|
Woah, the swears...
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
BBJoey posted:conservatism is dead, though This is pretty sweeping and has been demonstrated to be false quite a few times recently.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
open24hours posted:The Greens seem kind of maxed out, they've been treading water for the past few federal elections and their polling is pretty stable. I don't know what they can do if they want to become a mainstream party, but they'd better get on it. Sell out more.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
The only people that are really going to suffer when climate change kicks are poor people anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Ora Tzo posted:Didn't the Greens only come into their own in the mid 2000s as the Democrats disappeared? The 3rd party vote hasn't changed that dramatically since the dems went down. Through the 80s and 90s they were maintaining a senate presence roughly equal to the current state of play with minor parties in there. Minor parties at the time (greens included) commanded about the same level of support as minor parties now and it was only really the dems massive GST fuckup that saw the greens absorb a lot of political migrants from the sinking dems ship. A lot of those probably cracked the shits at the third way socialist democrat message and either retreated to Labor or went wit the Greens who took a more stern left wing approach. Pound for pound right now the Greens I think have one more senators than the dems at the peak of their power and obviously they have the single reps seat. I don't really see that as being an indication of greenmentum and more like the status quo has continued to prevail and inner Melbourne has become more wealthy. E: talking federally obviously, state wise the dems never really played at state politics. In Vic the Greens got their two seats but they didn't experience anything like a noticeable swing on general numbers. They didn't limp over the line or anything, but it was the ALP swing combined with people in the inner city having a taste for the Greens that did it. I think the Greens experienced contraction in the suburbs, but boosts in Melbourne and basically came out with the same level of support as the previous election. Posting on phone is hard... JBP fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
I like it that property is now Russian roulette and every year new buyers have one extra bullet in the gun.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
hooman posted:Perth's bubble is already deflating... which is nice. That's because the state is in the toilet and the Greens are hell bent on ruining their stock in trade.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
What industry do Greens dislike more than anything else?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
How many people do you propose you are going to kill in the pursuit of a nationalised mining resources scheme?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
I'm serious. If you nationalise something like mining with billions if not trillions of dollars in vested interests, how many people will have to die?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Do you think the mining companies would hire mercenaries or what? The government would buy out the companies, something they should be spending the royalty money on now. How will the government provide services for anyone if it spends an entire year of GDP buying out private companies? How will it run all of those new concerns that have fallen under it's umbrella? What if they don't want to comply with compulsory acquisition and their host countries engage in diplomacy and trade restrictions on their behalf?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
open24hours posted:With the money they make from mining and by employing the people who work in those industries now. I don't see why other countries would care if they're buying ore from a privately or publicly owned company. You realise the market valuation of those companies also accounts for future earning from mining, so you're going to need a loan for more than the GDP of the country and then embark on an adversarial acquisition of those businesses. You also ask the government to take on the risk of an entire sector of the economy that has been unreliable more than once in history. They would care because the expectation of posters itt is that we retain ore and coking coal to manufacture steel locally and also that we are attempting to acquire businesses that are part or wholly owned internationally either directly or through parent companies. So yeah. How many people do we have to kill to make this happen?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
OK I do you good deal. I will tell the Australian public that we want to multiply national debt tenfold overnight and you can put them all against a wall and shoot them when they say no. e: don't stress too much once you shoot enough of them the rest will start to get it and fall in line.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
I guess if a country worked like a game of Civilisation you could do this.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
NPR Journalizard posted:Just massively increase the taxes and royalties on that sector A Labor government couldn't garner the political willpower or general support to moderately increase the taxation on mining.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
What I'm hearing is basically suspend democracy, go to war with some of the country's biggest companies and then spitefully destroy the industry wholesale so that those private interests move overseas and take their equipment leaving a bunch of government officials to work out how to run a mine and buy all the poo poo to do it with.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
hooman posted:Fundamentally we need campaign donation reform to try and pry business out of our politics before we can start moving to more sane positions. Wouldn't have changed very much given that the minerals council ran a far better campaign than the government, coupled with the fact that the opposition would have opposed on ideological grounds anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
open24hours posted:This is all a bit hyperbolic. I'm talking about a government purchasing shares in publicly traded companies, not forcibly taking ownership of them. Comparisons to Nigeria and Iran are ridiculous. As far as a publicly traded company goes that this is forcibly taking ownership from them and they will resist. Once the government has control of the company investors will abandon ship and buy BHP Billiton Jr. The government will find it impossible to raise capital because you have the industrial equivalent of a five year old now helming that company. e: you'd be going into a market war with BHP Billiton and Hancock Prospecting is a privately owned company which means compulsory acquisition or enactment of Full Stalin. JBP fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
NPR Journalizard posted:Yes, but when they finally split along faction lines, and the left hooks up with the greens and they form government and start passing good legislation, its entirely possible. lmao NPR Journalizard posted:The government wont need to raise capital in the traditional way of the stock market. They can issue bonds and write low interest loans to the company quite easily. Plus, I think you are overestimating the brain drain that would happen. Take away all the leases so the companies can't operate anymore then start a new government company from the ground up  I thought it was going to be simple.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Wouldn't investors be more concerned with how much money the company was making than whether it was owned by the government? People were more than happy to buy shares in Telstra when it was majority owned by the government. If you are going to have a majority government owned company that is publicly listed and paying dividends to shareholders why make the public take on all this risk? What is stopping me from competing with the government? You'd create a market where the government gets free kicks for their company and penalises competitors, but won't control the entire industry for thirty years? Why the gently caress are Hancock taking free government money, what is the payoff for the owner?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
open24hours posted:They're not getting free government money, they're exchanging it for shares in the company. The payoff is the same as any other time a company sells shares to raise capital. A privately owned company is going to go to a bank and not sell their ownership of the company or raise capex in other ways. Doubly so when you consider the ideological nature of the current owner.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Don Dongington posted:Could just run Gina through the guillotine. She's the kind of narcissistic greed driven gently caress that don't care for succession planning, and as far as I can tell she's cut her kids out of their inheritance (to the point that she had Barnaby emailing them telling them to stop suing her) so that'll be the end of the line for Hancock perhaps... The kids actually won control of the Hope Hancock Trust which is 1/4 of the company and unless Gina specifies some other beneficiary they'll just get control of it. 50/50 shot as to whether they just turn into their mother or sell it all and buy cocaine.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:"Welcome to Mark Latham's Outsiders, Australia's most politically incorrect news and current affairs site," Latham says, standing in front of a stark white wall. Yesssss we might finally have found our Alex Jones.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
cohsae posted:Always knew George was a oval office. Anyone who plates up food with tweezers is not to be trusted. I used to eat at Hellenic republic all the time. Then I heard him speak and never returned.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:"The Nationals and the Liberals have drifted too far to the Greens, the most destructive force in politics" The greens lead the way on wealthy neoliberal young people so it makes sense that the LNP try to capture that demo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
Bogan King posted:https://twitter.com/boltcomments/status/848882508926263297 Yay I won.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Complaints box: Telstra made a mistake by sending me two handsets, received one back and then disconnected my month old service without contacting me. Isn't that unlawful?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Well look Kerry if people's gayness can mutate over time, and I do say "if", Kerry, then maybe we've been at fault here and need to reconsider whether applying the pub test is still relevant and perhaps move to a more appropriate sniff test.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
What manner of loving cretin hears the words "pub test" from a politician and experiences a state of resonance in their mind?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:I'm the pub filled with small business owners. Everyone that works a blue collar job is a small business owner now because no one directly employs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:Depending on the pub I may have to lean into fatshaming, misogyny and xenophobia but I'd get it done nonetheless Nice classism.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Speaking of classism, how do people that want to watch the bolt report have enough money to afford cable tv?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 07:59
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Have you seen his ratings? The Bolt Report was the most watched program on subscription television on 9 November 2016 as part of post-2016 American presidential election coverage with 139,000 viewers. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:How is the left going to deal with a Conservative Black Woman Senator? With more regressive leftist real racism I suspect.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
I'll give Ray a tip, home loan rates have never been 18% for anyone that wasn't being blatantly ripped off and that crazy peak of 15-17% only ran from like 86-90 then cooled right off. I'd rather buy a house for $200-300k and suddenly have to find cash to repay a doubled interest rate than pay $1m back from day one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
True blue Ray Hadleys bought their massive suburban homes for $12k in 1970 with free public transport, free education, proper public health, nationalised service provision and interest rates of 6-7%.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:Imagine thinking that large scale coal mining will be a productive economic exercise 50 years from now. The problem is that right now it's the only industry motoring hard to make the economy grow. I understand the ideological problems with the statement I've made, but it's true and it's what people care about.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:Well when you do your best to kill off renewable industries that will happen. There are a billion things intrinsically wrong with that factual statement, I agree.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 09:54
|
|
|
Neo Militant Gay-Leftism would have been a tier one LF name.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
Any chance of getting some Gay-Left Militia tags up in here with an AK toting Boonie?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 02:21
|
|