Australian Politics Forum - support coalition = reject economics

Maqqa Gold Member Offline 14% - that low?! Posts: 16000	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #60 - Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:26pm not refusal perception - just rubbing your arrogant nose in it teaching you humility rather than taking the easy way "maqqa please explain" you've taken the hard way "maqqa I am a moron please explain in simple terms for me"
Back to top	Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number IP Logged

Maqqa Gold Member Offline 14% - that low?! Posts: 16000	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #61 - Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:27pm before starting this thread - FD didn't know about the 30% penalty
Back to top	Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #62 - Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:31pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html Roll Eyes

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html Roll Eyes

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #63 - Sep 12^th, 2011 at 9:02pm

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

not refusal perception - just rubbing your arrogant nose in it

teaching you humility

rather than taking the easy way "maqqa please explain"

you've taken the hard way "maqqa I am a moron please explain in simple terms for me"

SORRY, I don't have any - humility!

As I said, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Full details, chapter & verse OR GO TAKE A LONG, LONG REST!

Btw, how's your oil play going, got burned yet?

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #64 - Sep 13^th, 2011 at 12:24am

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:31pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html Roll Eyes

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #65 - Sep 13^th, 2011 at 8:32am

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 9:02pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

not refusal perception - just rubbing your arrogant nose in it

teaching you humility

rather than taking the easy way "maqqa please explain"

you've taken the hard way "maqqa I am a moron please explain in simple terms for me"

SORRY, I don't have any - humility!

As I said, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Full details, chapter & verse OR GO TAKE A LONG, LONG REST!

Btw, how's your oil play going, got burned yet?

The golden sounds of silence, confirms that YOU ARE full of -
C
redible
R
eliable
A
bundant
P
aradoxes

Chapter, verse & exact origin of details are required OR you are confirmed as a pure spin doctor!

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #66 - Sep 13^th, 2011 at 10:01pm

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 13^th, 2011 at 8:32am:

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 9:02pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

not refusal perception - just rubbing your arrogant nose in it

teaching you humility

rather than taking the easy way "maqqa please explain"

you've taken the hard way "maqqa I am a moron please explain in simple terms for me"

SORRY, I don't have any - humility!

As I said, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Full details, chapter & verse OR GO TAKE A LONG, LONG REST!

Btw, how's your oil play going, got burned yet?

The golden sounds of silence, confirms that YOU ARE full of -
C
redible
R
eliable
A
bundant
P
aradoxes

Chapter, verse & exact origin of details are required OR you are confirmed as a pure spin doctor!

Maqqa,
No Details?

No Credibility!

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #67 - Sep 14^th, 2011 at 11:40am

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 13^th, 2011 at 10:01pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 13^th, 2011 at 8:32am:

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 9:02pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

not refusal perception - just rubbing your arrogant nose in it

teaching you humility

rather than taking the easy way "maqqa please explain"

you've taken the hard way "maqqa I am a moron please explain in simple terms for me"

SORRY, I don't have any - humility!

As I said, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Full details, chapter & verse OR GO TAKE A LONG, LONG REST!

Btw, how's your oil play going, got burned yet?

The golden sounds of silence, confirms that YOU ARE full of -
C
redible
R
eliable
A
bundant
P
aradoxes

Chapter, verse & exact origin of details are required OR you are confirmed as a pure spin doctor!

Maqqa,
No Details?

No Credibility!

And so, there we have it, Maqqa confirms by her silence that she has NO CREDIBILITY and is simply a Liberal party spin doctor!

Back to top

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26704
Gender: male

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #68 - Sep 14^th, 2011 at 11:44am

freediver wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:01pm:

There is growing publicity around the coalition's apparent rejection of mainstream economics. So far this has been fairly subtle, for example when Greg Hunt tried to claim that the coalition's 'direct action' plan is in fact a market mechanism:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#greg-hunt...

This is starting to get a bit less subtle, in a way that does not bode well for the coalition. Here is an example of a coalition supporter broadly rejecting economics in defence of the coalition. If only these coalition supporters would speak up more often!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/47#47

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/71#71

In my opinion, this sort of thing could mark a significant turning point in the public debate.

That's fanciful stuff. Didn't a Coalition government produce a string of surpluses of about $100 billion while paying off a Labor debt of a similar amount? Didn't the same Coalition government keep interest rates, inflation and jobless numbers down?

Wasn't it a Labor government that gave us a recession we supposedly had to have, sky-high interest rates, skyrocketing inflation, high unemployment and colossal debt?

Seems to me that the Coalition knows far more about economics than Labor.

Back to top

IP Logged

darkhall67

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1935

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #69 - Sep 14^th, 2011 at 12:30pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 11:44am:

freediver wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:01pm:

There is growing publicity around the coalition's apparent rejection of mainstream economics. So far this has been fairly subtle, for example when Greg Hunt tried to claim that the coalition's 'direct action' plan is in fact a market mechanism:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#greg-hunt...

This is starting to get a bit less subtle, in a way that does not bode well for the coalition. Here is an example of a coalition supporter broadly rejecting economics in defence of the coalition. If only these coalition supporters would speak up more often!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/47#47

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/71#71

In my opinion, this sort of thing could mark a significant turning point in the public debate.

That's fanciful stuff. Didn't a Coalition government produce a string of surpluses of about $100 billion while paying off a Labor debt of a similar amount? Didn't the same Coalition government keep interest rates, inflation and jobless numbers down?

Wasn't it a Labor government that gave us a recession we supposedly had to have, sky-high interest rates, skyrocketing inflation, high unemployment and colossal debt?

Seems to me that the Coalition knows far more about economics than Labor.

Your knowledge of history and economics is continually shown to be sorely lacking when your continually post like this.

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa Gold Member Offline 14% - that low?! Posts: 16000	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #70 - Sep 14^th, 2011 at 1:28pm Put up or shut up perception At least freediver who started this thread is now doing research based on the info I posted
Back to top	Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #71 - Sep 14^th, 2011 at 2:43pm

Maqqa wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 1:28pm:

Put up or shut up perception

At least freediver who started this thread is now doing research based on the info I posted

So, in addition to your day job as Liberal Party Political Spin Doctor, you're also practicing to be a stand up comedian?

In the real world YOU are the one suggesting massive problems arising from Kyoto penalties and therefore, the onus is on YOU TO PROVE IT!

Despite numerous requests for detailled proofs, with real references, as usual YOU run from reality, YOU run from the Truth and YOU hide in SPIN & Obfuscation!

If I make a point, I usually put a detailed arguement, usually quote the website where details can be quickly referenced and post the relevant part/s.

This is YOUR POINT (not mine), on KYOTO & its ramifications for Australia, PROVE IT or be shown up for what you are, a Liberal Party Spin Doctor!

Back to top

IP Logged

corporate_whitey Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 8896 Archivist	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #72 - Sep 14^th, 2011 at 2:48pm The coalitions policies are aligned to transfer wealth from the poor to nasty evil, greedy, separatist exclusive YUPPIE WASP bigots and haters the same as the Labor Party and Greens do, so they support the same economics, they just vary the approach.
Back to top	World Wide Working Class Struggle IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #73 - Sep 14^th, 2011 at 3:30pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 11:44am:

freediver wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:01pm:

There is growing publicity around the coalition's apparent rejection of mainstream economics. So far this has been fairly subtle, for example when Greg Hunt tried to claim that the coalition's 'direct action' plan is in fact a market mechanism:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#greg-hunt...

This is starting to get a bit less subtle, in a way that does not bode well for the coalition. Here is an example of a coalition supporter broadly rejecting economics in defence of the coalition. If only these coalition supporters would speak up more often!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/47#47

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/71#71

In my opinion, this sort of thing could mark a significant turning point in the public debate.

That's fanciful stuff. Didn't a Coalition government produce a string of surpluses of about $100 billion while paying off a Labor debt of a similar amount? Didn't the same Coalition government keep interest rates, inflation and jobless numbers down?

Wasn't it a Labor government that gave us a recession we supposedly had to have, sky-high interest rates, skyrocketing inflation, high unemployment and colossal debt?

Seems to me that the Coalition knows far more about economics than Labor.

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME! MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME! MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME! MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME! MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME! Kiss

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #74 - Sep 14^th, 2011 at 3:31pm

Maqqa wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 1:28pm:

Put up or shut up perception

At least freediver who started this thread is now doing research based on the info I posted

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME! MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME! MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged