toogood18 Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 What are your views on politics in this country? I personally think the government is running around at 6's and 7's in Victoria and federally. Change is needed Post all news about federal or state government news in here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) Sack them all. Bailleu is a phaggot who builds nice infrastructure in the east, and only builds prisons in the west, not that the labor government was any better, in fact they are worse, as they had the votes here so they could have looked after their voters. As for Federal, dont get me started. Edited June 8, 2012 by Tesla 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 My mind is blown that Liberal havent gotten rid of Tony Abbott yet, if they had any other leader the next election would be a whitewash for the liberals, but the fact no one likes him and that he is an idiot is keeping labour in it. The only good thing about him being the next PM is that feminists will be real mad lawl. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadete Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 My mind is blown that Liberal havent gotten rid of Tony Abbott yet, if they had any other leader the next election would be a whitewash for the liberals, but the fact no one likes him and that he is an idiot is keeping labour in it. The only good thing about him being the next PM is that feminists will be real mad lawl. Has attractive daughters as well, and one I have been told from a reliable source gets around... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendo Posted August 30, 2012 Report Share Posted August 30, 2012 Paid 30 bucks to be a greens member the other day, I kind of feel robbed of me money, all I get is recycled paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadete Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) Moving on to the parties that deal with Reality, http://www.theaustra...x-1226474494254 Journalist David Marr after crying loud and hard over PPL questioning parts of Gillard’s Professional Life before Politics as being "Irrelevant" now thinks what Abbott did when at fucken Uni is ever so relevant. Another perfect example of Femo Lefty Positive Discrimination at its best... Facts are facts - Gillard Stole Furniture from a Union everyone in the ALP has known this for years. In fact even I found this out a long time before Rudd was even PM. Just slightly worse than hitting a wall, a fuck load more relevant to her Professional Integrity as PM. Edited September 24, 2012 by cadete 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 Stole furniture? Really? Credible sources? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 The sooner the socialist Labor are gone the better 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braveheart Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 The sooner the socialist Labor are gone the better lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 The sooner the socialist Labor are gone the better Socialists? That's an interesting take on the term. If, you know, you ignore its actual definition. Unless the Rupert Murdoch has released his own dictionary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 No free market, no care. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 I really want a "none of the above" box come next election. I wish we had someone really charasmatic like Obama in Australian politics. That person would win my vote instantly no matter what their promises and proposed policies and changes are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braveheart Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 That person would win my vote instantly no matter what their promises and proposed policies and changes are. So you are after a cult of personality? Sounds fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 I wish we had someone really charasmatic like Obama in Australian politics. That person would win my vote instantly no matter what their promises and proposed policies and changes are. You realise you are the type of person that would have voted for Hitler. fwiw, Obama was only elected because he is black. Real tawk. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadete Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Stole furniture? Really? Credible sources? A very well known former Hawke/Keating Govt ALP Minister... Socialists? That's an interesting take on the term. If, you know, you ignore its actual definition. Unless the Rupert Murdoch has released his own dictionary. Well u can hardly blame PPL for not being able to define the ALP... I really want a "none of the above" box come next election. I wish we had someone really charasmatic like Obama in Australian politics. That person would win my vote instantly no matter what their promises and proposed policies and changes are. Lol - Gold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malloy Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 I really want a "none of the above" box come next election. I wish we had someone really charasmatic like Obama in Australian politics. That person would win my vote instantly no matter what their promises and proposed policies and changes are. wasn't that Rudd.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braveheart Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 wasn't that Rudd.... Nice try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadete Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) I really want a "none of the above" box come next election. I wish we had someone really charasmatic like Obama in Australian politics. That person would win my vote instantly no matter what their promises and proposed policies and changes are. wasn't that Rudd.... Nice try. How was that not Kevin 07??? No Mates Kev even had the Tee Shirts and his little Chats with Rove - Claiming he would turn "Gay" for Rove with his cheeky smile. And lets not forget his election promises of being able to fix everything and anything from the Environment to Boat People... Of course none of these were achieved, and all these unfulfilled promises have just remained as Permanent Policy Headaches for Julia. Edited October 8, 2012 by cadete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Inherits $3593468943603583458350359345 surplus. Turns it into $2398572385825825285 deficet. Kevin Rudd. All the flogs "I like Kevin Rudd because he gave me money", ffs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braveheart Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) And lets not forget his election promises of being able to fix everything and anything from the Environment to Boat People... Of course none of these were achieved, and all these unfulfilled promises have just remained as Permanent Policy Headaches for Julia. No sorry, The largest element of the campaign platform was repealing Workchoices which he did. Edited October 8, 2012 by Braveheart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braveheart Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Inherits $3593468943603583458350359345 surplus. Turns it into $2398572385825825285 deficet. Labor governments spending money on infrastructure projects?? hmmm sounds suspiciously like what Labor government are supposed to do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadete Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) No sorry, The largest element of the campaign platform was repealing Workchoices which he did. I agree with this, but years on since he was PM the two major issues the Libs are going to attack the ALP on were essentially created by Rudd: 1. Boat People - Due to his change of Refugee Policy 2. The Carbon Tax - Due to failure at the UN. He should never of been PM in the first place - When he knocked of Kim as leader of the party it was only because Gillard did a deal with him and put her supporters (Of which she had a substantial number more of than his own) behind his bid to get rid of Kim. That's why when they won the election Gillard became a Super Minister being Deputy PM, Minister for Education and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. (No surprises either with her choosing the two Portfolios which saw the most early attention from the new Labor Govt so she could point to that in the future.) More importantly its also the reason why it was so easy for her to do the impossible take Rudd (A PM who supposedly brought Labor back from the brink) down before he had a chance to re-elected - That and of course his infamous unpopularity in the ALP party since he first entered Parliament. Edited October 8, 2012 by cadete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyospliff Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Communism is the only way! Up the communist party of Melbourne. Down with the capitalist pigs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Communism is the only way! Up the communist party of Melbourne. Down with the capitalist pigs. lol. I await your excuses as to why it has failed every time it has been implemented. It can be reasonably successful in the short term in an economy which is lacking in capital resources as savings and investment are forced, allowing for rapid capital accumulation which would lead to significant economic growth (which island is going to produce more tomatoes, the one with 1 shovel between 2 workers or a shovel for each worker?), but once that hits its point of diminishing returns (how much more is the island with a shovel for each worker going to produce once it has 2 shovels per worker?) and can no longer be relied upon to create increased production, the whole house of cards is going to collapse (eg USSR) due to inefficient labour (why am I going to work hard when I'm going to get pretty much the same return as someone who wastes time?) and just general inefficient production (if I'm a plant manager and I need 100 kg of raw material to meet my output quota, I'm going to tell them I need 120kg to make sure I get over 100kg and then I can steal any extra). Add to that the development of new technology (development of new technology is the only way to have economic growth in the very long term) would be poor as nothing inspires human ingenuity greater than the prospect of it benefiting them (IIRC Adam Smith had something to say about this in the division of labour section of The Weath of Nations, which is in some ways overlooked compared to the more famous 'invisible hand' section, whereby he tells a story of a worker who devises a modification to his machine which basically saves him a shit load of time). Basically no one is trying to innovate shit in a communist economy as they have far less to gain from it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 lol. I await your excuses as to why it has failed every time it has been implemented. Because it has never been used in a developed, non-corrupt nation. It's like looking at a Zimbabwe and saying "see, popularly elected government (known as democracy to those with little regard for ancient Greece) simply does not work." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadete Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Because it has never been used in a developed, non-corrupt nation. It's like looking at a Zimbabwe and saying "see, popularly elected government (known as democracy to those with little regard for ancient Greece) simply does not work." Little regard to Ancient Greece? Surely u are not serious, you do realise that in Ancient Athens only Rich Men could vote - Meaning only 10% of the population had the vote. As for Communism not working in a Developed Country there is a reason for that it’s because Marx got it wrong: The working class did not keep growing as he predicted, rather much of Working Class after the World Wars became the Middle Class. Once these PPL in the new widening Middle Class started to have excess money than what they need to live they just like the Bourgeoisie to wanted to keep it and spend it on themselves rather than giving it up for the Greater Good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braveheart Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ando Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 Bookmarking this discussion so I can wade in shortly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 Because it has never been used in a developed, non-corrupt nation. It's like looking at a Zimbabwe and saying "see, popularly elected government (known as democracy to those with little regard for ancient Greece) simply does not work." Please see my post, communism would be most effective (least bad) in an undeveloped country, in a developed country consequences would be catastrophic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xannax Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 Communism is the only way! Up the communist party of Melbourne. Down with the capitalist pigs. I think he was being sarcastic... Really when you think about it no political system is perfect, they all have there perks and downsides. It all just comes down to whether there is corruption within government or not. I would also like to add 98% of governments are corrupt to a certain degree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 I would also like to add 100% of governments are corrupt to a certain degree. Fixed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadete Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) I think he was being sarcastic... Really when you think about it no political system is perfect, they all have there perks and downsides. It all just comes down to whether there is corruption within government or not. I would also like to add 98% of governments are corrupt to a certain degree. If u believe this then that is exactly why u should want the choice to vote your Govt. out of office: An option u dont get in a Marxist system. Edited October 9, 2012 by cadete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xannax Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 If u believe this then that is exactly why u should want the choice to vote your Govt. out of office: An option u dont get in a Marxist system. To be honest i don't think the choice to vote for your government is much different, then just staying with the one government It is always going to come down to the two major parties (ALP and liberal). Who to me pretty much have the same agenda. So really the government we are "putting" into power is pretty much the same except for the names. But that's just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadete Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) I can understand why you could reach this viewpoint... What u have stumbled upon is the ALP’s reaction to the gradual disintegration of their voting base: In that of the working class – And need to imitate the Lib’s Middle Classed geared economic policies. Although many ALP members may cling to an Glamorised Image of a Large Australian Working Class still existing... The fact remains if the Working Class does still truly exist then why did ALP abandon it??? Why did the ALP move so far the Right over the past 30 years??? Of course the only reason being because of the signficant demographic change in the Australian Electorate. Edited October 9, 2012 by cadete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ando Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 ...and not at all the divisive wedge politics played by the libs during the late 90s and early 00s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadete Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) ...and not at all the divisive wedge politics played by the libs during the late 90s and early 00s. So to translate this for the dumb Ppl here who dont read The Age: "John Howard brainwashed PPL (Because of course all PPL are Inherently Good but Ultimately Stupid) into voting for him election after election...." "He did this Brainwashing by taking a stand on Particular Issues that they happened to really agreed with..." The real story is that Howard's consistent popularity in the Western Sydney Electorates is a perfect example of how important “Lower Middle Class Political Language” has become to winning the Australian Elections. (And conversely how irrelevant "Working Class Political Language" has become...) Edited October 9, 2012 by cadete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 This Peter Slipper chap is a funny guy TBH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) Destroyed it today in Parliament. Never really been impressed by the prime minister until today. lol. I await your excuses as to why it has failed every time it has been implemented. Would just like to throw myself into this debate and say that communism has never been properly 'implemented', and that people attempting to 'implement' communism don't know shit about marxism. To simplify it, Marx suggests that the transition to communism is a natural historical proccess, almost organic, much like feudalism to capitalism etc, and that it can only procede the socialist period of history. Moreover, every purportedly communist state, including China, Russia, Cuba, hasn't properly gone through the 'socialist' period of history, as all attempt to implement 'communism' without properly withering away the state apparatus of control, armed forces etc. Therefore the concept of communism is absolutely unreachable and unviable in all situations that have been purported as 'communist' in modern history. In my view of today's society, communism should be considered an extremely unlikely and simply unfunctionable 'utopian goal' at best. Edited October 9, 2012 by Che 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marteaux Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 This Peter Slipper chap is a funny guy TBH Probably because you can relate to him . Comprehensive. I normally try and catch Question Time after school but I missed out on this. I doubt all of it made it onto TV though? Little regard to Ancient Greece? Surely u are not serious, you do realise that in Ancient Athens only Rich Men could vote - Meaning only 10% of the population had the vote. Democracy for those who can afford it. Bookmarking this discussion so I can wade in shortly. lol. I await your excuses as to why it has failed every time it has been implemented. It can be reasonably successful in the short term in an economy which is lacking in capital resources as savings and investment are forced, allowing for rapid capital accumulation which would lead to significant economic growth (which island is going to produce more tomatoes, the one with 1 shovel between 2 workers or a shovel for each worker?), but once that hits its point of diminishing returns (how much more is the island with a shovel for each worker going to produce once it has 2 shovels per worker?) and can no longer be relied upon to create increased production, the whole house of cards is going to collapse (eg USSR) due to inefficient labour (why am I going to work hard when I'm going to get pretty much the same return as someone who wastes time?) and just general inefficient production (if I'm a plant manager and I need 100 kg of raw material to meet my output quota, I'm going to tell them I need 120kg to make sure I get over 100kg and then I can steal any extra). Add to that the development of new technology (development of new technology is the only way to have economic growth in the very long term) would be poor as nothing inspires human ingenuity greater than the prospect of it benefiting them (IIRC Adam Smith had something to say about this in the division of labour section of The Weath of Nations, which is in some ways overlooked compared to the more famous 'invisible hand' section, whereby he tells a story of a worker who devises a modification to his machine which basically saves him a shit load of time). Basically no one is trying to innovate shit in a communist economy as they have far less to gain from it. Thank you for this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 Destroyed it today in Parliament. Never really been impressed by the prime minister until today. TBH all the stuff Gillard said trying to make Abbott look like a sexist at the start made me like Abbott 100 times more. Abbott for PM. The rest of Gillard's rant doesn't impress me much neither, just standard politics. Would just like to throw myself into this debate and say that communism has never been properly 'implemented', and that people attempting to 'implement' communism don't know shit about marxism. To simplify it, Marx suggests that the transition to communism is a natural historical proccess, almost organic, much like feudalism to capitalism etc, and that it can only procede the socialist period of history. Moreover, every purportedly communist state, including China, Russia, Cuba, hasn't properly gone through the 'socialist' period of history, as all attempt to implement 'communism' without properly withering away the state apparatus of control, armed forces etc. Therefore the concept of communism is absolutely unreachable and unviable in all situations that have been purported as 'communist' in modern history. In my view of today's society, communism should be considered an extremely unlikely and simply unfunctionable 'utopian goal' at best. This part of your post, however, is fantastic. Agree with it all except not really sure if I'd consider it a 'utopian goal'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.