|
open24hours posted:Easily solved: set up a nuclear industry. Easierly solved, how about this: nuclear submarines powered by coal.
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
Joyce's behavior in that clip has the telltale cadence of a teenager who's found what he thinks is a funny word and will shout it at any chance he gets. Only with the timeline drastically compressed; I knew a kid like that and it'd take him at least a week to fit in that many instances of 'CAAAAAAAAARP'. With about as much reaction from others, though.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
EvilElmo posted:Well, they're not a third option. They've hit double digits for the first time at the last election and are on path to return to under 10% this election. Here's the super fun and great thing about Australia's political system: we're allowed to have more than one answer about who we prefer to be in government, because of something called preferential voting! Maybe you've heard of it. It's pretty doubtful that anyone here whose name is not related to felines is going to put the LNP above the ALP. But for those of us here who would prefer the greens to the ALP--which is most of us I think--we're not squandering our votes, because we are, thanks to the system of voting, allowed to say 'if the Greens don't get in I'd prefer the ALP' and have that belief actually matter. It's almost like you don't have to base your entire vote on the lesser of two evils!
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
EvilElmo posted:Would you prefer the ALP to have the Greens asylum seeker policy and remain in opposition or for them to have the current policy with a chance of forming Government? I actually vote for the Greens based on economic, environmental and LGBT grounds before asylum seeker policy enters in*, so you might be picking this fight with the wrong person. *Don't get me wrong, I agree with them on the asylum seeker situation as well, but things directly relevant to my life hold greater sway over my vote than that.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 11:52
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:We have a lot of land with a small population and a tiny army. Force multipliers like landmines might be needed one day. It's not like we're gonna leave them everywhere like Angola etc. You realize that, if we did get invaded (un-loving-likely), they would be arriving on the coastlines, right? What with there being literally no other way to hit us? Given that, I'm sure you also realize that almost every single one of our cities is a coastal city? Because there's poo poo loving all to found a city on in landlocked regions? Landmines are one of the least valuable defenses we could ever have, because these hypothetical invaders aren't going to want to take land routes anyway because we're loving huge and have massive stretches of nothing. Which, as luck would have it, would also make landmines loving useless as a defense because of a lack of strategically advantageous places to put them. What, are you going to litter a country road between Melbourne and Sydney with them, when there's honking great stretches of flat land to go around them? Landmines would be useless at doing anything but maiming innocents in locations so remote that they're very unlikely to get any medical attention.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Anidav posted:I wonder if all those PUP voters will evaporate back to the ALP. PUP vote seems like people hated the ALP due to leadership scandals but hated Abbott too. ALP has fixed itself up and now the Coalition is stuck with Tone Era policy skeletons. I think Xenophon would probably get the bulk of Palmer's voters, with the ALP and Greens picking up the rest.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Anidav posted:OH WAIT IT'S MANDATORY HAHAH Snod. posted:http://budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/glossies/jobs-growth/html/jobs-growth-07.htm I am now genuinely terrified of losing my job. This is... this is basically slavery, right? gently caress, I hope my work are as good about LGBT issues as I think they are. Otherwise I am boned in several ways if this happens.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 11:01
|
|
|
Recoome posted:How is the the "do no harm" budget. Fuckkin "The Age" LibertyCat is apparently a journalist, and so has simply neglected to report injustices against those who are not people.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:Hey so if you have a business that has roles that require minimal training, is there any reason revealed so far as to why you wouldn't just cycle through WFTD folks as you can both get a once off government bonus and presumably pay them less than employing a personal normally? None that we've been told! The internship bullshit's another of those great unemployment policies that gently caress the unemployed over twofold: not only is their prime jobseeking time being consumed for a pittance, but the faux-work the business is getting basically for free is taking the place of what someone would actually be paid a living wage to do normally. To add insult to injury, this role being disintegrated to be done by Newstart interns is basically required to be exactly the sort of entry-level job those jobseekers would have been applying to anyway. This policy is as backwards and destructive as they come.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
ModernMajorGeneral posted:The $1000 bonus is for the initial $200/fortnight internship, not for a job. Yeah, let's reiterate: they get $1000 dollars for every intern they hire. Which they then pay at a rate where it takes them a month to start losing money, provided they weren't benefiting from having a worker they payed drat near gently caress-all. Under this scheme, presuming you had an entry-level job to farm out like this that didn't need too much training, by far the most profitable thing to do is to never actually hire any of these people, but keep getting new interns, each one coming with a new $1k bonus.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Negligent posted:Virginia owns a café in a busy shopping centre. She has thought about taking on another waiter but is concerned about introducing an unknown person into her well-functioning team. Here is the more ralistic take on this story: At the end of the eight weeks, Miles is booted out on his rear end and is send right back into the system that had been driving him to depression in the first place. He is replaced the very next Monday by Rick, a thirty-something driven to alcoholism at the loss of his factory job, who lacks both the skills and willingness to exceed at the role. Virginia's cafe profits more from doing this, and then doing it a third time when Rick stops turning up (be it because of finishing the eight weeks, leaving the role unceremoniously for any number of personal reasons, or being booted out for turning up drunk/hungover one morning because he had to drink A LOT to gather up the willingness to turn up to this work he hates for another day), this process repeating unto infinity. Also, the internship role is far less likely to be from a small, locally-owned cafe, and more likely to be some faceless office or warehouse job, the managers of which will remember neither Miles nor Rick after they had been gone for more than three days.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Yeah, they might even have to hire someone to do that job! I think you might be onto something. And then we'd have to pay less Newstart! Holy poo poo, this is gold, right here.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Birdstrike posted:Actually releasing good economic policies that have been stolen by the Libs has been great for the ALP. It's framed the debate in such a way that the Libs are at a natural disadvantage because it's not about economic management anymore, it's about fairness. It also lets them laser-focus on the things that got changed, or that they didn't come up with, instead of having to fight the entire thing. Maybe be a bit snide about the fact that they apparently wrote half the budget, but then come out swinging against things like the internships, uni funding cuts, and such like that. They won't be blocking supply this time, but there's still things to fight about.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
EvilElmo posted:Unlike the posters here, I will actually answer the question. I would vote Green if the ALP vanished tomorrow. We have answered this question. Many of us, multiple times, actually. For your sake, since you're slow, I think I'll state mine more explicitly: I almost always put Greens at 1 in either house. ALP tends to get 2 in the reps, but in the senate (keep in mind going from South Australia's, so the maximum number is about 70-something) Labor tend to be somewhere in the teens, with minor parties that have pretty good core platforms going between them. Liberals in the meantime languish somewhere in the 60s, only just ahead of parties like Family First. Yes, I am the type to number the whole senate sheet. It actually gets fun once you're in the middle stretch. EvilElmo posted:Yet, nobody answers if they'd prefer the ALP to have Green policy and always in opposition or Liberal policy and in Government. The former, because I would prefer to have those policies actually stood by. I loving hate the Liberals, but it's not because I want to punch Christopher Pyne in the face and shout profanity at Corey Bernardi until the sheer force of my voice rips the skin from his body*. I'm voting for other people because I don't want Liberal policy to be law. *The only member of the LNP I wouldn't want to enact some form of violence against is Abbott, and that's not because he doesn't deserve it; he just seems the most liikely to hit back.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
Anidav posted:Great 25 hours of learning how to type on windows 98 According to the certificate in IT I took classes for around the new year*, formatting a Word document and knowing the difference between hardware and software is certificate-worthy knowledge. These courses won't even be that, and they'll probably be primarily given to young people that can do it in their sleep anyway. *It was meant to be a thirteen-week course, but I was knocking out two-three units in half a lesson and then going home before lunch. Never got the cert because they lost half my assessment pieces.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
Shorten's actually pledging marriage equality? Within an actual timeframe? I don't know who murdered Shorten and started wearing his skin, but if he holds to that come actual election time then he's got my support.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
Ferremit posted:Thats the ones... I dont know what hes trying to achieve with it but its up there in irritation level with the puratap ads... Damnit man, I'd just managed to block Puratap out of my head. They're Adelaide only, right? It's been safely quarantined?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
And I can imagine that for the incumbent it can be something of an intimidation tactic. "Look just HOW MUCH of your surrounding community votes for the Liberals! Sure would be a same if you wasted your vote against this kind of support!"
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
That Telegraph column reads like satire.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
I got put right slam in between the ALP and Greens. Looking through the actual responses, that was apparently because I reserved the 'strongly agree/disagree' choices for when it's an issue close enough to my heart that my response to reading the questions was something along the lines of 'gently caress yeah it should/gently caress no it shouldn't'.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
Why do we have so loving many cooking shows, anyway? Every station has several cooking shows, and it's baffling to me. I'm not someone who tremendously enjoys the acts of making and eating food, so our apparent national love of watching people cook meats, rices and pastries honestly makes me feel kind of alienated.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Starshark posted:1) Cheap to make I'll argue that second part, I don't like to eat. It's an annoying chore most of the time, admittedly not really helped by the fact that most of my life was spent around people who couldn't cook for poo poo. Yes, I recognize that makes me a freak. But it's been a long time since I've enjoyed a meal because of the food rather than in spite of it, to the point where I'm not sure it's ever happened. Cleretic fucked around with this message at 23:48 on May 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:What's your opinion on Soylent? I recognize that it's terrible and stupid, but I wish it wasn't because I'd be all for it otherwise. I could go for a 'gently caress it, it'll keep me going' drink in place of a meal that'll take more time to make than eat and I won't enjoy eating anyway. And I don't get that a lot, but that's because I just keep quiet about that in real life. Literally my entire office seems to be foodies, it'd be... a bad idea to say that for exactly that reason. I've gotten ten-minute recommendations when mentioning off-handedly that there's a Malaysian place on the bottom floor of my building.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Spudd posted:Still vote 1 for Spudd, I'll change our national flag to D-Dog. Can you change our national anthem to that qail from In His Eyes? Not the song as a whole. Just that WHOOOA-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
That does, at least, explain why real estate agents keep needing politicians to speak up for them.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
Anidav posted:Who else is keen for the terrorgraph debate and where is a livestream? Will there be a worm? I only watch political debates with worms.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
Magog posted:Professional voters. I'm seeing like, a near-future dystopian comedy of some kind here. Who do we get for the lead? I don't want to say Sean Micallef not because he can't do it, but because he's already busy and a bit of an obvious choice.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
SKY COQ posted:Australia’s gay marriage movement masquerades as a successor to yesterday’s great social reform movements, but on closer look we find that any such comparison is an insult to the Suffragist and the Civil Rights movements. It's amazing and depressing to me that not only are we behind the United States and pretty much the entirety of Europe on gay marriage of all things, but that people are trying so hard to knock it back. Seriously, for gently caress's sake. This is literally the easiest, plainest issue I've ever seen, and we're still waffling about passing gay marriage?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Are we though? It seems like one of those issues barely anyone on the right actually gives a poo poo about, but know that their side is supposed to oppose. They care enough about it to not just pass it, and have quite clearly attempted to set things up to pretend to be progressive while not actually having to, god forbid, pass the thing with 70% public approval (they have opted instead to let the far-right wingnuts in their own party kneecap a fantastic LGBT service because they made up scary things about them). And it's not like the nominally left-wing party didn't have a term or two in recent years to do it themselves. Yes, it's inevitable, and yes I'm going to be out at literally the gayest party I'll ever have a chance to go to when it happens. But we really shouldn't be behind America on this one, and we really shouldn't still be seeing positions like that rear end in a top hat's being given such major platforms.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
freebooter posted:gently caress a referendum, just pass the law. The idea of the majority of the population voting on it actually pisses me off - I mean, what would everybody's opinion be if 70% were against it? Well I'd be angrier at different people in that case. My opinion wouldn't change too significantly though, unless you count 'gently caress them, pass it' to be appreciably different from 'gently caress you, pass it'.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
I should say that I don't think less of Albanese for being friends with Liberals. I think less of Albanese for being friends with Pyne.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
I have to be honest, I didn't expect it to be that close. Seems like there's a lot of people with opinions on it, if not necessarily good ones. I don't know how I feel about that fact, but there you go.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:lol @ the 4 percent of class traitors. I don't think they're 'class traitors', I think they're just idiots.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
I'm less disappointed by the fact this happened (if it's even a thing, it's a little more confusing than I can be bothered following) than by the fact it's going to really hurt the Greens. And you just know that this is going to stick far harder than similar or greater stories from the L-parties.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
Kat Delacour posted:That's because he posts about 6 times more than our median posters: https://forums.somethingawful.com/misc.php?action=whoposted&threadid=3774162 In fairness, that is because he splits what would be one post into about three. I don't think he knows what the edit button does.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
Vladimir Poutine posted:australia would got exploited by all the bigger nations Which is different how, exactly?
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2016 09:53
|
|
|
I was trying to figure out who Young Bill Shorten reminded me of. Someone young, smug and self-assured, definitely. Maybe someone from a teen comedy, like maybe an uptight upperclassmen that gets dunked on or pranked? Then it hit me. Friendlyjordies.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
I can certainly understand that view, even if I don't agree with it. When your options are 'gently caress the young and poor' and 'gently caress the young and poor slightly less' it suddenly feels like the best choice is to just abstain entirely; they're not listening to you anyway, why bother pretending they are? The subject of politics and voting came up at work yesterday, and an Indian woman was telling us that their country's ballots have a straight-up 'I can't vote for either of these parties' option. I doubt that exactly works out, but I bet a specific protest-vote null option would get a lot of use here, especially among the younger voters. Cleretic fucked around with this message at 23:20 on May 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
You're talking to a proud Greens voter (who now has reasons more direct than vague morals and abstract beliefs to vote for them), guys, don't worry. I think it's poo poo too, I was just saying that I understand the view of 'it's pointless to vote'. Even the Greens don't really solve it. They were always in line with my beliefs, and they're certainly better than the Ls, but they're not really a party that directly appeals to the youth so much as the only ones who don't hate them for next to no reason. For young people, there's all stick and no carrot across basically all of politics. Hard to give enough of a poo poo to vote when that's what you're staring down.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
There's certainly points to all this about young non-voters, but I can't be the only one that notices that every single one of these points comes from a view of young, would-be voters being the ones that have to change. That might be true, but it's a perspective that I doubt they're fans of, and it's not necessarily the way it has to be. There's a huge untapped voting bloc there of disillusioned youth, that just aren't getting spoken to by politics. The party that scores them has a huge advantage, but they're not going to get them by just telling them to vote for parties that don't speak to them in the first place. Rudd was the last person that even tried here, so we're nearing a decade of politics that just flat ignores or even vilifies their existence. Not like there's no justification or evidence; think of Obama, Sanders, Trudeau (I assume, I don't really know CanPol). Maybe this is something of a weird casualty of mandatory voting. I know such a system is way better than the alternative, don't misread me as being against it, but perhaps being this long in a system with that guaranteed audience left our major parties unprepared to even engage the people who don't enrol to vote.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 02:23
|
|