Australian Politics Forum - Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #210 - Apr 5^th, 2013 at 8:40am

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:04pm:

so with a 75% landslide win you will want not just policies but fully research, costed, proven and imutable policies without risk or adversity. you dont ask much, do you?

Why do you fund it offensive to actually understand what your voting for?
Why is it unreasonable?
There is always risk & adversity but with knowledge these variables are lessened.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:04pm:

so when a future govt institutes mandatory prayer and bible study and claims there is no mandated opposition to it you will agree

The only way this will happen is with control of both houses which I have addressed.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:04pm:

AS a result there is no mandate for or against anything thus allowing govts to what they want, when they want with no reference to what people actually want.

LOL, what do you reckon happens now FFS

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #211 - Apr 5^th, 2013 at 8:54am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 8:40am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:04pm:

so with a 75% landslide win you will want not just policies but fully research, costed, proven and imutable policies without risk or adversity. you dont ask much, do you?

Why do you fund it offensive to actually understand what your voting for?
Why is it unreasonable?
There is always risk & adversity but with knowledge these variables are lessened.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:04pm:

so when a future govt institutes mandatory prayer and bible study and claims there is no mandated opposition to it you will agree

The only way this will happen is with control of both houses which I have addressed.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:04pm:

AS a result there is no mandate for or against anything thus allowing govts to what they want, when they want with no reference to what people actually want.

LOL, what do you reckon happens now FFS

if voters were intelligent, engaged and with a sense of community and understanding of parliamentary democracy then you would have a very valid point. My argument is that the vast majority care not a jot for politics and the rest are not all that bright. Any definition of mandate has to be simple enough to be understandable.

its a bit like the buffoons on here who insist that once Abbotts policies are released that his polls will plunge. AS if people care about policies??? really???

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #212 - Apr 5^th, 2013 at 9:50am

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

if voters were intelligent, engaged and with a sense of community and understanding of parliamentary democracy then you would have a very valid point. My argument is that the vast majority care not a jot for politics and the rest are not all that bright.

As demonstrated by Tony Abbott being opp leader & probably PM & Western Sydney apparently being the most important part of the country.
Might be time to go back to smoking weed & not caring Sad

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #213 - Apr 5^th, 2013 at 10:03am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 9:50am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

if voters were intelligent, engaged and with a sense of community and understanding of parliamentary democracy then you would have a very valid point. My argument is that the vast majority care not a jot for politics and the rest are not all that bright.

As demonstrated by Tony Abbott being opp leader & probably PM & Western Sydney apparently being the most important part of the country.
Might be time to go back to smoking weed & not caring Sad

i sense your pain and frustration. I feel much of it as well. However, I think voters themselves are as much to blame. A true leader with superb policies etc could never be elected. voters want more money, more support and more services. but less tax, less responsibility and less engagement.

blah...

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

skippy. Gold Member Offline Posts: 20882 Gender:	Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax? Reply #214 - Apr 5^th, 2013 at 10:35am I can't be bothered reading the abuse and whine that comes out of longwhines keyboard, can someone just update me as to how he has explained away phony tony ignoring Rudds mandate while demanding Labor acknowledge a perceived phony tony mandate, please?
Back to top	freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL Click onWWW below IP Logged

Mnemonic

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1530
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #215 - Apr 5^th, 2013 at 6:23pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 8:28am:

your argument is beyond ludicrous. it essentially states that the quality of education has no effect on the outcome.

Once again, you simply can't tell the difference between what you were talking about and what I was actually saying. I said nothing about the "quality of the education" not affecting the outcome. What I actually said was that if a public school student could achieve the same results as someone with private schooling, that made the benefits of private schooling redundant for that person. It was pointless to give hard-working and bright kids a private education because whatever gains and improvements would be insignificant. I said nothing about this being universal and applying to everyone. That's what you don't seem to be getting.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 8:28am:

And if it were so then there wouldn't be the current situation where the significant majority of university entrants are privately educated. Nor would there be better life outcomes for privately educated people.

Again, this isn't about statistics or the majority. This is about individual school students and their potential. Kids with lots of potential don't need a private education. It's the kids who lack potential who need one because they need the right cues to perform well. A private education is just an "insurance policy" for success. It doesn't mean that public school kids can't do just as well. They just don't get as much help.

This is the second time you missed the point. Why should I care if more private school students get into university? That just isn't my concern. If you go back to the discussion people were having several pages back, you'd have seen Andrei talking about why he was better because he had private schooling. He may be better than most people who didn't get private schooling, but he isn't better than everyone who went to a public school and that is my point. Andrei has no business comparing himself to university graduates who were public school students of equal academic performance and there are quite a few of those people here.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51828
At my desk.

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #216 - Apr 7^th, 2013 at 9:09am

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 8:40am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:04pm:

so with a 75% landslide win you will want not just policies but fully research, costed, proven and imutable policies without risk or adversity. you dont ask much, do you?

Why do you fund it offensive to actually understand what your voting for?
Why is it unreasonable?
There is always risk & adversity but with knowledge these variables are lessened.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:04pm:

so when a future govt institutes mandatory prayer and bible study and claims there is no mandated opposition to it you will agree

The only way this will happen is with control of both houses which I have addressed.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:04pm:

AS a result there is no mandate for or against anything thus allowing govts to what they want, when they want with no reference to what people actually want.

LOL, what do you reckon happens now FFS

if voters were intelligent, engaged and with a sense of community and understanding of parliamentary democracy then you would have a very valid point. My argument is that the vast majority care not a jot for politics and the rest are not all that bright. Any definition of mandate has to be simple enough to be understandable.

its a bit like the buffoons on here who insist that once Abbotts policies are released that his polls will plunge. AS if people care about policies??? really???

Check out Longy's mind numbing hypocrisy on mandates here:

www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365047005/72#72

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

Getting back to the original topic, is there any explanation (other than blatant hypocrisy and mindless partisan cheer-leading) for your previous insistence that political parties should be granted a mandate to rule even if the majority of the voters oppose them, and for your insistence that political parties should impose unpopular changes on us against the will of the majority? This contrasts rather uncomfortably with your more recent harping on about clear and undeniable mandates and the will of the majority in the context of the carbon tax.

I am having trouble understanding how you can hold two diametrically opposed positions at the same time while insisting that yours is some kind of morally absolute position. I think you have managed to avoid addressing this issue once in this thread, which is peculiar to say the least. If it were me, I would be keen to explain myself, lest people assume that I backflip on my moral stances whenever it suits the latest Liberal party propaganda.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #217 - Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:01pm

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 8:28am:

your argument is beyond ludicrous. it essentially states that the quality of education has no effect on the outcome.

Once again, you simply can't tell the difference between what you were talking about and what I was actually saying. I said nothing about the "quality of the education" not affecting the outcome. What I actually said was that if a public school student could achieve the same results as someone with private schooling, that made the benefits of private schooling redundant for that person. It was pointless to give hard-working and bright kids a private education because whatever gains and improvements would be insignificant. I said nothing about this being universal and applying to everyone. That's what you don't seem to be getting.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 8:28am:

And if it were so then there wouldn't be the current situation where the significant majority of university entrants are privately educated. Nor would there be better life outcomes for privately educated people.

Again, this isn't about statistics or the majority. This is about individual school students and their potential. Kids with lots of potential don't need a private education. It's the kids who lack potential who need one because they need the right cues to perform well. A private education is just an "insurance policy" for success. It doesn't mean that public school kids can't do just as well. They just don't get as much help.

This is the second time you missed the point. Why should I care if more private school students get into university? That just isn't my concern. If you go back to the discussion people were having several pages back, you'd have seen Andrei talking about why he was better because he had private schooling. He may be better than most people who didn't get private schooling, but he isn't better than everyone who went to a public school and that is my point. Andrei has no business comparing himself to university graduates who were public school students of equal academic performance and there are quite a few of those people here.

your position is that a superior education gives a bright or hard-working student no benefit. That would be pretty hard to support given you have shown no evidence and it is illogical anyhow. I know there is this rather silly belief that private schools dont improve educational outcomes, however that is not supported by any evidence and in fact the contrary is more than proven.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #218 - Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:03pm

freediver wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 9:09am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 8:40am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:04pm:

so with a 75% landslide win you will want not just policies but fully research, costed, proven and imutable policies without risk or adversity. you dont ask much, do you?

Why do you fund it offensive to actually understand what your voting for?
Why is it unreasonable?
There is always risk & adversity but with knowledge these variables are lessened.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:04pm:

so when a future govt institutes mandatory prayer and bible study and claims there is no mandated opposition to it you will agree

The only way this will happen is with control of both houses which I have addressed.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:04pm:

AS a result there is no mandate for or against anything thus allowing govts to what they want, when they want with no reference to what people actually want.

LOL, what do you reckon happens now FFS

if voters were intelligent, engaged and with a sense of community and understanding of parliamentary democracy then you would have a very valid point. My argument is that the vast majority care not a jot for politics and the rest are not all that bright. Any definition of mandate has to be simple enough to be understandable.

its a bit like the buffoons on here who insist that once Abbotts policies are released that his polls will plunge. AS if people care about policies??? really???

Check out Longy's mind numbing hypocrisy on mandates here:

www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365047005/72#72

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

Getting back to the original topic, is there any explanation (other than blatant hypocrisy and mindless partisan cheer-leading) for your previous insistence that political parties should be granted a mandate to rule even if the majority of the voters oppose them, and for your insistence that political parties should impose unpopular changes on us against the will of the majority? This contrasts rather uncomfortably with your more recent harping on about clear and undeniable mandates and the will of the majority in the context of the carbon tax.

I am having trouble understanding how you can hold two diametrically opposed positions at the same time while insisting that yours is some kind of morally absolute position. I think you have managed to avoid addressing this issue once in this thread, which is peculiar to say the least. If it were me, I would be keen to explain myself, lest people assume that I backflip on my moral stances whenever it suits the latest Liberal party propaganda.

your problem is your inability to deal with a superior argument. IN essence you DONT believe in mandates bu not only that, you dont even believe in the rul of the majority but rather the special olympics form of government that gives medals to those that finish last - like the Greens.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51828
At my desk.

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #219 - Apr 7^th, 2013 at 8:23pm

In turns out that in 50 pages over a dozen threads where Longy was whining on about mandates, he forgot to mention that for the sake of convenience he had redefined majority to mean minority.

He appears to see no contradiction in claiming majority support and a clear and unambiguous mandate for a policy that the majority of voters oppose.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 60867
Here
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #220 - Apr 7^th, 2013 at 9:31pm

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 10:06pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 5:32pm:

he can brag all he likes but check out the top results for the final exams and I'll bet that for every private school on the list there will be 3 or 4 public school ... the last list i looked at was for the NSW HSC a couple of years ago, and I think 8 of the top 10 performing schools were public schools

I looked at the results of private schools and public schools. A higher number of private schools have a higher percentage of students achieving scores above 40 out of 50. That's not the point. The point is if a public school student can achieve the same academic performance for less money, that shows that people are wasting money in a private school education. It's the child, not the system that matters. Some people need a private education more than others for success. Kids with great potential don't need a private education.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:15pm:

nice rant but unfortunately not even close to true. the educational outcomes of private school students is significantly higher than public students and the same is true of life outcomes.

You obviously can't tell the difference between what I was talking about and how private schools perform statistically. No, you seriously don't know what you're talking about here. I never said anything about private and public school statistics in that post. What do you think you're reading? Where are your comprehension skills? Again, let me repeat: if a public school student can achieve the same academic performance for less money, that shows that some people are wasting money in a private school education.

Let me state this another way: if Andrei Hicks is really as intelligent as he says he is, he never needed a private education at all. This leads to my next conclusion: his parents wasted their money, and all his talk about how great he is because of a private education would actually be an embarrassment. Andrei Hicks would be "greater" if he didn't need a private education. A private education diminishes the greatness of Andrei Hicks.

[highlight]if a public school student can achieve the same academic performance for less money, that shows that some people are wasting money in a private school education.[/highlight]

Most of the benifit of a private education in a better school has nothing to do with education.

The difference is that maybe 30 of your mates will be CEO's executives and other wise very successfull in one case and in the other maybe a plumber, a roofer and a machanic.

the educational outcomes of private school students is significantly higher than public students and the same is true of life outcomes.

Neither fact of which is related to the quality of education

educational outcomes of private school students is significantly higher than public students

If you are talking about high school results you are wrong - the public schools results are mostly in front in terms of y12 results.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg Gold Member Offline WE ARE BORG Posts: 26576 Australia	Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax? Reply #221 - Apr 8^th, 2013 at 5:16am I think prolly the ppl that go to private school are more likely to be able to afford to go to university. SOB
Back to top	Whaaaaaah! I'm a Moron! - edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #222 - Apr 8^th, 2013 at 9:25am

skippy. wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 10:35am:

I can't be bothered reading the abuse and whine that comes out of longwhines keyboard, can someone just update me as to how he has explained away phony tony ignoring Rudds mandate while demanding Labor acknowledge a perceived phony tony mandate, please?

Abbott didnt get the opportunity to vote on anything, so you cant say one way or the other.

Who knows, Abbott might have changed his mind when it came to the crunch. Therefore you can only say one way or the other after a vote is counted.

No vote. No count. Labors failure.

Likewise it would be liberals failure if they dont put the carbon tax to a vote, even if they think others will not support it.

After the vote, we will see who goes against mandates, not before.

Back to top

IP Logged

skippy.

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20882
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #223 - Apr 8^th, 2013 at 9:44am

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 9:25am:

skippy. wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 10:35am:

I can't be bothered reading the abuse and whine that comes out of longwhines keyboard, can someone just update me as to how he has explained away phony tony ignoring Rudds mandate while demanding Labor acknowledge a perceived phony tony mandate, please?

Abbott didnt get the opportunity to vote on anything, so you cant say one way or the other.

Who knows, Abbott might have changed his mind when it came to the crunch. Therefore you can only say one way or the other after a vote is counted.

No vote. No count. Labors failure.

Likewise it would be liberals failure if they dont put the carbon tax to a vote, even if they think others will not support it.

After the vote, we will see who goes against mandates, not before.

Abbott ignored Rudds mandate by refusing to support it, why should Labor support phony tony?

Back to top

freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #224 - Apr 8^th, 2013 at 9:50am

skippy. wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 9:44am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 9:25am:

skippy. wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 10:35am:

I can't be bothered reading the abuse and whine that comes out of longwhines keyboard, can someone just update me as to how he has explained away phony tony ignoring Rudds mandate while demanding Labor acknowledge a perceived phony tony mandate, please?

Abbott didnt get the opportunity to vote on anything, so you cant say one way or the other.

Who knows, Abbott might have changed his mind when it came to the crunch. Therefore you can only say one way or the other after a vote is counted.

No vote. No count. Labors failure.

Likewise it would be liberals failure if they dont put the carbon tax to a vote, even if they think others will not support it.

After the vote, we will see who goes against mandates, not before.

Abbott ignored Rudds mandate by refusing to support it, why should Labor support phony tony?

They dont have to, but we will see who goes against mandates when it is voted on. Having the balls to put up for vote, a policy that not all support, will allow for a DD if wanted and will show the people that labor goes against mandates.

Anything other than a vote and not putting up the policy is just another failure of labor. No conviction.

Back to top

IP Logged