The Politics/Religion/Conspiracies Deathmatch Thread [Archive] - Page 6

MFKS

10-06-2015, 04:29 PM

:yay::gent::thumbsup:
Ok ill say it plainly then. You are a scientific hypocrite. Your fellow scientists on here should be calling you out on your lack of objectivity. You cant reach a conclusion about a person (me) or their religion without testing the evidence. No matter how you try to twist the conversation. If you cant stick to your principles we havent even left first base. You should also know as a scientist that you cant force a person to give you answers so your accusation of shirking is nonsense. I was hoping that you would see your hypocrisy first but it seems you cant. Your questions arent genuine. Guenuine Questions are meant to be asked to find out information from the person being questioned but you simply want to prove im an imbecile. You have no interest in my answers. I have already explained my position of Christianity versus other religions but you seem to have missed it. Once again. We follow a person, a human being who is also God, who gave proof and still gives proof that he is who he says he is even if you personally choose to ignore such evidence. No other great religion of our times makes these claims so when i look at other religions I find them inferior to the one that calls God their Father.
Ive gone far enough with this. Im too busy. My initial offer to answer genuine questions stands. But snake. Your lack of objectivity is as plain to see as the phone im typing on.

:yay: :gent: :thumbsup:

Said with an eloquence that I have sadly lacking.

Bang on the money.

Me I personally couldn't give a **** if he believes in science and logic or god.

He does though pick and choose how he wishes to take evidence on board. How he can have an arrogance when denying religion defies belief. His science is not even complete yet he takes it as gospel despite admitting things change with new discovery.

No drama if he says he doesn't believe as his views with science don't stack up but to have the arrogance with it just shows how insecure he is about it.
Still laughing at the massive contradiction he has with not believing conspiracy theories.

For someone who has such faith in science and logic any story that offers up so much doubt like both 9-11 and JFK should have him firmly in the not believing official story camp but for some reason he totally ignores any science or logic in the stories at all. Both have massive issues with science and logic holding up against the doubts and both official accounts although possible require some ridiculous amount of things with low probabilities all coming up trumps to have the stories be legit.

How someone with such faith in science and logic to put shit on religion and claim to be right based on science and logic yet can be in so much denial about science and logic with other things just shows how the beat of his drum is so inconsistent

MFKS

10-06-2015, 04:35 PM

Will openly admit that I have not read the "good" book in it's entirety nor do I have any interest.

But thank you for proving what I have been saying, you've openly admitted that you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe and follow.
Hence what I have been saying that I find it hard to believe people who only believe parts of a story so I would be just to think that it's not just towards the Bible were you would use this practice.

Thought as much.

Your lack of knowledge does show through.

The funny thing is your lack of knowledge on the bible is what is holding you up form getting me to answer the question you are trying to ask.

The question you are trying to ask me is not the one your actually asking. I can see what the question is but until you ask it I can't answer it

I am waiting and ready when you know what the question is and actually ask it.

Premy

10-06-2015, 05:14 PM

Thought as much.

Your lack of knowledge does show through.

The funny thing is your lack of knowledge on the bible is what is holding you up form getting me to answer the question you are trying to ask.

The question you are trying to ask me is not the one your actually asking. I can see what the question is but until you ask it I can't answer it

I am waiting and ready when you know what the question is and actually ask it.
I've already got you to answer what I wanted and that is that the good book is a walking contradiction and that you only choose to follow the parts you see beneficial to you.
I provided you with the ammunition to contradict yourself and you happily did and do so.
I'll state again I find it hard to believe someone that only believes half of a story that is beneficial to them.

q-money

10-06-2015, 06:45 PM

fmd this thread :rof:

plague

10-06-2015, 06:54 PM

hawk

10-06-2015, 08:15 PM

yo, member.

i can respect your desire to stand up for your beliefs and all, but bashing medical research and science as a whole in response to criticism of religion is definitely not the best way to make you seem like a sane individual.

there are some different interpretations of sanity. Many a scientist isnt

plague

10-06-2015, 10:47 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYzCx4RCcAAdzJ6.jpg

tha_hauss

11-06-2015, 03:43 AM

I don't know if i have missed the evidence provided elsewhere on this thread or in my life so far but can you share some of this with us? What proof do you actually have that makes it all 100%?
In my opinion its not proof, its that you have faith and a belief that he is there.
I don't agree but each to their own.

Have you been looking for evidence?

No, I can't make it 100% for you. If it were 100% proof you would have no free will in the matter, like the fact that we have no free will to deny the existence of the sun. Despite snakes insistence that if God appeared in the sky on Saturday, he would believe on Sunday, the more probably scenario is that if God appeared in the sky on Saturday he would be dead on Saturday. He did in fact appear but as one of us, but that limited his appearance to time like the rest of us. Science can't empirically prove the existence of a God that exists outside time and space, so other methods are needed. There are philosophical proofs for the existence of God. St Thomas Aquinas goes through them. They don't prove the God of the Bible but they philosophically prove the existence of an eternal being with specific properties - first cause etc. Not all philosophical proofs are equal and they don't convince everyone to the same degree. Being a witness or subjective experience is necessary to prove the God of the Bible and there is plenty of this throughout history. Like it or not, God chose an imperfect Jewish people to provide this revelation with their lives. Jesus gave the most perfect testimony in human history by submitting himself fully to the God of Israel and the proof is in his resurrection from the dead. Like St Paul says, if the resurrection didn't happen we Christians are the most foolish of all people. It's not like they didn't know how foolish their claims appeared to many people. If it did happen, then Jesus perfectly revealed who God is. Many people have testified to this with their lives and continue to do so, particularly in Africa and the Middle East. And again, despite snakes apparent "certainty" regarding the dating of the New Testament writings, it can be argued quite effectively that most of the New Testament was written before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD not after. Through them we have the testimony of eyewitnesses who wrote about Jesus or who shed their blood in the belief in the resurrection. And the story goes on to this day. You even have a woman in Newcastle who received a miraculous cure from terminal cancer which was investigated thoroughly in the canonisation of St Mary of the Cross. You can go find her and talk to her this week if you want. Ask her what her prognosis was and what happened. You know, or you can wait and hope that the evidence comes to you. There are many other testimonies from people everywhere if you just look under enough rocks. I have my own testimonies but I'm not going share them with the pack of wolves on here. My main testimony is the life I lead in which I try to be in the service of my God and others.

Greek philosophers wanted to understand God before they believed but the Jews had it right when they wrote that you have to walk in faith and then you will see that it is true. God can't be contained in the mind like some scientific proof. This is because God doesn't want to be a generic God but a personal Father to each person. He is a God of relationship, person to person, not of abstract knowledge. That's bad news for the science tragics, who have all the data they need but never seek it.

Premy

11-06-2015, 07:33 AM

Still didn't see one bit of credible proof in that statement

tha_hauss

11-06-2015, 08:05 AM

Still didn't see one bit of credible proof in that statement

I didn't expect you would. I have no intention of trying to convince anyone. I was responding to a question from leftrighout and putting forward some avenues if he wants to do his own enquiries. I don't have the time or inclination to go into detail on here. Like I said to MFKS, I personally think its a waste of his time. You have to find what satisfies your concept of credible evidence. But no one is going to hand it to you on a platter so if you're sitting around waiting for someone to do that on an internet forum, you're outta luck. Just don't bag the people who have sought and have found in their own lives. That's the whole reason I entered this conversation, after watching a pack of people surround and ridicule MFKS for a number of days.

MFKS

11-06-2015, 08:05 AM

Still didn't see one bit of credible proof in that statement

Of course you don't your mind is closed and you have no understanding of the bible and what little you do have you don't comprehend anyway

It 's just like people having a discussion on a movie after walking out and watching it and having someone interject the movies crap based on seeing the preview and having never watched it.

Your that someone

snake

11-06-2015, 08:30 AM

tha_hauss

11-06-2015, 08:41 AM

hauss, aquinas proof is a little out of date now. is there anything new that we i iw now that wasn't known in aquinas' time that might invalidate that?

i'm sorry if you found my questions troubling or subjective, but i maintain at least 4 of them are fine. as we won't agree on this, i will refine them below.

if you aren't "an apple", then you are the exception rather than the rule. i know you're an individual, but to say a scientific approach to people based on "groups" can't be done is absolute nonsense. marketing and insurance, to name just two examples who make billions doing just that. most catholics were raised catholic, and have catholic babies. not many come from the outside. if you independently found catholicism, you are in the minority, hence my comments.

ok, my "nice" questions.

1. how and when was the bible written? by who? wo compiled it?
2. how did christianity go from being a minor sect, to a mainstream religion? how or who gave this religion that kick?
3. what reasons influenced you to be a christian?

It's too late mate. I haven't enjoyed the last few days on here. I originally just put two cents in for MFKS who was being hounded by a number of people. Go peer review your set of questions and see whether or not they were directed at reaching the conclusion you already had in your head. I gave a lot of space between each of my replies but when I came back it was the same thing.

You can hide a wolf in sheep's clothing all you want, its still a wolf. I've got no interest in talking to you about this. I said in my last post addressed at you, that's enough for me, or maybe you skipped over that? There is a part in the Bible where Jesus instructs his disciples to shake the dust from their sandals and walk, and I think that's damn good advice.

snake

11-06-2015, 08:48 AM

It's too late mate. I haven't enjoyed the last few days on here. I originally just put two cents in for MFKS who was being hounded by a number of people. Go peer review your set of questions and see whether or not they were directed at reaching the conclusion you already had in your head. I gave a lot of space between each of my replies but when I came back it was the same thing.

You can hide a wolf in sheep's clothing all you want, its still a wolf. I've got no interest in talking to you about this. I said in my last post addressed at you, that's it for me, or maybe you skipped over that? There is a part in the Bible where Jesus instructs his disciples to shake the dust from their sandals and walk, and I think that's damn good advice.

apart from 3, they are genuinie questions of historic interest. you sound like a whingeing lib on the abc. sorry if *you* don't like the answers. maybe you need to ask yourself why? and id you havent't been asked harder questions in your professional life, then you could knock me over with a feather.

there's also a part where jesus says to hate your family. go figure:rof:

tha_hauss

11-06-2015, 08:56 AM

MFKS

11-06-2015, 08:57 AM

apart from 3, they are genuinie questions of historic interest. you sound like a whingeing lib on the abc. sorry if *you* don't like the answers. maybe you need to ask yourself why? and id you havent't been asked harder questions in your professional life, then you could knock me over with a feather.

there's also a part where jesus says to hate your family. go figure:rof:

So what exactly do you think it means Snake??

Do you just read everything literally and expect to make heads or tails of of it

Is it Jesus wants us to literally hate our family or maybe he doesn't command us to hate our family but is delivering a message that we have to give ourselves with total commitment to god and there are sacrifices to make for it??

On another note heres a nugget for you

Jesus said, “"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first” (John 15:18).

snake

11-06-2015, 09:06 AM

m8, do u even know ur book? you get into premy for not being a scholar...

luke 14.26

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple.

leftrightout

11-06-2015, 09:06 AM

Is it Jesus wants us to literally hate our family or maybe he doesn't command us to hate our family but is delivering a message that we have to give ourselves with total commitment to god and there are sacrifices to make for it??

So this dude that lived a long time ago reckons you should ditch your own family to commit to his belief?

MFKS

11-06-2015, 10:09 AM

Premy

11-06-2015, 10:45 AM

Where can I go to Confess my Sins?

I've seen the Father, he came to me and now everything is clear.

Whilst he came to me I asked him for some advice on something that has been troubling me for some time.
See I've been trying to sell my car for a while but I've been struggling, the Father told me to have faith that the car is fully sick and any Christian that is intelligent will won't to buy it.

so on that note anyone what to buy a car.

MFKS

11-06-2015, 10:56 AM

plague

11-06-2015, 12:18 PM

Sure he didn't tell you to drop the price???

u da best.

plague

11-06-2015, 12:23 PM

Blackmac79

11-06-2015, 12:52 PM

My fondness of this man never ceases.

Oh me! Oh life! of the questions of these recurring,
Of the endless trains of the faithless, of cities fill’d with the foolish,
Of myself forever reproaching myself, (for who more foolish than I, and who more faithless?)
Of eyes that vainly crave the light, of the objects mean, of the struggle ever renew’d,
Of the poor results of all, of the plodding and sordid crowds I see around me,
Of the empty and useless years of the rest, with the rest me intertwined,
The question, O me! so sad, recurring—What good amid these, O me, O life?

Answer.
That you are here—that life exists and identity,
That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse.

MFKS

11-06-2015, 12:58 PM

On a different note Hauss said something id never heard before can someone clear it up.

Do Christians believe that God physically exists within the physical /material universe that Snake lives in. and which Smake and his friends are trying to explore and understand.

Or

Does Snake live in Gods world where the existence of God is forever 'on the outside' of and therefore will never be physically seen by the non believers trying to look for Him no matter what scientific methods they use.

I hope that question made sense.

Sort of doesn't:rof:

I will try to do my best with it though

Without trying to upset our non religious followers of the thread our beliefs go along the lines of both of them

As for the first one

God created everything remember?? God owns it and he is in his entire back yard. He is in always in his yard

As for the second one

Snake lives in gods world whether he likes it or not

God showed himself in the form of Jesus Christ so the bit about never being physically seen is relative to the date of your birth and whether the opportunity for one matched up with his life on earth.

Also if God's second coming arrives (before Snake's scientists have cured all disease and made people immortal) and Snake is still alive he will get to see him for himself.

The other thing is Plague if you open your heart and minds and accept god and embrace him as your lord and saviour he will show himself to you.

You won't be walking down the street one day and spot God at the bus stop waiting for the 5 to 9 bus though. :thumbsup:

q-money

11-06-2015, 01:00 PM

despite snakes insistence that if God appeared in the sky on Saturday, he would believe on Sunday, the more probably scenario is that if God appeared in the sky on Saturday he would be dead on Saturday
yo can someone fill me in on this one?

the only time God is going to reveal himself in the future - he is going to kill everyone, and everything?

leftrightout

11-06-2015, 01:19 PM

Snake lives in gods world whether he likes it or not

This is the kind of comment that gets people offside with the whole thing.

You BELIEVE Snake lives in gods world whether he likes it or not. Just as snake BELIEVES he doesn't.

Probably being captain obvious here and it has more than likely been said already but you can't claim your religion as fact the same as Snake cant claim his science as 110% fact as theories keep changing.

You are arguing virtually the same argument from the two sides of the story. Both sides here are being as hypocritical as each other.

Captain Obvious

11-06-2015, 01:25 PM

Probably being captain obvious here

No you're not.
I am.

plague

11-06-2015, 01:28 PM

Still didn't see one bit of credible proof in that statement

To be fair though we need to be careful what we claim as proof in all historical matters.

Wilt Chamberlain had a 100pt game in the NBA one day.
Everyone freely admits it, treats it like one of the top 5 events in the leagues history.

Not much proof though.

MFKS

11-06-2015, 01:47 PM

The Dunster

11-06-2015, 01:57 PM

hawk

11-06-2015, 02:05 PM

.

You are arguing virtually the same argument from the two sides of the story. Both sides here are being as hypocritical as each other.

Maybe we need both cause when we are praying for good health scientists help create a remedy. and we need public holidays

Blackmac79

11-06-2015, 02:18 PM

Issac Newton was an athiest and a practicing homosexual. Sort of makes you wonder why God would create one of the smartest individuals to have ever lived to be both a non-believer and someone who lived a lifestyle that the bible would condemn.

Or was god trying to set an example by proving that those that disobeyed him would be given superior intelligence and the ability to make the lives of everyone around them easier due to advances in engineering and so on....

The so called evidence is pretty strong against the sky santa team.

This is the first I have heard about Newton! Where is the factual evidence of both his non-belief and his homosexuality?

Blackmac79

11-06-2015, 02:18 PM

Is it possible that both God and science are real?

Can they not coexist?

plague

11-06-2015, 02:21 PM

Issac Newton was an athiest and a practicing homosexual.

{puts Premy hat on}

Can you prove these claims?

snake

11-06-2015, 02:31 PM

dunster - pretty sure newton was deeply religious. i have no comment on his sexuality / lack thereof, but he certainly wasn't interested in women.

MFKS

11-06-2015, 05:48 PM

And that is in the context of what in that entire passage???

Snake any chance you can answer that??

I am dying to start talking about a subject that is close to my heart and that is the dreaded Plastic Fans

Premy

11-06-2015, 06:26 PM

{puts Premy hat on}

Can you prove these claims?
:chant:

snake

11-06-2015, 10:35 PM

yo can someone fill me in on this one?

the only time God is going to reveal himself in the future - he is going to kill everyone, and everything?

da rapture! lovely bloke.

militiamon

11-06-2015, 10:41 PM

This is the kind of comment that gets people offside with the whole thing.

You BELIEVE Snake lives in gods world whether he likes it or not. Just as snake BELIEVES he doesn't.

Probably being captain obvious here and it has more than likely been said already but you can't claim your religion as fact the same as Snake cant claim his science as 110% fact as theories keep changing.

You are arguing virtually the same argument from the two sides of the story. Both sides here are being as hypocritical as each other.

I don't mean to be rude to you leftrightout but actually you're completely wrong here, and the reason you're wrong is central to the discussion.

Yes everyone is arguing about different theories here, but not all theories are created equal.
Have a think about it: science (and the modern world with it) would be in chaos if all theories were treated equally. plague could propose that the observations about gravity are explained by invisible lulz turtles moving everything for teh lulz :lulz:, and that would be given equal credence as Galileo/Newton's/Einstein's theories.

So it's obvious from that example that we need a way of distinguishing between theories, but how do we do that?
Well put simply, a good theory will satisfy a set of criteria:

1. Must be falsifiable (i.e make predictions which can be tested and potentially proven false) (this is a criterion for any scientific theory, not just a good one)
2. Must be consistent with known observations
3. The bolder the better
4. (Not always true) The simpler the better

The above is a simplified description of it and of course there are debates (if you want to know more I suggest you start reading about the philosophy of science), but generally this is how it works and I'm sure people can appreciate the rationality behind it. You will also note that theories about religion/God goes against nearly all of these criteria, which goes to the next question:

Is it possible that both God and science are real?

Can they not coexist?

No!
Or at least believing in God would amount of believing in pseudoscience.

As someone mentioned earlier, yes there are lots of religious scientists, but I can assure you that if they ever tried to incorporate their religious beliefs into their scientific work they'd be laughed at.

plague

11-06-2015, 11:18 PM

Well put simply, a good theory will satisfy a set of criteria:

1. Must be falsifiable (i.e make predictions which can be tested and potentially proven false) (this is a criterion for any scientific theory, not just a good one)
2. Must be consistent with known observations
3. The bolder the better
4. (Not always true) The simpler the better

OK, so can we use this set of criteria to prove/disprove the following:
1. Wilts 100 point game.
2. If Newton was a pillow biter.

I'm actually not joking about this, get at it lads.

plague

11-06-2015, 11:19 PM

I think you need to put your brain back in neutral take a couple of breaths and relax.

Plague asked from a religious perspective some understanding on the matters he raised.

From my position as a religious believer I gave it to him.

Nothing I said from a religious belief is untrue. Nothing you won't get from other believers

Whether non believers take offence to the religious perspective is irrelevant.

It is what it is and it is the religious perspective

yep, this is exactly what I was asking.

Cheers Member.

plague

11-06-2015, 11:20 PM

yo can someone fill me in on this one?

the only time God is going to reveal himself in the future - he is going to kill everyone, and everything?

He will take out ISIS, and the Gypos.

Not all bad imo.

parksey

12-06-2015, 03:00 AM

the devil's greatest trick was making the world believe he doesn't exist

leftrightout

12-06-2015, 08:15 AM

the devil's greatest trick was making the world believe he doesn't exist

Seth!

boz-monaut

12-06-2015, 08:38 AM

Kint paraphrasing Baudelaire actually

as with all religions, its just a spook story criminals tell their children at night

The Dunster

12-06-2015, 10:54 AM

dunster - pretty sure newton was deeply religious. i have no comment on his sexuality / lack thereof, but he certainly wasn't interested in women.

Nicolas Fatio de Duillier and Newton correspondence in Newton Collection at Trinity Library provides strong evidence of a more than friends relationship between them.
Some of the letters from Fatio mention things like never being able to marry or indeed Fatio saying that he could spend the rest of his life with Newton... and so on.
Now if Plague were to send me a letter of that kind I'd probably not be all that impressed. Newton on the other hand - he showered Fatio with gifts and money.

When the relationship did end [Fatio started a relationship with another man] Newton fell deeply into depression..... and so on.

There is no evidence that Newton and Fatio actually had a sexual relationship but anyone thinking they didn't would also have been shocked when Freddie Mercury or Ian Thorpe came out.

With respect to religion: Dissenters were not offered fellowships at any of the colleges at Cambridge until the later stages of the 19th Century. As such if you wanted a fellowship you got on board the religion train or they left you at the station - regardless of your talent.

As such, Newton like anyone else in his position would always declare themselves to be a Christian.

Again. go though Newtons papers or indeed the diaries of others and you will find he probably never lectured even though it was a requirement of the Lucasian Chair and he very rarely if ever attended any religious ceremonies - something most unusual for a fellow at Cambridge let alone a Lucasian Professor.

Obviously I haven't been through Newtons entire catalog - nobody has to my knowledge. However, we probably know more about him now than we did 200 years ago.

If I get bored and decide to crack open some boxes I might shoot a few direct quotes from Newtons papers [ copies of course] - although by now they would probably be on the interwebs...

plague

12-06-2015, 11:43 AM

Now if Plague were to send me a letter of that kind I'd probably not be all that impressed.

Any letters from me would be full of very funny things and lots of snark.
if you fail to be impressed by such things then thats on you, not me.

Although i do accept gifts and/or cash considerations for any services rendered.

cheers,
Plague.

snake

13-06-2015, 03:23 PM

... There is a part in the Bible where Jesus instructs his disciples to shake the dust from their sandals and walk, and I think that's damn good advice.

for those (not hauss, who haveth regequit) interested in the context of the above quote, i'll provide it for you. i kid you not, the very next sentence following this passive quote is one of hate and destruction. the very next sentence!

"If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace. "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. "Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

jesus sent his bros to spread the word. if they weren't recieved, dust your feet and leave. the fate that awaits those who don't recieve the word? apparently, worse than having a city destroyed by fire and brimstone. doesn't jesus know that people hate door-knockers? ****ing god-botherers :rof:

thankfully, it's all fiction.

even though jesus (who is also god, apparently) is more tolerant in his later years, he's still not that tolerant by current standards. still a giant ****, really.

snake

13-06-2015, 03:36 PM

On a different note Hauss said something id never heard before can someone clear it up.

Do Christians believe that God physically exists within the physical /material universe that Snake lives in. and which Smake and his friends are trying to explore and understand.

Or

Does Snake live in Gods world where the existence of God is forever 'on the outside' of and therefore will never be physically seen by the non believers trying to look for Him no matter what scientific methods they use.

I hope that question made sense.

god used to be everywhere. how else could a tree or a child grow, if not for the guidance of god? then we looked, and he wasn't there. i haven't looked under my bed lately - perhaps he's there?

as a result of never showing up anywhere, ever, spiritual folk have invoked wishy-washy concepts as a place for god to live. "outside our physical world", you may hear. well, that's some great goalpost shifting. but, if he exists ouside our physical world and leaves no sign of anything in our world, then there can be no miracles. ironically, that's exactly what we see. there are no miracles. no-one has ever regrown a lost leg.

snake

13-06-2015, 03:37 PM

Nicolas Fatio de Duillier and Newton correspondence in Newton Collection at Trinity Library provides strong evidence of a more than friends relationship between them.
Some of the letters from Fatio mention things like never being able to marry or indeed Fatio saying that he could spend the rest of his life with Newton... and so on.
Now if Plague were to send me a letter of that kind I'd probably not be all that impressed. Newton on the other hand - he showered Fatio with gifts and money.

When the relationship did end [Fatio started a relationship with another man] Newton fell deeply into depression..... and so on.

There is no evidence that Newton and Fatio actually had a sexual relationship but anyone thinking they didn't would also have been shocked when Freddie Mercury or Ian Thorpe came out.

With respect to religion: Dissenters were not offered fellowships at any of the colleges at Cambridge until the later stages of the 19th Century. As such if you wanted a fellowship you got on board the religion train or they left you at the station - regardless of your talent.

As such, Newton like anyone else in his position would always declare themselves to be a Christian.

Again. go though Newtons papers or indeed the diaries of others and you will find he probably never lectured even though it was a requirement of the Lucasian Chair and he very rarely if ever attended any religious ceremonies - something most unusual for a fellow at Cambridge let alone a Lucasian Professor.

Obviously I haven't been through Newtons entire catalog - nobody has to my knowledge. However, we probably know more about him now than we did 200 years ago.

If I get bored and decide to crack open some boxes I might shoot a few direct quotes from Newtons papers [ copies of course] - although by now they would probably be on the interwebs...

cheers.

i haven't read too much, but documentaries i've see have claimed he was devout. and an alchemist. and a whiny ****. but a brilliant one!

snake

13-06-2015, 03:42 PM

OK, so can we use this set of criteria to prove/disprove the following:
1. Wilts 100 point game.
2. If Newton was a pillow biter.

I'm actually not joking about this, get at it lads.

firdtly, you can't "prove" these. only pure logic and mathematics have proofs. everyone else just fails to disprove them, after trying really hard.

/pedant

can the methods be used to test those questions - a resounding yes. is there sufficient evidence to support either claim?

1. i don't know
2. i don't know

hope this helps!

hawk

14-06-2015, 12:37 AM

dont underestimate the 8 ball

snake

14-06-2015, 12:15 PM

Blackmac79

14-06-2015, 01:01 PM

so anyway, tones hates wind energy. flying out of frankfurt in 2012, it was noticable how far behind we are. they seem to polarise our society - do others find them as unappealing as our dear leader does? while i'd "prefer" a natural landscape, i don't find them unattractive, certainly not on the level of old tv antennas or telegraph poles. actually, i'd say somewhat relaxing. certainly a preferable alternative than the complete destruction of mining activities.

I am surprised no-one has asked him if he prefers the devestated landscape and issues for future generations that mining leaves?

Personally am always disappointed that we don't have greater wind generation of power.

plague

14-06-2015, 01:11 PM

Anyone keen on Nuclear energy?
Solves all* our problems innit?

*yeah yeah I know, please don't say it.

Blackmac79

14-06-2015, 02:14 PM

Anyone keen on Nuclear energy?
Solves all* our problems innit?

*yeah yeah I know, please don't say it.

Someone a little while ago, lets call them an expert, they were certainly a commentator on this kind of thing at anyrate.

They said that Australia had almost certainly missed the boat on Nuclear Energy and that the funds needed to catch up would be substantially greater than what we would ever be willing to spend, basically saying that we would be better off investing in "newer" forms of energy.

plague

14-06-2015, 02:33 PM

Attn: supernerdz, is there any evidence/opinion that wind/alternate energy sources are ready to take over (reliably) from fossil fuels?
If not is there some sort of time frame that we can successfully transition from one to the other?

Blackmac79

14-06-2015, 02:58 PM

Costa Rica is run 100% on renewable energy. (A vast portion of that though is methane and ethanol I believe).

Solar power is still only maximum 30-35% efficient and even that I think is in experimental panels.
There was a company making solar tiles for housing a while back, which when combined with lithium batteries could make individual houses completely fossil fuel free. Issue here is that there isn't a great deal of lithium available, and that we would run out before this could occur. And so we would still require centralised power generation over each dwelling making their own, which would be best in a perfect world.

As with all power generation the distance the power has to travel has an effect. So the idea of filling the middle of Australia with 30% efficient solar panels doesn't work either.

plague

14-06-2015, 08:38 PM

Two good articles I've read whilst entering the rabbit hole.
Good for people like me who don't have a dog in the race so to speak.

First: The 7 most intriguing philosophical arguments for the existence of a God.
http://io9.com/the-7-most-intriguing-philosophical-arguments-for-the-e-1507393670

Second:Old testament God was a pretty shitty person
http://io9.com/gods-12-biggest-dick-moves-in-the-old-testament-1522970429?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_twitter&utm_source=io9_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

snake

17-06-2015, 08:50 AM

plague

17-06-2015, 09:53 AM

abbott launching a prayer breakfast ffs

watching a grown adult talk like this - even one as dumb as this **** is - is one of the most cringeworthy things i've ever seen.

way to lead a supposedly firdt world nation!

Surely you can't be shocked by a pollie grovelling to an influential set of community leaders?

Personally I'd tell em all to get farked but this stuff has been going on since the dawn of time.

(Also tax the farkern church FFS, that's the biggest scandal going on).

plague

17-06-2015, 09:54 AM

Also: no one will ever, ever, ever get close to Sarah Hanson Young as the biggest hypocrite pollie in town.

It's not even close.

She is the ****ing worst.

joel31

17-06-2015, 10:47 AM

Surely you can't be shocked by a pollie grovelling to an influential set of community leaders?

Personally I'd tell em all to get farked but this stuff has been going on since the dawn of time.

(Also tax the farkern church FFS, that's the biggest scandal going on).
Churches are (generally. ) not for profit organisations with many barely affording to pay their own pastors and they also support other individuals who help make the world a better place.

plague

17-06-2015, 10:54 AM

Churches are (generally. ) not for profit organisations with many barely affording to pay their own pastors and they also support other individuals who help make the world a better place.

Yep.
Totally agree.
They also have massive investment portfolios and (legally) circumvent taxes that apply to everyone else in the community.
Plenty of everyday Aussies out there giving up their time and cash for people less fortunate but still pay their fair share to the state.

Churches are run by businesses these days and should obey the relevant laws.

Tax the bottom line like everyone else.

q-money

17-06-2015, 11:19 AM

Churches are (generally. ) not for profit organisations with many barely affording to pay their own pastors and they also support other individuals who help make the world a better place.
ah come on bruv, don't move the goal posts.

the pentecostal/AOG megachurches are nothing more than rackets for fleecing rich idiots

the pastor of hillsong wrote this book ffs

http://thebereanlibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/you-need-more-money.jpg

it's not your small churches that help the childrens, oldies, and so on that need to be taxed/scrutinised per se, it's these leeches that take government funding while they turn over 50 million a year and aren't accountable for it. why isn't there a trickle down to the smaller orgs from the big boys? the hypocrisy is blinding and outrageous.

MFKS

17-06-2015, 11:21 AM

Yep.
Totally agree.
They also have massive investment portfolios and (legally) circumvent taxes that apply to everyone else in the community.
Plenty of everyday Aussies out there giving up their time and cash for people less fortunate but still pay their fair share to the state.

Churches are run by businesses these days and should obey the relevant laws.

Tax the bottom line like everyone else.

As you said Plague they legally circumvent the laws as the laws are written in a way they can. They ain't doing anything wrong at all.

No different to the wealthy and elite dodging tax (Kerry Packer) not paying staff ( Hello Tinkler ) etc

Church only plays by the rules

Don't hate the player hate the game etc

MFKS

17-06-2015, 11:22 AM

ah come on bruv, don't move the goal posts.

the pentecostal/AOG megachurches are nothing more than rackets for fleecing rich idiots

the pastor of hillsong wrote this book ffs

it's not your small churches that help the childrens, oldies, and so on that need to be taxed/scrutinised per se, it's these leeches that take government funding while they turn over 50 million a year and aren't accountable for it. why isn't there a trickle down to the smaller orgs from the big boys? the hypocrisy is blinding and outrageous.

Don't dispute the church should be spending more of its wealth on the less fortunate etc rather than stockpiling it

plague

17-06-2015, 11:54 AM

As you said Plague they legally circumvent the laws as the laws are written in a way they can. They ain't doing anything wrong at all.

No different to the wealthy and elite dodging tax (Kerry Packer) not paying staff ( Hello Tinkler ) etc

Church only plays by the rules

Don't hate the player hate the game etc

Tinkler not paying his staff is against the law, and I would argue that your rich folk avoiding tax is ever so slightly different to the concessions the church is allowed.

But your point is correct.

Let's just hope the same people defending the church aren't bagging out Joe Hockey for playing by the rules as well.

MFKS

17-06-2015, 12:05 PM

Tinkler not paying his staff is against the law, and I would argue that your rich folk avoiding tax is ever so slightly different to the concessions the church is allowed.

But your point is correct.

Let's just hope the same people defending the church aren't bagging out Joe Hockey for playing by the rules as well.

Is what Tinkler has done against the law or is it more so morally bankrupt??

Not paying Super and entitlements and running companies into loss after weighing them down with debt and finally winding them up before then continuing under new $2 companies is not so much a game invented by Tinkler. He is just doing what plenty of others have done/do and that is manipulate the system to benefit himself at the expense of others.

"The Law" doesn't touch people like him that's why it keeps happening.

q-money

17-06-2015, 12:12 PM

yep no doubt - what's the dunsters take on the corporate nonsense that is allowed to go on in this country?

is it a necessary evil? do the benefits of one bloke pulling it off outweigh the ten who tank and file for bankruptcy?

plague

17-06-2015, 01:00 PM

Is what Tinkler has done against the law or is it more so morally bankrupt?

Not paying wages under the terms of an employment contract is against the law.

Super is slightly different as all company setups are different.

I am under 'obligation' to my Super company to pay my employees super quarterly. If I miss it they crack the shots but I don't think they can go after me.

Im sure the super does need to be up to date at end of financial year though or else they can go you.
(Thankfully I've never had any such dramas).

Yes the ability to bankrupt companies with seemingly minor repurcussions a disgrace.

But I also think that a lot of workplace laws are a disgrace but everyone seems cool to rip off 'the boss'.

It ain't all one way traffic chief.

plague

17-06-2015, 01:42 PM

It's ok.
Trump is here to save the world.

Go get em Donald.

furns

17-06-2015, 07:42 PM

If he actually becomes president the world is officially f*cked

MFKS

17-06-2015, 07:56 PM

If he actually becomes president the world is officially f*cked

Being that he is known for making bigoted statements and the fact the President has to bend over backwards to accommodate Israeli interests as the people who bank roll you to be president are Jewish and control the mediums who make or break you the chances of this happening are pretty ****ing slim

Blackmac79

17-06-2015, 09:02 PM

Our prime minister getting deals to reduce wind farms. That's forward thinking right there. Wouldn't want those unsightly things in the future.

****ing hell. Wind is a great source of energy.

I mean what the **** does it matter what it looks like? I don't like the plumes of steam from concrete chimneys but I still rely on them. I don't like the Lowe hunter being made into one of the largest ditches in the world, would much rather have a few wind turbines there to be honest, far less offensive.

plague

17-06-2015, 09:03 PM

If he actually becomes president the world is officially f*cked

No bigger a cartoon character than the bloke currently there or the bloke before him etc etc

Not to mention the clowns he's running against.

All of em are the same, don't be fooled into thinking edgewise.

joel31

17-06-2015, 09:04 PM

plague

17-06-2015, 09:05 PM

Our prime minister getting deals to reduce wind farms. That's forward thinking right there. Wouldn't want those unsightly things in the future.

****ing hell. Wind is a great source of energy.

Whoa whoa whoa there young man.

Lots of debate going on ATM about the environmental effects of wind farms.

Prob going to be a fair bit of info coming out soon. Will be interesting reading.

plague

17-06-2015, 09:07 PM

all because of a few unverified claims that its bad for health

Nawwwwww man, you didn't just use 'unverified claims' did you?

Blackmac79

17-06-2015, 09:07 PM

all because of a few unverified claims that its bad for health

wasn't that whole idea based on a non-peer reviewed journal article by a South Australian professor who was on the pay roll of a certain resource company. And was basically based on the reports of a man who had a wind turbine on his property who complained of increased symptoms of his already diagnosed chronic disease.

joel31

17-06-2015, 09:08 PM

plague

17-06-2015, 09:08 PM

Being that he is known for making bigoted statements and the fact the President has to bend over backwards to accommodate Israeli interests as the people who bank roll you to be president are Jewish and control the mediums who make or break you the chances of this happening are pretty ****ing slim

I thought the Donald was a big fan of Israel?

Think you'll find there will no issues there.

(Would hate to be Muslim or Hispanic though).

Blackmac79

17-06-2015, 09:09 PM

Whoa whoa whoa there young man.

Lots of debate going on ATM about the environmental effects of wind farms.

Prob going to be a fair bit of info coming out soon. Will be interesting reading.

What environmental effects?

The kind like a 600ml bottle of water takes 4L of water to make?
Or the long lasting positive effect that clean energy production provides to the world?

plague

17-06-2015, 09:10 PM

Definitely worse for the environment than coal

Should put one in yer backyard then.

Get God to reach down and give it a spin on the calmer days.

joel31

17-06-2015, 09:10 PM

wasn't that whole idea based on a non-peer reviewed journal article by a South Australian professor who was on the pay roll of a certain resource company. And was basically based on the reports of a man who had a wind turbine on his property who complained of increased symptoms of his already diagnosed chronic disease.
Not too sure. I haven't read that much but from scientific sources I can find there is no evidence for them even causing health problems.
Allan Jones seems to think they are utter evil though

plague

17-06-2015, 09:13 PM

What environmental effects?

The kind like a 600ml bottle of water takes 4L of water to make?
Or the long lasting positive effect that clean energy production provides to the world?

Or the totally environmentally damaging way environmentally friendly cars are made?

I don't know, that's what I'm waiting for the info for.

Blackmac79

17-06-2015, 09:24 PM

Or the totally environmentally damaging way environmentally friendly cars are made?

I don't know, that's what I'm waiting for the info for.

I get what you mean, I still think that the pros outweigh the cons. Even without the information.

furns

17-06-2015, 10:40 PM

I thought the Donald was a big fan of Israel?

Think you'll find there will no issues there.

(Would hate to be Muslim or Hispanic though).

Just watch his announcement speech
He basically wrote Jon Stewart's jokes for him

Like the part where announced he would build a wall across the Mexico US border and make Mexico pay for it

plague

17-06-2015, 11:59 PM

Like the part where announced he would build a wall across the Mexico US border and make Mexico pay for it

and yet people travel from all over the world to see China's version of it.

Blokes a visionary.

parksey

18-06-2015, 12:07 AM

plague

18-06-2015, 12:15 AM

anyone been watching the "killing season" documentary on the abc about rudd's knifing in 2010?

great tv.

it's a real shame to look back at all of the policies rudd was pushing for that were pretty much abandoned because of a bunch of labor members who were more worried about themselves and personal vendettas than the good of the country. when you compare the carbon tax, mining tax, hospital regenerations, emissions bill etc. to what the abbott government is pushing nowadays it's genuinely sad.

rudd has some of the best one liners in tv history too.

Watched ep1 tonight. Have ep2 on IQ (were there only 2 episodes?).

Whilst I will reserve my opinion of Rudd til the end (he has so far come across really well), the standout for me has been Greg Combet. Came across as a bloke I'd like a beer with.

Seems suss what happened to him as well. Parachuted in to a safe seat, a future star and he was gone quicker than Jonny Steele.

parksey

18-06-2015, 12:32 AM

Watched ep1 tonight. Have ep2 on IQ (were there only 2 episodes?).

Whilst I will reserve my opinion of Rudd til the end (he has so far come across really well), the standout for me has been Greg Combet. Came across as a bloke I'd like a beer with.

Seems suss what happened to him as well. Parachuted in to a safe seat, a future star and he was gone quicker than Jonny Steele.

there's at least 3 episodes.

agree about how well rudd comes across in this show. no doubt he was probably a bit of a **** to some people while in office, but at the end of the day it seems like he was being undermined all the way. gillard, swan, arbib etc. look like absolute scumbags on the back of this documentary.

plague

18-06-2015, 10:29 AM

Jenny Macklin seemed like a good person too.

Although for the life of me I have no ****ing idea why current MP's and Senators like Dastiyari, Burke and Bowen went anywhere near this. It makes all of them look like scumbags yet they'll turn around in 18 months and be all like "yo, trust us, give us ta vote ey".

Just a massive wash of rampant egos with zero ability to relate to the general public.

MFKS

18-06-2015, 11:15 PM

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russian-official-proposes-international-investigation-into-us-moon-landings/523799.html

Any comment Snake???

:rof:

Blackmac79

19-06-2015, 05:49 AM

Isnt the Moscow times generally considered little more than a propaganda rag....

Hardly a reliable source.

snake

19-06-2015, 08:30 AM

moscow times lol.

post the words as i don't feel like clicking links

MFKS

19-06-2015, 11:12 AM

moscow times lol.

post the words as i don't feel like clicking links

An international probe should be launched into various murky details surrounding the U.S. moon landings between 1969 and 1972, Russia's Investigative Committee spokesman said Tuesday.

Vladimir Markin penned a column for the Izvestia newspaper arguing that U.S. authorities had crossed a line by launching a large-scale corruption probe targeting nine FIFA officials. The scandal surrounding the case prompted the June 2 resignation of longtime FIFA president Sepp Blatter, and sparked a heated debate about Russia's role as host of the 2018 World Cup.

Venting his frustration with what he viewed as "U.S. prosecutors having declared themselves the supreme arbiters of international football affairs," Markin proposed that international investigators could likewise examine some of the murkier elements of America's past.

An international investigation could help solve the mystery of the disappearance of film footage from the original moon landing in 1969, or explain where the nearly 400 kilograms of lunar rock reportedly obtained during several such missions between 1969 and 1972 have been spirited away to, Markin suggested.

"We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artifacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened," Markin wrote.

U.S. space agency NASA admitted in 2009 that the original recordings of the first moon landing had been erased, but said they had managed to remaster the original television broadcast of the landing, Reuters reported at the time.

Of the approximately 380 kilograms of moon rock said to have been obtained during manned U.S. moon landings, the bulk is stored in the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Texas, though samples can be seen on display in various museums around the world.
.

MFKS

20-06-2015, 09:14 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ZzFemBUJQ

Poor science is gonna have a hard time explaining all that

:thumbsup:

Good Luck

snake

20-06-2015, 09:37 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ZzFemBUJQ

Poor science is gonna have a hard time explaining all that

:thumbsup:

Good Luck

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

thanks, you tit :rof:

MFKS

20-06-2015, 09:45 PM

Can't even get past the Van Allen Belts

Complete fraud

boz-monaut

20-06-2015, 09:51 PM

http://i.imgur.com/BOID1.gif

this is clearly trolling, have some time off you idiot

snake

20-06-2015, 10:02 PM

but i wanted to call him a dumb **** a few times. it's no fun now :(

boz-monaut

20-06-2015, 10:16 PM

we can all see how the forum goes without his personality disorders for a month, then go back to calling him a dumb ****

parksey

20-06-2015, 10:17 PM

huge banning scenes

joel31

20-06-2015, 11:44 PM

But by the foz multi account theorym MFKS still has a few other accounts on the foz

plague

21-06-2015, 02:48 PM

But by the foz multi account theorym MFKS still has a few other accounts on the foz

Hey I like the Member as much as the next guy but you are giving him waaaaaaaaaayyyy too much credit here chief.

The Dunster

22-06-2015, 12:22 PM

Jenny Macklin seemed like a good person too.

Macklin is a very nasty piece of work and about as dumb as a box of rocks. A former collegue of mine worked for her back in the late 90's or so and described her as a complete goose with no idea about anything.

The only difference between Bronwyn Bishop and Jenny Macklin is that Bronwyn Bishop doesn't pretend to care about the less fortunate of society.

plague

22-06-2015, 02:18 PM

Macklin is a very nasty piece of work and about as dumb as a box of rocks. A former collegue of mine worked for her back in the late 90's or so and described her as a complete goose with no idea about anything.

The only difference between Bronwyn Bishop and Jenny Macklin is that Bronwyn Bishop doesn't pretend to care about the less fortunate of society.

Whilst I have no evidence to dispute your opinion of Macklin and don't doubt you for a second, one thing she needs credit for is getting herself in a position to stick her nose in the trough and keeping it there for a very lucrative time.

That takes a certain type of smarts, you gotta give her that.

The Dunster

22-06-2015, 02:47 PM

Whilst I have no evidence to dispute your opinion of Macklin and don't doubt you for a second, one thing she needs credit for is getting herself in a position to stick her nose in the trough and keeping it there for a very lucrative time.

That takes a certain type of smarts, you gotta give her that.

She is where she is because she poses absolutely no threat to the established right wing conservative shit for brains labour party boys club. If she had any talent Macklin would be punted immediately.
Nothing too different to why Bronwyn Bishop has a role within the Coalition. Again, no threat to the boys club and will pretty much do whatever they tell her because she lacks the reasoning power to think outside of the dogma she's fed on.

plague

22-06-2015, 03:00 PM

She is where she is because she poses absolutely no threat to the established right wing conservative shit for brains labour party boys club. If she had any talent Macklin would be punted immediately.
Nothing too different to why Bronwyn Bishop has a role within the Coalition. Again, no threat to the boys club and will pretty much do whatever they tell her because she lacks the reasoning power to think outside of the dogma she's fed on.

Yeah but you're out here assuming those people are there to make a difference.

Ol Jenny just knew to keep rocking up in that Commcar and cashing those cheques, and ride off into the sunset on that sweet pension.
To me that takes a certain level of skill to achieve.

Look at poor Kim Beazely. Bloke was a lifer and everyone loved him but the second he stuck his head up into the top job it was all like "awwww hell nooooo we ain't having that".
Still though, at least everyone looked after him once all the knives got removed which was nice.

Oh and go easy on Bronny Bishop, that lady hasn't ever seen a poor person in her life. She'd have no idea if one fell out of the sky and landed in front of her.
Deluded old bat that she is.

snake

22-06-2015, 07:57 PM

greens getting stuck into the lib micks regarding climate change.

for once, papal infallibility might be a good thing

militiamon

23-06-2015, 08:03 PM

So is it just me or do other people think that what old mate said on that pseudo-intellectual TV show last night wasn't that bad?

Based on the reaction from the media too I was expecting to see Mr Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi himself preaching on national television, instead it was just some guy with a weed hat.

I mean yeah it was a little silly, but what I found far more frightening was the dude from the government saying he should have the power to remove some guy he doesn't like from the country. Like for reals, he may be a dickhead, but do we really want to give that kind of power to even bigger dickheads in Canberra?

So much for being a classic liberal and all, keep the gubberment out of our lives rah rah rah.

furns

23-06-2015, 09:10 PM

I think that the issue was his wording more than anything.
He basically said that the disenfranchised Muslim youths who already hate this xenophobic govt are now justified to go and join ISIS because Tony intends to take away their citizenship by ministerial decree rather than a judicial outcome.

If he had simply said that's how they feel it might have been interpreted differently instead of a "call to arms".
I will clarify I don't watch Q&A and I only saw a short excerpt of the segment, not the whole thing.

hawk

23-06-2015, 09:32 PM

disenfranchised = comtemporary weak as piss excuse imo.

Silly young prick. He spouts a different tune off air. Sending him to isis is as good as the death pen. Can we send some skips as well

plague

23-06-2015, 09:36 PM

instead it was just some guy with a weed hat.

but what I found far more frightening was the dude from the government saying he should have the power to remove some guy he doesn't like from the country.

nah. read a bit more about the dude and what he was charged with, convicted of, and acquitted on (and the reasons he was acquitted).
then decide whether calling for the gang raping of prominent female journalists is something you want to be associated with.

He wasn't 'some guy the minister didn't like'.

plus, there is a constant criticism going on of the ABC and their perceived bias towards a certain section of politics. this stunt was a pretty bad example of that. if they really wished to be considered impartial and stop giving the News Ltd idiots more amo to go after them, then they need to stop cheap ass gotcha journo stunts like this, or they are no better than the tabloids they look down on.

judging by the statements released by ABC management today they tend to agree.

i dont agree with the citizenship laws being proposed, but if the ABC wants to maintain any credibility then they need to start treating all sides of politics with the same respect.

militiamon

24-06-2015, 02:04 AM

plague

24-06-2015, 09:48 AM

Where was all this criticism of Channel Ten when he appeared on the 7 PM Project (or whatever it's called) months ago? Afaik he's been afforded plenty of interviews by the Australian media, and not just the ABC. Not sure how this was a stunt, maybe it just didn't follow the perfectly scripted yawn fest that Q&A normally is. Must admit I don't watch it either for fear that I might stab my eyes out.

I still maintain, the story is a massive beat up and I don't see what the fuss is all about. Still more worried about a government politician saying he would be glad to unilaterally render another citizen stateless on national television and not copping anything for it.

1. Tax payer funded broadcaster vs private company. We switch off ch10 it affects their bottom line we switch off ABC we keep paying whether we like it or not. Nowadays there's not much difference between Fox News in America claiming to be 'fair and balanced' vs ABC saying the same.

2. From memory the pollie was asked if he agreed with the policy to which he said he did. The policy is subject to judicial appeal so it's not some overlord figure getting to throw people out. (Even though originally that was the plan). You also can't get on the pollies back for having an opinion when the other blokes opinions are just as vile (wanting prominent female journos gang raped etc).

Agree though that it's all a big beat up, the people giving him the platform are the real ones who need to answer to thier stakeholders.

i watch sport and old Griff DVDs, my world is a happy peaceful place.

plague

24-06-2015, 10:04 AM

q-money

24-06-2015, 11:26 AM

http://i.imgur.com/Ri7J7zp.png?1

here's your answer as to why they didn't go hard on the project. what abject ****ing nonsense.

and for all the spouting about the ABC hating da right wingers, they just gave them the biggest boost in the last ten years by airing The Killing Season.

plague

24-06-2015, 11:44 AM

and for all the spouting about the ABC hating da right wingers, they just gave them the biggest boost in the last ten years by airing The Killing Season.

To be fair no one could have possibly seen the lulz coming that the Killing Season produced.

I read somewhere that the initial show was to be interviews with K-Rudd about his time in politics but he
dumped such a bucket that the journos involved smartly went straight out to the other pollies to get their reactions and they had no trouble stirring the pot.

As for the newspaper headline, it's exactly why no good can come of any of it. They all just keep giving each other more than enough rope and ammo.

It's all a bit silly really.

plague

24-06-2015, 11:50 AM

Got to admit for some reason seeing the cartoon of the Bananas in Pyjamas dressed like terrorists made me giggle.

I'm 12 years old.

q-money

24-06-2015, 11:53 AM

killing season was utterly brilliant telly though. rudd is absolutely ruthless.

i'd alsmost forgotten how much of a toilet the whole libs carryon was through that campaign. they hardly even needed to go at them as hard as they did, labor was eating themselves alive regardless - but abbott at that crackpot festival, bringing up the died of shame thing in question time, what a horrible turd he was. gillard's reply is still absolutely eviscerating.

supposedly fergo's got another series waiting in the wings...

plague

24-06-2015, 12:05 PM

killing season was utterly brilliant telly though. rudd is absolutely ruthless.

supposedly fergo's got another series waiting in the wings...

I haven't seen Ep 3 yet but I reackon Gillard is lying through her teeth and Swan looks like quite possibly the most spineless individual ever.

Possibly the most damming thing was when Gillard first went at Rudd the bloke they all needed the OK from was Paul Howes.
Openly admitting to all and sundry that the AWU was deciding this stuff was a terrible terrible look.

Also did you watch the Keating interviews ABC did a year or 2 back?
Not as scandalous but he is a fascinating bloke. Highly recommend.

q-money

24-06-2015, 12:10 PM

definitely worth a watch. get a glass of scotch and set your face to stun.

didn't actually watch the keating ones, surely they're knocking around on the iview or something though,

combet and albo come out alright - combet calls it for what it is, albo didn't flip-flop. would reckon they're keeping his powder dry for the time when people see shorten as completely unelectable (if they don't already).

Blackmac79

24-06-2015, 01:09 PM

Albanese was the rank and file vote. Definately a traditional left of centre labor polli.

**** shorten. Can't stand the bloke.

Best thing Rudd ever did was change the election of leader process to include the plebs. Shame caucus couldn't hack it on voted the bloke that would keep the status quo, rather than albo who would have given the party another decent shake in the right direction for meaningful positive reform.

Livs have it far to easy at the moment.

parksey

24-06-2015, 02:49 PM

Where was all this criticism of Channel Ten when he appeared on the 7 PM Project (or whatever it's called) months ago? Afaik he's been afforded plenty of interviews by the Australian media, and not just the ABC. Not sure how this was a stunt, maybe it just didn't follow the perfectly scripted yawn fest that Q&A normally is. Must admit I don't watch it either for fear that I might stab my eyes out.

I still maintain, the story is a massive beat up and I don't see what the fuss is all about. Still more worried about a government politician saying he would be glad to unilaterally render another citizen stateless on national television and not copping anything for it.

The thing that's wrong here is the way news corp is going after the ABC. In the Telegraph this morning there is literally a two-page picture of Tony Jones sitting at the Q&A desk with a panel of robe-clad "classic" terrorists. Like, how can they be so shameless? It is a disgrace.

As far as the beat up over what the guy actually said, I think it's fair enough. He's absolute scum. I think he does have a point about how the government has to change tact in regards to addressing the movements within Australia to join IS because what's happening now isn't really working.

plague

24-06-2015, 03:51 PM

The thing that's wrong here is the way news corp is going after the ABC.

as opposed to the ABC going after News Corp sycophants?
https://bobmcgee.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/chris_kenny_dog-1024x575.jpg

they are all as bad as each other.

plague

24-06-2015, 03:53 PM

the best bit about some of new(ish) media laws is that they have to declare when the photo has been doctored.

"WHAT ARE YOU TELLING ME THATS NOT A REAL PANEL OF TERRORISTS UP THERE WITH TONY JONES?"

we are living in stupid times lads, be alert not alarmed.

q-money

24-06-2015, 03:57 PM

hope tony sues them and wins and the tele has to publish a grovelling apology

plague

24-06-2015, 04:06 PM

hope tony sues them and wins and the tele has to publish a grovelling apology

didn't this peanut try to get them over this one?
https://alanknight.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/kingrat.jpg

edit: yes, Slipper tried to sue and they found against him.

q-money

24-06-2015, 05:10 PM

thing is slipper was actually a shitbag while i don't see tony jones out there firing his AK wildly into the air and blowing people's heads up

The Dunster

24-06-2015, 11:39 PM

Oh and fwiw I'm more than respectful that you don't think it's a big deal.
I wish shit like this didn't happen and if we are debating important issues like new laws or racial issues they are done a bit more adult like.

The whole gotcha journalism is sad and non productive, but it sounds like it rates and that's all that matters to some.

It's called supplier induced demand. You tell people what they want enough times and they soon will demand it.

From budget surpluses [totally meaningless concept to anyone with half a brain] to anorexic chicks being something for men to desire and women to strive to become.

The obverse of both these concepts / products can be made equally as desirable by simply telling people the lie enough times for it to be perceived as the truth.

Thin chicks couldn't buy a root two hundred years ago and you would never win an election based on a budget surplus even 40 years ago.

It's the plutocrats that own the media calling the shots. The poor old journalists only choices are to either comply or starve.

plague

26-06-2015, 01:05 AM

definitely worth a watch. get a glass of scotch and set your face to stun.

Lolololololololololololol

Ep. 3 was superb.
Lemme have a cigarette and a lie down before I even begin to publish my thoughts.

Premy

27-06-2015, 06:48 AM

The Dunster

27-06-2015, 12:19 PM

Chicken or the Egg

What came first?
Gotcha Politics or Gotcha Journalism?

Plutocracy. The Plutocrats own the politicians and they own the media companies the Journalists work for as well. It's more of an immaculate conception than an egg being laid.

plague

27-06-2015, 12:50 PM

Obama leading the charge today like he's Rosa ****ing Parks yet when he was trying to win votes he was all like "awww hell nawwww them gays can't get married".

Amazing what a lame duck president can get away with.

(And yes I agree with the decision but this ain't Obamas crusade, not by a long ****ing way).

q-money

27-06-2015, 01:27 PM

it was the supreme court buddy

plague

27-06-2015, 01:54 PM

it was the supreme court buddy

Exactly my point.

The Dunster

27-06-2015, 03:11 PM

I'm against gay marriage. I mean haven't these people suffered enough already ?

In fact I'm against marriage regardless of sexual preferences. It's a big fat waste of money in most cases as well.

It's probably nice though for the children to have parents sharing the same name though so I can maybe see it from that perspective.

plague

27-06-2015, 07:21 PM

it was the supreme court buddy

sorry just to expand on my point.
the supreme court made a very big decision today and the 5 judges who agreed with the motion should be congratulated on their decision.
what shits me was
1. Obama and co (add in Hillary and pretty much all the republicans) when out on the hustings looking for votes all gave the "i believe marriage is between a man and a woman" line. OK great, you said your piece, but for them all to come out now waving the flag just sums up how gutless most of our leaders are. Aussies did the same, Gillard and Rudd sang from the rooftops about equality but when it went to the parliament they voted against it. let alone the Libs not allowing a conscience vote. cowards, the lot of them. (shorten voted yes if memory serves).

2. The 4 'dissenters' on the Supreme Court bench have immediately been labelled 'bigots' for not agreeing with the motion. if these same loudmouths bagging the judges had a taken 2 minutes to read their summary it clearly stated that regardless of their personal opinion they didn't believe the court was the place to make judgement on this case. they thought it was a legislative issue. they were not bigots, they were acting within what they thought was their jurisdiction.

3. Social media going all "awww look America did it Australia is soooooooo backwards not doing it" horseshit. Like it or Australia voted on it in parliament a few years ago and it was defeated. we need a new approach to getting this done, mocking the lawmakers probably isn't a good way.

4. For the lulz i went straight to Fox news to see how many heads exploded. surprisingly, there was a very fair debate and id say most of the usual suspects were all for the decision. that said i haven't heard from Trump or Bill O'reilly yet so that may yet change.

in summary:
if you support gay marriage, stop forwarding silly memes and mocking the pollies. instead, write to your local member with your views or take the ****ers to court. there is a system for getting laws changed in this country. we need to be smarter about it.

also, prob good the Member is on gardening leave atm, he'd prob earn himself a lifetime ban if let loose today.

pv4

28-06-2015, 12:40 AM

in summary:
if you support gay marriage, stop forwarding silly memes and mocking the pollies. instead, write to your local member with your views or take the ****ers to court. there is a system for getting laws changed in this country. we need to be smarter about it.

also, prob good the Member is on gardening leave atm, he'd prob earn himself a lifetime ban if let loose today.

Can confirm I support gay marriage, and have been forwarding silly memes. But my attempts have been to mock a certain few of my friends who definitely see my social media stuff, who are religious anti-marriage-equality believers, and it's all been aimed at them :rof: what I find hilarious is they spend the best part of their lives actively telling everyone that they want to "love everybody" but they're basically the only quiet people on my entire facebook who aren't sharing the love today.

#lovewins

Oh btw I emailed my local member and asked him what his views are, and what he is doing in parliament to help see Australia join basically every other country in the world. I'll let you know if he writes back.

hawk

28-06-2015, 12:42 AM

big faking deal what about the Jets having no players, thats a world issue

plague

28-06-2015, 12:57 AM

Oh btw I emailed my local member and asked him what his views are, and what he is doing in parliament to help see Australia join basically every other country in the world. I'll let you know if he writes back.

Im legit happy you did this if for real.
The sooner people work out that that's the way our system works (as opposed to likes and hashtags) the sooner we'll all start getting somewhere.

plague

28-06-2015, 12:59 AM

big faking deal what about the Jets having no players, thats a world issue

Serious Hawk, we've a better chance of curing the clap.

pv4

28-06-2015, 01:01 AM

Im legit happy you did this if for real.
The sooner people work out that that's the way our system works (as opposed to likes and hashtags) the sooner we'll all start getting somewhere.

Yep, I did. I've never really done it before so have no idea whether he'll reply or not.

According to this site (http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/whereyourmpstands/states/NSW), he supports marriage equality.

hawk

28-06-2015, 01:18 PM

Serious Hawk, we've a better chance of curing the clap.

true, im better off backing sure favourites like gov bashing, QLD SOO and joining every loud obnoxious group fighting for a piece of chocolate cake, (knitters vote too).

btw why cant pets be legally married. Can someone else fight this for me, icbf.

plague

28-06-2015, 03:45 PM

I think Cory Bernadi is your man for that Hawk.

parksey

28-06-2015, 04:16 PM

does the dunster like anything?

snake

28-06-2015, 05:56 PM

do any of you less socialist older types have any advice for private health cover?

gummints gonna persuade me to join one now i'm apparently old. bhastards.

boz-monaut

28-06-2015, 06:19 PM

my advice is that it's massively shit and you pay lots of money and get **** all in return - unless you're planning on dental or any of that sort of shit then get the minimum cover that gets you out of paying extra tax

we're on top cover as we're going through a few things and it is utterly shit how little you get back

snake

28-06-2015, 06:42 PM

yeah, that's pretty much my view from the outside

i know a guy who reckons it pays for itself, but he only gets normal shit done so i think his maths are slightly challenged.

last year i had $200 and $500 worth of dental, and the secretary was trying to give me some lecture on private cover. if i had it, i'd only get 50 odd % back anyway, and pay $800+ a year for the privilege. unless i get royally destroyed somehow, it's a waste of money.

****ing thieveing governments subsidising a shitty industry for idiots with policy. why not just tax me harder,and hold onto the money for someone who needs it. instead, my money pretty much goes to some rich **** who's ****ed themselves up and investor dividends. cunce.

militiamon

28-06-2015, 08:23 PM

amen

parksey

28-06-2015, 09:03 PM

i've probably missed about 100 gaffs he's made in the past, but does anyone else like malcolm turnbull? seems like he's one of the few pollies out there who actually has his head screwed on.

pv4

28-06-2015, 09:58 PM

q-money

28-06-2015, 10:25 PM

worth having if something shit happens to you, but for other shit it's really pretty useless, you burn through the extras pretty quick if you need extended physio. i have ongoing drugs that i need to take so i get like 350 a year towards it which covers off my meds, and the optom allowance covers my contacts for the year. that's about it. i'm with lysaght peoplecare btw

if you're planning on kids ( :rof: ), you'll need to get it a fair while ahead of when you plan to knock your mrs up or they'll sting you with some heinous costs

boz-monaut

28-06-2015, 10:35 PM

health insurance doesn't cover IVF

only thing you get is cash back on a hospital admission for any procedures as part of IVF

which is quite ****ed

plague

28-06-2015, 10:55 PM

Yeah I'm with pv4.
Plague Jnr spent a fair bit of his early days in the ICU, as well as ongoing specialists.

Old love told us it was in the vacintity of $1,000 per day normal rates.
Suffice to say we got our money's worth.

Add to that getting to have him at the private hospital and yeah private insurance is the bizness.

Serious though now that there will be no more kids I'm scaling that shit back to the bare bones.

pv4

28-06-2015, 11:02 PM

If you are planning on getting private health insurance, I asked a friend who works for NIB about best options. And he told me that BUPA is by far and beyond the best option.

So we went with BUPA, and haven't had any issues. But I will confess I leave this all to the mrs, so have never shopped around for better deals or whatnot.

Minor thing but I did realise in our ante-natal class that everyone with BUPA didn't have to pay, but non-BUPA people had to pay $200-300. Just one thing I've noticed.

And yeah as q said - for pregnancy hospital cover I think you need it for 3 months before getting knocked up, as you need to have had it for a year before using it.

Blackmac79

29-06-2015, 06:26 AM

My first born we did with private health cover. Great experience. OBGYN was lovely, he was born in a lovely hospital (Westmead Private) and it was great. Here is the catch. Private health insurance covered us for OBGYN, Hospital, etc. Did not cover us for the full amount of the anesthetist which we forked out for (My wife is tiny, not made for babies), and there was always the gap, and the excess which had to be paid also. Be aware the blood tests in the private system are also occassionally excluded from bulk billling they would otherwise do. My wife also had 3 hospital admissions during the pregnancy which also added up for our outlay after the health insurance.

My second child (Due this coming friday) has been a public system baby. Will be born at John Hunter Hospital, elective caesar like last time, have had the same OBGYN or Midwife (Occassionally both) during every appointment, so we don't have to explain everything every time. And my wife is up to 5 admissions this time round as of last Tuesday. I would go as far to say our experience in the public system has almost been better. The communication between westmead general (2nd admission) and JHH (admission 1, 3, 4 & 5) has been fantastic, as well as the follow up from the midwives and the OB team.

The difference between the two is that I was about $3000 out of pocket for the first pregnancy, and I have not paid a cent this time. Private health is a scam. Ramsey health facilities can barely claim to provide better care, what you are really paying for is better surroundings when you are sick. If shit hits the fan chances are you will be in a public hospital anyway (Like my wife's week stay in ICU during the first pregnancy) and it wouldn't matter if you public or private they would treat you exactly the same.

I am also a health worker and have to say that you are more likely to have appropriate staffing levels in a public hospital than in a private, although this is a generalisation from my own working experience and not based on actual research.

The other thing is I don't particularly think that paying a 1.5% surcharge is such a bad thing. Helps the system that helps you, and in most cases it is probably cheaper than paying for health insurance, unless you are at the upper end of the scale. be worthwhile looking at: https://expertsystems.ato.gov.au/scripts/net/RITUI/MLS/scMaritalStatusQuestion.aspx?PID=68&ms=Individuals to figure it out.

Levy's are a great form of taxation because you actually know where the **** the money is going.

pv4

29-06-2015, 08:03 AM

With the public system BM, how quickly will they push you guys out the door? I guess being a caeser it'll be a bit longer than a normal birth. But in public they push you out the door pretty quickly, yeah?

We had a normal birth and got to stay in our private hospital for 4 nights. Caesers get to stay in for 6-7 nights. Partners get to stay in the room too - I didn't leave the place. Whenever we had an issue, we pushed the green button and a midwife helped us handle it. It was so good.

I don't even want to begin to think about how we would(n't) have coped if we had been pushed out after 1-2 nights, like I hear public systems do. But I'd be pretty confident that a second baby would be a completely different story, and far easier than the first in that respect.

Rocknerd

29-06-2015, 08:14 AM

We had all 3 public. 1st natural birth and were given 2 days but with a shared room we bounced after 1 day, though ot took 8 hours to get a doctor to sign us out.
2nd we changed hospitals as we heard great things and ended up in an emergency c section but were given 5 days, a private roon and all the mod cons you could want. Left after 4 days though
3rd we had to go back to nepean as Katoomba will not do VBAC or elective Caesars. After yhe very shit pregnancy and elective c section due to baby not dropping we transferred out of nepean back to katoomba for post natal care as nepean would only give us 48 hours stay and katoomba a whoke week.

John Hunter is also one of the best birthing hospitals in the state. Both my niece and nephew were birn their and my sister was waited on like a queen.

The Dunster

29-06-2015, 01:02 PM

i've probably missed about 100 gaffs he's made in the past, but does anyone else like malcolm turnbull? seems like he's one of the few pollies out there who actually has his head screwed on.

As far as economics goes he's absolutely clueless.
As far as buying stock in Ozemail and selling them for a massive profit he's the man.
His political leanings are that he is a conservative and believes all wealth should be concentrated in as few hands as possible.

So if you want someone to widen the gap between rich and poor and build a society based on privalige rather than performance then Mal's your man.

He'd still make a better PM than Shorten because Shorten pretty much agrees with everything Turnbull stands for yet Turnbull doesn't pretend to be a representative of the average Australian.

plague

29-06-2015, 01:18 PM

Turnbull comes across as one of those dudes who made a lot of money along the way and all the while didn't give a **** how he got and who he took it off.

Then he came to the point in his life where he realised that no one really likes him so he pretends to care about social issues in order to be loved.

All of these things add up to everyone having a reason to vote for him, and a reason to vote against him.

Still though, having someone willing to at least be genuine instead of the career pollies we tend to get is refreshing.

parksey

29-06-2015, 02:57 PM

yeah i remember there being a fair bit of talk about his wealth and contempt for the common man etc. but it is refreshing to hear a genuinely intelligent politician talk his mind, whether you agree with his opinion or not. he never sounds scripted.

on the subject of the liberals, they really have seized the opportunity to stick the knife into the ABC haven't they? it seems as if they've been waiting for a slip up like this for a long time.

you've got to say the ABC hasn't done itself too many favours with the way some of their hosts have defended the mallah incident. turnbull destroyed barrie cassidy on insiders the other day.

plague

29-06-2015, 04:01 PM

To be fair though when Labor was last in they tried to change media laws in a direct go at News Ltds treatment of them.

They all as bad as each other, and none of it is right.

I agree on the Turnbull stuff, and I don't know whether he was ever unpopular, but it's just a natural barrier people put up when reading the words "wealthy banker". Compared to a lot of other pollies he seems fairly balanced in his view of the world.

Sadly the only way to get to the top in politics is to make a lot of deals and grease a lot of wheels on the way up, it's the way the system works. And once there you gotta repay the favour or else you'll be turfed for someone that will ('sup NSW labor).

It's a shitty game and generally the shittiest people excel at it.

q-money

29-06-2015, 04:26 PM

old mate turnbull's too left for the right and too right for the left

http://www.dailyraider.com/film/manofthehouse/comingorgoing.jpg

boz-monaut

29-06-2015, 06:48 PM

someone should make a graph of the level of sensible discourse on this thread

hawk

29-06-2015, 08:44 PM

on the subject of the liberals, they really have seized the opportunity to stick the knife into the ABC haven't they? .

But that QandA tripe is just a lefty hippy feel good show. lol

The Dunster

29-06-2015, 09:20 PM

But that QandA tripe is just a lefty hippy feel good show. lol

The ABC is a platform for right wing neo-conservative think tanks to deliver their spin. Absolutely nothing left wing or indeed socialist coming from Q and A either.

Spot on about Q and A being tripe though. ****ing terrible show.

militiamon

30-06-2015, 01:10 AM

I actually kind of agree with Dunst here. The ABC has definitely become more convervative/trashy/sensationalist in the past couple of years, and especially since that stupid backlash over the refugee thingy. One thing that particularly stands in mind is looking at the headlines of the news stories some times last year, 8/10 of them were about your terry wrists and islamic state, all with a kind of "omg muzlimz!" slant to them.

The Guardian Australia is defs where the lefties are at these days, and all power to them :cool: But I completely disagree with plague saying "they're as both as bad as each other". I mean come on, maybe there are subtle biases in other news reporting, but nothing is as blatantly defiant of journalistic integrity and objectivity as those News Limited rags. Shit is cancer imo.

Also Q&A is a ****ing rubbish show.

GazFish35

30-06-2015, 08:43 AM

Abc chasing ratings.

plague

30-06-2015, 09:48 AM

But I completely disagree with plague saying "they're as both as bad as each other". I mean come on, maybe there are subtle biases in other news reporting,

'Subtle biases'?

ABC tells fibs.
News Ltd tells fibs.
Fairfax tells fibs.

So Turnbull gets the same treatment as Abbott and Hockey from ABC?

So Christine Foster gets the same ridicule as Clover Moore from News ltd?

Does the current NCC council get the same scrutiny as the previous Lord Mayor (even pre brown bag)?

Don't be silly.

They are all shitcunce.

The Dunster

30-06-2015, 10:21 AM

Let's not FOrget other ABC piles of shit like "The Drum" and "Insiders".

These shows are without doubt right wing neo-conservative driven garbage. From the content to the nunces parading as experts on their panels.

plague

30-06-2015, 10:45 AM

So a few of my mates and I have started a gambling pool on which of our Facebook friends will change their profile picture back from that rainbow filter.

love gambling.

boz-monaut

30-06-2015, 10:55 AM

its good to see your friends uniting in support of the Color Run

plague

30-06-2015, 12:08 PM

its good to see your friends uniting in support of the Color Run

I've got nothing but love and respect for the organisers of the colour run.

To be able to convince people to pay good money to run 5km and let a bunch of assholes throw crap at them is one of the great business plans of our time.

People are suckers.

parksey

30-06-2015, 05:15 PM

yeah, c'mon, plague. i know you're not partial to sitting on the fence but you can't possibly say that the abc is as bad as news ltd.

plague

30-06-2015, 05:21 PM

yeah, c'mon, plague. i know you're not partial to sitting on the fence but you can't possibly say that the abc is as bad as news ltd.

I dunno. Are there levels of shitcunceness*?

ABC makes stuff up, sensationalises stuff, takes a particular angle.

News ltd does too.

So does Fairfax.

Who does it better or worse doesn't matter, they are in the same game doing the same things.

They are all the same to me.

*i know that may not be a real word but it's pretty sweet so I'm keeping it.

The Dunster

30-06-2015, 05:46 PM

I dunno. Are there levels of shitcunceness*?

ABC makes stuff up, sensationalises stuff, takes a particular angle.

News ltd does too.

So does Fairfax.

Who does it better or worse doesn't matter, they are in the same game doing the same things.

They are all the same to me.

*i know that may not be a real word but it's pretty sweet so I'm keeping it.

Same dog different leg action as far as ABC, Fairfax, and News Limited are concerned.

They each stand for the same thing - concentrating the majority of the wealth in as few hands as possible. They just have slightly different methods to achieve that goal.

Come election time every single newsrag and TV station will be spruiking the same shit fed to them by the usual conservative think tanks each heavilly sponsored by the top end of town.

parksey

30-06-2015, 05:58 PM

ok cool story, lads

q-money

30-06-2015, 06:15 PM

now we know the unabomber is either one of plague/dunster or the membah

plague

30-06-2015, 06:19 PM

now we know the unabomber is either one of plague/dunster or the membah

Well it ain't me cause **** living up in that cabin with no Foxtel.

It def ain't Member cause he couldn't keep his mouth shut long enough the cops would have found him in like 3 minutes.

That leaves the bloke who has been known to jot down the odd manifesto....................

plague

30-06-2015, 06:19 PM

ok cool story, lads
Ok so why don't you tell us how much badderer News is compared to ABC then.

militiamon

30-06-2015, 07:48 PM

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/KliobZhw4VTmjcQwgAV3dzvoCMY90PH33x_0XwW3103IhGBtLZ pVI1eqFBGQqJJSjHOQFJSW_S07XRufus6Ti0XnU0fFBC4=w319-h460-nc

Yep, the ABC would definitely do this.

militiamon

30-06-2015, 07:50 PM

And this:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/R1A_7UWxuNCe8sklKlIMxn28I8X5bYBLmXKjwofEMmzevRsAcR AzoauKzwlPyrLzGMhmO7hIde89JX2CWrXps7VSHAcnlF__nJ62 u9cwz6btu4X6MooepuryGMM6S5NQteivgAChYMJZzkRX-k8PibBXlCUxxYlR1V6n1Qv2=w321-h458-nc

parksey

30-06-2015, 07:55 PM

not confident enough to enter into an argument about politics/the media with an old guy tbh

parksey

30-06-2015, 08:02 PM

to be fair i dare say plague would be arguing the other way had miltiamon been an ardent liberal and was bashing the ABC

loves an argument

boz-monaut

30-06-2015, 08:15 PM

but what about that great article The Australian did about that reformed jihadist

what was that bloke's name again?

plague

30-06-2015, 09:24 PM

Short memories.
News Ltd heavily backed Rudd in 07.
Heres a summary from some media watcher type website. (soz don't have front page photos but maybe someone can find)

The biggest surprise is the strong support for Labor in the Murdoch press — a marked difference from 2004. The Australian, Daily Telegraph, Courier-Mail and The Mercury are all throwing their support behind Kevin Rudd. For the Tele and the Courier-Mail, it’s their proud boast that this is only the second time in their respective histories they have endorsed Labor at a Federal level.

Heres a front page that just cost Fairfax $200 large in a defamation case
http://www.politicalowl.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/5-05-2014-smh1.jpg

and heres an ABC panel discussing gay marriage with 5 people who were pro gay marriage and one (noted old fart Fred Nile) who was agains tit.
is 5 v 1 fair and balanced? does it show any bias? i dunno. you tell me.
http://cdn.mamamia.com.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/QANDAQueer-Special-panel-720x382.jpg

plague

30-06-2015, 09:27 PM

not confident enough to enter into an argument about politics/the media with an old guy tbh

nah, you just don't seem to be able to back up your position.

as for 'old'.
jeez mate you don't know me at all do you?

q-money

30-06-2015, 09:44 PM

Short memories.
News Ltd heavily backed Rudd in 07.
:rofl: guess you neglected to post this picture ay

http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/graphvoting-450x271.gif

further - “Occasionally the Murdoch press gives qualified and tepid support to Labor, but only when it’s likely that Labor are going to win,”....“When they give support to the conservative side of politics it’s all out and wholehearted — that’s what we’ve got with The Daily Telegraph this year.” - so sez rod tiffen emeritus professor at usyd (probs noted pinko)

plague

30-06-2015, 09:53 PM

:rofl: guess you neglected to post this picture ay

http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/graphvoting-450x271.gif

was there a similar table for Fairfax and ABC?
please post if so.

plague

30-06-2015, 09:57 PM

also, from memory Daily Tele were no fans of Bazza O Fazza either.
to be fair there wasn't much anyone in NSW politics who got a good word back in those days.

yanno, cause they were all crooks.

q-money

30-06-2015, 10:06 PM

was there a similar table for Fairfax and ABC?
please post if so.

nah haven't seen one.

from what i recall baird got a pretty easy ride though from fairfax this time around, even with westconnex being the big issue in sydney - could be wrong - but shit, i can't complain about him too much really - have you used services NSW recently? it's bloody amazing.

plague

30-06-2015, 10:06 PM

also: headline from 1972. (Lib PM)
https://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/smhsalter.png

and no Parksey, I wasn't alive in 1972.

plague

30-06-2015, 10:08 PM

nah haven't seen one.

from what i recall baird got a pretty easy ride though from fairfax this time around, even with westconnex being the big issue in sydney - could be wrong - but shit, i can't complain about him too much really - have you used services NSW recently? it's bloody amazing.

Baird got a free run from everyone i reckon. they even went easy digging shit up on his old man.

plus, no one was silly enough to back Robbo/Foley, those blokes are legit shady.

dont fret though, theres def a file somewhere ready to go on the golden boy

parksey

01-07-2015, 01:18 AM

For the Tele and the Courier-Mail, it’s their proud boast that this is only the second time in their respective histories they have endorsed Labor at a Federal level.

I love that you used this quote to argue that news ltd's clear liberal bias is somehow less or equal to abc or fairfax's respective agendas.

Credit to you on the fairfax stories on Hockey. It would be interesting to see how the tele covered that particular story.

As for the ABC stacking the Q and A panel, that probably occurred because most sane individuals in the country don't have a problem with the whole bumming/scissoring thing.

militiamon

01-07-2015, 02:10 AM

Yep, also had a chuckle at that parksey.

More to the point, what I find most messed up is that there is such a thing as endorsing a certain party. Why did that become a thing?

Also agree with you plague that the Fairfax thing with Hockey was dumb, and unnecessarily sensationalised the story . I do note though that it had nothing to do with the ABC i.e the subject of all this outrage lately ;)

plague

01-07-2015, 09:46 AM

As for the ABC stacking the Q and A panel, that probably occurred because most sane individuals in the country don't have a problem with the whole bumming/scissoring thing.

See, and this is where I have an issue with your argument.

You say the ABC is fine to show bias for a cause because it's the majority opinion. Yet when News jumps on a similar popular opinion* (that the Rudd govt being bad, and that Abbott was going to win) you claim it's wrong.

They are both showing bias, they are both pushing their agendas, they are both the same.

You can't argue there's a difference just because you agree with one and not the other.

*based on polling numbers and the election result itself.

plague

01-07-2015, 09:52 AM

Yep, also had a chuckle at that parksey.

More to the point, what I find most messed up is that there is such a thing as endorsing a certain party. Why did that become a thing?

I put that quote in, and Q's graphic showed as well, that the argument can be made that News Ltd was actually following the herd in choosing which side to take.

Were they trying to tell people who to vote for or were they pandering to the people that were going to vote that way anyway?

Hence why it would be interesting to see how News Ltd covered the Campbell Newman Govt and the switch back to Qld labor in the last election.

Without knowing what they did I'd be shocked if they weren't on the eventual winners side there either.

Bias? Yes.
Trying to sell the most papers possible? You betcha.

plague

01-07-2015, 09:59 AM

Credit to you on the fairfax stories on Hockey. It would be interesting to see how the tele covered that particular story.

Yeah from memory I don't recall it being a big deal. Everyone kind of just said that's how all pollies raise their money.

News def went in hard on the state Libs through all the shady donations and parliament rorts.

No one did a better job that Kate McClymont though (Fairfax) She's a beast. She goes after everyone, she gives zero ****s what side you're on.

pv4

01-07-2015, 10:01 AM

As for the ABC stacking the Q and A panel, that probably occurred because most sane individuals in the country don't have a problem with the whole bumming/scissoring thing.

See, and this is where I have an issue with your argument.

You say the ABC is fine to show bias for a cause because it's the majority opinion.

IMO I reckon the ratio of Australians for:against marriage equality was pretty accurate in that ABC panel. I don't see it as bias, as much as an accurate depiction of the general Australian populations view on the subject (ie everyone is for it except people in deNile).

plague

01-07-2015, 10:05 AM

IMO I reckon the ratio of Australians for:against marriage equality was pretty accurate in that ABC panel. I don't see it as bias, as much as an accurate depiction of the general Australian populations view on the subject (ie everyone is for it except people in deNile).

So the populist view over championing Rudd over Howard, then Abbott over Rudd?

Thoughts?

pv4

01-07-2015, 10:20 AM

So the populist view over championing Rudd over Howard, then Abbott over Rudd?

Thoughts?

Personally, I don't care :rof:

I pick and choose which battles I want to fight, and ignore the rest.

I an unfazed by who is prime minister solely because I can't get my freaking head around why this guy or that guy is being peddled to me, when really I have never once seen any of them on my voting slip. Plus the whole "vote for what's best in your electorate" rather than vote for this party to do this nation-wide etc, I just can't even pretend to deal with it. And the whole thing about basically every woman I know voting against liberal because "Tony Abbott looks creepy, and like Gollum in that picture" but they too have never seen Abbott's name on their voting slip.

tl;dr - I don't care about that part of politics, because I genuinely get confused by where the power comes from, how it is driven, and how the Australian voting public perceive it.

boz-monaut

01-07-2015, 10:56 AM

balance shouldn't be on either side of an arguement, it should be weighted by fact and/or consensus

we shouldn't give equal air time to flat earthers or conspiracy nutjobs

The Dunster

01-07-2015, 10:56 AM

I put that quote in, and Q's graphic showed as well, that the argument can be made that News Ltd was actually following the herd in choosing which side to take.

Were they trying to tell people who to vote for or were they pandering to the people that were going to vote that way anyway?

Hence why it would be interesting to see how News Ltd covered the Campbell Newman Govt and the switch back to Qld labor in the last election.

Without knowing what they did I'd be shocked if they weren't on the eventual winners side there either.

Bias? Yes.
Trying to sell the most papers possible? You betcha.

You are gravely mistaken if you think the goal is to sell as many papers as possible. The goal is about passing off the dogma of the ruling ideology as being the facts to as many people as possible. If that means more newspaper sales then great but it's not as important as getting the general public conditioned to think a certain way.

Politicians only need to side with the top 1/2% of the population and that cohorts wealth, and influence via the media outlets they own or control will do the rest.

Wrt Rudd he's a hardcore conservative in much the same way as Howard or Abbott. Rudds wife for example made a crap load of money exploiting workers via deals and arrangements with the Howard governments industrial relations policies.

The reason why News Limited backed Rudd is because he was the key to getting traditional labour voters across the line and into the conservative way of thinking.

Once they had been brought accross so to speak Rudd was no longer needed by them and they killed him off.

parksey

01-07-2015, 11:00 AM

I think comparing "bias" regarding same sex marriage with actively championing one political party as evidence for across the board impartiality is a bit of a long bow to draw.

plague

01-07-2015, 11:30 AM

balance shouldn't be on either side of an arguement, it should be weighted by fact and/or consensus

we shouldn't give equal air time to flat earthers or conspiracy nutjobs

Agree. That's why I'm saying that bias exists everywhere and some genuinely believe it's the right way to achieve the right outcome.

I'm cool with all that.

plague

01-07-2015, 11:31 AM

I think comparing "bias" regarding same sex marriage with actively championing one political party as evidence for across the board impartiality is a bit of a long bow to draw.

I respect your point.

(Oh and I'm sorry I made that 'tin foil hat' jibe in the Arsenal thread. Seems I had the wrong person..................)

GazFish35

01-07-2015, 12:09 PM

I'd like to see QnA do a show on Gold v Red/Blue

pv4

01-07-2015, 12:36 PM

someone should make a graph of the level of sensible discourse on this thread

http://intmstat.com/trigonometric-graphs/cosx.gif

militiamon

01-07-2015, 01:46 PM

:rof:

Although I do miss the Member :(

The Dunster

01-07-2015, 01:50 PM

:rof:

Although I do miss the Member :(

Same. I don't agree with most of what he says but I do respect the fact he's always willing to put himself out there regardless of what others will think of his actions. Most people these days don't have the ticker to do that.

hawk

01-07-2015, 02:51 PM

Agree. That's why I'm saying that bias exists everywhere and some genuinely believe it's the right way to achieve the right outcome.

I'm cool with all that.

yeah im not. the populist will often win regardless of stupidity. except with taxes govt will always win

plague

01-07-2015, 05:05 PM

yeah im not. the populist will often win regardless of stupidity.

Yeah but along the way these stupid people have to held accountable yeah?

We've just finished bagging the god squadders for believing in the Bible so why not the mongs that read the Telegraph rather than the paper itself?

The Dunster

01-07-2015, 06:01 PM

Yeah but along the way these stupid people have to held accountable yeah?

We've just finished bagging the god squadders for believing in the Bible so why not the mongs that read the Telegraph rather than the paper itself?

Good post.

I don't bag the god squadders for what they believe in only for their methodology or lack of it.

The same is true of most mass media and their highly dubious methodology. I think Willam Randolph Hearst said "Get me some Pictures and I will provide the war". This still appears to be the case.

Rather than hold the media accountable we should probably hold ourselves accountable for allowing them to continue as they do without ever being questioned.

Once the terms bias and opinion enter into the debate we end up right where the plutocrats want us - fighting over the crumbs.

snake

01-07-2015, 09:24 PM

so hows about this law making it illegal to report on kids getting abused in detention centres? all kinds of ****ed up.

hawk

02-07-2015, 01:45 AM

so hows about this law making it illegal to report on kids getting abused in detention centres? all kinds of ****ed up.

think Aus will be united on this one

GazFish35

02-07-2015, 09:02 AM

so hows about this law making it illegal to report on kids getting abused in detention centres? all kinds of ****ed up.

It's horrendous.

I work where it's the opposite, if I suspect and do not report it, I can get in the shit.

This "border force act" is scary.

The Dunster

02-07-2015, 12:54 PM

parksey

02-07-2015, 02:24 PM

illuminati confirmed

q-money

02-07-2015, 02:28 PM

#staywoke

The Dunster

02-07-2015, 03:35 PM

illuminati confirmed

Should we send in JC Denton to fix the situation ?

parksey

02-07-2015, 03:49 PM

Should we send in JC Denton to fix the situation ?

i don't think even he could survive this task

militiamon

02-07-2015, 09:07 PM

Labour supported the Border Force Act which is more evidence that both major parties are mere lapdogs for the plutocrats.

The money to be made by those contracted to build own operate and transfer [BOOT] the detention centres is apparently of far greater value than the needs of any children being abused.

The public will soon be on board with the plutocrats and government in supporting the bill - Yes they are that stupid.

Labor is pretty much a dud opposition atm.

Only thing that it has had going for it since the last election is that Tony Abbott isn't their leader.
I can't think of Labor opposing any of the major issues that anyone would have cared about. The Libs would cruise to an election win right now, with the worst being a very minor swing against them.

The Dunster

03-07-2015, 12:10 PM

Labor is pretty much a dud opposition atm.

Only thing that it has had going for it since the last election is that Tony Abbott isn't their leader.
I can't think of Labor opposing any of the major issues that anyone would have cared about. The Libs would cruise to an election win right now, with the worst being a very minor swing against them.

True. And given how much power the Plutocrats wield these days it will be a very long time [if ever] that we see a party evolve offering a real alternative.

Some people think the Greens are an alternative but if you examine their policies they are essentially just Conservatives that shower on a fortnightly rather than daily basis.

hawk

03-07-2015, 10:11 PM

Some people think the Greens are an alternative but if you examine their policies they are essentially just Conservatives that shower on a fortnightly rather than daily basis.

no way conservative.

Greens pander to any issue that the government deems not as important when running the country. Some policies are good but most are a chance for lefties to have an outcry about. eg every tree within the cityscape

The Dunster

03-07-2015, 10:29 PM

no way conservative.

Greens pander to any issue that the government deems not as important when running the country. Some policies are good but most are a chance for lefties to have an outcry about. eg every tree within the cityscape

Spend a few hours with their poster boy Bob Brown and you will see that there is sfa difference between the economic policies of the Greens and the Coalition or ALP.

All of them think taxes fund government spending.
They each think that households [in aggregate] should always spend more than they earn and never net save.
They believe that their is a natural rate of employment
They believe that interest rates are endogenously determined and that the money supply is exogenously determined.
They believe in a money multiplier / loanable funds theory of interest rate determination.
... and the list goes on.

All of these propositions have been found to have absolutely no relevance in a modern economy and yet all of these clowns persist in forming policies based on these false assumptions.

By leftie are you talking about socialist ? Marxists ? Dialectical materialists ? Or just anyone that basically understands that neo-liberalism is a religion based on dogma rather than evidence ?

Alternatively, you can go to the other extreme and find the Austrians or followers of Ayn Rand. These khunts are batshit crazy but seem to have convinced a lot of people otherwise. Best of all they each reject empirical evidence. Unless of course it somehow agrees with their theories - then it's ok.

Read up about Mises regression theorem - again - more bat shit crazy crap no sane person would be sold on - and yet all your politicians fall for this shit hook line and sinker.

Sorry but I cannot see any difference between any of this lot

plague

03-07-2015, 10:37 PM

Spend a few hours with their poster boy Bob Brown and you will see that there is sfa difference between the economic policies of the Greens and the Coalition or ALP.

nor is there much diff between the largesse of the labor and lib swine than that of this bloke.
just as shady (greedy) and capitalist as the rest yet held up as some sort of deity.

**** Bob Brown.

hawk

03-07-2015, 10:40 PM

Spend a few hours with their poster boy Bob Brown and you will see that there is sfa difference between the economic policies of the Greens and the Coalition or ALP.

All of them think taxes fund government spending.
They each think that households [in aggregate] should always spend more than they earn and never net save.
They believe that their is a natural rate of employment
They believe that interest rates are endogenously determined and that the money supply is exogenously determined.
They believe in a money multiplier / loanable funds theory of interest rate determination.
... and the list goes on.

All of these propositions have been found to have absolutely no relevance in a modern economy and yet all of these clowns persist in forming policies based on these false assumptions.

By leftie are you talking about socialist ? Marxists ? Dialectical materialists ? Or just anyone that basically understands that neo-liberalism is a religion based on dogma rather than evidence ?
Have you been hangin with The bobby Brown?

socialist of course. i see you have focused on the financial side.

I am forming my ideas from reading their policies.
http://greens.org.au/policy-platform

The Dunster

04-07-2015, 12:51 PM

Have you been hangin with The bobby Brown?

socialist of course. i see you have focused on the financial side.

I am forming my ideas from reading their policies.
http://greens.org.au/policy-platform

Like it or not the financial side is where the empirical testing can take place.

If spending falls so does income and when income falls the result is unemployment.

What can be more important than understanding that ?

Unfortunately - neither the Greens, the ALP, or the Coalition understand how the national accounting identities work.

Hence, they are all the same and controlled by the plutocrats.

Much the same way as the god squadders invented the devil - the Right created the left.

Same dog different leg action.

The Dunster

04-07-2015, 01:12 PM

Here is an example from the link Hawk Provided about the Greens:

"9.While government finances must be sustainable over the long-term, it is appropriate to stimulate the economy during economic downturns and save during economic booms. Government financing should be responsibly managed so as to minimise intergenerational debt."The ALP and the Coalition would each agree with this proposition and yet:

We know that a monopolist issuer of money such as the Australian government and RBA have absolutely no budget / financial constraint in terms of their own money.
Their ability to spend is only limited by the goods and services denominated in that currency available to buy.
We also know that all tax liabilities of the non-government sector are payable only in this same money. This makes money tax driven - not the other way around.
We also know that the government budget is for a fiscal year and so it cannot possibly be a burden on future generations.
We also know that a government does not need to finance its spending nor does it need to borrow - because it has no budgetary constraint in terms of its own money.

Simple maths:

Government Surplus [Deficit] equals Non-Government Deficit [Surplus].

Not ****ing once have the greens accepted that the result of their policies would be mass unemployment and a lot of pain for no gain to anyone other than the one percenters.

If we look at the current Abbott government we will see that in terms of GDP they are the biggest spending government in Australia's history.

And yet interest rates are falling and inflation is trending downwards. [ It's a good result though by accident rather than good management]

The lot of them are clueless.

hawk

04-07-2015, 01:34 PM

If we look at the current Abbott government we will see that in terms of GDP they are the biggest spending government in Australia's history.

.
That is an interesting point. Labor gets growled out a bit for this. Didnt Howard get our deficit right down during his time?

The Dunster

04-07-2015, 05:21 PM

That is an interesting point. Labor gets growled out a bit for this. Didnt Howard get our deficit right down during his time?

What do you mean by "our" deficit ?

If you mean the net debt of the private domestic sector then the answer is absolutely not. It actually increased.

If you mean Australian net indebtedness to foreigners [ net income account] then again the answer is absolutely not. Again, it increased.

If you mean did the Howard government force house holds to spend more than they earn then the answer is YES.

All Howard and Costello did was buy back interest bearing alternatives for money from the rich / elite bond traders. They also gave away a shit load of gold holdings for around $400 an oz - which based on the current market prices was a dick move for sure.

People seem to forget that under the rules of double entry accounting all accounts must sum to zero [debits = credits and / or deficits = surpluses].

So: If the current account is in deficit the only way the government can have a surplus is if the private domestic sector is in deficit.

If on the other hand the current account is in deficit and the private domestic sector wish to save [ surplus] then the government are up the shit [in their own terms] because of the Automatic stabilisers such as tax recepts falling and transfer payments increasing as welfare dependence increases.

Governments should never ever attempt to run surplus budgets when the current account is in deficit and certainly not when the private domestic sector wishes to spend less than they earn.

But it's really not even that complicated.

All you need to know is that Spending = Income - beyond that economics is just showing off some very piss poor mathematical skills which would make real mathematicians cringe.

hawk

05-07-2015, 11:52 PM

So how close are we to defaulting cause our (part B above) is spiraling out of control

GazFish35

06-07-2015, 12:14 AM

Can't we just print more money?

Please explain.

The Dunster

06-07-2015, 04:19 PM

Can't we just print more money?

Please explain.

it's even less complicated than that. Government via arrangements with RBA simply credit one account and debit another.

It all happens on a computer screen rather than a printing press these days.

The so called textbook model used by Treasury is not a realistic explanation of how things really work.

Simple example. The so called cash rate is determined by market forces "

Yeah right - that's why the RBA hold a meeting, decide what the rate should be - then go into the market and buy or sell securities to meet the target rate they nominated.

They can have any rate they want and nooooobody can stop them because their ability to maintain that rate can never be challenged because they are the monopolist supplier of the currency.

But don't think in terms of printing money - because it's not an accurate explanation of how things work.

WolfMan

06-07-2015, 08:32 PM

Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't pumping more money into circulation devalue the $ massively?

Buddha

06-07-2015, 11:38 PM

Let's talk about the real problem here, chicken twisties

The Dunster

06-07-2015, 11:46 PM

Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't pumping more money into circulation devalue the $ massively?

It's a valid question. If the economy is at full employment then it would simply escalate prices.
However, if the economy was at full employment there would be absolutely no reason for the government to spend in excess of the economies capacity.
Given how much excess capacity the Australian economy has held for the past forty odd years it's simply not an issue.

Without writing a book the RBA also has a target rate of interest that it wants to maintain.
The banks we use hold what are called exchange settlement accounts with the RBA.
The RBA essentially [for our purposes anyway] increases the liquidity of these accounts to lower the cash / interest rate and decreases liquidity to increase rates.
They do this by offering banks an interest bearing alternative to money which to keep things basic we can call a bond.

So for your example the injection of money into the economy would put downward pressure on the cash / interest rate.
The RBA would not want the cash / interest rate to tend toward zero so they would seek to reduce the liquidity of the member banks exchange settlement accounts by offering the banks interest bearing bonds in exchange for the excess funds.
Banks gladly except the exchange, liquidity is reduced, interest rate rises back to meet the target rate and inflation is not a problem.

Real world example is Japan. Highest deficit spending as a percentage of GDP on the planet and yet they have a zero interest rate, low inflation and a relatively strong currency.

Commodity prices are the big driver of currencies and regardless of domestic fiscal policies if you make / sell things people want to buy then people buy them regardless.

Japan also have for the most part have a trade surplus so their spending habits don't seem to have made people shy away from the goods and services they sell.

The Dunster

06-07-2015, 11:54 PM

Let's talk about the real problem here, chicken twisties

What about bacon flavour ffs - they were awesome and the bastards stopped making them.

Damn you APD.

plague

07-07-2015, 09:37 AM

What about bacon flavour ffs - they were awesome.

You are dead set one of the weirdest dudes I've ever encountered and I mean that in the most respectful way I possibly can.

WolfMan

07-07-2015, 09:38 AM

It's a valid question. If the economy is at full employment then it would simply escalate prices.
However, if the economy was at full employment there would be absolutely no reason for the government to spend in excess of the economies capacity.
Given how much excess capacity the Australian economy has held for the past forty odd years it's simply not an issue.

Without writing a book the RBA also has a target rate of interest that it wants to maintain.
The banks we use hold what are called exchange settlement accounts with the RBA.
The RBA essentially [for our purposes anyway] increases the liquidity of these accounts to lower the cash / interest rate and decreases liquidity to increase rates.
They do this by offering banks an interest bearing alternative to money which to keep things basic we can call a bond.

So for your example the injection of money into the economy would put downward pressure on the cash / interest rate.
The RBA would not want the cash / interest rate to tend toward zero so they would seek to reduce the liquidity of the member banks exchange settlement accounts by offering the banks interest bearing bonds in exchange for the excess funds.
Banks gladly except the exchange, liquidity is reduced, interest rate rises back to meet the target rate and inflation is not a problem.

Real world example is Japan. Highest deficit spending as a percentage of GDP on the planet and yet they have a zero interest rate, low inflation and a relatively strong currency.

Commodity prices are the big driver of currencies and regardless of domestic fiscal policies if you make / sell things people want to buy then people buy them regardless.

Japan also have for the most part have a trade surplus so their spending habits don't seem to have made people shy away from the goods and services they sell.

Thanks, I actually kind of understand the various factors that can be tweaked now. Cheers

The Dunster

07-07-2015, 11:16 AM

You are dead set one of the weirdest dudes I've ever encountered and I mean that in the most respectful way I possibly can.

I'd agree with that. I even shake my head sometimes at the shit I blurt out.

pv4

21-07-2015, 01:07 PM

I haven't bothered to do figures or anything but I'm on private health insurance, and we went through a private hospital & obgyn for our newborn.

I wouldn't trade the experience for anything, the private setup was unreal.

But like I said, I have no idea how much the experience would have costed without the insurance.

Other than that, we rarely have a need for it.

Attn: snaek

I was given my bill for our private hospital stay.

Private health insurance was 100% worth the value. We "saved" money by going this way, on the birth experience alone. Not to take into account all the other non-birth inclusions it gives us.

This is just a fyi, as I assume you weren't asking the questions with the idea of multiplying in mind. But yeah..