The Liberal Party thread

[kranky al]

the most depressing thing about this environmental vandalism is that if you bring it up in front of so-called 'polite' company (family, workmates, etc) the response is usually something along the lines of "so?"the worst thing is the older generation who, when pressed further, will usually bust out something typically short-sighted about how good money is and how bad anything associated with the word 'green' isand bringing up how we're basically subsidising loss-leading industries will usually result in a response along the lines of "nurr you're wrong, perthnow told me so"when did critical thought become a bad thing?

my dad keeps asking when we are going to have kids. my response is "when they can grow up in a world where grandad doesnt think this and expect them to pay for it.stalemate so far

[nosaj D:]

argument fail

So where am i told i cant ride on the footpath?

[vapours]

The law

[neonknome]

So where am i told i cant ride on the footpath?

Um. In the cycling in WA rule book.

[Paj]

I know, it's about time. vid below.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-13/carr-admitted-to-senate/3885768?WT.svl=news1

Thats great news. Probably my favourite politician - always seems to be the voice of reason.

[nosaj D:]

In that case i declare it a shared path till you can prove otherwise.
Not to mention you simply asked why i was, not if i was aware it was illegal

Edit: upon checking google maps, looks like it is a shared path, though i wasn't aware there was a distinction.

[neonknome]

In that case i declare it a shared path till you can prove otherwise.
Not to mention you simply asked why i was, not if i was aware it was illegal

AT_CYC_P_FS96_style.pdf

[nosaj D:]

Thanks, but i already have mad style

[neonknome]

AT_CYC_P_cycling_and_the_law.pdf

[chay]

the most depressing thing about this environmental vandalism is that if you bring it up in front of so-called 'polite' company (family, workmates, etc) the response is usually something along the lines of "so?"

the worst thing is the older generation who, when pressed further, will usually bust out something typically short-sighted about how good money is and how bad anything associated with the word 'green' is

and bringing up how we're basically subsidising loss-leading industries will usually result in a response along the lines of "nurr you're wrong, perthnow told me so"

when did critical thought become a bad thing?

my dad prints out articles from quadrant magazine and sends them to me in the post. climate change denial, liberal vitriol, the whole bit.

the last one he sent me was this pretty horrible thing. i can't remember if maybe i sent him that editorial written by wayne swan (if so i probably bought this on myself) or if he just knew i would have read it, but either way i read it last thing on a friday before leaving work and boy what a mistake that was for my weekend mood.

The rich don’t leave anybody behind in capitalist economies. The rich get richer in capitalist economies (as distinct from in crony capitalist or socialist economies where special pleading and corruption rules) by employing people, directly or indirectly, and by providing goods and services that others want to buy. The rich make lots of people better off. The more dynamic and competitive an economy the more likely it is that there will be wide disparities of wealth. This doesn’t matter. It is a good thing.

srsly.

[frogman]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15...-28755010.html

I mean really.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1226312909334

Is this shit really happening?

[Slurm]

All I can conclude is that Australians are stupid.

Not that I necessarily trust to political experience in candidates, but this is a bad time for Queensland.

[dnbfan]

there is so much mad in this thread, its a good'n

[Curare]

All I can conclude is that Australians are stupid.

Not that I necessarily trust to political experience in candidates, but this is a bad time for Queensland.

What? Queenslanders have had had an impeccable history of picking wonderful leaders!

[Chach]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1226312909334...You're gonna have to take a number if you want him to do anything

[stevie_]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15...-28755010.html

I mean really.

What's so bad about this?

[Multivital]

What's so bad about this?

not even touching the heinous civil liberties issues, DNA testing is not a 100% accurate process.

Only idiots who watch too much TV believe that.

The problem is the belief is widespread.

So you get pulled in as your DNA is apparently a match.

'WTF I AM INNOCENT I HAVE TEN ALIBIS AND ALL THE WITNESSES SAYS THE KILLER WAS BLACK!!!'

'THE DNA TEST PROVES IT DUN DUN DUN'

[frogman]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-3...-train/3922230

Queensland, you bought this on yourself, and have noone else to blame.

Sigh. Victim blaming.

[stevie_]

not even touching the heinous civil liberties issues, DNA testing is not a 100% accurate process.

Only idiots who watch too much TV believe that.

The problem is the belief is widespread.

So you get pulled in as your DNA is apparently a match.

'WTF I AM INNOCENT I HAVE TEN ALIBIS AND ALL THE WITNESSES SAYS THE KILLER WAS BLACK!!!'

'THE DNA TEST PROVES IT DUN DUN DUN'

STOP YELLING AT ME YOU CARNT!

This I did not know, so that's understandable

[Chach]

How accurate/inaccurate is it MV?

[Multivital]

How accurate/inaccurate is it MV?

That depends both on the equipment and process used and the human elements of bureaucracy and implementation that surround it.

A quick google or two and you'll see plenty of cases.

If you can get past the MAI BABBYS DADDEH ones.

[fatnick]

Well the science of DNA beats any other method out there. Sure there are inaccuracies, but they almost always due to short comings of current methods, which are getting better/improving every day.

If you think about it, if a crime is committed and they need to prosecute based on evidence, they will use whatever method is available to them. Say they dont have DNA, so they use finger print, or eye witness or police line-up, which are inherently more inaccurate than DNA doesnt that mean without such advancements there are more chance of errors than if they did have DNA?

Sure, i understand the privacy issues and the movement this seems to have to police state, but I'm just debating the point you brought up.

[nosaj D:]

^Agreed, but would you want to set up an all-sweeping accusation system based on faulty methods?
I think you said it best with the 'police state' comment

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-3...-train/3922230

Queensland, you bought this on yourself, and have noone else to blame.

Sigh. Victim blaming.

Given how little i understand of politics, but with the interest from overseas in minerals in this area, and the overwhelming liberal (?) victory, the crazy in me feels it was rigged :P

[fatnick]

actually on second thoughts, i do understand what MV is saying.

YOu hear the law quite often just jumping the gun in DNA convictions and prosecuting solely on DNA as the 'all encompassing' fool-proof methodology. But with traditional methods, a lot more police work/investigation goes into the prosecution case.

[Multivital]

actually on second thoughts, i do understand what MV is saying.

YOu hear the law quite often just jumping the gun in DNA convictions and prosecuting solely on DNA as the 'all encompassing' fool-proof methodology. But with traditional methods, a lot more police work/investigation goes into the prosecution case.

let's just say after the fiftieth anal raping due to the fact some idiot public servant watches too much CSI, more than a few innocent people incarcerated via DNA FACTS would have an issue with this notion.

[nosaj D:]

Just to play devil's advocate, wouldn't early storing of DNA mean less possibility of contaminated data, meaning fewer false matches?

[Chach]

Just to play devil's advocate, wouldn't early storing of DNA mean less possibility of contaminated data, meaning fewer false matches?

Its pretty fresh when they get it, like straight after the crim is arrested, the contamination would be mostly at the scene of the crime

[nosaj D:]

Touche

[Chach]

They could have done it years ago with fingerprints, no idea why DNA should be any different. Innocent till proven guilty.

Not to mention all the opportunity for evidence placing by ambitious cops, "we know it's him, we've got his DNA lets just place it at the scene"

On a trivial side note with the BTK serial they got a subpoena for his daughters pap smear so as not arouse his suspicion for fear he'd dispose of evidence.

[Multivital]

They could have done it years ago with fingerprints, no idea why DNA should be any different. Innocent till proven guilty.

Not to mention all the opportunity for evidence placing by ambitious cops, "we know it's him, we've got his DNA lets just place it at the scene"

On a trivial side note with the BTK serial they got a subpoena for his daughters pap smear so as not arouse his suspicion for fear he'd dispose of evidence.

fun fact - the uniqueness of fingerprints is a myth, but a myth believed by almost every cop and lawyer.

[Chach]

I did have my doubts, same with DNA which is why they aren't enough to convict without other evidence

[nosaj D:]

But do DNA/fingerprints change over time?
A database would be able to find all near matches, thus cutting down the scope of investigation. Could crime-scene contamination really alter DNA to look like someone elses?

To counter the point of police planting DNA, i would think it would be stored in terms of numbers or patterns, not the physical 'stuff'

[little dead gracey]

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/...15/3431797.htm


16 February, 2012 10:41AM AWST
Gina Rinehart's poem slammed by expert
By Brooke Bannister A Perth-based creative writing expert slams Gina Rinehart's attempts at poetry and suggests she checks her punctuation and grammar before setting her prose in stone again.
26
The poem (see below) penned by the mining magnate is titled 'Our Future' and takes a swipe at the Federal Government for not supporting the resource industry and "unleashing rampant tax".

Our Future


The globe is sadly groaning with debt, poverty and strife
And billions now are pleading to enjoy a better life
Their hope lies with resources buried deep within the earth
And the enterprise and capital which give each project worth
Is our future threatened with massive debts run up by political hacks
Who dig themselves out by unleashing rampant tax
The end result is sending Australian investment, growth and jobs offshore
This type of direction is harmful to our core
Some envious unthinking people have been conned
To think prosperity is created by waving a magic wand
Through such unfortunate ignorance, too much abuse is hurled
Against miners, workers and related industries who strive to build the world
Develop North Australia, embrace multiculturalism and welcome short term foreign workers to our shores
To benefit from the export of our minerals and ores
The world's poor need our resources: do not leave them to their fate
Our nation needs special economic zones and wiser government, before it is too late.

[nosaj D:]

Stop sending jobs overseas!
By letting us hire cheap foreigners!

Wait, what?

[little dead gracey]

THIS IS WRITTEN IN STONE! IN STONE!!!!!

[frogman]

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/...-gay-marriage/

Big family get togethers at the Abbott house much be so much fun.

[frogman]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-1...-hikes/3952312

Federal Opposition spokesman for finance comes out in support of ANZ hiking its interest rate.

But Mr Robb says the bank would not have raised rates if it were not suffering a problem with its margins, and he blames government debt for the decision.

"They are not stupid and I don't think they would willy-nilly put up their margin like this if they weren't suffering a problem with their margins," he told AM.

A problem with their margins. Well, shit I dont want banks to fail. I hope their margins arent squeezed too tightly.

http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/anz...054339464.html

Oh wait. The ANZ made 1.27 Billion dollars in 3 months, and are expected to make over $5 billion dollars this year.

But they are gong to squeeze us for every fucking cent possible.

[kranky al]

Saying they made 5 million or billion or whatever is disingenous. A company that is say worth 10 million that has a profit of 2 million for the year is doing well. A company worth 800 billion that makes 5 billion is doing shit. Better to say that anz made had a return of x percent which i suspect will not only be more accurate but also make them out to be even bigger cunts than they are.

[frogman]

Saying they made 5 million or billion or whatever is disingenuous. A company that is say worth 10 million that has a profit of 2 million for the year is doing well. A company worth 800 billion that makes 5 billion is doing shit. Better to say that anz made had a return of x percent which i suspect will not only be more accurate but also make them out to be even bigger cunts than they are.

Current market capitalisation is $61,575,217,152. Are they now your heroes or your villains?

[kranky al]

An 8-9% return on investment. No need to get greedy. I wonder how much difference this increase will make. If the return was closer to what you could get in a term deposit then i would understand a rise or at least looking at changes of spme kind

[fatnick]

A company that ever gets to make 800 billion is whats all kinds of fucked up about our capitalist society. Just keep making more and more money every year, eating up all your competition and smaller businesses on your way to owning the monopoly board, fuck over your customers upping fees when u like, cos hey, your a bank right? you already have their money? make up your own rules as you go, and if u ever fuck up dont worry, get government bail out, back to super profits again next year.

[nosaj D:]

Money makes power, what can challenge that?

[frogman]

Take the money out of politics. Make politicians live off either welfare or the minimum wage. Make kickbacks a criminal offense punishable by years of community service for no pay.

Which segues nicely into my next rant of Fuck Joe Hockey with a broom. Twice.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-1...ction=business

His comments came in a speech, titled 'The End of the Age of Entitlement', which he delivered to an audience of policymakers in the British capital.

Speaking to Lateline, he said that Australia needed to scale back the size of its welfare bill to strengthen the national finances.

He isnt even trying to hide that the coalition is all about FYGM and bootstraps now.

In his London speech, Mr Hockey said "all government-funded pensions and other such payments must be means tested so that people who do not need them do not get them."

But he said that principle would not apply to issues like the means testing of private health insurance rebates.

"The Private Health Insurance Rebate is entirely different to an aged care pension or a disability pension or other pensions," he told Lateline.

What a complete asswipe. Dude gets his complete tertiary education paid for by the state, then starts whining about entitlement once he is in a position of wealth and power. Put him back on welfare. Make him live off minimum wage, then see how quickly the standard of living increases.

[nosaj D:]

Is this like plato's (?) idea of having philosophers running the state that earn no money, simply being satisfied with knowledge and social status? That would never work, it would attract the right kind of people for the job, THEN where would the multi-nationals get their laws passed?

[Slurm]

Multinationals couldn't exist under Plato's ideas in Republic.

[frogman]

http://consciencevote.wordpress.com/...ged-mr-hockey/

I cut some shit out at the start because of the fucking word limit godammit flaunt raise that shit


But the real target of this plan isn’t the government, of course. It’s the most vulnerable people in our society – the chronically ill, the young single parents, the old and the unemployed. Hockey’s plan is aimed squarely at the very people most in need, and he’s not ashamed of it. In fact, he seems proud of it – and utterly contemptuous of the people he proposes to further disenfranchise and disadvantage.

The clue is in how he talked about the issue. He repeatedly used the word ‘entitlements’.

From the World English Dictionary:

entitle (vb)

1. to give (a person) the right to do or have something; qualify; allow
2. to give a name or title to
3. to confer a title of rank or honour upon

Seems pretty straightforward, right? If someone is ‘entitled’ to something, they have the right to receive it. An ‘entitlement’, therefore, is what said person should receive.

But this is a word that’s taken on a very nasty meaning in recent years. We hear people described as having ‘a sense of entitlement’, that they believe they can demand special treatment. In other words, that the world – or in this case, the government – owes them a living.

And that’s the sense in which Hockey is using the word. He could have talked about ‘benefits’, ‘pensions’, ‘government allowances’ – any one of a dozen synonyms. He chose to use the word ‘entitlements’, to invoke the implicit idea that those who receive such benefits don’t deserve them. And lest anyone think it was an innocent choice, we have Hockey’s own statement that there is ‘a lot of spending by government which many voters see as their entitlement’.

In essence, this is no different from the way the Liberals under former Prime Minister John Howard repeatedly targeted those receiving government benefits. They helped whip up the outrage that led to A Current Affair’s notorious ‘Paxton Controversy‘, in which the program vilified and defamed a family caught in a cycle of dependence on government assistance. They positively encouraged the view that anyone – anyone – who was on unemployment benefits was simply a ‘dole bludger’, who would rather sit and home and watch TV than do an honest day’s work. They insinuated that those receiving disability pensions were faking their illnesses, and that a woman on a single-parent pension just ‘didn’t want to work’. They introduced ‘Work for the Dole’, which can best be described as demeaning make-work that looked suspiciously like it was designed to get as much as possible for as little as possible, with the added benefit of humiliating the people forced into it.

At the same time they introduced non means-tested ‘Baby Bonus’ and private health insurance rebates, handing out significant sums of money to those in the top tax brackets. They didn’t even bother to establish any but the most rudimentary criteria for eligibility: all that anyone needed to qualify was a birth certificate or a receipt from an insurance provider. This was certainly welcome relief for those who fell into that ever-widening crater between needing government support just to go to the doctor’s and those who could pick and choose their private hospital and get that elective surgery whenever they wished.

The Coalition thought it was ‘fair’ to provide those same benefits to those who demonstrably didn’t need any help from the government whatsoever. They cut taxes and put in place rebates that ensured Australia’s highest income earners were better off than ever. While they were doing all this, they made it harder and harder for those in genuine need to even gain a Health Care Card to enable them to get medical treatment – let alone help them get out from under spiralling debts, manage their chronic illnesses or stay home with a baby because was no possible way to afford child care.

And Joe Hockey, mouthpiece for the Coalition, wants to do it all again. When pressed on why the Liberals said they’d repeal the means test for the private health insurance rebate, he dodged the question. When asked about the Baby Bonus, likewise. Oh, and they re-affirmed their commitment to establishing a Paid Parental Leave scheme that guaranteed full income replacement for all Australians regardless of income (despite the ever-widening gap between the Coalition’s spending promises and available Budget funds). If those schemes are quarantined from Hockey’s guillotine, all that’s left are the benefits for those who depend on government help just to get through the day.

Hockey read us a lecture on how this might be brutal, but it was ‘financially sustainable’. He exhorted to look to ‘Asia’ as a role model and embrace ‘filial piety’ – in other words, expecting help from the government was a sign that we were failing in our responsibilities to our relatives. We were children raised by ‘bad parents’, he insisted, who had instilled in us a sense that the government would look after us.

Here’s a news flash, Mr Hockey – it is the government’s job to look after us. We elect the government to build our roads, manage our borders, represent us to the world, regulate the systems on which we depend, protect us from (to coin a phrase) ‘enemies foreign and domestic). We also elect our government to help look out for those in our society who are not able to help themselves – the destitute, the chronically ill, the disadvantaged. We expect that our government will be there for us when a flood or cyclone devastates our town and tears away the infrastructure built with our money.

We pay taxes and levies to provide the government with revenue to do these things. Income tax, fuel tax, sales tax, company tax, levies of various kinds, and of course the GST – there is not one person in this country who is exempt from taxes. Despite what’s often said by those who subscribe to the ‘dole bludger’ rhetoric, an unemployed person pays taxes every time they fill up their car or do their shopping. To suggest otherwise is a poisonous untruth, and that unemployed person has the right to expect their government will assist them if they need it.

As Prime Minister Julia Gillard said this morning, ‘If Australians think they’re entitled to Medicare, aged pensions … they’re right’.

And as for your idea that we should look at Asia, Mr Hockey – just which part did you have in mind? Let’s look at a few countries, just on the issue of public health care.

Let’s start with China’s Communist-Capitalist hybrid, where an adult leaves his family and lives in a faraway city just to find enough work to lift them (barely) out of subsistence? Where huge construction projects reap billions for a few companies, but then stand empty for years because no one can afford to move into the apartment complexes? Where the young nouveau-riche spend millions on collecting sports cars while the elderly in the provinces go without medical treatment and die from diseases that simple nutrition can prevent?

But China is also in the process of overhauling their health care system to provide near-universal health care, for the cost of about 10 yuan per person after provincial and national government contributions. Their public health infrastructure lags sadly behind, and if someone has the misfortune to need to visit a clinic in the country, they’re only covered for 60% of their bill – but reform is in progress.

So which part of China should we emulate? The universal health care, or the massive class divide that exists as a result of China’s race to outrun the US?

How about India? That’s a booming economy – and it eclipses the millions who live in abject poverty. It has a maternal and neonatal death rate that is simply appalling. For every person with a good job and health care, there are thousands dying in rural areas because its public health spending is less than 2% of its Gross Domestic Product.

Or how about South Korea, which has a well-developed public health system subsidising development of hospital and medical services, and financial assistance for most of its population to cover medical bills and social disadvantage?

Which one of those, Mr Hockey?

Our health care and welfare systems have real problems – in some areas, they’re utterly broken. Nonetheless, we still enjoy a higher life expectancy than most developed economies. Our maternal and neonatal death rates are lower than most developed countries. We don’t have raging epidemics of measles, whooping cough, tuberculosis and a whole host of diseases preventable by vaccination. We’re lucky. We have some incredible medical personnel, and we are in a position to take advantage of the latest research.

We also have public money – our money – allocated to public health care. Our vaccinations are subsidised, if not actually free. Our poor have access to subsidised medicines and aids. Our chronically ill and disabled are not thrown out into the street and left to beg for scraps.

Can we do more? Yes, we can, and we should. We shouldn’t be talking about cutting that kind of spending, Mr Hockey – we should be increasing it.

Remember, Mr Hockey? It’s our money. We hand it to the government in trust that our needs will be properly met. If your party isn’t prepared to do that, then why on earth do you think we should give it to you? It will be no comfort to us to have your fabled ‘large Budget surplus’ when our most vulnerable are suffering – and you still maintain that there’s something wrong with them expecting you to help.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[chay]

Take the money out of politics. Make politicians live off either welfare or the minimum wage. Make kickbacks a criminal offense punishable by years of community service for no pay.

Which segues nicely into my next rant of Fuck Joe Hockey with a broom. Twice.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-1...ction=business

He isnt even trying to hide that the coalition is all about FYGM and bootstraps now.



What a complete asswipe. Dude gets his complete tertiary education paid for by the state, then starts whining about entitlement once he is in a position of wealth and power. Put him back on welfare. Make him live off minimum wage, then see how quickly the standard of living increases.

i am angry.

[stevie_]

I THINK / IMO

Is this like plato's (?) idea of having philosophers running the state that earn no money, simply being satisfied with knowledge and social status? That would never work, it would attract the right kind of people for the job, THEN where would the multi-nationals get their laws passed?

Multi-nationals are a manifestation of the purest sense of hell and negativity. Self-serving, greed orientated machines with no ounce of humanity beyond the face value humanity used to manipulate people into buying their products. There is no humanity in this, so how can they breed humanity if they do not themselves possess it? Multi-nationals are to be neglected as poisonously pointless and wasteful as human sacrifice, and left there to rot in the depths of the past, in Hell, where they belong, unless they adopt humanity within them.

I must read Plato's "Republic"

Getting money out of politics makes more and more sense in terms of maintaining purity of the individual to follow the rightness of the whole of society / world. But how then, in our society of mainstream media that perpetuates our perceptions of ourselves within our built up reality do they become valid? If I have no means of expressing myself and my policies through the media, how do I do it- Is this what the internet is for? Is this where the real potential of the future lies- TRUE freedom of expression? Isn't that what Kony showed?

I'll do it if I have to do. I'll be the first person in Australia to say "fuck you" to my pay paypacket if I'm PM, fuck you to all my benefits, but guess who's going to get assassinated by every other conservative fucking nutbag out there if such a policy was ever suggested?? "I waited years to get to this position so I could get mine, fuck you cunt, you're not taking that away from me" HOW DO YOU BEAT THE DESPERATION GREED TAKES TO PERPETUATE ITSELF?! Can it even be done? We've watched it in America, unfold before our eyes time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. And we let our Clive Palmer's and our Fortescue's and our Gina Rinehart's politically assassinate our PM who had policies that benefited the WHOLE of Australia. We let them.

More questions. bla bla bla

I THINK / IMO

[frogman]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-1...ntling/3960360

Why cant we sanction or punish parliamentarians who openly lie about easily provable facts?

[stevie_]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-1...ntling/3960360

Why cant we sanction or punish parliamentarians who openly lie about easily provable facts?

I think we can and we should.

Maybe this is where it can start? A moralistic system that over arches and regulates the government.

How do we start that?