Twitter, actually.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I 'liked' ABC news on facebook and they post Aus-related shit occasionally.
Though I dont really look for Aus news, I tend to use bbc.co.uk for world news.
Though I dont really look for Aus news, I tend to use bbc.co.uk for world news.
Last edited by KuSTaV (2013-03-24 11:35:34)
noice 
ABC most of the time.
Id give your friend one, Ty
If you think NZ politics is interesting, you've got serious problems
Safe to say Labour probably isn't going to win the next election on either side of the Tasman.
Safe to say Labour probably isn't going to win the next election on either side of the Tasman.
"Stop the boats."
Why don't the media call him out for this simple red meat for racists position?
Why don't the media call him out for this simple red meat for racists position?
Because mainstream media is far too biased in this country.
Out of all the Shadow Ministers I think Scott Morrison has had it easiest in his portfolio of Immigration. The Asylum seeker issue is a hot topic, over blown, and full of legitimate criticisms with neither side providing anything that could be determined a good solution.
Given the chance to better outline the Coalition's 'Turn Back the Boats' policy, Morrison admitted he had no clue whatsoever how it would be implemented but said "I'm sure the Navy will find a way". Tony Abbott backed him up, saying he is "sure Indonesia will accept turned-back boats". Sure they will, just like they are happy to stop them in the first place.
Utterly without substance and utterly clueless.
On another issue I also heard another interesting thing this week. If you look at how power prices have increased since 2006, 96% of the increases are down to the cost of upgrade carriage services. Infrastructure. Meanwhile the cost of energy and generation, which includes the cost of the carbon tax, has actually decreased in this time. So while the carbon tax has added a cost to power generation it clearly isn't particularly important to the upwards trend. Yet it remains Tony's only energy policy, (and I assume Ian Macfarlane's though I can't remember the last time he had anything to say about anything.) It is ineffective and pointless, yet his grandiose stance that shows him as the savior of all and the champion who will put an end to power price rises remains his only stance on the issue. It's like if Michael Clarke promised to win the Ashes by poking Alastair Cook in the eye.
But the problem for Abbott is that he's put in so much time and vitriol into attacking the Government on this one issue if he stepped away and formulated actual good policy that addressed the issues he fears that he'd be called on it and have to admit that the carbon tax probably isn't all that bad. Which means he'd have to drop his "the first thing an incoming Coalition Government would do is scrap the carbon tax" statement. Which means he could no longer use the "there will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead" statement against Gillard. And as attacks against Gillard are all he's got he's completely stuck.
A learned another thing this week too. Paul Keating won the 1993 election from a worse polling position than Gillard has now. So there's that.
No wonder Abbott is aiming to try and pass a no confidence motion in May, his best chance is to capitalise off the spill nonsense and avoid the months of hemming and hawing when he's asked what his policies are. I wonder if he will bother calling for a no confidence motion though, I think by May the leadership spill boil-over will have calmed down and he won't be able to hold his own in a debate or convince the cross-bench MPs to side with him. Abbott can't negotiate for shit and that's one thing Gillard has always had going for her.
One day I'll have to write down every reason why I think Tony Abbott's a clueless fuckwit but it would probably fill a medium-sized novel.
Given the chance to better outline the Coalition's 'Turn Back the Boats' policy, Morrison admitted he had no clue whatsoever how it would be implemented but said "I'm sure the Navy will find a way". Tony Abbott backed him up, saying he is "sure Indonesia will accept turned-back boats". Sure they will, just like they are happy to stop them in the first place.
Utterly without substance and utterly clueless.
On another issue I also heard another interesting thing this week. If you look at how power prices have increased since 2006, 96% of the increases are down to the cost of upgrade carriage services. Infrastructure. Meanwhile the cost of energy and generation, which includes the cost of the carbon tax, has actually decreased in this time. So while the carbon tax has added a cost to power generation it clearly isn't particularly important to the upwards trend. Yet it remains Tony's only energy policy, (and I assume Ian Macfarlane's though I can't remember the last time he had anything to say about anything.) It is ineffective and pointless, yet his grandiose stance that shows him as the savior of all and the champion who will put an end to power price rises remains his only stance on the issue. It's like if Michael Clarke promised to win the Ashes by poking Alastair Cook in the eye.
But the problem for Abbott is that he's put in so much time and vitriol into attacking the Government on this one issue if he stepped away and formulated actual good policy that addressed the issues he fears that he'd be called on it and have to admit that the carbon tax probably isn't all that bad. Which means he'd have to drop his "the first thing an incoming Coalition Government would do is scrap the carbon tax" statement. Which means he could no longer use the "there will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead" statement against Gillard. And as attacks against Gillard are all he's got he's completely stuck.
A learned another thing this week too. Paul Keating won the 1993 election from a worse polling position than Gillard has now. So there's that.
No wonder Abbott is aiming to try and pass a no confidence motion in May, his best chance is to capitalise off the spill nonsense and avoid the months of hemming and hawing when he's asked what his policies are. I wonder if he will bother calling for a no confidence motion though, I think by May the leadership spill boil-over will have calmed down and he won't be able to hold his own in a debate or convince the cross-bench MPs to side with him. Abbott can't negotiate for shit and that's one thing Gillard has always had going for her.
One day I'll have to write down every reason why I think Tony Abbott's a clueless fuckwit but it would probably fill a medium-sized novel.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Could be an option, tbf. Worth considering.It's like if Michael Clarke promised to win the Ashes by poking Alastair Cook in the eye.
There's no chance in hell the indies are gonna side with Abbott. No confidence motion is a stunt.
Last edited by Spark (2013-03-28 00:26:58)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
This sums up every policy released by the current Coalition.Ty wrote:
Utterly without substance and utterly clueless.
Another thing pissed me off today, surprise surprise.
The Liberal Candidate for Eden-Monaro Peter Hendy was talking about the whole superannuation speculation that's going on saying the Government alsways makes changes to a system that is supposed to remain as it is for certainty's sake. First off that's bullshit, politicians are continually dealing with superannuation. It operates within the financial domain, withing the market, there's nothing certain about it. Every time the Reserve Bank makes a decision on official tax rates it impacts superannuation.
Anyway, Hendy wanted to point out that last year the Government passed a change to superannuation for those who earn over $300,000 a year, (those poor souls,) changing their 15% tax rate to 30% - this is simplifying things of course. This only applied to concessional contributions though Hendy failed to mention that. What Hendy wanted to point out how bad the Government was to sneak this through and how it shows the Government as always messing with people's super funds.
First off, it wasn't under the radar, it was widely reported. In fact Bill Shorten and Wayne Swan both talked openly about the move. They weren't shy about it, why would they be? It was a very Labor move that appealed to the Labor base. Secondly it's a pretty minor change. Like I said, (and Hendy didn't,) it's for concessional contributions, it doesn't effect the savings of dear old Mum and Dad with their $300k+ income, it just effects their employer's contribution.
But lastly, if you're complaining that the Government was evil and slimy for passing a change under the radar, (even though it was not passed under the radar,) one has to ask where the fuck the Opposition was in all this? Eh? Isn't it in your fucking job description to hold the Government to account? To pick up on any unscrupulous changes you feel are not in the interest of the people. Where the fuck were you if this change was so damn terrible? No need to answer, I'll tell you - most of the time you had your head up Craig Thomson's backside, the rest of it you spent fueling claims of a Rudd leadership takeover.
The Coalition is a fucking joke.
The Liberal Candidate for Eden-Monaro Peter Hendy was talking about the whole superannuation speculation that's going on saying the Government alsways makes changes to a system that is supposed to remain as it is for certainty's sake. First off that's bullshit, politicians are continually dealing with superannuation. It operates within the financial domain, withing the market, there's nothing certain about it. Every time the Reserve Bank makes a decision on official tax rates it impacts superannuation.
Anyway, Hendy wanted to point out that last year the Government passed a change to superannuation for those who earn over $300,000 a year, (those poor souls,) changing their 15% tax rate to 30% - this is simplifying things of course. This only applied to concessional contributions though Hendy failed to mention that. What Hendy wanted to point out how bad the Government was to sneak this through and how it shows the Government as always messing with people's super funds.
First off, it wasn't under the radar, it was widely reported. In fact Bill Shorten and Wayne Swan both talked openly about the move. They weren't shy about it, why would they be? It was a very Labor move that appealed to the Labor base. Secondly it's a pretty minor change. Like I said, (and Hendy didn't,) it's for concessional contributions, it doesn't effect the savings of dear old Mum and Dad with their $300k+ income, it just effects their employer's contribution.
But lastly, if you're complaining that the Government was evil and slimy for passing a change under the radar, (even though it was not passed under the radar,) one has to ask where the fuck the Opposition was in all this? Eh? Isn't it in your fucking job description to hold the Government to account? To pick up on any unscrupulous changes you feel are not in the interest of the people. Where the fuck were you if this change was so damn terrible? No need to answer, I'll tell you - most of the time you had your head up Craig Thomson's backside, the rest of it you spent fueling claims of a Rudd leadership takeover.
The Coalition is a fucking joke.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Thats the thing about being in opposition, you can say and do what you want but you can't be called to account because nothing you do matters.
Its when you win power that things get sticky, you find you do have to take actual decisions, you will be called to account on them and so on.
As Labor is finding out now. I have no clue how the opposition will get on TBH, its lucky I don't care too much I guess.
Its when you win power that things get sticky, you find you do have to take actual decisions, you will be called to account on them and so on.
As Labor is finding out now. I have no clue how the opposition will get on TBH, its lucky I don't care too much I guess.
Fuck Israel
Exactly how much of Australia is desert/uninhabited land?
98% is urbanized. rest are small towns. lots and lots of uninhabited land.13/f/taiwan wrote:
Exactly how much of Australia is desert/uninhabited land?
Erm, you mean 98% is desert/farmland?
Fuck Israel
shit i meant 98% of the population live in urbanized areas.Dilbert_X wrote:
Erm, you mean 98% is desert/farmland?
That's how I read your statement.
This is doing the rounds. To think he might be our next PM *shudder*
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=553915951305937
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=553915951305937
Holy Hell what was with the last minute of that video? Was that edited or did that actually happen?
I didn't catch much of Abbott's response to the super changes today but I gather his angle is going to be that the Gillard Government lied in February this year when it said it would not change tax rates for super.
What was actually said by Gillard that she was ruling out additional taxing for withdrawals on superannuation for people aged over 60. Righto.
What was done today by Swan and Shorten was the removal of a tax concession. Tax rates are unchanged. There is no additional taxing for withdrawals on superannuation for people aged over 60.
So I'm kind of wondering if Tony has an actual arrgument to make, if he's arguing against what he thought would happen, or whether he's just hoping that no-one will pay attention to him. I don't care if he opposes the move, I'd just like him to comment on what's actually happening for once as opposed to what he's seeing in his head.
I didn't catch much of Abbott's response to the super changes today but I gather his angle is going to be that the Gillard Government lied in February this year when it said it would not change tax rates for super.
What was actually said by Gillard that she was ruling out additional taxing for withdrawals on superannuation for people aged over 60. Righto.
What was done today by Swan and Shorten was the removal of a tax concession. Tax rates are unchanged. There is no additional taxing for withdrawals on superannuation for people aged over 60.
So I'm kind of wondering if Tony has an actual arrgument to make, if he's arguing against what he thought would happen, or whether he's just hoping that no-one will pay attention to him. I don't care if he opposes the move, I'd just like him to comment on what's actually happening for once as opposed to what he's seeing in his head.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
All of the video is what has actually happened. That last part just confirms he's a grade A nutter. If he can't handle a journalist I seriously doubt he can handle talking to world leaders.
would the world even care if australia had a civil war and wiped itself out completely? i think it would even take NZ like a few years to notice.
china would care, because we're basically a quarry for them
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
this thread has more pages than almost any other in d&st recent memory, and it's about the most insignificant country in the whole white-western world. ample evidence that australian's self-esteem suffers from island gigantism.
also some fascist deleted my truth-bearing post, but: no, china wouldn't care. they have africa now, who are cheaper and better in every single way.
also some fascist deleted my truth-bearing post, but: no, china wouldn't care. they have africa now, who are cheaper and better in every single way.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-05 05:30:10)