Auspol February 2017 - Choo choose your candidates wisely..

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol February 2017 - Choo choose your candidates wisely..

«‹›49 »

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

starkebn posted:

Is there any more to it other than they choose someone from the other team, and a woman to boot? Because none of the media about this is giving any other context for a tantrum.

Not only is she a woman, she has cooties and will probably try to kiss me

# ? Feb 20, 2017 05:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 22:26

Megillah Gorilla: Sep 22, 2003; If only all of life's problems could be solved by smoking a professor of ancient evil texts.; Bread Liar

They were shocked the ABA selected someone who chose to be deliberately barren.

How could they be expected to do business with someone like that?

# ? Feb 20, 2017 05:48

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

A job that was supposed to be for their mates went to someone else's mates. And after all they've done for the banking sector! Might as well just spit in their faces.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 05:48

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

Also, the tea-leaves say the banks are signalling they know the LNP are cooked, and the ABA wasn't going to pick anyone from that team ever.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 06:03

adamantium|wang: Sep 14, 2003; Missing you

First Dog:

# ? Feb 20, 2017 06:47

Pile Of Garbage: May 28, 2007

open24hours posted:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...plication%2Fpdf

GST ~~going up~~ being applied to low value imports.

From the wording this will also extend to stuff bought online:

quote:

If a supply of low value goods that is connected with the ITZ because of these amendments (an offshore supply of low value goods) or an inbound intangible consumer supply is made through an electronic distribution platform, the operator of the platform is treated as having made the supply for the purposes of GST.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 06:49

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

I'm not too worried about the CEFC rule changing stuff. Ultimately their finance justification for projects comes down to how much the project costs versus the returns, a run of the mill business case.

With the way renewables are going right now, the only projects put up to the CEFC that will be financially viable will be solar and wind installations. Clean coal just doesn't provide enough clean energy for the price per kilowatt hour in comparison, especially if there's no carbon price underpinning the modelling.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 06:51

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

adamantium|wang posted:

First Dog:

This looks a bit like a shoutout to Bruce Petty and his wonderful illogical machines. Here's a topical one from a few years ago:

# ? Feb 20, 2017 07:13

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

Delving into the other side, heres the dog fucker

quote:

If journalists are determined to expose Donald Trump as dishonest, then they should start by being straight up themselves. In their group hysteria, the media are so keen to oppose, antagonise and mock the President that they underscore his own attacks on them.

The latest faux controversy is a case in point. News media the world over, led by excitable journalists ever eager to expose the next Trump gaffe, have told audiences that the President referred to a terror attack in Sweden that never happened.

Even here, in another hemisphere, ABC journalists were keen to do Trump over, seemingly willing to mislead their audiences in the process. On Radio National Breakfast Matt Bevan pretended to be giving listeners some news: �Starting in Sweden today where there was a terrible terrorist attack over the weekend, at least that�s what the President of the United States said.�

So began the report, mocking Trump, as ever, suggesting he is the person who cannot be trusted and who is wont to invent his own facts. Yet the President never said there was a terrorist attack in Sweden.

Journalists from Florida, where he made the remarks, to ABC types in Ultimo and elsewhere around the world acted with the degree of independence we have come to expect from them � something akin to a schoolfish � and ran with the story. They even had the Swedish ambassador seeking explanations.

So what did Trump actually say? He was talking about his immigration measures, currently held up by the courts, aimed at preserving national security, especially against the threat of Islamic terrorism.

�Here�s the bottom line,� he said. �We�ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what�s happening. We�ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what�s happening in Germany, you look at what�s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They�re having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what�s happening in Brussels. You look at what�s happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris. We�ve allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country and there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing. So we�re going to keep our country safe.�

No mention of a terrorist attack in Sweden. That was a figment of the media�s imagination.

Apparently Trump�s �last night� was a reference to a television documentary detailing problems with Muslim immigration in Sweden aired the previous night on television.

Either none of the journalists watch Fox, they didn�t think to check, or they just wanted to run with their beat up anyway. Either way, it doesn�t excuse them for concocting things the President didn�t actually say.

Of course this is not the first time the media has decided to run like a herd on the same misinterpretation. It is a characteristic of their reporting of Trump.

Their obvious antagonism and eagerness to denounce Trump is why, when they claim the President is at war with the press and that their rights are being trampled on, so many people will scoff at them. Just because they dislike Trump and his policies or his election proved most of them wrong, or even because he has been caught out pushing incorrect information in the past, it does not excuse their dishonesty.

On the contrary, they prove his point, undermine themselves and help to inoculate him against proper scrutiny and accountability when it will be needed. (Remember there was once a story about a boy crying �wolf�!)

When Trump demanded NATO countries do more to share the burden, journalists selectively quoted him pretending he wanted to dump the treaty. When he used similarly threatening language over North Asia they used the same tricks to suggest his preferred option was nuclear armaments for South Korea and Japan.

When he was caught out on a decade-old tape speaking in inexplicably and inexcusably crude terms about women, journalists decided this was enough to dub him a serial sexual abuser. When he talks about a wall on the Mexican border the journalists always forget to mention the current fortifications which, in places, are akin to the Berlin Wall.

Trump is sufficiently unorthodox, erratic and loose-with-the-truth, without journalists needing to exaggerate or even verbal him. Their job should be to overlay a volatile new administration with some sober reporting and analysis; not throw fuel on the fire with spin of their own.

(He is wrong in this article repeatedly btw, this is an amazingly seld owned gotcha)

# ? Feb 20, 2017 07:55

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

Aww geez, you admit to sexually assaultING women on one tape...

# ? Feb 20, 2017 08:31

adamantium|wang: Sep 14, 2003; Missing you

quote:

Pre-election coal advertising funded by money meant for clean coal research
By Stephen Long

The coal industry's multi-million-dollar advertising and lobbying campaign in the run-up to the last federal election was bankrolled by money deducted from state mining royalty payments and meant to fund research into "clean coal".

The mining industry spent $2.5 million pushing the case for lower-emissions, coal-fired power plants in the run-up to last year's election � a cause the Federal Government has since taken up with gusto.

The source of the funds was a voluntary levy on coal companies, originally intended to fund research into "clean coal" technologies, which coal producers could deduct from state mining royalties.

Instead, some of the money raised paid for phone polling, literature and TV ads that declared "coal � it's an amazing thing".

The funds were channelled through the Australian Coal Association Low Emissions Technology Limited (ACALET), formerly owned by the Australian Coal Association and now part of the Minerals Council for Australia.

Queensland Government documents list "the COAL21 levy payable to Australian Coal Association Low Emissions Technologies Ltd (ACALET)" as an eligible deduction against royalty payments in the state.

A "coal research" levy in NSW is also deductible against coal mining royalty payments, under a deal signed off by the disgraced former NSW Labor minister Ian Macdonald, who was charged with criminal offences after an ICAC inquiry.

But it was not clear from the ABC's research whether the NSW money funded the body behind the coal industry's campaign.

Coal21 was launched more than a decade ago, with the aim of creating a $1 billion fund for research into "clean coal" technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS), but only a fraction of the money was raised or spent.

With a lack of research projects to finance, the levy was suspended in 2012. In 2013, the coal lobby changed the mandate of Coal21 to downplay research and allow its funds to be used for "coal promotion".

Critics 'outraged' by industry's use of funding

Funding the industry campaign from money that otherwise would have been paid to state governments as mining royalties has outraged the Federal Opposition and the coal industry's critics.

"It is a huge shame that Coal21 funding, which was mean to go into genuine CCS research, is now being used to finance advertising and political campaigns," Labor's environment spokesman Mark Butler said.

Australia Institute chief economist Richard Denniss said it was "scandalous".

"Every dollar spent on advertising as part of the coal industry campaign was a dollar that should have gone into consolidated revenue," he said.

"Citizens funded a propaganda campaign with money that would otherwise have gone into public revenue to fund schools and hospitals."

NSW Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham said it was "an outrage that royalties that should have gone to funding police, schools and hospitals had instead gone into propping up the clean coal myth and the PR campaign of a dying industry".

In a written statement, a Minerals Council spokesperson said:

quote:
"The Coal21 Fund's coal levy was nil between July 2012 to June 2016 for all contributors in Queensland and nationally. Contributors to the fund are not entitled to a deduction from coal royalties in other states.

"Therefore ... contributors to the Coal21 fund would not have claimed any deductions against their coal royalties during this period."

However, critics dismissed this as a red herring, because the coal industry's advertising and lobbying campaign was funded by money accumulated when the levy was in place.

In the wake of the coal industry campaign, the Federal Government has embraced the push for lower-emissions, coal-fired power stations and is intending to use considerable public money to fund the technology.

It wants the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), established to fund zero or very low carbon emissions technology, able to fund coal projects.

That will require changing the CEFC's current mandate which prohibits funding technology that reduces emissions by less than 50 per cent and excludes funding of coal carbon capture and storage.

The office of the Federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg has been contacted for comment.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 08:51

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

open24hours posted:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...plication%2Fpdf

GST ~~going up~~ being applied to low value imports.

I wonder how long this will last once every single wharf in the country is log jammed with low value goods stacking ten cargo containers high awaiting customs GST processing.

Complete economic shutdown :v:

I've read through that multiple times and it seems to assume every commercial entity and one person garage business in the entire world will magically sign up for an ABN. Boy are they in for a surprise.

DancingShade fucked around with this message at 10:36 on Feb 20, 2017

# ? Feb 20, 2017 10:32

gay picnic defence: Oct 5, 2009; I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS

I thought this was interesting

quote:

Never mind the politicisation of energy and carbon policy � the market and legal system is moving rapidly to instil the discipline and punishment the government isn't game to discuss.

That was the core of the climate change bombshell dropped by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority on Friday. The policy vacuum will be filled by the personal liability of company directors and the disclosure requirements of financial regulators.

If the ABC's Insiders program and the federal Environment and Energy Minister, Josh Frydenberg, are any guide, Canberra hasn't yet grasped the importance of the speech by APRA executive board member, Geoff Summerhayes, to the Insurance Council of Australia forum.

In keeping with the Paris Agreement Australia has signed and the Financial Stability Board's (FSB) policy development, APRA leaves no room for climate sceptics. Both the obvious physical and perhaps less obvious "transition" risks of climate change are real and present dangers to the financial system APRA is charged with safeguarding.

And it's the transition risks of moving to a low-carbon economy that Summerhayes fingered as being particularly important for financial entities. APRA and its international counterparts fear the impact on banks, superannuation funds and asset managers of changes in policy, law, markets, technology and prices that are part of the agreed transition to a low-carbon economy.

Spare a thought here for the board of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) as it considers Adani's application for a billion-dollar loan to build a railway from the Galilee Basin to the Queensland coast. While being lent on by pro-coal government members, NAIF directors would do well to consider why Australia's banks seem to have no interest in financing the line. It's not just a green PR issue � it's the danger of being left with a stranded asset and directors being personally liable.

Summerhayes quoted legal opinion that it's only a matter of time before directors who fail to properly consider and disclose foreseeable climate-related risks are held personally liable for breaching their statutory duty of care and diligence under the Corporations Act.

The same consideration would weigh heavily on Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) directors if the government changes the legislation to allow CEFC to lend to new coal-powered electricity generators.

Summerhayes noted that much of the early focus on climate change risks had been on insurance firms and their exposure to losses from increasingly frequent and severe natural disasters, but there were a variety of other potential issues.

"These include the potential exposure of banks' and insurers' balance sheets to real estate impacted by climate change and to re-pricing or even 'stranding' of carbon-intensive assets in other parts of their loan books," he said.

"They also include exposure of asset owners and managers � an important consideration given the size of Australia's superannuation sector and its heavy weighting towards carbon-intensive equities and a relatively resource-intensive domestic economy."

Frydenberg on Sunday gave the impression the government was determined to bet Australia's energy future on the coal industry finding a way to make carbon capture and storage (CCS) economically viable.

The policy vacuum will be filled by the personal liability of company directors and the disclosure requirements of financial regulators.

Given the Coalition's refusal to price carbon so as to give CCS here even a small chance of success, that looks as sensible as an individual betting their financial future on winning OzLotto. That sort of policy response, driven by the coalition's internal ructions, climate sceptics and concentration on simplistic immediate "hip pocket" politics, contrasts with broader forces APRA comprehends.

APRA's view is that the Paris Agreement provided a very reliable signal that policy and regulatory efforts would intensify.

"The transition now in train could potentially lead to significant repricing of carbon-intensive resources and activities and reallocation of capital," Summerhayes said.

"This process will be highly sensitive to changes in regulation, technology, the physical environment and behaviour by investors and institutions � and interrelated perceptions and sentiment about all of the above. Inevitably, even under a sanguine view of how smoothly this transition happens, there will be systemic impacts and implications that have to be carefully monitored."

The Summerhayes speech is APRA's first public stand on climate change. It has not rushed to it, coming nearly two years since the G20 asked the FSB to consider climate change risks and more than a year since the board established its task force on climate-related financial disclosures.

It's in step with the insurance industry increasingly finding its voice on climate change issues after going a little quiet during the Abbott government days of overt climate scepticism.

In another context at the same ICA conference, ASIC chairman Greg Medcraft spoke about the legal licence tending to follow the social licence. On the risks and financial impact of climate change, it seems the market and legal judgments will proceed without political leadership.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 11:08

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Scott Morrison chucking a tanty about how the banks have mistreated him after all he's done for them is just the funniest thing.

Let us all remember this as a valuable lesson on dealing with bankers.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 11:13

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

gay picnic defence posted:

I thought this was interesting

Wow, that certainly feeds into the perception that corporate Australia, outside the Minerals Council have pretty much decided they can't trust this lot to mind a pram for 5 minutes let alone provide certainty around low-carbon transitions.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 11:21

Urcher: Jun 16, 2006

George Christensen is a huge fan of Doctor Who. https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/people-who-love-dr-who-should-love-their-fellow-man-right

VICE posted:

I think the show is a useful guide because, regardless of your political bent, if you're digging down to the values of a character like the Doctor, you arrive at this inevitable "this is how we should treat people" viewpoint.

George Christensen posted:

Look, obviously the Doctor's fairly liberal on the issue of gay marriage I would think, so we'd probably have some disagreement around that issue. The Doctor also scoffed at the idea that global warming will end the Earth, so he might agree with me on that one�

# ? Feb 20, 2017 11:52

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

I'm making an assumption but I think the dr probably scoffed at the idea that global warming would ruin the earth because an alien invasion would destroy it first, next week

# ? Feb 20, 2017 12:02

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

ewe2 posted:

Wow, that certainly feeds into the perception that corporate Australia, outside the Minerals Council have pretty much decided they can't trust this lot to mind a pram for 5 minutes let alone provide certainty around low-carbon transitions.

Its not even that they cant trust the LNP, its more that the political position of each party is becoming irrelevant to the climate change debate, because regardless of whether there is a law or court precedent or whatever, board governance has to operate on the assumption that there is otherwise they can expose themselves to a whole lot of poo poo.

Directors of most public facing companies and NFPs are generally required to have something called Directors insurance, which is a product that pays out in the event that a director is found personally liable for the actions of an organisation. If the insurers wont insure the directors unless they have climate change policies and actions at the board level no idiot in their right mind would take the job in the first place unless its their company.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 12:20

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Dr Who is just another pointy headed scientist anyway. Who cares what they think?

# ? Feb 20, 2017 12:20

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

Solemn Sloth posted:

I'm making an assumption but I think the dr probably scoffed at the idea that global warming would ruin the earth because an alien invasion would destroy it first, next week

I think it might have been an episode where a young genius billionaire was using alien technology to fight climate change with aerosols, but the technology was the means for aliens to invade.

So lol. The doctor was scoffing at geoengineering that doesn't take into account the full ramifications of the technology it uses.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 12:42

Starshark: Dec 22, 2005; Doctor Rope

You dumb fucks who think we don't need more coal-fired power plants need to read these articles. COAL NOW

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-20/fears-hay-stocks-could-run-low-into-winter-if-no-rainfall/8286166?WT.ac=localnews_newcastle

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-13/heatwave-kills-thousands-of-bats-nsw/8265530

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-16/heatwave-impact-on-consumers-and-producers-means-crop-damage/8272456

# ? Feb 20, 2017 12:48

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

If we have more coal stations we can run more air conditioners and cool the crops and bats down you loving idiot.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 12:49

Cleretic: Feb 3, 2010; Can't post for 17 hours!

Solemn Sloth posted:

I'm making an assumption but I think the dr probably scoffed at the idea that global warming would ruin the earth because an alien invasion would destroy it first, next week

I know Doctor Who, apparently better than Christensen, because I can tell you the Doctor's never commented on global warming unless you're extremely illiterate and think, like, solar flares are 'global warming'.

And even then you'd still have to not know the show, because the Doctor is very aware and concerned of those dangers. It's just that, as you said, the Doctor's usually more worried about immediate threats.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 12:56

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

The only Doctor Who episodes I can recall that touched on global warming was the one where car emission filters were an integral component to a hostile alien invasion (go Volkswagon?) and a classic one called Inferno which was something about "don't screw around with the earth's core unless you know what you're doing".

I'm thinking Georgie Boy is just trying to appear hip and with it to appeal to the hipster demographic. Rock bands and all that.

His next interview will probably be him extolling the virtues of denim trousers, also known as "jeans".

Also to show my true unrestrained Doctor Who nerd-dom the Doctor is fully aware nothing anyone does matters because ultimately the timelines are in constant flux since the time war so history gets rewritten all the time. He just plays along with everyone he meets and pretends they matter to stave off his own loneliness and insanity from having the entire matrix locked away in his brain from when he blew up Gallifrey the first time around :toot:

DancingShade fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Feb 20, 2017

# ? Feb 20, 2017 13:08

Shunkymonky: Sep 10, 2006; 'sup

http://www.smh.com.au/business/cons...217-gufhfz.html

quote:

Five years after graduating from medicine in Sydney, Matt Schiller is operating in Silicon Valley.

He's not working on patients, but on the start-up he co-founded with fellow University of NSW graduate Ed Kearney.

The pair built Snappr, billed as "the Uber for photography", to make quality photography more accessible to consumers, connecting them with pre-vetted photographers from $59.

"With photography services, no one company has more than one per cent share of the market in any western country," Dr Schiller said. "That fragmentation means it's just really hard for consumers to navigate, for people to find what they need.There's an opportunity here to create a brand that is the first thing people think of when they think of photography. We want to be that brand."

They were among the first to take advantage of start-up tax breaks offered as part of the Turnbull government's $1.1 billion innovation agenda. Australian cricket captain Steve Smith was an early investor.

Now the company has launched in San Francisco and secured investment from powerhouse start-up accelerator Y Combinator, whose previous proteges include Airbnb, Dropbox and Reddit.

Mr Kearney said things were moving fast. "In less than 10 months Snappr has gone from us brainstorming ideas over a coffee in a back alley in Ultimo, to launching in the US whilst being backed by the top startup accelerator in the world," he said. "But if things aren't moving quickly, then it's not much of a start-up."

Dr Schiller said winning backing from Y Combinator is "the ultimate for a start-up in its early days. The power and the benefit of YC is not the money they invest ... but the network they bring and their amazing partners."

Completing degrees in medicine and philosophy might be enough to keep some people busy, but Dr Schiller founded the EasyChem website for HSC students and the Australian Medical Student Journal while studying.

It was also at university that he and Mr Kearney showed early entrepreneurial flair, founding GownTown, now the country's largest online graduation retailer.

They offered photography along with academic dress, which proved popular with customers. "That got us thinking, 'Why aren't we doing this for all photography?'" Dr Schiller said.

Snappr is the latest development to disrupt the industry, with critics saying it undervalues professional photography. But Mr Kearney said today's photography businesses would not exist without the digital camera, "which had a hugely disruptive effect [on] businesses that came before them".

"I see what we do as part of the constant and unavoidable evolution of photography, which has always existed as the intersection between art and technology," he said. "We see ourselves as creating a better way for people everywhere to get access to the art of photography."

The market seems to like it, with Snappr almost doubling its number of bookings in Australia every month. The buzz around the company has grown since 60,000 people used its photo analyser tool on their LinkedIn profile pictures this year.

The team has plans to expand the business throughout the US and will soon unleash its photo analyser on users of the dating app Tinder.

Just as Thomas Edison described genius as one per cent inspiration and 99 per cent perspiration, Dr Schiller put Snappr's flying start down to "99 per cent hard work and execution".

"The reality of all the successful start-ups I know from Sydney is that the one ingredient for success is not having a super clever idea, or getting the smartest people, it's just about ruthlessly good execution, sticking at it, and a lot of hard work," he said.

Dr Schiller, who spent his first years after graduation as a consultant with McKinsey, said he one day hopes to combine his "two loves - medicine and health, and start-up life".

"I've definitely caught the start-up bug," he said.

This article was on the front page of SMH and it's driving me mad. So these two goobers created Uber for Photography. They essentially will create a marketplace which will drive down the cost of professional photographers incomes but make them rich in the process. And they get huge tax subsidies because we somehow want to encourage this. Nothing is innovated here, nothing is created, the end result is two guys create income off other people's labour and government funds that could have otherwise have done good are wasted on this. Am I right to be shitted off by this?

# ? Feb 20, 2017 13:11

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

They're just copying an existing business model from the USA as used by media intermediary companies/brokers.

Is it scummy? Well the tax breaks are. I have to wonder which LNP backer/donor they have relations with.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 13:14

Lizard Combatant: Sep 29, 2010; I have some notes.

https://twitter.com/CliveFPalmer/status/833551162519347200

# ? Feb 20, 2017 13:25

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

Shunkymonky posted:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/cons...217-gufhfz.html

This article was on the front page of SMH and it's driving me mad. So these two goobers created Uber for Photography. They essentially will create a marketplace which will drive down the cost of professional photographers incomes but make them rich in the process. And they get huge tax subsidies because we somehow want to encourage this. Nothing is innovated here, nothing is created, the end result is two guys create income off other people's labour and government funds that could have otherwise have done good are wasted on this. Am I right to be shitted off by this?

Hi welcome to capitalism enjoy your stay

# ? Feb 20, 2017 13:25

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

DancingShade posted:

The only Doctor Who episodes I can recall that touched on global warming was the one where car emission filters were an integral component to a hostile alien invasion (go Volkswagon?) and a classic one called Inferno which was something about "don't screw around with the earth's core unless you know what you're doing".

I'm thinking Georgie Boy is just trying to appear hip and with it to appeal to the hipster demographic. Rock bands and all that.

His next interview will probably be him extolling the virtues of denim trousers, also known as "jeans".

Also to show my true unrestrained Doctor Who nerd-dom the Doctor is fully aware nothing anyone does matters because ultimately the timelines are in constant flux since the time war so history gets rewritten all the time. He just plays along with everyone he meets and pretends they matter to stave off his own loneliness and insanity from having the entire matrix locked away in his brain from when he blew up Gallifrey the first time around

You're ignoring the fact that some points in time are fixed you idiot, you child

# ? Feb 20, 2017 13:25

Pile Of Garbage: May 28, 2007

If anyone cares, some pics of the monstrous WA Liberal mailer being sent out from Eleni's office:

https://twitter.com/GarbageDotNet/status/833648408845914113

It's loving enormous. The big part is double-sided as well.

Pile Of Garbage fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Feb 20, 2017

# ? Feb 20, 2017 13:29

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

Solemn Sloth posted:

You're ignoring the fact that some points in time are fixed you idiot, you child

If you have a web of time you don't need to care about those because you can just reset everything whenever you want.

This was the entire reason the Time Lord war with "the enemy" was such a big deal (these weren't the daleks) - they had their own web of time and rival historical process.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 13:31

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

DancingShade posted:

I'm thinking Georgie Boy is just trying to appear hip and with it to appeal to the hipster demographic. Rock bands and all that.

He's a huge nerd and genuinely likes the show. Now that Conroy's retired he's probably the biggest Whovian in parliament.

It's not really any different from all the right wing people who love Star Trek.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 13:40

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

at least Perrett is wearing Tom Baker's scarf, which makes my MP better than the others

# ? Feb 20, 2017 13:55

JBP: Feb 16, 2017; You've got to know, to understand,
Baby, take me by my hand,
I'll lead you to the promised land.

I loving hate doctor who it's trash.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 14:32

Lizard Combatant: Sep 29, 2010; I have some notes.

JBP posted:

I loving hate doctor who it's trash.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 14:34

Lizard Combatant: Sep 29, 2010; I have some notes.

https://twitter.com/CliveFPalmer/status/833594954811183108

# ? Feb 20, 2017 14:35

Ora Tzo: Feb 26, 2016; HEEEERES TONYYYY

Lizard Combatant posted:

https://twitter.com/CliveFPalmer/status/833594954811183108

Abbott was way ahead of him on that one.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 14:40

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

Les Affaires posted:

Its not even that they cant trust the LNP, its more that the political position of each party is becoming irrelevant to the climate change debate, because regardless of whether there is a law or court precedent or whatever, board governance has to operate on the assumption that there is otherwise they can expose themselves to a whole lot of poo poo.

It's more than their ideology is in direct conflict with reality, making it impossible to rely on them. These are not conservatives in any sense of the word any more.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 20:17

You Am I: May 20, 2001; Me @ your poasting

gently caress I hate Australian Mainstream/Commercial media.

Pauline Hanson or one of her moron candidates does something disgraceful: "Oh that's our Pauline/One Nation! What laughs! Here's Pauline again with an awful sound bite. Remember Pauline is the only alternative to Labor and Liberals"

The Greens: Either deathly silence or OMG RABIT LEFTIES WANT US TO EAT MUNG BEANS AND poo poo IN A HOLE while totally misunderstanding most of the Greens policies or handwaving them off as "extremist leftie views".

And this isn't just the Murdoch media, Fairfax, ABC, SBS and online sites like Buzzfeed and sometimes even New Matilda are guilty of this.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 22:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 22:26

AgentF: May 11, 2009

Too many questions on Q&A and the radio show afterwards were "Why do politicians argue about things instead of working together? Important things aren't being done because they are so politicised." and it was particularly maddening because on the show the major topic they were talking about was renewable energy and climate change, issues that the Liberals deliberately politicised. Malcolm Turnbull was once in favour of the ETS until they realised it was an effective weapon they could hit Labor over the head with so they politicised it and then Labor could only react and now it's hopelessly stuck. See also the NDIS.

These "politicians only squabble all day" types need a sense of history instead of shrugging their shoulders and deciding that all politicians are equally bad. The pervasive pattern is that there is a neutral issue, then the Libs politicise it and attack Labor with it, then Labor defend it (what else should they do? concede to every new attack?) and then it looks like two equal sides squabbling with each other.

# ? Feb 20, 2017 22:21

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol February 2017 - Choo choose your candidates wisely..

«‹›49 »