|
sir prince duke alevine
|
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 18 th, 2011 at 10:47am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 18 th, 2011 at 10:40am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 18 th, 2011 at 10:36am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 18 th, 2011 at 10:23am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 18 th, 2011 at 10:19am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 18 th, 2011 at 10:14am: cods wrote on Apr 18 th, 2011 at 10:09am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 18 th, 2011 at 9:47am: cods wrote on Apr 18 th, 2011 at 9:32am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 18 th, 2011 at 9:20am: Nice.
Now read the actual argument, not just things you can highlight, and work out what the business leaders in Tasmania think about the NBN, and how it will relate to Tasmania's economy. ok what part did you have in mind? I dont understand how the NBN will relate to the economy.. perhaps you can fill me in on that. Unfortunately it would be impossible to explain basic principles of the Australian economy to you - it requires you to have some level of comprehension that is above a 3rd grade level Especially considering you haven't even read the article and go straight into your usual misconceived load of jibberish. ahhh as first thought you cant explain can you?????????? yes I go back a bit with schooling and they didnt teach economics in my day... how ever no need for you to be so rude did they teach you that in 3rd grade?.. they just for once answering a question you are getting like woody.... he only abuses when he is backed in the corner... so business men think the NBN would have had more use if it was in the cities... well thats pretty brilliant I must say...but where does it say that the economy will GROOOOOOOOOOOOW like a weed because of it????? I have read the article...but still would like your imput... try to do it without the rudeness if thats at all possible. I'm not backed into a corner, but if you haven't read an article and then try to argue something it actually explains, or likewise read it and simply can't understand, then it's not up to me to explain it to you (that won't help you either); it's up to you to go and get some lessons and develop your comprehension. you sound like you are about to do a Greens-lose and change the topic or deflect or a dozen other techniques to avoid answering. no one has EVER been able to identify things the NBN can do that current broadband cant. beyond reaching the areas that dont already have broadband (which would have been fixed 2 years ago if not for Rudd and Conroy) what exactly does the NBN do for you? Once again I ask - if Howard's policy was so great, why have the Coalition even backed away from it? Why won't they support it? basic politics. when you lose an election you ALWAYS modify your policies somewhat. I thought you understood that or maybe you shoudl revisit some wonderful labor policies like NO GST, Medicare Gold and a variety of other failures. Only difference of course is that politicians then form different views to meet their new policy ideas. Not to mention that parties sideline policies because they are proven to be complete crap. So, if the Howard policy was complete crap, why are you still arking on about it? Who from Labor is arking on about Medicare Gold? I will also mention however that Coalition still believe our current infrastructure is fine and just needs a few pins and needs added to it; which was effectively Howard's policy. So again, I don't quite understand why if it was such a great policy that we had to have, as you consistently mention, why did the Coalition sideline it and come up with some other complete jibberish? criticising coalition policy is not answering the question of what good does the NBN serve. That wasn't the intent, but surprise surprise you once again misunderstood. What's new, right? All I'm saying is your argument about Howard's policy is pointless because not even the Coalition support it; I doubt they ever did in the first place. And because they've sidelined it and won't speak of it, clearly it was a crap policy that both parties are thankful to see go.
|