PDA

View Full Version : Questions, the answers on which lefties choke



Pages : 1 [2]

Igor_Goldenberg
31-08-2010, 03:45 PM
Do you have the verbatim Gillard quote in context? If not, perhaps you should waddle off and get it.
Get your lazy bum of the coach and check today's newspaper. Everyone else in this country remember what she said.

Rincewind
31-08-2010, 04:12 PM
Get your lazy bum of the coach and check today's newspaper. Everyone else in this country remember what she said.

I'm not the one building my argument on it. Since it is pivotal to your arguments here the onus is on you to do the leg work. Now come on... off you waddle.

Desmond
31-08-2010, 04:55 PM
I'm not the one building my argument on it. Since it is pivotal to your arguments here the onus is on you to do the leg work. Now come on... off you waddle.
If you're wondering where Igor's arguments come from just check Bolt's blog. :rolleyes:

Rincewind
31-08-2010, 06:41 PM
If you're wondering where Igor's arguments come from just check Bolt's blog. :rolleyes:

I don't have a full recollection of everything Gillard has said but I think Igor is just hearing what he wants to hear. Yes Gillard claimed that Labor were the two-party preferred government (and when counted in some reasonable way, perhaps that is true). However I have never heard her advance an argument that for that reason, ALP has the mandate to govern.

Still maybe Gillard did advance that argument. But it is up to Igor to substantiate his claim not send others off to check the credentials of statements he is taking as fact.

PS I've long been aware that Igor and Jono trawl right-wing blogs and regurgitate the worst of it here.

Capablanca-Fan
01-09-2010, 08:11 AM
Much better than relying on the leftard Anointed in the ivory towers and the mass media, who think that the world will be perfect if only the right people had the power to run our lives.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-09-2010, 09:49 AM
Craig Emerson dodged (repeatedly!) the question this morning on the radio. So it does Labor supporters choke!

Igor_Goldenberg
01-09-2010, 09:55 AM
If you're wondering where Igor's arguments come from just check Bolt's blog. :rolleyes:
Are you saying you didn't hear Gillard peddling two party preferred vote line(first at press conference in Melbourne on Sunday after the election)? Or at least didn't read about it in the news?
You might forgive Rincewind trolling and stupidity, but don't have to follow it.

Desmond
01-09-2010, 10:10 AM
Are you saying you didn't hear Gillard peddling two party preferred vote line(first at press conference in Melbourne on Sunday after the election)? Or at least didn't read about it in the news?
You might forgive Rincewind trolling and stupidity, but don't have to follow it.
I simply told RW where to find the links he wanted.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-09-2010, 10:14 AM
I simply told RW where to find the links he wanted.
I think it's not the only source, Gillard press conference was covered in every possible news source.

Rincewind
01-09-2010, 10:28 AM
I think it's not the only source, Gillard press conference was covered in every possible news source.

So many sources and yet you cannot quote a single one. How odd. :hmm:

Igor_Goldenberg
01-09-2010, 11:25 AM
So many sources and yet you cannot quote a single one. How odd. :hmm:
Because you are the only one requesting the source. Obviously it's nothing more then trolling.

Rincewind
01-09-2010, 01:00 PM
Because you are the only one requesting the source. Obviously it's nothing more then trolling.

As far as I can tell, it's because Julia Gillard did not actually say what you are saying she said.

She did say something along the lines of it being a critical factor to be weighed in the discussion but that is not saying the 2PP gives the mandate to govern.

Unless you can substantiate further it is just a bunch of clueless righties (most of the readership of Andrew Bolt's blog) getting excited over an irrelevant point at a time when the AEC was publishing a very dodgy 2PP figure.

Now it seems even Andrew Bolt has since moved on and perhaps you show waddle you way into another right-centric controversy. What is it today? Oh... Labor and Green conspire to ban AGW skepticism.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-09-2010, 01:53 PM
You never miss an opportunity to miss a plot, well done!
The exact quote of what Gillard said on 22nd August:
"It now appears clear that Labor has won the two-party vote. That means the majority of Australians who voted yesterday prefer a Labor government. I think this is a critical fact to weigh in the coming days."

Do you agree with her?

Igor_Goldenberg
01-09-2010, 02:23 PM
another lefty was choking on this question for the last 13 posts.

Rincewind
01-09-2010, 05:04 PM
You never miss an opportunity to miss a plot, well done!

Now you are being a bigger idiot than normal (which is quite a feat but you never fail to disappoint).

What I said was


She did say something along the lines of it being a critical factor to be weighed in the discussion

What the PM said (even according to you) was


It now appears clear that Labor has won the two-party vote. That means the majority of Australians who voted yesterday prefer a Labor government. I think this is a critical fact to weigh in the coming days.


So I think that is right on the money and not the same as what you sid she said which was


Julia Gillard said at press conference (22nd of august, the day after election) that Labor formed a minority government because they have higher share of 2PP vote.

The fact of the matter is you got it wrong. She did not say what you said she said and this is why I have spent the last couple of days to get you to quote exactly the passage you misinterpreted.


Do you agree with her?

Yes and no. I don't think I would go so far as to say it was 'critical'. It is something to think about but really the issue is stable government which means being able to pass the legislation that delivers on policies over the next three years. The party that can do that most effectively should govern. I think we could have a truly hung parliament (75 all) even after all results are declared and minor party/independents' loyalties are worked out.

Another factor to consider is the Greens' balance of power in the Senate. Whatever the make up of the government in the lower house will have to be able to manage the Greens' balance of paper to get their bills through.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-09-2010, 09:10 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Another lengthy post with about zero substance, but full on kindergarten level behaviour.

Rincewind
01-09-2010, 09:22 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Another lengthy post with about zero substance, but full on kindergarten level behaviour.

Translation:

Igor has been caught out misquoting the PM and his entire argument (basically cut-and-paste from Andrew Bolt's blog) is falling around his ears. Must be time to waddle out the usual excuse that RW is poorly behaved and hope no-one is reading.

:whistle:

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2010, 10:31 PM
I do think saying something is a "critical fact to weigh" is quite a different thing to saying that something is a deciding factor. "Critical fact to weigh" is a rather odd and almost contradictory expression. However, it implies that the 2PP is highly important, but that it is still something to take into account along with other considerations. If a fact is a deciding factor by itself then there is nothing to "weigh" and no point using that expression. So there is a difference between the paraphrase and what was actually said.

As I've said before I don't think the 2PP is a critical fact to weigh. I think it is an irrelevant artifice to be ignored. :lol:

pax
02-09-2010, 12:45 AM
I suppose everyone here is aware that there is no 2PP number yet? The AEC estimate excludes all the seats that weren't Labor vs Coalition, plus all the incomplete counts.

Minchin was wrong to claim it on election night. Gillard was wrong to claim it the next day. Abbott is wrong to claim it now. It's just way too close.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-09-2010, 08:32 AM
I suppose everyone here is aware that there is no 2PP number yet? The AEC estimate excludes all the seats that weren't Labor vs Coalition, plus all the incomplete counts.

Minchin was wrong to claim it on election night. Gillard was wrong to claim it the next day. Abbott is wrong to claim it now. It's just way too close.
I think it's plainly wrong to claim it in any case, as it does not determine anything. The only use of 2PP is to predict likely seat allocation (with wide margin of error). BTW, I am not aware of Abbott claiming it, just pointing out that Gillard claimed it and has been caught out.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-09-2010, 11:31 AM
Another Labor hypocrite is caught red-handed (http://asiancorrespondent.com/gavin-atkins-shadowlands/useful-academics-come-to-labor-s-aid)

1. Last year Labor commissioned academic Professor John Wanna of the Australian National University to analyse the LNP proposal to cut public spending. (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2008-09/09rp34.htm) He's funding favoured Labor:
"Wanna concluded that, for ‘a service delivery state with substantial population growth pressures, it defies credibility to claim that $1 billion can be extracted from the across‐the‐board expenses of government without affecting services at the front line’"


2. A week ago The Australian published Preferences give power to Labor, say experts (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/preferences-give-power-to-labor/story-fn59niix-1225909126556)
"As the electoral deadlock continues, Australian National University professor of politics John Wanna told The Australian legitimacy to form government would come primarily from the number of seats held by each of the major parties after all the votes were counted.
But if each party ended up with 73 seats, Professor Wanna said, Labor's higher two-party-preferred vote would lend it more legitimacy to govern than the Coalition's higher primary vote.
Tony Abbott's claim to legitimacy, based on the Coalition having about half a million more primary votes, was "a little bit bogus", he said. "Your vote is a transferable vote, right down to the last preference -- the primary vote is not that important."



3. The same professor Wanna yesterday on ABC midday news (http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?series=2306963#/view/623873): (he appears at 7:15 and mumbles at about 8:05)
“[Two party preferred voting is] not really a big issue of legitimacy one way or another…”

Desmond
02-09-2010, 12:06 PM
2. A week ago The Australian published Preferences give power to Labor, say experts (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/preferences-give-power-to-labor/story-fn59niix-1225909126556)
"As the electoral deadlock continues, Australian National University professor of politics John Wanna told The Australian legitimacy to form government would come primarily from the number of seats held by each of the major parties after all the votes were counted.
But if each party ended up with 73 seats, Professor Wanna said, Labor's higher two-party-preferred vote would lend it more legitimacy to govern than the Coalition's higher primary vote.Tony Abbott's claim to legitimacy, based on the Coalition having about half a million more primary votes, was "a little bit bogus", he said. "Your vote is a transferable vote, right down to the last preference -- the primary vote is not that important."



3. The same professor Wanna yesterday on ABC midday news (http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?series=2306963#/view/623873): (he appears at 7:15 and mumbles at about 8:05)
“[Two party preferred voting is] not really a big issue of legitimacy one way or another…”
That's not a contradiction at all. It is quite reasonable to say that one is more important than the other but neither is critically important.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-09-2010, 12:20 PM
That's not a contradiction at all. It is quite reasonable to say that one is more important than the other but neither is critically important.
Indeed, unless the latter comes about a week later then the former when 2PP no longer favours Labor.

Desmond
02-09-2010, 12:36 PM
Indeed, unless the latter comes about a week later then the former when 2PP no longer favours Labor.
It's hardly hypocrisy.

Goughfather
02-09-2010, 01:28 PM
It's hardly hypocrisy.

Agreed.

I think there has been some reference to Minchin, but it hasn't been pointed out that on Election Night when he declared Coalition winners on 2PP, this was also the basis for which he stated the Coalition had the moral right to form government. All of this before Gillard got on her high horse when the 2PP switched around and which our resident rodeo clowns are currently squawking about.

I remember listening to Minchin and thinking that someone should ask that pompous old twit "So, if it turns out that Labor ends up ahead on 2PP, do you agree that they have the moral right to govern?" It would have been lovely to watch Minchin try to extricate himself from his own logic. Unfortunately, no one on the panel demonstrated enough insight to be alert to that possibility.

Another interesting observation is that Abbott was so intent on insisting that the Greens and Labor were a new Coalition, yet failed to count Green votes in determining the winner on primary votes. Why the inconsistency?

Igor_Goldenberg
02-09-2010, 01:35 PM
Another interesting observation is that Abbott was so intent on insisting that the Greens and Labor were a new Coalition, yet failed to count Green votes in determining the winner on primary votes. Why the inconsistency?
If you count all Green vote as left, then left is definitely ahead.
If you count Green vote as combination of morons and left, then morons and left are ahead. If you remove the morons, then left and right are about par.
I honestly don't understand why would someone vote for Green but preference Liberal ahead of Labor.

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2010, 02:51 PM
If you count all Green vote as left, then left is definitely ahead.
If you count Green vote as combination of morons and left, then morons and left are ahead. If you remove the morons, then left and right are about par.

Given that Steve Fielding is now a chance to retain his Senate seat it would appear "morons" (in the political sense) don't only vote for the Greens. Actually the moron vote goes all over the place because there are moronic reasons to vote for pretty much any party. There are lots of very moronic major party votes. People who vote Labor/Liberal because that's what their family has always done spring to mind.


I honestly don't understand why would someone vote for Green but preference Liberal ahead of Labor.

There are many reasons. Firstly, the Greens are primarily a middle-class party. Some Green voters are former Liberals who have become cheesed off with the Libs' lurch to the old right under Howard/Abbott, but are still not ready to vote for Labor because they see Labor as a pleb party and don't agree with what remains of Labor's old class-consciousness.

Some Greens voters are socially conservative as well as environmentally inclined. Because of the environmental preference they vote Green first and foremost, but then they give their preferences to the Libs because they see the Libs as more socially conservative.

Some Greens voters living in safe Labor seats like to give their preferences to the Libs to try to make their seat more marginal.

Some Greens voters actually think the Coalition is more environmentally conscious than Labor.

Some Green voters preference the Coalition to "punish" Labor for not being more environmentally conscious than it is.

All of these probably account for no more than a percent or two each but together they add up.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-09-2010, 03:15 PM
There are many reasons. Firstly, the Greens are primarily a middle-class party.
Agree, with qualification that it's a specific part of a middle class. "Inner-city trendy who never had to deal with serious issues in his life" springs to mind.

I have a sneaking suspicion that at least 90% of Green voters know nothing about their approach to economy (the other 10% are hard-core lefties who decided Greens have better chance then Communists:lol:)

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2010, 03:35 PM
Agree, with qualification that it's a specific part of a middle class. "Inner-city trendy who never had to deal with serious issues in his life" springs to mind.

Actually a lot of Greens voters are very highly educated professionals. Is a middle-aged doctor an inner-city trendy who never had to deal with serious issues in their life? Loads of doctors vote Green here.


I have a sneaking suspicion that at least 90% of Green voters know nothing about their approach to economy (the other 10% are hard-core lefties who decided Greens have better chance then Communists:lol:)

I think there are quite a few Greens voters who are a bit to the right of their party economically. But it's more the case that they don't care than that they don't know.

I think young Greens voters are usually economically left-wing and pleased that the party is too. So I'd make your 10% about a 30.

pax
02-09-2010, 04:14 PM
I think there are quite a few Greens voters who are a bit to the right of their party economically. But it's more the case that they don't care than that they don't know.

I suspect many people who vote Green now, wouldn't necessarily vote Green if they stood a chance of actually forming a Government on their own.

Rincewind
02-09-2010, 05:07 PM
Some Green voters preference the Coalition to "punish" Labor for not being more environmentally conscious than it is.

This may be one of the main reasons. Some voters may feel that Labor should have done more whereas there was no similar level of expectation of the Coalition.

The other one you didn't mention was just popularity of particualr candidates. Some Greens voters may just really dislike the candidate that the ALP has put up in their electorate irrespective of policies.

pax
02-09-2010, 05:40 PM
The other one you didn't mention was just popularity of particualr candidates. Some Greens voters may just really dislike the candidate that the ALP has put up in their electorate irrespective of policies.

And to be fair, the same level of scrutiny doesn't apply to a candidate that you know won't be elected.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-09-2010, 08:19 PM
Actually a lot of Greens voters are very highly educated professionals. Is a middle-aged doctor an inner-city trendy who never had to deal with serious issues in their life? Loads of doctors vote Green here.
Generally speaking, yes. They only see nature in the movies or pictures with the exception of a tree in their backyard or opposite their office. They also don't have to deal with problems many small business owners deal with. After all, doctor run to some degree a close shop and deal with customers who pay mostly out of government pocket.
While their job requires skills, intelligence and education, sometimes very difficult, the business they run is much easier then for, say, shop.




I think young Greens voters are usually economically left-wing and pleased that the party is too. So I'd make your 10% about a 30.

Whether 10 or 30, we seem to agree that majority of Green voters are ignorant of their policies.

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2010, 10:27 PM
Generally speaking, yes. They only see nature in the movies or pictures with the exception of a tree in their backyard or opposite their office. They also don't have to deal with problems many small business owners deal with. After all, doctor run to some degree a close shop and deal with customers who pay mostly out of government pocket.
While their job requires skills, intelligence and education, sometimes very difficult, the business they run is much easier then for, say, shop.

And yet the skills they require take longer to obtain than just about any other qualification and they are often involved in giving advice that makes a life-or-death difference to other people. If that's not dealing with serious issues then I do not know what is.

Not that I am defending the political imperialism and political self-importance of the medical profession - in fact I cannot stand groups of the "Doctors For Insert Trendy Cause X" types, but I just don't think your attempt to stereotype Greens voters as being removed from difficult issues is credible.


Whether 10 or 30, we seem to agree that majority of Green voters are ignorant of their policies.

No, I don't agree with that at all. I think that many are just nowhere near as obsessed with collectivist/individualist economic policy divides (except to the extent that these touch on environmentalism) as you may reckon everybody should be.

Of course there are also the watermelon types who mainly vote Green because of their leftist economic views.


The other one you didn't mention was just popularity of particualr candidates. Some Greens voters may just really dislike the candidate that the ALP has put up in their electorate irrespective of policies.

Indeed. I can relate to this as although I am not a habitual Greens voter, I put the Greens ahead of Labor ahead of Liberal this time, and would have put the Liberals ahead of Labor (and probably ahead of the Greens as well) had the Libs been led by someone I found more bearable than Abbott. And my major reason for downgrading Labor to second-last (and but for Abbott it would have been to last)

Not that my preference did the Greens any good, since I voted for Wilkie. :lol:

Spiny Norman
02-09-2010, 11:08 PM
Given that Steve Fielding is now a chance to retain his Senate seat it would appear "morons" (in the political sense) don't only vote for the Greens.
Guilty as charged yer honour! I voted Family First in the Senate for the first time ever (in fact, first time ever I did not vote Liberal for anything). Why? Not because I'm a moron (though RW might disagree); why? ... because I was feeling cranky and decided it was my own personal way of getting back at all the morons who voted Green. ;)

Igor_Goldenberg
03-09-2010, 10:39 AM
And yet the skills they require take longer to obtain than just about any other qualification and they are often involved in giving advice that makes a life-or-death difference to other people. If that's not dealing with serious issues then I do not know what is.
Very serious issues, but not related to the economy.


No, I don't agree with that at all. I think that many are just nowhere near as obsessed with collectivist/individualist economic policy divides (except to the extent that these touch on environmentalism) as you may reckon everybody should be.
While collectivist/individualist divide is important, it's not the only economical issue/policy.
Those doctors that vote Green often don't realise that Greens want to remove all subsidies from private schools (where many doctors send their children) on increase the top tax rate to 50% (which those doctors will have to pay).

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2010, 01:07 PM
Very serious issues, but not related to the economy.

Sure, but your original dismissal was "Inner-city trendy who never had to deal with serious issues in his life" and made no mention of that being confined to serious economic issues.


Those doctors that vote Green often don't realise that Greens want to remove all subsidies from private schools (where many doctors send their children) on increase the top tax rate to 50% (which those doctors will have to pay).

I think they are well aware of both and don't care because they are loaded and not materialistic. The Greens candidate for Denison made a big deal of being a well-off doctor who actually liked paying lots of tax and thought all well off people should pay plenty of tax.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-09-2010, 02:02 PM
I think they are well aware of both and don't care because they are loaded and not materialistic. The Greens candidate for Denison made a big deal of being a well-off doctor who actually liked paying lots of tax and thought all well off people should pay plenty of tax.
Could be the case. It also confirms that leftists policies hurt mostly not the rich people but those who aspire to become rich.

Goughfather
04-09-2010, 03:55 PM
Guilty as charged yer honour! I voted Family First in the Senate for the first time ever (in fact, first time ever I did not vote Liberal for anything). Why? Not because I'm a moron (though RW might disagree); why? ... because I was feeling cranky and decided it was my own personal way of getting back at all the morons who voted Green. ;)

Given that Steve Fielding is a complete waste of space, isn't your approach a bit like cutting your nose to spite your face?

Spiny Norman
04-09-2010, 06:27 PM
Given that Steve Fielding is a complete waste of space ...
You think so; but not everybody agrees with you. He's occasionally wacky on some issues, but on the whole I approve of his moderating influence, given the number of Greens (whose policies are, from my perspective, worse than a mere waste of space).

Kevin Bonham
04-09-2010, 10:47 PM
You think so; but not everybody agrees with you. He's occasionally wacky on some issues, but on the whole I approve of his moderating influence, given the number of Greens (whose policies are, from my perspective, worse than a mere waste of space).

Perhaps "counterbalancing" would have been a better word than "moderating". If there's an even remotely moderate crossbencher in the current Senate it would be Xenephon, but clearly he isn't moderate on everything.

Capablanca-Fan
06-09-2010, 02:15 AM
Given that Steve Fielding is a complete waste of space, isn't your approach a bit like cutting your nose to spite your face?
In many ways, yes, but he helped block a ruinous Enormous Tax Scam.

Basil
16-09-2010, 07:48 PM
#821

Many of John Howard's statements such as "Interest Rates Will Be Lower" and others, were branded as LIES!!! by vocal lefties. This became "Howard Is A Liar". And so the mantra rocked on. This board and this country became littered with the dribble.

Are those same people prepared to brand Julia Gillard a LIAR!? She categorically stated pre-election that there would be no carbon tax. She is now moving to bring one.

For the lefties that branded Howard a liar, are they now prepared to brand Gillard as one?

ER
16-09-2010, 11:51 PM
Are those same people prepared to brand Julia Gillard a LIAR!?

I never called John Howard a liar and I am definitely not a lefty but the answer is no!


She categorically stated pre-election that there would be no carbon tax.

she did not!

http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/julia-gillard-my-carbon-price-promise/story-fn5tar6a-1225907552000

BTW my super fund (PSS) performance rate for the financial year was a superb 9.2%! Beat that!

Desmond
17-09-2010, 09:45 AM
#821

Many of John Howard's statements such as "Interest Rates Will Be Lower" and others, were branded as LIES!!! by vocal lefties. This became "Howard Is A Liar". And so the mantra rocked on. This board and this country became littered with the dribble.

Are those same people prepared to brand Julia Gillard a LIAR!? She categorically stated pre-election that there would be no carbon tax. She is now moving to bring one.

For the lefties that branded Howard a liar, are they now prepared to brand Gillard as one?Yep, definitely a backflip IMO.

Rincewind
17-09-2010, 09:49 AM
For the lefties that branded Howard a liar, are they now prepared to brand Gillard as one?

In my experience all politicians lie in the strict sense of the word to some degree - if you call changing position on a issue a lie. Every prime minister since Barton doubtless has done this at one time or another.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-09-2010, 10:25 AM
she did not!

http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/julia-gillard-my-carbon-price-promise/story-fn5tar6a-1225907552000

Actually, she and Swan said on radio that they are not going to a carbon tax.
She reversed course on a pre-election day and suffered a drop of about 1% the next day.

I am not sure there is a correlation, but if there is it means:
1. Backflip on ruling out carbon tax cost her votes.
2. If more voters had the time to learn that Gillard actually planning a carbon tax, she would lose the election decisively.

While you (and she!) can argue (on technicality!) that ALP didn't rule out carbon tax, they certainly mislead many voters by promising one thing during the campaign and saying another the day before the election.

ER
19-09-2010, 03:35 PM
Actually, she and Swan said on radio that they are not going to a carbon tax.
She reversed course on a pre-election day and suffered a drop of about 1% the next day.

I am not sure there is a correlation, but if there is it means:
1. Backflip on ruling out carbon tax cost her votes.
2. If more voters had the time to learn that Gillard actually planning a carbon tax, she would lose the election decisively.

While you (and she!) can argue (on technicality!) that ALP didn't rule out carbon tax, they certainly mislead many voters by promising one thing during the campaign and saying another the day before the election.

I am talking about official policies here as expressed in official speeches and statements, not the rubbish that you and others are presenting and /or have interpreted through your not so reliable :P distorting glass! :P

for the time being let him have his say ....

http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/cartoons/new/2007-11-29%20Tony%20Abbott%20on%20leadership%20226.jpg

he might have to wait a bit though so relax! :P

Igor_Goldenberg
19-09-2010, 05:03 PM
I am talking about official policies here as expressed in official speeches and statements, not the rubbish that you and others are presenting and /or have interpreted through your not so reliable :P distorting glass! :P

Official policy expressed by ALP when? 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd of August? They are all different;)

ER
19-09-2010, 06:53 PM
Official policy expressed by ALP when? 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd of August? They are all different;)

Well another example of Julia moving forward isn' it??? :P

Igor_Goldenberg
28-09-2010, 02:21 PM
she did not!

http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/julia-gillard-my-carbon-price-promise/story-fn5tar6a-1225907552000

Yes she did:
"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7945914)
"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pm-seeking-certainty-on-carbon/story-fn59niix-1225929714105)
"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/carbon-tax-promise-has-julia-gillard-choking-on-her-words/story-e6frfig6-1225930322757)
"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" (http://www.asiancorrespondent.com/gavin-atkins-shadowlands/labor-s-great-carbon-tax-swindle)


BTW my super fund (PSS) performance rate for the financial year was a superb 9.2%! Beat that!
Excellent! Almost an average! (Super funds deliver 10% for 2009/2010 year (http://www.superguide.com.au/superannuation-basics/super-funds-deliver-10-for-20092010-year))

ER
28-09-2010, 10:20 PM
Excellent! Almost an average! (Super funds deliver 10% for 2009/2010 year (http://www.superguide.com.au/superannuation-basics/super-funds-deliver-10-for-20092010-year))

But my ANZ private one, performed on the 11.25% scale! :P and don't forget that my PSS is as safe as houses (Govt supported - never negative performances) ;)

antichrist
05-10-2010, 08:21 PM
This guy has it in for lefties as well


http://virgomonkey.wordpress.com/tag/wtc/Separatism,%20anti-Americanism%20and%20fence-sitting/2008/04/26/can-americans-be-anti-american/Why%20is%20Anti-Americanism%20Racism%20Too/

Igor_Goldenberg
12-10-2010, 09:17 AM
Ms Gillard says it is wrong to suggest that she knew Mr Abbott was already planning a trip of his own. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/06/3030510.htm)
"[The] suggestion that he had a fixed date to go when I issued the invitation to him is not correct," she said. "It's simply not correct."



Question to ALP or Gillard supporters:
"Do you believe her?"

antichrist
12-10-2010, 12:09 PM
Ms Gillard says it is wrong to suggest that she knew Mr Abbott was already planning a trip of his own. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/06/3030510.htm)
"[The] suggestion that he had a fixed date to go when I issued the invitation to him is not correct," she said. "It's simply not correct."



Question to ALP or Gillard supporters:
"Do you believe her?"

It is not important who says what about this or that.

The imporant thing is that the co-oalition sent Australian troops to an illegal invasion of Iraq where maybe 100,000 have been killed and a lot of infrastructure knocked out.

This is greater than any crime that Labor have committed or likely to committ for ages to come.

If they had instead invaded another country in the Middle East with similar results you would not be quiet about it. And this topic is relevant to the thread coz it is a issue that the righties should choke on.

ER
12-10-2010, 01:49 PM
Ms Gillard says it is wrong to suggest that she knew Mr Abbott was already planning a trip of his own... (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/06/3030510.htm)
"

He is dead! Get over it! He can't harm anyone!
AzudytUKVvw&feature=related


I understand your ideological basis of regarding anyone to the wrong side of Ezra Pound as a leftist! I also agree with you that Tony is indeed a chicken who's only dynamic approach is the one he uses to keep his budgies under control (let alone venturing a trip to war zone even for just a couple of hours visit, unless forced to)!

He is dead too, he won't harm you! Next time you
go to Moscow go see him, he looks dead too!

v6vpHvJlZFY

However, your persistence of branding ALP, Gillardists, Greenies and whoever moves to the left side of the late Sir Joh as a leftist is absolutely wrong (not to say laughable) and as such I would ask you to remove this post to a thread "For Redneck Right Wing Bozzo Rhetorics Only" so it can be in a propper place for those with ideas similar to yours and get some right (pun intended) responses!
After all you you must realise that the vast majority of Australians, particularly those who gave the one finger salute to the most recent Phony Tony's act of cowardise ( insert "stupidity" if you still think Abbott is some kind of a tough guy), aren't the hard line Commos you may have had experienced in your childhood! As such, your nightmare of this country as inadvertently moving into the red chaos of a dictatorship of the proletariat is just that!
:) :lol:

HERE HE IS AGAIN TO SAVE YOU
THE TIME AND MONEY TO SEE HIM YOURSELF!

cJQhO6AmmjM&feature=related

I am also saving you money here, since I can't remember if they charged us any money to get in that hole after waiting for more than an hour in the cold. However, we had to pay something like AUS $7.00 to that silly woman to keep our cameras and stuff because you aren't allowed to have a pic with old Vlad while you are there! BTW the graves of Stalin, Bulganin, Brezhnev and other dignitaries are just behind Lenin's joint. See, establishing your peace of mind is an "all in one" package deal in old modern Russia!

Igor_Goldenberg
12-10-2010, 03:56 PM
Those question never fail to cause eruption on a cosmic scale from Layba supporters (without actually answering the question).
Carry on, boys!

ER
14-10-2010, 12:59 PM
Again you missed the point, and the thread!

and as such I would ask you to remove this post to a thread "For Redneck Right Wing Bozzo Rhetorics Only" so it can be in a propper place for those with ideas similar to yours and get some right (pun intended) responses!

Igor_Goldenberg
14-10-2010, 04:16 PM
Again you missed the point, and the thread!
JaK,
What are winging about? Are you not Gillard supporter?

And what about answering very simple question at post 304? Looks like it makes you choke indeed:owned: :owned: :owned:

antichrist
14-10-2010, 04:35 PM
JaK,
What are winging about? Are you not Gillard supporter?

And what about answering very simple question at post 304? Looks like it makes you choke indeed:owned: :owned: :owned:


What are winging about? Are you not Howard supporter?

And what about answering very simple question at post 305

Looks like it makes you choke indeed

ER
14-10-2010, 06:02 PM
JaK,
What are winging about? Are you not Gillard supporter?

And what about answering very simple question at post 304? Looks like it makes you choke indeed:owned: :owned: :owned:

Igor I am not whinging! Yes I am a Gillard supporter! That makes me neither a lefty nor a laborite. So your posting here is absolutely irrelevant to me. My response to it was a fair effort to re-direct you to the right thread which has already been created.
On the other hand just because you are right wing doesn't give you the right to brand other people who might oppose your ideas as communists, or leftists or whatever.
No, I am not choking on your question. Mr Abbott stuffed up with the whole thing about his trip to war zone all by himself and and by blaming his faillure (and its subsequent punishment by the people of Australia in the polls) to Julia deserves the contempt which I and the majority of Australians treated it with.
As if it wasn't enough he stuffed up there again playing up to his hard man image and firing a weapon with ammunition both (weapon and ammunition) paid with Australian tax payers money and then like a naughty boy trying to destroy the evidence!
Now look at the main heading of this thread again (and again)! Don't stop reading it until you finally get it :)

Igor_Goldenberg
14-10-2010, 06:39 PM
I
No, I am not choking on your question. Mr Abbott stuffed up with the whole thing about his trip to war zone all by himself and and by blaming his faillure (and its subsequent punishment by the people of Australia in the polls) to Julia deserves the contempt which I and the majority of Australians treated it with.
As if it wasn't enough he stuffed up there again playing up to his hard man image and firing a weapon with ammunition both (weapon and ammunition) paid with Australian tax payers money and then like a naughty boy trying to destroy the evidence!
Now look at the main heading of this thread again (and again)! Don't stop reading it until you finally get it :)
Yes, you are choking. ALP line you are spinning is irrelevant to the question.
Simply tell us:
Do you believe what Gillard said?

ER
14-10-2010, 08:32 PM
Yes, you are choking. ALP line you are spinning is irrelevant to the question.
Simply tell us:
Do you believe what Gillard said?

You 're just keep on re - gurgling your Redneck Right Wing Bozzo Rhetorics in a Lavrenti Beria style which is a funny combination! :lol: :owned:

Igor_Goldenberg
14-10-2010, 08:33 PM
You 're just keep on re - gurgling your Redneck Right Wing Bozzo Rhetorics in a Lavrenti Beria style which is a funny combination! :lol: :owned:
What "Redneck Right Wing Bozzo Rhetorics" has to do with simple question?

ER
14-10-2010, 08:39 PM
Keep choking on a simple question:hand:
Keep on insisting on irrelevant topics in irrelevant threads! :whistle:

Igor_Goldenberg
14-10-2010, 08:43 PM
You 're just keep on re - gurgling your Redneck Right Wing Bozzo Rhetorics in a Lavrenti Beria style which is a funny combination! :lol: :owned:
Keep choking on a simple question:hand:

Igor_Goldenberg
14-10-2010, 08:45 PM
Keep on insisting on irrelevant topics in irrelevant threads! :whistle:
I'll cut you a deal:
You can answer this question in any thread you deem relevant.
If you can't find relevant thread, start your own.
When are you going to run out of silly excuses?

ER
14-10-2010, 08:57 PM
I'll cut you a deal:
You can answer this question in any thread you deem relevant.
If you can't find relevant thread, start your own.
When are you going to run out of silly excuses?

Igor, THINK for a moment!
If I answer a question put to me by someone who's trying to (unsuccessfully in this case) brand me as something that I am not then it's like justufying his/her initial intention which I am not going to do!
You keep on calling my responses as silly excuses I will keep on calling your insisting for an answer as illogically irrelevant!:hand:

Igor_Goldenberg
15-10-2010, 08:36 AM
Igor, THINK for a moment!
If I answer a question put to me by someone who's trying to (unsuccessfully in this case) brand me as something that I am not then it's like justufying his/her initial intention which I am not going to do!
You keep on calling my responses as silly excuses I will keep on calling your insisting for an answer as illogically irrelevant!:hand:
OK JaK,
This question is open to everyone irrespectively of their political views:D :D
Still hard to answer?

antichrist
15-10-2010, 11:33 AM
OK JaK,
This question is open to everyone irrespectively of their political views:D :D
Still hard to answer?

I find the question not worth even thinking about, they are both drama queens so who cares. If she was principled she would not have sold them out before the election.

More importantedly is that she does not illegally take us into another invasion of an innocent country killing 100,000

If it really makes you happy I will agree with you just to let you drop the silly subject. Phoney Tony has already admitted he does not tell the truth so no brownie points won there.

antichrist
15-10-2010, 12:03 PM
Hehe, I woke up to this wonderful news: THE AGE ___The Aussie $ last night struck a fresh 28-year high of US99.94¢ — by chance, exactly Donald Bradman’s batting average — sparking predictions that it would soon overtake the world’s reserve currency."OK I go to sleep again!

AC
righteo have your giggle, but when China squeezes US's you-know-whats and US gunboat diplomacy around the world collapes who is going to stop the Yellow(RED) Peril taking over Australia? Or at least those small Pacific and South Chinese Seas islands.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2010, 07:57 AM
How many asylum seekers are now in detention?
What was the highest number under Howard government?

antichrist
23-11-2010, 10:25 PM
How many asylum seekers are now in detention?
What was the highest number under Howard government?

I wonder if you would be crowing if that is how free countries squirmed about Jewish refugees coming here before and during and after WW2

Ian Murray
23-11-2010, 11:27 PM
I wonder if you would be crowing if that is how free countries squirmed about Jewish refugees coming here before and during and after WW2
To our eternal shame. See http://web.wm.edu/so/monitor/issues/15-1/2-kepple.pdf

antichrist
24-11-2010, 06:07 AM
How many asylum seekers are now in detention?
What was the highest number under Howard government?

Igor, is there any chance that it is the racial composition of the refugees that makes you oppose them. Now if they were of your ilk, as in during WW2, would you still be opposign them?

We know that there have been bitter long term wars in Sri Lanka and many countries in Middle East, we are even partly responsible for them.

Howard was happily helping USA bombing the Mohammed and Christ out of them but reakons they weren't refugees when they were all getting %%&&** killed.

Just like the Allies refusing Jewish refiugees whilst Hitler was gassing them, actually worse than that coz Australia is helping create the refugees this time whereas we fought Hitler, and we accepted your mob because of him.

Desmond
24-11-2010, 08:16 AM
Igor, THINK for a moment!How well did giving that advice work out for ya, JaK?

Igor_Goldenberg
24-11-2010, 08:23 AM
Three lefties choking, one of them twice.
Keep going guys!

pax
24-11-2010, 04:49 PM
How many asylum seekers are now in detention?
What was the highest number under Howard government?

Why would you expect lefties to "choke" on such a question? Do you even know the numbers?

Igor_Goldenberg
24-11-2010, 05:58 PM
Why would you expect lefties to "choke" on such a question?
What do you think?

Ian Murray
24-11-2010, 08:08 PM
Personally, rather than amusing I find it saddening to be reminded of the degree of anti-semitism rife in Australia a few generations ago. I recall my mother remarking once, when I was pretty young, how ashamed she felt at the way the government was treating Jews.

antichrist
24-11-2010, 08:20 PM
Personally, rather than amusing I find it saddening to be reminded of the degree of anti-semitism rife in Australia a few generations ago. I recall my mother remarking once, when I was pretty young, how ashamed she felt at the way the government was treating Jews.

Well Aust Governments have certainly been making up for it the past 60 years - we don't condemn Israel even when carrying out terrorists acts, war crimes etc, and only a wrist slap when they used Aust passports for murder.

Ian Murray
24-11-2010, 09:51 PM
Well Aust Governments have certainly been making up for it the past 60 years - we don't condemn Israel even when carrying out terrorists acts, war crimes etc, and only a wrist slap when they used Aust passports for murder.
You're equating Jews with Israel. I have issues with Israeli might-is-right foreign policy, as you know, but no problems with Jews per se.

antichrist
24-11-2010, 10:49 PM
You're equating Jews with Israel. I have issues with Israeli might-is-right foreign policy, as you know, but no problems with Jews per se.


The only per se problem I have with them is how they poorly immitate Lebo and Arab cooking and calling it Israeli or Middle Eastern food. They don't want to admit anything about them being related to Arabs, maybe fair enough, but they give our cooking a bad name.

To come on topic lefties go to such cafes and choke on the dry over-cooked falafel.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-11-2010, 06:07 PM
You're equating Jews with Israel. I have issues with Israeli might-is-right foreign policy, as you know, but no problems with Jews per se.
Looks like AC is trolling this thread with his pet anti-semitic hate. I though there is a special thread for all his dribble.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-11-2010, 02:47 PM
Currently there is 5360 people in detention centre (http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/_pdf/immigration-detention-statistics-20101015.pdf)

Question (once again) to all bleeding heart Laborites who lambasted John Howard for having so many people in detention:

What was the highest number while he was a Prime Minister?

antichrist
13-01-2011, 11:09 AM
Pretty well my approach to most lefties Some grow out of it, work it out for them selves and switch, others take it to the grave. Either way talking serves v. little purpose.

AC
Now listen Gunnar, I don't mind you cross-threading your posts and actually enjoy the distraction, not like other stiff-faced undertakers around here.

I will tell you a little tale. Decades ago I went through Indonesia (Asian Table Tennis champs) then onto China. In Jogyakarta hundreds of people were sleeping in the open on the main street and I had to step over them carrying my luggage. They had no where else to sleep.

I then went to China. Every person was housed, had clean clothes on and were on their way to a job. Their clothes may have looked like cheap N nasty Mao suits, same colour etc but life is not perfect.

But I thought then that if I was on the bottom rung of the ladder I knew which system I preferred to be under.

Indonesia had democracy maybe, the freedom to starve as well. Unfortunately China has now descended into mass corruption, but any party in power longer than 10 years goes corrupt I believe.

Carry one, and didn't you appreciate those you tube Alf Garnett football threads?

antichrist
13-01-2011, 11:12 AM
Currently there is 5360 people in detention centre (http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/_pdf/immigration-detention-statistics-20101015.pdf)

Question (once again) to all bleeding heart Laborites who lambasted John Howard for having so many people in detention:

What was the highest number while he was a Prime Minister?

Igor, you know as well as everyone else, they are there because of right wing ratbag politics trying to divide the community into becoming hard-hearted. We know that these refugees are coming from countries in civil wars, and 70 years ago when WW2 was on and persecuted minorities need refugee we also provided the same

Basil
13-01-2011, 11:18 AM
Carry one, and didn't you appreciate those you tube Alf Garnett football threads?
Alf Garnett had some classic lines.

Garvinator
13-01-2011, 08:17 PM
Currently there is 5360 people in detention centre (http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/_pdf/immigration-detention-statistics-20101015.pdf)
While I am certainly no fan of Labor policy, to give some perspective on that number, there are more people currently in evacuation centres in Brisbane.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-01-2011, 12:43 PM
While I am certainly no fan of Labor policy, to give some perspective on that number, there are more people currently in evacuation centres in Brisbane.
How is it relevant?

antichrist
26-01-2011, 01:16 AM
Australia Day is viewed as Invasion Day by Aborigines, it is when they lost they country and the rest is a terrible history.

White Australia has a black history - literally and figuratively speaking

Capablanca-Fan
28-01-2011, 12:40 PM
Australia Day is viewed as Invasion Day by Aborigines, it is when they lost they country and the rest is a terrible history.
If you really feel that way, lead by example and clear off. And of course, if we left, we should take our hospitals, roads, cars, TV stations, Internet, antibiotics, etc.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
28-01-2011, 04:49 PM
If you really feel that way, lead by example and clear off. And of course, if we left, we should take our hospitals, roads, cars, TV stations, Internet, antibiotics, etc.

I'll pay for the ticket.

antichrist
28-01-2011, 04:59 PM
If you really feel that way, lead by example and clear off. And of course, if we left, we should take our hospitals, roads, cars, TV stations, Internet, antibiotics, etc.

just like the nasty Indonesians did when they left East Timor, plus why not knock a few more thousands when you go, finish the job off so to speak, also like the Indos.

But also give them back the lives that were murdered for a few hundred years etc, and pay them rent for the land for all those 2oo years ago as well please, as welll replace all the minerals extracted out of ground etc, and fish etc for all those 200 years - ungrateful sods who don't deserve in this country as far as I am concerned. the local Aborigines would tell you right off.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-03-2011, 09:21 AM
Before the election Julia Gillard promised not to introduce a carbon tax, a promise she didn't keep.
Without arguing the merits of the tax, whether ahe is a liar or not, I have a simple question:

Do you think Gillard intended to keep the promise when she said "The will be no carbon tax under the government I lead"?

The question is not about hard evidences, just your personal opinion.

Rincewind
02-03-2011, 09:43 AM
The question is not about hard evidences, just your personal opinion.

I can see why you are avoiding making the question about evidence and truth and merely 'opinion'. The fact is you have none. The right-wing nuthuggers are chanting a chorus of liar with absolutely no evidence of an intention to deceive. I've never seen such a disreputable bunch of political thugs. (since the last storm in a tea-cup).

Still Igor's ceaseless parroting of Andrew Bolt and passable impersonation of a two-year-old tantrum thrower is mildly amusing. :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
02-03-2011, 09:51 AM
Simple questions, but they never fail to make hypocrites explode.
One is choking already.

Rincewind
02-03-2011, 10:04 AM
Simple questions, but they never fail to make hypocrites explode.
One is choking already.

The point is you are interested in opinion and not fact.

The real question is

Why are you Igoring the facts and concentrating on opinions?

The answer is you have no facts to back up your claim.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-03-2011, 12:44 PM
Simple questions, but they never fail to make hypocrites explode.
One is choking already.
They usually explode once, but we now witnessed the exception from the rule.
I wonder if anyone else will try to answer the question.

Rincewind
02-03-2011, 02:01 PM
They usually explode once, but we now witnessed the exception from the rule.
I wonder if anyone else will try to answer the question.

Which question? This one?

Why are you Igoring the facts and concentrating on opinions?

Igor_Goldenberg
04-03-2011, 08:29 AM
Before the election Julia Gillard promised not to introduce a carbon tax, a promise she didn't keep.
Without arguing the merits of the tax, whether ahe is a liar or not, I have a simple question:

Do you think Gillard intended to keep the promise when she said "The will be no carbon tax under the government I lead"?

Any takers?

antichrist
04-03-2011, 03:03 PM
Any takers?

I think she intended to keep it, not knowing that it would be a hung parliament and needing the Greens to remain in power, perfectly logical and acceptable compromise.

ER
04-03-2011, 03:36 PM
Any takers?

Igor, are you sure you don't have your threads confused?
BTW please note that whoever is not a right wing, redneck, racist, homophobic, one nation follower bozzo, is not necessarily a leftist, lefty, leftard etc! :P

Igor_Goldenberg
04-03-2011, 03:57 PM
Igor, are you sure you don't have your threads confused?
BTW please note that whoever is not a right wing, redneck, racist, homophobic, one nation follower bozzo, is not necessarily a leftist, lefty, leftard etc! :P
Why JaK, you are too shy to answer this question?
I specifically opened it to all Gillard supporters, even those who do not see themselves as leftists. You also had a chance to speak you mind in Gillard thread, but decided not to:owned:

ER
04-03-2011, 11:58 PM
Why JaK, you are too shy to answer this question?
I specifically opened it to all Gillard supporters, even those who do not see themselves as leftists. You also had a chance to speak you mind in Gillard thread, but decided not to:owned:

OK gimme some time bro! I will prepare a statement! :P :owned:

Igor_Goldenberg
01-04-2011, 09:20 AM
While JaK is still working on a statement, I have two more questions:
- Did Gillard promise East Timor processing centre?
- How is it progressing?

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2011, 01:58 PM
Igor, are you sure you don't have your threads confused?
BTW please note that whoever is not a right wing, redneck, racist, homophobic, one nation follower bozzo, is not necessarily a leftist, lefty, leftard etc! :P
Of course not. They could be a right wing, anti-racist, supporter of marriage = 1 man + 1 woman, and opponent of One Nation for its leftist economic policies such as protectionism. :P

antichrist
01-04-2011, 04:23 PM
Of course not. They could be a right wing, anti-racist, supporter of marriage = 1 man + 1 woman, and opponent of One Nation for its leftist economic policies such as protectionism. :P

Protection may be supported by some lefties but is basically a nationialist issue, not a left/right issue

Basil
06-09-2011, 09:03 AM
Continuing from the good work here http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=282195&postcount=70

# Whatever:
Which Australian government will be widely rated in the annals as the most incompetent - ever?

Rincewind
06-09-2011, 09:14 AM
Which Australian government will be widely rated in the annals as the most incompetent - ever?

Tony Abbott's. :owned:

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2011, 06:04 PM
In another thread ("Did Gillard lie?") Rincewind just confirmed that this question belongs to this thread:

"How much will the temperature drop if Australia reduces it industrial CO2 output by 100%?"

Rincewind
08-09-2011, 06:53 PM
"How much will the temperature drop if Australia reduces it industrial CO2 output by 100%?"

The question is pointless and in the context of that discussion is a pitiful attempt by the usual right-wing bozos to distract from the facts that

(1) Human CO2 emissions are responsible for climate change
(2) Australia produces a significant proportion (~1.5%) of the worlds human CO2 emissions

and therefore Australia has to take responsibility for those emissions.

Capablanca-Fan
09-09-2011, 05:26 AM
The question is pointless and in the context of that discussion is a pitiful attempt by the usual right-wing bozos to distract from the facts that
What facts? It still even remains to be seen that minor "climate change" will be harmful, let alone more harmful than the remedies like lost jobs and bigger governments.


(1) Human CO2 emissions are responsible for climate change
Debatable, hence the need for warm-mongers to resort to "Climategate" dirty tricks.


(2) Australia produces a significant proportion (~1.5%) of the worlds human CO2 emissions
If that is significant, then what would be insignificant.


and therefore Australia has to take responsibility for those emissions.
Why?

More empty gesture politics from the leftards, regardless of the effectiveness of the remedies or the human costs/

Rincewind
09-09-2011, 09:30 AM
What facts? It still even remains to be seen that minor "climate change" will be harmful, let alone more harmful than the remedies like lost jobs and bigger governments.


Debatable, hence the need for warm-mongers to resort to "Climategate" dirty tricks.


If that is significant, then what would be insignificant.


Why?

More empty gesture politics from the leftards, regardless of the effectiveness of the remedies or the human costs/

Judging by your replies you are obviously living in a science-free zone. Unfortunately for you, hardline denialism has become untenable.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-09-2011, 09:46 AM
Judging by your replies you are obviously living in a science-free zone. Unfortunately for you, hardline denialism has become untenable.
Judging by your reply, you can't back your wild claims with any substance.


Any supporter of CO2 tax keen to honestly and frankly answer the question?

Capablanca-Fan
20-09-2011, 10:22 AM
Judging by your replies you are obviously living in a science-free zone. Unfortunately for you, hardline denialism has become untenable.
Softline denialism is all I need, since a carbon tax can be justified only if a number of premises are proven. It's not just whether the world is warming and that man is causing it, but also that it's harmful, and that the cures won't cost more than the disease.

Rincewind
20-09-2011, 11:05 AM
Softline denialism is all I need, since a carbon tax can be justified only if a number of premises are proven. It's not just whether the world is warming and that man is causing it, but also that it's harmful, and that the cures won't cost more than the disease.

Ah yes. You love the god of the gaps.

Capablanca-Fan
20-09-2011, 03:48 PM
Ah yes. You love the god of the gaps.
Typical leftard diversion, which is not true anyway (http://creation.com/whats-the-problem-with-theistic-evolution).

Rincewind
20-09-2011, 04:26 PM
Typical leftard diversion, which is not true anyway (http://creation.com/whats-the-problem-with-theistic-evolution).

Typical right-wing bozo misinterpretation, which is true anyway. BTW the article you link to is entertaining. I didn't realise you could be so disingenuous and condescending at the same time. Well done. :clap:

Basil
27-09-2011, 02:10 PM
Continuing from the good work here http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=282195&postcount=70

# Whatever:
Which Australian government will be widely rated in the annals as the most incompetent - ever?
Anyone at all?

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2011, 08:37 PM
Anyone at all?
Yes, a hard choice between Whitlam and Gillard. Both have lost tremendous popular support because of their over-reaches and arrogance.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-11-2011, 10:12 AM
#next:

The Transport Workers Union's Tony Sheldon, after complaining about Qantas's industrial relations tactics, said that his union would ''stand by the workforce, the Australian brand of Qantas and not have it Asianised''.
(http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/memo-to-unions-white-australia-was-a-bad-idea-20111105-1n17j.html)

Do you think Tony Sheldon's statement is racist?

Ian Murray
06-11-2011, 10:42 AM
The Transport Workers Union's Tony Sheldon, after complaining about Qantas's industrial relations tactics, said that his union would ''stand by the workforce, the Australian brand of Qantas and not have it Asianised''.

Do you think Tony Sheldon's statement is racist?
No. Do you think moving Qantas operations from Australia to Asia is racist?

Igor_Goldenberg
06-11-2011, 03:34 PM
No. Do you think moving Qantas operations from Australia to Asia is racist?
Why?

Lefties was accuse others of racism, but happy to give a free pass to one of their own.

Ian Murray
06-11-2011, 04:11 PM
Why?

Lefties was accuse others of racism, but happy to give a free pass to one of their own.
You seem to think Asianisation is a racist term. It is defined as "The act or process of making or becoming Asian in character, culture, or outlook", which is what Qantas is doing as it moves its operations offshore to Asia, losing its Australian iconic identity.

cf Americanisation, Europanisation, Australianisation

Garvinator
06-11-2011, 04:13 PM
Why?Feel free to actually answer the question at some stage.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-11-2011, 04:28 PM
Qantas offers Asians an opportunity to earn money - hardly a racism.
TWU want to deny them this opportunity. In my opinion it's a borderline racism.

When Hasnon was talking about asianisation of Australia, it was a racism.
But Sheldon is talking about asianisation of Qantas, it's alright.

Go figure.

Basil
06-11-2011, 04:53 PM
cf Americanisation, Europanisation, Australianisation

Sure, but while Scot, Yank, Pom, Aussie, Kiwi, Ruski (and any other caucasian effort you'd care to name) are fine, the usage of Nip (nippon), Paki and Jap are deemed instantly heinous by left-leaning cringers. This has been argued at length elsewhere and I don't wish to engage in it again.

My point is that (unfortunately) your cf'ing above in the discussion at hand isn't quite as simple as you may think, thanks to you and yours selectively disallowing such cfs in discussions gone by.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-11-2011, 04:57 PM
the usage of Nip (nippon), Paki and Jap are deemed instantly heinous by left-leaning cringers.
Unless, of course, used by themselves.

Goughfather
06-11-2011, 08:47 PM
Unless, of course, used by themselves.

Are you thinking of a specific occasion a lefty has used one of these terms, or are you just shooting your mouth off, as per usual?

Max Illingworth
06-11-2011, 09:27 PM
Do you think Tony Sheldon's statement is racist?

It's hard to judge without knowing the context of the comment.


Sure, but while Scot, Yank, Pom, Aussie, Kiwi, Ruski (and any other caucasian effort you'd care to name) are fine, the usage of Nip (nippon), Paki and Jap are deemed instantly heinous by left-leaning cringers. This has been argued at length elsewhere and I don't wish to engage in it again.

Actually Yank, Pom and Russki are ethnic slurs and hence unacceptable in modern-day usage.

Capablanca-Fan
06-11-2011, 09:42 PM
Are you thinking of a specific occasion a lefty has used one of these terms, or are you just shooting your mouth off, as per usual?
One of our site leftards "Antichrist" refers to "Lebos" although he is one himself.

Capablanca-Fan
06-11-2011, 09:49 PM
Qantas offers Asians an opportunity to earn money - hardly a racism.
TWU want to deny them this opportunity. In my opinion it's a borderline racism.

When Hasnon was talking about asianisation of Australia, it was a racism.
But Sheldon is talking about asianisation of Qantas, it's alright.

Go figure.
A fair question. Hanson was accused of "xenophobia", so why not Sheldon? Probably because Hanson was an enemy of the politically correct left, even though she was quite leftist herself in her economics.

One Singaporean businessman proposed to me that QANTAS = Quite A Nasty Trip, Australian Style.

Ian Murray
07-11-2011, 08:21 AM
I'm the guy least likely to be an apologist for racism, but to me 'Asian' and 'Asianisation' are not racial slurs (although context and tone of voice could make them so). In this case all it implies to me is relocation to Asia, without any racist taint.

Qantas was rated as the world's safest airline since the introduction of jet aircraft, due in no small part to the stringent Australian safety regulations and the dedication of its maintenance staff (something Qantas brags about (http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/engineering-aircraft/global/en)). That safety record costs too much to maintain for management's taste, and as cost-cutting measures are implemented (for example (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/qantas-plans-radical-maintenance-overhaul/story-e6frfq80-1226098764896)) we now see a Qantas flight emergency in the news almost weekly. Offshore maintenance is unlikely to meet Australian standards.

If management is so keen on cutting costs, why the imperative to buy 20 A380s (shelf price $6.5 billion)?

I don't fly Qantas any more - less chancy elsewhere.

Basil
07-11-2011, 09:09 AM
I'm the guy least likely to be an apologist for racism, but to me 'Asian' and 'Asianisation' are not racial slurs ...
Nor do I.



I don't fly Qantas any more - less chancy elsewhere.
Yeah, those snap strikes were a bitch, weren't they? I'm guessing you were part of the southerly-spiralling advance bookings Joyce was talking about.

Ian Murray
07-11-2011, 09:58 AM
Yeah, those snap strikes were a bitch, weren't they?
Not to mention fighting a way through all those picket lines to get to the check-in counter :P

Igor_Goldenberg
08-11-2011, 03:54 PM
Are you thinking of a specific occasion a lefty has used one of these terms, or are you just shooting your mouth off, as per usual?
Gough,
1. Usually you are the only one on the board shooting your mouth off.
2. Read the original post that demonstrated a specific occasion, before engaging in your usual behaviour outlined at 1.

Goughfather
08-11-2011, 09:49 PM
Gough,
1. Usually you are the only one on the board shooting your mouth off.
2. Read the original post that demonstrated a specific occasion, before engaging in your usual behaviour outlined at 1.

What are you talking about, my dear child?

Having worked through this thread, this first use of these terms appeared in CU's own post. There are no specific reference to lefties using any of these three terms in this thread.

You are a complete joke.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-11-2011, 12:05 AM
Having worked through this thread, this first use of these terms appeared in CU's own post. There are no specific reference to lefties using either of these three terms in this thread.

Congratulation on a great intellectual effort, but try to make that little extra push and read post #372. Ask one of your friends to explain it to you.
I am sorry for asking too much, but your effort might be rewarded and you might (just might) be able to catch up with the rest of the posters.

Good luck!

Goughfather
09-11-2011, 01:15 AM
Congratulation on a great intellectual effort, but try to make that little extra push and read post #372. Ask one of your friends to explain it to you.
I am sorry for asking too much, but your effort might be rewarded and you might (just might) be able to catch up with the rest of the posters.

Good luck!

Good luck indeed. Your hubris is only matched by your level of ineptitude.

I'll deal with this once more and thereafter will no longer respond to your inane ramblings, given that it is beneath my dignity to do so.

The exchange commenced on the basis of a comment by Howard:


Nip (nippon), Paki and Jap are deemed instantly heinous by left-leaning cringers.

You responded as follows:


Unless, of course, used by themselves.

I took you to task on this, asking:


Are you thinking of a specific occasion a lefty has used one of these terms, or are you just shooting your mouth off, as per usual? [emphasis mine]

I later reinforced my question by suggesting that is no specific example provided in this thread to a lefty having used any of the "three terms" referred to in Howard's post.

You then suggest that a reference to "Asianisation" (clearly not "one of these terms") satisfies the question I asked of you and vindicates your response to Howard?

Pathetic. Just pathetic.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-05-2012, 10:06 AM
Question # whatever:
Should Thomson be suspended from parliament?

Kevin Bonham
22-05-2012, 10:28 AM
Question # whatever:
Should Thomson be suspended from parliament?

Only if the priveleges committee finds he has misused privelege by misleading the House and he refuses to correct the record. (Note: if he is found guilty in a court of law of something serious enough he would be automatically expelled.)

These are the previous instances in which members of parliament have been suspended:


Suspension

In the McGrath Case (1913) a Member was suspended from the service of the House for a statement made outside the House which reflected on the Speaker. The Member was suspended ‘. . . for the remainder of the Session unless he sooner unreservedly retracts the words uttered by him at Ballarat . . . and reflecting on the Speaker, and apologises to the House’. However, in the next Parliament the House resolved to expunge the resolution of suspension from the journals of the House ‘as being subversive of the right of an honourable Member to freely address his constituents’.190

In the Tuckey Case (1987) a Member was suspended for seven sitting days, including the day of suspension, following remarks critical of the Speaker made outside the House.191

In the Aldred Case (1989) a Member was suspended for two sitting days. The Committee of Privileges had found that the Member had offended against the rules of the House in making certain statements about another Member which the committee concluded should have been put forward in a substantive motion. The House adopted the report and called on the Member to withdraw the allegation and apologise. He declined to do so and was suspended for two sitting days.192

They are all to do with matters in relation to parliamentary conduct, not scandals outside the parliament.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-05-2012, 11:36 AM
OK, I'll rephrase the question. It directed to anyone who is going to vote Labor (including preferencing them ahead of Libs):
Few days ago opposition moved a motion to suspend Thomson (for 2 weeks IIRC).
1. Should Labor support such a motion?
2. Should Thomson resign?
3. Are you convinced by Thomson's explanation?
4. Do you buy Labor's "presumption of innocence" spin?

Ian Murray
22-05-2012, 02:31 PM
OK, I'll rephrase the question.
Igor at his best! He doesn't like the answer he gets, so he tries again.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-05-2012, 05:40 PM
As usual, no straight answer.

Desmond
22-05-2012, 07:22 PM
As usual, no straight answer.
Such as #392?

Kevin Bonham
22-05-2012, 08:31 PM
OK, I'll rephrase the question. It directed to anyone who is going to vote Labor (including preferencing them ahead of Libs):

I'm certainly in that category while Abbott remains Liberal leader. If he is removed I may not be. I would vote for the Communist Party ahead of anything led by Abbott if it still existed.


Few days ago opposition moved a motion to suspend Thomson (for 2 weeks IIRC).
1. Should Labor support such a motion?
2. Should Thomson resign?
3. Are you convinced by Thomson's explanation?
4. Do you buy Labor's "presumption of innocence" spin?

This is my opening offer on these:

1. Not at the moment. Maybe later.
2. Yes, unless he is actually innocent.
3. Not at the moment.
4. Yes.

What exactly would suspending Thomson for two weeks achieve except for reducing the Government's numbers in the hope of getting the Government kicked out? (A hope that could be stymied if Gillard just responded by going to the GG and requesting that parliament should be prorogued.)

Igor_Goldenberg
22-05-2012, 09:37 PM
Such as #392?
No, #394 and 396. Did someone said something about following the birdie.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-05-2012, 09:52 PM
I'm certainly in that category while Abbott remains Liberal leader. If he is removed I may not be. I would vote for the Communist Party ahead of anything led by Abbott if it still existed.
I doubt you ever going to preference Coalition ahead of Labor.



This is my opening offer on these:

1. Not at the moment. Maybe later.
2. Yes, unless he is actually innocent.
3. Not at the moment.
4. Yes.


Kudos for direct and straight answer. I disagree with #4, though. Presumption of innocence mostly applies to the criminal proceeding in court. I am happy with cautious approach to fresh allegation (where no investigation was done at all), as many of them turn out to be dubious and/or opportunistic. But three years investigation and 1100 pages of adverse finding from FWA (I doubt anybody would suggest they have anti-Labor bias) is enough to give those allegations sufficient weight.
As Latham reminded recently, Labor didn't think about presumption of innocence when they drove out of office 2 G-Gs and numerous Liberal ministers.



What exactly would suspending Thomson for two weeks achieve except for reducing the Government's numbers in the hope of getting the Government kicked out? (A hope that could be stymied if Gillard just responded by going to the GG and requesting that parliament should be prorogued.)
I guess not much. By-election would be much better.

A follow-up question:
How likely, in your opinion, that Thomson is innocent?

Kevin Bonham
22-05-2012, 11:28 PM
I doubt you ever going to preference Coalition ahead of Labor.

I've done so now and then before, though that was usually just to cut the margin of the then Labor MP who in my view was smug and complacent about his party's hold on the seat. Indeed at the last state election I put most of the Labor candidates below some of the Liberals, although since my vote never got distributed it actually made no difference.


I disagree with #4, though. Presumption of innocence mostly applies to the criminal proceeding in court.

Yes and "the criminal proceeding in court" is the test for whether an MP should be expelled from the House. There used to be a possibility for the Parliament to expel an MP and this was repealed. (One MHA was expelled for sedition in 1920).

The test for whether an MP should be suspended is misuse of privelege or unbecoming conduct relating to the parliament (as per the examples I gave). (There is also the "naming" of offenders resulting in brief suspensions and this is again for misbehaviour). That is a matter which does not require the same level of "presumption of innocence" as in law cases, but it is still one where the offender should not be punished, in my view, before there has been such a finding.

Another way to put it is that Thomson need not be proven guilty of something for action to be taken in my view, but he needs to be found guilty of something, either by a court or by the Priveleges Committee. And my understanding is that Labor is willing to have said committee investigate his comments. Let's see what the result is if so.

Thomson's electorate will judge him at the next election anyway.


I am happy with cautious approach to fresh allegation (where no investigation was done at all), as many of them turn out to be dubious and/or opportunistic. But three years investigation and 1100 pages of adverse finding from FWA (I doubt anybody would suggest they have anti-Labor bias) is enough to give those allegations sufficient weight.

I thought Thomson actually raised what sounded like valid questions about FWA and its report processes. They didn't convince me he was innocent but they did convince me that considering him guilty on the specific basis of the FWA report was something that needed more thought.


As Latham reminded recently, Labor didn't think about presumption of innocence when they drove out of office 2 G-Gs and numerous Liberal ministers.

Latham's memory even of his own actions is usually quite unreliable.

Hollingworth - a bad appointment in the first place, but in any case he actually admitted to not having taken abuse seriously enough on his watch. Still it was not really the Opposition's complaints that brought him down but the unfavourable findings of the inquiry initiated by Aspinall, which resulted in the government asking him to resign. (No doubt there was some pressure from the Opposition to cause the latter, but without the findings there would have been no serious pressure.)

Kerr - again hardly a "benefit of the doubt" case when there is no doubt that Kerr actually dismissed the Labor government, and that the controversy made him a divisive figure.

Numerous Liberal ministers - many of those were victims of Howard's own announced ministerial standards when he took office. In any case, it's a different matter altogether. Forcing the resignation of a minister just means the party that loses that minister has to pick another. It doesn't alter the power balance on the floor of the House, and also the decision to sack is made by the minister's own party or leader, not the parliament. Not even remotely comparable.


A follow-up question:
How likely, in your opinion, that Thomson is innocent?

He may be innocent of some of it but not all. Innocent of the lot - less than 10% IMO, but I could be wrong about that.

pax
23-05-2012, 01:18 AM
OK, I'll rephrase the question. It directed to anyone who is going to vote Labor (including preferencing them ahead of Libs):
Few days ago opposition moved a motion to suspend Thomson (for 2 weeks IIRC).

I may or may not be in this category, depending on whether the Government continues to make a pigs arse of everything, and on whether Tony Abbott can bring himself to stand for anything other than undoing everything that Labor have done in two terms of office (or whether the Libs can bring themselves to dump Abbott).



1. Should Labor support such a motion?
2. Should Thomson resign?
3. Are you convinced by Thomson's explanation?
4. Do you buy Labor's "presumption of innocence" spin?

1. No.
2. Probably.
3. No.
4. Not really. It's a valid argument, but it's pretty obviously not their principal motivation.

Here's one for you:

5. Why do you think the Coalition is so keen to see Thomson suspended?

Goughfather
23-05-2012, 01:32 AM
5. Why do you think the Coalition is so keen to see Thomson suspended?

The answer is pretty obvious, isn't it? The Coalition, in an impartial, ethical and consistent manner are wanting to uphold the integrity of parliamentary standards.

Yeah, that'll do.

Capablanca-Fan
23-05-2012, 04:56 AM
The answer is pretty obvious, isn't it? The Coalition, in an impartial, ethical and consistent manner are wanting to uphold the integrity of parliamentary standards.
Makes sense, as per their record. As Michael Galak said in a recent Quadrant article, The eighth degree of charity (http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2012/05/eight-degrees-of-charity):


It seems like a pattern, which is present throughout the West: conservative governments patching up the budget holes left by their social-democratic predecessors’ generosity and kind-heartedness. When the safe amount of budgetary surplus is achieved due to diligence, saving and hard work, the electorate, judging that the time for a splurge has come, turfs conservatives out and brings in social-democrats again. The social-democrats, being what they are, oblige - and reward the electorate with alacrity. The whole cycle begins again.

Desmond
23-05-2012, 06:45 AM
No, #394 and 396. Did someone said something about following the birdie.So your "as usual" needs to be selectively applied. Kind of not what "as usual" means. Better luck in wabbit season, Elmer.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-05-2012, 09:29 AM
I may or may not be in this category, depending on whether the Government continues to make a pigs arse of everything, and on whether Tony Abbott can bring himself to stand for anything other than undoing everything that Labor have done in two terms of office (or whether the Libs can bring themselves to dump Abbott).



1. No.
2. Probably.
3. No.
4. Not really. It's a valid argument, but it's pretty obviously not their principal motivation.

Here's one for you:

5. Why do you think the Coalition is so keen to see Thomson suspended?

Few reasons:
1. If Thomson kicked out of the parliament or resigns, the Labor government might be gone (in a landslide), even though suspension might not achieve it.
2. Thomson (after Labor pretended to disown him) does not have to given a pair. Every time he is out of the parliament Labor's vote is reduced by one.
Kevin mentioned that Labor can easily trick around by, for example, proroguing the parliament, but it would be seen as another example of Labor's dishonesty.
3. Show that Labor is clutching to the straws to stay in power at all cost and ready to abandon last remnants of decency. It is obvious to me they are hypocritical bunch of incompetent drongos. Now it's becoming obvious to many who used to believe them before.
4. To show the difference between Howard's and Rudd/Gillard's parliamentary standards as Kevin (probably inadvertently) attested:


Numerous Liberal ministers - many of those were victims of Howard's own announced ministerial standards when he took office. In any case, it's a different matter altogether. Forcing the resignation of a minister just means the party that loses that minister has to pick another. It doesn't alter the power balance on the floor of the House, and also the decision to sack is made by the minister's own party or leader, not the parliament. Not even remotely comparable.

Kevin Bonham
23-05-2012, 11:01 AM
4. To show the difference between Howard's and Rudd/Gillard's parliamentary standards as Kevin (probably inadvertently) attested:

Howard's standards didn't last. After so many ministers (seven!) had to resign during his first term he responded by reducing his standards. This included removing requirements relating to shareholder COIs (the cause of three of the resignations, the other four were all expense related).

When Rudd came in he reintroduced requirements on shareholder COI, although these were not as strict as those Howard started with, and various other new requirements. Joel Fitzgibbon resigned after admitting he had probably breached Rudd's requirements.

And as I already pointed out, comparing standards as concerns the potential suspension of a Member with standards concerning ministers is simply not comparing like with like. The only remotely comparable situation to Thomson that Howard faced was Colston and even then it was a much less significant one because it only affected the fate of his legislation, not the survival of his government - and because Colston was a bonus vote for his side anyway. And even there, as I noted on another thread, Howard's form was nowhere near so lily-white as some are claiming.


3. Show that Labor is clutching to the straws to stay in power at all cost and ready to abandon last remnants of decency.

I think that sort of charge (doing anything for power) can be applied to both sides. In the Coalition's case, they're willing to set a very dangerous precedent by trying to have a member suspended just because he is the subject of serious allegations and negative investigation findings - something that has never happened in the history of Parliament. (NB they were trying this on May the 8th before Thomson's statement.)

Igor_Goldenberg
23-05-2012, 11:16 AM
...And even there, as I noted on another thread, Howard's form was nowhere near so lily-white as some are claiming.
No politician is lilly-white, and I am neither going to pretend that Howard was saint, nor that his policies were perfect and without mistakes.
After all a saint would never become a politician in the first place.
It's all relative, but we expect at least some level of semi-decency from our pollies. Labor failed this test miserably, and Howard's record in comparison to current government is very good.

Kevin Bonham
23-05-2012, 11:38 AM
Labor failed this test miserably, and Howard's record in comparison to current government is very good.

I just don't think there's a reasonable basis for comparison. I've mentioned some reasons for this but another is that Howard was never short on numbers - he always had a comfortable majority on the floor of the House, so if anyone needed to be kicked out of the party it wasn't a problem.

It is true that the LNP, post-Howard, expelled Michael Johnson before the last election while Labor did nothing about Thomson. However Thomson's seat was vulnerable while Johnson's (despite having a smaller margin from the previous election) was not. In hindsight they should have not endorsed Thomson anyway and they probably still would have won Dobell (as they easily won Bass despite having to push the sitting member into not contesting.)


Makes sense, as per their record. As Michael Galak said in a recent Quadrant article, The eighth degree of charity (http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2012/05/eight-degrees-of-charity):


It seems like a pattern, which is present throughout the West: conservative governments patching up the budget holes left by their social-democratic predecessors’ generosity and kind-heartedness. When the safe amount of budgetary surplus is achieved due to diligence, saving and hard work, the electorate, judging that the time for a splurge has come, turfs conservatives out and brings in social-democrats again. The social-democrats, being what they are, oblige - and reward the electorate with alacrity. The whole cycle begins again.

In other words, both sides of politics tend to get turfed for giving the electorate what it wants at any given time.

Something I think is also worth looking at here is the public's expectations in times of crisis. Voters want thrifty management in a boom but soft landings in a crunch. It's no surprise that in 2007 when it was clear there was a market crash coming people wanted Labor in rather than Howard.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-05-2012, 11:30 AM
Labor claims that parliament cannot judge Craig Thomson and presumption of innocence must be respected.
It begs the question #whatever:
Why did Labor suspend him from the caucus (and indicated he won't be preselected for Dobell next year)?

Rincewind
24-05-2012, 11:45 AM
To cite Iggy's sources (Bolt of course but originally Dennis Shanahan)...

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/closing_in_on_thomson/

I wonder what Bolt will tell Iggy to think tomorrow... :hmm:

Igor_Goldenberg
12-02-2013, 10:41 AM
1. How much did the US federal debt increase in 2001-2009 (during two Bush presidencies)?
2. How much did the US federal debt increase in 2009-2013 (during first Obame presidency)?

Ian Murray
12-02-2013, 01:57 PM
1. How much did the US federal debt increase in 2001-2009 (during two Bush presidencies)?
2. How much did the US federal debt increase in 2009-2013 (during first Obame presidency)?
3. Who won the 2012 Presidential election?

Igor_Goldenberg
12-02-2013, 09:22 PM
No offence Ian, but your response wouldn't even cut at kindergarten sandpit.
Maybe "under three" group?
However, it justifies the name of the thread!

Ian Murray
12-02-2013, 09:36 PM
No offence Ian, but your response wouldn't even cut at kindergarten sandpit.
Maybe "under three" group?
However, it justifies the name of the thread!
As they say, winners are grinners; losers can suit themselves

Rincewind
12-02-2013, 11:00 PM
As they say, winners are grinners; losers can suit themselves

I thought there was some genuine uncertainty on how Igor might reply to question #3. After all, on the eve of the election, he boldly predicted a Romney victory based on a pollster with a known Republican bias and the fact that rarely is an administration returned with a reduced majority. I wasn't sure how he resolved the cognitive dissonance.

Capablanca-Fan
13-02-2013, 02:15 AM
As they say, winners are grinners; losers can suit themselves
Of course, this has nothing to do with IG's questions. Obamov was hardly the first to buy votes at the expense of massive debts. FDR did the same. Anita Folsom writes in An Army with No Bullets (http://www.burtfolsom.com/?p=2224), 12 Feb 2013:


As a result of FDR’s cuts, by 1935 military supplies were so low that General Douglas MacArthur, Army Chief of Staff, spoke on Capitol Hill, pleading for enough funding to supply bullets for 100,000 soldiers. The U.S. Army was smaller than the armies of most European countries, including the Netherlands.

Why did Roosevelt follow such a dangerous path? Because spending on the military didn’t win him as many votes as did his spending on social programs. The WPA, for example, was a gold mine of dependable voters for Democrat candidates. One official in New Jersey even answered the phone at the local WPA office, “Democratic headquarters.”

Roosevelt and his staff studied voting patterns in swing states and funneled federal monies to specific districts. For example, in New York City just days before one federal election, the AAA announced that each school age child would receive free milk. Across the country, WPA funds poured into areas where more votes were necessary for a Democrat victory.

FDR built up such momentum about how he was “helping” the American people that he managed to get reelected again and again, even with high unemployment and a weak military. In 1936, unemployment still stood at 16.6%; yet, Americans by the millions voted for another four years of FDR as president. In 1940, unemployment was over 14%, but FDR maneuvered to be re-elected, partly because of the war in Europe.

In 1941, many chickens came home to roost. Thousands of American soldiers, sailors, and marines were caught in the Pacific when Japan attacked that December. Our forces were using antiquated weapons because of years of defense cuts. Thousands of those Americans died in battle and in prisoner-of-war camps.

Desmond
13-02-2013, 06:14 AM
1. How much did the US federal debt increase in 2001-2009 (during two Bush presidencies)?
2. How much did the US federal debt increase in 2009-2013 (during first Obame presidency)?
Looks like Bush ramped it up nicely.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Federal_debt_to_GDP_-_2000_to_2010.png/800px-Federal_debt_to_GDP_-_2000_to_2010.png

Ian Murray
13-02-2013, 08:21 AM
As a result of FDR’s cuts, by 1935 military supplies were so low ...

Defence spending actually rose significantly after FDR was elected in 1933:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Defense&units=p&size=l&year=1800_2010&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i _a_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a _i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_b&spending0=1.28_0.76_0.49_0.44_0.41_0.43_0.48_0.53_ 0.76_0.86_0.58_0.54_2.04_2.73_2.60_2.57_2.48_1.53_ 1.30_1.77_1.45_1.10_0.91_0.98_1.04_0.99_1.13_1.01_ 1.02_0.98_0.93_0.95_0.95_1.32_1.00_0.87_1.42_1.49_ 1.34_1.11_1.01_1.05_1.02_0.48_0.83_0.78_0.93_2.01_ 1.50_1.08_0.75_0.86_0.64_0.69_0.65_0.75_0.81_0.80_ 1.00_0.89_0.67_0.79_7.57_8.70_8.26_11.84_3.82_1.76 _2.12_1.62_1.39_1.18_1.03_1.13_1.21_1.13_1.03_0.94 _0.91_0.97_1.05_0.91_0.98_1.06_0.95_0.99_0.92_0.98 _0.98_1.11_1.15_1.29_1.29_1.55_1.61_1.42_1.40_1.39 _1.65_2.22_1.61_1.55_1.27_1.22_1.27_1.16_1.11_1.05 _1.22_1.17_1.16_1.17_1.11_1.09_1.17_1.10_0.86_2.69 _15.83_22.00_5.28_4.02_1.77_1.49_1.43_1.36_1.25_1. 27_1.32_1.33_1.61_2.05_2.85_2.44_1.64_2.55_3.17_2. 34_1.92_2.07_2.13_5.72_16.73_35.47_39.17_42.04_24. 00_9.35_7.34_8.23_8.25_8.61_14.43_15.01_13.89_11.3 7_10.77_11.13_11.08_10.66_10.12_10.46_10.86_10.40_ 9.85_8.57_8.84_10.06_10.36_9.62_9.12_8.24_7.65_6.7 2_6.56_6.73_6.27_5.99_5.71_5.61_6.02_6.19_6.81_6.9 8_6.84_7.00_7.04_6.76_6.47_6.26_5.90_5.35_5.49_5.1 6_4.75_4.40_4.03_3.90_3.67_3.56_3.60_3.56_3.96_4.3 3_4.58_4.75_4.64_4.65_5.08_5.70_6.17

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1800_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=30-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

Igor_Goldenberg
18-02-2013, 10:13 AM
As they say, winners are grinners; losers can suit themselves
If you think you are the winner from US election, then you must be deluded.
And the question is still not answered neither by you nor by your friend producing pretty but irrelevant graphs

Rincewind
18-02-2013, 10:19 AM
If you think you are the winner from US election, then you must be deluded.

So how is that cognitive dissonance working for you? :lol:

Ian Murray
18-02-2013, 04:02 PM
If you think you are the winner from US election, then you must be deluded.
Well, considering that Obama and the Democratic Party captured a majority of the vote nationwide, in Congress and in a majority of states, I'm inclined to regard that as a clear win. However I'm sure you have a contrary view.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2013, 04:27 PM
Well, considering that Obama and the Democratic Party captured a majority of the vote nationwide, in Congress and in a majority of states, I'm inclined to regard that as a clear win. However I'm sure you have a contrary view.
Indeed, because the Republicans held the House according to the vote counting rules. The election was just as the founders feared would be a problem in a democracy: a majority voting to plunder a minority. I.e. Romney said openly: if you want free stuff, then vote for the other guy, and a majority did. Or, as long ago pointed out, those who vote to tax Peter to pay Paul can count on Paul's votes. A majority were Pauls thinking that the "rich" would be taxed, and angry that they ended up paying more as well. Now there is plenty of buyers' remorse by these low-information envy-coddled greedy moochers:

Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/6/obama-supporters-shocked-angry-new-tax-increases/?page=all)
Joseph Curl, 6 Jan 2013


Sometimes, watching a Democrat learn something is wonderful, like seeing the family dog finally sit and stay at your command.
With President Obama back in office and his life-saving “fiscal cliff” bill jammed through Congress, the new year has brought a surprising turn of events for his sycophantic supporters.
“What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”
Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,” you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.
So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.
...

Obama supporters getting stung by Obamacare’s false promises (http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/02/12/obamacare-a-beehive-of-stings-you-werent-expecting/)
Elizabeth Lee Vliet | February 12 2013

...
Next, the IRS projected premiums of $20,000 per year for a family of four. Affordable? For whom? This sting is a $3,000 to $5,000 increase instead of the promised $2,500 savings per year—a miscalculation of $5,500 to $7,500 for a family of four.

Large national restaurant chains are cutting employees’ hours because they cannot afford to pay the high health insurance premiums for “fulltime” employees. How can the middle class make ends meet on part-time work?

Liberal groups that overwhelmingly supported Obamacare are also getting stung. Of course, these announcements came after the election, in which these constituent groups supported Obama in droves:

College students: Before Obamacare, young healthy college students paid average health insurance premiums that only cost $100-600 per year. Obamacare mandates mean that premiums are rising to $1,700 to $2,000 per year. In New Jersey, where health insurance is mandatory for college students, this is indeed a huge sting!
College faculty: At many universities, faculty hours are being cut back to less than 29 hours a week to avoid the costly Obamacare premiums.
Union members: the sting of Obamacare has come in many forms, so Big Labor is now seeking waivers for union members.
Smokers: Many who fell for Obama’s promise of “free” or lower cost medical care are learning that their premiums will be 50% higher than nonsmokers –up to $4,250 dollars per year in excess costs for smokers age 55 and older.
Employers: Paying for all the Obamacare mandates in employer-provided health insurance adds $1.79 to the hourly rate to hire an employee. That’s why many are not hiring.
Seniors: After the election, seniors are learning that all the promises of “no cutbacks” in their medical care were false.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2013, 04:39 PM
Looks like Bush ramped it up nicely.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Federal_debt_to_GDP_-_2000_to_2010.png/800px-Federal_debt_to_GDP_-_2000_to_2010.png
No where near as much as Obamov. Yet Obamov (rightly) said:


“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents -- number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child,”

But President Obamov added more than five trillion dollars to the national debt in less than four years. But as above, he explicitly said it was “unpatriotic” for President George W. Bush to add four trillion dollars to the national debt in eight years.

Of course, the drooling Obamov supporters have double standards.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2013, 04:47 PM
Defence spending actually rose significantly after FDR was elected in 1933:
According to The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia (http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/R/o/Roosevelt_Franklin_D.htm):


The New Deal was funded through greatly increased taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals, through an unprecedented level of peacetime deficit spending, and through reductions in other government expenditures.
These included defense expenditures. Early in his first term, Roosevelt cut the defense budget, reducing the annual expenditure from $752 million to $531 million. This led to a famous confrontation with Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur that marked MacArthur's permanent alienation from Democratic administrations.
...
Following his reelection in 1936, Roosevelt attempted to balance the budget, but by the summer of 1937 the loss of the stimulus provided by deficit spending plunged the United States into a second recession. The unemployment rate soared, and the public became increasingly dissatisfied with the New Deal, which appeared to have failed at priming the pump. Roosevelt blamed the recession on "a concerted effort by big business and concentrated wealth to drive the market down just to create a situation unfavorable to me" (Fleming 2001). However, the gathering storm clouds abroad convinced Roosevelt that the country had to look to its defenses. The lapse of the naval disarmament treaties had already led Congress to approve significant expansions to the Navy, and by 1939 the massive rearmament program was proving very important in the economic recovery. Perhaps equally important was Roosevelt's decision to back away from his earlier strongly populist stance: He knew he had to have the support of big business if the country was to rearm for war.

Desmond
18-02-2013, 05:06 PM
And the question is still not answered neither by you nor by your friend producing pretty but irrelevant graphsActually I did answer the first question. Are the figures out yet to answer the second? I'd be interested to see them if so.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-02-2013, 03:41 PM
Well, considering that Obama and the Democratic Party captured a majority of the vote nationwide, in Congress and in a majority of states, I'm inclined to regard that as a clear win. However I'm sure you have a contrary view.
Obama and Democrats are indeed the winners. What makes you think that you are a winner?

Igor_Goldenberg
20-02-2013, 03:42 PM
Actually I did answer the first question. Are the figures out yet to answer the second? I'd be interested to see them if so.
The graph you posted includes half of the first Obama term (where, btw, it really shoots up). Hence it's completely irrelevant.

Desmond
20-02-2013, 06:04 PM
The graph you posted includes half of the first Obama term (where, btw, it really shoots up). Hence it's completely irrelevant.
was your question:

1. How much did the US federal debt increase in 2001-2009 (during two Bush presidencies)?
answered by my graph?
Y/N

Rincewind
20-02-2013, 07:13 PM
Obama and Democrats are indeed the winners. What makes you think that you are a winner?

As the whole world was spared a Romney presidency I would say we are all winners.

Ian Murray
21-02-2013, 07:20 AM
was your question:

1. How much did the US federal debt increase in 2001-2009 (during two Bush presidencies)?
answered by my graph?
Y/N
You're supposed to cringe at the questions, not answer them. A straight answer confuses Iggy.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-02-2013, 08:44 AM
was your question:

1. How much did the US federal debt increase in 2001-2009 (during two Bush presidencies)?
answered by my graph?
Y/N
Is half truth a lie? Is half an answer an answer?
But the fact that you run away from comparing the two figures is am answer itself.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-02-2013, 08:45 AM
You're supposed to cringe at the questions, not answer them. A straight answer confuses Iggy.
You definetely cringed :owned: :owned: :owned:
And I am still waiting for the answer.

Desmond
21-02-2013, 05:21 PM
Is half truth a lie? Is half an answer an answer?
But the fact that you run away from comparing the two figures is am answer itself.:lol:

Y/N?

Goughfather
21-02-2013, 05:50 PM
You're supposed to cringe at the questions, not answer them. A straight answer confuses Iggy.

I think that pretty much everything confuses our resident buffoon.

Ian Murray
21-02-2013, 07:35 PM
You definetely cringed :owned:
It's called laughing nit cringing


And I am still waiting for the answer.
I don't answer silly questions, but I did respond - see Q3

Ian Murray
21-02-2013, 07:40 PM
I think that pretty much everything confuses our resident buffoon.
Which makes it difficult if you try to follow his line of thought. Once you realise there is no line of thought, the non sequiturs become perfectly clear.

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2013, 03:03 PM
You're supposed to cringe at the questions, not answer them. A straight answer confuses Iggy.
Only in the sense that straight answers from leftards, especially from anti-semites anti-zionists like IM or racist shyster lawyers like GF, are so out of character.

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2013, 03:06 PM
Obama and Democrats are indeed the winners?
Just as Alexis de Tocqueville warned: a democracy would be undone when a majority realizes that they can plunder the minority by voting. Last election, the people wanting free stuff were such a large part of the population that the party of the productive people had little chance against the Santa Claus party. Romney was honest enough to say, "If you want free stuff, then vote for the other guy," not realizing how many there were.

Desmond
23-02-2013, 03:27 PM
Only in the sense that straight answers from leftards, especially from anti-semites anti-zionists like IM or racist shyster lawyers like GF, are so out of character.Which part of the year by year figures to address Igor's first question do you think was too difficult for him? I'm curious because while of course I am happy to be patient and wait for him to catch up on comprehending the conversation, I'd rather minimise the amount of time I waste on him, if possible. Ta.

Ian Murray
23-02-2013, 10:20 PM
Last election, the people wanting free stuff were such a large part of the population that the party of the productive people had little chance against the Santa Claus party. Romney was honest enough to say, "If you want free stuff, then vote for the other guy," not realizing how many there were.
Or so says the redneck mantra. Look a little deeper, and it is obvious that Latinos are natural Republican voters. They are religious, hard working and family-oriented. They don't want handouts, but they deserted the GOP in droves (only 27% voted conservative at the elections last year).

Rincewind
23-02-2013, 10:32 PM
Or so says the redneck mantra. Look a little deeper, and it is obvious that Latinos are natural Republican voters. They are religious, hard working and family-oriented. They don't want handouts, but they deserted the GOP in droves (only 27% voted conservative at the elections last year).

Could be an allergy to the racist edge of the vocal far right.

Capablanca-Fan
24-02-2013, 01:05 AM
Could be an allergy to the racist edge of the vocal far right.
You mean, gullibly swallowing the Leftmedia lies about racism on the Right and refusing to cover the minority speakers at the Republican convention, while covering up the Dems' history of slavery and segregation and their current race-baiting. But also, more of them want free stuff.

Capablanca-Fan
24-02-2013, 01:06 AM
Or so says the redneck mantra. Look a little deeper, and it is obvious that Latinos are natural Republican voters. They are religious, hard working and family-oriented. They don't want handouts, but they deserted the GOP in droves (only 27% voted conservative at the elections last year).
They are not that natural any more. Ann Coulter writes in Hispanicked GOP Elite: They'll Respect Us in the Morning (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/16873):


The canard about Hispanics being "natural conservatives" comes from the same cliche machine that gave us the one about blacks being "natural conservatives." At least blacks really are social conservatives -- they just vote Democratic, anyway.

As Charles Murray has pointed out, Hispanics are less likely to go to church or be employed than non-Hispanics. They are less opposed to gay marriage than everyone else -- 44 percent compared to 50 percent. (By contrast, 55 percent of African-Americans oppose gay marriage, according to a 2012 Washington Post/ABC poll -- even more, according to how they vote.)

Nor, unfortunately, do Hispanic immigrants become more Republican the longer they've been here, as some Republicans claim without bothering to see if it's true.

To the contrary, they get more liberal. Cubans used to vote Republican nearly as reliably as Mormons. In 2012, 49 percent of Cubans voted for Obama.

Will amnesty win the Cubans back? I don't think so: They already get amnesty under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act. Same with Puerto Ricans, who are automatic American citizens.

Trying to appeal to Hispanics with amnesty would be like trying to win over baseball fans by shouting "Go Yankees!" at a Mets game. Except that would at least capture some baseball fans.

It's not clear that amnesty wins any Hispanics, apart from the ones who can't vote (because they're illegal) and their ethnic "spokesmen," whose power increases as the Hispanic population grows.

So why do Hispanics vote Democratic? Like most legal immigrants since Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act, Hispanic immigrants are poor. The poverty rate of second-generation Hispanics is lower than the first -- but the third generation's poverty rate is higher than the second.

Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that Hispanics have the highest illegitimate birthrate in the country. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2010, for every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women, 80.6 had children out of wedlock, compared to 65.3 for unmarried black women and 29 for unmarried white women.

If Republicans think we can have mass amnesty for millions of government-dependent immigrants and become a more libertarian country, they're crazy.

Ian Murray
24-02-2013, 07:44 AM
They are not that natural any more.
Well, if the GOP can't stop them voting Dem, then Plan B - stop them voting.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-02-2013, 01:04 PM
The amount of cringing, hauling and screaming, let alone the direct abuse, shows it was indeed a very good question.
And, of course, it wasn't answered.

Rincewind
25-02-2013, 01:19 PM
And, of course, it wasn't answered.

In a way simple enough for it to be understood by our resident buffoon.

Desmond
25-02-2013, 03:39 PM
In a way simple enough for it to be understood by our resident buffoon.Difficult to imagine a simpler way than 2-digit numbers with pweddy pictures, but I'm open to suggestions.

Rincewind
25-02-2013, 03:46 PM
Difficult to imagine a simpler way than 2-digit numbers with pweddy pictures, but I'm open to suggestions.

Reminds me of those maps with the various states of the USA coloured either blue or red. But they too seem to have been lost on Iggy.

Capablanca-Fan
25-02-2013, 04:26 PM
Well, if the GOP can't stop them voting Dem, then Plan B - stop them voting.
At least stop the Dem plan—illegals and dead people voting—by making voters prove their eligibility. At least IM is tacitly conceding that low-information voters tend to vote Dem.

Rincewind
25-02-2013, 04:50 PM
At least stop the Dem plan—illegals and dead people voting—by making voters prove their eligibility. At least IM is tacitly conceding that low-information voters tend to vote Dem.

Are you saying Hispanics are low-information voters?

Ian Murray
25-02-2013, 06:01 PM
At least stop the Dem plan—illegals and dead people voting—by making voters prove their eligibility.
There is no Dem plan to suppress voting rights - it's the GOP doing that, using unsubstantiated claims of 'voter fraud' as a smokescreen.

At least IM is tacitly conceding that low-information voters tend to vote Dem.
Informed minorities vote Dem. It's not rocket science for them to work out that they are being disadvantaged by Rep policies like voter ID and opposition to immigration amnesty and a minimum wage increase.

Goughfather
25-02-2013, 10:31 PM
Are you saying Hispanics are low-information voters?

I knew that Jono held a deep hatred and contempt for black people, but he has kept his loathing of Latinos to himself until now.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2013, 05:07 AM
There is no Dem plan to suppress voting rights - it's the GOP doing that, using unsubstantiated claims of 'voter fraud' as a smokescreen.
The Dem plan is to enable illegals and dead people to vote, by blocking even the most reasonable ID requirements. Conversely, under my plan, there would be minimal costs and hassles to obtain IDs. But Dems want to preserve the jobs of their bureaucrat buddies so refuse to streamline the process.


Informed minorities vote Dem. It's not rocket science for them to work out that they are being disadvantaged by Rep policies like voter ID and opposition to immigration amnesty and a minimum wage increase.
Proves my point. Informed legitimate voters would realize that their votes could be cancelled out if illegals were not prevented from voting because of demagoguery against voter ID laws. Illegal immigration makes legal immigrants look like chumps for bothering to go through the hoops, and are also competition for jobs.

Economists for a long time have documented that minimum wage laws, like any minimum price laws, create a surplus, because things will be unsold if they are priced above market price (= price that free buyers will pay). So if labour is priced high above the employee's productivity, the employer won't hire him. A surplus in labour = unemployment, which affects minorities even more.

The late great Milton Friedman (a Jew with a black secretary) said that minimum wage laws were the most anti-black laws in the books. That's because the real minimum wage is zero: unemployment. This denies young people, especially minorities, to get a start on the job ladder. That is where they learn vital job skills like simply turning up for work on time, working with others, handling money, and general shedding of immaturity. Then their productivity can exceed the minimum wage, as shown by the fact that well over 90% of workers in the USA earn more than this.
***

We all knew that GF had a deep contempt for black people, in that he holds them to lower standards than white people, and thinks they can't make it without government goodies, and despises conservative/libertarian blacks who dared to leave the Democrat Plantation. But we now know that he also has contempt for Hispanics, likewise disguised as patronizing political correctness.

Ian Murray
26-02-2013, 07:18 AM
The Dem plan is to enable illegals and dead people to vote, by blocking even the most reasonable ID requirements.
Dems don't need to rig voting - they hold a 51:47 lead. Photo IDs do not stop illegals from registering and voting, but make life more difficult for genuine voters who can't readily obtain ID. Which of course is the desired effect for the Reps.

The courts are deciding which ID requirements are reasonable. So far the Rep attempts have not fared well.

Conversely, under my plan, there would be minimal costs and hassles to obtain IDs. But Dems want to preserve the jobs of their bureaucrat buddies so refuse to streamline the process.
The courts can evaluate your plan when you file the motion. Meanwhile Dems have no say in fees and taxes and collection processes set by Rep state legislatures and governors.

Proves my point. Informed legitimate voters would realize that their votes could be cancelled out if illegals were not prevented from voting because of demagoguery against voter ID laws.
Voter ID laws only prevent voter impersonation, not multiple voting or voting by illegals with ID. Informed legitimate voters can work that out for themselves, and see the real intent of the laws.

Economists for a long time have documented that minimum wage laws, like any minimum price laws, create a surplus, because things will be unsold if they are priced above market price (= price that free buyers will pay). So if labour is priced high above the employee's productivity, the employer won't hire him. A surplus in labour = unemployment, which affects minorities even more.

The late great Milton Friedman (a Jew with a black secretary) said that minimum wage laws were the most anti-black laws in the books. That's because the real minimum wage is zero: unemployment. This denies young people, especially minorities, to get a start on the job ladder. That is where they learn vital job skills like simply turning up for work on time, working with others, handling money, and general shedding of immaturity. Then their productivity can exceed the minimum wage, as shown by the fact that well over 90% of workers in the USA earn more than this.
Try explaining to workers on the minimum wage that other workers can have pay rises but they never can, because of libertarian economic theory.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2013, 07:33 AM
Are you saying Hispanics are low-information voters?
No, that most Dems are low-information voters. They actually think that “hope and change” and “yes we can” are policies; that there is such a thing as a free lunch, that the Republicans really want to ban sex; that although many of them pay no federal income tax and that the ‘rich’ already pay the most taxes, the ‘rich’ aren’t paying enough; and that envy changes from one of the seven deadly sins into a prime virtue if it is renamed ‘social justice’.

Rincewind
26-02-2013, 09:35 AM
No, that most Dems are low-information voters.

So when you said "low-information voters tend to vote Dem" you were really saying that "most Dems tend to vote Dem"? Insightful.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2013, 09:53 AM
So when you said "low-information voters tend to vote Dem" you were really saying that "most Dems tend to vote Dem"? Insightful.
Come off it. I was answering you about whether I was claiming this about Hispanics. But even under your twisting, you could draw a Venn Diagram with sets Low Information Voters and Democrat Voters. Then "most Dem voters are low-information" and "most low information voters are Dems" are not tautological statements but represented by a large union between similarly-sized sets.

There are a few high information Dem voters who actually support Obamov's aim to take down America's high economic and military place in the world. Such people realize that Obamov is not incompetent but intentionally producing the record deficits, betrayal of America's friends, and rising power of the Islamofascists in the middle east.

Some low information voters vote for the RINOs who promise them farm subsidies, including ethanol; and support trade restrictions, or vote Republican out of instinct rather than any real understanding of the strength of free market economics.

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2013, 10:20 AM
Proves my point. Informed legitimate voters would realize that their votes could be cancelled out if illegals were not prevented from voting because of demagoguery against voter ID laws.

They might just as easily figure that their votes might be doubled. But really, informed voters would be aware that there is a lot of hype about vote fraud for a relatively small number of actual occurrences and that the chance of a given person's vote being cancelled out is not large enough to be a reason for voting differently.

It would be especially odd, if you were leaning towards voting Democrat, to worry that someone might vote Republican, and to therefore vote Republican in the hope of ensuring that someone else wouldn't - thus not only cancelling out your own vote but reversing it.

I'm not too impressed with the concept of "low-information" voters. I think it can be argued that almost all voters are effectively low-information voters, or that there are some voters who know a lot about certain aspects of the political system but who also believe a lot of partisan myths.

Rincewind
26-02-2013, 10:27 AM
Come off it. I was answering you...

No you made the the comment as a part of a discussion regarding the number of Latinos who are now not voting Republican despite their alignment regarding work-ethic and conservative social views. You said "At least IM is tacitly conceding that low-information voters tend to vote Dem." I am struggle to see how this can be a statement meaning anything other than most Latinos are low-information voters. Obviously you had something other than that simply most Dems are low-information voters since then your statement becomes circular.

Goughfather
26-02-2013, 10:53 PM
We all knew that GF had a deep contempt for black people, in that he holds them to lower standards than white people, and thinks they can't make it without government goodies, and despises conservative/libertarian blacks who dared to leave the Democrat Plantation. But we now know that he also has contempt for Hispanics, likewise disguised as patronizing political correctness.

Every so often Sir Thumpalot will crawl out from under his rock to make this accusation. On a few occasions now I've called his bluff and asked him to substantiate his accusations with documented examples. His response is as predictable as it sad: he will scuttle back underneath his rock like the gutless coward that he is, only to emerge a few days later to try the same failed attack again.

Jono did get one thing right in suggesting that I was being somewhat patronising in what I wrote, but failed to realise that it was all directed in his direction. This is because Jono is not merely a low-information voter but in reality is a low-information individual who never ceases to make himself look ridiculous by combining his supreme cluelessness with his unbridled delusions of grandeur.

Capablanca-Fan
27-02-2013, 01:10 AM
No you made the the comment as a part of a discussion regarding the number of Latinos who are now not voting Republican despite their alignment regarding work-ethic and conservative social views.
But as I showed, they now lack this alignment. With Cuban-Americans, a likely reason is the 12 years of indoctrination in the Democrat-controlled government schools.

Rincewind
27-02-2013, 09:37 AM
But as I showed, they now lack this alignment. With Cuban-Americans, a likely reason is the 12 years of indoctrination in the Democrat-controlled government schools.

You're funny, Jono. They way you back-peddle when your are called on saying something racist. :lol:

Ian Murray
27-02-2013, 10:14 AM
You're funny, Jono. They way you back-peddle when your are called on saying something racist. :lol:
And the way he tries to shift responsibility for the last twelve years of government education on Democrats.

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 12:36 AM
And the way he tries to shift responsibility for the last twelve years of government education on Democrats.
Of course. The teachers' unions are the Democrats' indoctrination branch, and the Deptartment of Education was founded by that Democrat loser and fake Christian Jimmy Carter.

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 12:37 AM
A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots

In the style of Jeff Foxworthy's “You might be a redneck if …”:

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn’t be found — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

What a country!

How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America!

Desmond
15-02-2014, 05:37 PM
Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html)



Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced
Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel 'safe'
Analysis of more than 15,000 people


Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.

Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.

The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.

The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe.

Crucially, people's educational level is not what determines whether they are racist or not - it's innate intelligence, according to the academics.

Social status also appears to play no part.
...

Rincewind
15-02-2014, 05:42 PM
John Stuart Mill was onto this a long time ago.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - JSM

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
17-02-2014, 03:37 AM
right wing vs left wing ............................ (according to cleaver green)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkvXWOJZZpM

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2014, 12:47 PM
^^ It's stupid to equivocate about the meaning of conservative in 19th-century Britain to 21st century Australia or USA. It would be just as crass to say something about "liberals" in the modern American meaning and apply it to the current Australian government.

JSM was quite libertarian and opposed a powerful government.

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2014, 01:00 PM
Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.
That's rich considering that it was the Democrats who were the party of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow. E.g. it was the lauded "progressive" Woodrow Wilson who segregated the federal government and lauded the KKK. Now the Dems teach that black people can't make it without government help. So the authors have already made a link between conservatives and racism that doesn't match history.

Dr Brian Nosek pointed (http://praag.org/?p=9619)out that the tendency is for less intelligent people to go for more simplistic ideologies, but the right certainly have no monopoly on this. For Marx it was dialectical materialism, for the Occupy crowd it's all the fault of greed; for Jesse Jackson, black problems are the result of white racism. This sort of study is not the first to make such claims. Satoshi Kanazawa became a darling of the left when he published a equally dubious study (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-primitive-argument-for-liberal-genius/article4309916/) in 2010 claiming that liberals and atheists are smarter, but then lost his popularity when he wrote that black women are less attractive than other women (http://rogersparkbench.blogspot.com/2012/02/study-claims-conservatives-less.html).

Rincewind
17-02-2014, 01:28 PM
^^ It's stupid to equivocate about the meaning of conservative in 19th-century Britain to 21st century Australia or USA.

What is very stupid is to make an ipse dixit proclamation on the changing meaning of conservative without a scrap of evidence.

I can't see that the meaning of conservative (meaning holder of traditional values) has changed all that much over the last few centuries. But if you have some evidence of conservative being widely used to mean something quite different you could... you know... justify your pompous pontifications.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2014, 12:55 AM
^^^ Stupidest of all is assuming that conservative meant the same thing across time and geography when I showed that the meaning of "liberal" can mean almost opposite things in American and Aussie politics.

Strictly speaking, a conservative is an opponent of drastic changes. So the questions must be, change from what and change into what? Too many low-information voters fell for Obamov's vacuous "hope and change" without asking, "Change into what?" Hitler promised and delivered "change" from the Weimar Republic for example.

Rincewind
18-02-2014, 01:18 AM
^^^ Stupidest of all is assuming that conservative meant the same thing across time and geography when I showed that the meaning of "liberal" can mean almost opposite things in American and Aussie politics.

Not at all you are conflating "liberal" with "Liberal". The lowercase L liberal means precisely the same thing both sides of the pacific. So to begin with your analogy is completely stupid.

Secondly your stupid analogy is not applicable due to your stupid-headed stupidity which your stupidly and stubbornly persist with. If you are doing to continue to try to keep your argument afloat but clinging to a lump of lead that is up to you. But you really need to come up with some evidence that conservative as commonly used in JSM's time was drastically different in meaning from it's general usage today.


Strictly speaking, a conservative is an opponent of drastic changes. So the questions must be, change from what and change into what? Too many low-information voters fell for Obamov's vacuous "hope and change" without asking, "Change into what?" Hitler promised and delivered "change" from the Weimar Republic for example.

'Drastic' is not a necessary part of the definition in common use. According to Oxford a conservative is one who is


adverse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.

origins in late middle English meaning to 'aiming to preserve' and unlikely to have changed ih any significant way since the middle of the 19th century. Especially since the upper-C Conservative Party of C19 UK was indeed the lower-c conservative party as well.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2014, 01:04 PM
Not at all you are conflating "liberal" with "Liberal". The lowercase L liberal means precisely the same thing both sides of the pacific. So to begin with your analogy is completely stupid.
The Liberal party was named for the classical liberal ideas. The recent American version is a corruption, when "progressive" lost its lustre after its support for eugenics.


'Drastic' is not a necessary part of the definition in common use. According to Oxford a conservative is one who is


adverse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.

origins in late middle English meaning to 'aiming to preserve' and unlikely to have changed ih any significant way since the middle of the 19th century. Especially since the upper-C Conservative Party of C19 UK was indeed the lower-c conservative party as well.
It would be plausible to think that JSM meant the conservatism of Edmund Burke, much like that of Sowell, but Burke didn't want to conserve everything, e.g. he supported American independence and opposed slavery. But then, Burke was hardly stupid.

Rincewind
18-02-2014, 02:44 PM
The Liberal party was named for the classical liberal ideas. The recent American version is a corruption, when "progressive" lost its lustre after its support for eugenics.

I know historical revisionism is a hobby of your but there is no need for me to indulge you.


It would be plausible to think that JSM meant the conservatism of Edmund Burke, much like that of Sowell, but Burke didn't want to conserve everything, e.g. he supported American independence and opposed slavery. But then, Burke was hardly stupid.

My understanding is he used the quip when debating John Packington who was a prominent MP who served in conservative governments lead by Robert Peel, 14th Earl of Derby and Benjamin Disraeli.

Why Edmund Burke (who died in the 18th century and 10 years before John Stuart Mill was born) would have been on JSM's mind is just wild speculation. Particularly when the quip is reportedly from c.1866 when JSM was 60.

No I think JSM was just referring to stupid people, like Jono, feeling uncomfortable of any change to the status quo.

Goughfather
18-02-2014, 11:51 PM
^^ It's stupid to equivocate about the meaning of conservative in 19th-century Britain to 21st century Australia or USA. It would be just as crass to say something about "liberals" in the modern American meaning and apply it to the current Australian government.

JSM was quite libertarian and opposed a powerful government.

It is equally crass to assume that you share any kind of philosophical relationship with John Stuart Mill, but then again you are a very crass individual. Your philosophical underpinnings derive from the "social disintegration" school of Patrick Devlin and have nothing to do with what could meaningfully be considered to be the libertarianism of JSM. As I've pointed out before, you have no love at all of general personal liberty. Rather, what you identify as "libertarianism" is simply untrammelled selfishness, where the rights and liberties of everybody else must give way to your narcissistic desires.

Capablanca-Fan
19-02-2014, 03:57 AM
My understanding is he used the quip when debating John Packington who was a prominent MP who served in conservative governments lead by Robert Peel, 14th Earl of Derby and Benjamin Disraeli.
Fine, so it was about the English Conservative Party of the mid-19th century. Disraeli's illustrious opponent Gladstone would be called a Bible-bashing fundie today.


Why Edmund Burke (who died in the 18th century and 10 years before John Stuart Mill was born) would have been on JSM's mind is just wild speculation. Particularly when the quip is reportedly from c.1866 when JSM was 60.
Because Burke is on the mind of much more recent conservatives, as exemplifying small-c conservative philosophy which is not always the same as capital-C Conservative Party politics.
Either way, JSM's comment is another ispe dixit, of which RW is so fond.


No I think JSM was just referring to stupid people, like Jono, feeling uncomfortable of any change to the status quo.
What is really stupid is jumping on the "change" bandwagon without considering whether the change is for better or for worse. Real conservatives in the Burkean/Sowellian mode don't mind all changes from the status quo. E.g. a lot of us want to change education from its status quo of government schooling, and industrial relations from the status quo of minimum wage laws, and want to end completely the tradition of trade barriers and subsidies.

As for that leftard fanatic and shyster GF, I've never read anything from Devlin. My political views owe most to the likes of Thomas Sowell and his mentor Milton Friedman. I would indeed disagree a lot with JSM, but not with his distrust of small government. I actually have quite a love of personal liberty, including the right to ingest harmful chemicals and drive at speeds that the majority of drivers think are safe, and the right to worship as one pleases, as long as this liberty doesn't impinge on any other human. Gay marriage laws have been proven to impinge on the religious liberty of others, and abortion destroys the life of another human. The problem with leftards is their own narcissism: everyone else must be forced do what the leftards think is good for them.

Rincewind
19-02-2014, 10:10 AM
Perhaps Jono should come back when he has mastered the quote function.

Capablanca-Fan
19-02-2014, 01:17 PM
Perhaps RW is so desperate that all he can whinge about was an easily fixed misplaced quote-off tag. Meanwhile, Disraeli on Gladstone:

“A sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself.”

Rincewind
19-02-2014, 02:46 PM
Perhaps RW is so desperate that all he can whinge about was an easily fixed misplaced quote-off tag. Meanwhile, Disraeli on Gladstone:

“A sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself.”

A personal hero of yours?

Damodevo
21-02-2014, 02:54 AM
Democrats more likely to believe in Astrology than Republicans

The top 3 for believing that Astrology is scientific are;

1. Conservative Democrats

2. Moderate Democrats

3. Democrats (overall)

Republicans don't even make the top 7.

Republicans are also more likely to know that the earth revolves around the sun.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/16/the-7-political-groups-most-likely-to-believe-in-astrology/

Desmond
21-02-2014, 06:11 AM
Democrats more likely to believe in Astrology than Republicans

The top 3 for believing that Astrology is scientific are;

1. Conservative Democrats

2. Moderate Democrats

3. Democrats (overall)

Republicans don't even make the top 7.

Republicans are also more likely to know that the earth revolves around the sun.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/16/the-7-political-groups-most-likely-to-believe-in-astrology/Do you really want to use americans as your yard stick? :lol:


A possible reason for some respondents believing that astrology is at least sort of scientific is that they might not understand even the basics of cosmology. In the NSF module, the GSS asked:
EARTHSUN: Now, does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?

For those who answered correctly, a follow-up question was asked:

SOLAREV: How long does it take for the Earth to go around the Sun: one day, one month, or one year?

In the 2012 NSF/GSS survey, only 54.6% of adults were able to answer both questions correctly, even though the questions were multiple choice, and there was a 50-50 chance of guessing the right answer to the first one and a 33% probability of guessing the right answer to the second. Thus, only about 55% of adult Americans know both that the Earth revolves around the Sun and that it takes a year for that to occur.

Rincewind
21-02-2014, 10:22 AM
The headline "believe in Astrology" is inaccurate since those accepting a spiritual basis for astrology are excluded by the question which was specific to the scientific basis for belief. In this context a higher representation of Democrats believing in the scientific basis for astrology could be representative of a higher acceptance of science among Democrats. Republicans may have a more spiritual worldview and more likely to be science deniers (creationism, climate change denial, etc) but believe in Astrology while at the same time deny that it has any scientific basis.

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2014, 04:01 AM
Venezuela: the Left's favourite 'socialist paradise' is sliding into poverty and dictatorship (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100260605/venezuela-the-lefts-favourite-socialist-paradise-is-sliding-into-poverty-and-dictatorship/)
By Tim Stanley World Last updated: February 21st, 2014


The Left always insisted under Chavez that some meddling in the media was necessary because it was otherwise controlled by dark, foreign forces (read: people who disagreed with Chavez). But Maduro is now threatening to expel CNN, which is about the fairest and most balanced news source on the planet. CNN's crime was to report on the recent protests that have engulfed the capital. And good for CNN. Coverage on what's happening in Venezuela has been eclipsed by events in Ukraine, so for those who don't know here's what's happening on the ground.
- On February 12, the opposition held a massive rally that resulted in bloodshed. Three people were killed, including two opposition protesters and one pro-government activist. The National Guard was dispatched to prevent further rallies.
- Violence quickly spread out across the country. Some 3,000 troops were sent to pacify the city of San Cristobal, where the government also cut off transport links and the internet.
- Opposition leader, Leopoldo Lopez, was forced to hand himself over to the National Guard on charges of inciting violence.
- The President blamed America for starting the conflict and has expelled US officials.
- Local TV stations have gone into lockdown and simply aren't reporting the fighting. Venezuelans are relying on social media, which includes some false reporting. The opposition lack a single national TV outlet to be heard on.* [*I could've phrased this better and have been rightly challenged about it on Twitter. But, as you can read here (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/Latin-America-Monitor/2014/0219/How-are-Venezuela-s-media-covering-the-protests), the Venezuelan networks are charged with not fairly reporting the crisis and Venezuelans have to rely on Colombian TV for coverage – which the government has tried to censor. The situation has eroded enormously since the 2013 elections.]
The crisis hasn't come from nowhere. It is the inevitable product of Chavez's brand of socialism, which created a base of support by convincing the urban poor that they were the victims of a conspiracy by the rich. The base has been kept on side with social services bought with the use of oil, fostering a false economic boom and a fantasy of progress. Beneath the surface, civil society has been allowed to stagnate. Now that Chavez is dead and the magic gone, there is anarchy. We might even ask if the elections that put Chavezism in office were ever truly legitimate. Yes, they were technically democratic (although the opposition complained that the odds were rigged against them) but the Chavezistas were never really committed to democracy in the orthodox, liberal sense. They were constructing a new order out of clientism. It's astonishing that their supporters in the West couldn't see this, that they deluded themselves that Hugo was building a Latin American Sweden.

Rincewind
23-02-2014, 10:23 AM
Wasn't CNN the network who released George Zimmerman's social security number without consent?

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2014, 11:01 AM
Wasn't CNN the network who released George Zimmerman's social security number without consent?

Indeed so. I posted that praise of the Communist News Network so you and your fellow leftards would have even less plausibility in dismissing it as a "right wing rant" or something equally inane and fact-free.

Rincewind
23-02-2014, 12:02 PM
Indeed so. I posted that praise of the Communist News Network so you and your fellow leftards would have even less plausibility in dismissing it as a "right wing rant" or something equally inane and fact-free.

No just pointing out the crass hypocrisy of a poster who would whinge repeatedly over CNN doing something wrong when it suited them and also refer to CNN as "communist" while at the same time posting that CNN is "about the fairest and most balanced news source on the planet".

Capablanca-Fan
24-02-2014, 03:13 PM
No just pointing out the crass hypocrisy of a poster who would whinge repeatedly over CNN doing something wrong when it suited them and also refer to CNN as "communist" while at the same time posting that CNN is "about the fairest and most balanced news source on the planet".

I've explained elsewhere why it's sometimes good to quote a hostile witness.

Rincewind
24-02-2014, 05:38 PM
I've explained elsewhere why it's sometimes good to quote a hostile witness.

Except that is not what you did here. You quoted a right leaning commentator (friendly witness - who sometimes appears on CNN BTW) who described the CNN as balanced. In fact he didn't just describe it as balanced, he described it as "about the fairest and most balanced news source on the planet". So it would question a few things. Firstly do you believe the things you post here and secondly do you assimilate the information that you cut and paste here or do you just scan the usual right-wing outlets and look for snappy punch lines?

Goughfather
24-02-2014, 09:00 PM
I've explained elsewhere why it's sometimes good to quote a hostile witness.

And I've explained that if you are legally illiterate, you shouldn't use legal concepts that you don't understand. You are confusing "hostile witnesses" with "unfavourable witnesses". That is a very significant distinction.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2014, 02:30 AM
And I've explained that if you are legally illiterate, you shouldn't use legal concepts that you don't understand. You are confusing "hostile witnesses" with "unfavourable witnesses". That is a very significant distinction.

That's strange: the Left's favorite source, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_witness), states:

A hostile witness, otherwise known as an adverse witness or an unfavorable witness, is a witness at trial whose testimony on direct examination is either openly antagonistic or appears to be contrary to the legal position of the party who called the witness.
So in some jurisdictions, the terms are clearly interchangeable. The point is that in court, if the judge finds this witness hostile, the lawyer may now ask leading questions.

The term has a wider meaning now than the strict legal one. E.g. in citing Wiki, I was citing a hostile witness.

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2014, 10:28 AM
The 12 Unspoken Rules For Being A Liberal (http://youngcons.com/the-12-unspoken-rules-for-being-a-liberal/) [American liberal = leftard]
Posted by: Joshua Riddle April 14, 2014

1) You justify your beliefs about yourself by your status as a liberal, not your deeds. The most sexist liberal can think of himself as a feminist while the greediest liberal can think of himself as generous. …
2) You exempt yourself from your attacks on America: …
3) What liberals like should be mandatory and what they don’t like should be banned: …
4) The past is always inferior to the present: …
5) Liberalism is a jealous god and no other God may come before it: …
6) Liberals believe in indiscriminateness for thought: …
7) Intentions are much more important than results: …
8) The only real sins are helping conservatism or harming liberalism: …
9) All solutions must be government-oriented: …
10) You must be absolutely close minded: …
11) Feelings are more important than logic: …
12) Tribal affiliation is more important than individual action: …