Bluey's Dad

I said nothing about state secrets. Lol why bring it up? The issue (or part of it) is violating the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from conducting diplomatic affairs with other nations. There is no proof, or any that has been released. All investigations start somewhere, and this one has started with the US surveillance tapes. If they find something, there will be huge issues for the Trump white house. If they find nothing, we move on. It's just an investigation at this point, and the circumstances surrounding these calls warrant it. Both sides of congress agree that it is worth investigating. Which brings me to: Here you go: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html Second paragraph: The calls were picked up as part of routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials and agents in the United States, which is one of the FBI’s responsibilities, according to the U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss counterintelligence operations. The article says the calls between Flynn and the Russians contained nothing illegal. We are still waiting for information from the calls on the other 3 (again, I think it's 3 others) Trump campaign officials.

The story about the Russians has several issues: 1 - A normal citizen of a country cannot conduct diplomacy with a foreign power. This is a problem for Trump as 4 (I think?) of his campaign members are believed to have had contact with the Russian ambassador. If they made promises to him then this violates the Logan Act and is a criminal offence. It is suspicious because Putin did not retaliate after Obama sanctioned him after the Russian hacks. It has the appearance of someone from the Trump campaign telling the Russians "don't retaliate, we'll make it better once we're in power". A private citizen cannot say these things to a foreign diplomat. It's illegal. All circumstantial, but warrants investigation. 2 - Flynn and Sessions both denied having contact with the Russians, but evidence has shown that they did. Flynn resigned over it. Sessions has recused himself of any future investigations that involve the Russians. Sessions outright lied to his confirmation committee about this. This is unacceptable for a US Attorney General. This evidence was obtained because of US surveillance of the Russians, not of the campaign members. 3 - The contact between Trump's campaign and Russian officials is circumspect because the CIA has stated that the Russians attempted to influence the US election by hacking the DNC. If the wire taps of Russian agents reveal that members of Trump's campaign were aware of the Russian hacking efforts, or worse that Trump himself was aware of it, it would delegitimise Trump's candidacy and subsequent presidency. Even rusted on Trump supporters would be upset if they found out he used a foreign power to hack his opponents to win an election*. 4 - Trump's campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, resigned from that position after it became public that the FBI and the Justice Department were investigating his company for links to corruption in the Ukrane (which had a pro-Russian president at the time). Trump's public explanation was that Manafort had become a distraction, however in light of what has happened now, it looks worse than it might have been. 5 - Trump has not released details of his finances and may be benefiting from Russian involvements (loans to his businesses/family etc). 6 - There is bipartisan support for the congressional investigation into the Trump campaign's Russian ties. No one wants a president who's subject to foreign influence. *To be clear, I don't know if Trump knew about this or not. I'm only saying that because the ramifications of this are so massive, they have to be looked at.

I like to pretend that this isn't a possibility. It's the only way I can continue watching football.

It's ok BBO. I am here to save the day:

lol yeah. Wrecker's argument is fine for the most part, but unfortunately falls down at the end because Trump's tweets are often misleading and false in their own right. Part of the problem is that people then take those tweets as gospel.

I have never NOT faced this scenario in my short voting life - except when I voted for Rudd mark 1. #Ruddgrets Everything since then though has been exactly as you describe, and probably will be again with Turnbull v Shorten.

Yeah the replay quality on the app is woeful, its worse than the live feed. They use a different system for the AFLW replays to the mens and it's even worse. I can't even full screen it on my phone.

Fair enough. I especially agree with the bolded (although I suppose my idea of what Turnbull would produce as a better policy conflicts with yours lol). One thing Turnbull and Morrison have done right is Super reform. The country needs more policies like those IMO.

Firstly - I'm not vicious about anything here. TBH I feel Abbott's sniping is a minor issue. Secondly - Penny Wong was not attempting to destablise her political party into to plan herself as its' leader. She did not conduct herself in the manner Abbott is conducting himself now. She was not breaking an overt promise not to fall in line, and was not mounting an indirect campaign for a leadership challenge. I swear mate, sometimes I think you don't actually read my posts, but just see my name and assume the rest. I already stated my opinion that there are occasions where public disagreement with your political party is acceptable. You then found an example that does not equate at all to what Abbott is doing, dressed it up, and attempted to present it as the same thing. Abbott should not do what he is doing because: 1 - he said he wouldn't 2 - the party cannot handle the distablisation 3 - he's obviously trying to get rid of the PM and voicing his 'concerns' in this way is more to meet this goal than to have those concerns addressed Believe it or not, I actually prefer that the Libs stay in power and do a good job. I think Labor in its current incarnation are an absolute joke and not fit to govern. But Abbott's just being a sore loser and most of us can see right through it. Lets not pretend that the entire Liberal party are as far right as Abbott. There are a considerable number of more moderate righties in there. Abbott's views do not reflect the Liberal party nor its membership at large. They reflect a significant portion of them, sure. This is part of the problem, the party is split on so many issues that it is hamstringing their ability to develop meaningful policy. The party has changed over our lifetimes. The conservatives within it have seemingly moved further right, and the moderates have either stayed put or moved further left. Put in this context, Abbott's comments are supremely unhelpful.

But party rooms aren't supposed to be transparent? Policy is debated and a decision reached, which determines what the party advocates. If someone disagrees, that's ok - within the party room. In some cases, public disagreement is warranted. However, in this case, I don't think it is given the history of leadership changes and the need for political stability for the Australian government.

Hey Wrecker, found these for you: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/alcoholism_knocks_off_an_average_76_years_of_life_and_leads_to_27_more_illnesses-154523 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121016163134.htm ** Just through googling, I have no opinion on this one way or the other, just trying to help find studies as you requested. I have not examined any of these articles or their sources. Most stuff I found though seems to support your original contention that alcohol drinkers outlive abstainers. This I found interesting, in a study that supported the notion that drinkers outlive non drinkers: For example, prospective studies of men and women in Denmark (Grønbaek et al., 1995, 2000) and the United States (Klatsky et al., 2003) and men in France (Renaud et al., 1999) and the Netherlands (Streppel et al., 2009) reported that, in contrast to consumption of other alcoholic beverages, only wine consumption was associated with lower total mortality. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237714/ So unfortunately it looks like it might not be clear cut. You might need to do further digging into the type of drink as well! Best of luck mate.

I think Nut is saying: option 4) voice opinion and advocate for change behind close doors without sniping and leaking. Is that right @nutbean? Seems the most reasonable option to me anyway.

This is adds to the argument that mouth guards should be mandatory when playing against Jack Viney.

I actually reckon the Fair Work Commission made a good decision. 200% was too much for Sunday rates. It's now 150% I think. The 150% loading IMHO is accurate compensation for working hours on a weekend away from family instead of normal rates while the kids are at school. I reckon that's fair. Similarly the change in the fast food industry from the Sunday rate of 150% to the Saturday rate of 125% is fair. What's the practical difference between a Saturday and a Sunday? Why on Earth should someone working on a Sunday get more than on a Saturday? They are both weekend days. These are the changes according to the Australian Financial Review: The biggest change the full time and part time retail workers, with a reduction of $9.72 per hour. So in an 8 hour day that person makes $233.28 instead of $311.04. $77 difference. $233 is still a mighty high amount for unskilled labour.

I notice Viney does though. I assume the AFLPA put it in his contract. He's already a danger to the rest of the league, without a muzzle he might accidentally kill someone.

Yes. We donated many wins to every team in the competition over the last decade. Selflessly throwing aside the mental well-being of our players, administrators and especially members for the greater footy community.. Tax-free MFC! Tax-free MFC!

Agreed.

most newer ones have one HDMI port that will support MHL. Mine does at least, it's about a year old

Register them as charities first, that way I can donate as much as I want and make the donations deductible? Might even get money BACK from the government, more to plough into those outlets! Also listing them as charities means we can get them tax exempt status. Gives them more money to be 'sensible and honest' as you say.

wow, must be pretty old! Pretty sure all Chromecast needs from the TV is an HDMI in. Maybe it's not compatible with HDMI 1? I dunno. Yes, my understanding is that a mini-usb to HDMI adaptor/cable will output the screen to a TV. I've never done this personally, and I think you'll need to make sure both your phone and the TV's HDMI port you're plugging into support MHL. Tagging @Clintosaurus as he's posted on this solution previously.

lol of course not - just the removal or reduction in certain government funded benefits. Force the wealthier boomers to keep their massive wads of cash outside super where it can taxed to the benefit of all (in theory anyway right?). Generally the label Baby Boomer is allocated to those born between 1946 and 1964. I have great sympathy for the Xers. I doubt your generation will ever had significant political power like your boomer parents. The boomers will hold onto power for as long as they can, and by that time Y will likely be old enough to take the reins, skipping you guys entirely. Massive generalisation but I reckon that's what'll happen. My generation (Y) at least have had the benefit of advanced knowledge of reductions in retirement social security benefits. It'll be decades before I retire and I can see what's coming and plan accordingly. The capacity for X to the same is limited, as they have fewer years to adjust their plans.

They have significantly increased lifespans Biff. Traditionally inheritance has been the one the major wealth transfer mechanism over the last, what, few thousand years? When one generation get a significant increase in life expectancy in addition to all the other benefits you've outlined above, it makes for a nasty combination of wealth disparity. My boomer parents are in their 60's. I am 30. I can reasonably expect one of them to last close to 100. I'll inherit when hit 70 or so. I'm not bitter about my particular situation, I am confident I can provide for myself and family, but if you generalise the above scenario throughout the populace you end up with some massive issues in the retention on wealth within one generation. The boomers will be wealthier and more powerful than any generation before them, and they will retain that power for much longer than any other.

Well that sucks

I think there are free thinkers and followers on both sides Wrecker. None of us has exclusivity on the rational nor the idiotic. I'm just as embarrassed by Social Justice Warriors as you are no doubt by Birthers.

lol. The ability to rant crosses all political borders.