OUT: Abbott IN: Turnbull

[dee-luded 2,959]

On 12/01/2016 at 2:16 PM, nutbean said:

Deeluded...

Answer me... has there been one liberal politician over the last 20 years you have liked ?

yes plenty.  john howard I grew to like. Malcolm Fraser I grew to love as he matured.  Malcolm Turnbull, until he starts to apply the party line.  'eg'; the NBN Co shemozzle he's caused...  Truss,  Morrison, but he unfortunately  'asp' 'ires'  for the head job first,  rather than wanting to be of service to the people.  Frydenberg is likable,  Hunt I have progressively lost respect for,  as he's just another party puppet who wants to lead.  Corman is keeping his nose clean, meaning I don't trust him from past experience. 

 

..... it's not as much the 'players', as the 'party machine stamping out cloned business mode heads', on-top of what were once 'decent people' bodies.

There aren't many  'I look up' to,  since maybe mid 80's,  when the libs were pushed off centre right, further right out.

 

back in the day we had many to like, like Don Chipp. 

 

in short its the Lib party's views I abhor.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 1/7/2016 at 9:10 AM, nutbean said:

I see a contradiction in what you say - you suggest on the one hand that Abbott is delusional enough to think he will get back in and then you criticise Rudd for undermining Gillard. Abbott trying to get back in is not undermining ?

I will agree that the Rudd/Gillard show was as toxic as anything I have ever seen and Abbott/Turnbull are certainly not in their league.

I'm happy to be contradicted. Though I would argue one boat Abbot did stop was the leaky one...

 

[dee-luded 2,959]

On 14/12/2015 at 3:52 PM, nutbean said:

I do like this quote from Tony's farewell speech...

"My pledge today is to make this change as easy as I can.

"There will be no wrecking, no undermining, and no sniping. I've never leaked or backgrounded against anyone. And I certainly won't start now."

I would like to ask - how's that working for you Mr Abbott ?

(before the replies come back - I acknowledge that Tony Abbott is not the first ex PM to be chipping away at his "assassin" from the back blocks and he won't be the last)

.....  is this in script  u.n.c.l.e.  'tony' ???   perhaps in tea party papyrus scrolls ???

 

 

but even if you don't rock the  Felucca yourself,,, doesn't mean you won't have your  'vizier'  do the deeds for thy...   hark,  do I here thy dark angel  drobb  singing thy tune

[dee-luded 2,959]

On 14/12/2015 at 4:36 PM, Choke said:

He didn't have to say that in his speech. Everyone knew it was a lie.

I'm liking Turnbull so far, although he's going to have to actually CHANGE some policies at some point. Otherwise it's just the same crap from a different mouthpiece.

Hopefully he does, still early days.

don't hold your bredth,  it seems the  zombie  rabbot  is about to nibble again at some fresh diggings

a blast from the passed 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr6T4L_VUNI

 

[Sir Why You Little 37,341]

This will be very dangerous for all Australians if it gets through. No wonder The Evil Malcolm waited so long to push Abbott out of the chair...

https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/tpp/dangerous-deal-1/dangerous-deal?t=YgDEnFyLD&utm_campaign=Breaking%3A+TPP+signed+-+but+the+battle+moves+to+the+Senate&utm_content=11509&utm_medium=email&utm_source=blast

[Earl Hood 6,152]

7 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

This will be very dangerous for all Australians if it gets through. No wonder The Evil Malcolm waited so long to push Abbott out of the chair...

https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/tpp/dangerous-deal-1/dangerous-deal?t=YgDEnFyLD&utm_campaign=Breaking%3A+TPP+signed+-+but+the+battle+moves+to+the+Senate&utm_content=11509&utm_medium=email&utm_source=blast

Yes I am sure the TTP will boost economic activity, well at least in the courts of law.  The Investor Dispute mechanism is a classic. This will provide a lucrative avenue for our fossil fuel multinationals to recoup billions in compensation from governments and tax payers as they legislate to reduce their carbon footprints. Brilliant timing by the U.S. oil magnates who will employ more lawyers than engineers in the future to examine every piece of legislation lest it in some way disadvantage a fossil fuel conglomerate. 

 

 

[Sir Why You Little 37,341]

52 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Yes I am sure the TTP will boost economic activity, well at least in the courts of law.  The Investor Dispute mechanism is a classic. This will provide a lucrative avenue for our fossil fuel multinationals to recoup billions in compensation from governments and tax payers as they legislate to reduce their carbon footprints. Brilliant timing by the U.S. oil magnates who will employ more lawyers than engineers in the future to examine every piece of legislation lest it in some way disadvantage a fossil fuel conglomerate. 

 

 

George Orwell did warn us all..

Aussies have gotta fight this one along with other countries..

[dee-luded 2,959]

multinational companies with their ceo's & boards, & the stockmarket,  see Qantas, see news, bhp, exxon, bp,   see whatever direction you could look, they are all out for the buck, & so have to screw each and everyone of us down,,,   to compete with low wages,  & low health & safety conditions in Asia.

 

we will all be swinging from bamboo scaffolds,   or on bamboo chairs at cardboard desks & getting paid in bananas when they finish their competitive urges.

 

this system is BROKEN, & does not work with all countries competing.  

 

local trade is the thing;  & forget about global financial investing.    its over.  KaBoom... here it comes.

 

* ......  an ode to the CEO's & Boards,  who voted to take our industries & jobs off-shore from around the mid 80's & on >

"The Chain"
 

Listen to the wind blow
Watch the sun rise
Run in the shadows
Damn your love
Damn your lies

[2x]
And if you don't love me now
You will never love me again
I can still hear you saying
You would never break the chain.

Listen to the wind blow
Down comes the night
Run in the shadows
Damn your love
Damn your lies

Break the silence
Damn the dark
Damn the light

[3x]
And if you don't love me now
You will never love me again
I can still hear you saying
You would never break the chain.

[5x]
Chain, keep us together
Running in the shadows

 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Normally you can get a good read on legislation by those against it. When Get Up and the Greens (Watermelons) are vehemently opposed to something it is a good indicator we are signing a beneficial deal. Having read the TPP this is no exception.

Long live capitalism. And it will.

 

 

[Willmoy1947 4,218]

Capitalism> Mortal Sin No11.

[daisycutter 29,909]

3 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Capitalism> Mortal Sin No11.

is that meant to be a religious statement?

[Willmoy1947 4,218]

26 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

is that meant to be a religious statement?

I have mentioned before about a more up to date version of the Ten Commandments on another topic but didn't feel qualified enough to continue.

However if your think there is a demand......

[dee-luded 2,959]

18 hours ago, willmoy said:

I have mentioned before about a more up to date version of the Ten Commandments on another topic but didn't feel qualified enough to continue.

However if your think there is a demand......

deemand, or need ?   that is the question.

 

maybe we all need to buy moral compasses from the capitalists,  to steer us away from them,  so we don't get Xploited ?

"Greasy Joe's"   'the age of entitlement',  suggests that any businessperson worth their salt will add value to their products,   so they can Xploit harder,  to keep the poor bastards needy & hungry for more,,,, hours to pay they're debts.

 

let me say this, after saying that...   -   death to Xploitation

 

.

[Earl Hood 6,152]

On ‎9‎/‎02‎/‎2016 at 4:18 PM, Wrecker45 said:

Normally you can get a good read on legislation by those against it. When Get Up and the Greens (Watermelons) are vehemently opposed to something it is a good indicator we are signing a beneficial deal. Having read the TPP this is no exception.

Long live capitalism. And it will.

 

 

 

Wrecker

This is the same TPP agreement that the World Bank analysis showed would lift out GDP by 0.7% by 2030! The TPP agreement that the DFAT National Interest Statement released this week, apart from pages of glowing motherhood statements on the benefits of these types of agreements, could only point to a red tape saving of $147,000 per year, refer to Attachment 11 of the Impact Analysis. Any agreement completed in such secrecy (from voters that is, not from multinational bosses) is suspicious. Why wouldn't Andrew Rodd let the Productivity Commission do an analysis of its costs and benefits?

Basically for next to zero gain we have handed over yet more power to foreign multinationals to hold our policy makers to ransom through the Investor Dispute mechanism. Dumb politics of the worst kind. Robb just wanted another trophy to his name before he retires.

And what is your definition of capitalism? You're not thinking the TPP has anything to do with free trade or free markets or something?

 

 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

9 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

 

Wrecker

This is the same TPP agreement that the World Bank analysis showed would lift out GDP by 0.7% by 2030! The TPP agreement that the DFAT National Interest Statement released this week, apart from pages of glowing motherhood statements on the benefits of these types of agreements, could only point to a red tape saving of $147,000 per year, refer to Attachment 11 of the Impact Analysis. Any agreement completed in such secrecy (from voters that is, not from multinational bosses) is suspicious. Why wouldn't Andrew Rodd let the Productivity Commission do an analysis of its costs and benefits?

Basically for next to zero gain we have handed over yet more power to foreign multinationals to hold our policy makers to ransom through the Investor Dispute mechanism. Dumb politics of the worst kind. Robb just wanted another trophy to his name before he retires.

And what is your definition of capitalism? You're not thinking the TPP has anything to do with free trade or free markets or something?

 

 

EH - I love the analysis but please link to it. You have gone to the effort of getting the figure. Make them meaningful.

My definition of capitalism isn't global. ITts inevitable capitalism will be global but not in our life time. Or my children's life time. Capitalism will drive the third world out of poverty. 

 

 

[Earl Hood 6,152]

18 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

EH - I love the analysis but please link to it. You have gone to the effort of getting the figure. Make them meaningful.

My definition of capitalism isn't global. ITts inevitable capitalism will be global but not in our life time. Or my children's life time. Capitalism will drive the third world out of poverty. 

 

 

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi81tWfxPHKAhUM-GMKHcMRC1oQFggoMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.afr.com%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Ftrade%2Ftpp-benefits-only-modest-for-australia-world-bank-finds-20160111-gm35og&usg=AFQjCNGviLdJQ_stmrmBKM046W9UA9savQ&bvm=bv.114195076,d.cGc

[Sir Why You Little 37,341]

On 11 February 2016 at 10:32 PM, Wrecker45 said:

EH - I love the analysis but please link to it. You have gone to the effort of getting the figure. Make them meaningful.

My definition of capitalism isn't global. ITts inevitable capitalism will be global but not in our life time. Or my children's life time. Capitalism will drive the third world out of poverty. 

 

 

Not when 60-80 people own 50% of the Earth's wealth it won't. 

 

[daisycutter 29,909]

15 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Not when 60-80 people own 50% of the Earth's wealth it won't. 

 

source?

[nutbean 8,838]

35 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

source?

 I think WYL may mean this ? ( which is a little different but scary none the less)

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined

[Sir Why You Little 37,341]

3 hours ago, nutbean said:

 I think WYL may mean this ? ( which is a little different but scary none the less)

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined

That is exactly i mean. 

Not long ago the figure was 80....

[nutbean 8,838]

19 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

That is exactly i mean. 

Not long ago the figure was 80....

The above post was this year - below is last years article

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/#1e443797324b

[daisycutter 29,909]

4 hours ago, nutbean said:

 I think WYL may mean this ? ( which is a little different but scary none the less)

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined

in that case i call bs. selective use/abuse of stats again presumably

mind you i don't doubt the imbalance of wealth, but to suggest that 62 people own half of the worlds wealth is crazy

[nutbean 8,838]

23 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

in that case i call bs. selective use/abuse of stats again presumably

mind you i don't doubt the imbalance of wealth, but to suggest that 62 people own half of the worlds wealth is crazy

it actually doesn't say that - it says that 62 richest people are as wealthy as half the worlds population which is very different from the 62 richest people own half the worlds wealth. i have no idea if the figures in the article  are true but it is a frightening figure.

[Sir Why You Little 37,341]

49 minutes ago, nutbean said:

it actually doesn't say that - it says that 62 richest people are as wealthy as half the worlds population which is very different from the 62 richest people own half the worlds wealth. i have no idea if the figures in the article  are true but it is a frightening figure.

Depends how you read it i suppose. 

62 people owning such a huge slice of wealth means the capitalist system is way out of balance and is in fact starting to eat itself....

[daisycutter 29,909]

3 hours ago, nutbean said:

it actually doesn't say that - it says that 62 richest people are as wealthy as half the worlds population which is very different from the 62 richest people own half the worlds wealth. i have no idea if the figures in the article  are true but it is a frightening figure.

ok, i see the difference. misleading at first glance

i guess it says more about the size of poverty in the third world than about the rich though

fastest growing population in the world is africa surprisingly (in that it is the least able to support population growth)