M61A1 Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 ......the reason we are a nanny state is because there are so many stupid people, and those stupid people invariably cost the community (me, you, everyone else) a lot of money to fix up the crap they cause. When we can cull the stupid people, we will cease being a nanny state. Ironically, if we stop being. Nanny state, the stupid people will cull themselves. The cost can be reduced by not sending police, emergency services and having enquiries into how some dill killed himself climbing a building while drunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Do you have any concept of how the economy works? Have you wondered why Antonio wants all those refugees in the Toowoomba region? That welfare money they bring with them is pure gold, fills all those empty houses, schools and shops. I can guarantee you people will buy Oakey spring water because they are sick of the nanny state and the government telling them that everything is dangerous and they can't do it. So then...do you understand where the welfare money comes from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Do you know who ultimately pays your wages right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Do you know who ultimately pays your wages right? Do you not understand the difference between wages and welfare? It's a simple concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 The poor people used to be skinny. Now they are super fat with tatts. How does that work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 In my region (which covers quite a large area and has a population of somewhere around the 330,000 mark), people living their lives on welfare are endemic. They are exclusively white, home grown aussies. Usually they would rather go surfing than go to work. Except on weekends, when they go into Sydney on the train and steal cars to get back home late at night. They spend 90% their welfare at the pub, which is great if you own a pub or nightclub but not so great if you own any other business. I spoke to a business owner here a few weeks ago who has won a large contract and needs to seriously ramp up production in his workshops (he builds portable accomodation). He reckons if he interviews 100 people here for jobs, he'll get about 4 who vaguely look like they actually want it and get offered one, of which 2 will show up on the start date, and the other 2 will last less than a few months until they can't be bothered anymore. He is moving his factory elsewhere. Similar story with the guy who does our farm fencing. He just can't get anyone who wants to work. He has new guys "starting" all the time who just don't show up so he turns up to the job himself, and gets his girlfriend to drive the bobcat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 pmccarthy, My neighbour owns a tat shop in Blacktwn, mostly on skinny teens' spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnewbery Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 As far as generalisations go, post #180 is one! By way of an explanation, here is another gross generalisation. Not every tattooed fat person votes for Bill, Tania and Penny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Don't forget a person that has no muscles for any reason will be really sore after a couple of days manual labouring, so what will they do when there's no letup from a slave driver boss who doesn't give a shite about their workers. Lots of grandkids starting or working, one useless boss had wagers on how fast he could break junior workers down just for his fun. spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 As far as generalisations go, post #180 is one! By way of an explanation, here is another gross generalisation. Not every tattooed fat person votes for Bill, Tania and Penny Spend a few weeks in Beenleigh/Eagleby/Logan/Browns Stains errr.. Plains....and I'm quite sure a lot of them won't vote at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 but mostly you can still say what you like and if you're not stealing state secrets or inciting a lynch mob, it seems unlikely you're going to be penalised for speaking your mind. If you speak the truth about aboriginals you will be branded a racist, and so all the problems are not addressed. Likewise about people we have allowed into the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 I reckon the true racists are the bleeding hearts who prevent financial pressure being used to persuade the aborigines to do basic hygiene. If they had to turn up clean to collect their "siddown" money ( their word not mine) they would learn to do so instantly and their life expectancy would skyrocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 If you speak the truth about aboriginals you will be branded a racist, and so all the problems are not addressed. Likewise about people we have allowed into the country. Well, it depends how you phrase it. I have heard: "Those aborigines in the remote areas have a serious problem with grog and consequent violence which needs to be addressed". I have also heard: "F----ing useless coons. What good are they? Just get p-ssed all the time cos they have nothing better to do. We should round up the lot of them!" Both are talking about the same issue, but in one of these statements the person is just stating the blunt truth and I have no problem at all with it. In the other statement the person is being an ar$ehole. Regrettably I find increasing numbers of people who are actually unable to distinguish between these two methods of communication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 There are more teetotalers among central australian aborigines than in the white population. Several of their outstations are dry, and this is by their own choice. Last time I went to Yuendumu, I was stopped at 2 roadblocks where the police were checking for grog. The drunks come into Alice Springs where they are highly visible. I reckon that making people have a gainful way to fill their time is the big thing missing from our welfare state, and this does not only apply to aborigines, it applies equally to the leisured class dutch referred to . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 My point is I don't feel we have freedom of speech, and we are controlled by the thought police. I find it is a problem to just speak the truth as I understand it and it is safest to say nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 You can say whatever you want. It's just that "free speech" doesn't grant you immunity from criticism for saying it. This is what ticks me off about certain political columnists. They crap on about people having a right to say whatever they like, then they spend an entire column blasting anyone who dares to criticise what they said. Sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it too. To them, apparently free speech is a one-way street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnewbery Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 (...)To them, apparently free speech is a one-way street. It is conflict not consensus that sells advertising, sadly. Clearly the professional paid communicators (columnists although you'd add bloggers these days) prosecute the free speech agenda when theirs is under threat. I would suggest it's worth hating the game not the player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 I don't think there are any newspaper columnists I "hate". There are a number whom I think lack the mental capability to apply rational, consistent, workable reasoning to any contentious issues. My own theory is that this is simply because to become a career journalist/columnist actually requires no mental processing or problem solving skills. You just have to be able to write a story which sounds good and appeals to our base instincts (and therefore sells the papers), even if it's all tripe or completely unreasonable. Despite that, the odd smart one who can objectively discuss an issue slips through the net. On the internet there are total fruitloops and nutters everywhere simply because anyone at all can have a computer. I've read some outbursts which convince me that the writer should be confined to a padded cell but alas, that would violate their free-speech rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Thumbs up to Peter Dutton, he's a great asset to the Labor party. Nothing says "Vote Labor" like raising the spectre of Tony Abbott back on the front bench... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 What a dud of an election; looks like the Turnbull Coalition will be returned with a reduced majority. But Labor and the Libs have done preference deals to knobble the Greens, NXT and the Nationals which will mean a fairly hostile senate. I don't know how either major party will be able to govern anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 They've got to realise that unless they have a clear and honest set of principles, and stick to them, there won't be majority governments any more. It's a trust issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Malcolm Turnbull said "Medicare will NEVER be privatised. Full stop." Judging by previous election statements I think this means "We plan to privatise Medicare but we're not prepared to make this public until after the election." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 As cynical as I could be, I think politicians on both sides are probably smart enough to realise that privatisation, or even serious "talk" of privatisation of Medicare on any significant scale would cost them Government. Privatisation of Medicare would lead to a system similar to what exists in the USA, and having a sister and a niece who are (living) victims of that system, and a wife who has been both a doctor (MD) and a patient in it and thinks it is the most appalling healthcare system she has ever seen, I wouldn't wish that system on anyone. Having said that, I know the large medical insurance companies would love Medicare to be privatised because then, as in the USA, it becomes a licence to print money so long as you arbitrarily deny a certain percentage of medical claims and treatments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Having said that, I know the large medical insurance companies would love Medicare to be privatised because then, as in the USA, it becomes a licence to print money so long as you arbitrarily deny a certain percentage of medical claims and treatments. Exactly my point. The LNP's paymasters are big business. If they could possibly get away with privatising something to help their mates, they would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 As cynical as I could be, I think politicians on both sides are probably smart enough to realise that privatisation, or even serious "talk" of privatisation of Medicare on any significant scale would cost them Government. Privatisation of Medicare would lead to a system similar to what exists in the USA, and having a sister and a niece who are (living) victims of that system, and a wife who has been both a doctor (MD) and a patient in it and thinks it is the most appalling healthcare system she has ever seen, I wouldn't wish that system on anyone. Having said that, I know the large medical insurance companies would love Medicare to be privatised because then, as in the USA, it becomes a licence to print money so long as you arbitrarily deny a certain percentage of medical claims and treatments. While this does not support privatisation, it doesn't appear that the big winners are the insurance companies... Why Do Other Rich Nations Spend So Much Less on Healthcare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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