well judging from the gallop opinion poll this morning you are in the minority. people seemed to think the budget is unfair and bad for australia. worse for abbott, people dont believe him anymore, his credibility is in tatters. once the public lose faith it is very difficult to regain their trust. one term toney? looking increasingly likely!
Quote:
Originally Posted by greybeard_
What can I say, the Australian people always deserved the government they voted in !!
Rain, hails or shine !!
Well, there was a reason why I didn't expect intelligent political discourse on a site dedicated to finding customers for (mostly illegal) knocking shops and to sharing stories of fucking girls... the thing about average intelligence is that most people are average...
Should I post a "LIKE!! LIKE!! LIKE!!" in big coloured letters, or would that be perceived as being crass?Quote:
Originally Posted by loaded
WayneK.
Do you remember that old John Lennon song? A Working Crass Hero... "...a working crass hero is something to be...."Quote:
Originally Posted by waynekerr
It's a funny old world, one must always maintain a sense of humour, in the face of all the slings and arrows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goulash
What happened to all those colourful descriptions you put on for our last 5/6 Prime Ministers ??
And everything else were gone between now and 1901 ??
Mr Abbott said on Sunday that he had let voters know what was coming before the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by AHLUNGOR
''You might remember the mantra - it was stop the boats, repeal the carbon tax, build the roads of the 21st century, and get the budget back under control,'' he told the ABC's Insiders program.
''So people, I think, were on notice that we were going to do what was necessary to ensure that we were not being a burden on our children and grandchildren.''
I guess this is the difference between core promises/mantra and non core which can be broken. He is very disillusioned.
I loved this exchange on Budget night with Hockey and Ferguson on ABC...it might as well on been an Abbott and Costello skit...
SARAH FERGUSON: Now, two of the more controversial tax hikes in this picture, that's the deficit levy and the Medicare co-payment...
JOE HOCKEY: More controversial? There are only two tax adjustments of any substance...
SARAH FERGUSON: Adjustments? Is that what we're going to call them now?
JOE HOCKEY: Well, of any substance, so any tax changes if you like, or whatever you'd like to call it.
SARAH FERGUSON: New taxes?
JOE HOCKEY: But whatever you'd like to call it, there's two. You know, there's actually fewer than any of the previous Budgets from the previous government. So that's a good sign.
SARAH FERGUSON: They're still taxes. I don't need to teach you, Treasurer, what a tax is. You know that a co-payment, a levy and a tax are all taxes by any other name. Am I correct?
JOE HOCKEY: Of course they are. Yes.
SARAH FERGUSON: So there are new taxes in your Budget?
JOE HOCKEY: There are increases in taxes.
captain plough - of all the discussion on this thread yours is the least insightful, the least intellectual and also the most banal.
I remember you from an earlier thread. You are an uneducated right wing conspiracy theorist. You live in your own schitozphrenic reality and you understand nothing at all about politics or economics
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingGiraffe
mate, I love your reviews and the vibe you give the forum on sex matters. But mate, I am afraid you really don't know the first thing about economics. I won't give a lecture - I've given plenty in the past - but I will say you ought to broaden your research from News Corp and listen to others than a few shockjocks. Hadley, Jones, Bolt et al are stirrers: pure an simple. They have zero intellectual credibility and wouldn't know an argument from a polemic, a debate from an agitation. It is the base tactic of the rightwing: divide. By labelling and putting people and ideas into little boxes, categories, it is easy to generalise and diminish those ideas. By ignoring nuanced reasoning and refusing to acknowledge the logic of premises, it is easy to establish an antithesis. But impossible to give a logical thesis. And that is the point. Abbott, and who he represents, do not respect logical thinking. His economics are deeply flawed. We know he is a religious nutter and has no idea about science. His four year election campaign was based on emotional slogans. All pretty clear indicators that he is not a rational man. And me, for one, would rather be governed by rationality than the ideological hogwash he comes out with and that you - I am afraid to say - you are regurgitating.Quote:
Originally Posted by AHLUNGOR
Dear fellow, if you can't make a civil contribution to the discussion why do you visit this thread. Perhaps you might start your own thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by greybeard_
You sound very familiar, like someone else who prefers to spread vitriol rather than simply discuss matters - nudge nudge wink wink, say no more!
Not that it matters one iota, but in response to your comments - I'm well educated and, much more importantly, I'm well read across many fields.
Bear in mind, I don't care whether you, or anyone else, is "educated," or "intellectual" - this is rather insignificant terminology in the current era.
What matters is whether or not you still think about what's going on around you, and then derive your own particular view,
or whether you simply absorb the media misinformation, and then spew it all back out again as your opinion.
Perhaps you need some antacid tablets.
You are quick to call Abbott a "religious nutter" and say he has "no idea about science."Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne
Yet, he successfully won a general election from opposition, and he is a rhodes scholar.
He has already done more in his life than you will ever do in yours. You wear your logic,
rational, atheist hat with an ironically religious fervour, causing you to quickly ridicule those
who have a different view from your own - in this ugly approach are the seeds of totalitarianism.
You demonstrate very clearly why scientists and rationalists should never be in any position of power.
um, really. You rather prove my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingGiraffe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne
Haha, Master Wayne,
Thanks for the education and lesson in the English language, I'm afraid to read through your post, I have to refer to my desktop Collins like half a dozen times !!
REGURGITATING - Wow, what a word, I would have no idea !!
1. to surge or rush back, as liquids, gases, or undigested food.
2. to vomit.
3. to give back or repeat, esp. something not fully understood or assimilated: to regurgitate a teacher's lectures.
Learn something new everyday.
Cheers
:cool2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne
BTW, you are actually right, the 4% and 2.5% interest rates I mentioned in my post I heard from Alan Jones this morning, which I'm sure he has done his research on that or the programmers has, so now that I know what "regurgitating" means, yes, I was repeating what I heard from the radio.
But so did you right ??
If you didn't listen to the same program, how do you know I was repeating ??
And if you do listen to Jones every morning, may be he is Not half as bad as you made him out to be !
Just wondering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHLUNGOR
I like what your saying Ahlungor....nice one.
To beat the enemy you have to know the enemy. Not surprise people turn in to listen to shock jock programs.
Regarding accuracy .. people remember 2012 18 October 2012 Australian Communication and Media Authority agreement with 2GB
http://theconversation.com/a-very-na...o-school-10212
Always happy to oblige. But really, you should broaden the base of your reading and listening. No, I don't listen to Jones but sometimes - its usually in a taxi - I have the misfortune to hear some of his rants. He is very good at arguing black is white. Just wish he would frequent zebra crossings.Quote:
Originally Posted by AHLUNGOR
I agree with you. Those stupid people using their 'facts' and so called scientific evidence to try and decide what's best for everybody. I can feel the terrorism right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingGiraffe
No one with any sense of reason would be using that.
I use rhetoric and my own ideas to judge what is best. And you're right, scientists should have no place in society to make decisions based on their so called 'evidence' bs. As if that's based on anything.
Yep...Quote:
Originally Posted by lockhart
Unfortunately, like most decisions made by ACMA this one has not been enforced and will never be. We need a media regulator with real teeth :(