happy_tiger
Well-known member
Even Bolts turned on Abbott
Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here
- Thread starter Kul
- Start date
- Status
DonnyBrasco
New member
This country is run by mugs for mugs.
_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
Hahaha classic rant LCA, I remember when I had my first beer…
Just in case you have not spent the arvo slamming hooch, I'll have a crack at retaliating.
You say this as if you are surprised that anyone noticed. This is not an enlightened statement of fact. It was EXTREMELY obvious that a large section of the commercial media were actively campaigning against a third term for the ALP. Again though, this is a democratic country and those that chose this path have every right to do so. They are part of privately owned conglomerates and as human beings with self interests, of course those in charge will form opinions on the political landscapes. The fact YOU havent heard anyone from the coalition admit as such does not in any way mean this is the truth. As early as Monday this week Barnaby smirked when Pliberseck mentioned this and said "well you shouldnt believe everything you read in the newspapers". I have heard many members say that the front pages of the telegraph were over the top whilst changing the subject to steer the conversaton back to policy platforms and election promises during said campaign.
As for your call that this government is appalling and unAustralian….well thats your opinion and you can own it.
It is not just the sanctimonious politicians who think the ABC is showing bias, a large section of the community agrees. I am all for free speech but when I notice that the publically owned chanel consistently pushes one side over the other, as it does, then I get my back up. As I said previously, the ABC's charter is to provide FAIR and BALANCED reporting due to the fact that they are owned by every citizen of this country all of whom have differing agendas and opinions.The ABC does not maintane its mandated neutrality. Stories are not always reported upon or discussed in shows such as Q and A if they paint the ALP in a bad light. Stories are almost always reported upon or discussed if the LNP stuff up. We as the stakeholders, should not be subjected to the one sided rants of comedians and their guests or party stooges week after week on a chanel that should be neutrally politically affiliated. I have no problem with what they are saying LCA…I have a problem with where they are saying it...i.e. the platform.
You say that you back the integrity of the ABC...well I saw none of it on display last week when they viciously went after the Australian Navy with heresay and rumour filled lies about them torturing asylum seekers. Even when ministers from the government and representatives of the armed forces where interviewed and denied that the stories were true, they were branded as trying to cover up the events to save face by numerous employees of our national broadcaster. The ABC's reporting of this story was slanderous, without evidence and hurtful to our international image....let alone a kick in the nuts to our Navy and Border Patrol personel who are working their guts out in the ocean, saving lives and protecting our shores. Even by tonight, the ABC heads are standing by the story even though it has been PROVEN to have been made up by nasty and upset "asylum seekers" who were turned away because they did not come through the official channels.
As for your overuse of the word "integrity", I think you need to look up the word and maybe have someone explain it to you as you havent fully grasped the concept.
Seriously? SERIOUSLY? lol when have I ever said that? It does not come down to that at all. I dont believe those you have mentioned have more integrity than other networks who push say…a left agenda. Both sides enjoy propaganda in the media. It is up to us as their bosses to decifer the crap and make our own minds up as to whom our vote is attributed. I think the ABC has more integrity....but it is fast eroding which was the point I made in my earlier posts. In my eyes, if they continue their agenda pushing, they will be on par....
Just in case you have not spent the arvo slamming hooch, I'll have a crack at retaliating.
@LCA said:
You say this as if you are surprised that anyone noticed. This is not an enlightened statement of fact. It was EXTREMELY obvious that a large section of the commercial media were actively campaigning against a third term for the ALP. Again though, this is a democratic country and those that chose this path have every right to do so. They are part of privately owned conglomerates and as human beings with self interests, of course those in charge will form opinions on the political landscapes. The fact YOU havent heard anyone from the coalition admit as such does not in any way mean this is the truth. As early as Monday this week Barnaby smirked when Pliberseck mentioned this and said "well you shouldnt believe everything you read in the newspapers". I have heard many members say that the front pages of the telegraph were over the top whilst changing the subject to steer the conversaton back to policy platforms and election promises during said campaign.
As for your call that this government is appalling and unAustralian….well thats your opinion and you can own it.
@LCA said:
It is not just the sanctimonious politicians who think the ABC is showing bias, a large section of the community agrees. I am all for free speech but when I notice that the publically owned chanel consistently pushes one side over the other, as it does, then I get my back up. As I said previously, the ABC's charter is to provide FAIR and BALANCED reporting due to the fact that they are owned by every citizen of this country all of whom have differing agendas and opinions.The ABC does not maintane its mandated neutrality. Stories are not always reported upon or discussed in shows such as Q and A if they paint the ALP in a bad light. Stories are almost always reported upon or discussed if the LNP stuff up. We as the stakeholders, should not be subjected to the one sided rants of comedians and their guests or party stooges week after week on a chanel that should be neutrally politically affiliated. I have no problem with what they are saying LCA…I have a problem with where they are saying it...i.e. the platform.
You say that you back the integrity of the ABC...well I saw none of it on display last week when they viciously went after the Australian Navy with heresay and rumour filled lies about them torturing asylum seekers. Even when ministers from the government and representatives of the armed forces where interviewed and denied that the stories were true, they were branded as trying to cover up the events to save face by numerous employees of our national broadcaster. The ABC's reporting of this story was slanderous, without evidence and hurtful to our international image....let alone a kick in the nuts to our Navy and Border Patrol personel who are working their guts out in the ocean, saving lives and protecting our shores. Even by tonight, the ABC heads are standing by the story even though it has been PROVEN to have been made up by nasty and upset "asylum seekers" who were turned away because they did not come through the official channels.
As for your overuse of the word "integrity", I think you need to look up the word and maybe have someone explain it to you as you havent fully grasped the concept.
@LCA said:
Seriously? SERIOUSLY? lol when have I ever said that? It does not come down to that at all. I dont believe those you have mentioned have more integrity than other networks who push say…a left agenda. Both sides enjoy propaganda in the media. It is up to us as their bosses to decifer the crap and make our own minds up as to whom our vote is attributed. I think the ABC has more integrity....but it is fast eroding which was the point I made in my earlier posts. In my eyes, if they continue their agenda pushing, they will be on par....
Glen_McWilliams
New member
This is a good read for anyone interested in where the economy is at, without feeling the need to barrack for their team for a moment.
http://www.marketeconomics.com.au/2542-2542
http://www.marketeconomics.com.au/2542-2542
Glen_McWilliams
New member
I did have a good laugh at this:
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@Glen McWilliams said:
And this is common sense economics
I think a lot of people's concern is the debt seemed to running uncontrolled into further deficit Glen
But if I here one politician from either side of politics say this is due to sound government management :brick:
It is mainly due to our strong economic position , which barring an idiotic government decision will remain that way for a few years to come yet
Glen_McWilliams
New member
With all due respect I think you missed the point of the speech Happy.
Kouk is saying that for the last 40 years or so the economic management has been sound. The challenge for economists and politicians is to change public understanding that deficit is always bad and surplus is always good. There needs to be context to give the figures meaning. Without context they are used as political tools for easy soundgrabs. So in the end politicians won't be assisting economists to change the perception.
Kouk is saying that for the last 40 years or so the economic management has been sound. The challenge for economists and politicians is to change public understanding that deficit is always bad and surplus is always good. There needs to be context to give the figures meaning. Without context they are used as political tools for easy soundgrabs. So in the end politicians won't be assisting economists to change the perception.
hammertime
Well-known member
@Glen McWilliams said:
I actually disagree with the article. I'm certainly no expert, but in my hayday I did pick up a few econ awards at Uni. The basic problem that economists have is taking into account too many assumptions.
We have some seriously massive challenges ahead. Namely the Boomers & the Environment. Both will require significant expenditure.
Now, yes Australia is fine by itself, we could sustain these impacts and come out of it with a heightened debt. But what I think Kouk fails to examine is the greater ties we have globally these days.
Comparing us to other countries is the stupidest thing we can do because
1) It fails to point out that our level of debt will still not hinder us. Its more of the 'well they are worse' arguement to justify that we are ok. If I robbed 1 bank and someone else robbed 2, do you think I can say, 'Hey, I'm not as bad as that guy, he robbed 2'?
2) It fails to view that international debt can also be bad for Australia. The globe is lucky that Greece was only a small economy and that other countries were in a position to help. The US & UK have massive challenges ahead, far worse than us, and if they struggle at that point when we have no surplus to stimulate (like the GFC) then we might be dragged with them A9long with the rest of the world).
One reason why we survived the GFC, is because we had a big capacity to spend. Consumers drew confidence knowing that we could keep spending and not put ourselves into dangerous territory.
We will not cope without some structural changes which Abbott seems to be slowly acting on. Lets hope the next budget is one of prudence and a bit of forward thinking so we get ourselves back on a sound footing to meet these looming issues.
Lets not forget that 99% of economists didn't see the GFC coming.
Glen_McWilliams
New member
Forgive me but I think you in part echoed some of Kouk's sentiment. The time for prudence is when growth is occurring (as it has begun globally) and the time for expenditure is during contraction (as commenced with the GFC). I believe he points out that this is what has happened over the last 30 or so years in Australia which is why we, as you rightly say, were in a strong position to ride through the GFC and find ourselves in a good spot now. As far as a comparioson to other countries I see it as him examining how they have handled their econmies over time as compared to Australia, not to say 'I lost a leg in a car crash, but that guy lost two which means I must be doing fine'.
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@Glen McWilliams said:
Actually I think you missed my point Glen
Our exports and us the consumers have far greater control than what happens to our economy than any politician can have
Glen_McWilliams
New member
You're right Happy, I did miss your point.
Tim Sheens
Well-known member
@hammertime said:
So i take it that you don't see "sexism at work" when you look at the front bench of parliament?
hammertime
Well-known member
@formerguest said:
Couldn't really judge to be honest. I haven't really dug through the qualifications of the female members of the Liberal party. Do you think there anyone who is better suited to any of the portfolio's?
Stryker, it is "my call" that the mob that Rupert elected is the most appalling, deceitful, disgraceful, shameful and embarrassing government in Australia's history. And, I'm proud to own that call and I will work to make sure others hear that opinion. If you want to support them and their policies and values, go for your life. But that, in my eyes, diminishes you. But…hey...it's a democracy.
Tim Sheens
Well-known member
@magpiecol said:
Do you still carry a club around to keep women in their place Col?
You are entitled to an opinion, but you should at least try to base it on facts. One must be just as conservative as those wielding the power within the Libs to even think about making a statement such as your second paragraph.
Please inform us as to where "every one" of these female ministers failed in their duties. I will help you with some of the names, starting with Macklin (one of the most respected by all), Roxon, Plibersek, Lundy, Collins, King, etc etc.
I also have a few spare candles lying around in case you would like to brighten the cave up a little.
hammertime
Well-known member
@TJL said:
How are the Liberals anywhere near as corrupt as Labor? Especially at state level.
- Status
