Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

What we should do is get all the people who believe in climate change to sell their houses and cash in their super and other assets and invest in this great fix.

The rest of us can sit back and see what happens.

For the record, I much rather fix the issue with plastics in the ocean......... That at least is something that is fixable.

I recently read or heard that 90% of the ocean's plastic debris emanates from 10 river systems. Not sure of the source or its veracity but it's pretty obvious Australia isn't a major contributor.

That's why I throw my plastic in the ocean. Until China, India and Indonesia clean up their act, we might as well.

Anyone who wants to see the Pacific gyre cleaned up, should sell their house, cash in their super and other assets and invest in the clean up.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four Corners looks interesting next week.

https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/extinction-nation/11228758

Warning (for some): This program may contain scenes of scientists talking about their fields of expertise, the left-wing conspiracy theory that the Reef is in a parlous state (not just Qld), and is produced by and broadcast on the ABC. Some viewers may find these distressing.

Edited by Paul Every
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

What we should do is get all the people who believe in climate change to sell their houses and cash in their super and other assets and invest in this great fix.

The rest of us can sit back and see what happens.

For the record, I much rather fix the issue with plastics in the ocean......... That at least is something that is fixable.

Let's say that worked. How could  I, as an investor, stop anyone that didn't invest from enjoying the cleaner environment that I created?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FatPom said:

Let's say that worked. How could  I, as an investor, stop anyone that didn't invest from enjoying the cleaner environment that I created?

That's fine, but once IronmanFoz cleans the oceans, he may not let you swim in them any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought a few of these 'brilliant' scientists may have spoken up about the potential effects on the ocean when man introduced plastic bags into the world or used coal as energy and the effect on the environment?  For scientists, they don't seem very smart....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

That's fine, but once IronmanFoz cleans the oceans, he may not let you swim in them any more.

I'm a triathlete, therefore hate swimming anyway. :lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Prince said:

I would have thought a few of these 'brilliant' scientists may have spoken up about the potential effects on the ocean when man introduced plastic bags into the world or used coal as energy and the effect on the environment?  For scientists, they don't seem very smart....

When man started using coal as energy, the only other option was chopping down a tree, or butchering a whale. The "brilliant" scientists were still grasping with the shape of the world, and how to make gold from lead.

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

When man started using coal as energy, the only other option was chopping down a tree, or butchering a whale. The "brilliant" scientists were still grasping with the shape of the world, and how to make gold from lead.

Thats why we need to listen to andrew bolt instead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, a consensus decision, I am amazed. Nuclear power it is................

Edited by Bosco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bosco said:

Good, a consensus decision, I am amazed. Nuclear power it is................

:wallbash::wallbash::wallbash:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Paul Every said:

 

Anyone who wants to see the Pacific gyre cleaned up, should sell their house, cash in their super and other assets and invest in the clean up.

 

This is brilliant...... all of you have been hooked, lined and sinkered.....yes you all took the bait. 

Noone wants to put there own money in to fix things that can’t be fixed or will make the most minuscule difference if at all (climate change) but your all prepared to put “our” money in via governments taxing us in multiple forms to piss it up a wall (climate change). 

But for something that can be fixed regardless of which country is at fault you quite prepared to have me do the thing that you won’t. 

This is hypocrisy at its greatest. Thread can be closed now :)

ps: when I reference ‘you’ or ‘your’, this does not mean Paul it is the collective of the responders who took the bait. Thank you!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Parkside said:

This makes as much sense as Malcolm Roberts being elected again by Queensland.

This thread is making Trump look logical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logic and politics should not be used in same sentence. If you hold Trumps political views, everything he is doing is logical (IJ), if you don’t, well you are the rest of us. That said - logic is in the eye of the beholder 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone here donate to cancer cure charity - I figured my little $50 wont make a difference so I stopped.

 

Thats the kind of logic that helps us all advance - not

Edited by symo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Bolt would be proud!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

double 

Edited by Rog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

ps: when I reference ‘you’ or ‘your’, this does not mean Paul it is the collective of the responders who took the bait. Thank you!

Oh we know! Pretty much every time you mention your you actually mean you’re.

Edited by Rog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

This is brilliant...... all of you have been hooked, lined and sinkered.....yes you all took the bait. 

Noone wants to put there own money in to fix things that can’t be fixed or will make the most minuscule difference if at all (climate change) but your all prepared to put “our” money in via governments taxing us in multiple forms to piss it up a wall (climate change). 

But for something that can be fixed regardless of which country is at fault you quite prepared to have me do the thing that you won’t. 

This is hypocrisy at its greatest. Thread can be closed now :)

ps: when I reference ‘you’ or ‘your’, this does not mean Paul it is the collective of the responders who took the bait. Thank you!

 

 

Too good a post not to have fun with, whether it be a fishing expedition, trolling or serious.

Nothing to do with hypocrisy.

Thanks for posting. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/06/2019 at 12:14 AM, IronmanFoz said:

Watched a David Attenborough program last night on "The great Barrier Reef'. The reef was part of the landmass originally as part of the limestone hills. The sea levels were much much lower and this has occurred on several occasions. So the sea level rising equation went out the window!

So what's your point?

No one is saying that coral reefs have only evolved in the late Holocene when sea levels have been similar to today's levels.

Corals are ancient organisms and reefs exist in shallow waters, so of course reefs have previously existed in different areas to today, dependent on sea level.

Also be careful not to confuse the existence of prehistoric marine sediments as a definitive indication of past sea level. You can find fossilised marine sediments on Mt Everest.

As for current concerns regarding bleaching of the GBReef and other reefs, we know that bleaching occurs in response to elevated ocean temperatures (among other stressors), and that since 1980 bleaching events are becoming more severe and more frequent, resulting in coral ecosystems displaying less ability to recover between bleaching events.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/06/2019 at 8:20 PM, IronmanFoz said:

 Q&A ...... As usual an ABC agenda and stacked audience and guests.

Last Monday's Q&A audience stats:

Lib/Nat 34% (vs 41% of primary vote in May's election).

Labor 32% (vs 33%)

Greens 9% (vs 10%)

Undecided 12% + Other 12% = 24% (vs 15%)

"Stacked"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Paul Every said:

Last Monday's Q&A audience stats:

Lib/Nat 34% (vs 41% of primary vote in May's election).

Labor 32% (vs 33%)

Greens 9% (vs 10%)

Undecided 12% + Other 12% = 24% (vs 15%)

"Stacked"?

32% Labor + 9% Greens + 12% so-called 'Undecided' (GetUp) + 12% so-called 'Other' (Socialist Alliance) = 65%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

34% Lib/Nat + 12% so-called 'Undecided' (Palmer) + 12% so-called 'Other' (One Nation) = 58%

 

See I can do that too. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reflecting on this thread and the other one. Given the way we engage and converse it’s little wonder the political landscape is divided.

We (me) don’t accept views other than our own and seek to twist others words to suit our agenda.

Being right and attacking other points of view is more important than seeking common ground. Our leaders are a reflection of this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

Reflecting on this thread and the other one. Given the way we engage and converse it’s little wonder the political landscape is divided.

We (me) don’t accept views other than our own and seek to twist others words to suit our agenda.

Being right and attacking other points of view is more important than seeking common ground. Our leaders are a reflection of this.

Well said! I think lot of the topics are emotive which leads people to lose their impartiality. Then there is the problem of tribalism and people wanting their 'team' to win, defend them no matter what. 

I personally like to explore ideas-that's why I'll often throw something out there which cops some flack, but at least it's considerd. Hopefully the discussion then leads me to change my mind or confirm the view. 

People strictly voting only for one side is the most idiotic thing ever. When people are taken for granted they get abused. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, more said:

People strictly voting only for one side is the most idiotic thing ever. When people are taken for granted they get abused.

True. At the last election I probably voted stupidly (not that it counted in the end). Not for the reason above, but because of emotion. In my mind (and for me personally), a Coalition Gov would PROBABLY have delivered a better outcome. You never know though, as there no guarantee that either party will actually keep their promises. But I just couldn't vote for the Liberal member, because I detest him more than I've ever detested any other politician I've ever known. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

 

34% Lib/Nat + 12% so-called 'Undecided' (Palmer) + 12% so-called 'Other' (One Nation) = 58%

 

See I can do that too. :)

If anyone other than Tony Jones was in charge, that breakdown might have been plausible 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BarryBevan said:

Reflecting on this thread and the other one. Given the way we engage and converse it’s little wonder the political landscape is divided.

We (me) don’t accept views other than our own and seek to twist others words to suit our agenda.

Being right and attacking other points of view is more important than seeking common ground. Our leaders are a reflection of this.

As I've said before, people need to get away from the idea that if someone doesn't agree with them it's because they are stupid and/or morally deficient, and are therefore free game

It gets us nowhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

True. At the last election I probably voted stupidly (not that it counted in the end). Not for the reason above, but because of emotion. In my mind (and for me personally), a Coalition Gov would PROBABLY have delivered a better outcome. You never know though, as there no guarantee that either party will actually keep their promises. But I just couldn't vote for the Liberal member, because I detest him more than I've ever detested any other politician I've ever known. 

There is no way you could have detested him more than Bill Shorten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IronmanFoz said:

There is no way you could have detested him more than Bill Shorten.

You don't have to put up with his deceptions & outright lies daily, 365 days a year. He's worse than Ennis.

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Paul Every said:

Last Monday's Q&A audience stats:

Lib/Nat 34% (vs 41% of primary vote in May's election).

Labor 32% (vs 33%)

Greens 9% (vs 10%)

Undecided 12% + Other 12% = 24% (vs 15%)

"Stacked"?

Gosh.  And since the Election they are now 75% liberal.  God bless em.  😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/6/2019 at 2:02 PM, Prince said:

Gosh.  And since the Election they are now 75% liberal.  God bless em.  😂

I'd be curious to know the stats for the panel members over time. Same goes for The Drum and Insiders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

still by bolt and far right logic and last election being behind in the polls means you win the election and are doing the right things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stats coming out about the $800 bonus that the government said would be paid to a million pensioners when they finally lowered the deeming rates. The government has refused to announce how many will actually get it, but documents obtained under FoI show that no single pensioners will actually get the $800, and only 191 couples will receive it. The average amount for a single pensioner is $249, and for couples is $165.

Just a little short of the million promised. At least it won't hurt the budget very much.

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that there is nothing mentioned in this thread about $100k cash in an Aldi bag

I find it even more interesting that the very law that the NSW opposition (then government) brought in to hamper the current governments fund raising efforts is the one they broke in the current saga

 

And surely whoever it was that proposed that pollies takes ethics classes as they may not he aware that taking a donation of $100k in cash may be suss is taking the piss 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Tinman said:

I find it interesting that there is nothing mentioned in this thread about $100k cash in an Aldi bag

I find it even more interesting that the very law that the NSW opposition (then government) brought in to hamper the current governments fund raising efforts is the one they broke in the current saga

 

And surely whoever it was that proposed that pollies takes ethics classes as they may not he aware that taking a donation of $100k in cash may be suss is taking the piss 

doesnt affect anyone, if it happened, and it may well have, labor lost elections so it achieved nothing.  keeping it a secret was dumb, much better just having it out in the open like pre election when abbott was going to commie fund raisers.  chinese infiltration of both sides is terrible but especially bad with liu in the liberal party elected to fed parliament.  at least labor sacked distari and they were just in opposition, morrison should be tough on national security and sack Liu from the liberals, and morrison playing the race card to defend her was and is a disgrace.   

both sides of politics need to step up on this issue and especially the elected government when it comes to liu.  No surprise it happens when you look at how many dual citizens went to the high court in recent times, the background checks are terrible, just seems if you can raise money, you are good and we will ignore all else which is how we end up with the 100k you talk of, or the liu with a history of commie ness elected as a liberal to fed parliament. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the other thing that amazes me at the moment is the centre and left seem to have moved on on climate change but the hard right seem to have it as a religion and cant move on.  its weird to see so much anti climate change in the media but nobody arguing with them.  i saw craig kelly last week slamming the abc and when you read what the abc did, they agreed with him.  just bizarre, you'd think they would actually be trying to build an express way or something rather then just impersonating a hot air balloon and whining about stuff that nobody is actually raising anymore.

the extreme right on climate change  reminds me of those jap soldiers they found in the 70's and they have to be told the war is over, people have moved on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parkside said:

they've also moved on to drug testing welfare recipients as a means to reduce the welfare budget.

its just bizarre,  again, the dogma of creating an issue that doesnt actually exist, and logically if it does exist and people can no longer use welfare to buy drugs, crime goes up as they steal to get the drugs.   

truely bizarre but assume the lobby groups needs the work, the libs and nationals need some donations.  good tender to get, would be worth a fortune, few instant millionaires out of winning that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Oompa Loompa said:

its weird to see so much anti climate change in the media but nobody arguing with them. 

Really? We must be looking at different media 😋

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, A2K said:

Really? We must be looking at different media 😋

Yeah, there's still arguing both sides, but I'm now seeing a lot more anti-climate change than pro-climate change in social media.

It's as if the raving greeny has been replaced by the raving denier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, A2K said:

Really? We must be looking at different media 😋

stuffed if i know, i dont read much murdoch, though sometimes i watch fox news which led to the post.... just stunned at people like craig kelly looking for unicorns...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what i really want to know is under morrisons urine test of the unemployed, will they watch the unemployed piss in a cup or is their trust that your urine is your own.   If you dont answer the door because you are off your face, stoned, will there be a three strikes and you're out ? are you able to dob in an unemployed person you want to wee in a cup?  

would love morrison to drop the money he is spending on knowing whats in the poor's urine  into road safety and do more random drug and grog testing on our roads... 

Imagine if he did his job and secured our borders and just stopped drugs in Australia...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Oompa Loompa said:

 

would love morrison to drop the money he is spending on knowing whats in the poor's urine  into road safety and do more random drug and grog testing on our roads... 

Imagine if he did his job and secured our borders and just stopped drugs in Australia...lol

maybe if they were not on drugs, they may have a job and they wouldn't be poor.

whilst I don't really agree with it, it is a very popular scheme. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Prince said:

maybe if they were not on drugs, they may have a job and they wouldn't be poor.

whilst I don't really agree with it, it is a very popular scheme. 

maybe they can test rich people with jobs who take drugs

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...