Kevin Rudd: rebooted ?
im surprised tonys minders let him go on the 7:30 report.
it never goes well for him when he has to match wits with someone who isnt a retard. |
08:18am 16/08/13 Permalink
I just find it curious that people can be so supportive of the LNP when they haven't outlined their costings yet. I guess, if you're earning a s*** tonne of money and have no care for those who are earning less, then you could. But you would have probably always voted LNP in that case.
|
08:29am 16/08/13 Permalink
it seems like you guys are running out of things to QQ about. Here have a video :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib1VeKDtaP8" |
09:29am 16/08/13 Permalink
Yeah, for people who are so conscious about the economy and value it so highly I would think they would be rather disappointing that none-to-little costings on policies have come out for the Libs.
Surely the Libs wouldn't be promising stuff they can't afford, surely they have already figured out where they are getting the cash from, surely they wouldn't just be trying to buy votes with uncosted policies. In which case, they should be releasing the costings, or at least rough estimates to show they are plausible. Otherwise, voters are effectively voting blind. |
09:38am 16/08/13 Permalink
Sadly Abbott got 58% compared to 18% for Labour in his seat last year, with the Greens snatching 13%. Unfortunately when people are splitting their votes between two parties, even in a preferential system, it's going to make it difficult to solve the problem the best way - ensuing Abbott doens't get elected.
Unfortunately it means you have to convince 12,000 people who voted for Abbott last time - specially for Abbott, as he's their candidate - to vote for someone opposing him. I don't see that happening :( |
09:54am 16/08/13 Permalink
Sounds an awful lot like what people were hoping, last QLD election.
|
10:00am 16/08/13 Permalink
From ABC website. I think the word indefinitely is pushing the no votes up. It puts across the idea that these people will be worked to the bone, sort of like 2nd class citizens. With no other option than work-for-the-dole. Being an ABC website, you would have more labor voters I would think, soft. Tony Abbot, stripping the rights of humans world-wide. haha |
11:06am 16/08/13 Permalink
Just let the f*****s work. I don't get it?
Unfortunately when people are splitting their votes between two parties, even in a preferential system, it's going to make it difficult to solve the problem the best way - ensuing Abbott doens't get elected. Really? Almost all (seriously, well over 90% surely) of the people who voted Greens will have Labor preferenced well ahead of Abbott. So what does the split really matter once the Greens are cut during runoff? The number that matters is the 2PP |
11:12am 16/08/13 Permalink
It only just dawned on me the reason why Coalition is holding back their policies.
They are going to fumble along with little more than sniping at the current government and their policies. Then when it gets closer to election, they are going to start dropping all their policies and numbers and anything else they can. They will be attempting to flood the media with all their information so that what the people see in the last few weeks of the election is: Policies of the Coalition, costings, lots of positive media time for Coalition stuff. Attacks on the Coalition by Labor because Labor have already fired their salvos. This will paint a picture that Labor is being petty and negative, whilst the Coalition are being positive and forward looking. The noise in the lead-up to that will be essentially meaningless. Well played Tony, well played. The foreseeable way Labor can defend against that is to hold off with some big hitting policies/plans, NOT attack the Libs when they do dump their policy carpet bombs. Instead focus hard on their own stuff and get as much air time as possible to take away from the Coalition. |
11:30am 16/08/13 Permalink
I also have a suspicion that attempt to buy votes this election isn't going to work as well as it has previously, there may even be a back-lash to it.
|
11:32am 16/08/13 Permalink
I don't see how making people work for the dole is taking their human right away.
Taking the welfare gravy train away will do wonders in stopping the illegal boat people. abbot will be the next PM and that makes me happy. But the best news of all is support for the greens has dropped |
01:24pm 16/08/13 Permalink
Then when it gets closer to election, they are going to start dropping all their policies and numbers and anything else they can. Last election Labor dropped their election policy costings on the eve of the election for minimal debate and scrutiny... so yeah Liberal can't do much worse than running a budget deficit 6 years in a row and never delivering a surplus. |
01:32pm 16/08/13 Permalink
The Vote compass results are really interesting.
Vote Compass Results Linked is round 2 (I think) of the results. What I am taking from all this is that there is room for a new major political party, once that sits in the center. The results show that the average Labor supporter have about the same concerns and considerations of the Greens. Unsurprisingly on many of the issues the results for Labor supports are almost the exact opposite to the Coalition. To have such polar opposites in our Country is not a good thing when it comes to keeping a strong focus for the country. It will constantly be a battle of 1 government implementing something, than the other government taking it away when they gain power. I myself am torn between the policies of both parties, I like some from one and some from the other, I generally don't like all of one. Not surpisngly I'm also considered an almost dead center voter, I have no major party to vote for that aligns to my views. I am willing to bet there are many, many like me. So for me my vote is split down the middle with a slight lean to the left, mainly due to the NBN and No-Tony. These things may change once the coalition sprout their policies a little better, or vice versa. |
01:36pm 16/08/13 Permalink
Infi, my babblings wasn't about anything deceitful, just what seems like a good strategy, I was giving Tony's team props for it, if that is what they are doing.
|
01:40pm 16/08/13 Permalink
Last election Labor dropped their election policy costings on the eve of the election for minimal debate and scrutiny... so yeahLiberal can't do much worse than running a budget deficit 6 years in a row and never delivering a surplus. Is the answer to every hard question you guys get 'but Labor'? Do you guys get a pamphlet explaining how to do that? |
01:42pm 16/08/13 Permalink
What a load of s*** and you know it. Provide evidence 1 lie the coalition have told since Tony Abbot has been at the helm. It's easy to say "ohh they have have and you know it" without providing any evidence. It's also a load of s*** that murdochs papers aren't biased and slanderous. Newspapers take sides in elections as explained at the top of the thread. In 2007, the so called "murdoch" press took sides with Kevin rudd, however they have a duty to report factual information. I haven't seen "murdoch" press report any fake information. if they weren't then why is his #1 henchmen out here dictating the news. That's just typical spin this whole "OMG HES BEEN APPOINTED EDITOR TO DESTROY THE GOVERNMENT BLAH BLAH" Typical liberal supporter covering his eyes to block out the truth and only believing what he wants.. All i see is frothing that the "murdoch press" is apparently being biased and reporting false information but little evidence is being showed besides "oh this guy has been appointed editor" and "oh it's the murdoch press" and "oh they have taken a side in the election, they must be biased" Tony Abbott said on the 7:30 report last night that they would be releasing policies right up to the last week of the election campaign, Incorrect. The Coalitions policies are out in the open for everyone to see and read. Most voters know the Coalitions policies besides the pretenders who like to pretend they don't have any so they can parrot the line "The coalition doesnt have any policies" What he actually said was that they won't be releasing the costings for their policies until the last week. Please listen carefully instead of spreading false information. and that we wouldn't see the full costings until after the policies have been released. So, it looks like we won't see whats being cut until a few days before the election.Unfortunately I think people are too f*****g stupid in the marginal seats and hear "Stop the boats" and "Get rid of the carbon tax" and "This b**** has sex appeal" and they go, f*****' aye mate, I'm votin' for Tony the f*** Abbott!!Hilarious bit of writing. In your opening line you say they aren't releasing their policies until 1 week before the election and then just below it you state some of their policies, that apparently according to you, they have released yet. Comedy gold. Learn to read and listen, friend. The issue here is, the Liberals have had 4 years to really belt down some good policies whilst they weren't in Government. To be now running into election campaign and releasing policies up until the last week, without costings, that is a bit s***. Even the supporters have to say that. They have. I'm exciting for their infrastructure plans and their plans for northern Australia specifically. But as iv said before, the parrot labor supporters who like to ignore their policies just so they can parrot the line "they don't have any policies" won't ever acknowledge the policies. It's like they are delusionally trying to pretend they don't exist in the hope that it will go away. Lol. |
01:42pm 16/08/13 Permalink
Peter. This is a transcript from last night. Please you should listen/read more carefully too instead of being a douche :)
TONY ABBOTT, OPPOSITION LEADER: Good evening, Leigh. LEIGH SALES: Let me start with a really simple question: when will you level with Australians and say, "Here's a full list of what the Abbott Government is going to spend money on, along with a full list of what we're going to save or cut and here's our plan for a return to surplus"? TONY ABBOTT: Well, Leigh, every policy that we put out will be costed and funded. We intend to keep putting out policies right up into the last week of the election campaign. So, when all our policies are out, we will be able to tell you exactly how much we're gonna spend, exactly how much we're gonna save and exactly what the overall budget bottom line will be and how much better it will be than under the Labour Party. |
01:49pm 16/08/13 Permalink
What I am taking from all this is that there is room for a new major political party, once that sits in the center. they are already both in the center... Is the answer to every hard question you guys get 'but Labor'? the point is that costings are not worth a cracker, they are like farts in the breeze. |
01:53pm 16/08/13 Permalink
Last election Labor dropped their election policy costings on the eve of the election for minimal debate and scrutiny... so yeahLiberal can't do much worse than running a budget deficit 6 years in a row and never delivering a surplus. I'd consider that to be pretty bad if Coalition ends up running a deficit as well. Here we have Abbott claiming he is the second messiah and that Australia is in peril, with the only way out to vote him in. If he turns around after being voted in and gives back a deficit people are going to be somewhat annoyed. |
02:06pm 16/08/13 Permalink
If he turns around after being voted in and gives back a deficit people are going to be somewhat annoyed. do you expect the $250b Kevin Rudd/Labor disaster to be undeone overnight? It takes hard work to fix up a mess this big. |
02:08pm 16/08/13 Permalink
do you expect the $250b Kevin Rudd/Labor disaster to be undeone overnight? It takes hard work to fix up a mess this big.I understand that perfectly well, it isn't easy cleaning any deficit up and I would never expect it to be done overnight. This is why I don't really mind that Labour has gone into deficit, sometimes that is needed for a country and it can take time. Though when you have Abbott claiming he is going to bring the budget back into line, what if he doesn't? What if the methods that he takes to fix the budget further worsen it? I'd love to see a middle-ground party, one that looks at both polar opposites and goes "those are good policies there and there, lets combine them" instead of only choosing one side. It seems so odd that we can't have both, as if there is someone going "no, what Coalition/Labour are doing is bad because they are the opposition." Edit: To be clear, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I've already made up my mind on who I'll be voting (if that wasn't already clear enough). I just enjoy seeing what others think on politics, and their views of where the country should go. |
02:13pm 16/08/13 Permalink
You quoted two different people as one btw.
Nice win-win scenario you've got. Australia moves into surplus: "See, the Coalition got us into surplus" Australia doesn't move into surplus: "Hay steady on, Labor made a big mess, not our fault" If it is OK to say that failing to make a surplus in the next government was because of the previous government, is it also OK to say that successfully moving to surplus in the next government was because of the previous government? edit:
Maybe compared to other Countries, however in this one, Labor is considered left, Coalition Right. There is nothing between them. As Eorl and I have said, it would be good if there was a party that took the good from both sides and ditched the more extreme stuff. Double Edit: Labor lose big points for not being called Labour. |
02:17pm 16/08/13 Permalink
do you expect the $250b Kevin Rudd/Labor disaster to be undeone overnight? It takes hard work to fix up a mess this big. Infi you sound like the Courier-Mail right now. BUDGET DISASTER, trololol. The point is that NO ONE has any real idea of what programs are going to be cut, because Abbott has announced VERY little savings measures, only spending. So, WTF is he cutting? It's hard to have an argument about it when I don't know. http://election.crikey.com.au/cash-tracker/ |
02:17pm 16/08/13 Permalink
The point is that NO ONE has VERY little idea of what programs are going to be cut Think: 1996. When Australia cleaned up after the last Labor disaster. |
02:22pm 16/08/13 Permalink
Perhaps a shake-up of the election campaign rules are in order. Personally I'd like to see a rule that shows all policies must be costed and announced 4 weeks prior to the election date, in order to give people ample time to debate and consider the policies of both sides and would reduce gaming of the system. |
02:24pm 16/08/13 Permalink
Perhaps a shake-up of the election campaign rules are in order. Exactly, how is this already not a rule. I'm not sure of what the ramifications of doing this would be, but surely it's a no brainer?? |
02:26pm 16/08/13 Permalink
Think: 1996. When Australia cleaned up after the last Labor disaster. What about Fraser? Do we only count the most recent Coalition Government (that had the boom times basically from go to whoa) but 2 Labor ones that had shakier conditions? The Fraser Government was in power for 7 years. By 1983-84, the level of net government debt had risen to 7.5% of GDP and would reach 9.3% of GDP in 1984-85 as Treasurer Howard covered up the Budget problems during the 1983 election campaign. Such were the dynamics of the early 1980s domestic and global recession, that net debt rose a bit more over the next year and it peaked at 10.3% of GDP in 1985-86. That Labor disaster, the one that slashed spending after Fraser blew out the budget, had a recession (debt went up) and then had the books square ready for Howard to take over in 96? It looks to me that the legend of Coalition austerity is a myth and only really counts for one Government that never faced a true economic downturn and that all Governments will - rightly - use their chequebook and credit as their lever for massaging the economy through difficult times. |
02:27pm 16/08/13 Permalink
And what would be the consequence for non-compliance?
These are all gentlemens' agreements, like the no notes at the TV debate - they go to the candidates' respective credit. Unless you want to make it a law they go to jail for 5 years if they don't supply costings 4 weeks before election day. |
02:28pm 16/08/13 Permalink
Yeah sure why not, a bit of the fear of law might give them a little nudge in the right direction.
|
02:30pm 16/08/13 Permalink
Zapo that graph is full of s*** crikey is a partisan paper/newssource.
for example Labor are apparently saving $1 b AUD through quote "Other undetailed savings measures" and $1.8 b AUD through quote "Public service efficiency dividend" If you can tell me what either of those are and why the should be included as "savings measures" for Labor I'm all ears. What is Rudd going to drive over the Queanbeyan and say: "Dudes can you work a bit harder for the same money? K THKS BAI." Seems like its a casual $3 billion in savings just given to the Labor party. |
02:32pm 16/08/13 Permalink
That Labor disaster, the one that slashed spending after Fraser blew out the budget? Don't see what that has to do with our current government that wasted taxpayers money on free cash handouts, fatal pink batts and double priced school halls, 20/20 summits and Education Revolutions stopped half way, ETSs on and off and on again, more and more workplace rules, alcopops tax, carbon tax that takes half the tax predicted but employs the same number of bureaucrats, ming tax that takes no tax, billions spent on loose borders, leadership revovling door. What's worse, if we used Treasury estimates to try and navigate this ship, we would be lost permanently in the Bermuda Triangle. This Labor government cannot manage money and must be removed. |
02:36pm 16/08/13 Permalink
Don't see what that has to do with our current government Goes directly to YOUR point about the 'previous Labor disaster', you went to historical deficits and I replied. It also addresses your endless, dull harping about Labor's deficit DNA. I noticed you didn't actually address ANY points I made (I bolded the stuff you would find hardest to accept as a prompt) and went immediately to 'but Labor!' Seriously, show me the f*****g pamphlet already... This Labor government cannot manage money and must be removed. If deficits are unilaterally bad, what about Howard's ones when he was Treasurer? Anything to say about those, he had lots, by my count 5 of 7 budgets? |
02:46pm 16/08/13 Permalink
If deficits are unilaterally bad, what about Howard's ones when he was Treasurer? Anything to say about those, he had lots, by my count 5 of 7 budgets?But the boaaaaattsss! |
02:57pm 16/08/13 Permalink
I love it how people still call it the "Carbon Tax" when it has nothing to do with carbon. If you had a tax on water would you call it the Hydrogen tax?
edit: Can't wait until the permafrost melts |
03:16pm 16/08/13 Permalink
If deficits are unilaterally bad, what about Howard's ones when he was Treasurer? Anything to say about those, he had lots, by my count 5 of 7 budgets? yes, they are bad. all deficits are bad. learn to manage money ffs. an isolated deficit is excusable if the country is on the road to recovery but Australia is presently in structural deficit i.e. its baseline non-discretionary spending commitments exceed normal revenue. when your relative is living beyond their means you tell them to cut up their credit cards and cancel their foxtel; australia needs to do the same right now. if deficits were so good then every country all over the world would just spend endlessly without consequence. the concept of currency as we know it would be destroyed. This Labor govt makes a big song and dance about "making savings" yet they still incur $30b deficits. It's a matter of watch what I say and not what I do. edit: it would be blindly partisan to say Fraser/Howard's deficits were ok. edit 2: andddd.... we're back to the same old Kevin, policy on the run, no consultation: KEY Labor ministers appear to have been caught unawares by Kevin Rudd's northern Australia announcement. |
04:19pm 16/08/13 Permalink
the parrot labor supportersSonny, take a look in the mirror. |
06:19pm 16/08/13 Permalink
yes, they are bad. all deficits are bad. learn to manage money ffs. No, no, no. You're saying that all debt is bad and I know you have a large enough business to realise that this is a stupid, stupid remark. Do you have a line of credit infi? Overdraft? Mortgage? Bet you do. |
06:21pm 16/08/13 Permalink
Do you have a line of credit infi? Overdraft? Mortgage? Bet you do. I use credit cards and pay them off every month - I never pay interest. I have one mortgage for my home - which is a capital item. I don't borrow money for consumable items or holidays or cars or any of that other crap. I don't have my furniture on finance with harvey norman. If my companies ever spend more than I make, I hack, cut, offload, sell non-performing assets, and reduce staff (If I don't, my banks makes me). I also defer capital expenditure until I have the ability to fund it (I have delayed a major IT hardware upgrade for 18 months, could have borrowed the money but I didn't). I only ever borrow to acquire income producing assets. All expenses and consumption must be paid for out of what one makes in income. It is a law like gravity. If you think you can defy that law, just like the tech wreck of 2001 you will go broke. |
06:43pm 16/08/13 Permalink
I use credit cards and pay them off every month - I never pay interest. I have one mortgage for my home - which is a capital item. I don't borrow money for consumable items or holidays or cars or any of that other crap. I don't have my furniture on finance with harvey norman.If my companies ever spend more than I make, I hack, cut, offload, sell non-performing assets, and reduce staff (If I don't, my banks makes me). I also defer capital expenditure until I have the ability to fund it (I have delayed a major IT hardware upgrade for 18 months, could have borrowed the money but I didn't). I only ever borrow to acquire income producing assets. All expenses and consumption must be paid for out of what one makes in income. It is a law like gravity. If you think you can defy that law, just like the tech wreck of 2001 you will go broke. but infi, as a firm LNP man, I would have thought you'd have sold your main assets and outsourced them (ie, sold the house and rented it), outsourced your car needs, which would save you 40k+ and just use a taxi, outsourced your IT needs, rent smart and so on |
06:57pm 16/08/13 Permalink
I run my business my way, LNP runs it their way. I don't have public servants and antiquated union agreements to deal with. Govt does. That is a big factor in a lot of their outsourcing decisions.
|
07:05pm 16/08/13 Permalink
ey dazza just buy the carton on credit we won't have to pay for months, she'll be right.
/Australia |
07:32pm 16/08/13 Permalink
If you think you can defy that law, just like the tech wreck of 2001 you will go brokedo you mean 2008? or the dot com boom? cuz my recollection of 2001 was that it was a bunch of people that wanted to get rich off THE INTERNETZ finding out that you couldn't just put money into a bunch of guys who had a computer and then get rich under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES I have delayed a major IT hardware upgrade for 18 months, could have borrowed the money but I didn'tif you ever want to talk to a computer person that is going to advise you not to upgrade because XP does everything you need - I'm your guy. |
07:40pm 16/08/13 Permalink
cuz my recollection of 2001 was that it was a bunch of people that wanted to get rich off THE INTERNETZ finding out that you couldn't just put money into a bunch of guys who had a computer and then get rich under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES the morale of 2001 was that companies need to make PROFITS. Similarly 2008 told us governments can't spend what they don't have indefinitely. Australia is not exempt from this - it is still doing OK but it needs to get its house in order. It needs to cut fat, all governments bloat on a cyclical manner, it is the essential nature of public servants and politicians to build empires. Gillard and Rudd have delivered 6 successive MASSIVE deficits. They don't really have a plan to get into surplus any time soon because they keep piling on the new spending. if you ever want to talk to a computer person that is going to advise you not to upgrade because XP does everything you need - I'm your guy. i think I am still running 3.11 |
07:48pm 16/08/13 Permalink
I'm missing something, isn't mortgage debt?
|
07:50pm 16/08/13 Permalink
I'm missing something, isn't mortgage debt? there is debt to keep a roof over your head, and then there is debt to pay for your foxtel. which debt is more important? |
07:51pm 16/08/13 Permalink
Gee infi, its almost like China told big porkies about their future economic growth and all the big mining projects shut down because of the tanking iron ore price, or the drop in LNG prices because of fracking.
But f*** Labor, right? |
07:57pm 16/08/13 Permalink
whats that got to do with all the new welfare and social spending labor implemented?
|
08:01pm 16/08/13 Permalink
The fact that there was a massive hit to the budget projections that you keep banging on about. It's like trying to blame the ALP for the GFC.
all the new welfare and social spending labor implemented? That kind of spending is miniscule when compared to the impacts of the external factors that neither party could've done much about. You're talking about shaving margins when there are big chunks being snatched out of the Australian economy and its all so much bulls***. I understand that you need to paint the narrative that Labor is damaging our economy, but its really got very little to do with it. |
08:25pm 16/08/13 Permalink
there is debt to keep a roof over your head, and then there is debt to pay for your foxtel.which debt is more important? OMG you went into debt to get a roof over your head...... How silly is that. You really need a better accountant and tax havens.. |
08:33pm 16/08/13 Permalink
So we've established that in the hard times Howard was a s*** Treasurer who delivered deficits and whose Government - that couldn't 'manage its money' ffs - required massive Labor spending cuts (lol!) to return to the black. Correct me if I'm wrong there infi?
Mind you, I don't personally think he did anything wrong. Recessions and economic downturns are hard, sometimes deficits are the lesser of evils. I'm just following your logic here. Anyway, back on your silly rhetoric, the only real post-dismissal evidence of Coalition properly 'managing their money' was during the once-per-lifetime boom when money poured into Government coffers ... and even a failed Treasurer (your metric, not mine!) could oversee it? |
08:42pm 16/08/13 Permalink
Whatever you say! Keeping in mind that Labors revenues through 2008-2013 onwards are all higher than 2007. Sooo that's a bit awkward. You may not be aware but the "revenue collapse" referred to by the Labor government (both Swan and now Bowen) actually means that revenue has not grown at 8% per annum as per the completely useless Treasury projections.
What kind of incompetent Treasurer would run with Treasury forecasts of 8% growth in revenue per year to make up for their wasteful spendathon? When has Australia has ever had 8% growth in tax receipts year on year? Labor cannot manage its expenses which have grown every year. |
08:50pm 16/08/13 Permalink
So you're back on 'but Labor!'
OK then. You may not be aware but the "revenue collapse" referred to by the Labor government (both Swan and now Bowen) actually means that revenue has not grown at 8% per annum as per the completely useless Treasury projections.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5ko-n37P8OI/TSLR_evgNUI/AAAAAAAAA8c/z6emYLEcDJs/s1600/Revenue-as-per-cent-of-GDP.jpg Next? |
09:17pm 16/08/13 Permalink
Well they are the government at the moment right? They are the one being judged on the current performance. Or are you one of those let's live in yesteryear types?
|
09:19pm 16/08/13 Permalink
Well they are the government at the moment right? They are the one being judged on the current performance. Or are you one of those let's live in yesteryear types? No, once again I was responding to your remarks about previous Governments. If you don't like political history, then don't bring it up infi? I personally think that deficits during challenging economic times are an appropriate Government buffer and good use of national credit. If you have a great credit rating and don't use it to benefit your citizen's welfare during turbulent economic times ... what's the point? So yeh, to ME 70s Howard wasn't especially out of line, and probably did a good job - but then neither is contemporary Labor to be called to account for a deficit following the GFC. The corollary though is that I see nothing in the Howard years to support the notion that they are better economic managers during times of economic uncertainty ... do you have an example where the Coalition has delivered surpluses and growth during a wider global economic downturn? I don't think that's happened. Which brings it down to boats and NBN? |
09:26pm 16/08/13 Permalink
STOP THE BOATS This is what happens when the crazy cat lady and the rest of her crew is called out on their s***** policies and any kind of scrutiny is placed on them. Massive hissy. She's such a b****. |
10:10pm 16/08/13 Permalink
and growth during a wider global economic downturn you don't remember the Asian economic crisis where our currency dropped to US55c do you? the Australian economy worked perfectly. no stimulus required. |
10:13pm 16/08/13 Permalink
I'll bite, since currency dominates my way of thinking/planning - would it be fair to say that when the dollar was at 55c, exports and overseas investments were very solid, not to mention the injections from increased tourism during that time, which helped to buffer things?
But then, I still don't fully understand how buying cheap flatscreen tvs manufactured overseas with a stimulus cheque = healthy economy. Particularly when you look at the psychology behind contemporary Australian consumerism. |
12:31am 17/08/13 Permalink
PETER Beattie has declared himself a "fighter" after two devastating opinion polls showing he has put Labor's vote in reverse and is facing a shock annihilation. Queenslanders haven't forgotten, Petter. |
02:55am 17/08/13 Permalink
i don't follow politics as keenly as the rest of you, and i think i'll still have to vote (i think, someone feel free to correct me if i'm wrong) even though I'm now living in Toronto, but i have enjoyed the back and forth between infi and hog! no closer to working out who to vote for cos i won't be back for a while, not that anything changed for me at all when governments changed as a single white middle class bloke
|
03:22am 17/08/13 Permalink
Funky, how long have you been living overseas? If you've been in Toronto for 3+ years and have no intention of returning any time soon, you're off the hook. In my case, I was initially switched to "optional" voting (weird!!) for the last Election in 2010, which I skipped (TERRIBLE CHOICES).
Now I'm officially off the role. Also, STILL TERRIBLE CHOICES http://aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/overseas/index.htm This site also lets you check your enrollment status, which will confirm whether you are meant to vote (compulsory) or not. |
05:32am 17/08/13 Permalink
cheers mate, i've only been away from Australia since Nov last year, in toronto a few months now, so i imagine i'm still on the roll.
|
07:55am 17/08/13 Permalink
I still don't fully understand how buying cheap flatscreen tvs manufactured overseas with a stimulus cheque = healthy economy. meh, it seemed to work for most countries that trailed those policies. i'm guessing increasing spending increases confidence in the market which increases buying which increases spending which increases confidence in the market. It's all just speculation really. |
09:16am 17/08/13 Permalink
If a start up business goes into debt to acquire all the capital they need, using perhaps the owners houses as collateral, whilst being a risky move it doesn't mean it is bad debt.
This business may not produce income until after a certain point in growth, well into debt. Several years pass and this business is making a tidy profit and paying off their debt, they were once in a controlled deficit, but now in a surplus. They employ lots of people. This is bad? |
09:30am 17/08/13 Permalink
Labor is unlikely to preference the Greens
Coalition wont and now Xenephon says he wont be either which means Hanson-Young wont make it back into the Senate. This is going to be a very bad Election for The Greens. ...and Im all broken up over that. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greens_no_longer_preferred/ |
10:27am 17/08/13 Permalink
Faceman votes CECAust. what a s***hole.
|
10:44am 17/08/13 Permalink
Rudd and his candidate ignoring Sex Appeal.
http://images.scribblelive.com/2013/8/16/ddf331ee-7acd-4406-a1da-aa2b348bcbcb_500.jpg |
02:33pm 17/08/13 Permalink
08:40pm 17/08/13 Permalink
That gets the award for most lies in one picture. ^
|
09:01pm 17/08/13 Permalink
09:01pm 17/08/13 Permalink
dafuq lmao?
amazing what the labor/green coalition come up with also it's not "Carbon" pricing at all - it's Carbon Dioxide |
09:05pm 17/08/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Unintelligible |
09:19pm 17/08/13 Permalink
Holy crap HurricaneJim, those pictures are not helping your cause...
We all should in no-way be voting for a party through fear of having someone else voted in. People shouldn't be voting Liberal because they don't want Labor in power, they should be voting Liberal because they want Liberals in power. The same goes for Labor. The fact that we have SO MANY images/discussions about how bad the other party is, suggests people are not voting the party they want in, they are trying to vote the party they don't want out not caring so much as to who gets in instead. The scary part is most of us can't argue/discuss without attacking another party (usually the polar opposite), myself included. So lets all try and make a gentleman's agreement to discuss the policies of the party that aligns with your thoughts the most, and refrain from attack another party because they are different. Can we do that? How many posts will it take to break that? |
09:55am 18/08/13 Permalink
10:34am 18/08/13 Permalink
Moms early onset dementia isn't covered by Tony's redefinition of a "disability", so that's making it worse. |
10:40am 18/08/13 Permalink
holy s***, who is this HurricaneJim retard??
|
10:46am 18/08/13 Permalink
But then, I still don't fully understand how buying cheap flatscreen tvs manufactured overseas with a stimulus cheque = healthy economy. Particularly when you look at the psychology behind contemporary Australian consumerism. Ain't nothing about economics can't be explained away with The West Wing ;) |
10:53am 18/08/13 Permalink
Rudd and his candidate ignoring Sex Appeal. Guy next to Kevvy doesn't appear to be ignoring it. We all should in no-way be voting for a party through fear of having someone else voted in. People shouldn't be voting Liberal because they don't want Labor in power, they should be voting Liberal because they want Liberals in power. The same goes for Labor. The fact that we have SO MANY images/discussions about how bad the other party is, suggests people are not voting the party they want in, they are trying to vote the party they don't want out not caring so much as to who gets in instead. The scary part is most of us can't argue/discuss without attacking another party (usually the polar opposite), myself included. So lets all try and make a gentleman's agreement to discuss the policies of the party that aligns with your thoughts the most, and refrain from attack another party because they are different. Can we do that? How many posts will it take to break that? Best post yet ITT |
10:58am 18/08/13 Permalink
Eorl the government will still allow an exemption on Religious or Medical grounds.
|
11:25am 18/08/13 Permalink
So lets all try and make a gentleman's agreement to discuss the policies of the party that aligns with your thoughts the most, and refrain from attack another party because they are different. I like the Coalition and Tony Abbott because he will stop the boats, stop the debt and deficit, and build an affordable broadband network. |
11:39am 18/08/13 Permalink
holy s***, who is this HurricaneJim retard?? QGL's resident labor minister for propaganda. |
11:54am 18/08/13 Permalink
Well Jim has finally convinced me to lump him in with Spook and Infi as people not worth listening to in a political debate.
|
12:20pm 18/08/13 Permalink
Eorl the government will still allow an exemption on Religious or Medical grounds.Yeah that is the only stupid bit. Sure exemption because of medical reasons is fine, but even religion shouldn't stop immunisation. We need herd mentality in this kind of medical approach, and if people break that mentality then it screws up. |
01:09pm 18/08/13 Permalink
Well Jim has finally convinced me to lump him in with Spook and Infi as people not worth listening to in a political debate. You were leaning that way in anycase. Yet in your 5000+ posts I still don't know who you are. |
02:01pm 18/08/13 Permalink
i don't follow politics as keenly as the rest of you, and i think i'll still have to vote (i think, someone feel free to correct me if i'm wrong) even though I'm now living in Toronto you can vote at the consulate-general, that's what I'm doing, although I think you'd have to have registered as an overseas elector |
02:15pm 18/08/13 Permalink
Interesting TED talk but thats not really relevant to us in Australia as our tax laws aren't nerarly as broken as the US.
|
04:55pm 18/08/13 Permalink
Yeah that is the only stupid bit. Sure exemption because of medical reasons is fine, but even religion shouldn't stop immunisation. We need herd mentality in this kind of medical approach, and if people break that mentality then it screws up. We're talking 1% vs. 2% here. The real issues we've got on our hands are a lack of antibiotics funding and certain strains of bacteria becoming resistant to EVERYTHING we have. We're heading into the post-antibiotic era (and there's certain things that have an 84% chance of killing you). |
05:06pm 18/08/13 Permalink
I'm surprised no one has talked about the paid parental leave scheme.
6 months at your wage up to a total of $75k paid (so $150k PA wage). Excessive? |
05:12pm 18/08/13 Permalink
It's such a terrible policy. I also doubt it will ever go through the back bench once they are in government.
|
05:33pm 18/08/13 Permalink
It's such a terrible policy. I also doubt it will ever go through the back bench once they are in government. Have to /respect that man, but how does that work, don't they have to vote the company line, especially if there's a mandate? |
06:40pm 18/08/13 Permalink
Have to /respect that man, but how does that work, don't they have to vote the company line, especially if there's a mandate? There is no rule about toeing the line in the Coalition. Individual MPs often cross the floor, Barnaby was a well known culprit. You have mistaken the Coalition for the ALP which forbids crossing the floor; the consequences being expulsion from the party. |
06:47pm 18/08/13 Permalink
Well Jim has finally convinced me to lump him in with Spook and Infi as people not worth listening to in a political debate. :*( im a voice of reason on the qgls |
06:57pm 18/08/13 Permalink
There is no rule about toeing the line in the Coalition. Individual MPs often cross the floor, Barnaby was a well known culprit. You have mistaken the Coalition for the ALP which forbids crossing the floor; the consequences being expulsion from the party. How often does it happen in practice though? I assume its bad for your career. How does a backbench revolt over outrageous election policy fit in with the whole "we are a united team" s***? |
07:01pm 18/08/13 Permalink
How does a backbench revolt over outrageous election policy fit in with the whole "we are a united team" s***? Malcolm lost the Liberal leadership via backbench revolt over the ETS. I recall Howard backflipped qucikly over GST on fuel excise as did he on the original Anti-Terror Bill. I have lost track of the number of backflips performed by the ALP over polling and backbencher concerns. It does happen from time to time. |
07:07pm 18/08/13 Permalink
Yeh I get that, just seems like a weird place to be 2 weeks out given all the rhetoric about stability. Shame there won't be a backbench revolt over the NBN being cut back for the rest of the build :P
Before I forget, some chucklef*** was banging on about LNP in the Federal Election a few pages back. Whoever that was, you're not being clever at all - QLD residents voting Coalition choose candidates from the "Liberal National Party of Queensland". |
07:16pm 18/08/13 Permalink
* * * * STOP THE BOATS UPDATE * * * *
http://www.theage.com.au/national/asylum-seeker-boat-intercepted-with-205-on-board-20130818-2s4pt.html#ixzz2cIwlB7W4 the Boats are getting bigger ! |
07:53pm 18/08/13 Permalink
It's such a terrible policy. I also doubt it will ever go through the back bench once they are in government.Nice to see you agreeing on some of the more bull Lib policies. If they are going to be cutting the big business tax by 1.5% but then impose a 1.5% tax on business to cover the baby bonus, won't they be back to square one? Is it just smoke and mirrors? |
08:06pm 18/08/13 Permalink
If they are going to be cutting the big business tax by 1.5% but then impose a 1.5% tax on business to cover the baby bonus, won't they be back to square one? Is it just smoke and mirrors? there is no way to explain it, it is completely flawed. it is middle class welfare taken to the extreme. and why only tax big business? it's weak policy. |
08:18pm 18/08/13 Permalink
Interesting TED talk but thats not really relevant to us in Australia as our tax laws aren't nerarly as broken as the US. The relevance is the "trickledown effect" often moot by the LNP which is a fallacy. The rich and big corporations don't spend more with lower taxes. |
09:25pm 18/08/13 Permalink
There is a pretty big difference where the top 1% in America pay 16% and here were we pay a min of 30%. Their system is clearly broken. Here jobs are encouraged more because we get tax incentives for creating jobs.
It's too much of a stretch to tie an American problem to the LNP. Keep throwing mud though eventually something will stick. |
11:31pm 18/08/13 Permalink
the Boats are getting bigger ! enjoy PNG I guess..? |
01:32am 19/08/13 Permalink
07:50am 19/08/13 Permalink
There is no rule about toeing the line in the Coalition. Individual MPs often cross the floor, Barnaby was a well known culprit. You have mistaken the Coalition for the ALP which forbids crossing the floor; the consequences being expulsion from the party. This is absolute bulls***. They don't cross the floor often at all, and you don't get front bench positions from crossing the floor and can effectively lose them by doing so (how often have Mal Washer and Judi Moylan been on the front bench?). Not only that, but you are referencing the national party and acting like they are one party which they patently aren't, which highlights the fundamental stupidness of Abbott's 'won't negotiate with smaller parties' bs. Unless of course he means that Warren Truss is going to sit on the crossbenches after this election. It was pure rhetoric to try and wedge The Greens & Labor. For someone who wants to 'submit himself to the will of the people' it is offensive that if the will of the people is to give us a hung parliament he would refuse to work under those conditions. Best case scenario in my eyes is we get another hung parliament, Labor get a wakeup call to some of Rudds bs (the economic zone is some of the worst hurried policy I have ever seen, (no actual policy just a press release!) but the coalition doesn't get a mandate to do some stupid policy decisions like the PPL & changing the NBN. Only problem is no Oakshott & Windsor this time around. |
08:10am 19/08/13 Permalink
Best case scenario in my eyes is we get another hung parliament Please no. A clear winner, thanks. |
08:13am 19/08/13 Permalink
I think it's unlikely there will be another hung parliament.
LNP is paying $1.09 on sportsbet ALP is paying $7.25. As much as I hate to say it, I think we're f***ed. |
08:30am 19/08/13 Permalink
Uh oh, Rudd's wheels are starting to fall off as well
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-19/rudds-popularity-falls-again-in-newspoll/4895162 |
09:32am 19/08/13 Permalink
http://images.smh.com.au/2013/08/15/4663685/syd-6be9okxkudc19id4726e_original.jpg
Who are the 22%?! Edit: SMH's math seems a bit weird though ;) Edit Edit: http://i.imgur.com/yufr9wP.png From my local MPs website - he's a LNP dude. A little awks ;) |
10:29am 19/08/13 Permalink
lol the NBN discussions over on the whirlpool forums is hilarious. Mass amounts of people on there are actually donating to Labor and are planning to vote for them JUST for the NBN.
It's like their nerd rage blocks out everything else that is important and just makes them focus on downloading games and movies quicker. It's pathetic. THis election has more at stake than the NBN. |
11:40am 19/08/13 Permalink
Edit: SMH's math seems a bit weird though ;) Heh, yeah. Of course Labor's plan is going to cost a little more, they're putting the NBN into 104% of premises. |
12:24pm 19/08/13 Permalink
don't forget pr0n QANDA tonight is Bowen vs. Hockey. Should be better than usual, their radio interview last week was entertaining. |
12:42pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Is Hockey going to explain how he's going to pay for everything?
Also is he going to explain the age of entitlement we are about to be entering with his new paid parental leave scheme? |
12:58pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Also is he going to explain the age of entitlement we are about to be entering with his new paid parental leave scheme? we have been in the age of entitlement for a long time. middle class welrfare is thoroughly entrenched in Australia. |
12:59pm 19/08/13 Permalink
THis election has more at stake than the NBN. You're forgetting that the only people that vote labor are the people who want immediate personal gain without foresight or considering who pays for it, generally speaking of course. |
01:00pm 19/08/13 Permalink
The age of entitlement is also going to extend to big business according to the Liberal finance minister.
“We are an oligopoly community. We shouldn’t fight it. We should make the most of it. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/we-are-an-oligopoly-economy-robb/story-fn91v9q3-1226699531519 This is such a depressing view of how the world will be under a liberal government. |
01:08pm 19/08/13 Permalink
It's like their nerd rage blocks out everything else that is important and just makes them focus on downloading games and movies quicker. not surprisingly it's a big issue for people who aren't usually pandered to by political parties ("working families" etc) |
01:16pm 19/08/13 Permalink
we have been in the age of entitlement for a long time. middle class welrfare is thoroughly entrenched in Australia. just look at spook |
01:25pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Azaria seems like a hung parliament is the general population not really saying much of anything.
But reading on the abc website today, Rudd is in all kinds of trouble and it looks like the LNP is picking up the green vote(greens down/alp not up). I think you're on drugs if you think there is going to be a hung parliament again. It's going to be a solid to land slide victory for the LNP. With that said I don't really get the stigma surrounding the the hung parliament. Regardless of what infi et al say, it seems like it wasn't a huge barrier to legislating which is what they are there to do. What ever the outcome, the best case scenario is Rudd is hounded from office never to appear in a leadership role again. That guy needs to f*** off once and for all. |
01:27pm 19/08/13 Permalink
This is such a depressing view of how the world will be under a liberal government. as compared to a monpoly internet access provider... derp |
01:38pm 19/08/13 Permalink
it seems like it wasn't a huge barrier to legislating which is what they are there to do unless you are one red headed ex-prime minister who had to go back on her word regarding a certain tax due to needing to enter into a minority government with those green clowns |
01:41pm 19/08/13 Permalink
does the government actually provide the internet or just teh tubes
|
01:41pm 19/08/13 Permalink
lol the NBN discussions over on the whirlpool forums is hilarious. Mass amounts of people on there are actually donating to Labor and are planning to vote for them JUST for the NBN.It's like their nerd rage blocks out everything else that is important and just makes them focus on downloading games and movies quicker. It's pathetic. THis election has more at stake than the NBN.I wouldn't consider it pathetic, why should you? The NBN isn't just about MORE PRON LUL its actually about stability in the network and more modern infrastructure. It is clear that you are one of the people who could care less what speed they got, as long as you can access your Googles and your YouTubes you are sweet. Sadly, that should not be the case for Australia. We should be pushing for modern and new infrastructure that will help us as a country grow into new fields. At this current time with copper wiring usages, we can barely offer any substantial benefits from networking. You may scoff at the idea of Skyping with your doctor or business calls that don't get dropped out, but these are things that can help a number of industries. My job as a journalist requires substantial amounts of networking. Sometimes I have to RDP into work on weekends and it can be slow at times (even on cable but luckily not always). My job is the Internet believe it or not and if my vote can help shape by job to be better, why would I not do that? Saying that this election is purely about the NBN is stupid, I agree with that. A country won't be successful just on networking infrastructure, but it sure as hell will help move it along from the dark ages. Honestly if we had people with your mindset of "what we have now is perfectly fine because I never use more than 20GB" then we would be stuck in dial up. We need to upgrade, the rest of the world is doing it so why lay back and wait? It isn't just right now, but the future generations that gain access to this new infrastructure. Long-distance schooling becomes possible over Skype, hell schools in general would evolve into a more digital-embracing age. Hospitals can benefit, business can benefit, government can benefit. Pretty much everyone in Australia will benefit from a proper and well-thought out NBN, not some half-assed "the future generations can handle the costs." |
01:43pm 19/08/13 Permalink
labor's sure done a ham fisted job of promoting the thing
a proper, once in a lifetime, root and branches replacement of an obsolete phone network should pretty much sell itself, I mean as trivial as HDTV and faster pr0nz are, people do actually want these things |
01:54pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Eorl it is about more pron lul.
Skyping with your doctor simply isn't a substitute for an examination. It might be nice but a serious paradigm shifting development for the medical industry? You're having a laugh. What is the issue with it being for more pron or you tube or what ever? It's all still business. Supposedly netflix takes up something 30% of all bandwidth in the US. Everything you mentioned is possible with existing technology. Long distance schooling has been done effectively for the last hundred years using radio. Moreover failure to have a 1GBPS connection isn't a deal breaker for skyping to school. I work 100% remotely but I still don't spring for the fastest internet I can buy. The cost-benefit just isn't there. However if I could affordably get internet that made streaming hd movies realistic, I'd consider springing. This nation building for the benefit humanity crap that generates nerd rage is a trap you should just not walk into. Who f*****g cares what people use super fast internet for, if they pay its the only reason that matters. |
01:56pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Moreover failure to have a 1GBPS connection isn't a deal breaker for skyping to school. Depends how many students you have. I can tell you 50MBps/50MBps at a school in a capital city ... skype be busted. |
02:10pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Doesn't skype have a hosted server model?
I would think it would be enough for the school to have a good connection and the remote students less so. |
02:13pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Azaria seems like a hung parliament is the general population not really saying much of anything. It only looks like the general population not really saying anything if you look at it as an overall country thing instead of looking at individual electorates with essentially protest votes against the Nats and Labor in traditional heartland areas. I never said I think there will be one, only that in my opinion it isn't that bad a result considering either of the alternatives :) I sat in watching a few different parliamentary committees and I found it an absolute disgrace how little understanding some of the major party pollies actually understood policy they were there to discuss and instead just towed party lines and argued against each other for the sake of it. The indies I watched actually understood what they were referencing and took it seriously. I think it's a shame that won't happen again when I believe the last parliament actually demonstrated how the system is meant to work, if you look externally and not at the internal wrangling which I really don't give a f*** about. |
02:20pm 19/08/13 Permalink
My job as a journalist requires substantial amounts of networking. Sometimes I have to RDP into work on weekends and it can be slow at times (even on cable but luckily not always). Uhh... huh? Oh! Yep, I'm with you now, THAT type of networking. |
02:20pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Skyping with your doctor simply isn't a substitute for an examination there are so many reason to see a doctor without actually needing a physical examination or needing to be touched by a doctor ie. when i finish all my cancer treatment in a few months, i have to have 3 or 6 monthly tests or whatever it is for the next 5 years while i am in remission and i will have to go and see my doctor at the hospital and pay for the parking and waste my time away from work every time to get results from a blood test, that is pretty much about it i think or he could just skype it to me |
02:27pm 19/08/13 Permalink
but if its just test results, your personal situation not withstanding, what is wrong with email? Or for that matter a phone call? What is HD visuals bringing to the party exactly?
|
02:32pm 19/08/13 Permalink
not really sure bro but they definitely won't do a phone call or an email even if it just telling you a result from a blood test
it is about the face to face imagine my situation x 12123434 of others like me in my situation and not just people in my situation regarding the hospital, GP's do exactly the same thing when they get you to do an xray or blood test or anything - you have to go in face to face to be told that the test was clear or whatever |
02:40pm 19/08/13 Permalink
I get that it is annoying and a bit silly to have people coming in for a five minute face to face for test results to say everything is great still.
If they value personal interaction as highly as they appear to why would they suddenly feel Skype is good enough? Anyway the point I was getting at is that I seriously doubt the NBN is going to spark a fundamental shift in the industry. Most of this talk for the NBN and medicine is to do with magic remote diagnosis which is just not going to happen. |
02:47pm 19/08/13 Permalink
but if its just test results, your personal situation not withstanding, what is wrong with email? Or for that matter a phone call? What is HD visuals bringing to the party exactly? Stability. Stability. Stability. Where I used to live if it rained heavily my connection would drop out constantly, there's obviously f***ed copper somewhere which would need to be replaced. Fibre, especially shiny new fibre is much much more resilient than s***** old copper. As far as I'm concerned the only way that the NBN isn't worth it at the moment, is if the ALP have a massive cost blowout, the cost difference between both policies isn't significant enough given the difference in the end result. I also don't think it's stupid for anyone for anyone to decide they are voting on one particular issue alone if it's important to them. That being said there's quite a few reasons I'm not voting for the LNP this election - so I certainly don't have that problem. |
02:48pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Stability. Stability. Stability. Where I used to live if it rained heavily my connection would drop out constantly, there's obviously f***ed copper somewhere which would need to be replaced. Fibre, especially shiny new fibre is much much more resilient than s***** old copper. Er how does that address what you quoted in any way at all? |
02:51pm 19/08/13 Permalink
It goes to the larger conversation about talking to a doctor or medical professional or anyone for that matter using video. I don't know if you've worked in an environment where you have the choice of a phone call or a Video Conference, but using video, actually seeing the person makes the entire experience a) More productive and b) More personal.
...well, unless you're using Copper and it rains and the connection drops out. Stability is a HUGE area of difference between the two plans, unless the LNP wants to replace all the copper while they're at it? |
02:55pm 19/08/13 Permalink
The larger conversation I was talking about was some wide spread abandonment of face to face meetings in favour of remote video calls in the medical industry. It can already be done and they don't, it's not an argument about the technological ability to do it.
|
03:10pm 19/08/13 Permalink
So you think that the reliability and up-take of broadband internet has no bearing on what services are developed and offered? I'm pretty sure if everyone Australia wide had access to reliable, stable and 'fast' internet then companies would look at the delivery of their services, and if they could take advantage of 'technology' to reduce their costs they would.
All it takes is one company to do something innovative in the space, and for people to respond to it and, boom, you now have a standard. |
03:15pm 19/08/13 Permalink
The Opposition leader clarified his stance on lower house how-to-vote cards, saying that the Greens should be preferenced last of all the significant parties because they are "anti-jobs". Tony Abbot must read my posts on Ausgamers, because that's one of my lines lol. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-features/federal-election-2013-another-poll-shows-labor-headed-for-election-loss/story-fnho52jj-1226699637979 |
03:24pm 19/08/13 Permalink
The overwhelming majority of people in Australia have access to an internet connection that could be used to get a skype meeting with their GP, and it hasn't happened. Expanding that to all industry and saying the NBN won't affect anyone, is a f*****g moronic implication to take from what I'm saying, and also clearly not what I'm saying.
You suck at argument dude. You're firing non sequitur after non sequitur. |
03:27pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Think about reality and not NBN fantasy land for a minute.
I run aged care services for 200 residents. If I offered to them to see their GP via skype they would tell me thanks but no thanks. People see GPs in person because they like the personal contact. Normal people are not socially retarded neckbeards like the NBN fan club in here. Normal people find seeing other people IRL to be pleasant and enjoyable and stimulating. Plus they are paying taxes to get to see their GP IRL so they will go the effort to see them! yeah like you are going to feel my thyroid gland over the Skypes. Get a clue. |
03:33pm 19/08/13 Permalink
To be honest I think there are few better places to try to justify the cost of the ALP NBN than with seeing a GP. My comment about stability of the network is still valid, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with offering health services.
Oh, one more (side) question - are the 'nodes' the LNP are using going to be capable of supporting FTTH if a premises decided they wanted to deploy fibre from the node to the premises? Where everyone else was still using copper for the last leg? |
03:37pm 19/08/13 Permalink
I run aged care services for 200 residents. If I offered to them to see their GP via skype they would tell me thanks but no thanks. People see GPs in person because they like the personal contact. You are living in the now, the NBN is about the future... in 20 years time you are going to have a significantly different type of demographic of age care residents who won't give 2 f**** about seeing a GP in person. |
03:46pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Really,
$40b to give people and option they might but probably won't take up? As opposed to creating the media distribution of the future. Well to each his own I guess. Your comment about stability was valid and irrelevant, like I was saying. Anywho, It suffices to say that I don't find broadband policy a particularly important one for this election. What ever the outcome of the election we are gonna sink at least $30b into it which I consider excessive. |
03:48pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Latency is what will really drive a shift into acceptance of teleconferencing, and other remote tech and further transforming it in ways we have yet to conceive.
Labor's plan would greatly reduce the latency of the nation, I have yet to see ANYTHING for Liberals plan when it comes to latency. In fact, I have fears their system may make it worse due to the node boxes they have, that would be an utter failure if that happens. So please, Liberal supporters, if you do have any information as to how Liberals plan will affect latency, please share as that is just as important as bandwidth. |
04:15pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Those who want lower latency will be able to pay for it by paying for a fibre connection to their house, or by moving to one of the nominated fibre roll out zones.
|
04:51pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Oh, one more (side) question - are the 'nodes' the LNP are using going to be capable of supporting FTTH if a premises decided they wanted to deploy fibre from the node to the premises? Where everyone else was still using copper for the last leg?I don't think they've said anything about the node and how it will work for those taking up the $4,000 transition. Does FTTH connect through a node to the premise or ? |
04:52pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Those who want lower latency will be able to pay for it by paying for a fibre connection to their house, or by moving to one of the nominated fibre roll out zones. Yeh that model sounds like fun in the UK, apparently you have to pay a yearly cable fee on top of installation? :( |
05:15pm 19/08/13 Permalink
You know about business Infi, having everyone on ultra low latency networks allows business to innovate into the new infrastructure. In many cases I'm sure, a cortical mass of people would be needed for these cases to happen? What are they you say, I don't know I'm not much of an entrepreneur and innovator, I am however aware that those types of people thrive with new environments/infrastructure. Instead, lets just take no risks, keep everything conservative and hold Australia back, we can rely on the mines to keep us afloat surely. |
05:36pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Those who want lower latency will be able to pay for it by paying for a fibre connection to their house, or by moving to one of the nominated fibre roll out zones. q1: Anyone know where the fibre roll out zones are on the Coalition plan? q2: Does this mean that they are doing FTTP in some places, which all taxpayers pay for? Doesn't sound like a fair shake of the sauce bottle to me if my taxes pay for someone else's FTTP while I only get FTTN, then I have to fork out extra if I want FTTP? WTFTTP?AMIRITE? |
06:08pm 19/08/13 Permalink
You know about business Infi, having everyone on ultra low latency networks allows business to innovate into the new infrastructure. In many cases I'm sure, a cortical mass of people would be needed for these cases to happen? No problem with that. It's just that business are normally the ones required to take business risks. See how the Cross City tunnel in Sydney, the Clem 7 in Brisbane and the Airport Link have all been financial failures where the risk was born by the private sector, but now we are making an investment many times the size of any of these projects at the risk of the taxpayer. So if it doesn't perform financially the loss is sunk into the budget bottom line (in addition to Labor's massive interests costs to repay cash handouts, and pink batts and school halls and all other debt fueled spending). From a logical point of view I also cannot reconcile how multiple mobile networks have been rolled out over Australia, so why can't a fibre optic network can be rolled out by private sector. Telcos want to make more money if this is profitable they will do it. I know we would all like fibre to our home (I have it but that is because I selected my home on that basis). We would all like a hospital, a primary school and a high school in our suburb too, and maybe a westfield and a nice big park. But we cannot have it all, and to have it all costs a lot of money. Who pays for that? NOT ME! HAH. It seems like a no brainer, imagine getting a whole fibre optic network for FREE! Who wouldn't go for it. It's government printed money, it's no cost to anyone. It's invisible and MAGIC! And this line that the NBNCo pays for itself, well plenty of people have borrowed a stack of dough and said their investment will pay it back in the end. It's the greatest con in business. Most money borrowers are full of s*** and have not done a lot of research about their business model, and the NBNCO falls into that exact same category. I would love fibre to my businesses, both of which are not on the 3 year radar currently. I think that for 90% society the technologies rolling out through high speed mobile and VDSL and whatever is around the corner, these cheaper alternatives will satisfy their needs and that pure 100mbit cable will be limited to niches of the population that ABSOLUTELY NEED IT. Residents and businesses that NEED 100mbit will eventually migrate to those areas, just as people do for high quality schooling or hospital access. |
06:12pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Residents and businesses that NEED 100mbit will eventually migrate to those areas. Which is why so many Aussies go overseas with their tech heavy companies. The economic advantages of having business here that otherwise wouldn't be is understated in so many of these s***** televised debates with non-experts. |
06:42pm 19/08/13 Permalink
I sure can. This could have been said a 100 years ago... Imagine a whole copper network for FREE! Imagine a whole electrical cable grid for FREE! Our copper network is old and tired, time to make the investment Australia needs. |
07:37pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Hockeys turn tonight;
Joe Hockey exaggerates difference between Labor, Coalition record on debt http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-19/joe-hockey-exaggerates-debt-figures/4897264 4 Years old and 100% accurate; |
07:53pm 19/08/13 Permalink
I've got the primary school, high school (two in fact), Westfield and a nice big park. The hospital part is a bit balls, it is only about 8mins ambo ride (maybe less) but it is Redcliffe Hospital so that kind of fails. The NBN is literally being installed across the road, My area is split down the middle by this road, the other side is getting it... That is the biggest balls part. I do hope when Liberal get in (which they will) they will let current contracts continue and stop future contracts (better yet, keep it going hehe), or do the typical government thing and take 3 years to make good on one of their policies. So f*** yeah, I want it all. It is so close! |
08:20pm 19/08/13 Permalink
just look at spook im worth it bro |
08:42pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Hang on, do Day hospitals count? If so I've got that too..
|
08:49pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Joe absolutely smashed the treasurer on QandA tonight, it was brutal. Good viewing.
|
11:39pm 19/08/13 Permalink
I feel sorry for Chris Bowen. He has to take all of Swanny's failures as his own whereas Joe has a clean slate.
|
11:50pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Joe absolutely smashed the treasurer on QandA tonight, it was brutal. Good viewing. I don't agree necessarily. Also, he had a pretty f*****g easy time considering he didn't have to talk about the costings of all of the policies. Where Bowen got grilled about it, Hockey was just 'oh well, they're coming'. I would love to have a debate with someone with such a fantastic out! Also - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-20/coalitions-paid-parental-leave-scheme-has-fallen-apart-bowen/4898236 - he never really addressed that properly. So what's happening there? |
06:56am 20/08/13 Permalink
Joe absolutely smashed the treasurer on QandA tonight, it was brutal. Good viewing. yer, id hardly take the opinion of the second least objective poster on qgl as anything even close to fact. |
07:27am 20/08/13 Permalink
Joe absolutely smashed the treasurer on QandA tonight, it was brutal. Good viewing. You have a very weird understanding of the word 'smashed'. He acted like a little school kid, the that goes 'but sir, he did it as well... wahhhh' Can't even give exact details on his spendings, as usual the liberals will wait until after they're elected(i hope they don't) and then screw everyone over(as always) |
07:38am 20/08/13 Permalink
I've got the primary school, high school (two in fact), Westfield and a nice big park. The hospital part is a bit balls, it is only about 8mins ambo ride (maybe less) but it is Redcliffe Hospital so that kind of fails. there is a reason they built all of that with northlakes, because you'd be in the middle of no where with nothing if they had just build houses there |
07:40am 20/08/13 Permalink
Instead I'm in the middle of no where with everything, which kind of makes it somewhere.. Costco is coming and so is Ikea, so are Cinema's. A JBHifi would be nice, get rid of D*** Smiths and the $2 store and replace them with a JBHifi and win will be happening.
O and also Rail. Sweet, sweet rail. Not that I'll use it, it is both cheaper and quicker to use my motorbike to get to work in the city than to take a train lol |
10:09am 20/08/13 Permalink
O and also Rail. Sweet, sweet rail. Not that I'll use it, it is both cheaper and quicker to use my motorbike to get to work in the city than to take a train lol You know what I'd like more than the train station we already have in our suburb? A car park that doesn't fill by 6:30. I kid you not - Craigieburn station's car park is full by 6:30am every day. If you drive two stations down to Coolaroo, that's filled by 7:30am. You basically can't use public transport because you can't get to the stations! (Sadly, Boronia was a 15-20 minute walk, which was fine, but Craigieburn is more like a 45 minute walk). |
10:29am 20/08/13 Permalink
You know what I'd like more than the train station we already have in our suburb? A car park that doesn't fill by 6:30. And the Greens think you can just splash money on building trains without any new major roads and all Melbournes transport woes will be gone. Hilarious stuff. |
10:38am 20/08/13 Permalink
And the Greens think you can just splash money on building trains without any new major roads and all Melbournes transport woes will be gone. Hilarious stuff. No more hilarious than the LNP who want to just spend on big highways..... |
10:42am 20/08/13 Permalink
I feel sorry for Chris Bowen. He has to take all of Swanny's failures as his own whereas Joe has a clean slate. I feel sorry for you |
10:46am 20/08/13 Permalink
And the Greens think you can just splash money on building trains without any new major roads and all Melbournes transport woes will be gone. Hilarious stuff. What we need is more cars and roads to put them on. |
11:03am 20/08/13 Permalink
If we build more roads then we can make even more demand for cars to keep our non-viable car manufacturing industry afloat for an extra decade at the teeny cost of a few hundred million in subsidies.
Look at the big picture people! |
11:05am 20/08/13 Permalink
totes devo, heard too late the kruddler was hanging out in the salsburg this morning.
if i had known i would have rocked up to say chin up buddy, all of the people that matter here on the qgls are rooting for you to overturn the worst mistake this country will ever make! |
11:26am 20/08/13 Permalink
Instead I'm in the middle of no where with everything, which kind of makes it somewhere.. Costco is coming and so is Ikea, so are Cinema's. A JBHifi would be nice, get rid of D*** Smiths and the $2 store and replace them with a JBHifi and win will be happening. same as springfield lakes, just plonk a residential subdivision in some s*** area and build some shops teh plebs will come |
12:36pm 20/08/13 Permalink
If we build more roads then we can make even more demand for cars to keep our non-viable car manufacturing industry afloat for an extra decade at the teeny cost of a few hundred million in subsidies. until we have flying cars (about when labor delivers a balanced budget) we need roads for our economy. as to the car industry, cut it loose already. |
01:15pm 20/08/13 Permalink
And LO! S*** area is no longer s***. |
01:21pm 20/08/13 Permalink
no i am pretty sure that springfield lakes is still a s***** area
but i'd personally never buy in a newly developed area, like the ones i work on every day lul |
01:23pm 20/08/13 Permalink
I bought next to a newly developed area. Big yard, oldish house, plenty of everything around me. Springfield Lakes might be s***, I drove through there once. My area is sweet though, easy access to everything. Don't be Jelly.
|
01:28pm 20/08/13 Permalink
trust me bro it will be a long time before anyone is jelly of living in or near northlakes
maybe when sunshine coast / brisbane / gold coast all stretch along the coast as 1 large city |
01:46pm 20/08/13 Permalink
until we have flying cars (about when labor delivers a balanced budget) we need roads for our economy. as to the car industry, cut it loose already. Didn't realise we'd had 20 years of flying cars, wtf is mine? Edit: Noticed another 9-figure spending announcement from the Coalition yesterday infi, do you also think the latest Coalition guns crackdown is stupid and wasteful policy like the maternity leave handouts? Where the f*** is all this money coming from with a budget apparently in crisis? |
01:50pm 20/08/13 Permalink
Noticed another 9-figure spending announcement from the Coalition yesterday infi, do you also think the latest Coalition guns crackdown is stupid and wasteful policy like the maternity leave handouts? I can't find any media about a guns announcement. It is up to the Coaliton leadership to justify how they will pay for the maternity leave scheme. I was none the wiser after QANDA last night. One bad policy can sink a campaign. |
02:06pm 20/08/13 Permalink
02:29pm 20/08/13 Permalink
no i am pretty sure that springfield lakes is still a s***** areabut i'd personally never buy in a newly developed area, like the ones i work on every day lul What goes behind some peoplesmind when they decide to buy a house in a development? They all look the same, there's nothing around, most of the time there's no street parking. |
02:43pm 20/08/13 Permalink
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=coalition+guns Mr Abbott vowed to restore $53 million in federal budget cuts to Customs and roll out a $100 million seizure program for the agency, to double the number of searches. Also chucks in a random 10M to upgrade Brookvale oval (matching Labor)? Isn't that a private facility? Can I get a 10 grand upgrade to my little office while we're at it please you pair of porkchops? I get the feeling they don't give a f*** about costing and are just saying anything to get in now, and will just reneg on a bunch of s*** when they 'discover the true state of the budget' despite screaming about a 'budget crisis' for years? |
02:49pm 20/08/13 Permalink
How does the Coalition have a policy on guns or maternity leave when the Coalition has no policies?
Or are we finally going to acknowledge they actually do have policies? |
03:40pm 20/08/13 Permalink
How does the Coalition have a policy on guns or maternity leave when the Coalition has no policies?Or are we finally going to acknowledge they actually do have policies? The LNP had very few policies, but a rather vague 'action plan' for YONKS. Since the election has called they've been releasing policies in dribs and drabs, but very little savings measures, just spending. The issue that I have (and many others) is that they haven't released their costings, people care less about what new things they're spending money on, but more on what they're cutting to support the policies they have announced. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask, great PPL, where's the money coming from? Getting rid of Carbon tax but keeping the subsidies, where's the money coming from? Whereas you seem quite happy to be following them blindly election promise after election promise, when you have NFI where the money is coming from. |
03:47pm 20/08/13 Permalink
How does the Coalition have a policy on guns or maternity leave when the Coalition has no policies?Or are we finally going to acknowledge they actually do have policies? They are announcing uncosted expensive new policies half way through the campaign.. are you ok with the maternity leave policy? You had a raging hardon about anti-socialism a couple pages back! |
03:53pm 20/08/13 Permalink
Colin Barnett has blown a $50 million-plus hole in Tony Abbott's "signature" paid parental leave policy amid warnings the coalition's hugely expensive scheme would unintentionally leave retirees worse off. The Premier yesterday openly questioned the generosity of the scheme and ruled out WA helping to fund it. http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/18568565/wa-rejects-abbott-leave-plan/ |
05:54pm 20/08/13 Permalink
I know I'm harping a bit here, but I just can't wrap my head around this s***.
How the F*** is a nation-building infrastructure project the NBN too expensive to finish, yet we can find the f*****g money to f*****g pay up to 75k per f*****g sprog as permanent f*****g social policy. What the f*****g f*****g f***! |
06:09pm 20/08/13 Permalink
For all the housewives of Australia
|
07:10pm 20/08/13 Permalink
Did anyone watch the video when Abbott kissed the woman's head?
I thought as they said the baby turned away at the last minute, but in the video, the baby is never close to Abbott. This man is creepy as f***, he kissed that candidates head as if it were his daughter O_O http://i.imgur.com/dnRUilD.jpg |
07:20pm 20/08/13 Permalink
yeah what in the f*** happened there i saw the footage on tv like last week
how does that happen? how could you not be watching what you're doing like... it is mind bogglingly stupid |
07:24pm 20/08/13 Permalink
He was trying to whisper his six point plan in her ear
|
07:51pm 20/08/13 Permalink
08:43pm 20/08/13 Permalink
How does the Coalition have a policy on guns or maternity leave when the Coalition has no policies?Or are we finally going to acknowledge they actually do have policies?Uh, pretty sure everyone here can agree that the Coalition has policies, don't think anyone doubted that. What I and others have a problem with is WHERE they are going to get the money for these policies. What is being cut? What is being increased? |
08:47pm 20/08/13 Permalink
I liked it when Chris Bowen last night asked Joe how he was paying for the Coalition's black hole. Joe was kind enough to remind Bowen it was actually Labor's black hole. And besides, the Coalition has promised to issue all of its costing before election day so why not just let them provide it and be judged for what it is.
Labor has already proven their economic incompetence. |
09:08pm 20/08/13 Permalink
I liked it when Chris Bowen last night asked Joe how he was paying for the Coalition's black hole. Joe was kind enough to remind Bowen it was actually Labor's black hole. The Coalition's black hole is all this new spending initiatives against a budget already in deficit. And besides, the Coalition has promised to issue all of its costing before election day so why not just let them provide it and be judged for what it is. Labor has already proven their economic incompetence. Is it really all that competent to cost your budget a couple of weeks before the citizens vote? Or are you saying its already costed and they are trying to psyche us by delaying the release? Which one is it .. ? |
09:10pm 20/08/13 Permalink
id rather have my government in deficit and they provide me and my family services i can use to improve our daily experience, than a government which doesnt and is in surplus.
provided it doesnt affect our credit rating or we don't run up too much of a debt. hey, thats just like australia now! |
09:20pm 20/08/13 Permalink
Or are you saying its already costed and they are trying to psyche us by delaying the release? Keep your powder dry. Breaking Bad wouldn't be as much fun if we knew how it ended. Labor have run out of announcements so they just want to whinge about the Coalition's costings. Rudd and Bowen should be talking more about their fantastic (*cough*) record and exciting plans for the future. |
09:29pm 20/08/13 Permalink
just keep going the same and we'll be fine.
|
09:30pm 20/08/13 Permalink
09:31pm 20/08/13 Permalink
Keep your powder dry. Breaking Bad wouldn't be as much fun if we knew how it ended. Labor have run out of announcements so they just want to whinge about the Coalition's costings. Rudd and Bowen should be talking more about their fantastic (*cough*) record and exciting plans for the future. So that's a bit of "tone iz saving it for the last minute lel" then followed by a bunch of "but Labor" ... ?
|
10:26pm 20/08/13 Permalink
If I ever make a false statement, feel free to challenge it. But it's alll true.
|
10:31pm 20/08/13 Permalink
The coalition's final policies can't be all just dumped out there, they're just too awesome. Hockey has learnt from Vince Gilligan that to spin a huge yarn you have to ratchet the tension and build to a massive climax.
Tony Abbott might need to head out into the desert and dig up Walt's barrels of cash to pay for all these unfunded promises though. |
11:13pm 20/08/13 Permalink
Crikey is running a "How much spending has each party promised so far?" site, no idea how accurate it is.
http://election.crikey.com.au/cash-tracker/ http://i.imgur.com/eMLrcZO.jpg |
12:31am 21/08/13 Permalink
You know, as much as I don't want the LNP and Abbott to form government, I am curious to see how they handle the next 3 - 6 years if they do. It's going to be challenging times, quite different to the times when Howard was in power.
Also, can I tell you what the biggest farce of the entire LNP campaign is, more so than the NBN debacle. Scrapping the carbon tax for this 'direct action plan'. Can one of our lovely LNP supporters please tell me how the f*** that is a good idea. Quite frankly I see it as an ostrich head in the sand policy. |
06:54am 21/08/13 Permalink
From ABC news. I guess Kevin lied again when he asked to make this a 'positive' campaign. Also I totally called Labor doing this, playing right into Liberals hand. Labor fails. Still with luck and a bit of good old fashion government inefficiency I'll get my NBN. |
07:09am 21/08/13 Permalink
i look forward to all the fails of the new government being blamed on the out going labor government!
|
07:10am 21/08/13 Permalink
i look forward to all the fails of the new government being blamed on the out going labor government! That might work for the first term, but by the second term I think that will bury them. I also don't think we should rule out the ALP just yet. They haven't announced any serious cost savings measures yet, and I think when they start making those cuts, and yet have one of the most generous PPL schemes in the world, I think people on the fence may shift their thinking. |
07:13am 21/08/13 Permalink
Crikey is running a "How much spending has each party promised so far?" site, no idea how accurate it is.http://election.crikey.com.au/cash-tracker/http://i.imgur.com/eMLrcZO.jpg fallacious/10 |
07:28am 21/08/13 Permalink
Can one of our lovely LNP supporters please tell me how the f*** that is a good idea. Quite frankly I see it as an ostrich head in the sand policy. it's not a tax on living. |
08:27am 21/08/13 Permalink
The carbon tax takes money from businesses that pollute and gives it to consumers.
The direct action system takes money from taxpayers and gives it to businesses that pollute. ------ Also, why the f*** the ALP isn't using that as a campaign ad is beyond me. |
10:16am 21/08/13 Permalink
it's not a tax on living. That really added nothing to the debate, and as Hog said you didn't actually answer my question. My question was how is the LNP 'direct action' policy going to work - from what I've read I believe the LNP were at least $1 billion short from funding it properly to meet the targets. Would love some of the usual LNP supporters to chime in here to convince me otherwise, because on two separate occasions now LNP candidates have been unable to answer the most BASIC questions about this policy. So, how is it going to work? Why is it better than the carbon tax, which would transition to an ETS next year anyway?? |
10:26am 21/08/13 Permalink
You were specifically asked to describe the benefits of your party's direct action policy, not to decry Labor's emissions tax / trading scheme. A) it being not a tax on living (every energy related input in our lives) is the primary selling point of the Coalition's policy. New taxes do not increase growth and do not increas our standard of living. Every time the government takes a slice of GDP in tax it is lowering our standard of living by feeding a new fleet of bureaucrats and making our economy less competitive. B) Furthermore, now that the ETS has been introduced, Labor have exacerbated their budget black hole by $3.5b due to lower tax intakes. The tax should never have been introduced and counted as revenue received. The taxpayer handouts were given out and now are unfunded and cannot be taken back. C) the direct action plan will fund low emission industry and innovation, without taxing consumers. business should be supported to adopt cleaner technologies instead of creating a giant money-go-round. i look forward to all the fails of the new government being blamed on the out going labor government! the $15b in annual interest payments our country has to fund will be labor's legacy. Source: PEFO. |
11:07am 21/08/13 Permalink
A) it being not a tax on living (every energy related input in our lives) is the primary selling point of the Coalition's policy. New taxes do not increase growth and do not increas our standard of living. Every time the government takes a slice of GDP in tax it is lowering our standard of living by feeding a new fleet of bureaucrats and making our economy less competitive. This tells us nothing about how the direct action plan works, its just more endless 'but Labor'. C) the direct action plan will fund low emission industry and innovation, without taxing consumers. business should be supported to adopt cleaner technologiesinstead of creating a giant money-go-round. the $15b in annual interest payments our country has to fund will be labor's legacy. Source: PEFO. How does direct action work, what is the detail of the plan? My concern is that without a 'price on carbon', if using fossil fuels is still cheaper than all this public-funded innovation then what happens? Will clean alternatives be subsidised somehow so that they can reach mass-market viability? How will success be measured? How will the Government determine what particular innovation is viable and funded, shouldn't this best be done with the argy bargy of the market that accounts for the true cost of burning fossil fuels? Without an ETS, is there going to be regulation or any other mechanisms to provide negative feedback signals for fossil fuel usage? How is it all paid for? Try and keep it blue, eh? |
11:18am 21/08/13 Permalink
Crikey is running a "How much spending has each party promised so far?" site, no idea how accurate it is.http://election.crikey.com.au/cash-tracker/http://i.imgur.com/eMLrcZO.jpg We covered this on the last page. It has deliberately fake and false information and information that is purposely misleading. I'v never seen a media outlet be so blatantly biased even the whole apparent "murdoch biased" can't even come close to this. http://www.ausgamers.com/forums/general/thread.php/3314565?p=2#post3340472 You know, as much as I don't want the LNP and Abbott to form government, I am curious to see how they handle the next 3 - 6 years if they do. The funniest thing is that if they actually do a good job, people like yourself and the others on here won't acknowledge it. They could fix the major problems but you'll seize upon minor mistakes or minor things that didn't go so well and then prop it up. It's a no win situation for die hard Labor supporters. |
11:21am 21/08/13 Permalink
Infi, you should read this
"The Coalition’s alternative climate change policy will cost billions of dollars more than Tony Abbott claims and has no chance of meeting Australia’s emissions reduction target."- Mark Butler Our ruling (Politifact) Mark Butler says Direct Action will cost at least $4 billion more than the Coalition reckon, and has no chance of meeting its target. The report he cites as evidence is the latest in a long line of models showing the Coalition’s figures don’t add up. The full detail is here - http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/20/mark-butler/how-much-direct-action-cost/ For a party who are apparently economic gods, their figures don't add up a lot..... |
11:23am 21/08/13 Permalink
C) the direct action plan will fund low emission industry and innovation, without taxing consumers This is the central point. "Funding" these things is done from consolidated revenue, therefore the direct action plan is funded by taxes. I'm continually stunned that anyone who considers themselves a Liberal supporter can support this direct action plan. It is the opposite of everything the free market, anti government intervention Liberal party is meant to stand for. |
11:25am 21/08/13 Permalink
I'm continually stunned that anyone who considers themselves a Liberal supporter can support this direct action plan. It is the opposite of everything the free market, anti government intervention Liberal party is meant to stand for. Ultimately, I skeptical of the value of government intervention in affecting the impact of climate change, so I want the government policy the promises the least taxes and spending. I would ideally prefer government to stay the hell out of it altogether, so I am opting for the lesser evil (and fewer bureaucrats). Essentially I support any policy that has fewer bureaucrats and less government money shuffling. Try and keep it blue, eh? the entire proposition of politics is COMPARE AND CONTRAST. You ought to know about this as it is a basic method used in high school and university essay writing. Talking about one policy without contrasing it to the other is a flawed logical process. |
11:28am 21/08/13 Permalink
That makes no sense at all. How can direct action involve less bureaucrats than an ETS or a flat tax?
Doesn't someone have to organise, review, approve and otherwise oversee the minutiae of these direct actions? It actually feels like a massive new bureaucracy is being born to me? the entire proposition of politics is COMPARE AND CONTRAST. You ought to know about this as it is a basic method used in high school and university essay writing. Talking about one policy without contrasing it to the other is a flawed logical process. Who is talking about one side here? See all that red? How do we compare and contrast based on what you are saying? |
11:30am 21/08/13 Permalink
Ultimately, I skeptical of the value of government intervention in affecting the impact of climate change, so I want the government policy the promises the least taxes and spending. I would ideally prefer government to stay the hell out of it altogether, so I am opting for the lesser evil (and fewer bureaucrats). Essentially I support any policy that has fewer bureaucrats and less government money shuffling. So basically, you would rather the government do nothing? Which is a fine stand to take, but you could have done that earlier. Prepare for huge generalisation - Your position is ultimately where I see most LNP supporters, especially those in favour of direct action. I think the whole plan is flawed, and a failed attempt at climate change policy. It's not about doing anything active to reduce emissions, it's more about "Scrap the Carbon Tax". |
11:32am 21/08/13 Permalink
Both systems will have bureaucrats administering the expenditure side of their schemes. One system has extra
tax collectors for their extra tax. Who audits the books of the top 100 emmitters to check on their charging out of the ETS? it's more about "Scrap the Carbon Tax". I think we have just had a lightbulb moment, folks. |
11:33am 21/08/13 Permalink
Both systems will have bureaucrats administering the expenditure side of their schemes. One system has extratax collectors for their extra tax. Who audits the books of the top 100 emmitters to check on their charging out of the ETS? Hang on, you said your side's plan will inherently have less bureaucracy, now its both sides have bureaucrats? How will direct action have less? Where is the money coming from? Who decides what innovation is worthy, do we run an Australia's Got Innovation reality TV show for it? Doesn't it seem bizarre that the Coalition is advocating direct Government intervention in the economy to control emissions, while Labor's plan is about providing price signals to the free market? I think we have just had a lightbulb moment, folks. That's awful. Shouldn't it be about reducing emissions!? Are you saying that the Coalition's entire carbon emissions reduction policy is just a gigantic 'but Labor'? |
11:34am 21/08/13 Permalink
Essentially I support any policy that has fewer bureaucrats and less government money shuffling. I'd rather see the government "spend" $100 on something that will work than $50 on something that doesn't; it seems you would prefer them to throw away $50 because it is a smaller number than $100. Remember, Abbot has pledged to match the same environmental targets as Rudd. The only difference is how to get there. Abbot has pledged to give as much taxpayer money to businesses as necessary to reduce their pollution to the required level. If I'm reading your position correctly, that should horrify you. |
11:44am 21/08/13 Permalink
Well this is terribly incorrect. You are well aware that tax is needed in order to fund stuff like roads and hospitals, stuff that most certainly increases our standard of living. So please don't use such broad ranging statements like that, at least be more specific, such as: Excessive taxing, or poorly managed taxes, can lead to a lowering of our standard of living etc. |
11:46am 21/08/13 Permalink
New today: lazy 5 million to the Broncos from the Coalition.. from .. where? Aren't we in a budget crisis where surely every million dollars counts?
|
11:46am 21/08/13 Permalink
Labor caught out on phoney Struggle St ad.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/bagging-tony-abbott-all-in-a-day8217s-work-for-actress-susannah-hardy/story-fni0cx12-1226700958998 |
11:52am 21/08/13 Permalink
That's awful. Shouldn't it be about reducing emissions!? Are you saying that the Coalition's entire carbon emissions reduction policy is just a gigantic 'but Labor'? I don't believe with either system will significantly reduce emissions and prefer the one that wastes the least taxes. Well this is terribly incorrect. You are well aware that tax is needed in order to fund stuff like roads and hospitals, stuff that most certainly increases our standard of living. we are not discussing essential services here. We are talking about red tape and taxes to punish consumption behavior by raising the cost of living and the cost of goods manufactured in Australia. |
12:02pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Haha I had to see what the fuss was about with Whinging Wendy from 1987
An 8% consumption tax AT LEAST! |
12:22pm 21/08/13 Permalink
The ALP ads from 1987 are identical to the ones today. Creating a massive fear campaign that the Coalition are some big bad villain and if elected they will cut services for "fun" to destroy Australian lives because that's what their "goal" is.
But luckily we live in the future and we can see how good a Coalition government was. Economy boomed, jobs increased, wages increased, lifestyle increased. Hey Possum Man, what you think of the maternity leave policy? You somehow missed answering that one. Oh whoops, i did miss it. It's a stinker that's for sure. It's the only Coalition policy i dislike and they are making a real mistake. The government can't afford such a generous scheme at the moment. It's too expensive considering the budget emergency we are in at the moment. Labor caught out on phoney Struggle St ad. Hilarious stuff, she actually lives with her parents. |
01:27pm 21/08/13 Permalink
01:33pm 21/08/13 Permalink
depending on where you live in sydney, living with your parents is about the only thing short of a trust account or lotto win that
enables you to live there as for the LIB's budgeting skills, tony has been on a very good wage for quite some time, yet still has to worry about paying off his mortgage now He’s on an annual salary of $342,250 (less than when he was under the howard gov) and had to take out a $700k mortgage a few years ago, for living expenses, on a house he bought yonks ago for under $200k |
01:39pm 21/08/13 Permalink
The ALP ads from 1987 are identical to the ones today. Creating a massive fear campaign that the Coalition are some big bad villain and if elected they will cut services for "fun" to destroy Australian lives because that's what their "goal" is.But luckily we live in the future and we can see how good a Coalition government was. Economy boomed, jobs increased, wages increased, lifestyle increased.Hilarious stuff, she actually lives with her parents. I don't see the issue with having an actor in a TV ad, so lets just get that out of the way first. Secondly, the numbers for the LNP don't add up, and because they haven't announced all of the policies / costings yet all we can do is speculate. That being said if you're planning on reducing the company tax rate by 1.5%, introducing a $5.1 billion PA PPL policy, building a f*** tonne of roads and removing the carbon tax AND getting back to a surplus, then yeah, I think it's a safe question to ask what they're cutting. Maybe in 2 weeks time when the LNP actually show their costings will we be able to talk about the facts instead of speculating. |
02:08pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Well, if you believe any QLD punter, the LNP will get all their money from wholesale axing of public sector ala Can-do's philosophy.
At least, that's what half my FB news feed from friends suggests.. |
02:22pm 21/08/13 Permalink
But luckily we live in the future and we can see how good a Coalition government was. Economy boomed, jobs increased, wages increased, lifestyle increased. i guess you arent one of the thousands of people who lost their job or has to put up with a substandard service when a coalition government won power. |
04:58pm 21/08/13 Permalink
has to put up with a substandard service when a coalition government won power. are you one of these people bro? can you list some of these substandard services for me, i am curious as to what fell during the last lnp fed government |
05:08pm 21/08/13 Permalink
are you one of these people bro?can you list some of these substandard services for me, i am curious as to what fell during the last lnp fed government Well, we didn't have an NDIS when the LNP was in government for how long under Howard??? Oh, and no NBN. Oh wait, another one, we didn't' have paid parental leave either! |
05:17pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Kevvy is going to be thumped again at tonights leaders forum. Tony Abbot thrives in this kind of setup while Kevin thrives in scripted debates.
Kevin initially tried to get out of it but was backed into a corner. |
05:18pm 21/08/13 Permalink
id rather have my government in deficit and they provide me and my family services i can use to improve our daily experience, than a government which doesnt and is in surplus. Sometimes I think you are as retarded as infi. You may get benefits now but in the future if everything goes to s***, what then? |
05:22pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Kevvy is going to be thumped again at tonights leaders forum. Tony Abbot thrives in this kind of setup while Kevin thrives in scripted debates.Kevin initially tried to get out of it but was backed into a corner. I think they should walk in, ask about their policy costings, and when Abbott refuses then everyone just should leave. That's what people care about at the moment. What's the point of having these stupid debates, when we can't even debate the most important thing! We've had TWO economic debates now, and there's a this GIANT elephant in the room which everyone tries to talk around, it's f*****g hilarious!!! |
05:22pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Sometimes I think you are as retarded as infi. You may get benefits now but in the future if everything goes to s***, what then? Labor's policies see Australia paying $15b per year in interest. Under the previous Coalition government which paid the debt to zero we had nil interest obligations. $15b that could go on Spook's precious schools, hospitals, NBN and let's not forget his handouts. |
05:30pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Well, we didn't have an NDIS when the LNP was in government for how long under Howard??? Oh, and no NBN. Oh wait, another one, we didn't' have paid parental leave either yeah and there was no spooks beloved baby bonus under the previous government before howard either, i'm not talking about new things i'm talking about 'substandard' services - what does that even mean? my protip: labor supporter bulls*** talk |
05:39pm 21/08/13 Permalink
well, teh number one i can think of is hospitals bro, that should be near and dear to your heart.
i got mates who are nurses and they are up the s***, with shift changes and no doubt bed closures, due to the number of staff that have been let go. Everyone of them is terrified of what happens when someone on their team is legitimately sick and can't come into work, there's no one to cover that s***, so hospitals are either further down on numbers, or have tired nurses working extra shifts. there were no doubt other projects across other departments that would have come to fruition that may have benefitted me (or my family) which will never see the light of day, because all the staff driving them are gone. nationally, the NBN is a service that i would like to partake in, but will not be able to due to it being slashed. |
05:48pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Labor's policies see Australia paying $15b per year in interest. Under the previous Coalition government which paid the debt to zero we had nil interest obligations. $15b that could go on Spook's precious schools, hospitals, NBN and let's not forget his handouts.https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1185651_514190218649055_778169732_n.jpg |
06:05pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Kevvy is going to be thumped again at tonights leaders forum. Tony Abbot thrives in this kind of setup while Kevin thrives in scripted debates.Kevin initially tried to get out of it but was backed into a corner.Hahahahahaha. I think you might have Abbott confused with someone who can actually formulate their own ideas and sentences without being told what to say. |
06:07pm 21/08/13 Permalink
i got mates who are nurses and they are up the s***, with shift changes and no doubt bed closures, due to the number of staff that have been let go. Everyone of them is terrified of what happens when someone on their team is legitimately sick and can't come into work, there's no one to cover that s***, so hospitals are either further down on numbers, or have tired nurses working extra shifts. you were asked for examples of substandard services there were no doubt other projects across other departments that would have come to fruition that may have benefitted me (or my family) which will never see the light of day, because all the staff driving them are gone. in case you didn't hear, queensland is $50b in debt. that means govt can't implement every "bright idea" on the list. think of it like trog's to do list for QGL forum. nationally, the NBN is a service that i would like to partake in, but will not be able to due to it being slashed. if you want fibre to the home you will be able to pay for it. |
06:07pm 21/08/13 Permalink
if you want fibre to the home you will be able to pay for it. If I'm to actually pay for the fibre to be placed into my home, I need to know exactly what benefits their NBN plan actually has. Right now we haven't been told latency, what happens if someone upgrades on a node and any sort of rollout plan. Who knows, Liberal might even scrap it when they get in because copper seems to be delivering the speeds of a dodo, and that suits the party fine. These politicians need children that partake in heavy amounts of Internet each day so they can be told constantly how slow the Internet is. |
06:11pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Source? How much? I heard Malcolm say it in his debate with Conroy. Also from Coalition policy document: Where does fibre to the premises fit? |
06:20pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Source? How much? Costs $4,000 a house. Page six of their full document, though conveniently not advertised on their main page on the NBN policy except for a "Click here to read the full policy document". |
06:23pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Labor's policies see Australia paying $15b per year in interest. Under the previous Coalition government which paid the debt to zero we had nil interest obligations. $15b that could go on Spook's precious schools, hospitals, NBN and let's not forget his handouts. sold a s*** load of assets AND wasted as much of the mining boom money as labor. so we can have some debt for 20 years, and have some nice things and services now and in the future or we can have no debt, and nothing |
06:24pm 21/08/13 Permalink
So the senate tickets have been released.
And WTF! It going to take a few nights to go through all these parties platforms, much less their policies ... and after reading the Animal Justice Party's Policy on Wombats (Yes ... Wombats) I have no reference point for comparing that to ALP or LNP ... (ps. order is taken off the group voting ticket i.e. what happens if you put 1 above the line http://www.aec.gov.au/election/qld/files/qld-gvt.pdf ... and in no way reflects a personal agenda) pps. I bet 99% of all people who put 1 above the line never even look at this document. ANIMAL JUSTICE PARTY LIBERAL NATIONAL PARTY OF QUEENSLAND AUSTRALIAN INDEPENDENTS HELP END MARIJUANA PROHIBITION (HEMP) PARTY AUSTRALIAN VOICE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY ONE NATION AUSTRALIA FIRST PARTY SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY AUSTRALIAN PROTECTIONIST PARTY BUILDING AUSTRALIA PARTY SENATOR ONLINE (INTERNET VOTING BILLS/ISSUES) LIBERAL DEMOCRATS STOP THE GREENS PIRATE PARTY THE GREENS STOP CSG STABLE POPULATION PARTY AUSTRALIAN CHRISTIANS KATTER’S AUSTRALIAN PARTY THE AUSTRALIAN REPUBLICANS FAMILY FIRST AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS DEMOCRATIC LABOUR PARTY (DLP) SEX PARTY SHOOTERS AND FISHERS UNITING AUSTRALIA PARTY RISE UP AUSTRALIA PARTY NO CARBON TAX CLIMATE SCEPTICS AUSTRALIAN FISHING AND LIFESTYLE PARTY PALMER UNITED PARTY AUSTRALIAN MOTORING ENTHUSIAST PARTY SMOKERS RIGHTS SECULAR PARTY OF AUSTRALIA |
07:10pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Wow Rudd is absolutely pissed. He's really aggressive this time around, i thought he was going to hit Tony. Also lulz when Tony said "does this guy ever going to shutup" Was the highlight of it.
I think Kevin won this one. He was aggressive and on mark. The questions asked were pretty s*** and boring though. |
07:29pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Kev was skitzing out He was pretty happy, he was like a little puppy. Can't believe Abbott told Kevin to shut up though....he got pwned boyo! |
07:53pm 21/08/13 Permalink
I want to see the video They say if you really like Kevin Rudd don't ever meet him. His public persona is very different to who he really is. Julia Gillard was apparently very engaging privately but couldn't do the Public persona thing. |
08:38pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Julia Gillard was apparently very engaging privately but couldn't do the Public persona thing WTF! Faceman does have proof! |
08:55pm 21/08/13 Permalink
So the senate tickets have been released. Why are there multiples for some parties? |
09:13pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Costs $4,000 a house. Page six of their full document, though conveniently not advertised on their main page on the NBN policy except for a "Click here to read the full policy document". Is that this quote? http://i.imgur.com/8C6vXXB.png Sorry for image, f*****g document is copy protected for some reason? Can't copy text out of it. Anyway, that NBN cost will have some pretty significant economies of scale built in (if you're doing the whole street at once its cheaper than one premise out). If that's the cost for NBN build then the ad hoc price will probably be out of reach for consumers I imagine. |
09:23pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Why are there multiples for some parties? 1. Wow you looked 2. I bet you have put numbers above the line previously 3. They equally split the votes to that party as a block between the 2 or 3 group voting blocks. Keating had it right when he called the senate 'unrepresentative swill' but the were elected by by us ... |
10:00pm 21/08/13 Permalink
'The Howard government in its last two terms was rolling in cash,'' Mr Eslake said. They were in power when China's growth exploded, and before the GFC and consumer confidence was at an all time high. I'd like to think thanks to the Labor government's decisions since 2008, we've remained afloat, and with growth. It'll be interesting to see if the Coalition can bring consumer confidence back, but i dont think so. |
10:25pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Stop the greens I'd vote for them, the greens need to be stopped. |
10:26pm 21/08/13 Permalink
And yet with even higher tax receipts than the Howard government, the Labor government seems to get itself in all manners of strife. Labor can't manage money. Higher receipts than Howard and yet a deficit every year. Government is just one giant spendathon for Labor.
|
10:27pm 21/08/13 Permalink
And yet with even higher tax receipts than the Howard government So tax is the only way governments create positive balances? Or are you quote a single statistic that supports your agenda for personal financial gain? |
10:32pm 21/08/13 Permalink
Mr Abbott maintained his focus on Labor's poor record saying he wanted to be known as an infrastructure prime minister who would address the rising cost of living.. An an infrastructure prime minister but wants to use copper wire to "advance" Australia. lol |
06:46am 22/08/13 Permalink
The worst part about Australian politics and elections in general is it tends to fall down to this:
Australians get to the point where they want to VOTE OUT the current government, they don't care who gets in, as long as the current government is voted OUT. This means people will throw their votes at the most likely party that will oust the current government, in this case it is Liberal. It is a pretty s***** way to have the government of your country chosen. We should be voting IN who we want. I guess this is why the point-and-blame game is used so much during our elections.. |
07:49am 22/08/13 Permalink
10:20am 22/08/13 Permalink
Joy Saunders from Killara (and the Honourable Members for Wentworth and Warringah) seem ignorant of the fact that using copper wires designed for voice signals for data transmission has reached it's end, but she might be delighted to discover that indeed technology HAS moved on and we can now deploy optical fibre for tomorrow's burgeoning communications needs.
Unless someone has some inside tip on how transmit data faster than the speed of light in a strand of glass, that's all we've got for the foreseeable future. |
10:57am 22/08/13 Permalink
Voter Views on the NBN Goodbye good Internet, was nice not having you. |
11:00am 22/08/13 Permalink
An an infrastructure prime minister but wants to use copper wire to "advance" Australia. lol The NBN isn't everything. I love how the die hard NBNers are so dedicated and narrow minded that they honestly believe the NBN is the only thing that matters. On the whirlpool forums the other day loads of people were ranting on about how the Australian economy relies on the survival of the NBN and that the Australian economy will totally collapse if the NBN is not implemented. WoW nerds raging hard because they want faster internet will say anything. Yes the NBN would be great, but it's the pinnacle of all issues. |
11:10am 22/08/13 Permalink
Voter Views on the NBN As a generation Y person I can reveal our lives are not based around the internet, that's complete bulls*** The internet is based around our lives http://malayaraya.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/good-job-retard.jpg |
11:17am 22/08/13 Permalink
The NBN isn't everything. I love how the die hard NBNers are so dedicated and narrow minded that they honestly believe the NBN is the only thing that matters. On the whirlpool forums the other day loads of people were ranting on about how the Australian economy relies on the survival of the NBN and that the Australian economy will totally collapse if the NBN is not implemented.WoW nerds raging hard because they want faster internet will say anything.Yes the NBN would be great, but it's the pinnacle of all issues.Replace NBN with PNG, infrastructure, jobs, aged care, hospitals or any other policy and you'll find the exact same situation. There will always be people who focus on one policy because (if it hasn't become clear already) that policy is the most interesting/most changing policy for them. |
11:28am 22/08/13 Permalink
If you like Kevin Rudd, don't ever meet him...
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/08/22/1226701/983523-67c63732-0ac9-11e3-8e3e-24f3529673f4.jpg |
12:28pm 22/08/13 Permalink
12:49pm 22/08/13 Permalink
12:59pm 22/08/13 Permalink
was just telling my bro pave about this:
kruddler was getting in the domination zone, why should he be talking to a makeup lady. fyi, i dont talk to hairdressers (one of the main reasons why i go to sunnybank azn ladys for my haircuts, they cant speak english so they dont bother me with small talk) nothing to see here bros, move along. |
01:00pm 22/08/13 Permalink
fyi, i dont talk to hairdressers (one of the main reasons why i go to sunnybank azn ladys for my haircuts, they cant speak english so they dont bother me with small talk) You're saying their job, job, job is simply to cut, cut, cut spook? |
01:27pm 22/08/13 Permalink
Wonder what Abbot would say if it was a gay male stylist doing his make up.
p.s who gives a s*** if a prime minister is likeable or not? Not a lot of people in the US are liking Obama anymore and he was 'likeable'. GIMMIE MY NBN DAMN IT |
01:32pm 22/08/13 Permalink
GIMMIE MY NBN DAMN IT you know, whoever gets in, you can still get fibre to your home from NBN co if you really want/need it. it is the single issue for so many people but also the most unimportant. |
01:48pm 22/08/13 Permalink
You're saying their job, job, job is simply to cut, cut, cut spook? iswydt! |
02:12pm 22/08/13 Permalink
you know, whoever gets in, you can still get fibre to your home from NBN co if you really want/need it.it is the single issue for so many people but also the most unimportant. Says you - nobody can tell us at what cost, only that the NBN rollout was up to 4k per person to do the lot. This is a critical piece of information that is totally lacking and will no doubt not be revealed prior to the poll date. How can you justify the inherent inequity in Citizen A's tax dollars paying for citizen B's fibre and then Citizen A having to fork out thousands (or sell their house and move) if they want it also themselves? An even bigger sting is that the money Citizen A paid to Citizen B for their telecommunications upgrade will no doubt be realised in the value of their home, with entire suburbs' property values comparatively enriched. |
02:32pm 22/08/13 Permalink
oh my gods, some of the people's view on the NBN is so damn off
here are the facts as I see it, copper still has life in it, how much is the unknown, but the network as a whole is aging/aged, and will need to be replaced at some point fibre is was copper lines were in the 1800's, costly, but rolling out slowly world wide in most places that have had a network ruined (like when the south brisbane exchange needed to be moved, or sandy in the US) fibre (or wireless or the more remote areas) have been what replaced the old copper network (this is a world wide trend, and the only time new copper networks are been rolled out is where it is private enterprise (ie stocklands greenfield housing estates, but even that is changing) or in 3rd world countries getting connections for the first time |
02:39pm 22/08/13 Permalink
How can you justify the inherent inequity in Citizen A's tax dollars paying for citizen B's fibre and then Citizen A having to fork out thousands (or sell their house and move) if they want it also themselves?An even bigger sting is that the money Citizen A paid to Citizen B for their telecommunications upgrade will no doubt be realised in the value of their home, with entire suburbs' property values comparatively enriched. how is this different to any other government scheme that ran for a while and later got rolled back or means tested? baby bonus? first home buyers grant etc. some people got it, some people didn't, some people want it, some people don't, but we all paid for it. the idea that regardless of cost or duration or technology or govt, we should keep on the same path because then it will be fair to everyone regardless doesn't make sense to me. |
02:45pm 22/08/13 Permalink
how is this different to any other government scheme that ran for a while and later got rolled back or means tested? baby bonus? first home buyers grant etc. Because its a permanent public infrastructure upgrade which is inherently different to social welfare payment. Missing out on a welfare payment is one thing, having lower utility quality is totally different. If you don't see why I'm not at all enthusiastic about arguing that point with you, you've been anti-NBN for years and I know that your opinion is unable to be swayed on the matter. Interesting you decided not to respond to the point about the cost of upgrading and went straight for the tangent. This was interesting: (tried to embed but c******* forum wont take the embed code) http://simonhackett.com/2013/07/17/nbn-fibre-on-a-copper-budget/ |
02:55pm 22/08/13 Permalink
Because its a permanent public infrastructure upgrade which is inherently different to social welfare payment.Missing out on a welfare payment is one thing, having lower utility quality is totally different. So getting your rainwater tank, solar panels, or pink batts paid for by the government is different to getting a run of fibre paid for by the government? and how is it a lower quality of service if you are getting what you want delivered over copper? Interesting you decided not to respond to the point about the cost of upgrading and went straight for the tangent. I thought it had well reported what the price range for such a self upgrade would be, I think there would be very few people taking it regardless of price if the initial offering over copper was stable and at 100mbits. Malcolm Turnbull has been asked about this cost many times, i thought you would be aware of his answers. If you don't see why I'm not at all enthusiastic about arguing that point with you, you've been anti-NBN for years and I know that your opinion is unable to be swayed on the matter. And yet here I am, not arguing for or against the NBN, as both parties have NBN policies, but for how it is one of the least important issues being brought up in this thread. |
03:39pm 22/08/13 Permalink
Lets get back to boat people please
|
03:47pm 22/08/13 Permalink
Really, the coalition may as well not do NBN and save the money. Their plan will surely cost more overall, getting the contractors out once, to lay the fibre to node, paying for node boxes. Then getting them out again to lay fibre to the home and the equipment that goes with it, surely double dipping into the contractors like that will cost more overall.
So yeah, just don't bother Coalition. Save it for the next government. |
04:00pm 22/08/13 Permalink
Has climate change been done in this thread yet?
|
04:08pm 22/08/13 Permalink
How can you justify the inherent inequity in Citizen A's tax dollars paying for citizen B's fibre and then Citizen A having to fork out thousands (or sell their house and move) if they want it also themselves? you do realise that under Labor's NBN scheme there will still be many Australians who don't get FTTH. and how is it a lower quality of service if you are getting what you want delivered over copper? if I can't get 100mbit it's basically like living in a third world country right? |
05:43pm 22/08/13 Permalink
if I can't get 100mbit it's basically like living in a third world country right? easy to say when your internet isn't bad like over 50% of users, just as a guide, i'm just north of brisbane, the foxtel cable is less than 60 metres away (thats as far as it got) and i'm in ADSL 2+, on telstra, on a top plan http://www.speedtest.net/result/2916257556.png today is a bad day/time of day, most of the time it is twice a quick but there have been some telstra issues, with the NBN that labor is rolling out, i would get the same as every other NBN FTTH user paying the same. under the Libs, I'll get about the same speed, because of the distance from the exchange which is likely where the silly cabinet will be, and there will be zip all difference because the copper is old, and limited in its abilities over this distance also, as for your little quip about no all homes getting FTTH, yes youre right not all homes will, but the chances are that if youre currently getting mobile service from a carrier other than telstra there is like a 99% chance you'll get FTTH |
05:53pm 22/08/13 Permalink
uh oh Rudds seat looking shaky ?
Who will lead Labor if Rudd loses his seat ?? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/22/kevin-rudd-trails-seat-griffith-poll?CMP=twt_gu The Faceless Men™ are rubbing their hands. At least with Abbott you know you are getting the PM you voted for. |
05:57pm 22/08/13 Permalink
uh oh Rudds seat looking shaky ? A twat? |
06:05pm 22/08/13 Permalink
At least with Abbott you know you are getting the PM you voted for. I would not be so sure of that. His paid maternity scheme promise could be the end of him shortly after the election, its a very left wing socialist policy (further left than Labor). He only won the leadership by a single vote. At least I hope and pray that happens because the LNP will win and most likely will have some stupidly large majority. |
06:11pm 22/08/13 Permalink
I don't get your video Eorl. A four minute video of 3 second f*** ups by any politician is not likely to look a lot better.
|
07:46pm 22/08/13 Permalink
At the last election I was convinced Bill Shorten Would be the next leader of the Labor party and I still think that to be the case because who else is there?
Shorten is no Rudd in terms of charisma and popularity but who else is there? All those capable of leading have quit. |
08:02pm 22/08/13 Permalink
I don't get your video Eorl. A four minute video of 3 second f*** ups by any politician is not likely to look a lot better.Was just pointing out that Abbott is as much of a twat as Rudd is. Faceman seems to believe he is some sort of saint, but hey that is Faceman. |
10:35pm 22/08/13 Permalink
In this thread: 4-5 people voting LNP and everyone else, not.
|
12:35am 23/08/13 Permalink
Faceman, he's awake to it all.
|
02:07am 23/08/13 Permalink
not the best look for my kruddler to fly out and not debate glasson. id be taking care of the local constituants first bro.
|
05:29am 23/08/13 Permalink
05:35am 23/08/13 Permalink
^ those weren't rolled gold carefully scripted gospel truth quotes so they don't count
|
09:45am 23/08/13 Permalink
Time to jump on the "these costings reports aren't correct, they have errors because they don't say the right thing" bandwagon: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-23/labor-seizes-on-economist-prediction-of-30-billion-shortfall/4906924
|
09:54am 23/08/13 Permalink
In a 34-page review for clients of how a Coalition government might change economic management, Mr Eslake, chief Australian economist for Bank of America Merrill Lynch http://m.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/coalition-falls-30b-short-20130822-2sesr.html The key word is MIGHT, not definitely but MIGHT. I never knew the word might was such a technical term. |
10:20am 23/08/13 Permalink
Getup is a Greens mouthpiece, im surprised people still take them seriously.
|
11:03am 23/08/13 Permalink
not the best look for my kruddler to fly out and not debate glasson. id be taking care of the local constituants first bro. He spent 3 hours in a debate a couple of weeks ago, where, as you'd expect, he looked much more polished than Glasson. If I was a local constituant and had to balance "this guy is too busy to turn up to a debate" with "my local member is the PM and can get s*** done here without asking for permission", I know which way I'd go. |
11:25am 23/08/13 Permalink
Getup is a Greens mouthpiece, im surprised people still take them seriously. So Tony didn't say any of those things? Bunch of propaganda by the left wing? |
11:35am 23/08/13 Permalink
So Tony didn't say any of those things? Bunch of propaganda by the left wing? GetUp is a Greens mouthpiece that nobody should take seriously. News Corp is a private enterprise engaging in legitimate free speech. Don't you understand the difference? |
11:39am 23/08/13 Permalink
im confused hoggy, i dont understand the difference :(
|
12:08pm 23/08/13 Permalink
So, if I just make my boat look unsafe I can get some money? Sweet. |
01:44pm 23/08/13 Permalink
Wow this policy is terrible. I'd expect Labor to come up with something retarded like this but not the Liberals. You will have 100's of people in Indonesia whacking together s***** wooden boats for cash handsouts.
Just stick with turning the boats back, buying boats is totally unnecessary. Hopefully this stinker is dumped when they are elected which i'd probably say it will be. Back benchers/rank and file won't like this. |
01:49pm 23/08/13 Permalink
Hm, I wonder how effective the policy of "we will sink any boat" instead of "... will be turned around" would be in stopping the boats. Not saying we should do it, but I'd be curious to know how effective it would be if they knew that not only will they not be accepted, but that there's basically a 100% chance you're going to be drowned or blown up.
|
01:53pm 23/08/13 Permalink
Getup is a Greens mouthpiece, im surprised people still take them seriously. It's not actually, it's a very left leaning not for profit that relies on the donations of many many people to put forward a message. It's not classified as 'media', it's not a 'newspaper' either. I've donated to them before because they align with my views (somewhat) and I want the message to spread. It gives us a chance to combat the MURDOCH press! |
02:00pm 23/08/13 Permalink
save the boat eople, take them to png, practice shooting shells at the boats = problem solved.
|
02:11pm 23/08/13 Permalink
hey zapo, can you find a Right Wing political slant on a policy over at Red Up!
|
02:14pm 23/08/13 Permalink
hey zapo, can you find a Right Wing political slant on a policy over at Red Up! I seriously doubt it, as I said it's a very left wing website. I don't see your point though, I thought I had agreed with the comment that it's left wing?? |
02:33pm 23/08/13 Permalink
Hahah Zapo you're doing it again I tried Hoggie, I tried! |
02:37pm 23/08/13 Permalink
It gives us a chance to combat the MURDOCH press! The problem with the Murdoch press isn't that it's right wing, its that is partisan. A news outlet is supposed to be neutral. Creating Left wing partisan news outlets makes the problem worse not better. |
02:39pm 23/08/13 Permalink
The problem with the Murdoch press isn't that it's right wing, its that is partisan. A news outlet is supposed to be neutral. Creating Left wing partisan news outlets makes to problem worse not better. Getup is NOT a news outlet though. It is a not for profit that promotes donating dosh to sponsor campaigns to advertise a particular point of view. The Murdoch press is biased, just look at the courier-mail over the last few weeks, it's f*****g awful! |
02:46pm 23/08/13 Permalink
A left wing bias is not a remedy for a right wing bias. Getup might not be a news outlet per se, but they do take out a decent chunk of media broadcasting.
Journalism is supposed to be about facts and then you make up your mind. Spouting left wing propaganda doesn't undo Murdoch propaganda, it makes the whole situation worse. It obscures the facts of situations and gives simplistic solutions to complex problems more credit than they deserve. Getup are just as guilty as murdoch of this. "If you c**** all where right wing or left wing the world would be a perfectly harmonious place with no problems for anyone" is the stance they both take and they are both *WRONG*. |
02:54pm 23/08/13 Permalink
The 'news' should be presented in a non-biased way. News should be factual and impartial. Newspapers, TV news programs etc etc should all adhere to this. The reality is they don't, editorials are one thing, but when 'news' articles are biased and skewed then we have a problem. I think this is the frustration with many people here with the Murdoch press.
Getup isn't about reporting the news with a skew, it's about saying "Hey guys, we think Same sex marriage should be legal, get behind us and lets try to push that through" or "Tony Abbott is a douche, lets show people a s*** load of gaffes that he's made over the last few years to show he's a douche and a pig". The press/news and Getup are two VERY different things, and the fact you're trying to compare them is perplexing. Getup is a social left wing website trying to push through social or political change, the same way other interest or political groups might be. I don't see the harm, it's apparent who they are and what they're doing - unlike the 'news' which people should be able to trust as being impartial. |
03:02pm 23/08/13 Permalink
The other problem with unbiased journalism is that there will still, always be people accusing it of leaning one way or another if they don't like the reality of the situation - even when facts are reported raw. Even if all facts are presented factually there's always some detail they omitted, or so someone will claim.
|
03:07pm 23/08/13 Permalink
The other problem with unbiased journalism is that there will still, always be people accusing it of leaning one way or another if they don't like the reality of the situation - even when facts are reported raw. Even if all facts are presented factually there's always some detail they omitted, or so someone will claim. I would love to be in that position, but at the moment we're not even close. |
03:13pm 23/08/13 Permalink
It gives us a chance to combat the MURDOCH press! Your words. Them hating Tony Abbott makes them accusing anyone of bias a little laughable. In the add earlier in the page some crazy lady from getup was saying that the Abbott's gaffes give us a terrifying insight into his "real mind" where his solutions are everything getup hates or won't subscribe to. They are in no position to call people out on being partisan when they are themselves outrageously partisan. They can't meaningfully fight bias in media from their position as a biased advocate. They are ill equipped to identify bias. |
03:52pm 23/08/13 Permalink
Your words. Them hating Tony Abbott makes them accusing anyone of bias a little laughable.In the add earlier in the page some crazy lady from getup was saying that the Abbott's gaffes give us a terrifying insight into his "real mind" where his solutions are everything getup hates or won't subscribe to.They are in no position to call people out on being partisan when they are themselves outrageously partisan. They can't meaningfully fight bias in media from their position as a biased advocate. They are ill equipped to identify bias. I've lost the will to comment any further because I just....I'm going to bash my skull in if I try. So well played sir, you win the war of attrition. |
04:07pm 23/08/13 Permalink
Getup are an advocacy group, the job of any advocacy group is to advocate. It really isn't a complicated concept.
They aren't combating bias in the media, they are advocating for their beliefs which happen to be the polar opposite of Tony Abbott's beliefs and they are simply promoting that fact to people who share their beliefs. Zapo inferred that their existence allows an alternative view point to reach people who are otherwise inundated with Murdoch press and may believe that to be the only world view but that doesn't mean he believes it brings about some kind of zen balance between the two competing partisan views. Advocacy groups are meant to be biased, that is kind of the point. News organisations are not meant to be biased, again, kind of the point. |
04:18pm 23/08/13 Permalink
Yeah and what I'm saying is that Getup are not going to be meaningful counter to Murdochs advocacy dressed as news.
The whole issue is that Murdoch sprays idiotic caricatures of the labor party around, I simply fail to see how spraying idiotic caricatures of the Liberal party is in anyway an improvement on the situation. |
04:28pm 23/08/13 Permalink
Because it is at least balanced out a bit? whats with all the loopy coalition policy last week or so? whats caused them to drift off a lazy run to an easy win ... ? They're being goaded into releasing some policy haha. |
05:11pm 23/08/13 Permalink
Election 2013 - Journey to the Centre of the Spectrum
|
08:27pm 23/08/13 Permalink
The Truth about Kevin Rudd...
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2013/08/23/1226703/086909-d0d4b4b8-0bc5-11e3-8e3e-24f3529673f4.jpg |
10:45pm 23/08/13 Permalink
I wonder when Labor will release their policies.
|
11:02pm 23/08/13 Permalink
12:13am 24/08/13 Permalink
So Old Mate Tony might be leading a war, well being a Prime Minister when Australia goes to war. With Syria being potentially in lots of trouble for using chemical weapons, the US is looking at taking action, which would probably mean Aus will throw some troops that way. Bet Tony would be happy with that.
|
08:06pm 24/08/13 Permalink
Australia produces more oil than Syria.
|
08:20pm 24/08/13 Permalink
Doesn't matter to oil companies, they will raise prices for anything that happens in the world. If bob the local fish and chip owner passes wind, "OMGGGGGGGGGG RAISE PRICES OMGGGGGGGGGG"
|
08:37pm 24/08/13 Permalink
Or it could be rampant speculation in the free market, speculators the world over buying up enormous amounts of oil in order to profit on higher oil prices. DAT free market! |
09:23pm 24/08/13 Permalink
Door you are a fount of wisdom. What would we do without you? Nah he is the Suppository of Wisdom |
10:20pm 24/08/13 Permalink
I love it when he stares down know it all journos. I can't wait for the next time.
|
11:41pm 24/08/13 Permalink
except he looks like a f*****g idiot when he is doing it
journos ask plenty of dumb questions and do dumb things, but it isn't an excuse to act like a f*****g moron |
01:48am 25/08/13 Permalink
except he looks like a f*****g idiot when he is doing it nope |
08:18am 25/08/13 Permalink
People actually think that Tony giving the media the silent treatment is some sort of tactic and not just a witless, tactless reaction?
We finally have proof that people will believe anything. |
10:15am 25/08/13 Permalink
People actually think that Tony giving the media the silent treatment is some sort of tactic and not just a witless, tactless reaction?We finally have proof that people will believe anything. you're right in that it's got nothing to do with tactics, he's not as much about manipulating people than your typical labor crony |
10:27am 25/08/13 Permalink
I love it when he stares down know it all journos. I can't wait for the next time. Thats the thing he didnt he just sat there looking like a brainless tw@t. He looked more like he was going into f*****g melt down than anything else. |
10:57am 25/08/13 Permalink
People actually think that Tony giving the media the silent treatment is some sort of tactic and not just a witless, tactless reaction?We finally have proof that people will believe anything. His tactic obviously gets to you. It's a great tactic and i often use the "Tony Abbot" tactic on people who just don't get things or who try to spin my words around or who won't listen. Just stare at them blankly making them feel awkward until they eventually say "wtf" then you say "i'v already given you an answer" to which you go back to staring until they eventually concede. It's fantastic. |
11:06am 25/08/13 Permalink
Tony's doing a great job. $1.08 today on sportsbet. ALP $7.50. You would have to be a mug to bet on Labor now.
|
11:07am 25/08/13 Permalink
Yeah I am sure you do that all the time mate.
Didn't you put a big money bet on Gillard and Abbott to be contesting the next election infi, declaring that it would be impossible for Labor to change leaders? How savvy of you. |
11:10am 25/08/13 Permalink
You can't win em all, they are just novelties to pass the time. This bet is for our future though. It's serious business. we have a real chance here to stop the boats, the debt and the deficit.
|
11:16am 25/08/13 Permalink
a real chance for australia to be a laughing stock :(
|
01:32pm 25/08/13 Permalink
a real chance for australia to be a laughing stock :( so getting our prime minister kicked out twice by their own party does not make us a laughing stock? |
01:44pm 25/08/13 Permalink
His tactic obviously gets to you. It's a great tactic and i often use the "Tony Abbot" tactic on people who just don't get things or who try to spin my words around or who won't listen.Just stare at them blankly making them feel awkward until they eventually say "wtf" then you say "i'v already given you an answer" to which you go back to staring until they eventually concede.It's fantastic. Yet here you are spouting your bulls*** to a bunch of people that "dont get it". I think i speak for everyone except infi when i say you should do us all a favour and use Abbotts dribbling bobble head tactic from now no. He is a f*****g pinhead and australia is going to make zero meaningfull progress in any area once he gets in. As for infi saying he'll stop the boats thats a crock of s*** because no matter what you do youll never ever stop all the boats, its simply not going to happen. |
01:45pm 25/08/13 Permalink
As for infi saying he'll stop the boats thats a crock of s*** because no matter what you do youll never ever stop all the boats, its simply not going to happen. you stumbled at the first hurdle. john howard stopped the boats and then kevin undid all of his good work :/ |
01:50pm 25/08/13 Permalink
you stumbled at the first hurdle. john howard stopped the boats and then kevin undid all of his good work :/ Funny how the number of arrivals largely correlates with global refugee movement trends (the same way that the economy has largely mirrored global activity). It remains to be seen if refugees who already don't know our policies will continue to believe the outright lies of smugglers or not. You're going to win, but if you don't meaningfully 'stop the boats' or 'fix the budget' you're in for a hell of a time. Worse, you've needlessly promised the world - spend heaps on new social welfare and at the same time fix the structurally broken budget. Either promises will be broken, a deficit will be had, or savage cuts will be made that will make Newman look like Santa Claus. The Coalition isn't swanning into easy street this time, no boom to be had. |
02:04pm 25/08/13 Permalink
So you admit Labor have made a complete mess but don't believe the Coalition can fix it ?
Who fixed it last time ? and yet you want to vote Labor again ? more of that failure ? What are you ? a Glutton for punishment ? |
02:07pm 25/08/13 Permalink
Sorry, but i must join in on the ridicule of infi by fpot. It's absolutely hilarious that infi thought Labor wouldn't be stupid enough to change leaders again.
I remember him posting "they couldn't be that stupid" LMFAO. Betting on Labor to do something logical is just moronic, and im surprised infi of all people fell for it. I guess all of us get tricked at some point in our lives. No one can be as perfect as me i guess. |
02:15pm 25/08/13 Permalink
The Coalition isn't swanning into easy street this time, no boom to be had. Gee I wonder why |
02:22pm 25/08/13 Permalink
Yeah cause you know labor was totally to blame for the GFC wasnt it?
F***wits |
02:30pm 25/08/13 Permalink
Yeah cause you know labor was totally to blame for the GFC wasnt it?F***witshttp://i.imgur.com/ugoKd.gif |
02:39pm 25/08/13 Permalink
the GFC that Labor saved us from ?
|
02:53pm 25/08/13 Permalink
they did, we had stimulus packages, i remember them clearly.
genius! |
02:57pm 25/08/13 Permalink
pfft, we know it was Heardy. |
03:24pm 25/08/13 Permalink
So we have a new right wing supporter in pjano. That's cool, there's nothing wrong with that. However, could you please be the first one ever to post something that isn't either frothing at the mouth lunacy, empty rhetoric or image macros and reaction gifs? Because that's all we have ever had and it is getting frightfully boring. Signs aren't too good so far.
|
03:28pm 25/08/13 Permalink
So we have a new right wing supporter in pjano. That's cool, there's nothing wrong with that. However, could you please be the first one ever to post something that isn't either frothing at the mouth lunacy, empty rhetoric or image macros and reaction gifs? Because that's all we have ever had and it is getting frightfully boring. Signs aren't too good so far. I posted that image because it is more interesting than typing LOL, and also I have no response to that comment. I don't think I can reason with somebody who thinks our economy is where it is because of the GFC. I am thinking Taipan is the sort of guy that thinks it wasn't Kevin Rudd's fault that he got kicked out. I'm not right wing but you can call me that if you want |
03:54pm 25/08/13 Permalink
Yup. and thats exactly why Howard managed to serve 3 terms |
04:01pm 25/08/13 Permalink
Yup. and thats exactly why Howard managed to serve 3 terms I thought it was because Latham is a c******* |
04:08pm 25/08/13 Permalink
Stand up for real action. I await operation sovereign borders.
|
04:17pm 25/08/13 Permalink
So you dont think the gfc had any impact on australia?
|
04:18pm 25/08/13 Permalink
^ no because China was buying up big time and we had plenty of dirt to sell.
No that is tapering off and we are headed for deep s***. Although, house prices are booming again so we can sell china our over-priced houses .... derp |
04:44pm 25/08/13 Permalink
So you dont think the gfc had any impact on australia? don't think it had any impact on the government's spending spree. I have no f*****g chance of buying a house now |
04:46pm 25/08/13 Permalink
don't think it had any impact on the government's spending spree. I have no f*****g chance of buying a house now Umm, house prices have been stagnant almost the entire period of ALP Government. I know because I bought into the housing market in like 2008 or something which turned out to be a F*****G PRO MOVE The big out of control WTF thing that happened to house prices was during the 2000s boom. |
04:51pm 25/08/13 Permalink
Umm, house prices have been stagnant almost the entire period of ALP Government. I know because I bought into the housing market in like 2008 or something which turned out to be a F*****G PRO MOVEThe big out of control WTF thing that happened to house prices was during the 2000s boom. how much did it cost ya? |
05:07pm 25/08/13 Permalink
More than it should have, a lot more
If i remember correctly house prices in Brisbane started going bat s*** crazy in about 02 - 03 or there abouts. I had a mate i was living with at the time buy a place in Manly for 128k in late 01 sell it for more than double 2 years later. |
06:25pm 25/08/13 Permalink
Why does the coalition feel they have to offer apprentices a 20% discount on their loan if they complete their course, but don't offer the same for HECS/HELP?
|
06:30pm 25/08/13 Permalink
Because uni students are a dime a dozen.
|
06:31pm 25/08/13 Permalink
More than it should have, a lot moreIf i remember correctly house prices in Brisbane started going bat s*** crazy in about 02 - 03 or there abouts. I had a mate i was living with at the time buy a place in Manly for 128k in late 01 sell it for more than double 2 years later. that's cheap as. I'm looking at 515k median by 2015 and my f*****g uni fees have doubled |
06:52pm 25/08/13 Permalink
Tbh I don't know how first home buyers do it these days.
|
07:01pm 25/08/13 Permalink
that's cheap as. I'm looking at 515k median by 2015 and my f*****g uni fees have doubledfml this is actually making me depressed It wasnt nothing at the time and it was still going up rapidly after that. Hell where i come from in central qld the house prices there jumped by three to four timeswhat they were in the space of about three years. Its f***ed having grown up in an area only to have prices do s*** like that and price the locals out of the market. |
07:09pm 25/08/13 Permalink
I'm looking at 515k median by 2015 and my f*****g uni fees have doubled And there is your problem. First home buyers do not buy the median home. And sorry housing prices are relatively affordable now after a number of year of stagnant growth (ps. most of the rest of the world went backwards) |
07:34pm 25/08/13 Permalink
F*** buying a house in Sydney. You can rent a place for about 1/4 of what mortgage repayments would be and live where you actually want to live instead of being in the boon docks.
|
08:16pm 25/08/13 Permalink
* * * * STOP THE BOATS ALERT * * * *
AN Australian naval vessel has come to the rescue of a boat carrying 65 people northeast of Christmas Island. Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/onboard-latest-asylum-seeker-boat/story-e6frfku9-1226703732302#ixzz2cyd2BDX4 |
08:50pm 25/08/13 Permalink
So we have a new right wing supporter in pjano. He must be Door, anyone who disagrees with Fpot is "Door" |
11:00pm 25/08/13 Permalink
Housing prices aren't really controlled at a federal level though, besides that negative gearing bulls*** that needs to be pulled.
Double edged sword, lowering house prices and removing negative gearing f**** over many investors, but allows young families to get into the market. I dont think housing should be something that can be exploited for wealth, it should be affordable for the masses. |
11:04pm 25/08/13 Permalink
Housing prices aren't really controlled at a federal level though, besides that negative gearing bulls*** that needs to be pulled. Double edged sword, lowering house prices and removing negative gearing f**** over many investors, but allows young families to get into the market.I dont think housing should be something that can be exploited for wealth, it should be affordable for the masses. Yep I am with you on this one for sure. |
06:57am 26/08/13 Permalink
Had a thought today.
Maybe it would be a good idea for the incoming Coalition government to establish a new fund along side the Australia Future Fund called the "Labor Debt Fund" Lets be realastic, Labor are bound to be elected again after 3 or 4 terms due to Australians forgetting what they were like in government(a bit like how they forgot what happened with Labor in the 90's in 2007) so that means Australia will have a massive amount of debt again and a budget blackhole (considering Labor can't manage money and is a party of debt) so it would be good if there is a fund to pay back Labors future debt after they are voted out so we aren't stuck in the mess we are stuck in now or the mess in the 90's. |
01:39pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Coalition did that last time. It will never be enough for the debt Labor racks up whenever they get back in again.
|
02:20pm 26/08/13 Permalink
You misjudge how deeply Australia is leveraged with real-estate. Removing negative gearing will hurt almost everyone. Investors directly, that includes Banks, and if you have Super you very likely have a chunk of that invested in Aussie Banks and thus in real estate, heck you may even have some Super directly invested in real estate as well as banks, so a double hit. Then if the house prices a suddenly lowered, lowered beyond the mortgage people can no longer borrow on their house to invest in stuff, a whole, rather large chunk of Australian people would suddenly get locked out of building businesses, funding renovations and so on. So tradies loose out too.. O the flow on effects go on and on. To get rid of negative gearing is to f*** over the Australian people. the best you can do is slowly phase it down/out. So that over 10-30 years the Australian Economy can move away from massive over investment in real estate into other things. |
02:39pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Getting tired of the election junk mail that doesn't really say anything except f*** the other party (I'm getting one or two of the same letter every day).
|
03:28pm 26/08/13 Permalink
I got sent a how to vote card and the slimy local LNP candidate put his own garbage inside the same envelope.
|
03:43pm 26/08/13 Permalink
03:48pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Pfft, gay marriage is just a silly fashion though Zapo, my mate Tony says so.
This season people marrying their own sex is the in thing, next season it'll be dogs marrying horses. |
03:55pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Stuff far more important issues such as the economy etc, and the fact that the government is the worst in Australias history and is incompetent. Vote Labor back in for gay marriage!!!!
|
04:06pm 26/08/13 Permalink
So people's don't matter at all? Typical liberal view.
|
04:12pm 26/08/13 Permalink
and the fact that the government is the worst in Australias history by what measure ? I thought Billy McMahon had that wrapped up for an eternity. |
04:12pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Stuff far more important issues such as the economy etc, and the fact that the government is the worst in Australias history and is incompetent. Vote Labor back in for gay marriage!!!! I would rather get same sex marriage over the line in the next 3 years, a non-gimped NBN, Abbott f***ed off and Malcolm Turnbull appointed, and then have an election in 2016 which Turnbull would win. Then, assuming your dire predictions of the economy have taken place, then he can fix it up....but at least we'll have lasting social change, a reasonable broadband infrastructure investment and a DECENT PM! |
04:15pm 26/08/13 Permalink
haha yes the economy is very important so make sure you vote in the government blowing billions on middle-class welfare and a s***** half-arsed broadband plan that will end up costing even more than Labor's proposal in the end.
I was wrong when I said you should just stick to posting on reddit, please never change http://i.imgur.com/K9znCQy.gif edit: and just ftr, sheerpossumbonertron here thinks it's a left-wing plot to fool people into thinking homosexuals are normal. |
04:18pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Also, same sex marriage is an important thing for many people and not just for homosexuals either. It's important for some of their families and friends as well, and important for those people who are just kind and reasonable.
It also goes further than that, the suicide rate and homelessness rate for LGBTI youth is staggeringly high when compared to heterosexuals. You can't say that homosexuals are normal valued members of society, and then deny them the right to get married, the message you're sending is that you're not normal, and that opens up a whole other discussion and thought process in peoples head that we just shouldn't be dealing with - especially kids, who are ill-equipped to deal with this stuff. So yeah, the economy is important sure, but I think it's unfair and kinda a prick'ish thing to do to just dismiss same sex marriage for being unimportant. |
04:24pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Sometimes I pause for a second and realise that I live in a country where homosexual marriage isn't just not allowed, but until only recently both major parties opposed it. It's staggering.
|
04:25pm 26/08/13 Permalink
More importantly. The 2 issues are in no way linked.
i.e. you can allow same-sex marriage and have a good economy. Tho there is another alternative. Nullify all marriages and make marriage illegal altogether. |
04:36pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Tho there is another alternative. Nullify all marriages and make marriage illegal altogether. This. I like this. It's the 21st century. Why does society need marriage, let alone one recognised by government? We have other power of attorney procedures to handle anything for which it might be needed. |
04:57pm 26/08/13 Permalink
So it seems the Coalition is matching Labor for when they estimate a surplus in the budget. So going by this, Liberal are going to do about the same as Labor, a couple of different policies, but all in all, they are going to be economically equal.
Since we are going to have surplus in the same amount of time, I'll have the NBN please Coalition. |
05:27pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Gay marriage can be fixed with the stroke of a pen, unlike this abortion of a government.
|
05:40pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Gay marriage can be fixed with the stroke of a pen, unlike this abortion of a government. Sure it can, but Abbott refuses to allow a conscience vote...so, your point? |
05:40pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Sure it can, but Abbott refuses to allow a conscience vote...so, your point? once he is on government he will have a whole backbench to deal with. my point is, there is no hard work involved with fixing gay marriage it is simply an ideal. paying back $300b debt on the other hand.... |
05:48pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Sometimes I pause for a second and realise that I live in a country where homosexual marriage isn't just not allowed, but until only recently both major parties opposed it. It's staggering. Most countries in the world don't allow gay marriage at the moment so Australia isn't some sort of backward medieval country that you pretend we are. Perhaps you should go to New Zealand if you wish to marry your boyfriend in the meantime Fpot? |
06:22pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Not medieval yet. Give it a couple of years.
|
06:25pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Most countries in the world don't allow gay marriage at the moment so Australia isn't some sort of backward medieval country that you pretend we are. Perhaps you should go to New Zealand if you wish to marry your boyfriend in the meantime Fpot? Whether or not other countries allow same sex marriage or not has no bearing on whether or not it's an important issue for me, and something I want legalised. Also, there are plenty of other countries, similar countries that allow it, UK, NZ, USA (some states), Canada....I would say we're culturally very similar to these countries. |
06:45pm 26/08/13 Permalink
It isnt just gay marriage that proves this country is backward, its Asylum seekers being a mainstream issue, and the opposition having a hacked s***** NBN that is already obsolete.
Our infrastructure is massively falling behind the rest of the modern world. The coalition will not invest in it. We already had mention of high speed rail from Labor, there's no way you would get that kind of investment with the Coalition. |
06:56pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Lol at Kevin promising high speed rail. Reminds of when Beattie promised the Redcliffe rail extension election after election. Rudd is getting desperate.
|
07:16pm 26/08/13 Permalink
We didnt get Medicare from a Liberal government. We could get a world class NBN network also thanks to Labor. Coalition does s*** squat, and now is when we need infrastructure more than ever.
We need to go into debt to create the infrastructure needed. Fund the model so it is an investment return, not an expense. Which is exactly how the NBN was modeled. This surplus bulls*** needs to die. Along with Asylum seeker issues. We need to concentrate on how to make Australia more modern instead of being seen as beer drinking yobbos |
07:29pm 26/08/13 Permalink
paying back $300b debt on the other hand.... I assume the .... means will be very hard when you are giving well paid women 75k for having a kid and making Queensland roads flood proof (water finds a way). |
07:31pm 26/08/13 Permalink
We didnt get Medicare from a Liberal government. We could get a world class NBN network also thanks to Labor. Coalition does s*** squat, and now is when we need infrastructure more than ever.We need to go into debt to create the infrastructure needed. Fund the model so it is an investment return, not an expense. Which is exactly how the NBN was modeled.This surplus bulls*** needs to die. Along with Asylum seeker issues. We need to concentrate on how to make Australia more modern instead of being seen as beer drinking yobbosIt will never happen, not when we have one party who is out to simply say the exact opposite because that is all they can think and do. Seriously, look at the Liberal party, they simply offer either a hacked up policy that is basically a gutted version of Labor's, or they go the complete opposite in what a policy stands for. Labor wants to push boats back to PNG, Liberal want to buy the boats (who ever though of this is a real legend of a thinker). Labor want an NBN that is an investment and will return profits (and be cheaper), Liberal want an NBN that is sticking to dying infrastructure and delaying the future. Why can't both parties just look at each other and see the good side of each one. Honestly it strikes me as bizarre that we don't have a party that offers both Liberal economy and Labor social policies, though that would probably make too much sense. In the end, it seems like Liberal are going to win anyway, and we at least get SOME form of a competent NBN albeit with more costings alongside a "better" economy plan. Only problem is we get a nutjob of a Prime Minister, buying boats, giving 75k to the wealthy and cutting education (because that works for everyone right?). |
07:53pm 26/08/13 Permalink
It isnt just gay marriage that proves this country is backward, its Asylum seekers being a mainstream issue, and the opposition having a hacked s***** NBN that is already obsolete.Our infrastructure is massively falling behind the rest of the modern world. The coalition will not invest in it.We already had mention of high speed rail from Labor, there's no way you would get that kind of investment with the Coalition. What is with you and posting things that are just so blatantly completely and factually incorrect? You seem to chime in once a week with one. I know many die hard Labor supporters like yourself have this tactic where you purposely ignore Coalition policy so you can parrot the line "they have no policies" but it doesn't fool anyone. My personal favourite post from you is the one where you claimed everyone aboard the first fleet were "refugees" That is just going full retard. Tony Abbot said he is going to be an "infrastructure" Prime Minister and the Liberals have a big infrastructure plan(a lot of it Labor has no intention of funding) which is very common knowledge so i don't know why you are saying crap like "the coalition will not invest it" Labor is just using high speed rail as a vote grabber. It's not going to be built in this decade let alone the next if at all.
http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/08/12/tony-abbott-new-accountability-infrastructure-and-major-project-delivery |
08:30pm 26/08/13 Permalink
I refused to get pulled into a debate about the economy, or what they're spending money on until they've shown us where the money is coming from to support their spending. Which Tony Abbott said we would hear a bit more about on Friday, but wont' hear the full story until the last few days of the campaign.
If they want to spend billions on new roads (which is a good thing), but they're going to make other cuts, like the bonus to superannuation for low income earners (which is a bad thing) then I'm not going to go "F*****' aye, that's bonza mate" - I'm going to reserve judgement. |
08:36pm 26/08/13 Permalink
As i said, the coalition are only capable of building roads. We need to look beyond just roads & rail upgrades, which are just a necessary expense to keep up with the rate of increased population on the road network.
What we need is transformation into new forms of transport. High speed rail being one. Sydney for example, needs a second airport. High speed rail would allow it to be built in Canberra. Labor has the vision to see the need for these advancements, and eventually reducing the need to invest in roads. If we could take a train from outer suburbs in half the time it takes now, housing would become alot more affordable as we can commute further. |
08:40pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Yeah, we'll make all our deliveries and all our tradies will take the high speed rail to work. Road are last century! The hi speed rail is easily affordable for our densely populated country of 180 million people. We can build it after we build Brisbane's cross river rail.
|
08:51pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Building roads might be sensible IF they considered building elevated highways like they do in the US, but nooooooo. Instead we get awesome traffic jams all the way from 50km in to the city. And what might as well be no public transport.
Seriously, where I live in the next 10 years Mickleham Road is going to be chaos in peak hour. Citylink is already a car park from early morning, and the Eastern freeway wasn't any better. Mickleham Road needs to become Mickleham Freeway, with the existing road underneath and a freeway flowing all the way over the top of it, if it's to cope with 10-20 years time and the growth this area is seeing. Better yet, put a goddamn elevated railway over it and some train stations with sufficient parking that people can actually use it! Oh, wait, we can't do that, because it would take away from Citylink income. |
09:11pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Haha, I was riding down Gympie Road today and thinking traffic is not going to get better at all, it is only going to get worse and worse. Maybe more tunnels, MAAOOORRRRR TTUNNEEELSS.
When the Gateway motorway gets 3 lanes both ways, FOR THE ENTIRETY of it it may actually take pressure of Gympie Road. Seriously though, that entire highway needed 3 lanes 10 years ago... Piss poor planning from BOTH governments. Using my motorbike it is both cheaper and quicker to travel 40 mins from my home, that includes rego, fuel, maintenance and the purchase of the bike over 3 years than it is to take a train. 40 mins vs 1 1/2 hours, and several $'s per trip cheaper. Public transport has a big f***en issue in Brisbane and that issue is both speed and cost... |
09:41pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Road upgrades are a waste. the system will ALWAYS bottleneck within a couple years of a major upgrade.
So what we need to do is remain with the amount of roads we have, tax cars off the road, or introduce time of day tolling, more bus, transit lanes to discourage 1 person per car during the commute. Tax motorcycles/scooters less. Faster, more efficient trains needed. Our public transport system is a joke |
10:11pm 26/08/13 Permalink
As i said, the coalition are only capable of building roads Lol what? Are you saying that a coalition would fail if they tried to build a rail line somewhere? Be careful of your use of the words "capable and incapable" We need infrastructure, the whole country has an infrastructure deficit and it's not going to be cleared in one term. Criticizing the Coalition because they are going to build necessary roads is just stupid and this logical fallacy spouted by some people that you can just avoid building new roads by building rail needs to stop. We need to look beyond just roads & rail upgrades, which are just a necessary expense to keep up with the rate of increased population on the road network. What other form of transport is there other than road and rail? You admit we need to build more of it and then in another breath say we need to look beyond it? Make up your mind. Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane have expanded massively over the past 10 years specifically and havent had the new infrastructure to support it. As i said, its a logical fallacy that you can just avoid building any new major roads despite the growth. What we need is transformation into new forms of transport. High speed rail being one. Buzz lines like "What we need is transformation into new forms of transport." get spouted a lot by it isn't backed up by any evidence or facts. In the real world, things don't just get built without being economically viable and feasible. "convenience" does not make something feasible. Building high speed rail will not fix any transport problems and isn't even really feasible. Air travel is cheaper and more efficient., not to mention the fact that the rail technology proposed is old and outdated and slow. If high speed rail is infact feasible they should be looking at using magnetic levitation technology like other maglev high speed rail around the world, but as i said. Labor has the vision to see the need for these advancements This is just a grab for votes, it wont be happening in the next 20 years. You are kidding yourself if you actually believe Labor is doing this for "vision" instead of vote grabbing. Parties have been mentioning this since the 90's for votes. and eventually reducing the need to invest in roads Any person with half a brain will know that roads will always be need to be built unless something like hover cars are invented. It's just a logical fallacy to suggest that expensive high speed rail will replace the need for major roads as i explained above. You've been listening to the greens too much i think. Building roads might be sensible IF they considered building elevated highways like they do in the US, but nooooooo. Instead we get awesome traffic jams all the way from 50km in to the city. And what might as well be no public transport. The traffic jams all the way to the city is caused by the lack of elevated highways, it's caused by lack of investment in new roads feeding into major arterial routes into the city. Lets use Mickleham Road for example. This is a perfect example of a outer suburbs road built decades ago being used a major highway because an actual highway hasn't been built yet to relieve it. City link is bad because you have the entire population of Eastern and South Eastern Melbourne using it as the only entry into city, western and northern suburbs. But it has been relieved a bit thanks to East link and the Eastern highway. This is why Melbourne really needs the East- West link which will relieve these arterials and allow people from the west to bypass the city if they want to get to the East and visa versa. On top of that, work needs to get started on the North East link(Connecting the Eastern Freeway to the MRR in the North) but that's about 20 years away or more. Melbourne has a huge back log of expensive roads, some of which were first suggested in the 1969 transport plan. Luckily for us, the incoming coalition government is putting money towards these projects. I could get into Melbournes train network, but i'd be here for a long time and it would be a massive TL;DR. |
10:32pm 26/08/13 Permalink
Media watched focused on the Murdoch press in it's latest episode, to those who are still delusional about the impartiality of the print media in this country it's worth a look (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/).
There are some really interesting examples of media bias, but I won't post all those here, there's a full transcript on the ABC page, but I did find this amusing talking about the daily telegraph.
|
06:42am 27/08/13 Permalink
Looking through the pages it’s also clear that it’s not policies or performance that Murdoch’s paper is attacking. It’s Rudd himself, whom they paint as a psychopath, a narcissist, a bore and a cheat, and a great deal more. they got through to infi. he totes believes what ruppy is spinning. |
07:14am 27/08/13 Permalink
It’s Rudd himself, whom they paint as a psychopath, a narcissist, a bore and a cheat, and a great deal more. It's his colleagues who are saying it to the Murdoch journos, in fact to anyone who will listen to them. |
08:41am 27/08/13 Permalink
Looking through the pages it’s also clear that it’s not policies or performance that Murdoch’s paper is attacking. It’s Rudd himself, whom they paint as a psychopath, a narcissist, a bore and a cheat, and a great deal more.heh I was wondering where the whole infi and sheerpossumtron calling him a psychopath/egomaniac was coming from. It was just a simple case of monkey see monkey do. |
09:49am 27/08/13 Permalink
heh I was wondering where the whole infi and sheerpossumtron calling him a psychopath/egomaniac was coming from. It was just a simple case of monkey see monkey do. maybe from his collegues? |
09:52am 27/08/13 Permalink
Building high speed rail will not fix any transport problems and isn't even really feasible. Air travel is cheaper and more efficient., not to mention the fact that the rail technology proposed is old and outdated and slow. If high speed rail is infact feasible they should be looking at using magnetic levitation technology like other maglev high speed rail around the world, but as i said.There are a total of three maglev trains operating, with only a handful under construction. None of them are particularly long, and only one of them (in China) goes "fast". Talking about them like they are some massively proven technology that everyone overseas is using them is pure FUD. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of them, but "conventional" HSR is actually a thing that actually exists and works in many countries around the world on a daily basis. Saying HSR is not feasible is something I imagine someone would say when they've never left the shores of Australia and seen how it works in other countries. SNCF in France alone makes something like a billion dollars operating profit a year. It is logistically a lot easier (i.e., efficient) for citizens in most circumstances to get a train around France than it is to fly. It's also easier in many cases to do international trips on the train as well. If you think roads are the answer to everything just go look at any big city that only has roads and no real mass transit system (e.g., Los Angeles, Sao Paulo). Not only are they completely f***ed with gridlock EVERY DAY but because there's no mass transit there is simply no alternative to do anything else. Roads don't scale at all past a certain point and without proper mass transit to complement it your cities end up tragic messes of concrete and cars. |
09:57am 27/08/13 Permalink
F*** roads as any kind of solution, talk about f*****g the quality of life for the people that live around major routes. The only thing you can guarantee when it comes to roads is that you'll always been adding more to them as the years go on, more size more lanes more ugly f***ed up twisting concrete road ways and over passes. I live in a small city here in the US and it has almost zero public transport and when you couple that with people that feel the absolute need to drive their own cars every time they do anything it really f**** the traffic up and the city in general. People need to alter their attitude toward public transport as do governments. Having people pay stupidly high prices for an average service isn't the way to go about it... yes I am looking at you Brisbane.
that's just my 2 cents anyway |
10:18am 27/08/13 Permalink
In support of what Taipan/trog are saying:
It's referred to as induced demand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00166218 |
10:34am 27/08/13 Permalink
So how do we deliver goods out to every workplace across our vast nation and get all our tradesmen to our job sites? High speed rail?
|
10:59am 27/08/13 Permalink
Good point infi. That will surely shut down all the people in this thread who have suggested that all roads and road improvement should be abolished in favour of a 100% rail transport system. Bravo.
|
11:10am 27/08/13 Permalink
So how do we deliver goods out to every workplace across our vast nation and get all our tradesmen to our job sites? High speed rail?you create a "network" of "nodes" and run a high speed service to them and then from each node you have a local delivery service like roads, light rail, trams, copper, etc. Pretending it presents insurmountable logistical difficulties is just blissfully ignoring the fact that it exists and is used all the time in other countries with great success. (Implying HSR is a door-to-door option is so dumb that I can't even think of what logical fallacy it would be.) (As an aside, one thing I really like about it is that it has the potential to revitalise small community towns that are in the middle of nowhere. Imagine being able to live 100km out of the city and only having a 30 minute commute because your town is on the HSR route to Darwin or whatever. This is what it's like in France; towns grew significantly around TGV stations because people could suddenly live far away and commute to the cities in a fraction of the time.) Think of it as a series of tubes. |
11:16am 27/08/13 Permalink
Holys*** Infi, surely you can understand what people are saying.
Yes Roads are important for the transport of local goods. However mass transport doesn't concern itself with moving 1 person from their house to the local shops. It is about moving a large portion of a cities inhabitants from outlying areas to centers of business and beyond in a highly efficient way. Relying on roads to act as a Mass Transport system is incredibly inefficient,as proven by the cities around the world that do that. 1 Engine, 4 tyres, a car body and so forth for 1 person to get to work? Pfft, that is s***. |
11:20am 27/08/13 Permalink
Re my earlier comments, don't mistake me for being pro-road, by the way. I'd much rather see an awesome public transport system and better means for cycling around the place, but instead we have a barely workable system for both of those in addition to a half-assed roads network. If you're going to have roads, then do them properly.
you create a "network" of "nodes" and run a high speed service to them and then from each node you have a local delivery service like roads, light rail, trams, copper, etc. Yep. Sadly noone thought that far ahead with Melbourne. If my train trip had to be say a 5 minute short train ride to Broadmeadows then a fast train from Broadie to Spencer St, then another tram from Spencer to Parkville, fine! Hell, even the concept of driving to a train station alone meets what trog has described here - the problem is though that I can't even drive to the train station because there's nowhere to park. It's too far to walk, and the busses not only take ages to get there but only run ever 20 minutes. Hell, give me a system where I can pay even $1/day on my myiki for parking in a 2,000 car park lot, and then get on a train that's not packed, and I'll use it. But last time I tried to get a train home from Melbourne Central to Craigieburn, I had to let four trains leave without me getting on them, because they were all completely crammed in to the doors with people. That's half an hour of time wasted while I just stood on a platform and eventually managed to cram myself in so I could contribute to the cheek prints on the glass windows. |
11:24am 27/08/13 Permalink
Speaking of a series of tubes, you seen this trog?Basically Elon Musk wants to create a transport system of vacuum tubes ala Futurama.yeh it sounds awesome. But I am an Elon fanboy and would basically just give him all the money in the world and let him do whatever he wanted just because it's awesome. I haven't read his full report but the analyses I've flicked through seem to indicate that it is relatively feasible. I really really really like the idea of building the version that has the support for cars - it would solve infi's problem of the door-to-door part of mass transit plus it lets people retain that "freedom" of having their own car and going wherever they want after they get out of the system. One sci-fi book I've read posits a future of ultra-high speed highways that are basically the same thing - you go into these highways which is basically a "rails" experience; your car is taken over by computer and it does a high speed stretch of road in a controlled fashion, with the computer adjusting the car lineup for the best efficiency (e.g., big trucks go first and little cars follow them directly behind so they're sucked along by the airflow). I haven't seen a comparison of Elon's system with the "bandwidth" of conventional HSR which moves hundreds if not thousands of people per train... I assume it is roughly comparable though? |
11:25am 27/08/13 Permalink
I read his full 70-page or something stupid detailed thing, but I certainly have a few questions about the failure scenarios.
In particular what I feel he hasn't addressed is de-pressurisation while it's rounding a corner which would have pretty disastrous consequences. Also trog, I get the impression Hyperloop is a low-volume solution. He's designed it around from memory 6-person (or was it 16?) cars which you only move one every three minutes or so. That's a lot of expense for a few people per trip. |
11:52am 27/08/13 Permalink
Authorised by G. Wright, Australian Labor, 5/9 Sydney Avenue, Barton, ACT, 2600 |
01:00pm 27/08/13 Permalink
That's a fair'ish ad, I wish they had ignored the bit about the 'connection costs' because that's REALLY stretching the true/fibbing.
The other bits are pretty relevant though, 25mbps minimum download with 4-6mbps upload is pretty average at best. |
01:07pm 27/08/13 Permalink
To quote Damo from the other thread -
BUSINESSES and consumers wanting to pay for their own fibre connection may face costs of more than $4000 up front and $800-a-year rental under the Coalition's "fibre-on-demand" plan for the National Broadband Network.So it's not beyond the realm of possibility. |
01:16pm 27/08/13 Permalink
To quote Damo from the other thread - So it's not beyond the realm of possibility. I get that, but it doesn't cost $4000+ for 25mbps, it costs $4000+ if you wanted to get FTTH. To quote Damo from the other thread - So it's not beyond the realm of possibility. |
01:23pm 27/08/13 Permalink
I thought in the video when they said 1500 euros (or whatever it was) that he specifically said it was just for the connection?
|
01:29pm 27/08/13 Permalink
01:55pm 27/08/13 Permalink
http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/05/malcolm-turnbull/connection-nbn-not-free-turnbull/
Turnbull says "connection to the NBN is not free". Regardless of Labor's investment, on being told they need to pay an RSP to get online many consumers would probably agree. |
02:28pm 27/08/13 Permalink
Holys*** Infi, surely you can understand what people are saying. The pie of government spending is only so large before your country becomes a banana republic. it's great to have all these bright ideas about things it would be nice to have, but think of the impact better roads would have on our economy over high speed rail. What % of people, individuals and businesses, can use better roads vs. high speed rail. And as for mass transit, we would need to have a "mass" first warranting untold billions in infrastructure which seems like a "good idea". |
02:51pm 27/08/13 Permalink
That's all very misleading with that NBN video.
It's "free" only in the sense of getting the fiber to your home, it still costs to get connected to the internet with either Labor or the Coalition's network. Now, to get the full benefit of fiber, it does cost $4000 to connect to the home. The question in the video was misleading in the question to the public, where he said would you pay 1500-2500 euros to get connected to Abbott's internet, when they would pay probably 100 euros instead. They should be concentrating on the dismal download & upload speeds, by 2019, and how it is already obsolete, and that it will cost more in the long run. |
02:51pm 27/08/13 Permalink
And as for mass transit, we would need to have a "mass" first warranting untold billions in infrastructure which seems like a "good idea".The proposed HSR is to be built between Sydney and Melbourne which is the 3rd busiest airport route in the world. I'd say that would qualify as a mass that requires transport. |
03:03pm 27/08/13 Permalink
That's a fair'ish ad, I wish they had ignored the bit about the 'connection costs' because that's REALLY stretching the true/fibbing. It's a lie and has already been outed as a lie. But it's a Labor party election ad, they aren't going to tell the truth nor present the facts. Doing that would cost them votes. In other news, Ruddy didn't consult the NSW premier about moving the navy facilities from Garden island so the premier confronted him about it "A phone call would have been nice ... 4000 (Navy) jobs," Mr O'Farrell said to Mr Rudd. "Your predecessor knew how to share, her predecessor knew how to share. You should learn to share." Makes for great viewing. |
03:04pm 27/08/13 Permalink
How you have the intelligence to run a business i have no idea. As it was said earlier from someone, A HSR can make a profit, as well as a high speed "expensive'' network such as Labor's NBN. Both Government run. But your extreme free market ideals just wouldn't allow this kind of investment, which is well aligned to the conservative backward ways of the Coalition. |
03:15pm 27/08/13 Permalink
As it was said earlier from someone, A HSR can make a profit, as well as a high speed "expensive'' network such as Labor's NBN. Another government monopoly canibalising yet more industry. Brilliant idea. |
03:29pm 27/08/13 Permalink
As it was said earlier from someone, A HSR can make a profit, as well as a high speed "expensive'' network such as Labor's NBN. Yes but on the otherside, People for the NBN also tend to argue only the government can do it. It is also worth pointing out the difference between can make a profit and will. |
03:32pm 27/08/13 Permalink
Yup. it is. Because it wouldn't happen privately. Simply no company would have the money, nor want to take the risk for such a massive investment in public infrastructure.
Once it's successfully deployed by the government, make it private later down the track, even then probably not desirable. Same s*** in the states, no company wants to invest in faster internet, because they won't gain more profit by doing so. So you need companies that are not 100% profit driven, but for the better of humanity. Example, Google fiber. Only then, do companies kick up their investment for fear of that competition. It's a shame we dont have a google like massive company here in Australia to build us an awesome rail network or broadband network. |
03:34pm 27/08/13 Permalink
You're on drugs if you think google is making its fiber network for something other than profit.
|
03:36pm 27/08/13 Permalink
03:38pm 27/08/13 Permalink
Of course it's for profit. but its motivations aren't purely for profit. Look at all the programs they have that wouldn't be making them any money.
Google street view. how profitable is that? It was a heck of a thing to do. These sort of things don't come out of a profit driven company. |
03:44pm 27/08/13 Permalink
Google Maps is one of the greatest marketing tools ever created. Street view helps to make maps more profitable. Dude you need a reality check if you think Google does anything for some motivation other than profit.
|
03:52pm 27/08/13 Permalink
You honestly think their *only* motivation is to make more money? If that were the case, they wouldn't have been as innovative as they have been. You sound like one of those people who work a certain job purely for the money, rather than enjoying what you do.
This is another example a project as big as the NBN or HSR wouldnt happen here, with the attitude of profit only. What company would invest $50+ Billion and wait 10+ years, or 20 years for HSR, to start making money, and many more years to get a profit on that investment? Only government can do that. |
04:02pm 27/08/13 Permalink
http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/10154/200-each-Coalition-to-fund-straight-couples.htm
On the Australian Christian Lobby’s Australia Votes guide to the election, the Liberal National Coalition was asked: “What will your party do to encourage marriage and resilience in couple relationships?” http://www.australiavotes.org.au/policies/index.php?election_id=13&topic_ids=all&party_ids=38 Seriously, who votes for parties like this that think this way. |
04:02pm 27/08/13 Permalink
You honestly think their *only* motivation is to make more money?It's certainly their primary motivation; they're somewhat obliged to do that because of their shareholders. 95% or something of Google's revenue is from advertising. Street View exists because it helps them sell advertising. Google do a bunch of really awesome charitable works but they're a for-profit company first and foremost. |
04:09pm 27/08/13 Permalink
Another government monopoly canibalising yet more industry. Brilliant idea. The only alternative is a privately run monopoly with government regulation. This is the current position of Telstra in relation to the copper network, and it is clearly a non-optimal solution. Since privatisation Telstra has consistently extracted monopoly rents from consumers and businesses, creating an inefficient market (that is, one where consumers pay more than necessary for a service, transferring wealth from consumers generally to Telstra employees and shareholders). Australia simply lacks the population density required for competition in many infrastructure areas. There is no way someone would build a second NBN, in the same way that no company was going to build a second copper network to compete with Telstra, or a second Port of Brisbane to compete with the current one. Our competition law expressly accepts that monopolies will exist in infrastructure delivery, so even if a private company did build the NBN (essentially impossible due to the investment required) it would be subject to a mandatory access regime. This would limit the profit opportunities for the company that built the private NBN (one of the reasons why private financing of the project would be impossible). tl;dr: A entirely private NBN would be a privately owned monopoly, which would clearly be bad for consumers. This is not a real option. A private NBN subject to mandatory access regulations cannot be financed due to the restricted profit it can return. There is no realistic option to a government financed NBN. At that point, if you are going to have the government build the NBN, the Labor model (where it is built wholesale, offers a return on investment and can then be sold subject to access provisions that are known to the buyer so the sale price can be set appropriately) is far preferrable to the Liberal model of a partial NBN that does not offer certain return on investment and cannot be properly sold to private operators in future. |
04:09pm 27/08/13 Permalink
Yeah Vash I just gave you three examples of companies that built networks in Australia that weren't the government.
If Google came to Australia and saw that a fiber network would *never* make a profit it wouldn't get built. Companies do things that don't yield an instant profit all the time. Look at the kindle from amazon, or mining railways. HSR I think is a great idea, and for trips in Europe it is a straight better way to travel and probably would be here too. But $114 billion for something that might *never* make a profit (or that is, might require a permanent subsidy), that's not something you just build and hope they will come. $114b is a lot of schools, hospitals, police, ambos etc etc etc. Same goes for the NBN. |
04:40pm 27/08/13 Permalink
You honestly think their *only* motivation is to make more moneyWhat the hell else would have been their motivation for streetview? "Hey bob wouldnt it be great if i could see my house on the internets" "Sure lets spend a billion dollars on that!" |
04:54pm 27/08/13 Permalink
So you need companies that are not 100% profit driven, but for the better of humanity. Example, Google fiber. I think this one is up there with your "Everyone on the first fleet were refugees" LMFAO. This is pure comedy gold. It just goes to show how well a PR campaign can convince and trick people. You honestly think their *only* motivation is to make more money? YES. They are a business listed on the stock exchange, not a bloody charity. I know you are an inner city hipster and business and economics comes hard to you,but this is basic stuff. If that were the case, they wouldn't have been as innovative as they have been. Lol wtf? Why not? Businesses innovate all the time, especially tech companies because IT MAKES THEM MONEY when they do. Google is so successful as a company because of its innovation and the risks it takes. You sound like one of those people who work a certain job purely for the money, rather than enjoying what you do. You don't live to work, you work to live. This is another example a project as big as the NBN or HSR wouldnt happen here, with the attitude of profit only. In the real world, businesses won't do something if it doesn't benefit them. You are just delusional if you think a private business will do something for the "good" of humanity without any benefit. It's why there is a difference between businesses and charities. They must be profitable or the government must roll it out. It's the inconvenient truth, it's reality. |
05:31pm 27/08/13 Permalink
In the real world, businesses won't do something if it doesn't benefit them. Wrong. You are just delusional if you think a private business will do something for the "good" of humanity without any benefit. But they do all the time. I'd put Hyperloop in to that category for instance. Google give their apps suite to educational institutions for free (can even turn the adds off). Institutional philanthropy is a reality, Australian companies are just piss poor at it. |
05:38pm 27/08/13 Permalink
wow, that abbotts internet was pretty embarassing for australia.
i guess we should all get used to be being embarassed on the world stage. |
05:39pm 27/08/13 Permalink
I hadn't heard in media reports what the budget for Rudd's HSR thoughtbubble is but $114b is just mindboggling. A return on the asset of even 5% (which is pathetic, business yield is minimum 12.5-15%) means the network would need to return $5.7b income each year. It is so pie in the sky, it's laughable.
The only alternative is a privately run monopoly with government regulation. That is the proposition put for NBN, which I do not accept, but in relation to HSR we already have a cheaper, faster alternative currently operating in the private sector profitably. Now there is talk of introducing a $114b behemoth bankrolled by cheap government finance which would bankrupt the existing companies. It is lunacy. |
06:06pm 27/08/13 Permalink
But they do all the time. Yes having a bunch of kids fluent in googles apps holds no commercial value for google at all. Moreover Google apps clearly wasn't developed for that purpose. The major attraction of the hyperloop I thought was the fact it could be built for a good deal less than an equivalent HSR. |
06:08pm 27/08/13 Permalink
You're forgetting how much air traffic the HSR would reduce, also reducing emissions.
I don't have the figures on revenue from air travel from Syd > Melb > Bris, but its gotta be up there. With the correct technology, we wouldn't need much air traffic between the major cities. The benefits for HSR/hyperloop is huge, for housing affordability, economic growth, emissions reduction. list goes on. Even if it didn't return a profit, it would benefit the economy well enough to offset that. |
06:12pm 27/08/13 Permalink
With the correct technology, we wouldn't need much air traffic between the major cities And what about the airline companies that have built their businesses up with their shareholders' money to make way for a new government monopoly? Just shut them down? And you accuse ME of not knowing about business. HAH Fpot earlier made the comment that Sydney to Melbourne is one of the busiest passenger routes and that itself justifies the HSR. Well what happens to the airline companies who use this to cross subsidise some of their less profitable routes? I am not against the HSR rail, I am against a government funded monopoly destroying existing successful businesses. |
06:21pm 27/08/13 Permalink
I'm all for progression. Losing airline business would be a necessary evil. They could expand their international market instead?
Its ludicrous to not consider technological advancement because it'll hurt another industry. |
06:26pm 27/08/13 Permalink
Fpot earlier made the comment that Sydney to Melbourne is one of the busiest passenger routes and that itself justifies the HSRThere really is a massive disparity between what is actually said and what infi believes was said, isn't there? |
06:35pm 27/08/13 Permalink
housing affordability, economic growth, emissions reduction How exactly is a HSR come hyperloop going to do any of that? Housing affordability would be increase by high speed long distance rail? Just saying economic growth doesn't mean that HSR or the NBN will make it so. This is something the greens and labor seem to struggle with. They might, but equally they might not. Without a cost/benefit analysis which Labor and the Greens and for that matter the Liberal party steadfastly refuse to do (with the NBN particularly) there is no way to know. Investments carry risk period. So if you want to call these things investments it is not unreasonable to be able to explain what the risks are and what the potential benefits are to a finer degree of detail than "housing affordability, Economic growth, emissions reduction" |
06:46pm 27/08/13 Permalink
Fpot earlier made the comment that Sydney to Melbourne is one of the busiest passenger routes and that itself justifies the HSR. Well what happens to the airline companies who use this to cross subsidise some of their less profitable routes?a) Like all those destroyed airlines in Europe b) I'm no aviation history expert, but isn't the whole reason we have an aviation industry today largely because of the efforts of the government post-WW2 to get it started? They probably had a lot of complaints from the horse-and-carriage people |
07:15pm 27/08/13 Permalink
It would allow me to move further from the city, commuting by train at the moment, it takes just under 2 hours to travel 60km from the central coast, where i could buy a 3-4 bedroom house for under 350k. |
07:24pm 27/08/13 Permalink
It would allow me to move further from the city, commuting by train at the moment, it takes just under 2 hours to travel 60km from the central coast, where i could buy a 3-4 bedroom house for under 350k. So your solution to housing affordability is urban mega-sprawl? Suburbia doesn't have a great track record with 'emissions' just so you know. |
07:28pm 27/08/13 Permalink
http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/10154/200-each-Coalition-to-fund-straight-couples.htmhttp://www.australiavotes.org.au/policies/index.php?election_id=13&topic_ids=all&party_ids=38Seriously, who votes for parties like this that think this way. The only word that comes to mind for this is disgusting. The fact that you are "rewarding" people for doing the "normal" thing and shunning those who want to enjoy their life with someone of the same sex is just appalling for any government to think. Are people still that delusional and scared that they think allowing same sex couples to wed will suddenly make zoophiles want to marry? Let anyone marry whoever they want, stop trying to halt the inevitable. |
07:42pm 27/08/13 Permalink
Not sure about housing affordability, maybe people would live in the smaller towns where the train stops and commute instead of expensive capital cities. With emissions it's a no brainer. The eurostar runs with about a 10th of the emissions that a London->Paris flight does.
With regards to investment they did a feasibility study. Phase 2 was released a while ago. http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/speeches/2013/AS08_2013.aspx The report estimates the construction cost for the complete network would be around about $114 billion in today's dollars. However we should probably aspire to do nothing about transport in this country and build more roads for conservatives to drive in reverse down. |
07:46pm 27/08/13 Permalink
Wrong. Provide ONE example of a Business doing something for people that doesn't benefit their business in some way. I'll be waiting. But they do all the time. Examples? I'd put Hyperloop in to that category for instance. It doesn't exist and if it does get built, it won't be built just to benefit society, it will be built for profit and the user will pay for the benefit of using high speed transportation. Googles whole PR campaign is to present themselves as a "good global citizen" company and it works, just look at how Vash actually believes they are rolling out fibre for "fun" and not for profit. They are more than happy to give software etc away for free because they are building and advertising the Google brand which will then translate into them earning money via their revenue streams on other products. There is no money for nothing. |
08:04pm 27/08/13 Permalink
However we should probably aspire to do nothing about transport in this country and build more roads for conservatives to drive in reverse down. That's not what I'm saying. and provided the traffic projections are met Followed by this A return of abound $2.30 on every dollar invested. Is the part that gives me the s****. Projections of user uptake are always fudged in the positive for a new investment. Clem7 is a prime example. It *might* get a return it might not. $114 b is a lot of money on might. Education by contrast has enormous proven benefits. It would make sense to me to try a smaller portion of the network rather than committing to the whole network at the start. That productivity benefit sounds a bit pie in the sky. Flights are already less than 3 hours cbd to cbd between Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. *Edit* that report does suggest building in stages to be fair, but I would build say sydney melbourne and let it run for a while. If does turn a decent profit you might not need to pay to build the rest. |
08:33pm 27/08/13 Permalink
Provide ONE example of a Business doing something for people that doesn't benefit their business in some way. I'll be waiting. F*** you are stupid. I provided 2 you gave bulls*** reasons as to why they are invalid. "OMG Google is trying to get their name out there" ... hey dip s*** ... Everyone even the grey haired old farts with short term memory loss know what Google is. Or are you suggesting the students are thinking "hey bing is awesome" ... no really ??? ... " oh wait google gave me free s*** I will search there?" ... no wait you thought bing was good? |
08:50pm 27/08/13 Permalink
Woolworths implemented paid parental leave more than a year before the government introduced it.
|
11:03pm 27/08/13 Permalink
The only word that comes to mind for this is disgusting. The fact that you are "rewarding" people for doing the "normal" thing and shunning those who want to enjoy their life with someone of the same sex is just appalling for any government to think. Are people still that delusional and scared that they think allowing same sex couples to wed will suddenly make zoophiles want to marry?Let anyone marry whoever they want, stop trying to halt the inevitable. I read that last night, seems very odd. I think it's really pandering to the religious vote - which makes sense if it was announced via the ACL. There's supposed to be a 'debate' with Rudd and Abbott hosted by the ACL next week which should be rather....enlightening I suspect. I read something on SBS last night that said if we legalised Same Sex Marriage it would give a boost to the economy in the realms of $970 million. I don't know if those numbers are right, but it would surely be a huge boost, especially in this tough economic times! |
06:11am 28/08/13 Permalink
I read something on SBS last night that said if we legalised Same Sex Marriage it would give a boost to the economy in the realms of $970 million. I don't know if those numbers are right, but it would surely be a huge boost, especially in this tough economic times! The gays don't do celebrations by halves. :P |
09:57am 28/08/13 Permalink
Provide ONE example of a Business doing something for people that doesn't benefit their business in some way. I'll be waiting.This path is pointless and boring because ultimately you get down into the quantum foam of moral reasoning. i.e., noone ever does anything altruistically because everyone is selfishly motivated. Even when people are doing nice things for other people out of the "goodness of their heart', they're actually doing it because it makes them feel good to help other people, so it is ultimately a selfish act. Google, like any large company with a corporate responsibility programme, do a bunch of nice things because they're nice AND because it possibly helps their bottom line in some obvious or non-obvious way. The important thing is more that they're doing them at all. People b**** about Bill Gates all the time saying that his foundation is evil because it ACTUALLY makes a s***load of money through investments in big horrible companies. What actually happens though (as I understand it) is his foundation (which remember is f*****g ginormous) has two main chunks - one that is dedicated to charitable actions, and one which is dedicated to managing the money. They have little to do with each other, except that money flows from the latter to the former. It's not the job of the money managers to do anything else except make money so that it can continue to fund the charitable works. |
10:06am 28/08/13 Permalink
http://www.pokerasiapacific.com/election-2013-grim-tidings-online-poker41148.html
Abbott to ban online poker |
10:13am 28/08/13 Permalink
What actually happens though (as I understand it) is his foundation (which remember is f*****g ginormous) has two main chunks - one that is dedicated to charitable actions, and one which is dedicated to managing the money. They have little to do with each other, except that money flows from the latter to the former. It's not the job of the money managers to do anything else except make money so that it can continue to fund the charitable works. It seems that a charitable organisation should at least try to invest ethically. If you're making money off Shell displacing people in Darfur and are then giving the profits to refugees of Darfur, it seems oddly perverse. It is all a bit moot that corporations are capable of charity (which they obviously are, cynically or otherwise). The NBN isn't going to get built of the back of corporate charity, that much we can be certain of. And contrary to Vash, Google fiber or street view haven't been created for some reason other than profit, or at least if either of them were fundamentally unprofitable you would watch them disappear (RE: google wave). The NBN needs to make a solid business case because otherwise it is just a government service, and I can't see why when we are cutting government services left, right and centre super fast internet is a big spending priority. |
11:06am 28/08/13 Permalink
What actually happens though (as I understand it) is his foundation (which remember is f*****g ginormous) has two main chunks - one that is dedicated to charitable actions, and one which is dedicated to managing the money. They have little to do with each other, except that money flows from the latter to the former. It's not the job of the money managers to do anything else except make money so that it can continue to fund the charitable works. Correct. It was interesting watching Bill Gates when he was on Q&A. If it's still available to watch I suggest you check it out because the ethics of the money making side of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was raised, and it made him squirm a bit. It is all a bit moot that corporations are capable of charity (which they obviously are, cynically or otherwise). The NBN isn't going to get built of the back of corporate charity, that much we can be certain of. And contrary to Vash, Google fiber or street view haven't been created for some reason other than profit, or at least if either of them were fundamentally unprofitable you would watch them disappear (RE: google wave). Irrespective of Google's intention and how they benefit from building fibre networks, one only has to do a few quick searches to see the positive benefit for the community with new startups, lots of jobs being created which is hugely important in the U.S. given the fact they're still in the midst of/recovering from economic downturn. |
11:28am 28/08/13 Permalink
i.e., noone ever does anything altruistically because everyone is selfishly motivated. Even when people are doing nice things for other people out of the "goodness of their heart', they're actually doing it because it makes them feel good to help other people, so it is ultimately a selfish act. Ayn Rand would be pleased. :) |
11:39am 28/08/13 Permalink
Irrespective of Google's intention and how they benefit from building fibre networks, one only has to do a few quick searches to see the positive benefit for the community with new startups, lots of jobs being created which is hugely important in the U.S. given the fact they're still in the midst of/recovering from economic downturn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand |
11:39am 28/08/13 Permalink
http://www.pokerasiapacific.com/election-2013-grim-tidings-online-poker41148.html At first my reaction was "sounds great, I don't have a problem with this". But then when I read the article and thought about it I realised something: Not all games are played for money. Not all games involve losing anything. People have to have ways to learn and practice activities, and this is one of them which is valid. So while to me this makes sense when you talk about people losing actual money or assets, free-to-play poker also being banned sounds to me like a mildly retarded decision. |
12:04pm 28/08/13 Permalink
What is the obsession with banning things? Humans are meant to be free.
|
12:07pm 28/08/13 Permalink
I just skimmed the article but I think it is only talking about banning poker when money is involved. Surely they wouldn't ban free-to-play poker that just makes no sense whatsoever.
|
12:13pm 28/08/13 Permalink
i wasn't even aware the online gambling was 'banned' or whatever
i don't get why? are they going to shut down casinos next as well? |
12:23pm 28/08/13 Permalink
Coalition releases savings, but voters have to wait for full bottom line
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/coalition-releases-savings-but-voters-have-to-wait-for-full-bottom-line-20130828-2spfn.html |
12:26pm 28/08/13 Permalink
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/live-2013-federal-election-8212-day-24/story-fnho52ip-1226705405717
The biggest saving will be reducing the public service by 12,000 people, saving $5.2 billion over the budget forward estimates. Only another 12,000 people who will lose their job, go on the dole and barely be able to make ends meet. |
12:48pm 28/08/13 Permalink
Only another 12,000 people who will lose their job, go on the dole and barely be able to make ends meet. no no you big silly. its an oportunity to start up your own business and prosper now that the horrible business prohibitive labor government is gone!!!! |
12:56pm 28/08/13 Permalink
the government is not a means of employment, it should only be employing the staff is needs and can afford. It's ok for people to find other jobs, normal peiople (aka non-public servants) do this all the time. NSW hacked its public service back after the Libs got in and didn't miss a beat. Most commonwealth public servants are paper shufflers in case you didn't realise.
|
12:58pm 28/08/13 Permalink
I guess the positive news out of this 12,000 job cut is that they aren't doing it in one swift move like Queensland did, instead doing it over four years. That was the big problem with Newman, he came in and cut jobs instantly with no warnings or preparation beforehand. At least this won't cause mass hysterics and flood the job market.
|
01:16pm 28/08/13 Permalink
What is the obsession with banning things? Humans are meant to be free. Because society needs rules in order to function. We've banned a whole stack of undesirable behaviours in order to make our world a more pleasant place to live. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a conversation about whether or not to ban something, and certainly there aren't many things that need to be outright banned, but the idea that we can live in a world without restrictions on our behaviour is flawed. Left to their own devices people can do horrible things to each other. |
01:21pm 28/08/13 Permalink
Interesting data here from the abc's votecompass. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-28/vote-compass-map-battlelines-seats-at-odds/4909772
Basically for all the questions similar to "Asylum seekers who arrive by boat should not be allowed to settle in Australia" People in Queensland seats were in favor of the statement while people in Victorian seats were least in favor. It's funny because the seats at the top of the "least in favour" start at inner city Melbourne and then work it's way out. Inner city Melbourne is ground zero for the greens and inner city hipsters, surrounding city suburbs are Labor and outer suburbs are Liberal. It's a cascading effect. http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/live-2013-federal-election-8212-day-24/story-fnho52ip-1226705405717Only another 12,000 people who will lose their job, go on the dole and barely be able to make ends meet. Or another 12,000 people who can go out and get another job. |
04:10pm 28/08/13 Permalink
Only another 12,000 people who will lose their job, go on the dole and barely be able to make ends meet. Troll much? They have said many times it is 12,000 by attrition, i.e. not replacing people as they retire.. |
04:37pm 28/08/13 Permalink
i wasn't even aware the online gambling was 'banned' or whateveri don't get why?are they going to shut down casinos next as well? I think they're just following in USA's footsteps as per usual. The USA banned online poker because they haven't figured out a way to effectively tax it. |
05:38pm 28/08/13 Permalink
yeah i nearly mentioned tax in my post, that seemed most likely the reason
|
05:46pm 28/08/13 Permalink
Removing people form the public service by attrition is totally acceptable.
|
05:54pm 28/08/13 Permalink
Haha, love how Rudd asked Abbott again the question of where exactly they will be cutting and spending yet he couldn't answer it. Instead he chose to go back in time stating that Liberal saved heaps previously. Wake up call Abbott, this isn't the past, we need to know the present.
|
07:04pm 28/08/13 Permalink
So is Abbott cutting tax for big business and scrapping school kids bonus?
No f***** surprise there if that's the case, typical liberals only care about helping murdoch and his moron mates and not about the everyday person. |
07:21pm 28/08/13 Permalink
So is Abbott cutting tax for big business and scrapping school kids bonus? Those 2 things have been Coalition policy for a year + now and you only just heard about it? Are you ready going to scream a "ERRR MEERRDD GERDDD MURDOCH MEDIA" because they are going to give a small tax cut to help struggling companies and businesses which will help stimulate the economy and employment? wow. |
07:29pm 28/08/13 Permalink
I think they're just following in USA's footsteps as per usual. The USA banned online poker because they haven't figured out a way to effectively tax it. Or it could just be money laundering aspect... p.s. if you think it will only be 12000 public service jobs that go you are an idiot. And that may or may not be a good thing it depends where the jobs are coming from, and how many "friends" of the new government get overpriced contracts. (infi is big kev excited!) p.p.s Campbell Newman said he would not impact frontline services. What was that? they have closed ICU beds at every hospital in the state? |
08:35pm 28/08/13 Permalink
p.s. if you think it will only be 12000 public service jobs that go you are an idiot. And that may or may not be a good thing it depends where the jobs are coming from, and how many "friends" of the new government get overpriced contracts. (infi is big kev excited!) 1. As an approved aged care provider I am paid the same as every other provider, based on resident needs and audited by the government. 2. 30% of aged care providers run at a loss. 3. This compares to the blackmail rates being charged by NBN installers because the project is under costed and running behind schedule. |
08:53pm 28/08/13 Permalink
Are you defending something that hasn't even happened yet ?
|
08:55pm 28/08/13 Permalink
Looks like Julia Gillard might be coming back
MINISTERS and Labor factional powerbrokers are openly questioning whether Julia Gillard would have done a better job than Kevin Rudd as panic rises within the Government over its faltering campaign. If only someone would clue them in on the fact that Australians hate LABORS policies and record, not the leader. |
11:28pm 28/08/13 Permalink
switch back to sheerobesity peter?
|
07:50am 29/08/13 Permalink
can get julia back in there?
lolz, was listening to clive palm(er/y) on the radio this morning; dude be bonkers. |
09:20am 29/08/13 Permalink
READ THIS ARTICLE BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR NEXT POST. PLZ. WITH A CHERRY ON TOP. OK TURNING CAPS OFF - now.
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/08/why-the-election-has-failed/#comments |
09:38am 29/08/13 Permalink
lolz, was listening to clive palm(er/y) on the radio this morning; I watched a clip on Clive before I went to bed last night ended up having mad dreams/nightmares about him |
09:50am 29/08/13 Permalink
no slaps you big silly, its because the coalition are much better at managing money!!!!!
|
10:07am 29/08/13 Permalink
They have Shorten but he won't lead the party until after the election.
|
10:07am 29/08/13 Permalink
Yeah, they had to elect someone who could either win the election or was happy to fall on the sword and save the furniture.
|
10:14am 29/08/13 Permalink
READ THIS ARTICLE BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR NEXT POST. PLZ. WITH A CHERRY ON TOP. OK TURNING CAPS OFF - now. I tried to raise that s*** about 10 pages back, and not even a blip. |
10:59am 29/08/13 Permalink
READ THIS ARTICLE BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR NEXT POST. PLZ. WITH A CHERRY ON TOP. OK TURNING CAPS OFF - now.that article is just a guide to why you shouldn't vote labor or liberal |
11:50am 29/08/13 Permalink
http://www.sportsbet.com.au/blog/home/sportsbet-pays-out-early-on-coalition-to-win-2013-election?CarouselSB1
The money is in my account. |
11:57am 29/08/13 Permalink
Gratz infi, good to see you take politics so seriously.
|
12:01pm 29/08/13 Permalink
that article is just a guide to why you shouldn't vote labor or liberal we should waste our votes on minor parties that wont win? |
01:11pm 29/08/13 Permalink
we should waste our votes on minor parties that wont win?I haven't read this whole thread, but surely this has already come up and been debunked. Just in case you are serious and actually believe that it is vote wasting, here's Dennis the Election Koala to explain how it all works (source) tldr, we live in Australia where everything is awesome and voting for independents is actually a good way to make sure the issues you care about are well represented in our political system. And it will help ensure we don't end up like other random s***holes in the world (e.g., the USA) where their politics are entirely dominated by two parties who are basically identical for all intents and purposes. http://trog.qgl.org/up/1308/web-700-cant-waste-vote-SINGLE-IMAGE.png |
01:18pm 29/08/13 Permalink
I can't vote for the Wakkun Nice Party until I see more on the costings of these Hugs & A Cup of Tea policies they're proposing.
|
01:23pm 29/08/13 Permalink
I haven't read this whole thread, but surely this has already come up and been debunked yer, see the problem with your nice little cartoon is this bit: "a minor party can win seats if enough people vote for them" Thats the bit that doesn't happen. So even if im totally disenchanted with the major parties i have to vote for the least evil, otherwise im wasting my vote. sure, if everyone was over the two main parties, your nice little cartoon would ring true, but unfortuneately (for you and all of us in the real world) this doesnt happen. |
01:38pm 29/08/13 Permalink
How did the last debate go? I see almost all news sites say abbott smashed rudd but thats completely different from the opinions from random people i have seen
|
01:44pm 29/08/13 Permalink
minor parties have a better chance in the senate.
Fielding got in with 1.5% of the primary vote. Pauline Hanson is looking good for a Senate seat at the expense of a Liberal Senator thanks to preference deals. |
01:45pm 29/08/13 Permalink
results from moreton last election:
obviously i dont want to vote for the greens because my family cant afford that, so where would my vote have had the best effect?
|
01:47pm 29/08/13 Permalink
yay, it would have been a complete waste, but i could have helped the family first party!!!!
preferences are awesome! |
01:48pm 29/08/13 Permalink
Thats the bit that doesn't happen. So even if im totally disenchanted with the major parties i have to vote for the least evil, otherwise im wasting my vote.except in the last election, where it did happen? And the Greens swayed the entire balance of power in the country? The ultimate in throwing your vote away is giving it to one of the two parties who keep feeding us the same bulls*** and not actually doing anything. Your attitude is voting the party that sucks the least, instead of the party which actually does something you want, which strikes me as a pretty good way to make a country suck |
01:49pm 29/08/13 Permalink
I've seen this around the place in a lot of commentary on US politics from people disillusioned with both the Democrats and Republicans and thought it was pretty funny and pretty appropriate when I see people talking like Labor and Liberal are the only two options they have. It's from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
[An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...] |
01:56pm 29/08/13 Permalink
pretty sure i could vote for the free marijuana party until the cows come home and it would change exactly squat in my lifetime bro.
but its nice to have ideals i guess! |
01:57pm 29/08/13 Permalink
obviously i dont want to vote for the greens because my family cant afford that, so where would my vote have had the best effect?haha if your electorate is terribad like that then your choices are indeed limited. Vote away. |
01:59pm 29/08/13 Permalink
Voting for who you want to vote for is an odd definition of 'throwing your vote away' though.
If you want to protest vote for a minor party that you reckon has a snowflake's chance in hell of getting elected then put who you'd normally vote for as second preference and the instant-runoff voting system takes care of it for you. |
02:08pm 29/08/13 Permalink
How did the last debate go? I see almost all news sites say abbott smashed rudd but thats completely different from the opinions from random people i have seen It's like this: Who did that person plan on voting for before the debate? Congratulations, you now know who that person thought won the debate. |
02:14pm 29/08/13 Permalink
Plus we have proportional representation in the Senate, so a party can still get seats with only a small slice of the vote.
|
02:14pm 29/08/13 Permalink
KEVIN Rudd has been accused of sabotaging Clive Palmer's election campaign by stopping a fuel truck from refilling his plane. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/clive-palmer-accuses-kevin-rudd-of-election-campaign-sabotage/story-fni0fiyv-1226706605528# I wonder how long before he starts screaming "OMG THE JEWS, THE JEWS ARE RUINING MY CAMPAIGN AND CONTROL THE THE MEDIA" This guy is f*****g retarded. |
02:29pm 29/08/13 Permalink
I was gonna watch the debate last night but ACA had a story on a son who ripped of his fathers fortune.
and my cat was chasing her tail. |
03:40pm 29/08/13 Permalink
I was gonna catch the debate last night but I found the packet of Stilnox I was looking for.
|
04:02pm 29/08/13 Permalink
kevins doing an IAmA from 6pm http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1lbe0s/i_am_kevin_rudd_the_prime_minister_of_australia
|
05:39pm 29/08/13 Permalink
when I see people talking like Labor and Liberal are the only two options they have. No there are other options. Take Lilley for example
The CEC ... wow no (go read up on them before voting for them as some form of protest ... if you share their values awesome I don't) Family First ... um no Down to 5 already. LNP ... can not stand Hockey or Abbott. The proposed maternity pay is so wrong it's not funny, how many meals could homeless (usually diagnosed mentally ill "but we don't have enough funds to deal with it people" would that have helped) ... also work choices, Abbott loved it... also their NBN either spend no money at all or do it properly (retards)... So no. Katter ... I actually think Katter is one of the few politician's in this country that is honest and does their job acurately representing his constituents, but I disagree on too many of his fundamental beliefs that I could not vote for his party. That said I would not be upset if he won. Down to 3. Labor ... Current PNG solution, Kev being well Kev ... He is a politician in the worst sense of the word. Greens ? ... they are too far left economically and to enviro centric. That leaves ? Palmer ? and I think he is certifiably nuts, some of his ideas are interesting, some of them are see the first comment. At the moment I am stuck ... Blank card, Palmer or Katter (at least he is honest)... p.s. Warwick Capper never ended up putting in his nomination, he had my vote purely for comedy value. p.p.s. Did you notice choices mainly were made on the leaders and not the local member ? this highlights the complete and utter failure that is our current parliamentary system, no one ever crosses the floor. And the senate always splits on party lines and never on state lines ... |
06:10pm 29/08/13 Permalink
Mr Rudd is doing a AMA right now in Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1lbe0s/i_am_kevin_rudd_the_prime_minister_of_australia/
|
06:14pm 29/08/13 Permalink
I thought Wayne Swan was an ok local member but? I tend to take the option that if my local member is crap then I'll preference the other guy.
I've got Kelly O'Dwyer in my electorate who annoys me because she's smarter than the soundbite puppet she portrays, so she'll be preferenced below Labor. |
06:29pm 29/08/13 Permalink
06:52pm 29/08/13 Permalink
07:11pm 29/08/13 Permalink
I saw an ad commercial on TV today that said if Tony Abbott wins then 4000 people are going to magically lose their jobs. Doesn't say who or why just 4000 people are going to lose their jobs
|
07:34pm 29/08/13 Permalink
I saw an ad commercial on TV today that said if Tony Abbott wins then 4000 people are going to magically lose their jobs. Doesn't say who or why just 4000 people are going to lose their jobs Labor is relying on blatantly false information to win votes. It's a sign of desperation. |
07:40pm 29/08/13 Permalink
when I see people talking like Labor and Liberal are the only two options they have. Unless you fill out your preferences then it is pretty black and white. Voting for Katter or pup is basicaly the same as voting liberal. Voting for greens is basically the same as voting labor. Only differnce it makes is that it gives the PM an idea of what direction the country is heading. For example considering the loarge number of Greens voters last election that is kind of an indication that a carbon tax was more of a possibility. Same thing happened with one Nation back in 2001 where they got more than 4% of the total votes. this opened up a mandate to implement stronger boarder protection policies. |
07:48pm 29/08/13 Permalink
Very smart move going to Reddit. One of the biggest social channels and the easiest way to connect with the youth who will be voting for the first time.
Wonder if this election will see close numbers, or a landslide? |
08:21pm 29/08/13 Permalink
sports bet say its already over :(
|
08:24pm 29/08/13 Permalink
sports bet say its already over :( Oh yeah, forgot they could see into the future. Also Kevin Rudd's favourite thing about Australia is drop bears and drop wombats. |
08:28pm 29/08/13 Permalink
08:34pm 29/08/13 Permalink
hahaha there is another good one -
PMKevinRudd[S] 425 points 1 hour agohttp://i.imgur.com/OGGBGnc.jpg |
08:41pm 29/08/13 Permalink
I wonder how long Kevin Dudd will continue to say the coalition's costings have a blackhole when it's continuelly exposed as a lie?
Even public servants now agree it's a lie. TWO of Australia's most senior public servants have undermined Labor claims of a $10 billion black hole in Tony Abbott's election costings, prompting Joe Hockey to call Kevin Rudd "a liar". Treasury head Martin Parkinson and Finance chief David Tune, in a joint statement, forced the Government on the defensive just hours after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had publicly accused the Coalition of a $10 billion "fraud". So first off it's $70 billion and now its $10 billion and now even that's exposed as a lie? Great one Kevin. |
09:42pm 29/08/13 Permalink
So I was doing the maths today to find out a good price for upgrading my solar system. Basically, with a 5KW system I'll make roughly 20kWh/day (my 1.5kW system produces roughly 6kWh/day) I'd be getting a minimum of $1500/year income after taking away the power I use at night, thanks to the .50 feed in tariff I get. Also, I wont have to fork out the $1024/year I currently pay. So the net difference is $2500, my inverter is a 5kW inverter so I just have to pay for panel installation.
Basically if it costs me $5000 to install the new panels, 2 years to pay off the upgrade and free $'s after that. That is a pretty damn high rate of return, even after I factor in losses from lost interest repayment savings. No wonder electricity prices are going up, to pay for s*** like this.. I wonder if the Liberals will scrap all the solar panel rebates or whatever they are doing now and feed in tariffs in an effort to slow down electricity price increases? Crazy. |
10:41pm 29/08/13 Permalink
I just love how excited Antony Green gets about Elections.
Hes the Bill Collins of Elections. |
10:42pm 29/08/13 Permalink
No wonder electricity prices are going up, to pay for s*** like this.. I wonder if the Liberals will scrap all the solar panel rebates or whatever they are doing now and feed in tariffs in an effort to slow down electricity price increases? They already have. It's now 8c feed in tarrif. I am pretty sure you won't get the 44c rebate on the 5k system as energex won't approve it and if they do your whole system will be at the 8c rate. In a pretty length reply from Cando when I asked why they were raising the electricity prices after that being an electrion promise he wrote this "One thing I found staggering was that the QCA estimates the federal government carbon tax and renewable energy target, along with the former state government's solar bonus scheme will add over $200 to a typical 2013-2014 bill. That is an increible burden on ordinary people." |
01:27am 30/08/13 Permalink
Something for Trog regarding our earlier discussion on maglev trains http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/581-kmh-japan-tests-worlds-fastest-train-20130829-2sshp.html
581 km/h: Japan tests world's fastest train Now something like that, at those speeds would be perfect for Australia. |
02:24am 30/08/13 Permalink
Yeah dodgymon, I was goign to be checking that. If I upgraded my current system, would my feed in tariff remain.
|
06:56am 30/08/13 Permalink
Ahh sweet, checking Origin Energy's website:
Sweet. My current inverter capacity is 5kW, way above my current Solar capacity, so according to their rules if I add more panels, I don't have to change my inverter capacity and therefor retain the 44cents +6 cents feed in tariff. Woot, thanks gubberment. |
07:02am 30/08/13 Permalink
10:35am 30/08/13 Permalink
Your laughing then Toll.
My 5k system only gets the 8c :( |
04:54pm 30/08/13 Permalink
Oh yeah, forgot they could see into the future. hahaha jesus christ some of you are deluded. it's as over as it's getting, the bookies are never, ever this wrong. |
06:50pm 30/08/13 Permalink
It still dumbfounds me how unpopular labor became during Gillard/Rudd terms.
Debt one of the lowest in the developed world low unemployment prospering economy survived the GFC among the worlds strongest banks. And policy that would advance where we lag behind, such as the NBN. |
06:55pm 30/08/13 Permalink
I blame NSW labor in state gov. Everyone has had enough of their s***.
|
06:57pm 30/08/13 Permalink
built by corporate charity. Where for art thou Google? 1mbps is such sweet sorrow.
|
06:59pm 30/08/13 Permalink
I think once people get a taste of Abbott's craziness, they'll change their minds again and want Labor back.
I dont think Abbott will survive beyond 1 term. |
07:00pm 30/08/13 Permalink
I dont think Abbott will survive beyond 1 term. no doubt - he'll be replaced if he is voted in. There are younger, networked and smarter puppets standing by |
07:11pm 30/08/13 Permalink
Beside the "sanity" that rudd represents. Your one liners are as piss weak as Rudd. The best Labor could offer after some 15 years in the wilderness is some china crazed power mad control freak. The worst tony abbot will have is replacement by a little l liberal.
You're not painting a positive picture. |
07:13pm 30/08/13 Permalink
Where is this evidence that he's a power mad control freak? A few quotes of released anger when he believed the camera is off? Abbott was placed in the same situation and showed a similar foul attitude. They're both Human, after all. What really matters is policy. And Labor trumps Liberal in that regard. |
07:16pm 30/08/13 Permalink
The second Rudd came back to power he made it that you needed a 75% vote to have a leadership poll. Or for the cynically minded, one need control 1/4 of the caucus to hold power.
I assume Labor will sort it's issues out around 2023 based on the last outing. Labor has no policy of actual note. It has liberal party values for everything except wanton self interest (refugees v NBN) The Labor party is a valueless sack of s*** that has earned its place. |
07:26pm 30/08/13 Permalink
Something for Trog regarding our earlier discussion on maglev trains http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/581-kmh-japan-tests-worlds-fastest-train-20130829-2sshp.htmlThat is f*****g aaaaaaaaaaawesome. 581km is practically as fast as flying!@# I look forward to getting on that bad boy when its opened in Japan - you know, where everything is like from the future. Hey have Labor or Liberal commented extensively on the Syria situation? |
07:26pm 30/08/13 Permalink
581km is practically as fast as flying!@# yer, its about half the speed of flying |
07:34pm 30/08/13 Permalink
haha, yer provided you are flying/training to sydney!
|
07:46pm 30/08/13 Permalink
coalition should be in for at least 3 terms. Good times.
|
08:03pm 30/08/13 Permalink
America wont attack Syria.
Rudd was all gun-ho on it. Abbott was more restrained. |
08:12pm 30/08/13 Permalink
coalition should be in for at least 3 terms. Good times. lolz, moar like 1 term bro. |
08:23pm 30/08/13 Permalink
08:40pm 30/08/13 Permalink
vote greens^ Or Pirate Party, which seem to actually have reasonable policies and clued in. coalition should be in for at least 3 terms. Good times.Coalition may, but Tony won't last long, not with how he acts. We don't need a George W Bush of Australia. |
08:58pm 30/08/13 Permalink
10:47pm 30/08/13 Permalink
do you think the PPL thing is a blow to Mens ego's ?
|
11:11pm 30/08/13 Permalink
Fast forward to 2:24
|
11:19pm 30/08/13 Permalink
do you think the PPL thing is a blow to Mens ego's ? I think it's a blow to equality. Why do women who are highly paid and already better off get more money while they're on maternity leave from the taxpayer? |
11:42pm 30/08/13 Permalink
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/life-is-much-better-under-labor-after-all-says-study-20130830-2sw8l.html
Better under labor, study seems to agree. |
08:12am 31/08/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: citation needed |
08:39am 31/08/13 Permalink
seems like a normal liberal voter/supporter.
|
10:05am 31/08/13 Permalink
wtf HurricanJim, what does that 'info'graph mean? It is comparing something to something else that doesn't seem related?
|
10:13am 31/08/13 Permalink
So it turns out Abbott actually did make that comment about King's Cross. Victim blaming is one of the lowest acts possible and the hallmark of a real c***. He is our next PM. Woe is us :(
|
10:16am 31/08/13 Permalink
Vote yes! Because a vote for yes is a vote for Australia.
|
11:09am 31/08/13 Permalink
@Damo
wow... I was actually expecting something intellectual based on how he was sounding initially. Maybe a well constructed argument and I would be glad to watch...how wrong I was. Is it trolling? |
11:10am 31/08/13 Permalink
So it turns out Abbott actually did make that comment about King's Cross. Victim blaming is one of the lowest acts possible and the hallmark of a real c***. He is our next PM. Woe is us :(I heard about that and searched on it and it seemed legit. What a douchenozzle. |
11:16am 31/08/13 Permalink
It also amazes me how the liberal voters in this thread call Rudd power hungry, egotistical and seem to ignore many of the things Abbott has said over the years, showing much more personality flaw than Rudd.
|
11:22am 31/08/13 Permalink
12:32pm 31/08/13 Permalink
So it turns out Abbott actually did make that comment about King's Cross. Victim blaming is one of the lowest acts possible and the hallmark of a real c***. He is our next PM. Woe is us :( What he said is common sense though, if you're walking around a dodgy area at that time of day you should prepared for a fight like my mate who broke a mugger's nose in Browns park in Ipswich. Use your brain |
01:34pm 31/08/13 Permalink
01:45pm 31/08/13 Permalink
Just read that abbott comment on the kings cross victim. Aparently his idea of asutralia is a country where lawlessness is an accepted part of life where no go zones are the norm. If this happened in some darkened alley off a side street somehwere i still wouldnt agree with him but you could kind of see where he was coming from. However this happened in the busiest late night entertainment area of pretty any city in the country a place that draws people in from all over.
It should be responable for people to have an expectation of personal safety in place so damn popular but aparently in his world that isnt the case. What seriously dumbass c*** he is |
01:46pm 31/08/13 Permalink
What he said is common sense though, if you're walking around a dodgy area at that time of day you should prepared for a fight like my mate who broke a mugger's nose in Browns park in Ipswich. Use your brainKing's Cross is an entertainment district with venues open to all hours of the morning. People have a right to be there at anytime and they also have a right to feel safe. Saying a victim of an unprovoked assault "shouldn't be there" is classic victim blaming and if you think it resembles common-sense in anyway then welcome to the club buddy. Pick up your froth bucket on the way in. edit: it also closely resembles the reddit/mra trope of how girls who dress up 'slutty' are asking to be raped. Is that common-sense as well? |
02:12pm 31/08/13 Permalink
didn't he also say that most rape victims are just about asking for it as well?
at least kevin isn't straight abusing the australian public |
02:18pm 31/08/13 Permalink
I'm not too sure about that but he did say that abortion is just
|
02:20pm 31/08/13 Permalink
Indeed he did - http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/16/1079199224910.html
|
02:28pm 31/08/13 Permalink
But guys, the leader isn't important we have to look at his policies like stop the boats, increase middle-class welfare and install an already obsolete broadband network.
|
02:39pm 31/08/13 Permalink
King's Cross is an entertainment district with venues open to all hours of the morning. People have a right to be there at anytime and they also have a right to feel safe. Saying a victim of an unprovoked assault "shouldn't be there" is classic victim blaming but it isn't victim blaming it's saying "check yoself before you wreck yourself". Blaming the victim would be saying "he was s*** stirring and he deserved it." I can see people like you have no wisdom when it comes to matters like these, maybe you have not been in this situation before... I have been homeless before and you have to have situational awareness otherwise you will get f***ed up Why do you think 99% of women never walk around at night by themselves even though they have "the right to be there and the right to feel safe" ? |
02:39pm 31/08/13 Permalink
But guys, the leader isn't important we have to look at his policies like stop the boats Exactly. Australians are too focused on the popularity and celebrity of the leaders, our election campaigns have been Americanized now. |
02:44pm 31/08/13 Permalink
No it's victim blaming. He is saying that a person who has every right to be there and has every right to feel safe while being there is partly in the wrong because they shouldn't have been there in the first place. If he said "it can be kind of dangerous out on the town at night so make sure you be careful when doing so" you might have a point. He didn't say that though, he said he "shouldn't be there". It's right there in black and white for you to read but I think you lack wisdom when it comes to reading comprehension. You'd think you wouldn't have a problem with that with all the (heh) scientific papers that you apparently read but here we are.
The reason many women don't walk alone at night is because they are aware of the violence that exists in our society. In the event one gets attacked she wasn't asking for it and it is 0% her fault. It is 100% on the attacker in every single case of sexual assault that has ever occurred. What is it with all the Abbott supporters on QGL being as thick as s***? |
02:47pm 31/08/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: abusive / banned |
02:51pm 31/08/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Off-Topic |
02:52pm 31/08/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Off-Topic |
02:53pm 31/08/13 Permalink
He needs to be counselled and undertake some sensitivity training.
|
02:55pm 31/08/13 Permalink
There's a difference larger than the size of your forehead between those two statements, yes.
|
02:55pm 31/08/13 Permalink
There's a difference larger than the size of your forehead between those two statements, yes. Line #1: Hey man, this place is dangerous, maybe we shouldn't be here Line #2: Hey man, this place is dangerous, maybe we should be careful |
02:59pm 31/08/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Not Relevant |
03:01pm 31/08/13 Permalink
Dude, even infi is agreeing Abbot is in the wrong.
Gonna repeat that: Even infi is agreeing Abbot is in the wrong. |
03:02pm 31/08/13 Permalink
Let me introduce you to our little friend called context. Context helps us to better understand a presented situation by giving the words more specific meaning. What you have just done is present two statements in no context whatsoever. Just for the record, they are still different to each other, but not to the degree that they are different when we add context.
The context in this situation is that a man was out in an entertainment district in the early hours of morning. This is a common practice by young people as it allows them to socialise amongst their friends in a party environment. An important function of an entertainment district is for it to be safe, and with licensing laws and law enforcement working together hopefully danger can be minimised. Unfortunately it can't be eradicated, and sometimes a rogue element like a king-hitter will attack someone unprovoked and kill them. Should the attacked person have been there? That's not a question that should even be asked. The questions that should be asked are how can we minimise the chances of this happening again, and who did it so we can lock their sorry arse up so they can think about what they have done. Abbott said he shouldn't be there though. To be honest, it would even be slightly c***ing to say "it's a dangerous spot and you have to be careful" as that is hinting that the attacked person wasn't being careful and was somewhat to blame. As I said though, he went hog-wild and just outright blamed the victim because that's what a misogynistic, homophobic, science-fearing guy likes to do I guess. Why? You'll have to ask him. |
03:14pm 31/08/13 Permalink
So its ok in this day and age to have places in this "free" country that people should not be?
Watch out any chick in a mini skirt or perhaps kids that get bullied shouldnt be in schools. Is that the road we are on here? |
04:10pm 31/08/13 Permalink
It's not ok, but its a reality.
Kind of reminds me of the enforced no go zones for non muslims in some European countries. |
05:21pm 31/08/13 Permalink
Yeah I think I saw that image macro once as well.
|
05:23pm 31/08/13 Permalink
Sorry if I offended you fpot but if you're gonna say s*** like
"You'd think you wouldn't have a problem with that with all the (heh) scientific papers that you apparently read but here we are." then I will f*** off right now, because that sort of s*** pisses me off. Context It is good you're thinking about context, like when you thought about how women are in general a lot smarter in these situations. Unfortunately it can't be eradicated, and sometimes a rogue element like a king-hitter will attack someone unprovoked and kill them. Should the attacked person have been there? No he shouldn't have been there because it's a dangerous situation. It's risk vs. reward. Do you need to go to some dodgy area to socialise? No. So don't go there. If you do go there, be careful. If you don't want to be careful, learn how to defend yourself. If you're drunk and can't defend yourself against other drunk people, surround yourself with a gang of friends. If your parents didn't teach you common sense, and you get glassed on the street by some drunk guy, it's not your fault, but you're a bit silly for putting yourself in that situation. So next time you're wondering through some street with violent drunk individuals, do think about the context: Should I be here? Is it safe to be here? How can I make myself safer? And to clarify what you said, most of us "young people" aren't idiots that put ourselves in dangerous situations. |
05:33pm 31/08/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Abusive |
05:37pm 31/08/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: quotes deleted post |
05:41pm 31/08/13 Permalink
Yeah it's almost as though this thread is solely about Australian politics and it is almost as though Abbott is the leader of one of the two major parties and our next PM. Funny that I keep mentioning him I must be obsessed!
Kevin Rudd is almost as bad as Abbott. Rudd is bad because he is just acquiescing to what the voters want ala asylum seekers (send those dirty browns away!) whereas Abbott is just a plain malignant c***. Nice of you to assume that I love Rudd just because I dislike Abbott playing the victim blame game though - simpletons do that. |
05:45pm 31/08/13 Permalink
Kevin Rudd is almost as bad as Abbott. Rudd is bad because he is just acquiescing to what the voters want ala asylum seekers (send those dirty browns away!) whereas Abbott is just a plain malignant c***. Nice of you to assume that I love Rudd just because I dislike Abbott playing the victim blame game though - simpletons do that. think what you wish |
05:47pm 31/08/13 Permalink
My problem when it comes to political parties is the fact that I hate all of their leaders. It leaves me in a situation where I'm basically voting for the party that I hate slightly less than the other. I could vote on their policies and promises they make but you'd have to be a moron to do so. People tell small lies and politicians tell lies so big you couldn't cover them up even with corrupt media.
|
06:19pm 31/08/13 Permalink
Gee i wonder if the victims of the strathfield shooting should have known better than to be in a public place where some a****** decides he is going to go nuts. Its a s*** thing having to live in a world with other people, perhaps we should all just stay at home. Oh wait a sec your home might get invaded so you probably shouldnt have any expectation of safety there so f*** it tlets all head out bush and live under a f*****g rock. You never know you might be lucky enough to move in next to the abbot clan and the rock he lives under
|
07:19pm 31/08/13 Permalink
Sure is going to be a lot of butthurt in this thread, this time in a week..
|
02:22am 01/09/13 Permalink
Finally, Australia will get its own George W. Bush.
|
07:35am 01/09/13 Permalink
It will almost be worth it for the comedy value.
|
08:39am 01/09/13 Permalink
I love the smell of butthurt in the morning. Safe borders, less debt and waste. We are about to enter the Age of Aquarius.
|
08:44am 01/09/13 Permalink
Nice troll post.
"Safe" borders - we haven't been invaded since 1942 less debt - you've been scared by the Murdoch empire into thinking it's bad to have the minimal debt we have now compared to the rest of the world. waste - your precious howard wasted more money than any Labor government. The evidence is there, these Labor terms have been the best thing to happen to Australia's prosperity. |
08:51am 01/09/13 Permalink
My problem when it comes to political parties is the fact that I hate all of their leaders. vote for palmer the donald trump of australian politics |
10:17am 01/09/13 Permalink
Heh typical ABC bias towards the leftist position. Economic prowess of the Rudd government they say? Why, let's review all of the evidence posted in this thread so far that thoroughly disproves that position -
http://i.imgur.com/bbEsXPl.jpg Checkmate http://i.imgur.com/n0SO37z.gif |
10:24am 01/09/13 Permalink
everyone should watch that paul keating vid, its totally awesome.
|
10:25am 01/09/13 Permalink
I love the smell of butthurt in the morning. Safe borders, less debt and waste. We are about to enter the Age of Aquarius.hehe, if it wasn't actually depressing, your religous-esque faith and unshakeable conviction in the ideals of the Liberals would be utterly hilarious |
10:33am 01/09/13 Permalink
"Safe" borders - we haven't been invaded since 1942 It was all working when Menzies left office but the incoming government dismantled the STOP THE PLANES! policy apparatus. A6M Zero arrival counts soared after Curtin got in. Bloody Labor. |
10:44am 01/09/13 Permalink
Heh typical ABC bias towards the leftist position. Economic prowess of the Rudd government they say ABC is left biased? |
11:27am 01/09/13 Permalink
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/no-vision-or-inspiration-so-who-do-you-trust-to-govern-20130831-2sxoq.html#ixzz2db8ixmGL
Fairfax agrees with the MURDOCH MEDIA |
11:32am 01/09/13 Permalink
Yeah but calling the age anti labor is a stretch.
|
12:42pm 01/09/13 Permalink
All the newspapers must be biased. It is impossible that Rudd is actually s***.
|
01:53pm 01/09/13 Permalink
Hey look, Abbott will finally reveal all his costings! Oh wait, by Thursday...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-01/abbott-vows-to-detail-full-spending-cuts-by-thursday/4927488 |
02:18pm 01/09/13 Permalink
ABC is left biased? Media watch and QandA for the most obvious bias. Their "ERRR MERR GERD MURODCH" episode the other week was the pinnacle of patheticness. Basically newspapers are biased because they have run lots of negative stories about the Rudd Government, even though the stories were justified. Love media watches logic. All the newspapers must be biased. It is impossible that Rudd is actually s***. This is the most hilarious part of it all. The screams of "OMG MURDOCH PRESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS" have been getting louder and louder all because people just can't accept this Labor government is the worst Australian government ever and they are incredibly incompetent. It must be all the newspapers that are biased and are brainwashing voters into outing rudd! God help us. Paul Keating reminds me of that old drunk uncle who you see once a year at christmas and you are forced to say hello to him but then he draws you into a drunken rant that you can't escape from for an hour. |
02:20pm 01/09/13 Permalink
Media Watch biased? I guess if you consider a show that basically exists to point out bias and one on which people are regularly getting called out on bulls*** 'biased', then yeh, I guess it is.
I don't watch it all the time but they seem to equally pick on anyone that is being a douchebag in media. If you are going to call it biased it should be an utterly trivial matter to go back through the episodes and gather evidence to support that claim. There's this ridiculous attitude that those pesky things like "facts" and "evidence" are considered to be just a secret part of the scary liberal left wing agenda. Sadly, it's because politics in general has had a pretty good run on rhetoric and logical fallacies to try to get make their points. people just can't accept this Labor government is the worst Australian government ever and they are incredibly incompetent.I am not a Labor supporter at all but what is the evidence that they are the "worst government ever"? As a fairly typical Australian citizen I don't feel like they've done anything that could be worthy of such a title. They've certainly looked (from the outside) like a crazily disorganised party with no sense of what they're wanting to do because of the spill etc. I just think it's sad that they didn't do a total policy pivot a couple months back when it was fairly obvious they were the massive underdogs. |
02:28pm 01/09/13 Permalink
By the way, advance notice - I'll lock this thread tomorrow because it's getting a bit long and causing a few performance issues because it's somewhat popular.
I will create a new election thread - if anyone is interested in helping out with the OP to list some useful resources please shoot me a PM! e.g., infi it'd be great if you wanted to put down some stuff about Liberal party, maybe someone wants to volunteer for Labor, etc |
02:31pm 01/09/13 Permalink
People forget that back in 2007 Newscorp media was bias in favour of Rudd but no one complained about that then.
|
02:52pm 01/09/13 Permalink
That's mighty convenient of Abbott, releasing budget information on Thursday, right before political parties are banned from advertising before the mandated rest period.Its actually Wednesday that the media blackout period begins, so the word he gave before that the party would release policies well before that date was a lie. |
06:11pm 01/09/13 Permalink
Did he ever actually say that he would provide them before the advertising black out? I thought the most he was committed to was 'in good time before the election'.
I don't really see how labor having a chance to run ads based on costings is important in any way. RE: ABC left bias, yeah I don't think bias at the ABC exists. I haven't seen any particularly strong evidence of it. MP's of all parties get grilled on Q and A, and mediawatch calling out factual errors isn't bias, its journalism. |
06:17pm 01/09/13 Permalink
Did he ever actually say that he would provide them before the advertising black out? I thought the most he was committed to was 'in good time before the election'.As pointed out here, he refuses to release the costings until after media blackout, and will not release the full Parliamentary Budget Office costing details until 30 days after the election when the PBO themselves publish it. Honestly, what does he have to hide if he won't release the full picture? We had this happen in 2007 with Labor and that didn't go well, why do it again with Liberal? |
06:30pm 01/09/13 Permalink
media blackout Advertising black out. The figures can still be scrutinized by the press. He said on insiders this morning Rudd will have access to the final figures before Thursday evening. That article says nothing about a broken promise to deliver figures before the advertising black out. Again I really don't see how a bunch of Labor advertising is critical to the process. He is releasing them late sure, but it doesn't seem so late that you couldn't inform yourself about them in time. The PBO report will only be another perspective on the costings. |
06:47pm 01/09/13 Permalink
is this guy actually an adult?
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/opposition-leader-tony-abbott-says-conflict-in-syria-is-just-baddies-vs-baddies/story-fnho52ip-1226708473985 or just a an adult with a childs intelect? |
06:58pm 01/09/13 Permalink
Religious nut who is far to disconnected from reality
|
07:02pm 01/09/13 Permalink
Get all the baddies is page 2 of his real solutions pamphlet.
|
07:04pm 01/09/13 Permalink
elections always make me sad.
large portions of australia probably shoudlnt be allowed to vote :( |
07:06pm 01/09/13 Permalink
re: Syria, a quick look on liveleak or ync indicates that both sides are committing horrendous atrocities against both soliders and civilians. there are no rules of war over there...
re people who should not be allowed to vote: if we started culling people with low IQ from voting, Labor would be in a terrible pickle. |
07:35pm 01/09/13 Permalink
The costings will be released before the election. What more do people want?
I'd leave the release late too, we saw what happened when the Liberals released details on their $30 savings, Labor spammed the airwaves with a lie that it had a blackhole which was then exposed. is this guy actually an adult? Yeh, they hand out Rhodes Scholarships to anyone. re people who should not be allowed to vote: if we started culling people with low IQ from voting, Labor would be in a terrible pickle. What about bogans? Bogans are the reason to much attention is on the "leaders" and their celebrity these days. They know bogans watch bogan shows such as big brother etc and are easily captivated by celebrity and love voting for their favourite person. |
07:58pm 01/09/13 Permalink
My point was that leaving it so late doesn't give anyone enough time to dig into the nitty gritty details, instead only offering glances. If Abbott had of released the costings last Friday that would have been perfectly fine, would have had a full week to go through everything and see what exactly is being cut and what isn't.
Instead, what we will have is everyone going to the polls uneducated on what exactly both parties have. I'm all for free press and don't really care too much about Murdoch's agenda, but we know that he will definitely keep as many details out as possible on what the costings are, unless they are all roses. This is why we needed a full week, so other media outlets could dig up and show the public what exactly is going on. No matter what party you swing, this is just not right. We should be able to access ALL of the information on parties weeks before the election day, not two days before. |
08:24pm 01/09/13 Permalink
No matter what party you swing, this is just not right. We should be able to access ALL of the information on parties weeks before the election day, not two days before. Don't worry, I'm confident your local NewsLtd paper will have a breakdown of each detail and how it's the best option for you, and why you should support it. /s ;( |
08:42pm 01/09/13 Permalink
If Abbotts comments suggest Australia wont be wasting the best of our young Soldiers on Americas failed Illegal Wars then thats a good thing, isn't it ?
|
08:45pm 01/09/13 Permalink
Yeah its s***** that he has left it this late, but your statement was that he would release them before the advertising black out, which as I have stated, and you have supplied no contrary evidence for, is false.
Moreover have you availed yourself of the finer details of Labors 5 billion public service efficiency dividend? It's being counted as a saving but other then just insisting they will be 5 billion more efficient I can't find any specific detail for how it will be achieved. It has been out since day one of the campaign. More time is better no doubt but they still actually have to get taken to task on it. These documents tend to be rubbery at the best of times. The most you were ever likely to find was some glaring mismatch in the numbers, not some policy white whale which has been grotesquely and obviously mis-calculated. edit sorry 5 billion was from smoking taxes, the un-detailed savings measures come to 1b source |
09:20pm 01/09/13 Permalink
Everybody remain calm labor/green/union boss empire is only in power for another 6 days
|
09:36pm 01/09/13 Permalink
Only 6 more days until stupid bogans and moronic geeks can vote for the worst government in Australias history just for the NBN.
http://i.imgur.com/bDIAYZR.png |
11:19pm 01/09/13 Permalink
The Greens have announced $1 billion in new spending in their policy release.
ALMOST a third of public schools would have an extra teacher under the Greens education policy, to be announced today I guess it's peanuts when you plan on introducing $42 billion dollars in new taxes. |
03:18am 02/09/13 Permalink
SheerObesity, how did you get that? I know the people involved in that conversation...
It's also funny you blocked out the part where this was posted. http://m.smh.com.au/comment/australia-you-dont-know-how-good-youve-got-it-20130901-2sytb.html |
05:04am 02/09/13 Permalink
http://m.smh.com.au/comment/australia-you-dont-know-how-good-youve-got-it-20130901-2sytb.html Peter Costello and the Howard government prepped us for the GFC, Ruddy wouldn't have been able to do jack s*** without the wealth he inherited. |
07:47am 02/09/13 Permalink
Peter Costello and the Howard government prepped us for the GFC, Ruddy wouldn't have been able to do jack s*** without the wealth he inherited. They had the wealth because of what Labor did before hand. Don't forget Costello also sold off quite a bit of our gold. Wish I had short memory sometimes.. |
07:51am 02/09/13 Permalink
Peter Costello and the Howard government prepped us for the GFC, Ruddy wouldn't have been able to do jack s*** without the wealth he inherited. One does not have to disagree with that to suggest that the treasury-advised response was the correct way to go. |
09:00am 02/09/13 Permalink
Only 6 more days until stupid bogans and moronic geeks can vote for the worst government in Australias history just for the NBN.Oh so you want to ban people from giving their opinions? If someone agrees more with one parties policies that means they are a bogan or moronic geek who would be voting for "the worst government in Australia's history"? Bit hyperbole there don't you think? If this government was as bad as everyone seems to yell then wouldn't the unemployment rate be skyrocketing and wouldn't people be rioting on the streets like Greece? Oh, I see. We aren't. This country is perfectly fine, and this kind of hyperbole is what will get us into more trouble by doing things we shouldn't. The economy isn't at the greatest spot, but it is definitely not at the levels you, Infi and PornoPete seem to carrying on about. It seems like you look out your window and see a completely opposite world where the sky is falling and everyone is doing terrible when in reality that isn't so. So what if someone wants to vote for Labor because of their efficient NBN policy? You seem to be eager to vote for Liberal over their economic policies. That is the point of voting, citizens vote for what they want, not what someone else tells them. Also I somewhat agree with that green highlighted guy, I could see Liberal scrapping their NBN and just going with the current one, though they'll state that they've "looked into" the costings and found they weren't as bad as they stated, and as such can afford it. |
09:12am 02/09/13 Permalink
