A thread for the you know, election chat.

Is this for Avatars?
I think that Avatars should be appointed rather than elected, that’s just my opinion.
First we need a steering committee, that can be arranged through a series of workshops where we can network and talk to the issues, we’ll need a chair.

Vote 1 Chairman Meow!

Peak Warming Man said:

Is this for Avatars?
I think that Avatars should be appointed rather than elected, that’s just my opinion.

And it should be a hereditary title.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Vote 1 Chairman Meow!

Now ya talkin’!
(That’s the name of my cat)

Spiny Norman said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Vote 1 Chairman Meow!

Now ya talkin’!
(That’s the name of my cat)

how is the blue healer?

Spiny Norman said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Vote 1 Chairman Meow!

Now ya talkin’!
(That’s the name of my cat)

For –

pats
Sitting in a sunny spot

got my vote

monkey skipper said:

Spiny Norman said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Vote 1 Chairman Meow!

Now ya talkin’!
(That’s the name of my cat)

how is the blue healer?

Red Heeler, Bluey.
She’s good thanks.

And I might add this point, also well worth voting for.
She promises that no child in Australia will be without a squeaky toy.

Spiny Norman said:

monkey skipper said:

Spiny Norman said:

Now ya talkin’!
(That’s the name of my cat)

how is the blue healer?

Red Heeler, Bluey.
She’s good thanks.

And I might add this point, also well worth voting for.
She promises that no child in Australia will be without a squeaky toy.

lol

:-)

FWIW a post by a guy on my car forum, in a thread on the new tax on cigarettes.

“Krudd and his band of incompetents are just following the simple rules of effective revenue collection. The more captive the victims are the better and nicotine addiction makes smokers one of the best herds of captive livestock available. Booze addicts are next in line and with both groups, lots of grusome, sad, tragic advertising campaigns can be launched that will ensure that everyone feels rightly justified in taxing the bejeebuz out of the group targetted. Speeding is no different. With penalties arising form anything 5-10kmh over the limit, you once again have a situation where you are absolutely guaranteed to gain revenue. To add weight to this, you just work up a campaign that makes the sheep thing it’s the single most dangerous thing you can do in a vehicle, even though speed limits themselves are, in may cases, arbitrary. Easy to enforce too.

As many have already pointed out, this increase in tax on cigarettes is unlikely to result in any measurable decrease in the rates of participation. Why? Because smokers are addicted to the nicotine in tobacco smoke. That’s what makes them such an ideal target. The government doesn’t give a shit if you die from cancer! If some of you haven’t already worked it out yet, governments exist to serve themselves, period. With a two party system, the “opposing” factions, given time, will come to more and more resemble eahother until there is no clear choice between them. They combat this at election time by making grandiose, oppositional promises, that they subsequently renege on once they gain office. This situation is more advanced in the USA than here so look to them to see a snapshot of our own political future. Sadly, I don’t look forward with any optimism to a future with Abbott as PM. He would, in some areas, be an improvement on Krudd and Labor but in others I’m sure we’ll experience plenty of pain. With our aging population and a dead manufacuring sector, the ones left with disposable income are going to be taxed more and more, while government inexorably expands. A tipping point has to be reached at some juncture.”

It seems true, sadly.

Will the Pork-Barrelling Party be running candidates in this election?

Will the Pork-Barrelling Party be running candidates in this election?—-

To avoid a clash with Yom Kippur

Spiny Norman said:

FWIW a post by a guy on my car forum, in a thread on the new tax on cigarettes.

“Krudd and his band of incompetents are just following the simple rules of effective revenue collection. The more captive the victims are the better and nicotine addiction makes smokers one of the best herds of captive livestock available. Booze addicts are next in line and with both groups, lots of grusome, sad, tragic advertising campaigns can be launched that will ensure that everyone feels rightly justified in taxing the bejeebuz out of the group targetted. Speeding is no different. With penalties arising form anything 5-10kmh over the limit, you once again have a situation where you are absolutely guaranteed to gain revenue. To add weight to this, you just work up a campaign that makes the sheep thing it’s the single most dangerous thing you can do in a vehicle, even though speed limits themselves are, in may cases, arbitrary. Easy to enforce too.

As many have already pointed out, this increase in tax on cigarettes is unlikely to result in any measurable decrease in the rates of participation. Why? Because smokers are addicted to the nicotine in tobacco smoke. That’s what makes them such an ideal target. The government doesn’t give a shit if you die from cancer! If some of you haven’t already worked it out yet, governments exist to serve themselves, period. With a two party system, the “opposing” factions, given time, will come to more and more resemble eahother until there is no clear choice between them. They combat this at election time by making grandiose, oppositional promises, that they subsequently renege on once they gain office. This situation is more advanced in the USA than here so look to them to see a snapshot of our own political future. Sadly, I don’t look forward with any optimism to a future with Abbott as PM. He would, in some areas, be an improvement on Krudd and Labor but in others I’m sure we’ll experience plenty of pain. With our aging population and a dead manufacuring sector, the ones left with disposable income are going to be taxed more and more, while government inexorably expands. A tipping point has to be reached at some juncture.”

It seems true, sadly.

In a 2011 study published by the Medical Journal of Australia, Sally Dunlop of Sydney University and Trish Cotter of the Cancer Institute of New South Wales concluded the Rudd government’s tax increase of 25% in April 2010 correlated with an immediate drop in the rate of smoking among adults.

The study also found that 22% of respondents reported to have quit smoking a month later in May, a considerable rise from the 13% who reported quitting in April, and the 12% who reported quitting a year earlier in April 2010.

Research reveals a tangible link between the increased price of cigarettes and the consumption rate of tobacco dating back to at least 1972, according to data compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2012 and Australian tobacco researcher Michelle Scollo.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/08/02/tax-hike-will-smokers-cough-up-or-butt-out/

fsm said:

In a 2011 study published by the Medical Journal of Australia, Sally Dunlop of Sydney University and Trish Cotter of the Cancer Institute of New South Wales concluded the Rudd government’s tax increase of 25% in April 2010 correlated with an immediate drop in the rate of smoking among adults.

The study also found that 22% of respondents reported to have quit smoking a month later in May, a considerable rise from the 13% who reported quitting in April, and the 12% who reported quitting a year earlier in April 2010.

Research reveals a tangible link between the increased price of cigarettes and the consumption rate of tobacco dating back to at least 1972, according to data compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2012 and Australian tobacco researcher Michelle Scollo.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/08/02/tax-hike-will-smokers-cough-up-or-butt-out/

1. How large was that immediate drop? Was it sustained?
2. How many of those “quitters” remained quit after the one month?
3. How much of that extra cigarette tax is going into health care?

The senate paper will be so big that they’ve ordered 120K magnifying glasses.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

fsm said:

In a 2011 study published by the Medical Journal of Australia, Sally Dunlop of Sydney University and Trish Cotter of the Cancer Institute of New South Wales concluded the Rudd government’s tax increase of 25% in April 2010 correlated with an immediate drop in the rate of smoking among adults.

The study also found that 22% of respondents reported to have quit smoking a month later in May, a considerable rise from the 13% who reported quitting in April, and the 12% who reported quitting a year earlier in April 2010.

Research reveals a tangible link between the increased price of cigarettes and the consumption rate of tobacco dating back to at least 1972, according to data compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2012 and Australian tobacco researcher Michelle Scollo.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/08/02/tax-hike-will-smokers-cough-up-or-butt-out/

1. How large was that immediate drop? Was it sustained?
2. How many of those “quitters” remained quit after the one month?
3. How much of that extra cigarette tax is going into health care?

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2011/195/8/impact-2010-tobacco-tax-increase-australia-short-term-smoking-cessation
Should answer your 1 and 2…or not…
3. Wouldn’t matter if none went directly back into healthcare, the indirect savings from reduced burden of disease would be huge.

*if at least some of it was sustained.

For SA?

In my wild erratic fancy visions come to me of Tony
Gone campaigning down the Cooper where the seasons come and go
And the towns have friends to meet him and their kindly voices greet him
In the murmur of the geezers and the punters in the bars
And they see the vision splendid of his sunlit plans extended
And at night they drink the health to the everlasting tsars

I haven’t been following any current news events, when is the Federal election?

7/9/2013, Aquila

Apparent consumption of tobacco products has been shown in many countries to be negatively associated with the price or affordability of tobacco products. Figure 13.5.1 shows a clear pattern of declines in sales of cigarette products in the US when prices increase but also a clear pattern of increases in sales when prices decline in real terms.

A similar pattern is evident in South Africa.

Australia has had strong tobacco-control measures in place for several decades and there have been no periods over that time when tobacco consumption has increased. Nevertheless, in line with the findings of price elasticity studies in numerous other countries,3–6i substantial real increases in the price of tobacco products in Australia have been followed by larger-than-usual declines in apparent and reported tobacco consumption.

During the period when there were many increases in state franchise fees on tobacco and following the largest increases in excise and customs duty on tobacco products in 1999 and 2010, the prevalence of smoking in Australia also declined substantially.

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-13-taxation/13-5-impact-of-price-increases-on-tobacco-consumpt

Aquila said:

I haven’t been following any current news events, when is the Federal election?

The Labor party called a media conference ( they do that a lot ) and said it will be the 14th of September, no if’s no buts.
However, like everything else, they have now changed that to a different date, their latest motto is “Certainty through Change”

dv said:

For SA?

What am I? Fn Google?

party_pants said:

Will the Pork-Barrelling Party be running candidates in this election?

Is that the over fed guy with the dinosaurs, who cannot remember some of his candidates?

(shrugs)

As Roxoff reasonably said, if tobacco were a new product with its known health properties, there is no way it would be approved to go on the market. Products are banned in Australia for causing cancer in one in ten thousand rats. Anyone lighting up should just reflect on how perverse and strange it is that they are even allowed to buy that product.

How about that Corby girl, eh?

Cheers, dv

What am I? Fn Google?

—

You wish. More like Bing.

Could you be more Dropbear?

If you love her so much why dint you marry her?

“If you love her so much why dint you marry her?”

Roxon, OCDC, or Corby?

dv said:

What am I? Fn Google?

—

You wish. More like Bing.

Could you be more Dropbear?

No one could.

dv said:

“If you love her so much why dint you marry her?”

Roxon, OCDC, or Corby?

Roxoff.. I’m still marrying OCDC for her $$$$

OCDC said:

How about that Corby girl, eh?

She won’t get my vote either.

Dropbear said:

dv said:

“If you love her so much why dint you marry her?”

Roxon, OCDC, or Corby?

Roxoff.. I’m still marrying OCDC for her $$$$

Get in line buddy.

Look, you’re just gonna have to earn it.

>FWIW a post by a guy on my car forum, in a thread on the new tax on cigarettes.

Just to be pedantic, it’s not a tax on cigarettes, it is a tax on tobacco.

sibeen said:

>FWIW a post by a guy on my car forum, in a thread on the new tax on cigarettes.

Just to be pedantic

Why?

dv said:

(shrugs)

As Roxoff reasonably said, if tobacco were a new product with its known health properties, there is no way it would be approved to go on the market. Products are banned in Australia for causing cancer in one in ten thousand rats. Anyone lighting up should just reflect on how perverse and strange it is that they are even allowed to buy that product.

Out of curiosity, what is the figure for cigarettes using a number out of ten thousand for mice ?

Dropbear said:

sibeen said:

>FWIW a post by a guy on my car forum, in a thread on the new tax on cigarettes.

Just to be pedantic

Why?

Getting in before Deevs.

Dropbear said:

sibeen said:

>FWIW a post by a guy on my car forum, in a thread on the new tax on cigarettes.

Just to be pedantic

Why?

Because I don’t smoke cigarettes and yet I pay the tax.

sibeen said:

>FWIW a post by a guy on my car forum, in a thread on the new tax on cigarettes.

Just to be pedantic, it’s not a tax on cigarettes, it is a tax on tobacco.

technically it’s an excise.

party_pants said:

OCDC said:

How about that Corby girl, eh?

She won’t get my vote either.

She would be a good candidate for the Legalize Cannabis Party

sibeen said:

Dropbear said:

sibeen said:

>FWIW a post by a guy on my car forum, in a thread on the new tax on cigarettes.

Just to be pedantic

Why?

Why?

Because I don’t smoke cigarettes and yet I pay the tax.

Dropbear said:

sibeen said:

Dropbear said:

Why?

Why?

Because I don’t smoke cigarettes and yet I pay the tax.

Because I’m evil.

Lol. Channel are hammering that slide show program. Dire

The total cost to the economy associated with smoking dwarfs the revenue received through taxes on tobacco sales.

Ref? Please include cardiovascular disease as well as cancer.

OCDC said:

Ref? Please include cardiovascular disease as well as cancer.

Please attach blame to individual inhalants.

roughbarked said:

OCDC said:

Ref? Please include cardiovascular disease as well as cancer.

Please attach blame to individual inhalants.

well?

OCDC said:

Ref? Please include cardiovascular disease as well as cancer.

This reference puts the social cost at around $31.5 billion per year (this is a 2004-2005 figure and seems pop up all over the place)

http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/D4E3727950BDBAE4CA257AE70003730C/$File/National%20Tobacco%20Strategy%202012-2018.pdf

diddly-squat said:

OCDC said:

Ref? Please include cardiovascular disease as well as cancer.

This reference puts the social cost at around $31.5 billion per year (this is a 2004-2005 figure and seems pop up all over the place)

http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/D4E3727950BDBAE4CA257AE70003730C/$File/National%20Tobacco%20Strategy%202012-2018.pdf

someone’s calculator has a flat battery.

OCDC said:

Ref? Please include cardiovascular disease as well as cancer.

There’s this article from 2009, from news.com.au
It says that the tobacco industry returns about $1bn to the economy, but the effects cost about $31bn.

I don’t know how reliable that article is, but it seems to be within cooee of this CDC article
(although that article focuses on costs to the American economy, the numbers seem to scale more-or-less correctly.) See particularly the sentence:
“During 2000–2004, cigarette smoking was estimated to be responsible for $193 billion in annual health-related economic losses in the United States (nearly $96 billion in direct medical costs and an additional $97 billion in lost productivity).”

Note that both articles are on the total cost to the economy, including all diseases attributed to smoking, and lost productivity.

Will these do?

Wocky said:

ted States (nearly $96 billion in direct medical costs and an additional $97 billion in lost productivity).”

Note that both articles are on the total cost to the economy, including all diseases attributed to smoking, and lost productivity.

Will these do?

not really.. I can equate with lost productivity.. no worries.

but i think the health research is flawed.

roughbarked said:

not really.. I can equate with lost productivity.. no worries.

but i think the health research is flawed.

Any refs? Should I write to the CDC – internationally recognised as experts in heath research – and tell them that they need to redo their research because a random bloke on the internet – with no medical qualifications and no experience or qualifications in medical research – thinks their health research is flawed?

>There’s this article from 2009, from news.com.au
It says that the tobacco industry returns about $1bn to the economy, but the effects cost about $31bn.

As the excise collected in that period was around $5bn pardon me if I have a scoff.

Wocky said:

roughbarked said:

not really.. I can equate with lost productivity.. no worries.

but i think the health research is flawed.

Any refs? Should I write to the CDC – internationally recognised as experts in heath research – and tell them that they need to redo their research because a random bloke on the internet – with no medical qualifications and no experience or qualifications in medical research – thinks their health research is flawed?

flawed because everything is not taken into account.. how can science work if it isn’t?

Don’t take my points lightly.

I think any rational person can see that taxing tobacco products out of existence can only be a good thing.

diddly-squat said:

I think any rational person can see that taxing tobacco products out of existence can only be a good thing.

nothing wrong with thinking that way but drug cartels prove it incorrect.

Tax away.

Realistically the figures produced about economic impact have just a touch of absolute crap about them.

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

I think any rational person can see that taxing tobacco products out of existence can only be a good thing.

nothing wrong with thinking that way but drug cartels prove it incorrect.

Sorry but I have no idea what you mean…

It was very evident to me when I visited France last year that the proportion of smokers in the population is much higher than here. I was interested to find out if this influenced their life expectancy. It does, but not as much as one might expect, because their medical system is very effective at dealing with issues like lung cancer and the survival rate is much higher than elsewhere.

sibeen said:

Tax away.

Realistically the figures produced about economic impact have just a touch of absolute crap about them.

yep

I can still recall the year when tobacco excise was introduced.. My parents shoved cartons under their cupboards in expectation of the announcement.

sibeen said:

Tax away.

Realistically the figures produced about economic impact have just a touch of absolute crap about them.

Not sure I agree, I mean it is difficult to quantify the effects of things like productivity losses but the health care costs should be easy enough to determine.

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

I think any rational person can see that taxing tobacco products out of existence can only be a good thing.

nothing wrong with thinking that way but drug cartels prove it incorrect.

Sorry but I have no idea what you mean…

basically it is about opening up another avenue for drug dealers.. untaxed tobacco is an easy option. no revenue to fund policing.

diddly-squat said:

sibeen said:

Tax away.

Realistically the figures produced about economic impact have just a touch of absolute crap about them.

Not sure I agree, I mean it is difficult to quantify the effects of things like productivity losses but the health care costs should be easy enough to determine.

I call this wrong.. because.. you can easily see how much productivity time is wasted on people smoking.

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

sibeen said:

Tax away.

Realistically the figures produced about economic impact have just a touch of absolute crap about them.

Not sure I agree, I mean it is difficult to quantify the effects of things like productivity losses but the health care costs should be easy enough to determine.

I call this wrong.. because.. you can easily see how much productivity time is wasted on people smoking.

stands out like the proverbial.. dog’s thingys.

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

nothing wrong with thinking that way but drug cartels prove it incorrect.

Sorry but I have no idea what you mean…

basically it is about opening up another avenue for drug dealers.. untaxed tobacco is an easy option. no revenue to fund policing.

You miss the point, there is a net cost to the economy associated with smoking… If smoking were to disappear (or at the very least reduce significantly) then even without the tax revenue we’d still be ahead.

diddly-squat said:

sibeen said:

Tax away.

Realistically the figures produced about economic impact have just a touch of absolute crap about them.

Not sure I agree, I mean it is difficult to quantify the effects of things like productivity losses but the health care costs should be easy enough to determine.

I just have to go back a few posts where Wocky posted this:

>There’s this article from 2009, from news.com.au
It says that the tobacco industry returns about $1bn to the economy, but the effects cost about $31bn.

Just the excise in that year was about $5bn. Just the excise, not the wages, GST, profit taxes blah, blah. It makes the argument look ridiculous.

As to the productivity losses, I remember reading a report on this years ago, it basically claimed that everytime a smoker took a break it was added to the loss to the economy. My immediate thought was that we should ban tea and coffee, we’d be living in clover.

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

Sorry but I have no idea what you mean…

basically it is about opening up another avenue for drug dealers.. untaxed tobacco is an easy option. no revenue to fund policing.

You miss the point, there is a net cost to the economy associated with smoking… If smoking were to disappear (or at the very least reduce significantly) then even without the tax revenue we’d still be ahead.

Fair enough.. I recall Cole’s Funny Picture Books showing images of “Workers wanted.. Smokers need not apply”.

sibeen said:

My immediate thought was that we should ban tea and coffee, we’d be living in clover.

“if bread is the staff of life, the life of the staff is a loaf”

sibeen said:

Just the excise in that year was about $5bn. Just the excise, not the wages, GST, profit taxes blah, blah. It makes the argument look ridiculous.

You’ve said that a couple of times, Sibeen, but I haven’t seen any refs. Can you back it up?

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

My immediate thought was that we should ban tea and coffee, we’d be living in clover.

“if bread is the staff of life, the life of the staff is a loaf”

I saw that in a pastiserié.

Wocky said:

sibeen said:

Just the excise in that year was about $5bn. Just the excise, not the wages, GST, profit taxes blah, blah. It makes the argument look ridiculous.

You’ve said that a couple of times, Sibeen, but I haven’t seen any refs. Can you back it up?

it is old news.. we don’t need to back it up.. Statiticians only work with what they are being paid to produce.

Tea and coffee aren’t killing people either…

Don’t get me wrong I enjoy the sweet sweet sensation of breathing in a lungful of tobacco smoke, I just understand it isn’t good for me, or the economy in general. It ain’t ain’t open heart/lung surgery.

roughbarked said:

Wocky said:

sibeen said:

Just the excise in that year was about $5bn. Just the excise, not the wages, GST, profit taxes blah, blah. It makes the argument look ridiculous.

You’ve said that a couple of times, Sibeen, but I haven’t seen any refs. Can you back it up?

it is old news.. we don’t need to back it up.. Statiticians only work with what they are being paid to produce.

lol… So where are the studies produced by the pro-smoking lobby???

diddly-squat said:

Tea and coffee aren’t killing people either…

Don’t get me wrong I enjoy the sweet sweet sensation of breathing in a lungful of tobacco smoke, I just understand it isn’t good for me, or the economy in general. It ain’t ain’t open heart/lung surgery.

but then breathing isn’t everything.. we also drink and eat and touch everything before we pick our noses and scratch our arse.

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

Wocky said:

You’ve said that a couple of times, Sibeen, but I haven’t seen any refs. Can you back it up?

it is old news.. we don’t need to back it up.. Statiticians only work with what they are being paid to produce.

lol… So where are the studies produced by the pro-smoking lobby???

They are out there.. they are simply hard to put a finger on in the smoke and mist.

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

Tea and coffee aren’t killing people either…

Don’t get me wrong I enjoy the sweet sweet sensation of breathing in a lungful of tobacco smoke, I just understand it isn’t good for me, or the economy in general. It ain’t ain’t open heart/lung surgery.

but then breathing isn’t everything.. we also drink and eat and touch everything before we pick our noses and scratch our arse.

What are you talking about? Are you trying to suggest that smoking isn’t bad for you?

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

Tea and coffee aren’t killing people either…

Don’t get me wrong I enjoy the sweet sweet sensation of breathing in a lungful of tobacco smoke, I just understand it isn’t good for me, or the economy in general. It ain’t ain’t open heart/lung surgery.

but then breathing isn’t everything.. we also drink and eat and touch everything before we pick our noses and scratch our arse.

What are you talking about? Are you trying to suggest that smoking isn’t bad for you?

no. I’m simply pointing out that almost everything is.. and that though as I said productivity decline is easy to asses.. health aspects have other variables which make every assessment difficult.. it isn’t sound rocket science to use as a ploicy argument in an election.. but then again.. any blind alley will do to distract.

Wocky said:

sibeen said:

Just the excise in that year was about $5bn. Just the excise, not the wages, GST, profit taxes blah, blah. It makes the argument look ridiculous.

You’ve said that a couple of times, Sibeen, but I haven’t seen any refs. Can you back it up?

With a low elasticity of demand and significant levels of consumption, tobacco is a sound vehicle through which to raise a large and consistent revenue stream. Australian Excise collections from tobacco totalled approximately $5.5 Billion in 2008

From: http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Access%20to%20Information/Disclosure%20Log/2011/Plain%20packaging%20of%20tobacco%20products/Downloads/Document_57.ashx

About bottom of page 9.

I’m sorry it’s not a newpaper article, but some guff produced by the Australian Treasury, but it is the best I could come up with :)

sibeen said:

I’m sorry but it is the best I could come up with :)

that is simply because tobacco is pariah.. what if it was.. alcohol?

sibeen said:

With a low elasticity of demand and significant levels of consumption, tobacco is a sound vehicle through which to raise a large and consistent revenue stream. Australian Excise collections from tobacco totalled approximately $5.5 Billion in 2008

From: http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Access%20to%20Information/Disclosure%20Log/2011/Plain%20packaging%20of%20tobacco%20products/Downloads/Document_57.ashx

Interesting.

Confer:

In 2004-5, the social costs of tobacco use in Australia were an estimated $31.5 billion, an increase of $10.4 billion from the previous costs estimated for 1998-9

http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/31901/reduce-risks/smoking-reduce-risks/tobacco-facts/statistics-on-smoking-in-australia/

http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/mono64-l~mono64-l-ch1

OCDC said:

sibeen said:

With a low elasticity of demand and significant levels of consumption, tobacco is a sound vehicle through which to raise a large and consistent revenue stream. Australian Excise collections from tobacco totalled approximately $5.5 Billion in 2008

From: http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Access%20to%20Information/Disclosure%20Log/2011/Plain%20packaging%20of%20tobacco%20products/Downloads/Document_57.ashx

Interesting.

Confer:

In 2004-5, the social costs of tobacco use in Australia were an estimated $31.5 billion, an increase of $10.4 billion from the previous costs estimated for 1998-9

http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/31901/reduce-risks/smoking-reduce-risks/tobacco-facts/statistics-on-smoking-in-australia/

http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/mono64-l~mono64-l-ch1

So.. who balances the budget?

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

I’m sorry but it is the best I could come up with :)

that is simply because tobacco is pariah.. what if it was.. alcohol?

Alcohol does not kill a third to half of its users, and does not cause ‘passive drinking’ problems.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/

OCDC said:

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

I’m sorry but it is the best I could come up with :)

that is simply because tobacco is pariah.. what if it was.. alcohol?

Alcohol does not kill a third to half of its users, and does not cause ‘passive drinking’ problems.

I’ll call bullshit.. seriously. Tobacco may incidentally kill more but alcohol easily catches up.

sibeen said:

With a low elasticity of demand and significant levels of consumption, tobacco is a sound vehicle through which to raise a large and consistent revenue stream. Australian Excise collections from tobacco totalled approximately $5.5 Billion in 2008

From: http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Access%20to%20Information/Disclosure%20Log/2011/Plain%20packaging%20of%20tobacco%20products/Downloads/Document_57.ashx

About bottom of page 9.

I’m sorry it’s not a newpaper article, but some guff produced by the Australian Treasury, but it is the best I could come up with :)

Thanks. Even though it’s not a newspaper article, and only a government document, I’ll accept it :) I note, though, that page 1 still acknowledges the costs at up to $31.5bn.

OCDC said:

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

I’m sorry but it is the best I could come up with :)

that is simply because tobacco is pariah.. what if it was.. alcohol?

Alcohol does not kill a third to half of its users, and does not cause ‘passive drinking’ problems.

Domestic violence as a passive drinking problem?

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

but then breathing isn’t everything.. we also drink and eat and touch everything before we pick our noses and scratch our arse.

What are you talking about? Are you trying to suggest that smoking isn’t bad for you?

no. I’m simply pointing out that almost everything is.. and that though as I said productivity decline is easy to asses.. health aspects have other variables which make every assessment difficult.. it isn’t sound rocket science to use as a ploicy argument in an election.. but then again.. any blind alley will do to distract.

But to suggest that ‘almost everything’ causes cancer is just ridiculous

roughbarked said:

OCDC said:

roughbarked said:

that is simply because tobacco is pariah.. what if it was.. alcohol?

Alcohol does not kill a third to half of its users, and does not cause ‘passive drinking’ problems.

I’ll call bullshit.. seriously. Tobacco may incidentally kill more but alcohol easily catches up.

No.

I do death certificates and medical admissions. I don’t know numbers but even stretching things as much as possible, alcohol is NOT implicated in anywhere near as many deaths as smoking.

>and does not cause ‘passive drinking’ problems.

WTF.

Really…I mean really.

Thank gawd there is no such thing as alcohol induced violence happening.

Violence I concede.

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

What are you talking about? Are you trying to suggest that smoking isn’t bad for you?

no. I’m simply pointing out that almost everything is.. and that though as I said productivity decline is easy to asses.. health aspects have other variables which make every assessment difficult.. it isn’t sound rocket science to use as a ploicy argument in an election.. but then again.. any blind alley will do to distract.

But to suggest that ‘almost everything’ causes cancer is just ridiculous

cancer isn’t the issue I was relating to though it is indeed a big part of the issue, it is by no means the means to end all.

OCDC said:

roughbarked said:

OCDC said:

Alcohol does not kill a third to half of its users, and does not cause ‘passive drinking’ problems.

I’ll call bullshit.. seriously. Tobacco may incidentally kill more but alcohol easily catches up.

No.

I do death certificates and medical admissions. I don’t know numbers but even stretching things as much as possible, alcohol is NOT implicated in anywhere near as many deaths as smoking.

maybe.. but not far behind it and.. I still claim that science needs to take all factors into account.

OCDC said:

Violence I concede.

as you should and there is more to it than that.. as you should look at.

why defend alcohol? is it in the same league as cats?

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

no. I’m simply pointing out that almost everything is.. and that though as I said productivity decline is easy to asses.. health aspects have other variables which make every assessment difficult.. it isn’t sound rocket science to use as a ploicy argument in an election.. but then again.. any blind alley will do to distract.

But to suggest that ‘almost everything’ causes cancer is just ridiculous

cancer isn’t the issue I was relating to though it is indeed a big part of the issue, it is by no means the means to end all.

But again you miss the point… Cancer is the issue.

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

But to suggest that ‘almost everything’ causes cancer is just ridiculous

cancer isn’t the issue I was relating to though it is indeed a big part of the issue, it is by no means the means to end all.

But again you miss the point… Cancer is the issue.

not in enough cases.

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

cancer isn’t the issue I was relating to though it is indeed a big part of the issue, it is by no means the means to end all.

But again you miss the point… Cancer is the issue.

not in enough cases.

Now you are just speaking shit roughy…

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

But again you miss the point… Cancer is the issue.

not in enough cases.

Now you are just speaking shit roughy…

not really.. I am aware of the cancer ratios.. I was trying to point out that cancer isn’t all that tobacco or alcohol do to our society.

(shrugs) Alcohol is a big problem but it is not true that a third of drinkers die because of drinking, even if you include alcohol related violence and vehicular collisions.

dv said:

(shrugs) Alcohol is a big problem but it is not true that a third of drinkers die because of drinking, even if you include alcohol related violence and vehicular collisions.

and how much of the budget? ;)

Where’s shebs?

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/experts-want-smokers-to-get-licence-to-light-up/story-fneuz9ev-1226691099559

lol…

FGS they sure give smokers a hard time !

poikilotherm said:

Where’s shebs?

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/experts-want-smokers-to-get-licence-to-light-up/story-fneuz9ev-1226691099559

lol…

maybe the govt should take the methadone approach…

poikilotherm said:

Where’s shebs?

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/experts-want-smokers-to-get-licence-to-light-up/story-fneuz9ev-1226691099559

lol…

I think it’s established that most existing smokers will ‘adjust’ to new prices and demands…, but if they can make it harder/more expensive to stop teenagers starting in the first place there might be a long term benefit.

Something I’ve been wondering for some time now:

Are members of the Liberal Party front bench:

a) Required to have strong natural sneering abilities
b) Required to attend sneering boot camp before taking office
c) Both of the above

?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Something I’ve been wondering for some time now:

Are members of the Liberal Party front bench:

a) Required to have strong natural sneering abilities
b) Required to attend sneering boot camp before taking office
c) Both of the above

?

It certainly appears so.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Something I’ve been wondering for some time now:

Are members of the Liberal Party front bench:

a) Required to have strong natural sneering abilities
b) Required to attend sneering boot camp before taking office
c) Both of the above

?

d) born to sneer

The Rev Dodgson said:

Something I’ve been wondering for some time now:

Are members of the Liberal Party front bench:

a) Required to have strong natural sneering abilities
b) Required to attend sneering boot camp before taking office
c) Both of the above

?

I think it comes natural

Geoff D said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Something I’ve been wondering for some time now:

Are members of the Liberal Party front bench:

a) Required to have strong natural sneering abilities
b) Required to attend sneering boot camp before taking office
c) Both of the above

?

They are hoping to show the face of sneering Australia to the world.
d) born to sneer

they all sneer… and the ones at the back are vocal (or sleeping)

It’s their ‘game face’

Maybe they are just exercising the Flehman Response:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flehmen_response

The Rev Dodgson said:

Something I’ve been wondering for some time now:

Are members of the Liberal Party front bench:

a) Required to have strong natural sneering abilities
b) Required to attend sneering boot camp before taking office
c) Both of the above

?

All of the above, and

are required to be religious, preferably christian/catholic, this will give them the ability to ignore contradicting evidence, and to abuse human rights without knowing they are

are required to be economic robots with no soul , this will give them the ability to cut government funding to Tafe courses, education and health, without feeling any emotion

are required to say no comment a lot, this will give them the ability to ignore questions from journalists

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Something I’ve been wondering for some time now:

Are members of the Liberal Party front bench:

a) Required to have strong natural sneering abilities
b) Required to attend sneering boot camp before taking office
c) Both of the above

?

All of the above, and

are required to be religious, preferably christian/catholic, this will give them the ability to ignore contradicting evidence, and to abuse human rights without knowing they are

are required to be economic robots with no soul , this will give them the ability to cut government funding to Tafe courses, education and health, without feeling any emotion

are required to say no comment a lot, this will give them the ability to ignore questions from journalists

Comes from being rogered by priests.

Abbott has now said that the coalition will refuse to form a minority govt.

What this means is that if the Coalition gets 75 seats and Katter is willing to let them form govt, they’ll say no, meaning Katter will either then say “well fuck you then” and form govt with the ALP/Green/Wilkie, or there will be another election.

dv said:

Abbott has now said that the coalition will refuse to form a minority govt.

What this means is that if the Coalition gets 75 seats and Katter is willing to let them form govt, they’ll say no, meaning Katter will either then say “well fuck you then” and form govt with the ALP/Green/Wilkie, or there will be another election.

The coalition is two minority governments anyway.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-05/your-say-which-election-issues-are-most-important-to-you/4864534

Arts said:

poikilotherm said:

Where’s shebs?

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/experts-want-smokers-to-get-licence-to-light-up/story-fneuz9ev-1226691099559

lol…

I think it’s established that most existing smokers will ‘adjust’ to new prices and demands…, but if they can make it harder/more expensive to stop teenagers starting in the first place there might be a long term benefit.

If it annoys shebs, it must be good.

poikilotherm said:

Arts said:

poikilotherm said:

Where’s shebs?

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/experts-want-smokers-to-get-licence-to-light-up/story-fneuz9ev-1226691099559

lol…

I think it’s established that most existing smokers will ‘adjust’ to new prices and demands…, but if they can make it harder/more expensive to stop teenagers starting in the first place there might be a long term benefit.

If it annoys shebs, it must be good.

Children who take up smoking normally come from a family that smokes.

poikilotherm said:

Arts said:

poikilotherm said:

Where’s shebs?

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/experts-want-smokers-to-get-licence-to-light-up/story-fneuz9ev-1226691099559

lol…

I think it’s established that most existing smokers will ‘adjust’ to new prices and demands…, but if they can make it harder/more expensive to stop teenagers starting in the first place there might be a long term benefit.

If it annoys shebs, it must be good.

oh… yeah, ok

Hehe, interesting to see which side of politics here is doing the sneering.
I’ll just watch.

Peak Warming Man said:

Hehe, interesting to see which side of politics here is doing the sneering.
I’ll just watch.

I’d be pissed off that they are wasting my money. If I gave them any.

Kevin’s song…

“Walking In Your Shadow”

I’m walking in your shadow
Ever since you went away – Yeah
And the clock on the wall
Really hasn’t very much to say
Oh you left me bleeding
And left me needing you

In so very many ways
I was trying to attract your mind
But I’m the lonely one
‘Cause I’ve had to leave it all behind
Lied and deceiving
Why should I be grieving you – Oh yeah

Ride on a golden wave
Set sail for the sun
Make every cloud your slave
Don’t be alone

When I get back from trip
Of the ocean wide
Still walking in your shadow
And still looking for somewhere to hide – Yeah
If I am worse off
It’s all because of you
It’s all because of you

Ride on a golden wave
Set sail for the sun
Make every cloud your slave
Don’t be alone

When I get back from trip
Of the ocean wide
Still walking in your shadow
And still looking for somewhere to hide – Yeah
If I am worse off
It’s all because of you
It’s all because of you

dv said:

Abbott has now said that the coalition will refuse to form a minority govt.

What this means is that if the Coalition gets 75 seats and Katter is willing to let them form govt, they’ll say no, meaning Katter will either then say “well fuck you then” and form govt with the ALP/Green/Wilkie, or there will be another election.

IMO it’s likely the result from the last election will result in a swing away from independents

If it annoys shebs, it must be good.

a beautiful thing is a joy forever.

Peak Warming Man said:

Hehe, interesting to see which side of politics here is doing the sneering.
I’ll just watch.

Is it sneering to observe that certain politicians are usually jolly sneerful?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Hehe, interesting to see which side of politics here is doing the sneering.
I’ll just watch.

Is it sneering to observe that certain politicians are usually jolly sneerful?

It is all about the fact that bullying is the norm rather than the exception.

Dear oh dear:

The Liberal Party’s Jaymes Diaz marked the start of his pitch for Sydney’s most marginal electorate with an interview so excruciating that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott called to commiserate.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/diaz-and-confused-candidate-misses-the-points-20130806-2rb1v.html#ixzz2b9zexpf4

Hiroshima marks atomic anniversary

TENS of thousands have gathered at a peace memorial park in Hiroshima to mark the 68th anniversary of the US atomic bombing of the city, as anti-atomic sentiment runs high in Japan. The annual ceremony came as radioactive water leaks at the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant have stoked renewed fears about the plant’s precarious state, and underscored broader worries about atomic power following Japan’s 2011 nuclear crisis.

In Hiroshima, ageing survivors, relatives, government officials and foreign delegates observed a moment of silence at 8:15am, the time of the detonation which turned the western Japanese city into a nuclear inferno.

“We offer heartfelt consolation to the souls of the atomic bomb victims by pledging to do everything in our power to eliminate the absolute evil of nuclear weapons and achieve a peaceful world,” Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui told the ceremony.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/japan-marks-68th-anniversary-of-hiroshima/story-fni0xqll-1226691955117

Hmm, don’t know how that ended up in Election Chat.

Bubblecar said:

Dear oh dear:

The Liberal Party’s Jaymes Diaz marked the start of his pitch for Sydney’s most marginal electorate with an interview so excruciating that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott called to commiserate.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/diaz-and-confused-candidate-misses-the-points-20130806-2rb1v.html#ixzz2b9zexpf4

The extended interview.

Hug that pamphlet Jaymes….hug it tight.

kii said:

Bubblecar said:

Dear oh dear:

The Liberal Party’s Jaymes Diaz marked the start of his pitch for Sydney’s most marginal electorate with an interview so excruciating that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott called to commiserate.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/diaz-and-confused-candidate-misses-the-points-20130806-2rb1v.html#ixzz2b9zexpf4

The extended interview.

Hug that pamphlet Jaymes….hug it tight.

Still, he did better than Mal Meninga a few years ago.

maybe with each political ad or interview on commercial tv or in the papers they should present an alternative view by the opposite party

also

ban mud throwing, its immature

CrazyNeutrino said:

maybe with each political ad or interview on commercial tv or in the papers they should present an alternative view by the opposite party

also

ban mud throwing, its immature

TVs should come with a special button that allows you to turn the sound off whenever a political ad comes on.

i think i died of shame in sympathy.

and this person wants to represent the public and get paid for the privilege?

ChrispenEvan said:

i think i died of shame in sympathy.

and this person wants to represent the public and get paid for the privilege?

Yeah, but they have a 6 point plan.

ChrispenEvan said:

i think i died of shame in sympathy.

and this person wants to represent the public and get paid for the privilege?

Maybe there will be on-the-job training.. ?

And because it’s becoming a habit of mine….some Pratchett that might (or might not) be pertinent:

“Technically, the city of Ankh-Morpork is a Tyranny, which is not always the same thing as a monarchy, and in fact even the post of Tyrant has been somewhat redefined by the incumbent, Lord Vetinari, as the only form of democracy that works. Everyone is entitled to vote, unless disqualified by reason of age or not being Lord Vetinari.

And yet it does work. This has annoyed a number of people who feel, somehow, that it should not, and who want a monarch instead, thus replacing a man who has achieved his position by cunning, a deep understanding of the realities of the human psyche, breathtaking diplomacy, a certain prowess with the stiletto dagger, and, all agree, a mind like a finely balanced circular saw, with a man who has got there by being born”

Yeah, but they have a 6 point plan.

there’ll be a quiz later.

party_pants said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

maybe with each political ad or interview on commercial tv or in the papers they should present an alternative view by the opposite party

also

ban mud throwing, its immature

TVs should come with a special button that allows you to turn the sound off whenever a political ad comes on.

You mean like a volume button…

Chimps have experimented with sex more than humans
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929265.100-chimps-have-experimented-with-sex-more-than-humans.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.UgDq0KxFtcV

I blame religion

diddly-squat said:

party_pants said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

maybe with each political ad or interview on commercial tv or in the papers they should present an alternative view by the opposite party

also

ban mud throwing, its immature

TVs should come with a special button that allows you to turn the sound off whenever a political ad comes on.

You mean like a volume button…

no, an automatic mute button that knows politics

diddly-squat said:

party_pants said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

maybe with each political ad or interview on commercial tv or in the papers they should present an alternative view by the opposite party

also

ban mud throwing, its immature

TVs should come with a special button that allows you to turn the sound off whenever a political ad comes on.

You mean like a volume button…

I use the mute button a lot.

oops wrong thread

CrazyNeutrino said:

diddly-squat said:

party_pants said:

TVs should come with a special button that allows you to turn the sound off whenever a political ad comes on.

You mean like a volume button…

no, an automatic mute button that knows politics

Then I wouldn’t be able to watch Shitsville Express. Which by the way was rather good this eve. Though the bus driver seemed to be wandering out of his lane a few times.

I still haven’t decided to not run for local elections here.

If some reporter stuck a microphone in my face and asked me about someone elses promises, I would also struggle to look like I knew what he was talking about.

But I would probably reply “fucked if I know”.

Kingy said:

I still haven’t decided to not run for local elections here.

If some reporter stuck a microphone in my face and asked me about someone elses promises, I would also struggle to look like I knew what he was talking about.

But I would probably reply “fucked if I know”.

I do that a lot.

Kingy said:

I still haven’t decided to not run for local elections here.

If some reporter stuck a microphone in my face and asked me about someone elses promises, I would also struggle to look like I knew what he was talking about.

But I would probably reply “fucked if I know”.

It’s not unreasonable to expect that someone that wants to be a professional politician know what they and their opposition are on about…

>This policy is ‘survival’ paddling.

Yep. Which shits me to tears.

If Abbott had announced the PNG policy the fucking lamentation and rending of clothes would have echoed around the nation. There was some ‘angst’ expressed but somehow the labor supporters got over it.

He then announced the Nauru “solution”. Nary a bloody ripple.

Fucking hypocritical. Oh, look, Abbott has been photographed kissing the back od a woman’s head…what a wanker.

>What was the Nauru announcement?

He intends to settle refugees on Nauru. Not use it as a staging post, but actually intends to have them settle there, just like the PNG solution.

A nation of about 9000 (yep, three zeros) and a land area of 21 square kilometres.

Risible.

i haven’t heard anything positive about the png solution. from anyone. it wouldn’t get in the press anyway as it seems to be a “winner” and the australian press don’t want to publish that about labor.

they’ll be like shags on a rock. and in a thousand years we can mine the phosphate.

diddly-squat said:

Kingy said:

I still haven’t decided to not run for local elections here.

If some reporter stuck a microphone in my face and asked me about someone elses promises, I would also struggle to look like I knew what he was talking about.

But I would probably reply “fucked if I know”.

——

Well let us vote on which side of polotics will serve us best.

From my perspective, the reduction in tax rates (Labor) on lower incomes means my wife and I now pay way less tax than we did before.

It makes me angry that under the Howard years we were paying more tax to subsidise tax cuts to the rich.

ChrispenEvan said:

i haven’t heard anything positive about the png solution. from anyone. it wouldn’t get in the press anyway as it seems to be a “winner” and the australian press don’t want to publish that about labor.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/rudd-png-plan-unenforceable-coalition

sibeen said:

Oh, look, Abbott has been photographed kissing the back of a woman’s head…what a wanker.

It wasn’t so long ago that the staff of The Australian went on strike in protest over the outrageously one-sided coverage that the newspaper proprietor, Rupert Murdoch, insisted upon.

I think it’s very encouraging that politicians can be portrayed as idiots – Providing they’re all getting treated the same.

I know you’ll accuse me of being a Socialist for expecting everyone to be treated the same…

;-)

the guardian is a pommie rag ain’t it me ole china?

anyway as i don’t vote i probably shouldn’t be in this thread.

I wonder if the electorate finds the idea of sending everyone to PNG just as believable as the idea of turning boats around?

I mean, we all know neither option is going to work, right?

ChrispenEvan said:

anyway as i don’t vote i probably shouldn’t be in this thread.

When did you change your name to bubblecar?

ChrispenEvan said:

anyway as i don’t vote i probably shouldn’t be in this thread.

Rule 303 said:

I wonder if the electorate finds the idea of sending everyone to PNG just as believable as the idea of turning boats around?

I mean, we all know neither option is going to work, right?

we are the erectorate.. http://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/topics/3367/

ChrispenEvan said:

anyway as i don’t vote i probably shouldn’t be in this thread.

Go and sit in the corner with Mr Car…

email sent rb

19 shillings said:

diddly-squat said:

Kingy said:

I still haven’t decided to not run for local elections here.

If some reporter stuck a microphone in my face and asked me about someone elses promises, I would also struggle to look like I knew what he was talking about.

But I would probably reply “fucked if I know”.

——

Well let us vote on which side of polotics will serve us best.

From my perspective, the reduction in tax rates (Labor) on lower incomes means my wife and I now pay way less tax than we did before.

It makes me angry that under the Howard years we were paying more tax to subsidise tax cuts to the rich.

Yes, at least the Rudd government substantially increased income tax on those fat rich fuckers!

Oh, excuse me, nup, looking at tax rates over the last eight years it appears he didn’t…damm.

and a

to wash it down.

:-)

Well we pay 4,000 less tax per year now.

Over 10 years ..Fuck that would have provided us with new carpet and a new car.

Instead we subsidised tax cuts for the rich.

Kingy said:

I still haven’t decided to not run for local elections here.

If some reporter stuck a microphone in my face and asked me about someone elses promises, I would also struggle to look like I knew what he was talking about.

But I would probably reply “fucked if I know”.

Mal Meninga – Shortest political career on record:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt—SGmIKIQ

ChrispenEvan said:

and a

to wash it down.

:-)

Apparently you can get a chocolate draught that tastes like rich dark chocolate

19 shillings said:

Well we pay 4,000 less tax per year now.

Over 10 years ..Fuck that would have provided us with new carpet and a new car.

Instead we subsidised tax cuts for the rich.

19, I’m assuming that is because the thresholds moved. They moved for everyone. The highest threshold now kicks in at $180k. Under the previous liberal government the highest threshold kicked in at $150k.

During the Howard years the lowest threshold kicked in a $6k and was up to $21.6k.

Under the present regime government the lowest threshold kickes in a $6k and is up to $37k.

sibeen said:

19 shillings said:

Well we pay 4,000 less tax per year now.

Over 10 years ..Fuck that would have provided us with new carpet and a new car.

Instead we subsidised tax cuts for the rich.

19, I’m assuming that is because the thresholds moved. They moved for everyone. The highest threshold now kicks in at $180k. Under the previous liberal government the highest threshold kicked in at $150k.

During the Howard years the lowest threshold kicked in a $6k and was up to $21.6k.

Under the present regime government the lowest threshold kickes in a $6k and is up to $37k.

What happened to raising the lower threshold to 18K?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

email sent rb

answered.

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

19 shillings said:

Well we pay 4,000 less tax per year now.

Over 10 years ..Fuck that would have provided us with new carpet and a new car.

Instead we subsidised tax cuts for the rich.

19, I’m assuming that is because the thresholds moved. They moved for everyone. The highest threshold now kicks in at $180k. Under the previous liberal government the highest threshold kicked in at $150k.

During the Howard years the lowest threshold kicked in a $6k and was up to $21.6k.

Under the present regime government the lowest threshold kickes in a $6k and is up to $37k.

What happened to raising the lower threshold to 18K?

Actually, you are correct, roughy. The lower threshold has moved to $18k.

I was using the site http://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/Individual-income-tax-for-prior-years/ for my information and it does not include this financial year.

sibeen said:

19 shillings said:

Well we pay 4,000 less tax per year now.

Over 10 years ..Fuck that would have provided us with new carpet and a new car.

Instead we subsidised tax cuts for the rich.

19, I’m assuming that is because the thresholds moved. They moved for everyone. The highest threshold now kicks in at $180k. Under the previous liberal government the highest threshold kicked in at $150k.

During the Howard years the lowest threshold kicked in a $6k and was up to $21.6k.

Under the present regime government the lowest threshold kickes in a $6k and is up to $37k.

You should move to WA where our FEDERAL taxes kick in at 18k…

sibeen said:

19 shillings said:

Well we pay 4,000 less tax per year now.

Over 10 years ..Fuck that would have provided us with new carpet and a new car.

Instead we subsidised tax cuts for the rich.

19, I’m assuming that is because the thresholds moved. They moved for everyone. The highest threshold now kicks in at $180k. Under the previous liberal government the highest threshold kicked in at $150k.

During the Howard years the lowest threshold kicked in a $6k and was up to $21.6k.

Under the present regime government the lowest threshold kickes in a $6k and is up to $37k.

—-

pfft

I now pay way less tax than I did under Howard

19 shillings said:

sibeen said:

19 shillings said:

Well we pay 4,000 less tax per year now.

Over 10 years ..Fuck that would have provided us with new carpet and a new car.

Instead we subsidised tax cuts for the rich.

19, I’m assuming that is because the thresholds moved. They moved for everyone. The highest threshold now kicks in at $180k. Under the previous liberal government the highest threshold kicked in at $150k.

During the Howard years the lowest threshold kicked in a $6k and was up to $21.6k.

Under the present regime government the lowest threshold kickes in a $6k and is up to $37k.

—-

pfft

I now pay way less tax than I did under Howard

Because I earn less than 18K.. how much do you think I pay?

19 shillings said:

I now pay way less tax than I did under Howard

We seem to be getting more rain than we did under Howard, too.

;-)

Rule 303 said:

19 shillings said:

I now pay way less tax than I did under Howard

We seem to be getting more rain than we did under Howard, too.

;-)

Can’t make money from dust.

roughbarked said:

Because I earn less than 18K.. how much do you think I pay?

Probably the same as most of the people earning over $180k – Nil.

roughbarked said:

19 shillings said:

sibeen said:

19, I’m assuming that is because the thresholds moved. They moved for everyone. The highest threshold now kicks in at $180k. Under the previous liberal government the highest threshold kicked in at $150k.

During the Howard years the lowest threshold kicked in a $6k and was up to $21.6k.

Under the present regime government the lowest threshold kickes in a $6k and is up to $37k.

—-

pfft

I now pay way less tax than I did under Howard

Because I earn less than 18K.. how much do you think I pay?

—

about 10%

Rule 303 said:

roughbarked said:

Because I earn less than 18K.. how much do you think I pay?

Probably the same as most of the people earning over $180k – Nil.

10% on every cent I spend.

19 shillings said:

roughbarked said:

19 shillings said:

—-

pfft

I now pay way less tax than I did under Howard

Because I earn less than 18K.. how much do you think I pay?

—

about 10%

depends on what I spend it on.. many things are further taxed.. ie: ciggies and beer.

Pumpkin o’clock.

Night all.

at some point they are going to start taxing on items left out for roadside collection. then I am stuffed. Till then I’ve still got a set of 12 by 6inch speakers out of it, among other things

19 shillings said:

sibeen said:

19 shillings said:

Well we pay 4,000 less tax per year now.

Over 10 years ..Fuck that would have provided us with new carpet and a new car.

Instead we subsidised tax cuts for the rich.

19, I’m assuming that is because the thresholds moved. They moved for everyone. The highest threshold now kicks in at $180k. Under the previous liberal government the highest threshold kicked in at $150k.

During the Howard years the lowest threshold kicked in a $6k and was up to $21.6k.

Under the present regime government the lowest threshold kickes in a $6k and is up to $37k.

—-

pfft

I now pay way less tax than I did under Howard

Which is paid for by debt. Who do you think is going to have to pay off that debt?

Looks to me like labor has bribed you into voting for them because it looks good to you in the short term. This is why so many democracies around the world now have gone to shit. Their polititians run out of credit cards to buy votes with, and then leave with a big fat pension, leaving you with the baby and no job.

Kingy said:

This is why so many democracies around the world now have gone to shit. Their polititians run out of credit cards to buy votes with, and then leave with a big fat pension, leaving you with the baby and no job.

At least open dictatorships give you someone to blame from the beginning

Kingy said:

19 shillings said:

sibeen said:

19, I’m assuming that is because the thresholds moved. They moved for everyone. The highest threshold now kicks in at $180k. Under the previous liberal government the highest threshold kicked in at $150k.

During the Howard years the lowest threshold kicked in a $6k and was up to $21.6k.

Under the present regime government the lowest threshold kickes in a $6k and is up to $37k.

—-

pfft

I now pay way less tax than I did under Howard

Which is paid for by debt. Who do you think is going to have to pay off that debt?

Looks to me like labor has bribed you into voting for them because it looks good to you in the short term. This is why so many democracies around the world now have gone to shit. Their polititians run out of credit cards to buy votes with, and then leave with a big fat pension, leaving you with the baby and no job.

—

So, you have a mortage…

Kingy said:

Looks to me like labor has bribed you into voting for them because it looks good to you in the short term. This is why so many democracies around the world now have gone to shit. Their polititians run out of credit cards to buy votes with, and then leave with a big fat pension, leaving you with the baby and no job.

Babies? Howard and Costello’s baby bonus? Bribery? Buying votes?

kii said:

Kingy said:

Looks to me like labor has bribed you into voting for them because it looks good to you in the short term. This is why so many democracies around the world now have gone to shit. Their polititians run out of credit cards to buy votes with, and then leave with a big fat pension, leaving you with the baby and no job.

Babies? Howard and Costello’s baby bonus? Bribery? Buying votes?

I try not to talk about politics much.. but it is true that that is all they see themselves there for. They buy your vote and then bullcrap their way around the issue until they get to the pension. It is actually the public services that do the work.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

at some point they are going to start taxing on items left out for roadside collection. then I am stuffed. Till then I’ve still got a set of 12 by 6inch speakers out of it, among other things

When I lived in the mountains of blue there was a bartering system named LETS. Payment for bartering was in the form of Echoes (and sometimes additional $$) Centrelink investigated because people on low incomes/gov. Payments were utilising the scheme and not declaring it it as income. I agreed with the $$ part but not the Echoes part.

kii said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

at some point they are going to start taxing on items left out for roadside collection. then I am stuffed. Till then I’ve still got a set of 12 by 6inch speakers out of it, among other things

When I lived in the mountains of blue there was a bartering system named LETS. Payment for bartering was in the form of Echoes (and sometimes additional $$) Centrelink investigated because people on low incomes/gov. Payments were utilising the scheme and not declaring it it as income. I agreed with the $$ part but not the Echoes part.

Recalls Keating.. He had opinions about bartering.

roughbarked said:

kii said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

at some point they are going to start taxing on items left out for roadside collection. then I am stuffed. Till then I’ve still got a set of 12 by 6inch speakers out of it, among other things

When I lived in the mountains of blue there was a bartering system named LETS. Payment for bartering was in the form of Echoes (and sometimes additional $$) Centrelink investigated because people on low incomes/gov. Payments were utilising the scheme and not declaring it it as income. I agreed with the $$ part but not the Echoes part.

Recalls Keating.. He had opinions about bartering.

He had opinions about not opposing the GST too.

What’s your point?

In this snap Abbott reminds me of Nazi war criminal Otto Ohlendorf, who was hanged at Nurmberg in 1951:

and now they both vaguely remind me of Mr Bean……

Bubblecar said:

In this snap Abbott reminds me of Nazi war criminal Otto Ohlendorf, who was hanged at Nurmberg in 1951:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

their eyebrow lines are remarkably similar

Bubblecar said:

In this snap Abbott reminds me of Nazi war criminal Otto Ohlendorf, who was hanged at Nurmberg in 1951:

I see Beatty was well coached for his effort on the 7:30 report this evening. Made all the correct noises, and managed to sound concerned about refugee plight without being concerned for them at all. A dog whistle for the Western Sydney electorates, neatly packaged up by your friendly ALP.

As an aside, I would have loved to have a been a fly on the wall in Shorten’s office when he found out Beatty was joining the team. I suspect the air turned blue.

Just wondering if sibeen’s disgust re the refugees is really with Kevin, or with Aussie swinging voters. I’m sure the Greens agree with him, and I agree with the Greens, but they’re not going to win government, and something tells me sibeen is highly unlikely to vote for them.

anyway if they don’t keep their swords in scabbards on their backs i’ll be happy. that’s so amateurish.

Bubblecar said:

Just wondering if sibeen’s disgust re the refugees is really with Kevin, or with Aussie swinging voters. I’m sure the Greens agree with him, and I agree with the Greens, but they’re not going to win government, and something tells me sibeen is highly unlikely to vote for them.

Oh, I’m a swinging voter, albeit one that has never swung that far to the left. As some have called it, this election is a race to the bottom. Kevin won. What does disgust me is that the Labor luvvies in the main make muttered nary a protest. If it had been Abbott the outrage bus would have been packed to the gunwales. Hypocritical mongrels.

Kevin won.

—-

If it is any consolation, at the moment the Coalition are ahead in the polls and are quite likely to win.

>What does disgust me is that the Labor luvvies in the main make muttered nary a protest.

What Labor luvvies? Who are you talking about? Gillard’s cronies were warning that Kev was most likely going to go soft on the asylum seekers, so much so that he would lose vital bogan votes. He proved them wrong, so they’re now even more disgruntled, but not remotely because they care about refugees.

dv said:

Kevin won.

—-

If it is any consolation, at the moment the Coalition are ahead in the polls and are quite likely to win.

I expect Kevin will get a rather good drubbing, and I certainly hope so, he’s an absolute grub.

>I expect Kevin will get a rather good drubbing, and I certainly hope so, he’s an absolute grub.

Your election posts don’t make any sense.

dv said:

Kevin won.

—-

If it is any consolation, at the moment the Coalition are ahead in the polls and are quite likely to win.

I think there will be a surprisingly high number of informal votes this election. Abbott to win far more easily than what the polls suggest.

i reckon it would be better getting the $20 fine for not voting so you have evidence that at least you didn’t vote for any of them.

Abbott to win far more easily than what the polls suggest.
—-

Ah well, I hope you’re all happy then.

Bubblecar said:

Your election posts don’t make any sense.

test.

• i reckon it would be better getting the $20 fine for not voting

Is that all it is? Thought it was more than that…

Bubblecar said:

>I expect Kevin will get a rather good drubbing, and I certainly hope so, he’s an absolute grub.

Your election posts don’t make any sense.

In what way?

I dislike both of the major parties leaders. I happen to dislike Rudd a lot more then I dislike Abbott.

Somehow I missed the news that Glenn Lazarus is heading up the Palmer United Party’s senate ticket in Qld.

8-/

Gonna be a hell of a senate, between Julian Assange and Lazarus.

Boris said:

i reckon it would be better getting the $20 fine for not voting so you have evidence that at least you didn’t vote for any of them.

I still intend to vote in the Senate.

What happens if I do not vote?

Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty.

If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $50 plus court costs.

http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm

dv said:

Somehow I missed the news that Glenn Lazarus is heading up the Palmer United Party’s senate ticket in Qld.

8-/

Gonna be a hell of a senate, between Julian Assange and Lazarus.

I hope Lazarus belts the crap out of him and then gives him a wedgie.

party_pants said:

Boris said:

i reckon it would be better getting the $20 fine for not voting so you have evidence that at least you didn’t vote for any of them.

I still intend to vote in the Senate.

Shit, Admiral, I didn’t even realise you were on the ticket.

So you think your chances are fairly good then?

Boris said:

What happens if I do not vote?

Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty.

If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $50 plus court costs.

http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm

I’m fairly sure the same rule applies to council elections. I must be up to evelty bazzillion dollars in fines by now.

OK, a question for people like sibeen, partypants, kii & Boris: if Kevin loses and we get an Abbott Tory government, do you seriously think that refugees would get a better deal? Or anyone at all would get a better deal, apart from people who neither need nor deserve one? If not, why are you insisting that we should prefer an Abbott government? Serious question. It’s becoming a bit stupid.

• What happens if I do not vote?

One I voted when I was interstate, sent in the postal vote but it didn’t arrive in time. Sods, fined me for not voting even though I did. I am sure it was 50 bucks, no excuses…

Bubblecar said:

OK, a question for people like sibeen, partypants, kii & Boris: if Kevin loses and we get an Abbott Tory government, do you seriously think that refugees would get a better deal? Or anyone at all would get a better deal, apart from people who neither need nor deserve one? If not, why are you insisting that we should prefer an Abbott government? Serious question. It’s becoming a bit stupid.

If you were voting.. who would you prefer?

Disgruntlement with the major parties is at a fairly high level so I wouldn’t be surprised if we can a bunch of indies and minor parties. Katter Australia Party, Pauline United Australia Party, Palmer Pyjama Party, keep an eye on the Fishers and Shooters.

Bubblecar said:

OK, a question for people like sibeen, partypants, kii & Boris: if Kevin loses and we get an Abbott Tory government, do you seriously think that refugees would get a better deal? Or anyone at all would get a better deal, apart from people who neither need nor deserve one? If not, why are you insisting that we should prefer an Abbott government? Serious question. It’s becoming a bit stupid.

I agree with Bubblecar.

• I’m fairly sure the same rule applies to council elections.

Where I come from, council elections are not compulsory…

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

Boris said:

i reckon it would be better getting the $20 fine for not voting so you have evidence that at least you didn’t vote for any of them.

I still intend to vote in the Senate.

Shit, Admiral, I didn’t even realise you were on the ticket.

So you think your chances are fairly good then?

Let me clarify: I intend to fill in my Senate voting ballot paper in a manner which constitutes a formal vote according to the AEC regulations.

furious said:

• I’m fairly sure the same rule applies to council elections.

Where I come from, council elections are not compulsory…

They are in NSW.

furious said:

• I’m fairly sure the same rule applies to council elections.

Where I come from, council elections are not compulsory…

They are in Victoria.

Where I come from, council elections are not compulsory…
—

Where do you come from ?

dv said:

Where I come from, council elections are not compulsory…
—

Where do you come from ?

Well that was the next question.

i don’t prefer abbott. but it’s a real toss up who is worse. they take it in turns. it’s like WWE, only not as amusing.

• Where do you come from ?

Well, you see, when a mummy and daddy love each other very much they…

But that’s not what you meant is it?

Boris said:

i don’t prefer abbott. but it’s a real toss up who is worse. they take it in turns. it’s like WWE, only not as amusing.

I’d be the first to admit that they have both lost the plot. Abbott should be easy to beat even with a big deficit.

>If you were voting.. who would you prefer?

I’d vote Green and give preferences to Labor. I’d accept that the Rudd boat people position was a sop to the swinging voters, and acknowledge that the problem there was twofold: the problem of ignorant and unpleasant (mainly working class) voters in marginal seats, and the problem of a particularly cuntish leader of the Conservatives ensuring that a bipartisan policy on asylum seekers (the only way of negating the swinging voters) is not currently possible.

furious said:

• Where do you come from ?

Well, you see, when a mummy and daddy love each other very much they…

But that’s not what you meant is it?

I’m sure you weren’t there at that time to elaborate upon the process either.

Bubblecar said:

OK, a question for people like sibeen, partypants, kii & Boris: if Kevin loses and we get an Abbott Tory government, do you seriously think that refugees would get a better deal? Or anyone at all would get a better deal, apart from people who neither need nor deserve one? If not, why are you insisting that we should prefer an Abbott government? Serious question. It’s becoming a bit stupid.

No, they will get a shitty deal either way. Under the ALP they will get raped and murdered after being resettled in some lawless third-world country like PNG. Under a Coalition they will have more incentive to take to the seas on ever less sea-worthy boats so they don’t qualify under the “safe to do so” turning back rule – but many more will drown before being intercepted or rescued.

Bubblecar said:

>If you were voting.. who would you prefer?

I’d vote Green and give preferences to Labor. I’d accept that the Rudd boat people position was a sop to the swinging voters, and acknowledge that the problem there was twofold: the problem of ignorant and unpleasant (mainly working class) voters in marginal seats, and the problem of a particularly cuntish leader of the Conservatives ensuring that a bipartisan policy on asylum seekers (the only way of negating the swinging voters) is not currently possible.

Fair enough.

I think it is fair to say I am from one of the places where local elections are not compulsory…

My good friend Martin B raised an interesting point. I said that there was a pretty decent chance that it could end up with 74 ALP, 74 Coalition, Katter, and Wilkie, meaning an irreconcilable tie and we’d have to have another election.

Martin reminded me that Katter doesn’t hate Rudd’s guts. If it came down to a) supporting an ALP minority govt or b) pissing everyone off by forcing another election, Katter may go for a), whereas Wilkie will never back the Coalition in a trillion years. This basically means 74 will be enough for the ALP to govern, whereas the Coalition really need 75.

Having said this, an ALP government dependent on Katter’s support would be dreadful.

I think it is fair to say I am from one of the places where local elections are not compulsory…
—-

Taiwan?

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

OK, a question for people like sibeen, partypants, kii & Boris: if Kevin loses and we get an Abbott Tory government, do you seriously think that refugees would get a better deal? Or anyone at all would get a better deal, apart from people who neither need nor deserve one? If not, why are you insisting that we should prefer an Abbott government? Serious question. It’s becoming a bit stupid.

No, they will get a shitty deal either way. Under the ALP they will get raped and murdered after being resettled in some lawless third-world country like PNG. Under a Coalition they will have more incentive to take to the seas on ever less sea-worthy boats so they don’t qualify under the “safe to do so” turning back rule – but many more will drown before being intercepted or rescued.

It is extremely unfortunate that this will be the fate of many of these people whether they stay at home or set out on the perilous journey to find a better place to live. The real issue is that Australia probably gets the fewest actually reaching our shores of all the nations these people turn to.

Voting is voluntary in local government elections in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. It is compulsory in New South Wales, Queensland and in the Northern Territory (in fully incorporated local government areas). It is compulsory for enrolled residents to vote in Victoria, but non-compulsory for enrolled non-residents.

The first election debate will be on August 11.

Rudd should murderise Abbott on basic facts and reason but the risk is that his smugness will poison the well.

furious said:

Voting is voluntary in local government elections in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. It is compulsory in New South Wales, Queensland and in the Northern Territory (in fully incorporated local government areas). It is compulsory for enrolled residents to vote in Victoria, but non-compulsory for enrolled non-residents.

So you could be from just about anywhere where hardly anybody lives then.

dv said:

The first election debate will be on August 11.

Rudd should murderise Abbott on basic facts and reason but the risk is that his smugness will poison the well.

They both have a fair modicum of smugness.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

The first election debate will be on August 11.

Rudd should murderise Abbott on basic facts and reason but the risk is that his smugness will poison the well.

They both have a fair modicum of smugness.

They probably get together for a beer after work and joke about how All of Australia hasn’t been able to remove either of them.

furious said:

Voting is voluntary in local government elections in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. It is compulsory in New South Wales, Queensland and in the Northern Territory (in fully incorporated local government areas). It is compulsory for enrolled residents to vote in Victoria, but non-compulsory for enrolled non-residents.

Our councils in WA are very small. They do nothing more than garbage collection, local roads and parks, and the annual fireworks on Australia Day. No need to have compulsory voting.

Mind you, there is a move afoot to have the 30-something councils that make up the Perth metro area reduced down to 14 through amalgamation. But that would still be many more and smaller councils than other cities.

Mind you, there is a move afoot to have the 30-something councils that make up the Perth metro area reduced down to 14 through amalgamation. But that would still be many more and smaller councils than other cities.
—-

30 councils for one town? fkn crazy.

dv said:

Mind you, there is a move afoot to have the 30-something councils that make up the Perth metro area reduced down to 14 through amalgamation. But that would still be many more and smaller councils than other cities.
—-

30 councils for one town? fkn crazy.

Yeah. You should have heard the mayors squeal on talk-back radio when the plan was announced.

Bubblecar said:

>If you were voting.. who would you prefer?

I’d vote Green and give preferences to Labor. I’d accept that the Rudd boat people position was a sop to the swinging voters, and acknowledge that the problem there was twofold: the problem of ignorant and unpleasant (mainly working class) voters in marginal seats, and the problem of a particularly cuntish leader of the Conservatives ensuring that a bipartisan policy on asylum seekers (the only way of negating the swinging voters) is not currently possible.

I really don’t get this. There was bipartisan support of the Howard solution up until Rudd took over the reins. He threw that out as it was, well, disgusting.

Now he’s introduced something far, far more draconian, and you’re blaming the leader of the opposition?

party_pants said:

furious said:

Voting is voluntary in local government elections in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. It is compulsory in New South Wales, Queensland and in the Northern Territory (in fully incorporated local government areas). It is compulsory for enrolled residents to vote in Victoria, but non-compulsory for enrolled non-residents.

Our councils in WA are very small. They do nothing more than garbage collection, local roads and parks, and the annual fireworks on Australia Day. No need to have compulsory voting.

Mind you, there is a move afoot to have the 30-something councils that make up the Perth metro area reduced down to 14 through amalgamation. But that would still be many more and smaller councils than other cities.

The amalgamations will mean I will live in the city of SouthPark…

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

>If you were voting.. who would you prefer?

I’d vote Green and give preferences to Labor. I’d accept that the Rudd boat people position was a sop to the swinging voters, and acknowledge that the problem there was twofold: the problem of ignorant and unpleasant (mainly working class) voters in marginal seats, and the problem of a particularly cuntish leader of the Conservatives ensuring that a bipartisan policy on asylum seekers (the only way of negating the swinging voters) is not currently possible.

I really don’t get this. There was bipartisan support of the Howard solution up until Rudd took over the reins. He threw that out as it was, well, disgusting.

Now he’s introduced something far, far more draconian, and you’re blaming the leader of the opposition?

I think the leader of the opposition has done everything in his power not to be bipartisan on the issue and literally caused the whole schemozzle to denigrate into the mess it is currently in. The Nauru decision was never a good one anyway.

Stealth said:

party_pants said:

furious said:

Voting is voluntary in local government elections in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. It is compulsory in New South Wales, Queensland and in the Northern Territory (in fully incorporated local government areas). It is compulsory for enrolled residents to vote in Victoria, but non-compulsory for enrolled non-residents.

Our councils in WA are very small. They do nothing more than garbage collection, local roads and parks, and the annual fireworks on Australia Day. No need to have compulsory voting.

Mind you, there is a move afoot to have the 30-something councils that make up the Perth metro area reduced down to 14 through amalgamation. But that would still be many more and smaller councils than other cities.

The amalgamations will mean I will live in the city of SouthPark…

I’ll be in Serpendale.

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

>If you were voting.. who would you prefer?

I’d vote Green and give preferences to Labor. I’d accept that the Rudd boat people position was a sop to the swinging voters, and acknowledge that the problem there was twofold: the problem of ignorant and unpleasant (mainly working class) voters in marginal seats, and the problem of a particularly cuntish leader of the Conservatives ensuring that a bipartisan policy on asylum seekers (the only way of negating the swinging voters) is not currently possible.

I really don’t get this. There was bipartisan support of the Howard solution up until Rudd took over the reins. He threw that out as it was, well, disgusting.

Now he’s introduced something far, far more draconian, and you’re blaming the leader of the opposition?

Yes. For those of us that don’t like Rudd it is more reason not to vote for him.

• I’ll be in Serpendale.

I’ll be in brookside…

Fuck Don Randall and his letter-box pollution.

Kevin Rudd has announced plans for a special low tax zone in the NT.

.. I hate this idea. I declare that this is the last straw, and that Keven Rudd has officially lost his marbles.

To be fair, I’m fairly sure the opposition came up with the idea first and he’s just following along.

I suspect it is all part of the master plan to make the two major parties indistinguishable from each other.

party_pants said:

Kevin Rudd has announced plans for a special low tax zone in the NT.

.. I hate this idea. I declare that this is the last straw, and that Keven Rudd has officially lost his marbles.

He stole it from mabbott, so I kinda agree.

Yes, I know Abbott and the Liberal party were looking at it too. There was some leaked policy document which was quickly disowned.

I just hate the central idea of it that different tax rates should apply to different geographical regions. I think it’s terribly short-sighted.

sibeen said:

I suspect it is all part of the master plan to make the two major parties indistinguishable from each other.

Just like Holden and Ford in the mid 2000s…

• To be fair, I’m fairly sure the opposition came up with the idea first and he’s just following along

Isn’t that why he is called “Me Too” Kev?

Kevin Rudd challenger for Griffith, Sherrilyn Church, proudly opposes Islam and wants mosques banned

“A CANDIDATE for the Prime Minister’s seat of Griffith has put outlawing the Islamic faith front and centre of her election campaign, branding it a “religion from hell” and claiming that building mosques in Australia is “high treason”. “

I wonder if that strategy ever works…

furious said:

Kevin Rudd challenger for Griffith, Sherrilyn Church, proudly opposes Islam and wants mosques banned

“A CANDIDATE for the Prime Minister’s seat of Griffith has put outlawing the Islamic faith front and centre of her election campaign, branding it a “religion from hell” and claiming that building mosques in Australia is “high treason”. “

I wonder if that strategy ever works…

Can we outlaw the Catholic Church while we’re about it?

party_pants said:

furious said:

Kevin Rudd challenger for Griffith, Sherrilyn Church, proudly opposes Islam and wants mosques banned

“A CANDIDATE for the Prime Minister’s seat of Griffith has put outlawing the Islamic faith front and centre of her election campaign, branding it a “religion from hell” and claiming that building mosques in Australia is “high treason”. “

I wonder if that strategy ever works…

Can we outlaw the Catholic Church while we’re about it?

I’d be happy with that ;)

Not truly election related but even more politicians behaving strangely:

Bizarre gay marriage speech from WA MP

“A WEST Australian MP has drawn criticism after comparing gay marriage to an incestuous relationship between siblings.”

When did we become part of the US?

furious said:

Not truly election related but even more politicians behaving strangely:

Bizarre gay marriage speech from WA MP

“A WEST Australian MP has drawn criticism after comparing gay marriage to an incestuous relationship between siblings.”

When did we become part of the US?

The man is a raving loony, and that’s being insulting to the real raving loonies.

> “A CANDIDATE for the Prime Minister’s seat of Griffith

One of Danny Nalliah’s nutjobs.

“Ms Church – a small-time citrus farmer from Crows Nest on the Darling Downs …”

Fark! My home town! Must admit that a lot of new-style nutters moved up there as the old, regular sort of nutters died out.

party_pants said:

furious said:

Kevin Rudd challenger for Griffith, Sherrilyn Church, proudly opposes Islam and wants mosques banned

“A CANDIDATE for the Prime Minister’s seat of Griffith has put outlawing the Islamic faith front and centre of her election campaign, branding it a “religion from hell” and claiming that building mosques in Australia is “high treason”. “

I wonder if that strategy ever works…

Can we outlaw the Catholic Church while we’re about it?

Scientology as well

About to put a 1.8kg lump of corned beef on to simmer for 4 hours.

Geoff D said:

“Ms Church – a small-time citrus farmer from Crows Nest on the Darling Downs …”

Fark! My home town! Must admit that a lot of new-style nutters moved up there as the old, regular sort of nutters died out.

I lived at Cabarlah 1983 – 87, so I’m one of the nutters that moved away.

furious said:

Not truly election related but even more politicians behaving strangely:

Bizarre gay marriage speech from WA MP

“A WEST Australian MP has drawn criticism after comparing gay marriage to an incestuous relationship between siblings.”

When did we become part of the US?

We’ve become the laughing stock of the US even…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5W6C8O729ZE&t=10

• We’ve become the laughing stock of the US even…

Is that a daily show clip – can’t access youtube at work – they tend to make fun of elections in any country…

furious said:

• We’ve become the laughing stock of the US even…

Is that a daily show clip – can’t access youtube at work – they tend to make fun of elections in any country…

Yes, yes it is. And it is very funny :)

Hello Holidayers

>>Upper Middle Bogan was funny :)<<

I thought so too. But I didn’t bother watching the thing after it, the ads looked cringe worthy to me.

Sorry, should have watched my threads….

How about that great leaders debate eh? What a crock. I heard this morning the election as being a Seinfeld election, much about nothing.

Curve, you’re back.

Another hospital stay?

furious said:

Kevin Rudd challenger for Griffith, Sherrilyn Church, proudly opposes Islam and wants mosques banned

“A CANDIDATE for the Prime Minister’s seat of Griffith has put outlawing the Islamic faith front and centre of her election campaign, branding it a “religion from hell” and claiming that building mosques in Australia is “high treason”. “

I wonder if that strategy ever works…

“Ms Church’s platform has proven unpopular within the local Islamic community”

Who’d‘ve thunk it?

• I heard this morning the election as being a Seinfeld election, much about nothing.

More like a South Park election:

Douche and Turd

The Rev Dodgson said:

“Ms Church’s platform has proven unpopular within the local Islamic community”

Who’d‘ve thunk it?

You wouldn’t want to be elected with that platform, turn yourself into a shrapnel trap.

Skunkworks said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

“Ms Church’s platform has proven unpopular within the local Islamic community”

Who’d‘ve thunk it?

You wouldn’t want to be elected with that platform, turn yourself into a shrapnel trap.

Running against Kevin the Pure of Heart she hasn’t got a snowflake’s chance in hell of winning the seat anyway.

Skunkworks said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

“Ms Church’s platform has proven unpopular within the local Islamic community”

Who’d‘ve thunk it?

You wouldn’t want to be elected with that platform, turn yourself into a shrapnel trap.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is strong with this one

John Cleese sums it up nicely
http://i.imgur.com/yPdnfbU.gif

Skunkworks said:

Dropbear said:

Skunkworks said:

Politics has gotten especially ridiculous when an opponents ideas or policy should be automatically rejected and criticised, if both sides were a bit more pragmatic and accepted working solutions we might be a bit better off.

How do you convince people to vote out the incumbents if you agree with their policies

But that is what is happening now, no real difference, but now policies that were once derided are now being adopted.

I think this time around there are differences between the major parties.

Trying to decide who gets my last vote on the Senate paper..

Shooters & Fishers, Wikileaks or the Stable Population Party. Such a hard choice.

the Stable Population Party
———————
Are they promoting ‘having a roll in the hay’?

party_pants said:

Trying to decide who gets my last vote on the Senate paper..

Shooters & Fishers, Wikileaks or the Stable Population Party. Such a hard choice.

Why the hate for Wikileaks?

Kingy said:

party_pants said:

Trying to decide who gets my last vote on the Senate paper..

Shooters & Fishers, Wikileaks or the Stable Population Party. Such a hard choice.

Why the hate for Wikileaks?

I’ve hated them for ages. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that military and state secrets deserve to be made public knowledge, it can do more harm than good. I don’t trust the judgement of self-appointed busy-bodies to make the correct decision. I’m with the establishment on this.

party_pants said:

Kingy said:

party_pants said:

Trying to decide who gets my last vote on the Senate paper..

Shooters & Fishers, Wikileaks or the Stable Population Party. Such a hard choice.

Why the hate for Wikileaks?

I’ve hated them for ages. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that military and state secrets deserve to be made public knowledge, it can do more harm than good. I don’t trust the judgement of self-appointed busy-bodies to make the correct decision. I’m with the establishment on this.

Well, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that our supposedly democratically elected government officials can do whatever they like in order to start wars that kill thousands of victims, assassinate people, distort the truth, create the “truth”, and bail out with millions of taxpayer dollars and no responsibility for the mess and death in their wake.

Kingy said:

Well, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that our supposedly democratically elected government officials can do whatever they like in order to start wars that kill thousands of victims, assassinate people, distort the truth, create the “truth”, and bail out with millions of taxpayer dollars and no responsibility for the mess and death in their wake.

Yeah, I understand that point of view. I don’t think our governments get everything right, but I have even less trust in an organisation like Wikileaks. If the government does a bad job they can at least be voted out. If Wikileaks do a bad job, where do I vote to kick them out?

party_pants said:

Kingy said:

Well, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that our supposedly democratically elected government officials can do whatever they like in order to start wars that kill thousands of victims, assassinate people, distort the truth, create the “truth”, and bail out with millions of taxpayer dollars and no responsibility for the mess and death in their wake.

Yeah, I understand that point of view. I don’t think our governments get everything right, but I have even less trust in an organisation like Wikileaks. If the government does a bad job they can at least be voted out. If Wikileaks do a bad job, where do I vote to kick them out?

Same place.

To be fair, there is some ructions in their party lately which does not look good on their part, but having their leader currently in jail on trumped up charges isn’t making things easy for them.

To put it another way. Frankly I don’t believe Assange is in it for the purposes of improving democracy and holding people to account. I think he is in it just to live out a movie hero fantasy.

party_pants said:

To put it another way. Frankly I don’t believe Assange is in it for the purposes of improving democracy and holding people to account. I think he is in it just to live out a movie hero fantasy.

Perhaps. Which version of the truth presented to you by the media do you believe?

Kingy said:

party_pants said:

Kingy said:

Well, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that our supposedly democratically elected government officials can do whatever they like in order to start wars that kill thousands of victims, assassinate people, distort the truth, create the “truth”, and bail out with millions of taxpayer dollars and no responsibility for the mess and death in their wake.

Yeah, I understand that point of view. I don’t think our governments get everything right, but I have even less trust in an organisation like Wikileaks. If the government does a bad job they can at least be voted out. If Wikileaks do a bad job, where do I vote to kick them out?

Same place.

To be fair, there is some ructions in their party lately which does not look good on their part, but having their leader currently in jail on trumped up charges isn’t making things easy for them.

I am a bit conflicted, I believe that govts should have secrets, but whistle blowers have a place as well. I think the US stuffed up on this one and probably deserved to be pinged, who gives a junior clerk unfettered access to millions of secret documents? Either very slack, ir they are not so secret, after all they could be accessed by thousands of people across the network and no real access restrictions or records of access. Too much overclassifying and access undermines the integrity of any classified system.

But it is a tricky balance, they wanted to provide access to avoid the knowledge silos under the old system but I think it swung too far the other way.

Kingy said:

party_pants said:

To put it another way. Frankly I don’t believe Assange is in it for the purposes of improving democracy and holding people to account. I think he is in it just to live out a movie hero fantasy.

Perhaps. Which version of the truth presented to you by the media do you believe?

Not the hero acting on higher principles version.

If he had released a single document that showed the journalists being fragged up he may have gotten away with it but to grab the lot and expose other agents and sources with no clue to the consequences was not on in my books.

Kingy said:

Perhaps. Which version of the truth presented to you by the media do you believe?

I believe it lies somewhere between that reported by centre-left and centre-right media organisations.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Kingy said:

Perhaps. Which version of the truth presented to you by the media do you believe?

I believe it lies somewhere between that reported by centre-left and centre-right media organisations.

Which is why I read all sources of news. People who say they never read such and such a newspaper are fooling themselves in my opinion just to get a momentary hit of smug.

Anyhow, I’m leaning toward Shooters and Fishers.

My nephew seems to be getting involved with it, through people he works with and their circle of friends. They seem to be ex-pat Saffer Christian fundies. They have a gun culture on a par with red-neck yanks. I don’t want that creeping in here.

Skunkworks said:

If he had released a single document that showed the journalists being fragged up he may have gotten away with it but to grab the lot and expose other agents and sources with no clue to the consequences was not on in my books.

He has not exposed anyone or caused any major problems. Most of the proper secrets that he has are still secret. His website has discovered enough secrets to realise that a lot of what we hear in the mass media is crap. When you look hard enough, you begin to see that there is a bait&switch approach to the “truth”. The people that we entrust with our lives should have some form of responsibility to those who are paying their wages.

party_pants said:

Anyhow, I’m leaning toward Shooters and Fishers.

My nephew seems to be getting involved with it, through people he works with and their circle of friends. They seem to be ex-pat Saffer Christian fundies. They have a gun culture on a par with red-neck yanks. I don’t want that creeping in here.

It has been here since forever.

party_pants said:

Anyhow, I’m leaning toward Shooters and Fishers.

My nephew seems to be getting involved with it, through people he works with and their circle of friends. They seem to be ex-pat Saffer Christian fundies. They have a gun culture on a par with red-neck yanks. I don’t want that creeping in here.

Sadly, I think Fishers and Shooters will do quite well and our National Parks will gradually become places where guns will be commonplace.

Kingy said:

He has not exposed anyone or caused any major problems.

Of course he revealed sources, and for your info in spook world a source can be a platform as well as a person. When they were released every single intelligence agency in the world would have combed through the leaked info looking for the means by which their own secrets had been revealed.

morrie said:

party_pants said:

Anyhow, I’m leaning toward Shooters and Fishers.

My nephew seems to be getting involved with it, through people he works with and their circle of friends. They seem to be ex-pat Saffer Christian fundies. They have a gun culture on a par with red-neck yanks. I don’t want that creeping in here.

Sadly, I think Fishers and Shooters will do quite well and our National Parks will gradually become places where guns will be commonplace.

All the more reason for me to get putting them last.

Kingy said:

Skunkworks said:

If he had released a single document that showed the journalists being fragged up he may have gotten away with it but to grab the lot and expose other agents and sources with no clue to the consequences was not on in my books.

He has not exposed anyone or caused any major problems. Most of the proper secrets that he has are still secret. His website has discovered enough secrets to realise that a lot of what we hear in the mass media is crap. When you look hard enough, you begin to see that there is a bait&switch approach to the “truth”. The people that we entrust with our lives should have some form of responsibility to those who are paying their wages.

Oh and I should add, he released that information with no regard to what it would reveal.

morrie said:

party_pants said:

Anyhow, I’m leaning toward Shooters and Fishers.

My nephew seems to be getting involved with it, through people he works with and their circle of friends. They seem to be ex-pat Saffer Christian fundies. They have a gun culture on a par with red-neck yanks. I don’t want that creeping in here.

Sadly, I think Fishers and Shooters will do quite well and our National Parks will gradually become places where guns will be commonplace.

I generally think that there is very little in the way of a main stream gun culture in this country…
..
All you need to do is sped a bit of time in the US or RSA to see that.

diddly-squat said:

morrie said:

party_pants said:

Anyhow, I’m leaning toward Shooters and Fishers.

My nephew seems to be getting involved with it, through people he works with and their circle of friends. They seem to be ex-pat Saffer Christian fundies. They have a gun culture on a par with red-neck yanks. I don’t want that creeping in here.

Sadly, I think Fishers and Shooters will do quite well and our National Parks will gradually become places where guns will be commonplace.

I generally think that there is very little in the way of a main stream gun culture in this country…
..
All you need to do is sped a bit of time in the US or RSA to see that.

Guns have always been a part of life in the bush.

Skunkworks said:

Kingy said:

Skunkworks said:

If he had released a single document that showed the journalists being fragged up he may have gotten away with it but to grab the lot and expose other agents and sources with no clue to the consequences was not on in my books.

He has not exposed anyone or caused any major problems. Most of the proper secrets that he has are still secret. His website has discovered enough secrets to realise that a lot of what we hear in the mass media is crap. When you look hard enough, you begin to see that there is a bait&switch approach to the “truth”. The people that we entrust with our lives should have some form of responsibility to those who are paying their wages.

Oh and I should add, he released that information with no regard to what it would reveal.

it’s pretty clear he was mentally unstable at the time… hasn’t she now asked to be refereed to as a woman?

roughbarked said:

Guns have always been a part of life in the bush.

Out in the bush they have a utilitarian purpose. They are a tool used for killing living creatures, which is sometimes necessary.

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

morrie said:

Sadly, I think Fishers and Shooters will do quite well and our National Parks will gradually become places where guns will be commonplace.

I generally think that there is very little in the way of a main stream gun culture in this country…
..
All you need to do is sped a bit of time in the US or RSA to see that.

Guns have always been a part of life in the bush.

of course they have, but on a farm a gun is a tool, not a play thing or a means for protection

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Guns have always been a part of life in the bush.

Out in the bush they have a utilitarian purpose. They are a tool used for killing living creatures, which is sometimes necessary.

Most of which were brought here for the purposes of sport.

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

I generally think that there is very little in the way of a main stream gun culture in this country…
..
All you need to do is sped a bit of time in the US or RSA to see that.

Guns have always been a part of life in the bush.

of course they have, but on a farm a gun is a tool, not a play thing or a means for protection

Yes I had trouble explaining that to US citizens.. That we had nothing to fear which could force us to keep guns for protection from.

diddly-squat said:

it’s pretty clear he was mentally unstable at the time… hasn’t she now asked to be refereed to as a woman?

I don’t understand how he even got into the military, I read when he enlisted he was only 47 kg. And not a wiry ninja 47 kg.

diddly-squat said:

morrie said:

party_pants said:

Anyhow, I’m leaning toward Shooters and Fishers.

My nephew seems to be getting involved with it, through people he works with and their circle of friends. They seem to be ex-pat Saffer Christian fundies. They have a gun culture on a par with red-neck yanks. I don’t want that creeping in here.

Sadly, I think Fishers and Shooters will do quite well and our National Parks will gradually become places where guns will be commonplace.

I generally think that there is very little in the way of a main stream gun culture in this country…
..
All you need to do is sped a bit of time in the US or RSA to see that.

We are nowhere near those places, but there are lots of people around here who love to go blazing away at anything that moves. While I was getting my car serviced a while ago I had to listen to the mechanic tell me how he and his mates went out near the rabbit proof fence shooting ‘fuckin’ emus. For added fun, they ran them down with the car when they got a chance.

Skunkworks said:

Kingy said:

Skunkworks said:

If he had released a single document that showed the journalists being fragged up he may have gotten away with it but to grab the lot and expose other agents and sources with no clue to the consequences was not on in my books.

He has not exposed anyone or caused any major problems. Most of the proper secrets that he has are still secret. His website has discovered enough secrets to realise that a lot of what we hear in the mass media is crap. When you look hard enough, you begin to see that there is a bait&switch approach to the “truth”. The people that we entrust with our lives should have some form of responsibility to those who are paying their wages.

Oh and I should add, he released that information with no regard to what it would reveal.

Some low secret info which wasn’t really important in the big scheme of things. Just enough to let the big liars know that he has their big secrets. The only reason that he is still alive is that he/wikileaks has torrents of info out there with a password in case of death.

Maybe I’ll vote the Stable Population Party last. I’m still undecided. Fancy them telling me not to go forth and multiply.

Kingy said:

Some low secret info which wasn’t really important in the big scheme of things. Just enough to let the big liars know that he has their big secrets. The only reason that he is still alive is that he/wikileaks has torrents of info out there with a password in case of death.

He or she was not in any position to judge if what he revealed was important or not. I have some knowledge of this sort of stuff and the release of that info did reveal sources and was damaging.

morrie said:

diddly-squat said:

morrie said:

Sadly, I think Fishers and Shooters will do quite well and our National Parks will gradually become places where guns will be commonplace.

I generally think that there is very little in the way of a main stream gun culture in this country…
..
All you need to do is sped a bit of time in the US or RSA to see that.

We are nowhere near those places, but there are lots of people around here who love to go blazing away at anything that moves. While I was getting my car serviced a while ago I had to listen to the mechanic tell me how he and his mates went out near the rabbit proof fence shooting ‘fuckin’ emus. For added fun, they ran them down with the car when they got a chance.

Yes. I see a lot of that.

Skunkworks said:

Kingy said:

Some low secret info which wasn’t really important in the big scheme of things. Just enough to let the big liars know that he has their big secrets. The only reason that he is still alive is that he/wikileaks has torrents of info out there with a password in case of death.

He or she was not in any position to judge if what he revealed was important or not. I have some knowledge of this sort of stuff and the release of that info did reveal sources and was damaging.

Though not enough to be relevant in court in public?

If you are able to hide your acts from the people that pay your wages, how long before you start ignoring their requests?

At what point do you become a dictator?

morrie said:

We are nowhere near those places, but there are lots of people around here who love to go blazing away at anything that moves. While I was getting my car serviced a while ago I had to listen to the mechanic tell me how he and his mates went out near the rabbit proof fence shooting ‘fuckin’ emus. For added fun, they ran them down with the car when they got a chance.

:~(

Kingy said:

Some low secret info which wasn’t really important in the big scheme of things. Just enough to let the big liars know that he has their big secrets.

What sort of big secrets do you think are yet to be revealed?

PM 2Ring said:

morrie said:

We are nowhere near those places, but there are lots of people around here who love to go blazing away at anything that moves. While I was getting my car serviced a while ago I had to listen to the mechanic tell me how he and his mates went out near the rabbit proof fence shooting ‘fuckin’ emus. For added fun, they ran them down with the car when they got a chance.

:~(

In the National Parks there have always been places for recreation and places that are zoned for preserving nature. ie: places where one may perhaps walk but not drive or camp.
I’ve seen where hoons have driven straight through the gates or cut fences, just to get in and shoot at things.

Kingy said:

Though not enough to be relevant in court in public?

How do you mean, he was sentenced and jailed. There would have been damage assessments out the ying yang and the govt would have been stuhm on many things. His leaks would have revealed sources and capabilities, or at least confirm capabilities.

I said earlier I think there is a place for whistleblowers but his indiscriminate hoovering up and disseminating the classified info, with no understanding of potential damage killed his case in my opinion as a concerned whistleblower attempting to right a wrong.

Kingy said:

If you are able to hide your acts from the people that pay your wages, how long before you start ignoring their requests?

At what point do you become a dictator?

Don’t you agree that it’s necessary for government / military to have some secrets, even in a democracy?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Kingy said:

Some low secret info which wasn’t really important in the big scheme of things. Just enough to let the big liars know that he has their big secrets.

What sort of big secrets do you think are yet to be revealed?

For a start, why did the US invade Iraq?

Why did Osama(supposedly) do 11/9?

If I had the password, I could probably name a few more interesting questions.

Kingy said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Kingy said:

Some low secret info which wasn’t really important in the big scheme of things. Just enough to let the big liars know that he has their big secrets.

What sort of big secrets do you think are yet to be revealed?

For a start, why did the US invade Iraq?

Why did Osama(supposedly) do 11/9?

If I had the password, I could probably name a few more interesting questions.

and thanks to popular culture I think there is a strong belief that governments are embroiled in conspiracy and that these are the secrets they are trying hardest to protect…

PM 2Ring said:

Kingy said:

If you are able to hide your acts from the people that pay your wages, how long before you start ignoring their requests?

At what point do you become a dictator?

Don’t you agree that it’s necessary for government / military to have some secrets, even in a democracy?

Yes. Hence him only releasing minor secrets.

Kingy said:

For a start, why did the US invade Iraq?

Why did Osama(supposedly) do 11/9?

1) They were stuck in an open-ended commitment to enforcing no-fly zones and naval blockades. None of which were having any real prospect of removing Saddam from power. They were stuck in a stand-ff that they couldn’t dismantle it and leave Saddam in place. Saddam had to be removed so they could withdraw.

2) he arranged the money for the crash pilots to live and learn to fly in the US.

diddly-squat said:

Kingy said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What sort of big secrets do you think are yet to be revealed?

For a start, why did the US invade Iraq?

Why did Osama(supposedly) do 11/9?

If I had the password, I could probably name a few more interesting questions.

and thanks to popular culture I think there is a strong belief that governments are embroiled in conspiracy and that these are the secrets they are trying hardest to protect…

I am not a 11/9 CT. From what I can find, the biggest problem is that it was foreseeable, foreseen, and ignored. Not that it was some conspiracy, it was just friggin’ incompetence and the blase attitude of the US authorities that let it happen.

Kingy said:

Yes. Hence him only releasing minor secrets.

eh, neither Manning or Assange were in any position to assess what was minor or not, and with them releasing “250,000 United States diplomatic cables; and 500,000 army reports “ there was no attempt to vet those documents, it was a job lot.

party_pants said:

Kingy said:

For a start, why did the US invade Iraq?

Why did Osama(supposedly) do 11/9?

1) They were stuck in an open-ended commitment to enforcing no-fly zones and naval blockades. None of which were having any real prospect of removing Saddam from power. They were stuck in a stand-ff that they couldn’t dismantle it and leave Saddam in place. Saddam had to be removed so they could withdraw.

2) he arranged the money for the crash pilots to live and learn to fly in the US.

1) Who committed them?

2) Why?

3) It appears that Obama is about to unilaterally declare war on Syria. Why?

Yes, I know that Syria is run by a complete jerk who thinks that mass murder is fine, but why does the US think that it is their job to start another war?

Kingy said:

diddly-squat said:

Kingy said:

For a start, why did the US invade Iraq?

Why did Osama(supposedly) do 11/9?

If I had the password, I could probably name a few more interesting questions.

and thanks to popular culture I think there is a strong belief that governments are embroiled in conspiracy and that these are the secrets they are trying hardest to protect…

I am not a 11/9 CT. From what I can find, the biggest problem is that it was foreseeable, foreseen, and ignored. Not that it was some conspiracy, it was just friggin’ incompetence and the blase attitude of the US authorities that let it happen.

I find it difficult to label the authorities as incompetent in that particular instance

Kingy said:

Skunkworks said:

Kingy said:

Some low secret info which wasn’t really important in the big scheme of things. Just enough to let the big liars know that he has their big secrets. The only reason that he is still alive is that he/wikileaks has torrents of info out there with a password in case of death.

He or she was not in any position to judge if what he revealed was important or not. I have some knowledge of this sort of stuff and the release of that info did reveal sources and was damaging.

Though not enough to be relevant in court in public?

If you are able to hide your acts from the people that pay your wages, how long before you start ignoring their requests?

At what point do you become a dictator?

Of course the leaks mean that the secrets will now be more closely guarded by a smaller group of people, which makes the above even more likely.

Kingy said:

party_pants said:

Kingy said:

For a start, why did the US invade Iraq?

Why did Osama(supposedly) do 11/9?

1) They were stuck in an open-ended commitment to enforcing no-fly zones and naval blockades. None of which were having any real prospect of removing Saddam from power. They were stuck in a stand-ff that they couldn’t dismantle it and leave Saddam in place. Saddam had to be removed so they could withdraw.

2) he arranged the money for the crash pilots to live and learn to fly in the US.

1) Who committed them?

2) Why?

3) It appears that Obama is about to unilaterally declare war on Syria. Why?

Yes, I know that Syria is run by a complete jerk who thinks that mass murder is fine, but why does the US think that it is their job to start another war?

there will be no war in Syria… it’s a similar situation to past events in Lebanon…

Yes, I know that Syria is run by a complete jerk who thinks that mass murder is fine, but why does the US think that it is their job to start another war
——————
Morals, ethics, humanity. These make it seem wrong to stand by and let obvious wrongdoing happen and not do anything about it.

Skunkworks said:

Kingy said:

Yes. Hence him only releasing minor secrets.

eh, neither Manning or Assange were in any position to assess what was minor or not, and with them releasing “250,000 United States diplomatic cables; and 500,000 army reports “ there was no attempt to vet those documents, it was a job lot.

That’s the difference between whistle-blowing and just being a knob because you can – as I was trying to allude to earlier. Genuine whistle-blowing is usually quite specific – for example you can blow the whistle on Coca-Cola for employing child labour in Nigeria to harvest kola beans without releasing details of their secret formula. The Wikileaks approach is too broad, if they got hold of the secret formula they would publish it as a punishment for child labour violations. They go a step too far.

diddly-squat said:

Kingy said:

party_pants said:

1) They were stuck in an open-ended commitment to enforcing no-fly zones and naval blockades. None of which were having any real prospect of removing Saddam from power. They were stuck in a stand-ff that they couldn’t dismantle it and leave Saddam in place. Saddam had to be removed so they could withdraw.

2) he arranged the money for the crash pilots to live and learn to fly in the US.

1) Who committed them?

2) Why?

3) It appears that Obama is about to unilaterally declare war on Syria. Why?

Yes, I know that Syria is run by a complete jerk who thinks that mass murder is fine, but why does the US think that it is their job to start another war?

there will be no war in Syria… it’s a similar situation to past events in Lebanon…

I was under the impression that Obama was simply releasing as much info from his conferences with the US military advisors et al. That he was advised to release.

Skunkworks said:

Kingy said:

Yes. Hence him only releasing minor secrets.

eh, neither Manning or Assange were in any position to assess what was minor or not, and with them releasing “250,000 United States diplomatic cables; and 500,000 army reports “ there was no attempt to vet those documents, it was a job lot.

He released a few uncomfortable secrets. The US set him up with a dodgy rape charge.
He released a few more, the US set him up with a black ops threat.
He released all of them, encoded, onto the internet.

Mexican standoff.

I have been conducting some business with another bloke called Roughy today, rb :)

Kingy said:

Skunkworks said:

Kingy said:

Yes. Hence him only releasing minor secrets.

eh, neither Manning or Assange were in any position to assess what was minor or not, and with them releasing “250,000 United States diplomatic cables; and 500,000 army reports “ there was no attempt to vet those documents, it was a job lot.

He released a few uncomfortable secrets. The US set him up with a dodgy rape charge.
He released a few more, the US set him up with a black ops threat.
He released all of them, encoded, onto the internet.

Mexican standoff.

Jack Reacher could have fixed it.

morrie said:

I have been conducting some business with another bloke called Roughy today, rb :)

cool.. was he as rough as me?

their part, but having their leader currently in jail on trumped up charges isn’t making things easy for them.
———————
Well he is not in jail, he is in self imposed exile. He must be convinced himself that he is guilty of criminal crimes or he would front court and prove how innocence and use the case as a stage to push his agenda. Of course if he is guilty of criminal offences then is he the sort person we should have leading us?

Kingy said:

He released a few uncomfortable secrets. The US set him up with a dodgy rape charge.

I find it hard to believe that the Swedes are out to get Assange on behalf of the USA.

Stealth said:

Yes, I know that Syria is run by a complete jerk who thinks that mass murder is fine, but why does the US think that it is their job to start another war
——————
Morals, ethics, humanity. These make it seem wrong to stand by and let obvious wrongdoing happen and not do anything about it.

Agreed. But how do you choose which side to back. Mass murderer1, or mass murderer2?

A lot of this planet is a shithole, and innocent people get tortured and killed there. How is killing more people going to help?

Kingy said:

Stealth said:

Yes, I know that Syria is run by a complete jerk who thinks that mass murder is fine, but why does the US think that it is their job to start another war
——————
Morals, ethics, humanity. These make it seem wrong to stand by and let obvious wrongdoing happen and not do anything about it.

Agreed. But how do you choose which side to back. Mass murderer1, or mass murderer2?

A lot of this planet is a shithole, and innocent people get tortured and killed there. How is killing more people going to help?

Jesus, Kingy. There are barbarous ways of killing people, and civilized ways, like cruise missiles.

Kingy said:

Stealth said:

Yes, I know that Syria is run by a complete jerk who thinks that mass murder is fine, but why does the US think that it is their job to start another war
——————
Morals, ethics, humanity. These make it seem wrong to stand by and let obvious wrongdoing happen and not do anything about it.

Agreed. But how do you choose which side to back. Mass murderer1, or mass murderer2?

A lot of this planet is a shithole, and innocent people get tortured and killed there. How is killing more people going to help?

Sometimes the additional short term loss of life eliminates a long term loss of loss. But the ‘sometimes’ is a big issue here.

Stealth said:

Kingy said:

Stealth said:

Yes, I know that Syria is run by a complete jerk who thinks that mass murder is fine, but why does the US think that it is their job to start another war
——————
Morals, ethics, humanity. These make it seem wrong to stand by and let obvious wrongdoing happen and not do anything about it.

Agreed. But how do you choose which side to back. Mass murderer1, or mass murderer2?

A lot of this planet is a shithole, and innocent people get tortured and killed there. How is killing more people going to help?

Sometimes the additional short term loss of life eliminates a long term loss of loss. But the ‘sometimes’ is a big issue here.

Remove a loss and add a life to my previous post.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Kingy said:

He released a few uncomfortable secrets. The US set him up with a dodgy rape charge.

I find it hard to believe that the Swedes are out to get Assange on behalf of the USA.

Having said that, Swedish authorities could question him in the UK… so while agree that there is unlikely some sort of extradition deal in place I think it’s far to say that there are some political pressures in play

Stealth said:

their part, but having their leader currently in jail on trumped up charges isn’t making things easy for them.
———————
Well he is not in jail, he is in self imposed exile. He must be convinced himself that he is guilty of criminal crimes or he would front court and prove how innocence and use the case as a stage to push his agenda. Of course if he is guilty of criminal offences then is he the sort person we should have leading us?

He went to court in that country to prove his innocence(note that I have no idea if he is innocent or not), they said “yeah, no worries”, then he moved to England. He has on many occasions said that he will go back to court in the original country if they promise that he won’t be deported to the US. They won’t promise that. He says, ok then, come to England and I will swear on whatever form of bible you want, and they refuse to. It wouldn’t take much for it to be resolved.

Kingy said:

He released a few uncomfortable secrets. The US set him up with a dodgy rape charge.
He released a few more, the US set him up with a black ops threat.
He released all of them, encoded, onto the internet.

I believe the rape charges at face value.

It fits in perfectly with the narcissistic personality living out his fantasy thinking he is some kind of James Bond character.

Kingy said:

Stealth said:

Yes, I know that Syria is run by a complete jerk who thinks that mass murder is fine, but why does the US think that it is their job to start another war
——————
Morals, ethics, humanity. These make it seem wrong to stand by and let obvious wrongdoing happen and not do anything about it.

Agreed. But how do you choose which side to back. Mass murderer1, or mass murderer2?

A lot of this planet is a shithole, and innocent people get tortured and killed there. How is killing more people going to help?

targeted missal strikes on military installations are hardly the same acts of indiscriminate murder against civilians

Kingy said:

Stealth said:

their part, but having their leader currently in jail on trumped up charges isn’t making things easy for them.
———————
Well he is not in jail, he is in self imposed exile. He must be convinced himself that he is guilty of criminal crimes or he would front court and prove how innocence and use the case as a stage to push his agenda. Of course if he is guilty of criminal offences then is he the sort person we should have leading us?

He went to court in that country to prove his innocence(note that I have no idea if he is innocent or not), they said “yeah, no worries”, then he moved to England. He has on many occasions said that he will go back to court in the original country if they promise that he won’t be deported to the US. They won’t promise that. He says, ok then, come to England and I will swear on whatever form of bible you want, and they refuse to. It wouldn’t take much for it to be resolved.

Yes, but that is about Sweden. Regardless of whether he is guilty or not in Sweden, he seem pretty convinced that he is guilty of criminal crimes in the USA. Which is

party_pants said:

Kingy said:

He released a few uncomfortable secrets. The US set him up with a dodgy rape charge.
He released a few more, the US set him up with a black ops threat.
He released all of them, encoded, onto the internet.

I believe the rape charges at face value.

It fits in perfectly with the narcissistic personality living out his fantasy thinking he is some kind of James Bond character.

Which fits in perfectly with the government controlled media profiling.

Personally, I think he is a bit of a nobber, but all he is trying to do is let people like you know what is going on in your name.

diddly-squat said:

Kingy said:

Stealth said:

Yes, I know that Syria is run by a complete jerk who thinks that mass murder is fine, but why does the US think that it is their job to start another war
——————
Morals, ethics, humanity. These make it seem wrong to stand by and let obvious wrongdoing happen and not do anything about it.

Agreed. But how do you choose which side to back. Mass murderer1, or mass murderer2?

A lot of this planet is a shithole, and innocent people get tortured and killed there. How is killing more people going to help?

targeted missal strikes on military installations are hardly the same acts of indiscriminate murder against civilians

And the difference between people in civvie clothes and people in army clothes is what?

Kingy said:

party_pants said:

Kingy said:

He released a few uncomfortable secrets. The US set him up with a dodgy rape charge.
He released a few more, the US set him up with a black ops threat.
He released all of them, encoded, onto the internet.

I believe the rape charges at face value.

It fits in perfectly with the narcissistic personality living out his fantasy thinking he is some kind of James Bond character.

Which fits in perfectly with the government controlled media profiling.

Personally, I think he is a bit of a nobber, but all he is trying to do is let people like you know what is going on in your name.

I see it the other way. He is using the concept of being the guardian of democracy as a cover story to get gullible people to donate money so he can live out his fantasy life-style. The more stuff he publishes, the more people send him money, adore him, tell him how great he is, and get down on their knees to suck his cock. I think he is just using it as a means to an end, I don’t think he genuinely cares about this great mission.

Anyway.. if Rolf Harris can do it why not anyone?

I believe the rape charges at face value
—————-
I thought the dodgy part of the charge was not its authinticity, but that it was an odd never enforced law. A ‘technical rape’ if that term doesn’t get me in trouble with the PC police.

party_pants said:

Kingy said:

party_pants said:

I believe the rape charges at face value.

It fits in perfectly with the narcissistic personality living out his fantasy thinking he is some kind of James Bond character.

Which fits in perfectly with the government controlled media profiling.

Personally, I think he is a bit of a nobber, but all he is trying to do is let people like you know what is going on in your name.

I see it the other way. He is using the concept of being the guardian of democracy as a cover story to get gullible people to donate money so he can live out his fantasy life-style. The more stuff he publishes, the more people send him money, adore him, tell him how great he is, and get down on their knees to suck his cock. I think he is just using it as a means to an end, I don’t think he genuinely cares about this great mission.

And the fantasy is what?

Getting to hide in a room of a foreign embassy with several dozen federal police waiting for you to step foot outside?

Having most major banks and credit institutions close your accounts and steal your money for “no reason”?

And your supposed crime is “telling the truth”?

It appears that we are all living in a fantasy world then.

Stealth said:

I believe the rape charges at face value
—————-
I thought the dodgy part of the charge was not its authinticity, but that it was an odd never enforced law. A ‘technical rape’ if that term doesn’t get me in trouble with the PC police.

Non-consensual.. is indeed rape.

Kingy said:

And the fantasy is what?

Getting to hide in a room of a foreign embassy with several dozen federal police waiting for you to step foot outside?

Having most major banks and credit institutions close your accounts and steal your money for “no reason”?

And your supposed crime is “telling the truth”?

It appears that we are all living in a fantasy world then.

That came later, after he got addicted. An addict needs bigger and bigger scores. Eventually it leads to bad consequences.