OT GW

[kreed]

On Dec 31, 8:45 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:

"Noddy" <m...@home.com> wrote in messagenews:jc6rj9$fca$1@dont-email.me....
On 13/12/2011 9:17 AM, Clocky wrote:

Manufactured evidence will say whatever the manufacturer tells it to
do, (of those paying the manufacturers)

Of course it will, and it cares not what side it may be working for.

That's exactly what the deniers are relying on, manufactured evidence and
paychecks from the polluters for spreading it.

What a load of shit.

What the "deniers" want is something *concrete*. For all the money we're
throwing at the problem, we want *someone* to come up with something
*definite*.

Not just a bunch of fucking educated guesses.

People seem to have no problem accepting as fact theories ideas that have
far less or no evidence at all. Probably because the findings are not to be
partially their fault and they are not being held accountable in some way..

The "educated guesses" you are speaking off has brought you all of life's
luxuries, a relatively long and healthy life and a wealth of knowledge of
our history, the planets future and the wonders of what lies beyond our
skies... yet "climate science" and all it's evidence remains crap because
the outcome doesn't suit you.

Pretty much every benefit to humanity over the last 150+ years, giving
us leisure time, a long healthy life, knowledge and opportunity,
travel; abundant food, having time for leisure, ability to have
adequate light at night etc has been a DIRECT result of cheap energy
mostly derived from these "evil fossil fuels". (The health benefits
simply from having running (and hot) clean water available in every
home - that needs electricity to make it possible, are enormous)


Not to mention freedom from slavery, which was largely made redundant
starting with the steam engine and continuing from there with diesel,
as well as the invention of various machinery attached to these that
would not be possible without these engines.


None of this can be underestimated - and even IF AGW was a true thing,
and not a natural cycle, I would gladly cop the small increase in
temperature, and adapt to it rather than go back into some dark age
for absolutely no benefit to the allged problem.


Human life is not dirt or filth as they would have you believe, it is
a great thing, many people have achieved great things, and I want it
to continue

Throughout history, the greatest danger to life and freedom has always
been government, NOT climat or other such rubbish. Government has
produced the poorest outcomes, the most poorly managed and inefficient
schemes, and never takes the blame or tells the truth, as well as
being responsible for a higher historical body count than any other
cause.

To me it's pretty obvious that if we keep spewing filth into the atmosphere
and into our waterways as well as destroying the environment we will destroy
what we have left today. Something needs to be done, and clearly hitting
people in their back pocket is probably the only way to get the message that
each of us has a personal responsibility for a global problem.

 

[:)]

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:45:56 +0100, yaputya wrote:

The obvious answer to the worlds
problems is to restrain and cap the growth of population. Until we can
do that all other stop-gap measures are just avoiding the underlying
problem which will continue to grow.

Maybe you should have a word with the Pope about birth control.

 

[Noddy]

On 31/12/2011 9:45 AM, Clocky wrote:

People seem to have no problem accepting as fact theories ideas that have
far less or no evidence at all.

There's religious nutbags everywhere.

Probably because the findings are not to be
partially their fault and they are not being held accountable in some way.

Or maybe it;s just because they *want* to believe. Regardless.

The "educated guesses" you are speaking off has brought you all of life's
luxuries, a relatively long and healthy life and a wealth of knowledge of
our history, the planets future and the wonders of what lies beyond our
skies... yet "climate science" and all it's evidence remains crap because
the outcome doesn't suit you.

I've seen some incredibly ridiculous comments bandied about here over
the years, and that load of unmitigated crap is right up there with the
very best of them :&gt

To me it's pretty obvious that if we keep spewing filth into the atmosphere
and into our waterways as well as destroying the environment we will destroy
what we have left today. Something needs to be done, and clearly hitting
people in their back pocket is probably the only way to get the message that
each of us has a personal responsibility for a global problem.

Uh-huh.

So, your logic seems to be "we need to do something. This is something,
therefore we need to do it".

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[John McKenzie]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

I don't see too many people from aus.cars sending half their earnings to
people in China, but I'll bet to a person they have some clothing or
electronic goods made by chinese workers getting 3 beans a month, and
some of whom are missing limbs due to the chinese government's take on
workplace safety.


Rinehart is a first rate cunt of the highest order. She pays
liars and charlatans to mislead the public.

Jesus, the same could be said of people involved in _either_ side of
politics.

**I'm not discussing politics. I'm talking about a very rich cunt, who
uses her wealth to get her own way.

And you don't think that occurs in politics at all? It's close to the
biggest rort imaginable. I'm what you might call a disillusioned
idealist. I've seen the corruption in the union movement (an by
extension the labor party) and it sickens me. And I'll be working class
for the rest of my days mind you, i've 'technically' probably got more
to gain in the short term supporting the left, but the long term
economic disaster that their mismanagement has invariably lead tyo (and
on that front the right aren't far behind them, but they are still
legitimately able to balance the budget and keep the economy strong)

THe labor party are getting a bit like the funamentalist christians - if
the economy is good 'god is great' (or in their case they are great' and
if it spirals out of control 'it's the global economy' (god works in
mysterious ways).

I'm just sick of the average worker having to pay for all this bullshit
of theirs without one iota of legitimate need for it.

I see them as worse than Gina Reinhardt, because she wasn't elected to
represent the real best interests of all Australians.

I hope that gives some insight as to why I bring it up.

Put into a climate perspective - since our emissions (total) are fuck
all compared to the major economies of the world, the 'healing' effect
globally, if we all start living like hippies (or whatever terms you
want to put it in) will ALSO be fuck all. That being the case, there
will be fuck all difference if we never have a carbon tax (or at the
very least if we adopt a wait and see attitude). No significant
difference globally whatsoever. BUT it will make for an improved (or
less deteriorated) quality of life for Australians in the mean time. And
as such, the govco bringing in a carbon tax and a mining tax (which is
really just an 'oh we fucked up and need more money, lets take it from
the sector that is responsible for paying the highest average wages for
unskilled and semi skilled work, that rewards anyone with enough balls
to pull up roots and live in the outback for a decade or so' tax) is
imho criminal as far as the true and measurable ramifications to every
Australian. Sure there's the 'we'll suck your cock' rebate to 'most
families' but that's going to pale into insignificance as the economy
grinds to a halt *(a minor exaggeration) and we're all permanently worse
off. I wonder if they'll be arrogant enough to claim it as the 'second'
recession we had to have?

That is just plain evil.

Let me ask you a question - based on a completely hypothetical premise.
Imagine another universe, which is entirely like ours, save for the fact
(purely for the purpose of philosophical exercise) that anthropogenic
climate change is definitely not proven in any way shape or form to be
real, and research scientists in that universe are aware of that, and
promote misleading alarmist propaganda, and pseudo science,
enthusistically altering simulation paramaters (so they don't in any way
correspond to reality) until they get the result that fits their agenda.
spitting in the face of true science, which is at its heart a search for
the truth, even if that truth is not the one they expected. Now in this
purely hypothetical universe, would you, knowing the facts as I have
presented them, be of the opinion that the 'scientists' in question are
also plain evil?

**Of course.


I know that is (no doubt in the opinion of many) a big straw man I've
just created. So be it. But, without any intention from me to try and
use your answer against you, or twist this, would you be willing to give
me your take on it?

**Done.

fair enough, and I appreciate your candor.

**No. I've read the science. It is credible, reasonable and the theory
fits the observed facts. If, however, AGW theory is found to be wrong, I
would be certainly prepared to acknowledge that all the scientists are
wrong.

So you have absolutely no concerns about any of the criticisms raised
about the data, the way it was collected, what data was capriciously
ignored because it didn't suit, the questionable (or arguably non
existant) peer reviews, the unwillingness to share model data/format,
and so on? None whatsoever? You believe that there is no single example
of questionable methodology or suspect work at all?

Let me ask YOU a hypothetical:

After having read the IPCC AR4, what do YOU think about AGW theory?

You have read AR4, haven't you?

I held off answering this because I was hoping to complete it over the
holiday break, but work gt in the way. So it is, in all fairness to
disclosure, still a work in progress.

**There is an alternate possibility:

The scientists who work in that area are very concerned about global
warming. They recognise that mass starvation and dislocation is
inevitable, if the planet continues to warm. Bangladesh, for instance,
will loose 90% of it's arable land to rising sea levels. Wanna deal with
a couple of hundred million refugees from Bangladesh? Perhaps the
scientists are so very concerned that they are shouting from the
rooftops in an attempt to save our society.

Thoze rising sea levels - we were supposed to see them go what - 40
times the rise by 2010 that they actually did (and the amount they did
wasn't a statistically significant amount)?

They were also saying that Aus was facing persistent droughts from here
on out. WEll, looking at the last 6-12 months, and how our reservoirs
are back up to decent levels, and water restrictions are being eased,
sorry I don't see it. It does happen to coincide with competing theories
about fluctuations in solar activity and other planetary stuff, that
happened to predict that there'd be increased rain (or back to 'normal'
rain around 2011/12.

I'm old enough to remember (and not too old to have forgotten) that
'scientists' in the late 70s and early 80s predicted a global ice age.
And what pray tell would cause this? Carbon emissions. I find it hard to
take it seriously, to be quite bloody honest.

When I see a _real_ significant and lasting change in climate, not just
what can be the result of normal fluctuations/variance from year to year
(and even decade to decade) I'll take note. The thing is, if we were
having such a drastic effect on things, we wouldn't be able to pull it
back in time anyway.

What's probably going to happen is either everything will carry on as
normal, and the alarmists will be crucified. Or worse yet, they'll claim
that everything is normal BECAUSE they nipped it in the bud, and will be
dislocating their own shoulders to pat themselves on the back.

TO be perfectly honest, the greatest concern I have about it all being
blown out of proportion, is the way the various politicians have
embraced it.


What about the idea that carbon trading will prevent impoverished
countries from ever gaining economic prosperity, and THAT is what is the
most influential fact on birth rates, and by extension population
growth?

Make no mistake: Some of my clients are very wealthy. Some have made
their own money. Some have inherited it. I don't hold that against any
of them. If they use their wealth and power for nefarious purposes, then
I have a problem.

I honestly wonder just how many of us, if we had the exact same
upbringing and life history, would be _any_ different. Cynics joke that
a 'communist' is someone who has given up all hope of being a successful
capitalist.

**Fair points, but I believe most people can understand the difference
between right and wrong.

Is it 'right' for you to live so comfortably, making use of the cheap
electronics goods that people getting paid 3 beans a week create?

I know you've said that they are fair points, but I wonder if you
realise that for anyone living and working in a an asian sweatshop in
some impoverished shithole - well - I wonder if you realise that
'really' you are far far far closer to Gina Reinhart (sp?) than you are
to them, financially and in terms of qualiry of life.

I'm more of a realist (it would seem) I know I've got it better than
them, but I don't think myself any more charitable than (pick your
favourite capitalist). Don't get me wrong, I gave money to the tsunami
relief (and was 'thrilled' when the indonesian government decided to
re-direct it to what would likely be anything but tsunami relief. I also
gave money after the horrific bushfires down around kinglake. But I
don't for a second imagine that that makes me the second coming of
christ (apart from all else, I'm an atheist)


One of my clients is a very wealthy man. An

ex-director of MacBank. Lives on the harbour in a spectacular home. He
spends almost evey waking moment of his day working for charitable
causes. He accepts no payment for his very considerable talents.

But he could fairly easily sell that house, give the money to charity
and live somewhere like Kingswood, in a much cheaper place. But he
doesn't. Ironically there's something to be said there. He might be
generous, but he's still living better than a lot of others, and by
choice. nobody is holding a gun to his head over his living
arrangements.


It was

after long discussions with him that I began to develop a distaste for
many of Australia's wealthiest people. He holds a very deep disgust for
his fellow multi-millionaires and billionaires in this country. He
maintains that most pay lip service to charitable causes. The vast
majority are Hell-bent on acquiring more wealth than they could ever
hope to spend. He cited Bill Gates as an example that all could follow.

Gates is notably not without his critics. And don't forget he grew up
with very rich parents, and could afford to 'pack it in' and harvard
(that's where he was studying right?) and give this 'software company'
thing a real go- as they could afford to send him back there if it
didn't work out.

There's a lot of people like that. You've probably heard of 'les
twentyman' - you oughta take a look at that cunt's home, living with the
peeps he certainly ain't.


--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com
abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au
$LOGIN@localhost I knew Sanchez before they were dirty root@mailloop.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost abuse@msn.com
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@asio.gov.au
$USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@cia.gov

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 1/9/2012 6:11 PM, John McKenzie wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:


I don't see too many people from aus.cars sending half their earnings to
people in China, but I'll bet to a person they have some clothing or
electronic goods made by chinese workers getting 3 beans a month, and
some of whom are missing limbs due to the chinese government's take on
workplace safety.


Rinehart is a first rate cunt of the highest order. She pays
liars and charlatans to mislead the public.

Jesus, the same could be said of people involved in _either_ side of
politics.

**I'm not discussing politics. I'm talking about a very rich cunt, who
uses her wealth to get her own way.

And you don't think that occurs in politics at all?

**Of course it does. AND, when and if it does, the population gets to
boot the dickheads out of office. We can consign offenders to political
oblivion. No such luck with Rhinehart. She gets to abuse her power day
in, day out, for as long as her (very considerable) wealth allows.


It's close to the

biggest rort imaginable. I'm what you might call a disillusioned
idealist. I've seen the corruption in the union movement (an by
extension the labor party) and it sickens me. And I'll be working class
for the rest of my days mind you, i've 'technically' probably got more
to gain in the short term supporting the left, but the long term
economic disaster that their mismanagement has invariably lead tyo (and
on that front the right aren't far behind them, but they are still
legitimately able to balance the budget and keep the economy strong)

**Huh? Australia is in far better financial state than almost any nation
on the planet. Including powerhouse economies like Germany.

THe labor party are getting a bit like the funamentalist christians - if
the economy is good 'god is great' (or in their case they are great' and
if it spirals out of control 'it's the global economy' (god works in
mysterious ways).

**Both parties have made serious economic blunders over the years.
Howard/Abbott led Australia into some very expensive wars, which have
not only cost every taxpayer a bundle of cash, but have cost Australian
lives, for no benefit whatsoever. Make no mistake: Neither party has any
ability to claim the economic high ground.

I'm just sick of the average worker having to pay for all this bullshit
of theirs without one iota of legitimate need for it.

**Agreed. I am fuly sick and tired of paying for Howard's wars.

I see them as worse than Gina Reinhardt, because she wasn't elected to
represent the real best interests of all Australians.

**Wrong. The Democratic process allows Australians to get rid of
incompetents. Rhinehart will stay on, for as long as here wealth holds out.

I hope that gives some insight as to why I bring it up.

Put into a climate perspective - since our emissions (total) are fuck
all compared to the major economies of the world, the 'healing' effect
globally, if we all start living like hippies (or whatever terms you
want to put it in) will ALSO be fuck all.

**OK. Tell you what: Why don't you write a letter to the ATO (the
taxman) and explain that your taxation is insignificant, so you are no
longer going to pay tax? See how far that gets you. Like taxation, the
system works if EVERYONE does their bit. That includes every Australian,
American, Chinese and German. EVERY single person on this planet will
need to act. Including Australians.



That being the case, there

will be fuck all difference if we never have a carbon tax (or at the
very least if we adopt a wait and see attitude).

**Wrong. The carbon tax is designed to reduce Australia's CO2 emissions
by a respectable amount. The only alternative is to adopt Abbott's
discredited scheme, which has no support from anyone (except Abbott).
Abbott's scheme will take money from taxpayers and give it to large
polluters, in the hope that they might reduce CO2 emissions. Or not. in
the process, several thousand compliance people and paper shufflers
(aka: public servants) will need to be employed, costing taxpayers still
more. So, which system do you want?

A system that has a very high probability of doing something, or a
system that has almost no chance of working? You have to choose one.
There is no other alternative.


No significant

difference globally whatsoever.

**And again. The AUSTRALIAN CO2 reduction scheme is designed to reduce
AUSTRALIA'S CO2 emissions. Germany's CO2 reductions schemes are designed
to reduce GERMAN CO2 emissions.


BUT it will make for an improved (or

less deteriorated) quality of life for Australians in the mean time.

**Prove it.


And

as such, the govco bringing in a carbon tax and a mining tax (which is
really just an 'oh we fucked up and need more money, lets take it from
the sector that is responsible for paying the highest average wages for
unskilled and semi skilled work, that rewards anyone with enough balls
to pull up roots and live in the outback for a decade or so' tax) is
imho criminal as far as the true and measurable ramifications to every
Australian.

**You're kidding, right? The minign sector (which is mostly foreign
owned) is seriously cashed up. Those companies are here for one purpose:
To make lots of money, so they can pay their (foreign) shareholders.
They don't give a crap about us. Once they've mined our resources,
they'll go back home. And we'll have nothing left to sell the world.
Rinehart is only interested in enriching herself. She doesn't gice a
crap about Australian's either. Tax them, I say. Remind me: How much tax
did Rio Tinto pay last year?

A: 13%.

That's right. THIRTEEN PERCENT!

That is a whole lot less tax than the average Australian (or even
Australian company) pays.


Sure there's the 'we'll suck your cock' rebate to 'most

families' but that's going to pale into insignificance as the economy
grinds to a halt *(a minor exaggeration) and we're all permanently worse
off. I wonder if they'll be arrogant enough to claim it as the 'second'
recession we had to have?

**Norway bumped their mining tax up to 50% and guess what happened?

A: Nothing. Except the government now collects a lot more taxation. The
mining companies did not alter their activities. They paid the tax and
got on with their work. They'll do the same in Australia. And, let me
tell you one thing: I will NEVER fogive the Labor government for folding
under pressure from the mining companies. They SHOULD have screwed them
to the wall. Particularly the foreign owned ones. Fuck 'em.

That is just plain evil.

Let me ask you a question - based on a completely hypothetical premise.
Imagine another universe, which is entirely like ours, save for the fact
(purely for the purpose of philosophical exercise) that anthropogenic
climate change is definitely not proven in any way shape or form to be
real, and research scientists in that universe are aware of that, and
promote misleading alarmist propaganda, and pseudo science,
enthusistically altering simulation paramaters (so they don't in any way
correspond to reality) until they get the result that fits their agenda.
spitting in the face of true science, which is at its heart a search for
the truth, even if that truth is not the one they expected. Now in this
purely hypothetical universe, would you, knowing the facts as I have
presented them, be of the opinion that the 'scientists' in question are
also plain evil?

**Of course.


I know that is (no doubt in the opinion of many) a big straw man I've
just created. So be it. But, without any intention from me to try and
use your answer against you, or twist this, would you be willing to give
me your take on it?

**Done.

fair enough, and I appreciate your candor.



**No. I've read the science. It is credible, reasonable and the theory
fits the observed facts. If, however, AGW theory is found to be wrong, I
would be certainly prepared to acknowledge that all the scientists are
wrong.

So you have absolutely no concerns about any of the criticisms raised
about the data, the way it was collected, what data was capriciously
ignored because it didn't suit, the questionable (or arguably non
existant) peer reviews, the unwillingness to share model data/format,
and so on?

**Of course, I decry any form of poor science and abuse of the system.
Which is PRECISELY why the denialist side has zero credibility.


None whatsoever? You believe that there is no single example

of questionable methodology or suspect work at all?

**Of course. It is mostly on the side of the deniers though.

Let me ask YOU a hypothetical:

After having read the IPCC AR4, what do YOU think about AGW theory?

You have read AR4, haven't you?

I held off answering this because I was hoping to complete it over the
holiday break, but work gt in the way. So it is, in all fairness to
disclosure, still a work in progress.

**Uh-huh.

**There is an alternate possibility:

The scientists who work in that area are very concerned about global
warming. They recognise that mass starvation and dislocation is
inevitable, if the planet continues to warm. Bangladesh, for instance,
will loose 90% of it's arable land to rising sea levels. Wanna deal with
a couple of hundred million refugees from Bangladesh? Perhaps the
scientists are so very concerned that they are shouting from the
rooftops in an attempt to save our society.

Thoze rising sea levels - we were supposed to see them go what - 40
times the rise by 2010 that they actually did (and the amount they did
wasn't a statistically significant amount)?

**You'll need to re-state that in English please. Some supporting
evidence would be nice too.

They were also saying that Aus was facing persistent droughts from here
on out.

**Not quite. The predictions involved large climate shifts for
Australia, that included droughts AND more rainfall, depending on the
region.


WEll, looking at the last 6-12 months, and how our reservoirs

are back up to decent levels, and water restrictions are being eased,
sorry I don't see it.

**The climate shifts spoken about occur over long periods. Get back to
me in 100 years.


It does happen to coincide with competing theories

about fluctuations in solar activity and other planetary stuff,

**Does it? How do you figure that, given we are presently experiencing
an unprecedented warming of the planet AND we are witnessing a period of
low Solar activity? Care to explain that?


that

happened to predict that there'd be increased rain (or back to 'normal'
rain around 2011/12.

I'm old enough to remember (and not too old to have forgotten) that
'scientists' in the late 70s and early 80s predicted a global ice age.

**You're old enough to admit that you read NEwsweek and assumed that it
reported science. I've never read Newsweek. Back in the 1970s, I read
Scientific American. Sciam was reporting on global warming back in the
1970s.

And what pray tell would cause this? Carbon emissions. I find it hard to
take it seriously, to be quite bloody honest.

**I now understand that you are confusing Newsweek with scientific
journals. Newsweek is not, nor has it ever been, a scientific journal of
note.

When I see a _real_ significant and lasting change in climate, not just
what can be the result of normal fluctuations/variance from year to year
(and even decade to decade) I'll take note.

**Read IPCC AR4.


The thing is, if we were

having such a drastic effect on things, we wouldn't be able to pull it
back in time anyway.

**The longer we procrastinate, the less chance we'll have to do anything.

What's probably going to happen is either everything will carry on as
normal, and the alarmists will be crucified. Or worse yet, they'll claim
that everything is normal BECAUSE they nipped it in the bud, and will be
dislocating their own shoulders to pat themselves on the back.

**Neither. We WILL see a further (minimum) 2 degrees C of warming and
the consequent associated problems. Regardless of what is done right now.

TO be perfectly honest, the greatest concern I have about it all being
blown out of proportion, is the way the various politicians have
embraced it.

**You SHOULD have more concern about the politicians who have managed to
ignore the science, in preference for their religious beliefs. Those
politicians who listen to the scientists are simply showing an
acceptance of those who know more than they do about the topic.

What about the idea that carbon trading will prevent impoverished
countries from ever gaining economic prosperity, and THAT is what is the
most influential fact on birth rates, and by extension population
growth?

**There will be winners and losers from the impending changes to the
planet's economic system. That is how it has always been. Fundamentally,
however, the complete destruction of our society is a far bigger risk,
if we do nothing.

Make no mistake: Some of my clients are very wealthy. Some have made
their own money. Some have inherited it. I don't hold that against any
of them. If they use their wealth and power for nefarious purposes, then
I have a problem.

I honestly wonder just how many of us, if we had the exact same
upbringing and life history, would be _any_ different. Cynics joke that
a 'communist' is someone who has given up all hope of being a successful
capitalist.

**Fair points, but I believe most people can understand the difference
between right and wrong.

Is it 'right' for you to live so comfortably, making use of the cheap
electronics goods that people getting paid 3 beans a week create?

**You have no idea what I do, nor what I do to alleviate the suffering
of those less fortunate. You should also note that I also work to assist
YOU and YOUR descendents, regardless of your odd beliefs. Can you say
the same?

I know you've said that they are fair points, but I wonder if you
realise that for anyone living and working in a an asian sweatshop in
some impoverished shithole - well - I wonder if you realise that
'really' you are far far far closer to Gina Reinhart (sp?) than you are
to them, financially and in terms of qualiry of life.

**You are entitled to your view. Right or wrong.

I'm more of a realist (it would seem) I know I've got it better than
them, but I don't think myself any more charitable than (pick your
favourite capitalist). Don't get me wrong, I gave money to the tsunami
relief (and was 'thrilled' when the indonesian government decided to
re-direct it to what would likely be anything but tsunami relief. I also
gave money after the horrific bushfires down around kinglake. But I
don't for a second imagine that that makes me the second coming of
christ (apart from all else, I'm an atheist)


One of my clients is a very wealthy man. An
ex-director of MacBank. Lives on the harbour in a spectacular home. He
spends almost evey waking moment of his day working for charitable
causes. He accepts no payment for his very considerable talents.

But he could fairly easily sell that house, give the money to charity
and live somewhere like Kingswood, in a much cheaper place. But he
doesn't. Ironically there's something to be said there. He might be
generous, but he's still living better than a lot of others, and by
choice. nobody is holding a gun to his head over his living
arrangements.

**Indeed. However, he is giving back. Many don't.

It was
after long discussions with him that I began to develop a distaste for
many of Australia's wealthiest people. He holds a very deep disgust for
his fellow multi-millionaires and billionaires in this country. He
maintains that most pay lip service to charitable causes. The vast
majority are Hell-bent on acquiring more wealth than they could ever
hope to spend. He cited Bill Gates as an example that all could follow.

Gates is notably not without his critics. And don't forget he grew up
with very rich parents, and could afford to 'pack it in' and harvard
(that's where he was studying right?) and give this 'software company'
thing a real go- as they could afford to send him back there if it
didn't work out.

There's a lot of people like that. You've probably heard of 'les
twentyman' - you oughta take a look at that cunt's home, living with the
peeps he certainly ain't.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:16:55 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Norway bumped their mining tax up to 50% and guess what happened?

A: Nothing. Except the government now collects a lot more taxation.

As the Norwegian Prime Minister told me last month:-

"We don’t have a mining tax, we have a tax that’s very different."

and

"I think it’s very dangerous to compare our oil and gas tax system
with a mining system."

You are an idiot. (he didn't tell me that, he doesn't know you)

The
mining companies did not alter their activities. They paid the tax and
got on with their work.
They'll do the same in Australia.

Norway does not have a mining tax.

So instead of a 50% super profits tax, as you claim, they don't have
one at all. (By the way, their scheme for oil and gas is deducted
from their taxable income too, unlike the MRRT).

As usual, rather than check your facts, you operate from the
assumption that you are correct, and therefore may claim as you wish,
because you must be right.

And, let me
tell you one thing: I will NEVER fogive the Labor government for folding
under pressure from the mining companies.

Spoken like a true extremist...

They SHOULD have screwed them
to the wall. Particularly the foreign owned ones. Fuck 'em.

Quite right - they only exist to pay money to us - their shareholders
only buy their shares as a form of charity to delusional cretins.

Cloud cuckoo land is your permanent residence.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[David Segall]

Paul Saccani <saccani@omen.net.au> wrote:

[snip]

(By the way, their scheme for oil and gas is deducted
from their taxable income too, unlike the MRRT).

This sounds as though you are saying that Australian mining companies
have to pay company tax on the money that they contribute via the
MRRT. Is that what you mean?

[snip]

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:28:11 +1100, David Segall
<david@address.invalid> wrote:

Paul Saccani <saccani@omen.net.au> wrote:

[snip]

(By the way, their scheme for oil and gas is deducted
from their taxable income too, unlike the MRRT).

This sounds as though you are saying that Australian mining companies
have to pay company tax on the money that they contribute via the
MRRT. Is that what you mean?

Well, no - the schemes are completely different and not comparable.

They are applied at different stages.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[John McKenzie]

Trevor - for some reason my news-server didn't pick up your reply. I am
aware that you _did_ reply, by virtue of the fact Paul replied to your
reply. But when I try and click on it, it responds that the post (ss far
as the server is concerned) is non-existant (or whatever the right
terminology is).

I have found the post via google groups, I'll poar a reply soon, I just
haven't got time (ironically finding the post, and typing this one cost
me what time I had left!)

--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com
abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au
$LOGIN@localhost I knew Sanchez before they were dirty root@mailloop.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost abuse@msn.com
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@asio.gov.au
$USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@cia.gov

 

[kreed]

On Jan 10, 7:16 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 1/9/2012 6:11 PM, John McKenzie wrote:









Trevor Wilson wrote:

I don't see too many people from aus.cars sending half their earnings to
people in China, but I'll bet to a person they have some clothing or
electronic goods made by chinese workers getting 3 beans a month, and
some of whom are missing limbs due to the chinese government's take on
workplace safety.

   Rinehart is a first rate cunt of the highest order. She pays
liars and charlatans to mislead the public.

Jesus, the same could be said of people involved in _either_ side of
politics.

**I'm not discussing politics. I'm talking about a very rich cunt, who
uses her wealth to get her own way.

And you don't think that occurs in politics at all?

**Of course it does. AND, when and if it does, the population gets to
boot the dickheads out of office. We can consign offenders to political
oblivion. No such luck with Rhinehart. She gets to abuse her power day
in, day out, for as long as her (very considerable) wealth allows.

  It's close to the

biggest rort imaginable. I'm what you might call a disillusioned
idealist. I've seen the corruption in the union movement (an by
extension the labor party) and it sickens me. And I'll be working class
for the rest of my days mind you, i've 'technically' probably got more
to gain in the short term supporting the left, but the long term
economic disaster that their mismanagement has invariably lead tyo (and
on that front the right aren't far behind them, but they are still
legitimately able to balance the budget and keep the economy strong)

**Huh? Australia is in far better financial state than almost any nation
on the planet. Including powerhouse economies like Germany.



THe labor party are getting a bit like the funamentalist christians - if
the economy is good 'god is great' (or in their case they are great' and
if it spirals out of control 'it's the global economy' (god works in
mysterious ways).

**Both parties have made serious economic blunders over the years.
Howard/Abbott led Australia into some very expensive wars, which have
not only cost every taxpayer a bundle of cash, but have cost Australian
lives, for no benefit whatsoever. Make no mistake: Neither party has any
ability to claim the economic high ground.



I'm just sick of the average worker having to pay for all this bullshit
of theirs without one iota of legitimate need for it.

**Agreed. I am fuly sick and tired of paying for Howard's wars.



I see them as worse than Gina Reinhardt, because she wasn't elected to
represent the real best interests of all Australians.

**Wrong. The Democratic process allows Australians to get rid of
incompetents. Rhinehart will stay on, for as long as here wealth holds out.



I hope that gives some insight as to why I bring it up.

Put into a climate perspective - since our emissions (total) are fuck
all compared to the major economies of the world, the 'healing' effect
globally, if we all start living like hippies (or whatever terms you
want to put it in) will ALSO be fuck all.

**OK. Tell you what: Why don't you write a letter to the ATO (the
taxman) and explain that your taxation is insignificant, so you are no
longer going to pay tax? See how far that gets you. Like taxation, the
system works if EVERYONE does their bit. That includes every Australian,
American, Chinese and German. EVERY single person on this planet will
need to act. Including Australians.

  That being the case, there

will be fuck all difference if we never have a carbon tax (or at the
very least if we adopt a wait and see attitude).

**Wrong. The carbon tax is designed to reduce Australia's CO2 emissions
by a respectable amount. The only alternative is to adopt Abbott's
discredited scheme, which has no support from anyone (except Abbott).
Abbott's scheme will take money from taxpayers and give it to large
polluters, in the hope that they might reduce CO2 emissions. Or not. in
the process, several thousand compliance people and paper shufflers
(aka: public servants) will need to be employed, costing taxpayers still
more. So, which system do you want?

A system that has a very high probability of doing something, or a
system that has almost no chance of working? You have to choose one.
There is no other alternative.

  No significant

difference globally whatsoever.

**And again. The AUSTRALIAN CO2 reduction scheme is designed to reduce
AUSTRALIA'S CO2 emissions. Germany's CO2 reductions schemes are designed
to reduce GERMAN CO2 emissions.

  BUT it will make for an improved (or

less deteriorated) quality of life for Australians in the mean time.

**Prove it.

  And

as such, the govco bringing in a carbon tax and a mining tax (which is
really just an 'oh we fucked up and need more money, lets take it from
the sector that is responsible for paying the highest average wages for
unskilled and semi skilled work, that rewards anyone with enough balls
to pull up roots and live in the outback for a decade or so' tax) is
imho criminal as far as the true and measurable ramifications to every
Australian.

**You're kidding, right? The minign sector (which is mostly foreign
owned) is seriously cashed up. Those companies are here for one purpose:
To make lots of money, so they can pay their (foreign) shareholders.
They don't give a crap about us. Once they've mined our resources,
they'll go back home. And we'll have nothing left to sell the world.
Rinehart is only interested in enriching herself. She doesn't gice a
crap about Australian's either. Tax them, I say. Remind me: How much tax
did Rio Tinto pay last year?

A: 13%.

That's right. THIRTEEN PERCENT!

That is a whole lot less tax than the average Australian (or even
Australian company) pays.

  Sure there's the 'we'll suck your cock' rebate to 'most

families' but that's going to pale into insignificance as the economy
grinds to a halt *(a minor exaggeration) and we're all permanently worse
off. I wonder if they'll be arrogant enough to claim it as the 'second'
recession we had to have?

**Norway bumped their mining tax up to 50% and guess what happened?

A: Nothing. Except the government now collects a lot more taxation. The
mining companies did not alter their activities. They paid the tax and
got on with their work. They'll do the same in Australia. And, let me
tell you one thing: I will NEVER fogive the Labor government for folding
under pressure from the mining companies. They SHOULD have screwed them
to the wall. Particularly the foreign owned ones. Fuck 'em.











That is just plain evil.

Let me ask you a question - based on a completely hypothetical premise.
Imagine another universe, which is entirely like ours, save for the fact
(purely for the purpose of philosophical exercise) that anthropogenic
climate change is definitely not proven in any way shape or form to be
real, and research scientists in that universe are aware of that, and
promote misleading alarmist propaganda, and pseudo science,
enthusistically altering simulation paramaters (so they don't in any way
correspond to reality) until they get the result that fits their agenda.
spitting in the face of true science, which is at its heart a search for
the truth, even if that truth is not the one they expected. Now in this
purely hypothetical universe, would you, knowing the facts as I have
presented them, be of the opinion that the 'scientists' in question are
also plain evil?

**Of course.

I know that is (no doubt in the opinion of many) a big straw man I've
just created. So be it. But, without any intention from me to try and
use your answer against you, or twist this, would you be willing to give
me your take on it?

**Done.

fair enough, and I appreciate your candor.

**No. I've read the science. It is credible, reasonable and the theory
fits the observed facts. If, however, AGW theory is found to be wrong, I
would be certainly prepared to acknowledge that all the scientists are
wrong.

So you have absolutely no concerns about any of the criticisms raised
about the data, the way it was collected, what data was capriciously
ignored because it didn't suit, the questionable (or arguably non
existant) peer reviews, the unwillingness to share model data/format,
and so on?

**Of course, I decry any form of poor science and abuse of the system.
Which is PRECISELY why the denialist side has zero credibility.

  None whatsoever? You believe that there is no single example

of questionable methodology or suspect work at all?

**Of course. It is mostly on the side of the deniers though.



Let me ask YOU a hypothetical:

After having read the IPCC AR4, what do YOU think about AGW theory?

You have read AR4, haven't you?

I held off answering this because I was hoping to complete it over the
holiday break, but work gt in the way. So it is, in all fairness to
disclosure, still a work in progress.

**Uh-huh.









**There is an alternate possibility:

The scientists who work in that area are very concerned about global
warming. They recognise that mass starvation and dislocation is
inevitable, if the planet continues to warm. Bangladesh, for instance,
will loose 90% of it's arable land to rising sea levels. Wanna deal with
a couple of hundred million refugees from Bangladesh? Perhaps the
scientists are so very concerned that they are shouting from the
rooftops in an attempt to save our society.

Thoze rising sea levels - we were supposed to see

...

read more ť

You are a very disturbed individual if you truly believe a lot of what
you have written
Times have changed.

Rinehart is a tiny pimple on the backside in relation to other wealthy
people, the ones who own government and to the REAL evil worldwide.
She is totally insignificant by comparison, and your comments are
absolutely laughable and totally out of touch with modern reality.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 1/13/2012 11:44 PM, kreed wrote:

On Jan 10, 7:16 am, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 1/9/2012 6:11 PM, John McKenzie wrote:









Trevor Wilson wrote:

I don't see too many people from aus.cars sending half their earnings to
people in China, but I'll bet to a person they have some clothing or
electronic goods made by chinese workers getting 3 beans a month, and
some of whom are missing limbs due to the chinese government's take on
workplace safety.

Rinehart is a first rate cunt of the highest order. She pays
liars and charlatans to mislead the public.

Jesus, the same could be said of people involved in _either_ side of
politics.

**I'm not discussing politics. I'm talking about a very rich cunt, who
uses her wealth to get her own way.

And you don't think that occurs in politics at all?

**Of course it does. AND, when and if it does, the population gets to
boot the dickheads out of office. We can consign offenders to political
oblivion. No such luck with Rhinehart. She gets to abuse her power day
in, day out, for as long as her (very considerable) wealth allows.

It's close to the

biggest rort imaginable. I'm what you might call a disillusioned
idealist. I've seen the corruption in the union movement (an by
extension the labor party) and it sickens me. And I'll be working class
for the rest of my days mind you, i've 'technically' probably got more
to gain in the short term supporting the left, but the long term
economic disaster that their mismanagement has invariably lead tyo (and
on that front the right aren't far behind them, but they are still
legitimately able to balance the budget and keep the economy strong)

**Huh? Australia is in far better financial state than almost any nation
on the planet. Including powerhouse economies like Germany.



THe labor party are getting a bit like the funamentalist christians - if
the economy is good 'god is great' (or in their case they are great' and
if it spirals out of control 'it's the global economy' (god works in
mysterious ways).

**Both parties have made serious economic blunders over the years.
Howard/Abbott led Australia into some very expensive wars, which have
not only cost every taxpayer a bundle of cash, but have cost Australian
lives, for no benefit whatsoever. Make no mistake: Neither party has any
ability to claim the economic high ground.



I'm just sick of the average worker having to pay for all this bullshit
of theirs without one iota of legitimate need for it.

**Agreed. I am fuly sick and tired of paying for Howard's wars.



I see them as worse than Gina Reinhardt, because she wasn't elected to
represent the real best interests of all Australians.

**Wrong. The Democratic process allows Australians to get rid of
incompetents. Rhinehart will stay on, for as long as here wealth holds out.



I hope that gives some insight as to why I bring it up.

Put into a climate perspective - since our emissions (total) are fuck
all compared to the major economies of the world, the 'healing' effect
globally, if we all start living like hippies (or whatever terms you
want to put it in) will ALSO be fuck all.

**OK. Tell you what: Why don't you write a letter to the ATO (the
taxman) and explain that your taxation is insignificant, so you are no
longer going to pay tax? See how far that gets you. Like taxation, the
system works if EVERYONE does their bit. That includes every Australian,
American, Chinese and German. EVERY single person on this planet will
need to act. Including Australians.

That being the case, there

will be fuck all difference if we never have a carbon tax (or at the
very least if we adopt a wait and see attitude).

**Wrong. The carbon tax is designed to reduce Australia's CO2 emissions
by a respectable amount. The only alternative is to adopt Abbott's
discredited scheme, which has no support from anyone (except Abbott).
Abbott's scheme will take money from taxpayers and give it to large
polluters, in the hope that they might reduce CO2 emissions. Or not. in
the process, several thousand compliance people and paper shufflers
(aka: public servants) will need to be employed, costing taxpayers still
more. So, which system do you want?

A system that has a very high probability of doing something, or a
system that has almost no chance of working? You have to choose one.
There is no other alternative.

No significant

difference globally whatsoever.

**And again. The AUSTRALIAN CO2 reduction scheme is designed to reduce
AUSTRALIA'S CO2 emissions. Germany's CO2 reductions schemes are designed
to reduce GERMAN CO2 emissions.

BUT it will make for an improved (or

less deteriorated) quality of life for Australians in the mean time.

**Prove it.

And

as such, the govco bringing in a carbon tax and a mining tax (which is
really just an 'oh we fucked up and need more money, lets take it from
the sector that is responsible for paying the highest average wages for
unskilled and semi skilled work, that rewards anyone with enough balls
to pull up roots and live in the outback for a decade or so' tax) is
imho criminal as far as the true and measurable ramifications to every
Australian.

**You're kidding, right? The minign sector (which is mostly foreign
owned) is seriously cashed up. Those companies are here for one purpose:
To make lots of money, so they can pay their (foreign) shareholders.
They don't give a crap about us. Once they've mined our resources,
they'll go back home. And we'll have nothing left to sell the world.
Rinehart is only interested in enriching herself. She doesn't gice a
crap about Australian's either. Tax them, I say. Remind me: How much tax
did Rio Tinto pay last year?

A: 13%.

That's right. THIRTEEN PERCENT!

That is a whole lot less tax than the average Australian (or even
Australian company) pays.

Sure there's the 'we'll suck your cock' rebate to 'most

families' but that's going to pale into insignificance as the economy
grinds to a halt *(a minor exaggeration) and we're all permanently worse
off. I wonder if they'll be arrogant enough to claim it as the 'second'
recession we had to have?

**Norway bumped their mining tax up to 50% and guess what happened?

A: Nothing. Except the government now collects a lot more taxation. The
mining companies did not alter their activities. They paid the tax and
got on with their work. They'll do the same in Australia. And, let me
tell you one thing: I will NEVER fogive the Labor government for folding
under pressure from the mining companies. They SHOULD have screwed them
to the wall. Particularly the foreign owned ones. Fuck 'em.











That is just plain evil.

Let me ask you a question - based on a completely hypothetical premise.
Imagine another universe, which is entirely like ours, save for the fact
(purely for the purpose of philosophical exercise) that anthropogenic
climate change is definitely not proven in any way shape or form to be
real, and research scientists in that universe are aware of that, and
promote misleading alarmist propaganda, and pseudo science,
enthusistically altering simulation paramaters (so they don't in any way
correspond to reality) until they get the result that fits their agenda.
spitting in the face of true science, which is at its heart a search for
the truth, even if that truth is not the one they expected. Now in this
purely hypothetical universe, would you, knowing the facts as I have
presented them, be of the opinion that the 'scientists' in question are
also plain evil?

**Of course.

I know that is (no doubt in the opinion of many) a big straw man I've
just created. So be it. But, without any intention from me to try and
use your answer against you, or twist this, would you be willing to give
me your take on it?

**Done.

fair enough, and I appreciate your candor.

**No. I've read the science. It is credible, reasonable and the theory
fits the observed facts. If, however, AGW theory is found to be wrong, I
would be certainly prepared to acknowledge that all the scientists are
wrong.

So you have absolutely no concerns about any of the criticisms raised
about the data, the way it was collected, what data was capriciously
ignored because it didn't suit, the questionable (or arguably non
existant) peer reviews, the unwillingness to share model data/format,
and so on?

**Of course, I decry any form of poor science and abuse of the system.
Which is PRECISELY why the denialist side has zero credibility.

None whatsoever? You believe that there is no single example

of questionable methodology or suspect work at all?

**Of course. It is mostly on the side of the deniers though.



Let me ask YOU a hypothetical:

After having read the IPCC AR4, what do YOU think about AGW theory?

You have read AR4, haven't you?

I held off answering this because I was hoping to complete it over the
holiday break, but work gt in the way. So it is, in all fairness to
disclosure, still a work in progress.

**Uh-huh.









**There is an alternate possibility:

The scientists who work in that area are very concerned about global
warming. They recognise that mass starvation and dislocation is
inevitable, if the planet continues to warm. Bangladesh, for instance,
will loose 90% of it's arable land to rising sea levels. Wanna deal with
a couple of hundred million refugees from Bangladesh? Perhaps the
scientists are so very concerned that they are shouting from the
rooftops in an attempt to save our society.

Thoze rising sea levels - we were supposed to see

...

read more ť

You are a very disturbed individual if you truly believe a lot of what
you have written
Times have changed.

**Then feel free to place your facts on record that refute all of what I
wrote. Saying I am wrong and proving it are two, entirely different, things.

Rinehart is a tiny pimple on the backside in relation to other wealthy
people,

**Wrong. Rinehart is the richest person in Australia. By a large margin,
in fact.

the ones who own government and to the REAL evil worldwide.

**No one "owns" government. Here in Australia, we have a Democratically
elected government. If we don't like what they do, we vote someone else
in. Simple.

She is totally insignificant by comparison,

**Wrong again. Rinehart is the richest Australian, by a very
considerable margin. Hardly insignificant.


and your comments are

absolutely laughable and totally out of touch with modern reality.

**OK, I'll bite. Present your proof, that disproves EVERYTHING I wrote.

Here is my proof that Rinehart is Australia's rishest person:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/78/australia-billionaires-11_land.html

See how easy it is to prove you wrong?


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jeßus]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 08:36:45 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 1/13/2012 11:44 PM, kreed wrote:
the ones who own government and to the REAL evil worldwide.

**No one "owns" government. Here in Australia, we have a Democratically
elected government. If we don't like what they do, we vote someone else
in. Simple.

ROTFL. Occasionally I read your posts. Invariably I end up asking
myself why the hell do I bother. But yes, that's my own fault for not
learning from experience.

And learn how to edit your replies.

 

[kreed]

On Jan 14, 7:52 am, Jeßus <n...@all.invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 08:36:45 +1100, Trevor Wilson

tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 1/13/2012 11:44 PM, kreed wrote:
the ones who own government and to the REAL evil worldwide.

**No one "owns" government. Here in Australia, we have a Democratically
elected government. If we don't like what they do, we vote someone else
in. Simple.

What a load of rubbish, like almost everywhere the political system
consists 2 controlled parties, and one of them always gets power
either outright or with the support of smaller parties who cannot wait
to sell out. Get into the real world. If they were truly working for
the public, for starters they would immediately strike down bad laws
introduced by the previous party, default on debts (or at least the
interest on them) taken out by a previous party that were made
illegally, (this would be great as it would ensure that the banksters
never made a bad loan to the government for bad policy again) made
against the public interest, against the constitution, against the
will of the people, or irresponsibly but these things rarely if ever
happen and at best a law will be watered down, and not completely
removed. The fact is that in many ways they work together as a left
fist, right fist, or "good cop, bad cop" to simply screw the public.


In most cases, corporate and/or banking needs are fulfilled, as these
are the people who pay them off and/or can make or break them via
privately owned commercial media. You and I are FORCED to pay them
money via the tax system, we cannot refuse if dissatisfied with our
leaders or opt out of any service we are getting if dissatisfied at
its effectiveness or value for money. The latest example being
Harvey Norman and co who wanted the GST introduced on private
purchases online shipped from overseas. This is already being
investigated, and will probably be brought in in some form even though
I doubt that many of the public support it.


The fact that they do not represent the public opinion can be clearly
shown with Gillard and the Carbon Tax, as well as many other things
over the years including the middle east wars. The public now is
little more than a glorified group of slaves that are allowed every so
often to select one of two masters that will boss them and push them
around. Wake up, You and Trevor sound like you are living in some
past stone age.

ROTFL. Occasionally I read your posts. Invariably I end up asking
myself why the hell do I bother. But yes, that's my own fault for not
learning from experience.

ROTFL, to a guy who believes that animal farts, and essential
services like electrical generation and use of cars is
catastrophically warming the earth and will kill us all.


> And learn how to edit your replies.

 

[kreed]

On Jan 14, 7:36 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 1/13/2012 11:44 PM, kreed wrote:

On Jan 10, 7:16 am, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 1/9/2012 6:11 PM, John McKenzie wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

I don't see too many people from aus.cars sending half their earnings to
people in China, but I'll bet to a person they have some clothing or
electronic goods made by chinese workers getting 3 beans a month, and
some of whom are missing limbs due to the chinese government's take on
workplace safety.

    Rinehart is a first rate cunt of the highest order. She pays
liars and charlatans to mislead the public.

Jesus, the same could be said of people involved in _either_ side of
politics.

**I'm not discussing politics. I'm talking about a very rich cunt, who
uses her wealth to get her own way.

And you don't think that occurs in politics at all?

**Of course it does. AND, when and if it does, the population gets to
boot the dickheads out of office. We can consign offenders to political
oblivion. No such luck with Rhinehart. She gets to abuse her power day
in, day out, for as long as her (very considerable) wealth allows.

   It's close to the

biggest rort imaginable. I'm what you might call a disillusioned
idealist. I've seen the corruption in the union movement (an by
extension the labor party) and it sickens me. And I'll be working class
for the rest of my days mind you, i've 'technically' probably got more
to gain in the short term supporting the left, but the long term
economic disaster that their mismanagement has invariably lead tyo (and
on that front the right aren't far behind them, but they are still
legitimately able to balance the budget and keep the economy strong)

**Huh? Australia is in far better financial state than almost any nation
on the planet. Including powerhouse economies like Germany.

THe labor party are getting a bit like the funamentalist christians - if
the economy is good 'god is great' (or in their case they are great' and
if it spirals out of control 'it's the global economy' (god works in
mysterious ways).

**Both parties have made serious economic blunders over the years.
Howard/Abbott led Australia into some very expensive wars, which have
not only cost every taxpayer a bundle of cash, but have cost Australian
lives, for no benefit whatsoever. Make no mistake: Neither party has any
ability to claim the economic high ground.

I'm just sick of the average worker having to pay for all this bullshit
of theirs without one iota of legitimate need for it.

**Agreed. I am fuly sick and tired of paying for Howard's wars.

I see them as worse than Gina Reinhardt, because she wasn't elected to
represent the real best interests of all Australians.

**Wrong. The Democratic process allows Australians to get rid of
incompetents. Rhinehart will stay on, for as long as here wealth holds out.

I hope that gives some insight as to why I bring it up.

Put into a climate perspective - since our emissions (total) are fuck
all compared to the major economies of the world, the 'healing' effect
globally, if we all start living like hippies (or whatever terms you
want to put it in) will ALSO be fuck all.

**OK. Tell you what: Why don't you write a letter to the ATO (the
taxman) and explain that your taxation is insignificant, so you are no
longer going to pay tax? See how far that gets you. Like taxation, the
system works if EVERYONE does their bit. That includes every Australian,
American, Chinese and German. EVERY single person on this planet will
need to act. Including Australians.

   That being the case, there

will be fuck all difference if we never have a carbon tax (or at the
very least if we adopt a wait and see attitude).

**Wrong. The carbon tax is designed to reduce Australia's CO2 emissions
by a respectable amount. The only alternative is to adopt Abbott's
discredited scheme, which has no support from anyone (except Abbott).
Abbott's scheme will take money from taxpayers and give it to large
polluters, in the hope that they might reduce CO2 emissions. Or not. in
the process, several thousand compliance people and paper shufflers
(aka: public servants) will need to be employed, costing taxpayers still
more. So, which system do you want?

A system that has a very high probability of doing something, or a
system that has almost no chance of working? You have to choose one.
There is no other alternative.

   No significant

difference globally whatsoever.

**And again. The AUSTRALIAN CO2 reduction scheme is designed to reduce
AUSTRALIA'S CO2 emissions. Germany's CO2 reductions schemes are designed
to reduce GERMAN CO2 emissions.

   BUT it will make for an improved (or

less deteriorated) quality of life for Australians in the mean time.

**Prove it.

   And

as such, the govco bringing in a carbon tax and a mining tax (which is
really just an 'oh we fucked up and need more money, lets take it from
the sector that is responsible for paying the highest average wages for
unskilled and semi skilled work, that rewards anyone with enough balls
to pull up roots and live in the outback for a decade or so' tax) is
imho criminal as far as the true and measurable ramifications to every
Australian.

**You're kidding, right? The minign sector (which is mostly foreign
owned) is seriously cashed up. Those companies are here for one purpose:
To make lots of money, so they can pay their (foreign) shareholders.
They don't give a crap about us. Once they've mined our resources,
they'll go back home. And we'll have nothing left to sell the world.
Rinehart is only interested in enriching herself. She doesn't gice a
crap about Australian's either. Tax them, I say. Remind me: How much tax
did Rio Tinto pay last year?

A: 13%.

That's right. THIRTEEN PERCENT!

That is a whole lot less tax than the average Australian (or even
Australian company) pays.

   Sure there's the 'we'll suck your cock' rebate to 'most

families' but that's going to pale into insignificance as the economy
grinds to a halt *(a minor exaggeration) and we're all permanently worse
off. I wonder if they'll be arrogant enough to claim it as the 'second'
recession we had to have?

**Norway bumped their mining tax up to 50% and guess what happened?

A: Nothing. Except the government now collects a lot more taxation. The
mining companies did not alter their activities. They paid the tax and
got on with their work. They'll do the same in Australia. And, let me
tell you one thing: I will NEVER fogive the Labor government for folding
under pressure from the mining companies. They SHOULD have screwed them
to the wall. Particularly the foreign owned ones. Fuck 'em.

That is just plain evil.

Let me ask you a question - based on a completely hypothetical premise.
Imagine another universe, which is entirely like ours, save for the fact
(purely for the purpose of philosophical exercise) that anthropogenic
climate change is definitely not proven in any way shape or form to be
real, and research scientists in that universe are aware of that, and
promote misleading alarmist propaganda, and pseudo science,
enthusistically altering simulation paramaters (so they don't in any way
correspond to reality) until they get the result that fits their agenda.
spitting in the face of true science, which is at its heart a search for
the truth, even if that truth is not the one they expected. Now in this
purely hypothetical universe, would you, knowing the facts as I have
presented them, be of the opinion that the 'scientists' in question are
also plain evil?

**Of course.

I know that is (no doubt in the opinion of many) a big straw man I've
just created. So be it. But, without any intention from me to try and
use your answer against you, or twist this, would you be willing to give
me your take on it?

**Done.

fair enough, and I appreciate your candor.

**No. I've read the science. It is credible, reasonable and the theory
fits the observed facts. If, however, AGW theory is found to be wrong, I
would be certainly prepared to acknowledge that all the scientists are
wrong.

So you have absolutely no concerns about any of the criticisms raised
about the data, the way it was collected, what data was capriciously
ignored because it didn't suit, the questionable (or arguably non
existant) peer reviews, the unwillingness to share model data/format,
and so on?

**Of course, I decry any form of poor science and abuse of the system.
Which is PRECISELY why the denialist side has zero credibility.

   None whatsoever? You believe that there is no single example

of questionable methodology or suspect work at all?

**Of course. It is mostly on the side of the deniers though.

Let me ask YOU a hypothetical:

After having read the IPCC AR4, what do YOU think about AGW theory?

You have read AR4, haven't you?

I held off answering this because I was hoping to complete it over the
holiday break, but work gt in the way. So it is, in all fairness to
disclosure, still a work in progress.

**Uh-huh.

**There is an alternate possibility:

The scientists who work in that area are very concerned about global
warming. They recognise that mass starvation and dislocation is
inevitable, if the planet continues to warm. Bangladesh, for instance,
will loose 90% of it's arable land to rising sea levels. Wanna deal with
a couple of hundred million refugees from Bangladesh? Perhaps the
scientists are so very concerned that they are shouting from the
rooftops in an attempt to save our society.

Thoze rising sea levels - we were supposed to see

...

read more ť

You are a very disturbed individual if you truly believe a lot of what
you have written
Times have changed.

**Then feel free to place your facts on record that refute all of what I
wrote. Saying I am wrong and proving it are two, entirely different, things.



Rinehart is a tiny pimple on the backside in relation to other wealthy
people,

**Wrong. Rinehart is the richest person in Australia. By a large margin,
in fact.

the ones who own government and to the REAL evil worldwide.

**No one "owns" government. Here in Australia, we have a Democratically
elected government. If we don't like what they do, we vote someone else
in. Simple.

She is totally insignificant by comparison,

**Wrong again. Rinehart is the richest Australian, by a very
considerable margin. Hardly insignificant.

  and your comments are

absolutely laughable and totally out of touch with modern reality.

**OK, I'll bite. Present your proof, that disproves EVERYTHING I wrote.

Here is my proof that Rinehart is Australia's rishest person:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/78/australia-billionaires-11_land.html

See how easy it is to prove you wrong?

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

I meant globally, not just in Australia Trevor.
And if we are talking Australia, care to tell us the bad things about
the other billionaires on that list ?

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 1/14/2012 11:06 AM, kreed wrote:

On Jan 14, 7:36 am, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 1/13/2012 11:44 PM, kreed wrote:

On Jan 10, 7:16 am, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 1/9/2012 6:11 PM, John McKenzie wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

I don't see too many people from aus.cars sending half their earnings to
people in China, but I'll bet to a person they have some clothing or
electronic goods made by chinese workers getting 3 beans a month, and
some of whom are missing limbs due to the chinese government's take on
workplace safety.

Rinehart is a first rate cunt of the highest order. She pays
liars and charlatans to mislead the public.

Jesus, the same could be said of people involved in _either_ side of
politics.

**I'm not discussing politics. I'm talking about a very rich cunt, who
uses her wealth to get her own way.

And you don't think that occurs in politics at all?

**Of course it does. AND, when and if it does, the population gets to
boot the dickheads out of office. We can consign offenders to political
oblivion. No such luck with Rhinehart. She gets to abuse her power day
in, day out, for as long as her (very considerable) wealth allows.

It's close to the

biggest rort imaginable. I'm what you might call a disillusioned
idealist. I've seen the corruption in the union movement (an by
extension the labor party) and it sickens me. And I'll be working class
for the rest of my days mind you, i've 'technically' probably got more
to gain in the short term supporting the left, but the long term
economic disaster that their mismanagement has invariably lead tyo (and
on that front the right aren't far behind them, but they are still
legitimately able to balance the budget and keep the economy strong)

**Huh? Australia is in far better financial state than almost any nation
on the planet. Including powerhouse economies like Germany.

THe labor party are getting a bit like the funamentalist christians - if
the economy is good 'god is great' (or in their case they are great' and
if it spirals out of control 'it's the global economy' (god works in
mysterious ways).

**Both parties have made serious economic blunders over the years.
Howard/Abbott led Australia into some very expensive wars, which have
not only cost every taxpayer a bundle of cash, but have cost Australian
lives, for no benefit whatsoever. Make no mistake: Neither party has any
ability to claim the economic high ground.

I'm just sick of the average worker having to pay for all this bullshit
of theirs without one iota of legitimate need for it.

**Agreed. I am fuly sick and tired of paying for Howard's wars.

I see them as worse than Gina Reinhardt, because she wasn't elected to
represent the real best interests of all Australians.

**Wrong. The Democratic process allows Australians to get rid of
incompetents. Rhinehart will stay on, for as long as here wealth holds out.

I hope that gives some insight as to why I bring it up.

Put into a climate perspective - since our emissions (total) are fuck
all compared to the major economies of the world, the 'healing' effect
globally, if we all start living like hippies (or whatever terms you
want to put it in) will ALSO be fuck all.

**OK. Tell you what: Why don't you write a letter to the ATO (the
taxman) and explain that your taxation is insignificant, so you are no
longer going to pay tax? See how far that gets you. Like taxation, the
system works if EVERYONE does their bit. That includes every Australian,
American, Chinese and German. EVERY single person on this planet will
need to act. Including Australians.

That being the case, there

will be fuck all difference if we never have a carbon tax (or at the
very least if we adopt a wait and see attitude).

**Wrong. The carbon tax is designed to reduce Australia's CO2 emissions
by a respectable amount. The only alternative is to adopt Abbott's
discredited scheme, which has no support from anyone (except Abbott).
Abbott's scheme will take money from taxpayers and give it to large
polluters, in the hope that they might reduce CO2 emissions. Or not. in
the process, several thousand compliance people and paper shufflers
(aka: public servants) will need to be employed, costing taxpayers still
more. So, which system do you want?

A system that has a very high probability of doing something, or a
system that has almost no chance of working? You have to choose one.
There is no other alternative.

No significant

difference globally whatsoever.

**And again. The AUSTRALIAN CO2 reduction scheme is designed to reduce
AUSTRALIA'S CO2 emissions. Germany's CO2 reductions schemes are designed
to reduce GERMAN CO2 emissions.

BUT it will make for an improved (or

less deteriorated) quality of life for Australians in the mean time.

**Prove it.

And

as such, the govco bringing in a carbon tax and a mining tax (which is
really just an 'oh we fucked up and need more money, lets take it from
the sector that is responsible for paying the highest average wages for
unskilled and semi skilled work, that rewards anyone with enough balls
to pull up roots and live in the outback for a decade or so' tax) is
imho criminal as far as the true and measurable ramifications to every
Australian.

**You're kidding, right? The minign sector (which is mostly foreign
owned) is seriously cashed up. Those companies are here for one purpose:
To make lots of money, so they can pay their (foreign) shareholders.
They don't give a crap about us. Once they've mined our resources,
they'll go back home. And we'll have nothing left to sell the world.
Rinehart is only interested in enriching herself. She doesn't gice a
crap about Australian's either. Tax them, I say. Remind me: How much tax
did Rio Tinto pay last year?

A: 13%.

That's right. THIRTEEN PERCENT!

That is a whole lot less tax than the average Australian (or even
Australian company) pays.

Sure there's the 'we'll suck your cock' rebate to 'most

families' but that's going to pale into insignificance as the economy
grinds to a halt *(a minor exaggeration) and we're all permanently worse
off. I wonder if they'll be arrogant enough to claim it as the 'second'
recession we had to have?

**Norway bumped their mining tax up to 50% and guess what happened?

A: Nothing. Except the government now collects a lot more taxation. The
mining companies did not alter their activities. They paid the tax and
got on with their work. They'll do the same in Australia. And, let me
tell you one thing: I will NEVER fogive the Labor government for folding
under pressure from the mining companies. They SHOULD have screwed them
to the wall. Particularly the foreign owned ones. Fuck 'em.

That is just plain evil.

Let me ask you a question - based on a completely hypothetical premise.
Imagine another universe, which is entirely like ours, save for the fact
(purely for the purpose of philosophical exercise) that anthropogenic
climate change is definitely not proven in any way shape or form to be
real, and research scientists in that universe are aware of that, and
promote misleading alarmist propaganda, and pseudo science,
enthusistically altering simulation paramaters (so they don't in any way
correspond to reality) until they get the result that fits their agenda.
spitting in the face of true science, which is at its heart a search for
the truth, even if that truth is not the one they expected. Now in this
purely hypothetical universe, would you, knowing the facts as I have
presented them, be of the opinion that the 'scientists' in question are
also plain evil?

**Of course.

I know that is (no doubt in the opinion of many) a big straw man I've
just created. So be it. But, without any intention from me to try and
use your answer against you, or twist this, would you be willing to give
me your take on it?

**Done.

fair enough, and I appreciate your candor.

**No. I've read the science. It is credible, reasonable and the theory
fits the observed facts. If, however, AGW theory is found to be wrong, I
would be certainly prepared to acknowledge that all the scientists are
wrong.

So you have absolutely no concerns about any of the criticisms raised
about the data, the way it was collected, what data was capriciously
ignored because it didn't suit, the questionable (or arguably non
existant) peer reviews, the unwillingness to share model data/format,
and so on?

**Of course, I decry any form of poor science and abuse of the system.
Which is PRECISELY why the denialist side has zero credibility.

None whatsoever? You believe that there is no single example

of questionable methodology or suspect work at all?

**Of course. It is mostly on the side of the deniers though.

Let me ask YOU a hypothetical:

After having read the IPCC AR4, what do YOU think about AGW theory?

You have read AR4, haven't you?

I held off answering this because I was hoping to complete it over the
holiday break, but work gt in the way. So it is, in all fairness to
disclosure, still a work in progress.

**Uh-huh.

**There is an alternate possibility:

The scientists who work in that area are very concerned about global
warming. They recognise that mass starvation and dislocation is
inevitable, if the planet continues to warm. Bangladesh, for instance,
will loose 90% of it's arable land to rising sea levels. Wanna deal with
a couple of hundred million refugees from Bangladesh? Perhaps the
scientists are so very concerned that they are shouting from the
rooftops in an attempt to save our society.

Thoze rising sea levels - we were supposed to see

...

read more ť

You are a very disturbed individual if you truly believe a lot of what
you have written
Times have changed.

**Then feel free to place your facts on record that refute all of what I
wrote. Saying I am wrong and proving it are two, entirely different, things.



Rinehart is a tiny pimple on the backside in relation to other wealthy
people,

**Wrong. Rinehart is the richest person in Australia. By a large margin,
in fact.

the ones who own government and to the REAL evil worldwide.

**No one "owns" government. Here in Australia, we have a Democratically
elected government. If we don't like what they do, we vote someone else
in. Simple.

She is totally insignificant by comparison,

**Wrong again. Rinehart is the richest Australian, by a very
considerable margin. Hardly insignificant.

and your comments are

absolutely laughable and totally out of touch with modern reality.

**OK, I'll bite. Present your proof, that disproves EVERYTHING I wrote.

Here is my proof that Rinehart is Australia's rishest person:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/78/australia-billionaires-11_land.html

See how easy it is to prove you wrong?

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au


I meant globally, not just in Australia Trevor.

**You are confused. I SPECIFICALLY referred to Gina Rinehart and the the
fact that she was AUSTRALIA'S richest person. How could you possibly
fail to understand that. You are further confused about the role of
government. We are part of AUSTRALIA and we are governed by the
AUSTRALIAN government. We are not governed by, say, the Indonesian
government.

And if we are talking Australia, care to tell us the bad things about
the other billionaires on that list ?

**There are probably quite a few things. Twiggy Forrest, for instance,
ensured that his company paid less tax than the average Australian
worker last year. That said, I am presently focussed on the evils of
Gina Rinehart. Let's keep the discussion focussed on her for the moment.
I also suggest that you attempt to understand how the Australian
government functions.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 1/14/2012 11:05 AM, kreed wrote:

On Jan 14, 7:52 am, Jeßus<n...@all.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 08:36:45 +1100, Trevor Wilson

tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 1/13/2012 11:44 PM, kreed wrote:
the ones who own government and to the REAL evil worldwide.

**No one "owns" government. Here in Australia, we have a Democratically
elected government. If we don't like what they do, we vote someone else
in. Simple.


What a load of rubbish, like almost everywhere the political system
consists 2 controlled parties

**Wrong. Again. How about:
Italy?
The UK?
France?
Germany?
Afghanistan?
Iraq?
China
North Korea?
South Korea?
Et al?

In some places there is only one party. In others, there are many parties.

, and one of them always gets power

either outright or with the support of smaller parties who cannot wait
to sell out.

**Sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't work like that.


Get into the real world.

**Unlike you, I AM in the real world. It seems I know considerably more
about world politics than you do.

If they were truly working for

the public, for starters they would immediately strike down bad laws
introduced by the previous party,

**SOmetimes, things are not so easy.


default on debts (or at least the

interest on them) taken out by a previous party that were made
illegally

**Again, this is not something can readily be done in the real world.
Australia is a nation that is desirable for foreign investment, largely
due to it's political stability. One party might make a really, REALLY
dumb decision (like sending Australians to their deaths in Iraq and
Afghanistan, in the process, costing Australian taxpayers BILLIONS of
Dollars), but the succeeding government must maintain those forces, due
to promises made.

, (this would be great as it would ensure that the banksters

never made a bad loan to the government for bad policy again) made
against the public interest, against the constitution, against the
will of the people, or irresponsibly but these things rarely if ever
happen and at best a law will be watered down, and not completely
removed. The fact is that in many ways they work together as a left
fist, right fist, or "good cop, bad cop" to simply screw the public.

**That would be nice, but, sadly, Liberal governments have a nasty habit
of sending Australians to unpopular wars to be killed for no good reason.

In most cases, corporate and/or banking needs are fulfilled, as these
are the people who pay them off and/or can make or break them via
privately owned commercial media. You and I are FORCED to pay them
money via the tax system, we cannot refuse if dissatisfied with our
leaders or opt out of any service we are getting if dissatisfied at
its effectiveness or value for money. The latest example being
Harvey Norman and co who wanted the GST introduced on private
purchases online shipped from overseas. This is already being
investigated, and will probably be brought in in some form even though
I doubt that many of the public support it.

**So what? We have a GST. Thanks to Howard and Abbott. Why do you think
it is fair for retailers to compete against other retailers who don't
have to pay a legally constituted AUSTRALIAN tax? Do you think it is
fair that Twiggy Forrest pays no tax? Do YOU pay tax? I know I do. I
hate paying tax. I'll tell you something for nothing. I hate seeing
other AUSTRALIANS paying no, or bugger all tax. Particuarly some rich
cunt like Twiggy Forrest.

The fact that they do not represent the public opinion can be clearly
shown with Gillard and the Carbon Tax,

**So? We have to have a carbon tax. UNless you can think of a better way
to reduce Australia's CO2 emissions.

as well as many other things

over the years including the middle east wars.

**You can thank Howard/Abbott for those fiascos. You can thank the
Lieberals for Vietnam too.

The public now is

little more than a glorified group of slaves that are allowed every so
often to select one of two masters that will boss them and push them
around. Wake up, You and Trevor sound like you are living in some
past stone age.

**Well, no. I live in the real world, not some fantasy land that you
seem to inhabit.

ROTFL. Occasionally I read your posts. Invariably I end up asking
myself why the hell do I bother. But yes, that's my own fault for not
learning from experience.



ROTFL, to a guy who believes that animal farts, and essential
services like electrical generation and use of cars is
catastrophically warming the earth and will kill us all.

**I trust in the science. What do you trust in? The Catholics? George
Pell, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and that bunch of loons don't believe
the hard science.

And learn how to edit your replies.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 08:36:45 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

You are a very disturbed individual if you truly believe a lot of what
you have written
Times have changed.

**Then feel free to place your facts on record that refute all of what I
wrote. Saying I am wrong and proving it are two, entirely different, things.

As is proving it and having you acknowledge your errors. The latter
chasm seems to be a vastly larger one than the former.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:27:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 1/14/2012 11:05 AM, kreed wrote:
On Jan 14, 7:52 am, Jeßus<n...@all.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 08:36:45 +1100, Trevor Wilson

tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 1/13/2012 11:44 PM, kreed wrote:
the ones who own government and to the REAL evil worldwide.

**No one "owns" government. Here in Australia, we have a Democratically
elected government. If we don't like what they do, we vote someone else
in. Simple.


What a load of rubbish, like almost everywhere the political system
consists 2 controlled parties, and one of them always gets power
either outright or with the support of smaller parties who cannot wait
to sell out.

**Wrong. Again.

It doesn't look like it, despite your weasel editing to remove "with
the support of smaller parties" and pretend that he didn't include
more than two parties.

How about:
Italy?
Proves his point.
The UK?
Proves his point.
France?
Proves his point.
Germany?
Proves his point.
Afghanistan?
Proves his point.
Iraq?
Proves his point.
China
Not democratic, irrelevant.
North Korea?
Not democratic, irrelevant.
South Korea?
Proves his point.

That's zero for nine, I can see why you would bluster about "Wrong.
Again.", with such compelling evidence on your side.

**Unlike you, I AM in the real world. It seems I know considerably more
about world politics than you do.

It looks more like you couldn't tell your arse form a hole in the
ground, but by your standards of proof, this would count as an
unassailable support for your position. In reality, you were just
feigning ignorance with your selective editing.

If they were truly working for
the public, for starters they would immediately strike down bad laws
introduced by the previous party,

**SOmetimes, things are not so easy.

A completely fair comment.

default on debts (or at least the
interest on them) taken out by a previous party that were made
illegally

**Again, this is not something can readily be done in the real world.
Australia is a nation that is desirable for foreign investment, largely
due to it's political stability. One party might make a really, REALLY
dumb decision (like sending Australians to their deaths in Iraq and
Afghanistan, in the process, costing Australian taxpayers BILLIONS of
Dollars), but the succeeding government must maintain those forces, due
to promises made.

Quite right.

, (this would be great as it would ensure that the banksters
never made a bad loan to the government for bad policy again) made
against the public interest, against the constitution, against the
will of the people, or irresponsibly but these things rarely if ever
happen and at best a law will be watered down, and not completely
removed. The fact is that in many ways they work together as a left
fist, right fist, or "good cop, bad cop" to simply screw the public.

**That would be nice, but, sadly, Liberal governments have a nasty habit
of sending Australians to unpopular wars to be killed for no good reason.

Bullshit.

In most cases, corporate and/or banking needs are fulfilled, as these
are the people who pay them off and/or can make or break them via
privately owned commercial media. You and I are FORCED to pay them
money via the tax system, we cannot refuse if dissatisfied with our
leaders or opt out of any service we are getting if dissatisfied at
its effectiveness or value for money. The latest example being
Harvey Norman and co who wanted the GST introduced on private
purchases online shipped from overseas. This is already being
investigated, and will probably be brought in in some form even though
I doubt that many of the public support it.

**So what? We have a GST. Thanks to Howard and Abbott. Why do you think
it is fair for retailers to compete against other retailers who don't
have to pay a legally constituted AUSTRALIAN tax?

The last time I looked, it wasn't fair to charge five times as much
and blame a 10% tax for it!

Do you think it is fair that Twiggy Forrest pays no tax?

Andrew Forrest pays tax. So your question is not merely irrelevant,
it is disingenuous and defamatory.

Do YOU pay tax? I know I do. I hate paying tax.

I don't mind paying tax. I sometimes object to my tax money being
wasted.

Mr. Forrest, whom you attack in a repugnant fashion has a similar
attitude - "I'm very happy to pay tax, in fact I'm honoured to be one
of Australia's major taxpayers".

I'll tell you something for nothing. I hate seeing
other AUSTRALIANS paying no, or bugger all tax. Particuarly some rich
cunt like Twiggy Forrest.

Again, you are talking crap and just showing the chip on your
shoulder. Woody is a rather pleasant fellow who pays his tax. You
are an unpleasant fellow who also pays his tax.

Woody has made the largest personal charity donations in Australian
history, but you feel you can insult him just because he is more
successful than you.

The fact that they do not represent the public opinion can be clearly
shown with Gillard and the Carbon Tax,

**So? We have to have a carbon tax.

No, we do not.

UNless you can think of a better way
to reduce Australia's CO2 emissions.

Presupposes such a necessity, which even if GW is completely accepted
is not true.

as well as many other things
over the years including the middle east wars.

**You can thank Howard/Abbott for those fiascos. You can thank the
Lieberals for Vietnam too.

As though Labor would have acted differently....

ROTFL, to a guy who believes that animal farts, and essential
services like electrical generation and use of cars is
catastrophically warming the earth and will kill us all.

**I trust in the science.

Yet you feel the need to misrepresent it. I am assuming reasonable
competence on your part to understand the difference between "likely"
and "almost certainly".

What do you trust in? The Catholics? George
Pell, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and that bunch of loons don't believe
the hard science.

Neither do you, though it is more supportive of your position.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:14:12 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

And if we are talking Australia, care to tell us the bad things about
the other billionaires on that list ?

**There are probably quite a few things. Twiggy Forrest, for instance,
ensured that his company paid less tax than the average Australian
worker last year.

Mr. Forrest does not own FMG, and FMG has considerable losses from
start-up to be recouped. You are a ridiculous little man.

That said, I am presently focussed on the evils of
Gina Rinehart.

And by evil, you mean "does not agree with the T. Wilson world view
and puts money behind that disagreement". You sad, little envious
fellow.

Let's keep the discussion focussed on her for the moment.

Yes, lets, someone needs to be your whipping boy.

I also suggest that you attempt to understand how the Australian
government functions.

Assuming no political input, presumably....
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Buzz^|]

On 16/01/2012 2:28 PM, Paul Saccani wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:27:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 1/14/2012 11:05 AM, kreed wrote:
On Jan 14, 7:52 am, Jeßus<n...@all.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 08:36:45 +1100, Trevor Wilson

tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 1/13/2012 11:44 PM, kreed wrote:
the ones who own government and to the REAL evil worldwide.

**No one "owns" government. Here in Australia, we have a Democratically
elected government. If we don't like what they do, we vote someone else
in. Simple.


What a load of rubbish, like almost everywhere the political system
consists 2 controlled parties, and one of them always gets power
either outright or with the support of smaller parties who cannot wait
to sell out.

**Wrong. Again.

It doesn't look like it, despite your weasel editing to remove "with
the support of smaller parties" and pretend that he didn't include
more than two parties.

How about:
Italy?
Proves his point.
The UK?
Proves his point.
France?
Proves his point.
Germany?
Proves his point.
Afghanistan?
Proves his point.
Iraq?
Proves his point.
China
Not democratic, irrelevant.
North Korea?
Not democratic, irrelevant.
South Korea?
Proves his point.

<snip>

Well you say you would like more than two parties.

Why didn't you put here on your list. We have many, many political parties?

Shouldn't you look at what happens in places with so many parties?

More is better isn't it?

We have 2 PMs two deputy PMs two of everything really, see how well it
works. Everyone wants to be boss, even the prior (or is it current)
ruling party is being split into two to make more parties.

Divide and rule is the motto here.

--
Brad Leyden
6° 43.5816' S 146° 59.3097' E WGS84
To mail spam is really hot but please
reply to thread so all may benefit
(or laugh at my mistakes)