World Politics - Page 1271 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12701  
Old 11-12-12, 11:20
auscyclefan94's Avatar
auscyclefan94 auscyclefan94 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 42x16ss View Post
I think Gillard forgets that Tony Abbott would act like a contrary turd to any PM, regardless of gender, marital status, religion or hair colour.

A substantial portion of new money bogans genuinely don't like her partly because she's a woman but mostly because they don't read any political commentary beyond the headlines and don't realise she's leading a minority government and also assume she's responsible for everything, even state level policy.

Hopefully Turnbull replaces Abbott and someone more solid and marketable can replace Gillard by the next federal election and provide a realistic choice.
Perhaps you are right about Abbott, but he would not act like a victim for political points and would not expect favours or cover-ups from union buddies.

Please drop the feminist, gender debate. You have really been caught up in the ALP spin, spun specifically by Gillard. People do not hate her because she is a woman. She is leading a minority government and she sold her soul out to the Greens and Independents. Good luck to her doing so. But she has to suffer the consequences of doing so. Shall I repeat those famous words days before the 2010 election? I have never read or heard people state that she is responsible for state level policy. She is only responsible for state level policy when funding is taken away from that states or she does not fund certain infrastructure projects. Face the facts, she has used her gender as a political weapon. This gender war has been engineered by John McTernan. He did the same thing to David Cameron when working for the British Labour Party.

I love it who some people keep pushing for Malcolm Turnbull to become leader. They are largely from leftists who prefer Turnbull over Abbott but will never vote for him. People have short memories about how Turnbull was as a leader. He turned the Liberal Party into a Labor lite and really was a failure as an opposition leader. The Liberals would have lost in a landslide at the 2010 election if Turnbull remained as leader in 2009. The moderates have failed to lead the Liberal party so many times in the past. Hewson, Downer, Nelson and obviously Turnbull. Malcolm Turnbull is the Mitt Romney of the Liberal Party. The most moderate potential leadership candidate going around. People from the left like him as a leader over the other candidates, but they will never vote for him. At the same time, support from the conservative side is lost. The Liberals will not go back to Turnbull. They have campaigned strongly against policies that Turnbull has supported in the past and it would be suicidal to go back.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggercuz View Post
second post ever after reading the forum for the last few years and one thing i must say, ACF94 is probably the most intelligent poster here, never biased to BMC or Cadel, and never gets worked up over anything.
Reply With Quote
  #12702  
Old 11-12-12, 14:09
movingtarget movingtarget is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by auscyclefan94 View Post
Perhaps you are right about Abbott, but he would not act like a victim for political points and would not expect favours or cover-ups from union buddies.

Please drop the feminist, gender debate. You have really been caught up in the ALP spin, spun specifically by Gillard. People do not hate her because she is a woman. She is leading a minority government and she sold her soul out to the Greens and Independents. Good luck to her doing so. But she has to suffer the consequences of doing so. Shall I repeat those famous words days before the 2010 election? I have never read or heard people state that she is responsible for state level policy. She is only responsible for state level policy when funding is taken away from that states or she does not fund certain infrastructure projects. Face the facts, she has used her gender as a political weapon. This gender war has been engineered by John McTernan. He did the same thing to David Cameron when working for the British Labour Party.

I love it who some people keep pushing for Malcolm Turnbull to become leader. They are largely from leftists who prefer Turnbull over Abbott but will never vote for him. People have short memories about how Turnbull was as a leader. He turned the Liberal Party into a Labor lite and really was a failure as an opposition leader. The Liberals would have lost in a landslide at the 2010 election if Turnbull remained as leader in 2009. The moderates have failed to lead the Liberal party so many times in the past. Hewson, Downer, Nelson and obviously Turnbull. Malcolm Turnbull is the Mitt Romney of the Liberal Party. The most moderate potential leadership candidate going around. People from the left like him as a leader over the other candidates, but they will never vote for him. At the same time, support from the conservative side is lost. The Liberals will not go back to Turnbull. They have campaigned strongly against policies that Turnbull has supported in the past and it would be suicidal to go back.
Turnbull has the same problem that Rudd had. He's too smug but lately he has toned it down funnily enough since Gillard has become more popular. Gillard's timing of the Royal Commission is immaculate : I can see another "Sorry" day on the horizon. Something to fill the empty mining tax coffers ? As Rudd fades into the background I think many of the undecided voters will be willing to give Abbott a go against Gillard. So close last time. Gillard gambled on an early election and miscalculated badly. I think only the novelty of being the first female PM got her over the line. I am not convinced the polls are as close as some say they are at the moment. I don't know many people who are impressed with Gillard. I had the same impression in the US election. Romney was always going to struggle to win that election because of stupid mistakes. A shame for him that the damage had been done earlier as his performance in the final few months was strong.
Reply With Quote
  #12703  
Old 11-13-12, 02:54
auscyclefan94's Avatar
auscyclefan94 auscyclefan94 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by movingtarget View Post
Turnbull has the same problem that Rudd had. He's too smug but lately he has toned it down funnily enough since Gillard has become more popular. Gillard's timing of the Royal Commission is immaculate : I can see another "Sorry" day on the horizon. Something to fill the empty mining tax coffers ? As Rudd fades into the background I think many of the undecided voters will be willing to give Abbott a go against Gillard. So close last time. Gillard gambled on an early election and miscalculated badly. I think only the novelty of being the first female PM got her over the line. I am not convinced the polls are as close as some say they are at the moment. I don't know many people who are impressed with Gillard. I had the same impression in the US election. Romney was always going to struggle to win that election because of stupid mistakes. A shame for him that the damage had been done earlier as his performance in the final few months was strong.
I agree that there are some similarities between Rudd and Turnbull. Both are quite wealthy men and they are quite smug in their appearance. Turnbull's problem was that he is not someone who really relates to many 'rusted on' Coalition voters. Abbott does. Malcolm Turnbull and Brendan Nelson did not relate to the 'Howard battlers'. I personally think that it is't as close at the polls are stating. Often polls do overestimate Labor's advantage. The past federal election polls in the week before favoured Labor. Many of the polls before the elections Howard faced dramatically exaggerated the Labor vote. There are many more examples of this. Abbott will be PM of Australia after next election. I am 85% sure on this. What is in doubt, is the margin of the victory and whether Abbott can gain control of the Senate.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggercuz View Post
second post ever after reading the forum for the last few years and one thing i must say, ACF94 is probably the most intelligent poster here, never biased to BMC or Cadel, and never gets worked up over anything.
Reply With Quote
  #12704  
Old 11-13-12, 13:48
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,503
Default

Which Fairfax papers are biased? I recently switched to AFR after getting sick of the News trolls at the oz writing the same thing every week. I do not see any bias but maybe it's because there isn't the heavy political editorialisation. The oz is basically a collection of blogs, most with strong bias one way or the other (of course the senior columnists are right leaning). AFR is run by a former News right-leaning commentator, so...

I get the chance to read over the Hun and the Worst although I do my best to avoid them. It's just rubbish (and same for your FM radio and commercial FTA TV), that they may have a bias is a minor concern for me. It's sad that they carry large shares of the audience.

ABC reports news and current affairs better than any other media outlet in the country, that some want to shut them down because of perceived bias or [insert Orwellian term here] is laughable. Shutting them down would only damage the landscape as there would no longer exist a conduit for the unadulterated transmission of events.

You can have good quality subjective journalism and crap objective journalism. This is more important to me although for you political fanatics bias is obviously an issue.

Last edited by Ferminal; 11-13-12 at 14:18.
Reply With Quote
  #12705  
Old 11-13-12, 14:11
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3,442
Default

For you, ACF.

__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #12706  
Old 11-13-12, 16:56
Netserk's Avatar
Netserk Netserk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,581
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by auscyclefan94 View Post
Denmark has finally arrived at Planet Sanity, at least in one aspect of public policy.

Denmark to scrap world's first fat tax - ABC

A loss for dumb **** nanny statists.
So it is okay to tax gas, but not fat?

Taxes have two purposes:
1) Income for the state
2) Regulate behaviour
__________________
Cancellara is like The Black Album. Really good but way overrated.
Quote:
Definition of Wheelsucking:
When a rider refuses to take a pull even though it is tactically and/or strategically more sound to take a pull
*Refusing to pull when it is tactically and/or strategically more sound not to is therefore not wheelsucking
Change my pitch up/Smack my bitch up
Reply With Quote
  #12707  
Old 11-13-12, 23:22
auscyclefan94's Avatar
auscyclefan94 auscyclefan94 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferminal View Post
Which Fairfax papers are biased? I recently switched to AFR after getting sick of the News trolls at the oz writing the same thing every week. I do not see any bias but maybe it's because there isn't the heavy political editorialisation. The oz is basically a collection of blogs, most with strong bias one way or the other (of course the senior columnists are right leaning). AFR is run by a former News right-leaning commentator, so...

I get the chance to read over the Hun and the Worst although I do my best to avoid them. It's just rubbish (and same for your FM radio and commercial FTA TV), that they may have a bias is a minor concern for me. It's sad that they carry large shares of the audience.

ABC reports news and current affairs better than any other media outlet in the country, that some want to shut them down because of perceived bias or [insert Orwellian term here] is laughable. Shutting them down would only damage the landscape as there would no longer exist a conduit for the unadulterated transmission of events.

You can have good quality subjective journalism and crap objective journalism. This is more important to me although for you political fanatics bias is obviously an issue.
The main Fairfax papers such as The Age and Sunday Morning Herald have always been very left leaning. Open your eyes Ferminal. Do you ever watch QandA or Insiders? Very obvious left wing bias on those shows. Whether it be the panels or the audience, it is very left wing. I am all for privatising the SBS. ABC is more difficult for me to say 'privatise that'. I can see the use of a state broadcast but I don't enjoy the clear left wing bias. State broadcasters around the wold such as the BBC and the ABC (US) have always been left leaning. No doubt some of their investigative journalism is very good but to say that the ABC is objective and not bias displays that either you are in denial or your head has been stuck in the sand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amsterhammer View Post
For you, ACF.

Yeah I saw that. Very amusing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggercuz View Post
second post ever after reading the forum for the last few years and one thing i must say, ACF94 is probably the most intelligent poster here, never biased to BMC or Cadel, and never gets worked up over anything.
Reply With Quote
  #12708  
Old 11-13-12, 23:29
auscyclefan94's Avatar
auscyclefan94 auscyclefan94 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Netserk View Post
So it is okay to tax gas, but not fat?

Taxes have two purposes:
1) Income for the state
2) Regulate behaviour
Taxing gas and naturally mined minerals is because that taxation is encountering for the fact that the gas you talk about is coming from 'crown land'. I have no problem for the state gaining income through taxes (if it is sensible) but to regulate behaviour in this aspect is way too far. Anyway, the tax is very anti-business, anti-pro choice/freedom, is paternalistic, only helps foreign produced goods and has had very little effect on changing behaviour. People eat food because of the sensation and emotion. It is like a drug. You will always find the money to pay for it, just for the feeling. Fat taxes also create a 'class warfare' because many of the restaurants aren't directly affected by fat tax.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggercuz View Post
second post ever after reading the forum for the last few years and one thing i must say, ACF94 is probably the most intelligent poster here, never biased to BMC or Cadel, and never gets worked up over anything.
Reply With Quote
  #12709  
Old 11-13-12, 23:33
trompe le monde trompe le monde is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,142
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Netserk View Post
So it is okay to tax gas, but not fat?

Taxes have two purposes:
1) Income for the state
2) Regulate behaviour
I don't see anything inherently wrong with a fat tax. Ingesting inordinant amounts of fat only helps to line the body with unhealthy amounts of adipose tissue, which in turn becomes a strain on the health care system due to the associated problems of being overweight (I'm a Canadian, so there is an impact upon my fellow taxpayers if my weight starts to approach that of fully gassed up Yugo).

The strange thing, and I say this with a degree of perplexity, is that those who chime in critiquing the great freedom rapist that is 'The Nanny State' is that they choose not to argue for a minimum baseline of what a meaningful life can or should be. Actually they do, but it is based upon an ego-centric, self-centered perspective that is fueled by harkening back to some Ayn Rand written drivel. To be solely in control of one's ability to choose does not mean that you will choose wisely. So, in a way, sin taxes are a loose of means of trying to cultivate what a person should or should not choose. So, yes, I agree with you Netserk.

Isaiah Berlin perhaps said it best that political theories really boil down to two simple questions: 'Who governs me?' and 'What is my area of non-interference?'
__________________
No longer Polysorbate 80 Free.
Reply With Quote
  #12710  
Old 11-13-12, 23:43
auscyclefan94's Avatar
auscyclefan94 auscyclefan94 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trompe le monde View Post
I don't see anything inherently wrong with a fat tax. Ingesting inordinant amounts of fat only helps to line the body with unhealthy amounts of adipose tissue, which in turn becomes a strain on the health care system due to the associated problems of being overweight (I'm a Canadian, so there is an impact upon my fellow taxpayers if my weight starts to approach that of fully gassed up Yugo).

The strange thing, and I say this with a degree of perplexity, is that those who chime in critiquing the great freedom rapist that is 'The Nanny State' is that they choose not to argue for a minimum baseline of what a meaningful life can or should be. Actually they do, but it is based upon an ego-centric, self-centered perspective that is fueled by harkening back to some Ayn Rand written drivel. To be solely in control of one's ability to choose does not mean that you will choose wisely. So, in a way, sin taxes are a loose of means of trying to cultivate what a person should or should not choose. So, yes, I agree with you Netserk.

Isaiah Berlin perhaps said it best that political theories really boil down to two simple questions: 'Who governs me?' and 'What is my area of non-interference?'
Yes it is wrong. The 'nanny state' idiom is perfectly appropriate for this debate. People know what food is bad and what food is good for them. I someone who believes in minimal control in people's lives and I do think that a fat tax is inefficient. Research has stated that the maximum a fat tax will reduce weight off people is 500 grams. Not a lot at all. Let people put food that they want to in their mouth. I am against 'sin taxes' in principle because often they do not address the exact problem and it is the person's responsibility for the consequences of that so called 'sin' that is the punishment.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggercuz View Post
second post ever after reading the forum for the last few years and one thing i must say, ACF94 is probably the most intelligent poster here, never biased to BMC or Cadel, and never gets worked up over anything.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:48.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.