.
City center to city center melbourne to sydney is not likely to be under three hours with current 300kph technology. For it to be a better deal the train will need to under cut airtravel.I mean I'd say if it was the same price, or even a little more, it'd still be a better deal to get the train. Melbourne airport is in the middle of nowhere and air travel sucks; you're not going to be much less than 3 hours from MEL to SYD via plane! maybe we could build those 600km/h trains and get there in 1.5 hours :D
If we are looking that far into the future then why not consider the possibility that all cars will be automated by that time, drastically cutting down on traffic and improving travel times? All without a massive 100 billion dollar spend and peoples houses being resumed by the government to build a HSR.Well, I actually suggested that same thing above. Maybe with automated cars it'll make up for it; with a properly automated system you can get rid of speed limits and probably significantly reduce travel times, increase traffic density, and of course massively improve safety. I'm not sure if that would be enough to prevent requirement to build zillions of more horrible roads.
It's just hard for me to imagine a future for a big populous country that doesn't include multiple mass transit options, is all I'm saying. I'd love for there to be a better option
I also seem to remember you being pretty set against FTTH NBN back in the day yet apparently now you are all into infrastructure for the future.My reasons for being against the NBN weren't because I don't want the government spending money on infrastructure. One of my main objections was that the government already opted out of the telecoms industry by privatising Telstra. If the government want to do NBN they should have just split it into an infrastructure company and service company. But I think it's too late for that now, and of course am completely unsurprised by the staggeringly huge clusterf*** that it has turned into. (FWIW I am ideologically opposed to selling government assets if those assets perform a task that I would loosely describe as "providing civilisation", like power, communications, water, healthcare, education, etc).
For someone who has trouble understanding economic stuff at times and only just found out exactly what negative gearing is, how was that Walled video not a comprehensive takedown of the LNP policy from which there is no recovery?
Yeh, I am not using tomorrow in the literal sense. I'm using it in the massively large scale infrastructure sense
I know you didn't mean this decade. But you are talking far enough off into the future that you can't reasonably plan for it.
Who knows what transportation technology is going to look like in 100 years. Wind the clock back 100 years from today and people were arguing if cars really were a replacement for horses, and powered flight was still insanely dangerous.
Imagine spending 1 billion dollars on a zepplin landing field in 1916, because it may or may not be 'critical' infrastructure in 80 years time. You'd look a bit of tit now.
I'm all for the government creating infrastructure. I am also suspicious of ppp's because they tend to produce infrastructure of questionable utility. The Melbourne eastlink being a prime example. The clem7 tunnel also seems to have had mixed results at best.
But creating useless white elephants which cost huge amounts of money is a real problem. I have no problem paying tax, but I do have a problem with money being coerced out of my back pocket and then being gambled.
That long term geological period thinking lead to the snow mountain scheme. It was definitely going to solve all our electric and irrigation woes. And while it remains a most impressive engineering feat, its environmental record is best not spoken about, and is currently developing is natural gas power plan portfolio. It would be better if that didn't happen again.
I say also the price tag for the rail system would fully cover the education and health funding the abbott's got rid of. You can't really argue those aren't essential and needed today, not 2 to 15 decades from now.
The point is, I like the idea of infrastructure that is built with the future in mind. But the government needs to be careful with its money and plan for the reasonably forseeable future. Speculating on the infrastructure needs of the 2070's is a mugs game.
But creating useless white elephants which cost huge amounts of money is a real problem. I have no problem paying tax, but I do have a problem with money being coerced out of my back pocket and then being gambled.I don't disagree; I just think it's the kind of thing you can do in stages that won't cost that much (I mean still a s***load, but I'm not saying roll it out everywhere all at the same time) and each stage will be really useful of its own accord (e.g., Syd->Melb would be a good starting point, or even better, BNE to the Gold Coast!).
One of my big problems with the execution of the NBN was how it was deployed. Instead of rolling it out to major population centres first - especially areas where businesses were who could really use it - they just randomly splashed it all over the map. That's great if you're trying to deploy a service equitably but if you're doing something that you're claiming is going to be the economic wonder of the next century, it is totally totally stupid.
Who knows what transportation technology is going to look like in 100 years. Wind the clock back 100 years from today and people were arguing if cars really were a replacement for horses, and powered flight was still insanely dangerous.I would note that if they'd laid down rail 100 years ago we'd still be using it today :D
I would note that if they'd laid down rail 100 years ago we'd still be using it today :D
Well then you should be satisfied to know there is a 100 year old rail link between Melbourne and Sydney.
No need for any money to be spent. Job done eyes on the future dog.
One of my big problems with the execution of the NBN was how it was deployed. Instead of rolling it out to major population centres first - especially areas where businesses were who could really use it - they just randomly splashed it all over the map. That's great if you're trying to deploy a service equitably but if you're doing something that you're claiming is going to be the economic wonder of the next century, it is totally totally stupid.
Oh you mean by ignoring the economics of the project, and instead building according to political expedience they f***ed the whole thing up :).
Not withstanding Duncan couldn't actually be given a tax cut because he pays no tax, I feel spraying down the nation with his criminal record is a bit rough.
He asked a perfectly valid question. Which has a perfectly reasonable answer, his daughters desire to go to the "pictures" notwithstanding.
The income tax cut for the super rich can easily be explained as addressing bracket creep, which is exactly what it was.
It isn't possible to address bracket creep and not give the wealthiest the biggest overall benefit.
That seems a complete response to me. No need to nationally address thug life.
But then again Australian national heroes tend to have shady pasts.
Sure why not? putting aside the LNP's idiotic response to the zaky mallah affair, I don't really see how him asking about tax is giving a convicted criminal a podium in any relevant sense.
If he has served his sentence he has every right to have a say in the political functioning of our country. He isn't a hero or a villain, just a guy, who is entitled to answers from pollies just like everyone else.
As for Ned Kelly being a hero I'll stand by the statement. The fact his execution attracted a petition for clemency that garnered somewhere between 30k and 60k signatures in 1880 seems to say to me he attracted considerable public sympathy.
Aside from you being wrong about Kelly not driving public policy (following his execution there was a royal commission which directly lead to changes in policing technique), I don't see why national heroes particularly have to dictate public policy.
I know you will probably disagree, but I think you'll find few people who consider Howard a 'Hero'
large corporations aren't paying their share of tax, so we must crack down on... backpackers, because they've been on the public tit for far too long!
lol conservatives. so dumb.
I wouldn't tug that thread if I were you.
It is hard to find decent local workers who aren't obsessed with watching the clock and using up all their sick leave.I know heaps of places (my work for example) where the employees are really happy and will stay back and cover shifts on the very rare occasion they're needed to and won't take excessive sick days. Our workplace is run by a competent team of managers who I have great respect for.
I wonder what is wrong with your workplace?
edit: and another thing. Wealthy people exploiting loopholes to avoid tax: good. Employees exploiting sick days to have the occasional day off: bad.
It seems you fall for your own lies just as easily as you fall for other people's lies.
classy. I've often wondered if you misspelt your handle.
if even our cuzzy bro's across the ditch couldn't bring themselves to change their flag then it doesn't look great for us
All right wingers need to watch this, some of it applies to Australia too.
Reading your posts really is like looking directly at the sun.
People at a trump rally aren't pure evil. Well thanks for that insight. the real problem is, wait for it...
WAIT FOR IT.....
WAIT FOR IT
is the corporations and the wealthiest 400 Americans.
I like how that rhetoric has changed since it turned out the 1% actually encompasses people earning $400k pa.
the top 5% are like $200k pa. well off but hardly buying politicians mover shaker billionaire Illuminati.
Here's a little sumthin sumthin from vash's proposed alternative.
Nobody is poor because they have *millions* of dollars that can't buy s***.
Market forces are real, and they can't be forced to go away just because you don't like them.
the latest figures I could be bothered finding have inflation at 720% and pegged to go over 1000% later this year.
But those rascally billionaires. If we just have a revolution, kill them, and give everyone their money our problems will be solved for ever!
Andrew Bolt is a d******* who can't tell the difference between socialism and communism.
To be fair Roz Ward is a card carrying member of Socialist Alternative. Here is their manifesto.
If you can find a meaningful distinction between them and communism, I'm all ears (saying Stalin was naughty doesn't count for the record). The safe schools program from what I read of it was a language policing exercise. Which I might add virtually everyone on this forum has contravened at some point, so don't forget you comment from a position of unending slavering homophobia, you hateful bigot you. Language policing is the stock in trade of socialists and communists.
So to make this extremely clear. Preventing bullying of marginalised youths is great, and undoubtedly lgbt youth get a hard time of it. Serious doubt can be cast over the ability, and moreover the desirability of, policing the development of English as a valid means of doing it. Calling anyone who sees issues with the program homophobic, to my mind, is a tacit admission the programs fundamentals aren't great.
I take Bill Shorten and Daniel Andrews concern for LGBT folks to run exactly as deep as the photo ops it garners.
Only Socialism can deliver true democracy
yeah and on the merry go round goes.
The totalitarian hell hole I carve a living out in seems better in every way then any place socialism has been tried ever.
Every country that has tried socialism has categorically failed to deliver anything even remotely resembling democracy.
you continue to ramble on about the horrible corporate media, and talk about opening eyes and 'educating' yourself. Then you post to activist websites. activists categorically don't peddle truth. They peddle propaganda, period.
You are worse then infi for dogma peddling.
Only Socialism can deliver true democracy, Business run by coops instead of private individuals. Murdoch type people couldn't exist to influence democracy with it's propaganda.
those "coops" are called the party where private individuals do not exist. If you don't work for the good of the coop, typically determined by one person and not the body, the coop "democratically" tells you to visit a gulag. murdochs get replaced by putins. I'm willing to accept murdochs thanks.
Moreover if you think uncle ho didn't understand communism as well as mao and deng and hugo chavez, fidel castro, I say you are racist.
Everytime someone brings up a non-european version of communism you always say they didn't get it right. Is that because they lack the whiteman's purity in your estimation?
An unlimited growth model is illogical and the only reason its continuing is the voices of alternatives are drowned out by the establishment.
Why is that illogical? The potential for growth is unlimited.
I also love the fact that you are pro refugee, and pro socialist.
The largest refugee population Australia has ever accepted was Vietnamese, all running from...... altogether now..
You call other people retarded.
They were escaping War & It's government, not Socialism.
er wrong. like delusional laughably wrong.
Fraser came to power after then end of the Vietnam war and he set up the major transfer. So they weren't running away from war. They were running away from the government which was socialist. the Vietcong was a socialist guerilla organisation. Only a fundamentally ignorant ideologue would attempt to exonerate socialism as a cause for Vietnamese refugees.
Again. I think you are actually racist. Those Asians just can't get your precious socialism right no matter how hard they try.
It isn't that the exact same thing that happened in Europe happened in Asia to because socialism as a political system is fundamentally f***ed, its because those Asians didn't do it right.
Again, you're confused.
No I'm really not.
Socialism, the means of production is owned by the people, not the government.
How is "the people" not the government? Idiot socialists always argue that stalinism is something super distinct from your socialist utopia. It isn't. If it was you'd find an implementation somewhere that doesn't end in it. Then you like to engage in the following.
There have been democratically elected socialists, but they've been removed by Americans.
Ok facevash. Where.
Classic socialist delusional thinking. When Opec decided to keep oil prices at record lows to retain market share and push US shale producers out the Venezuelans said it was an american conspiracy to undermine their economy.
It's not like the US has a fundamental interest in achieving energy independence. No actively pursuing policies to reduce dependence on middle east oil, so they don't get dragged into wars all the time (which unthinking morons such as yourself endlessly wail is proof of the capitalist need for the military industrial complex), is actually a deliberate attempt to undermine a nothing economy with virtually no significance to the US other than its repeated and gross human rights violations. So the US being in the middle east is evil evil capitalism done by the 400 wealthiest Americans, but attempting to leave the middle east is also capitalism attempting to undermine the glorious socialist revolution.
If everything they do undermines socialism in your view, you are a conspiracy theorist. End of discussion.
If only we Nationalised the mines before all the wealth went to Rinehart & Co.
Rinehart has lost more money in the last two years then most Australian's will ever own. Imagine how awesome it would have been if the government's finances had been tied exclusively to the value of commodities rather than a private individual.
I guess Hayek was peddling dogma too then.
I like Hayek too, but consider this
Vash you're dumb.
they Vietnamese were escaping Socialism? Really? Could it be maybe they were escaping a Totalitarian government style?
No they were escaping socialism which you erroneously distinguish from totalitarianism. Ho Chi Minh was a french educated socialist. He was completely immersed in the ideology you espouse. now you disavow him as a yellow totalitarian.
I repeat you are racist.
Your wiki article doesn't establish your assertion that socialist democratic government have been squeezed by the US in the name of capitalism.
The article says that US *influence* not control, was established in 1811, or 56 years before the publication of Das Kapital in 1867. Or to someone who can read, half a century before the invention of socialism. woops.
you're funny. do you need help getting piss of the toilet cover? Or perhaps the front of your trousers?
Oh and if you want to refer to the Pinochet affair here is a graph of real wages under Allende.
Nixon was absolutely correct to be concerned that Allende would be as inept as Castro. Because he was. socialism has one outcome, proven by multiple experiments all over the world. It is a fundamentally failed institution, directly responsible for the worst human rights abuses of the 20th century. To espouse it now is final proof that you are an idiot. As Taggs said, just you Dunning–Kruger along little guy.
You are racist.
You keep saying he didn't do socialism right.
You're saying that someone educated in paris in the 1920's which spawned Satre and all the other french communists, didn't understand and got it wrong.
I don't think you can sustain that with out appealing to racism.
I used to love Capitalism until i actually started empathising with people.
So there was a time you couldn't empathise with people?
I think you're confused on what racism is. Stalin didn't do it right either. So apparently im racist towards Russians for that? If i disagree with anything anyone has done in a foreign country im a racist? You're funny.
The intellectual arbiters of communism resided in Paris in the '20s. To suggest that Ho Chi Minh didn't operate on the same intellectual plain as them is racist. pure. simple. racism.
You say Stalin was a singularity in the otherwise good idea of socialism. Every implementation according to you, which you have stated repeatedly in this thread, has been a perversion of true socialism.
Explain to me how a Vietnamese man didn't understand properly. and a Chinese man, and a Cuban man, and a south american man, and an Arab man, and an African man.
Explain how those WHITE FRENCH guys understood but none of the others did. without being racist mind.
There was a time i didn't care to look at our political system and its effects on others.
So there was a time you couldn't empathise with others then.
that simply doesn't answer the question vash.
explain how all those non-whites didn't understand socialism in a way you do (*edit* or those french guys).
spewing cliche all over my monitor is more rude than an argument.
explain further how socialism, specifically, enabled you to empathise with people, in a way you were incapable of before.
Then explain how socialism didn't cure you of psychopathy.
How did you explain vash?
I don't think you did. I don't think anyone reading would equate soviet farmer dispossession with an explanation of why the same principles failed world wide, but are nonetheless attributable to a "misunderstanding" of the true principles.
Time has told. Socialism fails.
Also why aren't you a self admitted psychopath.
No one is asking for an essay Vash. Just a coherent response.
Your utter failure to deliver one is your capitulation.
So far you have
Socialism is good.
Socialism as implemented in Russia under Stalin was bad, but not true socialism.
Socialism as implemented under literally every other race on earth has failed in the same way it did in Russia.
This is because the respective leaders didn't understand properly. (which is properly understood by a select group, of entirely white, french writers, vash is totally not being racist, its just a fact. like seriously you guys).
therefore, despite massive death and impoverishment and environmental degradation (in short, in spite of all evidence to the contrary), socialism is still good.
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/38/7938-004-ABC872A5.jpg yeah N****.
Plus you didn't used to be able to empathise with people, and now you can thanks to socialism. but capitalists are the true sociopaths.
So have you read Das Kapital darling?
I think you have not. I've not heard a peep about LVT.
You are an ignorant buffoon. Refusing to type on a forum doesn't change that.
So still no coherent response then sweetheart?
Don't appeal to caring about people when the political ideology you espouse is directly responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people. you painted yourself into that corner. Now you get to live with it darling.
You are a quintessential champagne socialist.
Besides all of which I never said endorsing socialism equates with psychopathy. You said you couldn't empathise with people.
That is item number 1 on the psychopathy checklist.
Didn't think so. Didn't want to engage LVT or allende's precipitous drop in real wages? All issues to be hashed out under socialism.
I think this is an argument more your speed darling:
You haven't raised arguments beyond "i care about people".
This is undermined immediately by the fact you self-disclosed you needed an ideology to empathise. Regardless, you haven't addressed the objective ways socialism has been utterly catastrophic for the societies that have adopted it. Which is a comprehensive rebuttal to your non-argument.
dropping buzzwords now is a last pathetic attempt of legitimacy.
I've heard of Gross Domestic Product and that "capitalism" chases it at the expense of all else
That isn't an argument's a******.
Janet Yellen seems to care about rather a great deal more then raw GDP.
But ignoring the fact that is an economic straw-man, you have no argument to counter the fact that government spending beyond around 25% of GDP has a measurable effect on the overall economy.
This is something every Australian treasurer since keating (this is over three decades now) has acknowledged and you reject with out evidence or principle.
you haven't redeemed either an intellectual or moral high ground here you utter twat. You've been an embarrassment to those who would argue for a socialist society.
other than some knuckle dragging nonsense about "socialism is good" what have you actually argued?
doesn't address arguments, after complaining arguments(which were comprehensively addressed) weren't addressed.
I think you now occupy a similar space to petethepossumman or what ever the f*** that guys name was.
No I read, a great deal more than you I suspect.
Now you degenerate to baseless ad hominem.
Please continue, you cover yourself with glory.
Ah typical 2GB callers. The result of reading Murdoch papers all your life.
Typical Vash, dripping with radically unwarranted self importance. The result of professing but actually knowing virtually nothing about socialism.
Oh good the lead investigative reporter for occupy says trickle down economics is wrong.
Glad that debate is over.
Love how the article compares overall job creation during the tenure of a governor who presided over the GFC to the tenure of someone who came to power after the recovery was in full swing. That's a totally valid comparison.
Gee you are landing heavy body blows there little guy.
Probably also worth mentioning Minnesota's top corporate tax rate is 9.8% so keep that in mind when you talk about cutting our corporate tax rate from 30% to 25%.
Yeah funny that during the GFC unemployment was lower under Labor, eh?
No it wasn't.
The current unemployment rate is 5.7% and unemployment during the GFC peaked at 6%.
Maybe there is some new socialist meaning of "lower than" I'm unaware of. If you really want to compare some numbers though why don't you look at the years of Howard prior to labor? that is if including the GFC is a totally fair comparison.
You'd be stupid or blind to not see that is a result of Reagan's policies, and the republican congress blocking any possibility of changing it.
So why did Bill Clinton's administration enjoy strong growth?
I'm not a particularly big fan on trickle down but you're not providing persuasive evidence (as per usual) that it is a fundamentally flawed idea.
Australia ABS Stats have GFC job losses peaking at 5.8% in Jul 2009. The current figure is 5.7% and trending down.
So yeah the official stats don't agree with your story.
Unemployment has been higher, but that coincides with the commodity price collapse. So again to Rhinehart. Imagine if we had of had our economy even more closely aligned with commodity production by having a nationalized sector. That would have been dreamy.
The long term result is of importance. There will always be ups & downs due to markets. boom & busts.
What counts as long term? Currently in the US there is decent jobs growth and wage growth is picking up? That's longer term than anything you've presented, does that mean Reaganomics works now?
You have not presented any facts or arguments *again*. Just stating markets move in cycles isn't an argument. We all know this. The idea that socialism has some silver bullet for that is laughable.
I'm not going to watch an activist video with slick graphics. Those videos are invariably beating straw-men.
Anyway I'm over it. Enjoy being wrong again. You've got a talent for it.
Yeah but some fat bastard, wealth inequality I find to be a largely banal discussion.
this article describes the annual *household* (not individual) income you need to be in the top 1% in 13 of the US's cities. Keep in mind it'll be lower probably in Australia.
The average figure seems to fall somewhere between 400k and 600k *household* income. top 5% for household income is 200k
In order to crack it you need two incomes of about 200k or 100k respectively for 1% and 5%.
Is that really an impossible dream? two professional incomes can probably push that. does a family that achieves that *insane* level of wealth really have an addiction to assets? Have they definitely ruthlessly exploited the poor to get there?
What people are really talking about are the 1% of the 1% of the 1%. But those people, gates, buffet, zuckerberg, page all get their income globally not from the US. why would their income be tethered to, or bear some meaningful relationship with, average US households? Moreover gates and buffet seem to spend most of their time giving their money away these days. Zuckerberg has pledged to do something similar. How evil is that s***? the guillotine for those c****.
The important figure, is median income and how that relates to median house prices and cost of living. If most people can carve out a comfortable living who gives toss what gates owns?
It's the one occupy and neo marxists never talk about because actually tinkering with those prices is unsexy boring work focused on adjusting key metrics in increments, while attempting to avoid bubble inflation or bursting.
Vash et al love to point how the extremely wealth are in fact extremely wealthy. But nothing of substance ever follows that. pointing out Gates has a s*** tonne of money when discussing social equity is close to being not even wrong.
It certainly seems to be an impossible dream if only 1% of the population is able to get that level of wealth..
So all lotto winners must have cheated? If it's impossible how do people attain it? you heard it hear first. A combined house hold income of $400k is impossible to attain, oh and if you have it, you're the reason society is crumbling. (society isn't crumbling, that level of wealth is totally attainable).
For a single person to gain billions is an exploitation of others
So remember that conflation I mentioned in the directly proceeding post?
Way to prove my point perfectly.
Thankfully the problem isn't as drastic here thanks to Labor policy
which totally explains this
Not impossible, but going by the 1% figure, extremely difficult.
Why? seems more reasonable to suggest that the outcome is not common, nothing more nothing less, people dying from drowning in a toilet bowl is probably pretty uncommon, but not difficult. People prioritize all sorts of s***. I have a bunch of friends who's salaries are in that ball park.
They have had to work hard, but it wasn't anything like impossible. More importantly they aren't significantly undermining democracy so far as I'm aware.
And again, if it doesn't effect the average person's ability to get by why care?
You immediately conflate pretty well off with master of the universe, because its a sexy stat you can wave under peoples nose. But are you going to sit here and tell me that an annual household income of $400k is impermissibly high? So any two people earning $200k are by definition, exploiting the workers in a way that must be stopped?
So then why link to a video about it and say this is an outcome that needs to be addressed?
And why talk about the 1% which you now seem to conceded isn't an inherently exploitative category of people?
one obvious explanation is that it's a politically convenient boogie man.
oh so it is *exactly* a politically convenient boogie man.
doesn't discount the reality that there is a huge wealth gap issue going on worldwide.
Yeah but everyone accepts rich people are rich. This is your insight? The question of how rich people being rich impacts my daily life is the actual question, and the answer seems to be not that much.
Love how you don't provide any evidence for those claims at all.
The wealthy are trying to f*** me by inflating housing prices? Is this the mega corporations or the 1% Vash? Or people of moderate means acting in their self interest.
Given the detail on literally every other subject you talk about I am willing to bet you have not even a surface understanding of what is driving property prices in this country.
You certainly would be well f***ed if noone stood up against the Rich in the past, and up until this day
What does this even mean? Who is doing all the standing up?
Why would I be, in some vague sense, f***ed if noone had stood up to an ill defined foe at some point in the past?
This is the politically convenient boogie man narrative that you are utterly incapable of fleshing out. More specifically into a set of actions done by a set of people that require specific policy intervention.
Just everything bad in life is because bill gates has a few billion dollars, and everything good in life is because some commie said something to him once.
You sound pretty naive atm
Yes the advocate of Marxist socialism accusing someone of historical naivety.
Have you read Das Kapital vash, yes or no?
No i haven't as yet. On my big list of books to read.
So as per your 1% nonsense you have no firm grasp of the principles and are tied to any empirical analysis of how communism has actually played out, like the rest of us.
Moreover who the f*** do you you think you are to say mao or minh or any other communist leaders got it wrong?
I've read the communist manifesto. And it is a well written document but you don't have to pick it apart much to find real problems.
Yeah the threshold to be considered in the 1% (of everyone) is surprisingly low I thought
Moreover that graph flattens really quickly. You don't need to much to get to totally unexceptional incomes. the top 10% in Australia would be probably in the vicinity of $140k.
Though I think you could forgive millionaires and focus on the multi-millionaires and billionaires. I was partial to Piketty's views on this, that in a capitalist system wealth just inevitably accumulates with the few (capital begets capital), so you need some reasonable redistribution to keep it balanced. I'd be interested in your thoughts on his books PornoPete.
Is Piketty the french economist with the best seller recently? I've not read his material.
No capitalist society argues that government shouldn't exist, the debate tends to be on what the legitimate purview of government should be. If you accept government has some legitimate role, you accept some wealth redistribution will be required to pay for it. Capitalism doesn't entail zero wealth redistribution. Nor does any wealth redistribution equate to "socialism lite".
I have no particular issue with some level of redistribution.
I have no problem with the progressive tax system. And super in Australia certainly needs attention.
When you enter super transition, you are able to salary sacrifice you super contributions and then withdraw your actual income from super, effectively giving you a tax free income stream while still working.
These sorts of things are wrong. But the idea there is some upper limit on wealth beyond which it can only be explained by exploitation and therefore must be taken off people is dumb (and I'm sure not an argument Piketty is making). Microsoft for example have been guilty of anti-competitive behavior, but so far as I'm aware they treat their workers pretty well. S*** I'd work there. So the narrative that Gates *must* have f***ed his workers to get his wealth doesn't really stack up. Same with google, and facebook. Certainly workers have been exploited in the past, but it doesn't follow large accumulations of wealth are exclusively explicable by mass worker exploitation.
However, if the argument then proceeds that the distribution curve is the wrong shape therefore we need to act, I think that is dumb, and not really justifiable beyond wealth envy.
Here is were I fall. If I (and the median income earner) can have a reasonable shot at home ownership and a comfortable life style, with some luxuries, and bill gates can have $60b, why not live at let live?
If I can get what I want, him having 600x my income doesn't matter, period.
If however, the wealthy begin to subvert democracy then we have a problem. But very little evidence of that has been provided here.
For example you talk about millionaires. My Aunt probably qualifies. She is a school teacher and her husband is a carer for disabled folks. Their home has massively appreciated since they got it. Are they now ruthless exploiters of the poor, who according to vash should give away half their s*** because judged globally they'd still be comfortable? Or would you dismiss that argument correctly as completely f*****g retarded. Don't forget, judged globally everyone here could give away half their s*** and still be comfortable compared to the global poverty line. What's the number beyond which, categorically your a rich c*** who should be forced to give up their s***?
It doesn't take rocket science to tell they got it wrong. They failed to bring about Socialism in a working manner. Cuba has done well, but its suffering problems that come with Government run business. It needs to apply coops that are in use today.
Yeah we know something went wrong. But when it is the same empirical results each time, any sane person would reach the conclusion something has to be wrong with the fundamentals, not intelligent leaders repeatedly getting wrong. But even if you accept that moronic argument, how doesn't it demonstrate socialism doesn't have institutions which are robust in the face of a determined despot?
Cuba suffers from all the problems that socialism has always brought about. If you are hitching your wagon to them you're a moron. We have already been over Cuba's dysfunctional agricultural sector in this thread. You can go back and read.
I doubt you will. But will still feel qualified to talk about a system who's key texts you're fundamentally ignorant of.
91 out of 1810 billionaires isn't many. Also 50% isn't much considering their immense wealth
They give away more than multiple generations of your family's life time tax bill, and its still not enough. You're an idiot.
A lot of right-wing politics to me at the moment seems to be about fostering an underclass. Making sure one exists and that it moves upwards as slowly as possible. The message in Toll's post was abundantly clear - tough measures in regards to employment benefits don't work. Much the same way that extra harsh penalties for crime don't work and actually increase incidents of recidivism while not acting as a deterrent. This has been proven practically as well as academically.
The owner makes sure the lights are on, the wages and PAYG get paid, and the product is relevant to the customer. Workers are not interested in such complexities.You're literally suggesting that workers are so stupid that they have no regard for their own survival. What has made you this way?
Well I'm glad you get the nature of the gripe. That's something at least. Care responding to it? You seem pretty eager to avoid doing so.
That's one of the more classic examples of you saying the same dumb wrong thing but with more words.
Why are you asking me if Google would run better as a commune? The answer is obviously no because it's a huge corporation involving thousands of people worth billions of dollars. How come you didn't ask 'would a store in a town that sells everyday household goods run better as a commune?'
It must be some Freudian slip thing going on with Vash.
Maybe Pavlovian? some instinctive response to hard evidence of socialism abject failure, or his own manifest lack of knowledge of how capital and business are actually conducted. I don't know.
But for someone who can only ever have engaged with socialism's propaganda, (because he freely admits not reading the actual texts) he is obsessed with saying Murdoch tells everyone who doesn't believe marx is god what to do and when to do it.
Anyway, well done Vash this last 200 posts or so prove that political ineptitude really is circular. You are the left's answer to brool/faceman.
The reason socialism fails is because of the wealthy.
It just isn't. The idea that capitalism hasn't expunged all corruption therefore socialism's corruption is ok, is a false equivalence of epic proportions.
Pointing to the Nordic countries as examples of "socialism" is equally as dumb.
For a start the largest investor in the world is the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund. You'll find exactly zero Marxists among their fund managers. funny story Norway's national oil producer isn't run as a workers coop, it's a publicly listed company. Here is the ticker. Why don't you do Norway a favor and buy some stock? even though your not a worker there, they don't seem to care.
The Nordic system is predicated on roughing out the edges of the market. Not some delusional adherence to a defunct system of governance. Allocating capital in the market remains the primary mover of wealth generation for those countries.
And even then, their social safety net is predicated on very low population growth.
Sweden had to back track from its refugee policy because it couldn't take the hit to its social programs. So the idea that the Nordic model could just be replicated is extremely naive.
Anywho, It's time to start treating your posts as the white noise they are.
you have two statements.
that wasn't really socialism and
newscorp print propaganda in support of (insert poorly conceived scapegoat here).
yap yap yap.
I can read. You point to Norway as a model to adopt, yet it uses the tools you say create corruption and shuns the tools you say solves it. Can you even abstract thought?
Socialism's link with corruption is flatly undeniable.
oh look. Wasn't really socialism.
Must have been newscorp filling my head with (insert capitalist pig dog here).
yappity yap yap yap
why don't you explain sweet cheeks.
I'm sure you understanding runs as deep on this as everything else you talk about.
you read that cover to cover?
that wasn't really socialism and
Doesn't explain social democracy, quotes chomksy.
Let me take a wild guess. Number of books written by chomsky and read by vash == 0
Humans are compassionate when you take away all systems, and Capitalism pits ourselves against each other, every man for himself.
Where is there even a shred of evidence for such a moronic view.
oh ps the article shows social democracy as ending in a wholesale rejection of marx.
it's the most moral system you can have within a Capitalist economy.
So would you say social democracy as described in the wiki article you linked is the most moral system?
Just wonderin' vash.
Good old vash.
Its a murdoch conspiracy.
literally highlighted his name and right click -> google search and the first result is...
This age we live in where fact checking is a literal impossibility.
You know its funny. It would be good if you read some times.
I take it you stand by your comment
it's the most moral system you can have within a Capitalist economy
and you are happy with the definition in the wiki article.
But I'm not convinced you read it. Because you see social democratic systems accepted and have all endorsed Keynesian economics.
Its all right there in the article. Most recently it has been criticized by actual Marxists as just being neo-liberalism.
But what is most hysterical of all, is Vash the mighty reader and understander of things, who rails against the big banks supports a system which is based on Keynesian theory.
But when you stop to think TARP is a straightforward application of Keynesian theory, you get the result that, vash is committed to bailing out the big banks.
That is interesting isn't it. According to Vash bailing out Goldman Sachs is quote:
it's the most moral system you can have within a Capitalist economy
You have exactly zero right to look down your nose at anyone.
You are easily the dumbest person posting on this forum, and frankly i don't find it surprising you luuurv Marx. People who do are frequently poorly read in their own tradition and unread in others. As has been repeatedly and neatly demonstrated with everything that spews from your keyboard.
But it mandates bailing out the banks you have endlessly derided. TARP was required to secure liquidity and stimulate aggregate demand perfectly consistently with Keynesian doctrine. The *most* moral system requires giving trillions of dollars to the root cause of immorality in your view.
That, is so astonishingly, dumbfoundingly inconsistent, one might validly question if you even understand what the word morality means.
yeah so again, you didn't read your article did you.
modern social democracy asserts socialism without capitalism has no purpose.
Bernie isn't a social democrat, Obama is, Tony Blair was. Bernie is, like Jerermy Corban an outright socialist.
Both of them have extensive records of support for the USSR. Bernie visited in the 70's or 80's.
I expect to learn how to tell workers to their face he protects their rights while undermining them at every opportunity.
So right on queue you demonstrate zero understanding of social democracy, as you have zero understanding of socialism.
I'm not rehashing the argument "that wasn't real socialism", because we have already established you don't know what the f*** socialism is.
Raven Socialism as touted by marx and neo-marxists is a bad thing.
Bernie Sanders, Visited the USSR in '89. *edit* the comment was obvious hyperbole, but see below.
His sympathies with marxist thinking is a fact that is beyond debate. He was a member of the Young People's Socialist League which was the youth group for the the american socialist party. Which is shockingly, wait for it, a marxist party. *edit* well was. And one of the originators of the "it wasn't really socialism" cliche.
More over he has over the years called himself a socialist.
Bernie Sanders is just trump populism for wingnut (sorry moonbat) twats. Nothing more Nothing less.
Anyone who dug even remotely into his past will be able to see that.
He earned himself a rebuke from Obama's economic advisers earlier this year, the gist of which his projected savings from the single payer health system have no basis in fact. link.
Finally when you go here and look at what he seems to accept as democratic socialism you find this
Now if you can find me an important difference between that and what ended up being the case in Soviet Russia I'm all ears. But I doubt you'll be able to.
That model is precisely what led to Venezuela's current troubles.
I'd be interested to know if anyone here can, without looking it up, describe what a soviet actually was.
Armed with that knowledge, then explain why we don't have 120 years of data teaching us to be extremely f*****g cautious around the conditions in which we make public ownership a priority.
*final edit*. I am assuming you haven't read the last 200 odd posts, where the benefits of socialism have been discussed in nauseating detail for the benefit of vash.
Vash I wouldn't expect someone as stupid as you to be able to comprehend pointing out far left marxist lunacy doesn't mean someone loves tony abbott.
Yes Vash. Is Cuba really that bad?
Yeah my mind was *blown* by the myth busting.
myth 1 Chavez led a coup.
Chavez led a coup but the western media didn't report the full context.
Devastating analysis. Truly.
Chavez the great "democratic" leader's career goes:
failed coup -> election.
a totally reasonable order for someone who really cares about the voice of the people, I'm sure we can all agree.
Pretty silly to have your economy reliant on resources, Australia learnt that too (though the LNP keeps subsidising it)
And yet you advocate for nationalization, or the largest possible subsidy. Oh and incidentally the way to have the biggest possible impact of commodity fluctuations on government cash flow.
Mind blowing ignorance.
Don't see us blaming Capitalism for the GFC and massive poverty in Latin America, Africa & Asia now, do we?
Poverty levels are categorically falling in Asia and only started falling once they took on socialism with "asian" characteristics.
Do you read the stuff you type before you hit send, and realise just how little credibility it gives you?
I'm yet to hear a response.
I have addressed both Africa and south america ad nauseam. Your inability to remember two minutes ago isn't my problem.
I have no desire to discuss the GFC with you because I know you don't even begin to comprehend what happened. You will spout nothing even approaching insight, and rely totally on "wall street is bad emkay" platitudes.
Vote early and often.
what did he do wrong? save the coalition's ass?
His head would be on a pike by now.
tonez needs to come back and do this right.I'm having trouble understanding this whole Abbott should come back thing I am hearing. Is it a pride thing? Leading up to his election you were warned many times about how awful he'd be. He turned out more awful than anyone could have possibly imagined so you're forced to continue on supporting him because you're incapable of saying oops I was wrong that guy I spent years advocating is actually quite awful? Maybe you should try it. Admitting you're wrong just once. I guess the first time will be hard for you but just think to the future when you're wrong again about how you can actually learn from your mistakes. Update your knowledge with some new information. You're currently running some real 0.1 alpha level s*** in that brain of yours.
So... you're a delcon then?
On what basis was he doing a better job than Turnbull? Abbott was an unmitigated disaster. The fake budget emergency, the complete botching of OSB, reneging on many so called election promises, the destruction of the NBN, the diplomatic blunders etc. Turnbull has the luxury of not being bats*** insane so has managed to be more of e benign type failure so far.
This one was also quite a thing
I wouldn't place a lot of stock in time. The methodology excludes the 9/11 attacks for some incomprehensible reason. They are focused on "homegrown" terrorism, but the war on terror is decidedly focused on international terrorism. In terms of public policy its not a great figure to focus on, particularly when they want to talk about NSA stuff.
Further when you go to the site, and look at the figures, while there have been less fatalities (until orlando happened), the number of people caught up in indictable plots is roughly double in favour of jihadists.
but either way Orlando totally f***ed up the kumbaya story. Now you're nearly twice as likely to be killed by a jihadi than a white supremacist. that's if we want to take the banal time analysis at face value.
I'd say you probably shouldn't.
Hey infi, what does a major corporation pay for halal? What does a small sole trader pay?
jordies gets real fired up here. Good on him. F*** the LNP.
Er Jordies, implied Hawke introduced medicare. Which I guess is true if by "introduced" you mean renamed from medibank, which Whitlam introduced in '75.
And the libs were so hostile to the plan they supplemented the medibank program with medibank private.
Then he conflates state hospital funding over four years with the potential revenue impact of tax cuts over 10 years, and more importantly two elections.
He certainly does get shouty though. I think you are confusing the intensity of saying something with the validity of what is being said.
Nobody that shouty could be wrong, right?
The AMA called shortens medicare schlock a scare campaign. The same people who said it was short sighted to remove pathology from bulk billing.
Are you saying fear campaigns work because there is an element of truth to them?
So then because there is some truth to tinkering with medicare, an outright lie becomes a legitimate campaign technique?
Surely you can see where this is going?
The AMA disagree Vash.
Jordies can muster all the undergrad rage he wants. He is still factually wrong.
f*** me enough with the giving corporations s*** is evil routine.
I would be utterly unsurprised to find out jordies have an incorporated production company which will benefit from the first round of tax cuts. The big four banks *will not get a tax cut under turnbull until after 2020*. Sort of shoots a big. Fatal. Game over hole in the f*****g argument.
The medicare freeze is a labor policy Vash.
From the article you linked to vash.
In 2013, the then Labor government introduced an eight-month cap on the amount of money it paid doctors who provided services under Medicare.
and from the second article
However GPs said their practices had been largely absorbing the cost of the indexation freeze, and if the freeze continued services would be affected.
I suppose Labor weren't trying to take apart medicare piece by piece when they did it right?
I know reading isn't your strong suit. But really, you should at least try.
They temporarily introduced a freeze which went beyond an election they were almost certainly going to lose?
The LNP dismantling goes far beyond a temporary rebate freeze.
so is there some reason you chose to focus on a freeze introduced by labor?
certainly the money jordies is talking about is centred on the savings from the freeze.
So why is freeze introduced by labor the centre piece of an argument for liberal privatisation?
That makes, literally, no sense.
So 4 years of rebate freeze == privatising medicare?
But 8 months, over which you'll definitely lose government is....
yeah straws is what im clasping at.
Wasn't it a short term fix while they tried to move Medicare rebate off the CPI? Labor places it on eight months freeze, coalition belittled them about that freeze yet when in power they change it to four years instead and also try to introduce GP co-payments.
I'm sorry but the claim isn't that you can reasonably freeze the medicare rebate. It's that freezing the medicare rebate represents privatising medicare.
The policy was introduced by labor. Merely continued by liberal.
If the argument is that freezing the rebate is the same as privatising medicare then privatising medicare is labor's policy.
What else does Medicare DO other than back end payments to doctors?! Its literally the system's job description...
I'd have thought the job was to fund medical assistance. It doesn't follow the means by which those fund are delivered must also be government owned. Doctors surgeries tend to be private businesses after all.
I expect its a bit like myki or go cards in Brisbane.
Malcolm repulses me. Hiding in his waterfront mansion on election night till 11.30pm. What a creep.Remember that time you said a dumb racist thing on here and spent months and hundreds of words trying to make believe that it didn't actually happen? My point is you're a complete coward yourself, and it's really funny watching you accuse people of being cowardly.
Unfortunately you should see how popular he is within his own electorate.
Does he enjoy high personal popularity or does he just sit in an ultra safe liberal seat?
That former Australian idol twat polled like 11% in Warringah
Even after two party swing of 3.7% he holds the seat by a margin of 11% or so.
David Feeney held Batman, but I doubt its due to his magnetic personality.
Yeah a parliament of individuals sounds good in theory.
I think it practise it would be very difficult for a leadership vision form under those circumstances.
And as anti-democratic as it sounds I'm fine with the ALA or rise up being crowded out by brand recognition. It follows, I can't be too miffed when the science party or the pirate party or the greens get f***ed by the same system.
the two party system has its obvious flaws. Literally the only value David Feeney provides is party discipline, he is an objectively terrible candidate. Much like Abbott in my view.
But lets not mince words, does anyone really think Glenn Lazarus or Ricky Muir or Jackie Lambie or Pauline Hanson have the requisite legal and economic knowledge to be making country shaping decisions? Ricky Muir bemoaned making hard decisions early in the set. What the f*** did he think he was signing up for?
David Feeney has the redeeming quality he'll do what he is told by Penny Wong et al.
A parliament of individuals will ensure people like Hanson have a louder voice, not just the micro parties you agree with.
TL;DR I agree in principle, but think in practice it would be a fiasco.
Yes I understand that, but I didn't say they weren't lawyers and economists therefore they can't be legislators.
I said they didn't have the required legal and economic knowledge to make for good ultimate legal and economic decision makers (which are the primary functions of legislators). I'd agree that multi-disciplinary folks would make for great parliamentarians. But are you really going to sit there and say what we really need in parliament is more jackie lambies?
Parliament's job is writing laws. Seems like a grasp of legal knowledge and concepts is going to come up.
Abolishing the party system would all almost certainly remove experts of any ilk, and see the rise of small minded and small concerned local populists.
I direct your attention to hanson and xenophon doing so well. Or an australian idol host in Warringah.
People don't seem to vote by and large perfectly rationally, largely because on most issues they can't, I know I don't. A brand allows boring experts to get past while being poor campaigners.
Clearly party politics comes with the downside that people who can play the internal game well get ahead.
But there is strong reason to believe that game would be stacked even more in favour of those types in a party-less system.
Hmmm... I wonder how things are going in the Socialist Utopia of Venezuela ?can you really compare third world economic outcomes based on their system of government though? like, is it productive or meaningful in any way? wouldn't it make more sense to look at socialist first world countries where corruption and general s***tiness are not in the same order of magnitude?
I voted Greens because I sincerely believe the best outcome for Australia is to have more than two parties. I don't agree with all their policies (e.g., nuclear) but I agree with most of them. Like most Australians who do various voting tests I scored very high for Greens on policy-base polling.
Your - and everyone elses - whining about the Greens is just the most strawman thing ever. Their presence in politics is, in practical terms, largely insignificant, but when you throw the SOCIALIST! scareword around it sure does make a nice talking point to distract everyone about the complete ineffectiveness and fecklessness of the two major parties!
I don't understand your first paragraph.
Vash you are a f*****g moron.
Capitalist socieites haven't eliminated all corruption, therefore I can equivicate between that and forced labour camps in Venezuela.
Trog. You can absolutely draw conclusions about socialism from Venezuela. Every Marxist thought it was the best thing since sliced bread three years ago. 1 year ago they were suppressing news of commodity shortages. What happened in Venezuela has all been according to a very well defined playbook of consequences of socialism. Socialism isn't any and all wealth redistribution. Socialism is a philosophy that says that wealth isn't created by allocating capital in the market. I'll highlight the important bit for RE denmark.
Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions. Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe—particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries—during the latter half of the 20th century.
If you think socialism is so great how about you and term reorganise mammoth media as a workers coop. Until then you are a hypocritical labour rapist.
I think the point he was trying to illustrate was that by using Venezuela as some sort of example of what may happen should the Greens achieve any real power is incredibly silly. Yet it's the sort of brain dead fear mongering the slow witted deal in regularly which then spreads to more even slower witted people.
Yet it's the sort of brain dead fear mongering the slow witted deal in regularly which then spreads to more even slower witted people.
Well then why do people like to use that exact strawman when referring to all the "benefits" socialism brings.
As I said, any and all wealth redistribution isn't socialism.
Socialism is a very particular philosophy about where wealth is generated and the inherently oppressive nature of capital, (not capitalists or capitalism, all capital is oppressive therefore if you have some you're evil by definition nothing you can do, just evil).
If it is fear mongering to refer to social welfare programs as socialism, equally it is cherry picking to say social welfare is a benefit of socialism. different spins on the same strawman. So seeing as we want to play the rhetorical fallacy game I thought I'd throw in hyperbole for s**** and gigs.
As for the greens. We probably wouldn't end up like Venezula, but I suspect they would be utterly incompetent boobs.
Trog talks about agreeing with their policies, but the policies I read are wiffle. Their Tax paper is ten pages of nothing. Just fashionable puffery about banks are evil and corporations take profits offshore. They close non-descript loop holes to recover unknown lost tax revenue.
It's certainly not a policy with any clear guidance on how to it should be implemented. The benefits of knowing you'll never wield executive power I guess.
Anyway, be the change you want to see in the world trog.
*edit* On a side note it's great to see Rudd out there doing the hard yards to justify Turnbull's decision. How people ever thought he was anything other than a ruthless narcissist really is quite beyond me.
Oh good so you should fine with the tpp then right. I mean protectionism is so bad and all.
Well then why do people like to use that exact strawman when referring to all the "benefits" socialism brings.I completely agree. The problem is the word socialism has become hopelessly confused thanks to people using it to describe (say) completely normal western style social programmes that they hate because they're captialist extremists. So they use it as a boogeyman to hark back unto the days of THE REDS and emotionally charge it in a black/white context.
I consider myself a capitalist socialist: I believe in a regulated free market where people can strive to make as much money as they want while simultaneously paying lots of tax to provide the best civilisation and society possible for them and their countrymen!
The problem is the rest of us norms then use it casually to describe the success of "socialist" policies (like building roads, public healthcare, NASA, social security etc, for which it is not really an appropriate term.
As for the greens. We probably wouldn't end up like Venezula, but I suspect they would be utterly incompetent boobs.I would not surprise me at all if this was the case - but as it's the situation we're ALREADY IN I at least think it would be an interesting experiment!
Anyway, be the change you want to see in the world trog.When I return to Australia I hope to get a little more involved. At the moment I'm still recovering from two years of living in fear in the US - and the perpetual world-destruction that might result from a Trump presidency - and now am dealing with the trainwreck that is the UK politics!
so you don't consider yourself a socialist at all really.
I also think you need a new "T" key on your keyboard.
I would not surprise me at all if this was the case - but as it's the situation we're ALREADY IN I at least think it would be an interesting experiment!
A fascinating experiment for certain. but what if the experiment is a failure?
How many millions of lives are you willing to bet against proven improved living standards? The system as it stands allowed for this conversation in this form. Do you think a change would allow for it? I remain to be convinced.
*edit*The current "situation" allows me to live my life more or less as I see fit. I've no reason to rock the boat.
I suspect you've little reason to as well.
so you don't consider yourself a socialist at all really.no, but that's kind of my point - when people in western societies these days describe themselves as "socialists", they mean in the Bernie Sanders sense - not in the Venezuela sense.
I also think you need a new "T" key on your keyboard.I missed this reference..?
A fascinating experiment for certain. but what if the experiment is a failure?I guess I am not imagine some sort of apocalypse happening if the Greens get in (or even if they just win a few more seats), which is what many people seem to think will happen, I guess because reasons?
I don't imagine Labor or Liberal or their supporters going anywhere; I just see a more moderate government that better represents the views of the electorate - not some Green Fourth Reich that decides to mulch the bodies of all the titans of industry and use it to fertilise their marijuana fields or whatever.
edit: to be clear I just see it as an extension of what happened in the last few years as Greens & independents have had their various impacts on the governmental process - just more so. I don't imagine them getting into power and then having an unrestricted free hand to do whatever they want; that's not how our political system works, right?!
I suspect you've little reason to as well.and yet, here were are! I'm quite comfortable too (living on the other side of the planet) but I want to rock the living s*** out of the boat! I want to sink the boat and replace it with an electric boat made of hemp and powered by solar!!
What's the general feeling about Trump v Clinton where you are trog? It seems like Clinton's going to win in a majority, but then you never know!I'm in London now, not the US. But where I was in the US (Columbus, OH) it was a bit of a liberal bastion in an otherwise fairly red area so it was kind of hard to tell. I know a few Republicans who are horrified by Trump but more horrified by Clinton/Democrats.
As if often said these days, each of the candidates happens to be running against the only candidate they could hope to beat. It's a weird situation.
the prevailing sentiment i can gather about trump vs clinton is that the republicans could have picked pretty much anyone else and beaten her.well it speaks volumes about the rest of the Republican candidates that Trump was more or less easily able to get the nomination. It was a clown car show from the get go.
Now Bill leak is being hounded by the Social Justice Warriors who are carpet bombing advertisers who use The Australian.Reading Leak's comments about it, I kind of get where he's coming from. Australians, sadly, seem pretty good (myself included) at turning a blind eye to most of the stuff that happens in those kind of communities. (Comments like this are made non-stop about black populations in the US, fwiw, though maybe not in the newspaper)
I guess I am not imagine some sort of apocalypse happening if the Greens get in (or even if they just win a few more seats), which is what many people seem to think will happen, I guess because reasons?
The greens have demonstrated themselves repeatedly to be unable to compromise on key policy points. Their voting against the carbon tax comes to mind.
That kind of mentality is exceedingly dangerous to have in power.
Anyway, I was more referring the the idea that the current system is a total failure. On any objective measure it clearly provides the best living standards human kind has ever known.
The idea that we should seek change for changes sake has always been a curious one to me. and I don't think you really mean it.
Lets not forget one nation are now a party likely to be able to have their say as well. I doubt you'll sign up for their change just for changes sake.
That kind of mentality is exceedingly dangerous to have in power.I mean you keep saying this kind of stuff like it only applies to the Greens, when the track record of the other parties, especially the Liberals (because they've been in power most recently) is littered with failures to compromise (e.g., NBN, almost anything ole "stop the boats" Tony ever said, gay marriage).
The Greens, like all the parties, compromise when it suits their political goals.
Anyway, I was more referring the the idea that the current system is a total failure. On any objective measure it clearly provides the best living standards human kind has ever known.I don't think it's a total failure, just that the current political climate of A vs B means almost nothing productive can ever get done because everyone is always at loggerheads with each other. Every issue is boiled down to a black-vs-white false dichotomy. This is way more of a problem in the US - there is a growing independents movement but it's pushing against all the money in the world trying to stop them. Seeing it happen more and more in Australia is really depressing.
The idea that we should seek change for changes sake has always been a curious one to me. and I don't think you really mean it.a) that's not what I'm saying b) yes I do. Of course I do. Who wouldn't?! Change happens regardless of whether or not you want it and if our society does not display adaptability we will fail.
Of course we should be seeking change to make things better. You want to keep living in an Australia where our political elite is sitting on its hands trying to pretend that whether or not gay people can get married is some huge massive conundrum?!#
i thought Trump was going to win up until the last week but when he paid that Muslim military family out that was like his Mark Latham handshake moment. I don't know if he can recover from the last week.I saw a poll that showed a staggering drop for his ratings but i can't find it now. Be interesting to see if he can bluster his way out
You want to keep living in an Australia where our political elite is sitting on its hands trying to pretend that whether or not gay people can get married is some huge massive conundrum?!#
*edit* to be clear I an not making the case for liberal government. I'm making the case against the greens being large enough to wield executive power.*/edit*
Well do you really want to suggest that this is a problem that needs to be addressed lest society as we know fall apart?
I've no problem with it, but as a policy framework your going to have to work a bit harder.
The major parties between the two of them have continued to see economic growth for nearly the longest period on record. Oh and they don't seem to be opposed to gay marriage in principle. The plebiscite is a compromise position. I don't particularly like the compromise, they should just legislate it, but the issue is if you accept government has the ability to legislate it, then they are perfectly within their rights to say no gay marriage. The Libs could have adopted that and probably would have gotten elected anyway.
Things like gay marriage being something people want to have a high faluten argument over is a sign of how well society is travelling not the other way around. I can tell you right now barry from south sudan doesn't give a f***.
Important policy for example like Tax is a vacuum over in greens land.
in an election being fought over tax rates for corporations their policy document didn't articulate one rate, either for the GST the Corporate Tax rate or the PAYG scale.
also would you care to explain how the NBN is a comparable policy failure to voting against the carbon tax?
You've stated you're against the NBN so a compromised cheaper system seems like it should be up your ally.
but lets compare with the carbon tax. Their reasoning was literally that the tax wasn't set high enough so they voted to have nothing at all.
Quite a different situation.
But if the best you can muster is the current major parties have the same faults the greens do why the f*** would I want increased power for a new party with all the same faults?
a) that's not what I'm saying b) yes I do. Of course I do. Who wouldn't?! Change happens regardless of whether or not you want it and if our society does not display adaptability we will fail.
a) Seems like its exactly what your saying because b) how the f*** could you possible mean it if you weren't?
Evolutionary change happens with out political input. There is no particular reason to seek out people with vague ideas on how to change s***. S*** will change vaguely on its own just fine.
i guess that means there's something seriously wrong with society.
You have raised lack of self awareness to Olympian levels, you really have.
I've no problem with it, but as a policy framework your going to have to work a bit harder.I think you're confused about what I'm saying, or I'm not saying it well. I'm not really interested in debating how good or bad the Greens are or nitpicking their policies.
My hypothesis is simple: I think Australians will be better off with more than two major parties. Who the third is doesn't really matter (well, obviously with some exceptions). I don't want the Greens to be the sole party in power; I want them there to bring Balance To The Force.
If you don't believe that (I can only guess you don't as you appear to be very angry about it for some reason) then that's fine - I don't know if it's true which is why it's just a hypothesis that I'd like to test. But after two years in the US and seeing what real two party politics looks like, I'll be doing what I can to avoid it.
The Greens most closely match the broad wishful thinking I do - if you're just irritated at me because I'm using the Greens as an example I'd be just as happy to replace them with the Sex Party or the Pirate Party or the Grow All The Marijuana Party or whatever you prefer - because by the time they get to the point that they're a big enough force to be at the same level as the current two parties, their policies and processes will have matured, by necessity, to be less radical and smoother around the edges.
Evolutionary change happens with out political input. There is no particular reason to seek out people with vague ideas on how to change s***. S*** will change vaguely on its own just fine.It is precisely /because/ of evolutionary change that you need to have political change. If your political and legal frameworks are not keeping up with the pace of evolution then they'll (at best) fall apart and become useless and (at worst) actually obstruct citizens and the economy.
There are several examples I can think of where change has happened without political input but the fact that our political systems are dragging behind is causing no end of drama. Gay marriage is one (it's obvious and inevitable that it's going to be a thing but the knuckledraggers are just making this painful for everyone). Uber I think is another - it's obvious that the re-centralisation of certain services has caused havoc amongst service provides (arguably this is a local issue and not a federal one but it's just an example of the political machinery not keeping up with technological change). Healthcare and education are getting better but there is still an odd acceptance at government level for woo that should not be tolerated.
I'm not sure trog or I are arguing for an overthrow of the existing capitalist system (though perhaps Vash is! ;)), or rejecting the good it's done and that it's basically the best system so far. I think we're arguing that there's genuine issues with unbridled capitalism around the 'social good' aspect that need to be resolved through reasonable socialistic regulation. Examples being climate change, poverty, immigration, exploitation, etc.I most definitely am not. I think capitalism is the worst form of building an economy except for all the other ones that have been tried.
But it's just seems blindingly obvious that the amazing part of Western society isn't the capitalist part - it's the "socialist" part that has allowed people to build these awesome capitalist structures. It's the taxes that paid for the road networks and the communications and power grids. It's the healthcare and the social services. It's clean water that literally comes out of a magic fountain in your house. It's sewage systems that keep cities clean and reduce disease. It's having a reliable financial system that create a solid and regulated base to keep the playing field fair for commerce.
I don't believe in pure capitalism any more than I believe in pure socialism. Neither of them are workable. As with almost anything else in life (except for maths and evidence-backed science of course :) the right answer is moderation.
Well if you don't want to discuss their policies that's really your deal.
However, I would point out that
it's the "socialist" part that has allowed people to build these awesome capitalist structures
Yes and no, and the "socialist" structures were uniformly implemented by Labor, so you're not making a particularly strong case for another party. Seems like there is a party on it.
and secondly, looking at their policies and how they attempt to go about implementing them gives insight in the hypothetical you want me to entertain. And I'm saying to you, they provide solid evidence that a third party would be likely to slow down reform rather than speed it up.
Anyway I'm happy to leave it at that.
The Nauru Files Australia runs concentration camps where we send people declared by the government as undesirable. In these concentration camps they are tortured and sexually abused by the people who are meant to be caring for them. Many members of the Australian public don't care and will actually act as apologists for this behaviour because these people have brown skin. Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton facilitated these conditions but will never face justice, again, because these people have brown skin.
I've been talking about this for years and years now. To be fair I think it is only the hardcore racists on this board who will still turn a blind eye to it, so that's something. I just can't really see how you can give what is going on even a cursory glance and not be outraged about it. Infact unless you are at least slightly outraged by this then you're pretty much a complete c***.
Concentration camp conditions must be improved! Only then can we find the right torture/appearing not to condone torture balance required to make it a success in stopping some boats for some reason!
The offshore processing policy is necessary to deter boat arrivals and the loss of life at sea, as can be seen by the stark reduction in numbers of arrivals since it has been re-introduced.literally anyone can stop immigration by basically torturing people that arrive on your shores trying to immigrate
is the tiny fraction of illegal immigration that occurs when people actually make it to shore by boat worth it? I'm embarrassed to be Australian as a result of it so I'll say no
Ohhh we can agree trog, we can agree. What fun!
The only way to have full transparency is with Government running it.Not this government.
That strikes me as a long bow to draw viper.
I don't think so. Anyone who has been following these events from the start have known it is dodgy as f***. Credible allegations of sexual assault have been around for ages now. No one really cares.
But this census bungle? It's exploded everywhere. It's all I've seen on the news lately, easily eclipsing the Olympics and the latest from Nauru.
What I find rather telling is how child sexual abuse is a thing universally maligned by pretty much everyone except the perpetrators of it. It seems we can add the LNP and white supremacists to that list.
Yeah but this
Credible allegations of sexual assault have been around for ages now
Is why drawing an inference of people's concern based on the disparate responses is at least unreliable and probably faulty. The fact that nobody is surprised about *more* evidence, but are shocked that there is a real risk deeply personal information has been stolen doesn't really convey any deeper knowledge of how people are ranking the importance of the events.
One is new the other is old. I think is about as powerful an explanation you can find in it.
Given the author of the piece hasn't written anything else about asylum seeker abuse, I guess, using that logic, I can conclude he doesn't care about the issue. After all child abuse is the worst crime there is, his failure to write on exclusively on the topic, or at least a single other article on the issue, I read as his psychopathic apathy toward it.
Anyway, I've volunteered in the area and studied the law surrounding it in detail. I wasn't particularly shocked by the Guardian revelations and was quite surprised by the census. I guess I must implicitly condone it then.
I guess my circles differ (obviously so I guess).
I have seen the guardian stuff all over my facebook.
public inquiries getting setup immediately.
We did, Gillian Triggs reported on this last year. You can read it here.
If the leaks merely confirm the content of the report, which appears it is the case, I'm not sure its a valid criticism to judge people for not being up in arms for stuff they already knew about.
Dutton is already out about suggesting they cynically self-harm. It's a very well worn script at this stage.
Therefore I don't think the Guardian confirming what a government report already stated failing to spark a fresh round of outrage is a particularly damning outcome.
I mean the census thread is trucking along ok. Are you particularly willing to ascribe the casual racism to everyone posting in that thread rather than this one?
The fact that the policy is still in place is certainly puzzling. However before talking about what Australia thinks, it's worth considering that the policy needs a surprisingly low approval rating to make it into law. Turnbull held on to government by the skin of his teeth, and lets not forget how rarely a first term government gets the flick in Australian politics (I think you have to go back to Chifley). I have my doubts Shorten could have prosecuted the policy without significant rumblings from his back bench.
So the facts are the LNP had a primary vote of just under 42%. Of the people who voted LNP I doubt you'd find 80% approval of the policy as it currently stands, particularly in light of the ongoing concerns about institutional child abuse. I would refer you to the NT child prisoner abuse two weeks ago that had a royal commission set up later that day.
The fact that Dutton is out doing a 'well-worn' script with no further indignation or action from anyone kind of attests to that.
The point would follow if Dutton could appeal to some high level of personal approval, but I don't think he can. In fact he gets roundly criticised every time he makes these comments.
The LNP government has largely ignored the AHRC's, and other institutions, reports about this. They've not changed their policy.
Surely that sort of means you should leave your criticism at the LNP's door. Australia's human rights commissioner delivered a scathing assessment of the policy. Last I heard Professor Triggs has the final word on Australia's human rights commitments. The LNP's obscene response to her, did result in a political cost. So when gauging Australia's feelings about the issue, it might be a bit more complex then displaying equal outrage about the issue of the week.
I might point out in addition that the Australian Bar Association and the Law Council of Australia (Australia's peak legal bodies) are ongoing vocal critics of the policy, and the Australian Barrister John Griffin QC acted for the applicants in the PNG manus island constitutional case (ie fought to have the centre found unconstitutional).
If the author wishes to cast churlish aspersions about Australia's collective conscience based on a facile equivocation that is his right. I'll exercise mine to call him a pompous, inconsistent buffoon.
*edit* an addendum regarding calling the census issue "an IT bungle"
The census screwing up isn't just any other IT crash is it? The census is a critical policy planning instrument. It's findings will have wide ranging policy implications for the entire Australian population.
There are serious concerns of data being stolen, in the first year it was made identifiable. That isn't a small deal. But additionally, part of the point is to get as many people to complete the form in as smaller time frame as possible. That's impossible now.
The census being screwed up isn't trivial.
let me make the point another way. Spared of the author's pontifications was Senator Hanson Young. She is the Greens immigration spokeswoman and yet she found time on Tuesday to advertise her civil disobedience. By the author's logic she callously prioritised political grandstanding with the census over the known troubles on Nauru. Or his logic is faulty, could be that too.
Acknowledging the one doesn't entail denying the other.
If worker coops were common, that would drastically reduce the amount of people able to get rich off the fruit of other people.
Looking forward to some metal gymnastics about this coop
It's almost like Vash is a dumbf*** ideologue who has his reflection in faceman.
Worker's coops are going to save us from exploitation. Just give control to the workers, exploitation will be a thing of the past. Hurrah 1917. Or maybe not.
Oh fun look at it squirm.
corporations are evil, works coops will prevent exploitation.
workers coop is exploitative.
Oh its a capitalist workers coop. need to get me some of them Scottish workers coops, it'll work then.
The ownership structure didn't eradicate, it didn't even reduce Vash. Your argument was that structure will have some fundamental impact on the ability to exploit. Turns out that's false. Because obviously it's false.
You're a dopey little twerp, who spouts s*** he knows nothing about.
Conservatives think greed is inherently human, it actually isn't.
What utter tosh. A scientific basis for solidarity. F*** you people live in a fantasy land.
Putting aside you don't understand what happened in the GFC, Greed is why food shortages happen in Venezuela.
Government's thinking they can boss market prices around is the real problem. Something socialists such as yourself are simply incapable of grasping.
And lets look some more commie science while we're at it.
The market proves it's unable to accommodate the increasing need to cut back on consuming & emissions. Because both those things are what fuel the market.
How? Just saying it doesn't make it so. An introduction of a price on carbon is a market solution to climate change.
Such an a grade dummy.
No it hasn't, I love how we are now talking about climate change because your theory about workers coops is clearly false.
Pathologically incapable of staying on topic.
The market, a free market, is totally responsive to the demands of the people.It is in theory, but it sure doesn't work like that in practice (just like extreme communism/socialism). There are various things that get in the way; tragedy of the commons is probably the worst but collusion between businesses is also a problem. (i.e., greed, which I agree is definitely an inherent human trait).
There are things that regulations simply need to exist for and be enforced for. Sometimes the market cannot or will not solve problems that they need to solve. My favourite example of this is the lead-in-petrol debacle; Bill Bryson's book "A Short History of Nearly Everything" covers this story and it is fascinating (the whole book is highly recommended), but basically we all nearly ended up in a world where everyone had epic and constant lead poisoning because of the amazing efforts of a handful of individuals and their corporations to deny evidence in the interests of profits.
The problem with emissions is that it is a massive externality and is not capture by anything in the market. ; I do not believe an introduction on a carbon price is market-driven because the market wasn't the one that introduced it as a cost. I am not convinced carbon trading is a good idea yet but neither am I even remotely certain it's a bad one.
One thing the market IS doing to respond to people's concerns about emissions is introducing emissions-free vehicles; given everyone I talk to about cars (admittedly not many) wants a Tesla I think this strategy is working better.
The problem with emissions is that it is a massive externality and is not capture by anything in the market. ; I do not believe an introduction on a carbon price is market-driven because the market wasn't the one that introduced it as a cost. I am not convinced carbon trading is a good idea yet but neither am I even remotely certain it's a bad one.
Can you explain this further?
An externality by definition sits in a relationship with market price.
An externality is something that is a cost of production but not incorporated in the market price. It seems by definition the market introduced the cost, because the cost is bought about by the market transaction. It just isn't borne by the parties to the transaction. I don't really see how the market didn't introduce the cost, its more a question of who's paying it.
So far as I'm aware the major obstacle to emissions trading has been securing china's involvement. But the good news is they are launching an ETS next year.
An externality by definition sits in a relationship with market price.This is true but I think it hides the most important part, which (to me) is that in many cases the externality has no /monetary/ relationship whatsoever with the market price. So while what you're saying is completely true (e.g., in the case of gas prices, the externality is carbon emissions and they're clearly in a relationship), it is almost impossible to come up with a price relationship (e.g., there is no practical way to measure the true cost of 1m^3 of carbon emissions).
I don't really see how the market didn't introduce the cost, its more a question of who's paying it.I would argue that one of the entire points of a true "free market economy" is that those costs and who pays them evolves naturally as the market finds a way to make money off it. It's been a zillion years since we had cars and noone has figured out a way to make money buying their emissions.
It's going to take a worldwide effort spearheaded by governments and international agreements to make it happen. The only thing that has actually /introduced/ the cost is this effort - otherwise we would have persisted for years in dumping emissions into the atmosphere like we have done since the first time we burned coal for warmth.
If there was a real, natural market to be had in emissions trading China's involvement wouldn't need to be "secured" - they would have been all over it (and, presumably, perfected it long ago).
This is, incidentally, exactly what happened with something that truly was a free market thing: BitCoin. China is now well-known amongst the BitCoin community (as I understand it) for having a huge amount of miners and traders. In fact I can point you towards several interesting stories written by "free market" BitCoin people whining about Chinese miners taking over the scene and f*****g it up for the rest of them, in the absolute classic sort of way you'd expect from one of those free market people who actually really don't want a free market :)
FWIW: I believe in the "freeish market". I think it should be mostly free with as few regulations as possible to keep an even playing field for everyone. I think there needs to be a constant back-and-forth between the market and the regulators with both sides pushing back at each other to find the best middle ground so the interests of the citizens are respected but there's enough competition to create sound market prices. Regulations need to constantly evolve with technology and social change.
belated edit: I don't think what I'm saying is particularly radical or outlandish. It basically is the situation we have now that has worked pretty successfully to create the bulk of western society. I don't think there's much evidence to support the claim that a "free-er" market is better - OR that a more tightly regulated market is better. As with basically everything it's about moderation.
Speaking of interesting free market thingies - is anyone keeping up with what is going on with milk in Australia? I've seen a few reports about milk processors raising prices which is causing grief to dairy farmers. I know there's weird stuff in this industry but it sounds like dairy farmers are being strongarmed on price somehow but I don't really understand the mechanism (i.e., why can't they just sell to someone else, or refuse to sell at prices that are too low). Are there just too many dairy farmers or what?
I think the broad strokes are the coop I linked to struck a deal with dairy farmers.
It allowed them to retroactively adjust the price they were paying for the year. In essence it shifted the commodity price risk from the coop to the farmers themselves.
Apparently there is a global downturn in dairy prices. So the farmers now have to repay the additional money.
It's a d*** move. We moved to Great Ocean Road milk to help out.
Would you mind linking the bit coin stuff? Sounds interesting.
It's been a zillion years since we had cars and noone has figured out a way to make money buying their emissions.
I think this sort of misses the point of an externality. We've had cotton mills for gillion years and nobody has found a use for the soot in the chimney. It's just a cost of doing business.
The way to make money from emissions is to sell cars that properly reflect their cost of operation.
The way to make money from emissions is to sell cars that properly reflect their cost of operationyeh but my point is, this is not possible with this type of externality - unlike soot in the chimney, which can be easily priced to get rid of it (s*** you could sell it as fertilizer!) there's no way to reflect the cost of the emissions. (I don't think soot is an externality though - the emissions are, but I'd argue the soot has no outside impact on anyone else.)
If you believe climate scientists (and why wouldn't you!) the true cost of them is, like, infinity. It is spread over the entire world over decades/centuries. This is what happened with the tetraethyllead thing though: vested interests tried very hard to rely on this exact same externality effect to hide the costs of their product. They almost got away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling scientists and their annoying efforts to save the human race.
There was no way to price this externality in. You can't put a price on the cost of ever-so-slightly lead poisoning the entire population of the planet. There /are/ some things that are just fundamentally unsolvable by the market and this is where regulations have to step in.
(I'm actually fkn amazed that a) this only happened ~50 years ago and b) 50 years ago a scientist was able to convince the government that some dumb thing a corporation wanted to do was dangerous for humanity and should be stopped.)
Maybe an emissions trading market will help here; I'm not sure. But it's not a market solution; it's a market-based regulatory solution.
I'll have to dig around for the BitCoin things; several of them were just comments from jaded speculators on Slashdot but they were really interesting. A lot of them were based on this article from one of the BitCoin devs from a few months ago where he highlighted that China was taking control of the network. It only gets a cursory mention but IIRC it was one of the first times this was really brought to the attention of a lot of people so it caused some wailing and gnashing of teeth. (There are technical arguments that this is not a fault of decentralised currencies and a limitation of BitCoin specifically - one that was identified in the first release paper about it.)
I don't think soot is an externality though - the emissions are, but I'd argue the soot has no outside impact on anyone else.
You can find 18th century English legal cases which say different. The common law concept of nuisance is the relevant law.
yeh but my point is, this is not possible with this type of externality
Well one way you might do it, is come to agreement on how many parts per million the atmosphere can safely hold, and then divide that up into a series of permits....
I think we might have to agree to disagree.
Thanks for the article I'll take a look.
Well one way you might do it, is come to agreement on how many parts per million the atmosphere can safely hold, and then divide that up into a series of permits....Right but this is regulatory!! It hasn't evolved out of the market because someone has seen it as a potential profit centre. It is being /made/ a profit centre by the massive cooperation of giant regulatory authorities. The corporations are only on board because they're being coerced into it, but in some cases they'll be happy to do it because it /will/ be a profit centre for them.
So I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on unless you think that an emissions market is the free market in action - I am claiming it is not because it is driven by regulators.
It's been done largely contractually until now...
You can be sure such that such a regulatory regime (like superannuation) will make banks and other parasites very rich.Yup. And brokers. This is a big concern I think; all the f*****g middlemen that will find a way to insert them into the process to leech value.
BUT, maybe it doesn't matter, right? If the net result is decreasing carbon emissions by increasing their cost a little bit, then that is the result that they want - a market-driven economy to drive down emissions. What happens internally is almost irrelevant if emissions go down.
Well not really if you feel the market is inherently incapable of responding.
The argument I'm responding to is that the market can't deal with carbon pricing.
I think that is fundamentally false.
I think the largest barrier to that has been a refusal to deal in carbon from the worlds largest economies. ie government has been a big show stopper rather then enabler.
You can buy offsets for plane tickets, but they all dabble in the EUETS. You're not allowed to trade in carbon in China (though this is about to change). While that has been the case large corporate emitters have been unwilling to take on the risk the carbon has been worthless.
But that is changing. So I reject the analysis that it can only be responded to by regulation (at least in the sense of government regulation). You can't blame a market for failing when it isn't allowed to form.
On top of this despite regulatory road blocks the market is responding.
You mentioned Telsa cars. A big selling point of theirs is, they don't need to deal in this market. Musk points it out at every launch.
How is that the market not responding to demand to reduce carbon?
The argument I'm responding to is that the market can't deal with carbon pricing.OK, well that's not the argument I'm making, so I'm happy to agree with you on that point. The market will be forced through regulation to deal with market pricing; if they can't deal with it they will collapse, so presumably they're working with regulators to make sure that won't happen.
On top of this despite regulatory road blocks the market is responding.This market exists because it was created by regulation. It's not allowed to form in one corner of the world because of a different type of regulation that apparently is about to change. So I don't see what problem the free market is solving here.
You mentioned Telsa cars. A big selling point of theirs is they don't need to deal in this market. Musk point's it out at every launch.That is the market responding but it's not clear yet by any stretch of the imagine to know if it will solve the problem. If it does it might be in part due to the subsidies being provided to the electric car industry anyway so does that still count as the free market if the hand of the government is on the scales?!@#
Well I suppose we can agree after all.
but not quite.
It's not allowed to form in one corner of the world because of a different type of regulation that apparently is about to change. So I don't see what problem the free market is solving here.
It's not allowed where fully a quarter of overall emissions come from is not a fly in the ointment it's a show stopper.
But about to change.
Telsa cars by themselves aren't going to solve the problem, nor did I suggest they would. The point I was making, which I suppose isn't rebutting you were making but Vash was, is that market is in some sense fundamentally rejecting the idea of dealing in carbon.
Carbon trading does have a proven effect on overall emissions. Pretty much the only things you need to get trading going is and agreed cap and for governments a) to allow trading and b) to enforce trading contracts. Then it becomes a commodity like any other and demand will set the price.
This has been a major sticking point until now, precisely because one (very large) corner of the world refused to be involved.
As usual I will bring up Norway whose prisons are the envy of the world! Well at least the prisoners not in Norweigan prisons. Here is a great deep dive. I suspect it's like anything else though; in some places private facilities will beat public and vice versa.
Probably still useful to look at a successful prison system to see areas we could improve on, short of outright replication obes.
Reckon you'll find house price to income ratios in Norway are comparable to Australia Redhat.
oh yeah fade that West End protest is total bollocks
I'm all for keeping certain character areas like Boundary St itself largely untouched but this is an example of commercial and light industrial property in the area that will come up for renewal, what do they expect, a park?
Luckily there's data! http://www.imf.org/external/research/housing/ Norway is not comparable at all.
You're kidding right?
Here is the graph for income:house price ratio from your source.
Unless I'm much mistaken Norway and Australia are literally beside each other. Seems at least a little bit comparable. You might even say virtually identical.
Confusing Austria with Australia certainly is a trap for young players.
Well fair enough.
Melbourne and Sydney are certainly expensive to buy.
Good point but if you look at the RBA data, they seem to suggest its comparable as well. So six year growth moving in tandem is probably in keeping with the underlying data.
Here is the RBA report and if you look at the graph Norway has an disposable income to house price ratio of around 3.7 and Australia is about 4. page 19 has the relevant data.
edit the data in that bulletin is old but the ABS seems to think we are still tracking around 4.
If the ratio was comparable in 2010, and growth since then is comparable, it would seem to follow they are still comparable in raw figures.
Those figures are quite different from the ABS for the same period.
I'd be interested to know why.
Either way I think your claim that the ratio between the two countries is incomparable is unfounded and on any figures Australia's ratio isn't 8.
That's exactly what the Christian lobby groups are hoping for.agree completely, the whole thing seems ludicrous
Having said that I think marriage should be a matter of contract law between consenting adults and the government should have no part in it. Seems like that would keep most people happy and we could abolish a bunch of useless legislation.
well yeah, ultimately the reason we're even having this marriage equality debate is that there are laws discriminating against people based upon whether they are married
if marriage were disestablished and restored to a purely ceremonial status, and its legal function replaced with a contract between adults of any gender (or number), then presumably religious and other groups would not have to feel that an objectionable definition of marriage is being "imposed" upon them in any meaningful sense
it might make immigration matters a bit tricky
well yeah, ultimately the reason we're even having this marriage equality debate is that there are laws discriminating against people based upon whether they are marriedthis x100000
it might make immigration matters a bit trickyMarriage seems like a totally arbitrary way to deal with immigration issues to me.
In the last 2.5 years I've applied for visas in the US and UK. In the US being married would have made my life a billion times easier as I would have been able to latch on to my partner's visa - which only worked if I was married.
In the UK though, all I had to do was provide proof that we'd been in a "real" relationship for (at least) two years. If we'd been married, the process would have been basically the same - maybe a little bit easier but I'm basically on the same kind of visa.
Either way, these days marriage is considered more or less a disposable event, so when they're testing for your immigration eligibility based on relationship status, they're still going to want to verify the marriage is "real", so they might as well just open it to any sort of relationship.
I think the future is going to be limited-term marriage contracts but it depends on there still being some benefit to being married at all, which depends on what government perks they leave on being married. Filing a single tax return or whatever doesn't seem like a big enough deal to me though. What other government-created benefits are there?
Congratulations, my love. I've decided to renew your contract.Well, presumably you are not opposed to the idea of getting government out of the way when it comes to marriages, right?
In which case - if any formal recognition of the relationship is required at all - it would be a contract between two (or more) consenting adults. In which case the framework to govern these will be standard contract law. In which case the free market will evolve the best workable solution, and given almost every other contract between two parties is limited term, it seems like a fairly obvious end result, assuming we can convince humans to be open and honest about relationships (which I concede may not be possible but it's got to be better than making unrealistic promises to be with someone forever at the altar).
Again though, my question is: what actual tangible benefits do you get from the government by being married? I only know about filing joint tax returns, and the immigration things I noted above. I'd be (genuinely) interested to know what other things there are.
Congratulations, my love. I've decided to renew your contract.
until death do us part, subject to a 30-day cooling-off period
to my mind - joint tax returns and the like aren't so much an inducement for people to get married as a reflection of reality - household finances are often merged
as for the other sweeteners, come on, it's the current year - and people are still going to get married and/or breed as much as they ever have if they don't get paid to do it
Immigration seems trickier to me, or rather emigration to some other country where a spousal-type visa does indeed require some official documentary evidence. And it can be a somewhat politicised issue - in Canada (where I left after getting PR but keep up with immigration matters) they have recently stopped recognising marriage ceremonies conducted over phone - oh yes, this is an actual thing
Marriage is a cultural institution. it is like asking what's the legal benefit to having a 21st birthday party. People do it because they have always done it.Cool, well I'm glad I'm in the position of being able to challenge the status quo!!! But in this case there /are/ specific legal benefits to being married so that's what I'm asking about :)
The succession/family law points are good, I'd forgotten about them.
Do we really want more single mothers and absent fathers (or whatever of the 33 genders you associate with)? No fault divorce obviously enables people to leave unsatisfactory marriage but will society shift its expectation to it being inevitable or expected, not merely a temporary commercial partnership during which people have children and cohabit. Even with feminism since the 60s, romance and marriage forever has been non-negotiable in the Western world.I'd argue society has /already/ shifted to thinking more of marriage being a disposable construct. A quick look for stats in Australia shows something like 120,000 marriages / year and 46,000 divorces!!! That is even more than I would have guessed.
If we're speculating about what would happen, we also need to consider that having contracts in place at the start of a relationship could actually lower the single mother/absent father rate. If your obligations are made clear up-front when you enter a relationship (e.g., if any children are the result of the relationship the father must provide financial support in the order of $y annually for a period of no less than x years), instead of being something that is only resolved after it's too late and the child already exists, involving long and bitter court disputes and further enriching lawyers. Prevention is better than cure!
Marriage previously was a commercial/status partnership and there was no requirement for love, romance or everlasting commitment. Just watch the Borgias. But the notions of union forever and love are now infused into this institution.Right but it /is/ a legal and contractual arrangement, right? Something that many people only find out after things collapse and they discover they're on the hook for alimony. Qld's go get married information page is not exactly crammed with information that explains your rights and obligations once you're married.
I'm not saying tear down the institution of marriage or that people who get married are doomed. I just think we've moved on from Ye Olde Dayes and it'd be nice to have more options and more choices and more flexibility - more freedom - for those wanting to get into relationships that can be formally recognised by governments.
Immigration seems trickier to me, or rather emigration to some other country where a spousal-type visa does indeed require some official documentary evidence. And it can be a somewhat politicised issue - in Canada (where I left after getting PR but keep up with immigration matters) they have recently stopped recognising marriage ceremonies conducted over phone - oh yes, this is an actual thingIn the UK, the process I had to go through meant showing evidence like shared expenses, photos of us together, lease with our names on it, etc. I probably went overboard and ending up handing over a wad of documents about two inches thick. (It was stressful as f***.)
If we'd been married, I would have had to do the exact same thing, but also provide a copy of the marriage certificate and presumably would include wedding photos. So the differences are minimal, at least in the UK.
For the US the marriage certificate seems to hold way more weight; you can be married for a very short period but they still seem to accept it (IIRC you still have to show some evidence of relationship).
(TBH I think the fundamental problem is letting people into the country based on who they're married or in a relationship with. I think many countries are revisiting their immigration policies and moving to frameworks that will make it easier for individuals to come in to the country based on their own merits; I think in the future as long you're from a first world country, don't have a criminal history and look remotely like you'll be a productive member of society it'll be much easier to move between first world countries and the marriage/relationship requirement might slowly fade away or at least become less of a driver for people getting married to move overseas.)
I think you'll find you receive scorn not because the things you say insult or offend but because they're incredibly dumb and poorly thought out. Also what you say never really seems to make much sense when you reconcile it with reality. Then when it's explained to you you'll usually double down on the dumbness and/or respond with mindless rhetoric much like your latest post.
Basically the things you say are utterly worthless yet you're so earnest about it all and say it with such conviction, yet sometimes it is so bizarre if it wasn't coming from you I'd think it would have to be some sort of parody attempt.. The hardest thing about responding to you is deciding whether to call you dumb or simply laugh. hth.
Have you ever noticed how the only people to positively assess the merit of your statements are lonely, maladjusted misanthropes? There's a reason for that.
What's the photo about fpot?
It's a North Korean and a Cameroon flag on public display for Mediterranean theme day. It reminded me of
oh ok. the Imgur title was "where woolies get their food from".
It's got multiple angles.
i don't want to silence fpot because the community can assess the merit of his statements. SJWs are eventually smoked out with their constant victim searching, and complaints about government inaction.As per my other comments, the use of that three letter acronym is a sign that rational debate has left the building and it has now turned into logical fallacy ad hominem territory in which someone attempts to cast an entire encyclopaedia of liberal thought into oblivion
The cream of ideas /has/ risen to the top; it's pretty clearly a last-ditch gasp to try to silence dissenting though and it just highlights the sheer desperation of conservatives.
This comment popped on Slashdot yesterday; I think it's really interesting because it's one of the places that has historically used "SJW" as a negative term - but it seems that it is already burning out and people are sick of "arguments" in which it is used.
I really like arguing/debating these kinds of topics but there's nowhere to go when you use easily destroyed logical fallacies (e.g., one of the rallying points around which the anti-sjw crowd gather is, for whatever dumb reason, Anita Sarkeesian. You can't talk about liberal types "forcing their agenda" without mentioning how conservative types have tried to silence her opinion through death threats, in at least one cases threatening a mass shooting at a university that she was going to talk at.
There are nutbag f***wit extremists on both sides and trying to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
I don't think fpot's comments are particuarly helpful; I think his tolerance for trying to debate things in the face of obviously conflicting comments and inconsistencies is much lower than mine which probably makes him much cleverer than me. But I think yours are equally bad (if not worse), because you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing him of, by trying to paint an entire segment of the population with a single brush (erroneously, imo).
even though it is mostly on the conservative side it
I really didn't read that. In what sense was popehat's view conservative?
Good article though. It's a great blog for those issues.
I'd agree that the usage of SJW is a signpost for possible s***lordery ahead
There is a kernel of some social justice movements that seems more concerned with ruining the careers or impugning the reputations of those they feel have wronged them, than effecting any real change for their communities - this is where the "social justice warrior" term applies and not to the whole group.
And there are equally nasty elements on the other side. Anita Sarkeesian is at best an amateur pop culture critic but her ideas deserve to be either upheld or rebutted on their own merits. The torrent of sexist abuse directed at her is completely out of proportion - sometimes I think teenage boys should have to get a licence to send anything on the net