facthunter Posted February 21 Posted February 21 The TEALS have Targeted LNP Seats. Menzies introduced a lot of social welfare Legislation, He was an extreme Royalist at a time when that was OK. . He was great with words and quite eloquent. Called MING and PIG IRON BOB. . Nev 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted February 21 Posted February 21 1 hour ago, octave said: Is it bipartisan? I think whilst there are areas of agreement there are many differences. You know I think a lot of what you say is imagined or exaggerated. Perhaps this is why is "grumpy" "I think a lot of what you say is imagined or exaggerated."? Don't you mean, it is imagined and exaggerated - certainly when one looks at the facts. Interestingly, the coalition is hard line on immigration, yet they preside over the higher levels of "mass" migration. I find it interesting people get all worked up over migration. It is, and has been a human trait since the dawn of humanity. Europe resulted from a migration from Africa (well, the world's population is thought to have). Modern Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA's population is the result of mass migration from Europe. Yes, some of it was to conquer, but people who came out willingly did so to seek a better life. We talk about migration in a global border context, but when you move from, say Melbourne to Sydney or vice versa, you are migrating. The distance is longer than migrating between some European counties, for example. And even within a country, there can be a clash of cultures. When I grew up in Melbourne, there was nary a rugby ground in the state. Now there's a stadium in the middle of Melbourne. In Sydney and Brisbane, there are now AFL stadiums where it owuld have been laughed out of the cities in the old days. Also, with the declinign birth rates, who is going to care for you and perform the public and private services we rely on? Who is going to be working the resources of the land to keep the money flowing to pay for all of this? Yep, it's going to be migrants. Oh, but the right wing will save is from all that, won't they? Well, look at the numbers when they are in power. They shift massive amounts of wealth from the population to large corporates and high net worth individuals who happen to pay no tax nor any real royalites for the resources they extract. That means there is less money for the younger population to affford houses and chldren, and given the relative state of life expectancy and the shift to urbanisation, there isn't the natural imperative to make kids as there used to be. Yet, if you return the money to the population so they can afford things., which is what a more progressive government is at least philosophically about even if they do not achieve it, then suddenly things become more affordable, they can have their kids, and there is less longer-term need for migrants. GON - you are right about one thing; progressive politics seems to failed to have delivered on their politics precisely because of the grip that the hidden and concentrated power of money has over democracy - which is an aim of the right-leaning side of politics. Taxes, which are largely paid by the middle and lower-miiddle classes are higher and there is a squeeze on disposable income. The public services those taxes are eroding because of their expense (another right-wing thing - privatisation - doesn't seem to work out as good as it promised to be; and remember, it was Hawke and Keating that seemed to preside over the rise on privatisation); they are being disenfranchised and voting right. Often, it is because for them, neither side is offering anything, but "at least Trump (or whoever we are speaking about) does what he says he's gonna do". The fact that what they say they're going to do is going to end up in tears is of little consequence to these people; they are already crying. The ALP in Aus, and Labour here have had a real opportunity to right the wong. They are so heholden to hidden power, they they take tepid steps and people are more disillusioned with them. Those people decide stuff it, it can't be worse. The mentality of the voter has shifted from voting in the one you want to get the job done, to the one you least dislike. 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted February 21 Posted February 21 1 hour ago, octave said: Is it bipartisan? I think whilst there are areas of agreement there are many differences. You know I think a lot of what you say is imagined or exaggerated. Perhaps this is why is "grumpy" "I think a lot of what you say is imagined or exaggerated."? Don't you mean, it is imagined and exaggerated - certainly when one looks at the facts. Interestingly, the coalition is hard line on immigration, yet they preside over the higher levels of "mass" migration. I find it interesting people get all worked up over migration. It is, and has been a human trait since the dawn of humanity. Europe resulted from a migration from Africa (well, the world's population is thought to have). Modern Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA's population is the result of mass migration from Europe. Yes, some of it was to conquer, but people who came out willingly did so to seek a better life. We talk about migration in a global border context, but when you move from, say Melbourne to Sydney or vice versa, you are migrating. The distance is longer than migrating between some European counties, for example. And even within a country, there can be a clash of cultures. When I grew up in Melbourne, there was nary a rugby ground in the state. Now there's a stadium in the middle of Melbourne. In Sydney and Brisbane, there are now AFL stadiums where it owuld have been laughed out of the cities in the old days. Also, with the declinign birth rates, who is going to care for you and perform the public and private services we rely on? Who is going to be working the resources of the land to keep the money flowing to pay for all of this? Yep, it's going to be migrants. Oh, but the right wing will save is from all that, won't they? Well, look at the numbers when they are in power. They shift massive amounts of wealth from the population to large corporates and high net worth individuals who happen to pay no tax nor any real royalites for the resources they extract. That means there is less money for the younger population to affford houses and chldren, and given the relative state of life expectancy and the shift to urbanisation, there isn't the natural imperative to make kids as there used to be. Yet, if you return the money to the population so they can afford things., which is what a more progressive government is at least philosophically about even if they do not achieve it, then suddenly things become more affordable, they can have their kids, and there is less longer-term need for migrants. GON - you are right about one thing; progressive politics seems to failed to have delivered on their politics precisely because of the grip that the hidden and concentrated power of money has over democracy - which is an aim of the right-leaning side of politics. Taxes, which are largely paid by the middle and lower-miiddle classes are higher and there is a squeeze on disposable income. The public services those taxes are eroding because of their expense (another right-wing thing - privatisation - doesn't seem to work out as good as it promised to be; and remember, it was Hawke and Keating that seemed to preside over the rise on privatisation); they are being disenfranchised and voting right. Often, it is because for them, neither side is offering anything, but "at least Trump (or whoever we are speaking about) does what he says he's gonna do". The fact that what they say they're going to do is going to end up in tears is of little consequence to these people; they are already crying. The ALP in Aus, and Labour here have had a real opportunity to right the wong. They are so heholden to hidden power, they they take tepid steps and people are more disillusioned with them. Those people decide stuff it, it can't be worse. The mentality of the voter has shifted from voting in the one you want to get the job done, to the one you least dislike.
Jerry_Atrick Posted February 21 Posted February 21 1 hour ago, octave said: Is it bipartisan? I think whilst there are areas of agreement there are many differences. You know I think a lot of what you say is imagined or exaggerated. Perhaps this is why is "grumpy"
Jerry_Atrick Posted February 21 Posted February 21 1 hour ago, octave said: Is it bipartisan? I think whilst there are areas of agreement there are many differences. You know I think a lot of what you say is imagined or exaggerated. Perhaps this is why is "grumpy" I think a lot of what you say is imagined or exaggerated."? Don't you mean, it is imagined and exaggerated - certainly when one looks at the facts. Interestingly, the coalition is hard line on immigration, yet they preside over the higher levels of "mass" migration. I find it interesting people get all worked up over migration. It is, and has been a human trait since the dawn of humanity. Europe resulted from a migration from Africa (well, the world's population is thought to have). Modern Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA's population is the result of mass migration from Europe. Yes, some of it was to conquer, but people who came out willingly did so to seek a better life. We talk about migration in a global border context, but when you move from, say Melbourne to Sydney or vice versa, you are migrating. The distance is longer than migrating between some European counties, for example. And even within a country, there can be a clash of cultures. When I grew up in Melbourne, there was nary a rugby ground in the state. Now there's a stadium in the middle of Melbourne. In Sydney and Brisbane, there are now AFL stadiums where it owuld have been laughed out of the cities in the old days. Also, with the declinign birth rates, who is going to care for you and perform the public and private services we rely on? Who is going to be working the resources of the land to keep the money flowing to pay for all of this? Yep, it's going to be migrants. Oh, but the right wing will save is from all that, won't they? Well, look at the numbers when they are in power. They shift massive amounts of wealth from the population to large corporates and high net worth individuals who happen to pay no tax nor any real royalites for the resources they extract. That means there is less money for the younger population to affford houses and chldren, and given the relative state of life expectancy and the shift to urbanisation, there isn't the natural imperative to make kids as there used to be. Yet, if you return the money to the population so they can afford things., which is what a more progressive government is at least philosophically about even if they do not achieve it, then suddenly things become more affordable, they can have their kids, and there is less longer-term need for migrants. GON - you are right about one thing; progressive politics seems to failed to have delivered on their politics precisely because of the grip that the hidden and concentrated power of money has over democracy - which is an aim of the right-leaning side of politics. Taxes, which are largely paid by the middle and lower-miiddle classes are higher and there is a squeeze on disposable income. The public services those taxes are eroding because of their expense (another right-wing thing - privatisation - doesn't seem to work out as good as it promised to be; and remember, it was Hawke and Keating that seemed to preside over the rise on privatisation); they are being disenfranchised and voting right. Often, it is because for them, neither side is offering anything, but "at least Trump (or whoever we are speaking about) does what he says he's gonna do". The fact that what they say they're going to do is going to end up in tears is of little consequence to these people; they are already crying. The ALP in Aus, and Labour here have had a real opportunity to right the wong. They are so heholden to hidden power, they they take tepid steps and people are more disillusioned with them. Those people decide stuff it, it can't be worse. The mentality of the voter has shifted from voting in the one you want to get the job done, to the one you least dislike. 1 1
nomadpete Posted February 21 Posted February 21 5 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said: with the declinign birth rates, who is going to care for you and perform the public and private services we rely on? Who is going to be working the resources of the land to keep the money flowing to pay for all of this? Simples Robonurse an robominer will tirelessly fulfill such menial tasks. A.I. is the answer! 1 1
nomadpete Posted February 21 Posted February 21 5 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said: they can have their kids, and there is less longer-term need for migrants Aaah.... populate or perish? Haven't I heard that someplace before? 1
nomadpete Posted February 21 Posted February 21 5 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said: the grip that the hidden and concentrated power of money has over democracy - which is an aim of the right-leaning side of politics. Sad but true 😞
nomadpete Posted February 21 Posted February 21 5 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said: They are so heholden to hidden power, they they take tepid steps and people are more disillusioned with them. Again, sad but true.....
Jerry_Atrick Posted February 21 Posted February 21 Well, it is lunch time on a Friday and I am working from home. Expecting my mate to join me anytime soon!
Jerry_Atrick Posted February 21 Posted February 21 (edited) 59 minutes ago, nomadpete said: Robonurse an robominer will tirelessly fulfill such menial tasks. Will Robonurse do home visits looking like this? If so, and everything else is a realistic simulation, I will be too old to worry about that fact it will be living in a virtual world Edited February 21 by Jerry_Atrick 1 1
Marty_d Posted February 21 Posted February 21 Jerry... Why is your robonurse holding a magnifying glass...? 3
old man emu Posted February 21 Posted February 21 Don't know about the stethoscope, but she looks like she'd be a high producing milker with those mammaries. 1
facthunter Posted February 22 Posted February 22 You have to be in the Family way to make them work. Its all very Bio Logical. She would be after your money. What else could you IMAGINE she would be after? 1 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted February 22 Posted February 22 17 hours ago, facthunter said: She would be after your money. Oh.. why would an AI nursebot need money?? I guess for recharges. OMG, I would be worried - I would get range anxiety with her! 1
facthunter Posted February 22 Posted February 22 It seems Clive might strike a Chord in Queensland. Nev 1
Grumpy Old Nasho Posted February 23 Posted February 23 There's far right parties all around the World, they are countering far left Govts, and that's most of them in the Western World, except the USA now, thank heavens. The human mind has a natural propensity to "balance out". A rusted-on lefty quite often will seek work in the dreaded private sector. A righty CEO of a large corporation may, and often does, support lefty causes. Palmer's T.O.P party will be just one more far right party joining many others globally, to continue leveling the political scales. Balance is stability, no matter how far the "weights" are apart, as long as they are equal in weight. The far right is adding more weight all the time to bring the scales down level. They're not there yet, but as the far left concede ground, which they must do, the quicker the scales will balance out. 1
octave Posted February 23 Posted February 23 Grumpy, again just a load of vague bollocks. Can you give practical and personal examples of how you are oppressed by this so-called; left-wing era you believe we are in? What do you hope to achieve if (and it won't happen) Palmer ends up in a position of power? 1 1
facthunter Posted February 23 Posted February 23 GON want's the People with ALL the DOUGH to be the Ones RUNNING the SHOW. Nothing NEW there but the Majority become slaves. Fair Enough?? NO WAY Jose. Australia WAS a place for Fair Dinkum People and the Fair go for ALL Not the US "I'm Alright Jack" Nev 2
Grumpy Old Nasho Posted February 23 Posted February 23 When complaints are ignored and not addressed by our leftwing duopoly, it's only natural that further steps will be taken by the complainants, such as forming new parties opposing those who refuse to address the complaints. 1
octave Posted February 23 Posted February 23 7 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said: When complaints are ignored and not addressed by our leftwing duopoly, it's only natural that further steps will be taken by the complainants, such as forming new parties opposing those who refuse to address the complaints. So once again you can not come up with specifics, I am actually wondering if you are actually a Russian bot or something. 1 1
facthunter Posted February 23 Posted February 23 Idiots who blame some mythical Left Wing for all of societies ILLS are Usually Republican Americans. Nev 1
old man emu Posted February 23 Posted February 23 2 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said: complaints are ignored and not addressed when they come without factual support nor reasonable suggestions to solve what is being complained of.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now