|
Gorilla Salad posted:I want to be the first to say 'tyranny of the Majority'. Can you have a majority with just one or two seats? Tops, I'm assuming. (hoping)
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
I prefer it in the original Russian большевик.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
 Fury Road. Australia's Atlas Shrugged.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
lightinwater posted:
How many loving quotes could he have gone with, but he chose to not only go with the murdering rapist slaver, but quotes his first line which shows how much of a tyrant he is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:How many loving quotes could he have gone with, but he chose to not only go with the murdering rapist slaver, but quotes his first line which shows how much of a tyrant he is. Seems quite apropos, FYGM is a libertarian mission statement after all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
You're only supposed to tell people about the GM part though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
lightinwater posted:Seems quite apropos, FYGM is a libertarian mission statement after all. Also Coma is a weird choice. He was found alone as a kid and doesn't have eyes, Joe took him in. He is superimposing himself onto a disabled orphan artist who was raised through the welfare of "the state" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:Also Coma is a weird choice. He was found alone as a kid and doesn't have eyes, Joe took him in. He is superimposing himself onto a disabled orphan artist who was raised through the welfare of "the state" It's only being a leaner when someone else does it 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:Also Coma is a weird choice. He was found alone as a kid and doesn't have eyes, Joe took him in. He is superimposing himself onto a disabled orphan artist who was raised through the welfare of "the state" The movie itself is the weirdest choice, it's like Stalin sent out a christmas card with his head superimposed on top of John Hurt with the quote; “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
A refugee died today Merry loving Christmas
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
E: double post
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
TheMightyHandful posted:A refugee died today Time to pop another $200 dollar bottle of taxpayer champers - random LNP backer
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:I want to be the first to say 'tyranny of the Majority'. Speaking of which quote:Left Renewal stands against the party bureaucracy’s call for the implementation of a Sugar Tax. We are against what is essentially a vice tax on the basis that it financially punishes and paternalistically demeans the poorest, working class Australians for their ‘bad habits’. The Libertarian Communist Alliance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
tbf the sugar tax is very much RDN's baby and hasn't got a lot of support, and as a policy it should be put to national conference before attempts are made to legislate it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:tbf the sugar tax is very much RDN's baby and hasn't got a lot of support, and as a policy it should be put to national conference before attempts are made to legislate it. It took three seconds for someone to wedge them on their stance to the cigarettes and alcohol taxation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
but I eat sugar!
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
I would support a tax on food and drink which had over a certain level of sugar. Force the companies to rein back in the insane amount of sugars they put in food by simply making them too expensive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
They'd just substitute it with something horrific like Corn Syrup as a sweetener which isn't much better/might even be worse
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Other posted:They'd just substitute it with something horrific like Corn Syrup as a sweetener which isn't much better/might even be worse I'm pretty sure any 'sugar tax' would involve hitting HFCS as well. I mean, fructose is a sugar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:I'm pretty sure any 'sugar tax' would involve hitting HFCS as well. I mean, fructose is a sugar. You'd think so but  bet you it wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Thankfully there isn't much of a corn lobby in Australia. Sugar cane is, of course, another matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Also I didn't want to poo poo up the nazi post with this but like if anyone in BRISBANE is actually keen to do things, now is the time to start the conversation about decriminalising abortion. It's probably going to be a close-ish vote, and the ALP are probably going to want to clutch at anything at the moment after the Adani backflip. My initial thing is to write to your state MP and ask them what they think, I want to put up some flyers around my area WRT my state member being a piece of poo poo The big target at the moment is LNP members who might swing. If you live in the electorates of Aspley (Tracy Davis MP), Surfers Paradise (John-Paul Langbroek MP), Callide (Jeff Seeney MP), or Redlands (Matt McEachan MP), send them all letters and IDEALLY organise a face-to-face with a couple of young men and women before the end of February.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xyjk4sDxnI
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-christmas-holiday-effect--more-fatal-heart-attacks-20161224-gthmvv.html Ban christmas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-christmas-holiday-effect--more-fatal-heart-attacks-20161224-gthmvv.html My father in law has been told by his doctor that if he doesn't quit drinking he's going to drop dead but it's the festive season soooooooooooo...
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Starshark posted:My father in law has been told by his doctor that if he doesn't quit drinking he's going to drop dead but it's the festive season soooooooooooo... Nothing quite like the memory of a dead relative to cheer up the festive season. It's really quite considerate of him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Just my parents and me home this Christmas, possibly one of dad's mates coming over for lunch since his wife and kids are in France, and we have between us two roasts - rolled pork loin and turkey breast, ham, a variety of seafood, plus cookies and chocolates from their shop staff. No immediate heart attacks but I'm sure there's going to be plenty more plaque lurking in our arteries. The ABC reports 'a disturbance' on Manus Island over the death of Faysal Ishak Ahmed. It's been resolved supposedly, disappointed they didn't manage to tear the place town from the inside out. Apparently the Queensland coroner is going to investigate the death, but I doubt any of their findings will be listened to, since 'stop keeping people in concentration camps' has been recommended many times already. Ten Becquerels fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Dec 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 09:53
|
|
|
Fygm : a Christmas miracle
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
I'd like to gift my closed fist to his throat
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
He's right though. You wouldn't 'share' your bottle with him. You'd break it in half over his skull then 'give' him the jagged bit to the stomach.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
So sad when Jesus or Santa or someone doesn't deliver you the gift of redistribution of wealth. Better luck next year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 11:21
|
|
|
As long as he keeps bringing me idiot libertarians who are the world's laughing stock I'm happy for another year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
At the risk of sounding more autistic this was my thinking. Should we teach children how to share? Yes. Is it an essential skill? Yes. Can sharing be fun? Yes. Is it the same as giving? No. Giving is a good deed. Sharing may simply refer to the joint ownership of an asset and that is morally neutral. Perhaps confusing "giving" and "sharing" is a great way to manipulate the connotations of the word "sharing". The moral connotations of the word "giving" are very positive where as the moral connotations of "joint ownership" are neutral at best. Maybe confusing "sharing" and "giving" improves the connotations of the word "sharing" even when one is simply referring to joint ownership. This is pure speculation but maybe this linguistic anomaly is used by socialists to convince people that it is morally acceptable to force people into massive joint ownership situations to the point where everything is jointly owned on an involuntary basis. Once everything is jointly owned on a massive scale, any joint decisions must be made by a government and any decision an individual makes are so diluted that they are effectively subjugated to the will of said government.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
Computer, what is 'love'? I love Libertarians so much
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
It's a stupid argument that he's making because he's defining the term "sharing" very narrowly. In the context of Christmas "sharing" definitely implies "giving". If I am in possession of resources and I share some of them with you, I am giving you that share. And even in cases where it's like "Let us share a Christmas feast at my table," or "share the warmth of this fire", or "share the holiday spirit", there is no joint ownership implicit. It refers to togetherness. Social bonding. And it's suddenly clear to me why a libertarian gently caress doesn't have the faintest idea what that means. "Grandmother, I have contributed to our dinner one kilogram of cherries at a cost of $15, a tart where the ingredients cost $12 and my labour in food production comes to $45 at my average hourly wage. I am therefore entitled to at least 400 grams of the ham and a full half of the roast chicken, plus 6 prawns. I see that there are only 3 prawns remaining, so I will make the conscious and charitable decision to overlook the $2.40 that I would otherwise bill. Merry Christmas."
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
SadisTech posted:
loll that's loving great, ty. I know some people that are like this, and would almost go as far in justifying their insane-selfishness haha, jokes on them because I don't associate with them anymore. The libertarian curse "I have no friends now, wtf?".
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Libertarianism is a legit mental illness
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
What made 2016 such a unimpressive year for Turnbull? After all, the guy won an election. What is the standard by which we measure the success of a leader? Let's say it's "the country didn't explode and you technically hung onto power for an entire calendar year". By that measure—and that measure alone—we can call Malcolm Turnbull's 2016 a win. By any other measure, however, it's a flaming pyre. An exemplar of centrist politics in the 21 st century: craven capitulation that pleases nobody. What made this such a disastrous year for Turnbull? After all, he won an election. Although maybe that's not such a big deal; Australia no longer changes Prime Ministers at election time. We don't like to be obvious. Turnbull's time in power has been a litany of double speak and obfuscation. Leave your "he's a politician, what else is new?" in the comments below, but even the worst moments of Tony Abbott's disastrous eighteen minutes in office were a result of beliefs he genuinely held. Nobody doubted for a second that bestowing a knighthood upon Prince Philip was the sort of hyper-privileged promotion that reflected the world Tony Abbott fantasises about at night or when women are talking. When Malcolm took office, the knighthood may have been quick to go, but like the change in leaders it was a cosmetic change only. If Australia was surprised by terrible policies enacted by someone who clearly believes them, what did we think when they were promoted by someone who didn't? Turnbull's origin story is one we should, as a society, repeat at least as often as we reboot Spider-man: despised by the right wing of the Liberal Party, Malcolm was only able to seize power from Tony Abbott because he was a popular figure who could pull the Coalition out of its tailspin and deliver an election win. In exchange for the Prime Ministership, he would have to continue the same policies as his predecessor, and not deviate from the message. The problem was the salesman, they hoped, not the product. Turnbull's naïve calculus was this: as an economic conservative and social progressive occupying the left flank of a right-wing party, he would transform into a consensus-builder, a centrist gravitational point around whom all would orbit. Unfortunately, he slipped through the looking glass and became the negative print of this ideal. Desperately holding onto his tenuous position, his necessary lurches to the right anger the base that thought he represented a more thoughtful politics, while his rarely-voiced progressive opinions anger those on the right who want him to align with the party's base. Leading from the rear has not met with success. Now, the Faustian pact is out of control, and the one chance he had to get out of it has passed him by. Turnbull was destined to deliver a massive election win for the Coalition, one that he would allow him a mandate. Let Turnbull be Turnbull is the catchcry that is echoed around Turnbull's frontal lobes and nowhere else. But the election win was at best limp and at worst Pyrrhic. The Coalition lost 14 seats in the House and three in the Senate. Turnbull's mandate never came, and, still saddled with the policies of Tony Abbott and the budget of Joe Hockey and a cabinet that included Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton, he could not turn to his party and say, look, my brand of populism won, I'll take it from here. He was even more beholden than before. Worse than that, the double dissolution allowed Pauline Hanson's One Nation to win over the disaffected conservative base the Coalition had been trying to wrestle back for twenty years. Moving to the centre would only provide more red meat for Hanson and her band of barely-competent conspiracy theorists. The Coalition had to move back to the right, and knew they'd have to up the draconian rhetoric. Or, as it's sometimes known, racism. Enter Immigration Minister and man flipping over tortoises in the desert Peter Dutton. When Dutton dog whistled Australia's far-right in November by suggesting Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser (who left office in 1983) had made a mistake by letting Lebanese-Muslims into Australia – further linking terrorism to second and third generation immigrants – all eyes turned to Turnbull. Those on both sides of the political divide stared him down, challenging him to condemn or support Dutton's comments. Turnbull was damned either way. "There is no question," Turnbull began, emerging from a janitorial closet he'd swiftly ducked into, "that there are lessons to be learned from previous immigration policies," he said, removing his false moustache and "Mr Llubnrut" nametag, "and the minister was reflecting on, you know, on policies many years ago." Jumping on to the back of a passing potato truck, Turnbull shouted over his shoulder: "He's entitled to do that." And he was so close to ending 2016 on a high note, too. There was a brief moment where Turnbull looked like he'd scratch out a win, or at least the appearance of a win, which in politics is the exact same thing. The Senate finally passed the ABCC bill, the (sort of) reason we'd had a doubly-dissolved election in the first place. The bill was a watered-down version that likely could have been passed before the election anyway, and combined with the also-watered down backpacker tax bill, it at least appeared as if they'd achieved something. But this Gaussian blur of a win was itself short-lived. The dying days of 2016 have presented as the perfect summary of the Turnbull government. Josh Frydenberg, Minister for the Environment and Energy, in a noble effort to ensure his photo op with Jean Claude Van Damme was only the second most embarrassing this he did that week, claimed that the government would consider an emissions trading scheme for the electricity sector and then a day later insisted that they wouldn't and he never even said that they would and also these aren't even the droids we're looking for. Turnbull, who lost his dry-run leadership in 2009 due to his support for an ETS, could not have smacked Frydenberg down faster. "We will not be imposing a carbon tax," he told reporters, "and we will not be imposing an emissions trading scheme, however it is called. An emissions intensity scheme is an emissions trading scheme. That is just another name for it." And so Turnbull, a man who believes in the need to combat climate change, cannot allow a minister to suggest that they might be considering climate policy. Turnbull, who claims to be in favour in same-sex marriage, hides behind the obfuscating plebiscite tactics demanded by the extremes of his party. Turnbull's Prime Ministership will be defined by a three-word slogan: "Power Over Principles," leading us to wonder: what possible use is there in empty power? It's a question we won't get an answer to until Turnbull is finally ousted by his own party and quits politics forever. But really, who can be bothered waiting 10 months? https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/looking-back-at-malcolm-turnbulls-year-of-meaning-nothing
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 09:49
|
|