Australian Politics Forum - Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78285
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #285 - Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:08pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:05pm:

Hardly.
But why make it personal John Boy?
There's no need at all. Your problem is your chip on your shoulder is about 10 miles wide.

Just make political views and comments.
Why make personally abusive comments? What's the point?

It's not personal. Everyone has different views mate.

I don't, you do ...... no matter what the thread topic is about you'll eventually bring it back to you....

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51806
At my desk.

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #286 - Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:16pm

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:06pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 5:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 2:10pm:

I do believe Howard had a mandate but I doubt the reasoning would resonate with you since you dont really believe in such things

Are you the one who thinks a mandate is simply doing what the majority of people want? If A majority of people (over 50%) voted against Howard how can you claim he had a mandate? Either it's majority rules, or the winning political party rules, you cannot have both. If you think the winning party rules then you would agree that Abbott had a mandate to support Gillard in introducing an ETS.

Longy likes to hold multiple contradictory positions on this. Here is an example, in response to my suggestion that legislation should require majority support:

Quote:

'popular' meaning voting in support of any idiotic plan that may be supported by the handful of idiots that drive the process.

And men of principle like Howard wouldnt last a moment. Can you imagine a GST passing in such a system?

I think Longies real position is that if the libs want to do something, they automatically have a mandate and if labor does, they don't.... I wish he would simply come out and say it rather than go on and on like he does ... is he ashamed of his opinion?

I don't think so. He backflips more often than Abbott then carries on acting like it never happened.

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 #287 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:31am

Quote:

You might not like giving control to parties with less than 50% support but it craps all over giving it so people with 10%.

nice contextual fail FD. even if you could understand the nature of the argument the above statement remains true. Given that arithmetic majorities of first preferences are nearaly impossible it is always better the choose the one with the most votes as opposed to your ide of givingminor parties withe minisicule votes power.

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 #288 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:57am

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:06pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 5:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 2:10pm:

I do believe Howard had a mandate but I doubt the reasoning would resonate with you since you dont really believe in such things

Are you the one who thinks a mandate is simply doing what the majority of people want? If A majority of people (over 50%) voted against Howard how can you claim he had a mandate? Either it's majority rules, or the winning political party rules, you cannot have both. If you think the winning party rules then you would agree that Abbott had a mandate to support Gillard in introducing an ETS.

Longy likes to hold multiple contradictory positions on this. Here is an example, in response to my suggestion that legislation should require majority support:

Quote:

'popular' meaning voting in support of any idiotic plan that may be supported by the handful of idiots that drive the process.

And men of principle like Howard wouldnt last a moment. Can you imagine a GST passing in such a system?

I think Longies real position is that if the libs want to do something, they automatically have a mandate and if labor does, they don't.... I wish he would simply come out and say it rather than go on and on like he does ... is he ashamed of his opinion?

hardly. in fact, quite the contrary. I have been trying without success to get a discussion on actual non-partisan principles of govenment including the concept of mandates. Ive already stated that despite my personal preferences, if I were a senator, I would support a gay marriage bill if it had been supported by a plebiscite of all voters. That would be honouring the concept of majority rule. And yet somehow, according to FD, such a position is in support of MINORITY rule once the question becomes a repeal of the carbon tax.

Ive stated it before and have no reason to change my position that there is virtually no one on here that either understand or is willing to articulate a principled position. everyone's position appears to be based on ideology and party affiliation.

When I asked the question on the plebiscite on repeal of the carbon tax and gay marriage, everyone went scurrying. it was an ingenious question because only those that support truly democratic principles above those of personal opinion and ideology could answer it. And unsurprisngly, no one answered it. Even FD who claims to have answered it, didnt.

so john, you are one that actually sort of answered it by stating that you dont care what he majority wants, only what you want. I gues that was honest, if not particularly impressive.

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 #289 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:05am

Dnarever wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 5:46pm:

Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?

It will be interesting to see what happens but I could not see Labor betraying those who vote for them in support of this issue.

would that position be identical to the way the Libs vote against labor legislation? Isnt that the exact same argument that you rail against on a regular basis/ GIven that teh carbon tax is hated by a notable majority of voters and that labor is likely to be hammered badly in the election doesnt that put some pressure on labor senators to actually adhere to overwhelming voter opinion?

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: 51806
At my desk.

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #290 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:31pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:31am:

Quote:

You might not like giving control to parties with less than 50% support but it craps all over giving it so people with 10%.

nice contextual fail FD. even if you could understand the nature of the argument the above statement remains true. Given that arithmetic majorities of first preferences are nearaly impossible it is always better the choose the one with the most votes as opposed to your ide of givingminor parties withe minisicule votes power.

English. Do you speak it? The correct term is plurality. Or if you are worried people might not understand that, minority.

I thought you said you supported preferential voting. Have you changed your mind?

Back to top

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

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78285
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #291 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:47pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:57am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:06pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 5:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 2:10pm:

I do believe Howard had a mandate but I doubt the reasoning would resonate with you since you dont really believe in such things

Are you the one who thinks a mandate is simply doing what the majority of people want? If A majority of people (over 50%) voted against Howard how can you claim he had a mandate? Either it's majority rules, or the winning political party rules, you cannot have both. If you think the winning party rules then you would agree that Abbott had a mandate to support Gillard in introducing an ETS.

Longy likes to hold multiple contradictory positions on this. Here is an example, in response to my suggestion that legislation should require majority support:

Quote:

'popular' meaning voting in support of any idiotic plan that may be supported by the handful of idiots that drive the process.

And men of principle like Howard wouldnt last a moment. Can you imagine a GST passing in such a system?

I think Longies real position is that if the libs want to do something, they automatically have a mandate and if labor does, they don't.... I wish he would simply come out and say it rather than go on and on like he does ... is he ashamed of his opinion?

hardly. in fact, quite the contrary. I have been trying without success to get a discussion on actual non-partisan principles of govenment including the concept of mandates. Ive already stated that despite my personal preferences, if I were a senator, I would support a gay marriage bill if it had been supported by a plebiscite of all voters. That would be honouring the concept of majority rule. And yet somehow, according to FD, such a position is in support of MINORITY rule once the question becomes a repeal of the carbon tax.

Ive stated it before and have no reason to change my position that there is virtually no one on here that either understand or is willing to articulate a principled position. everyone's position appears to be based on ideology and party affiliation.

When I asked the question on the plebiscite on repeal of the carbon tax and gay marriage, everyone went scurrying. it was an ingenious question because only those that support truly democratic principles above those of personal opinion and ideology could answer it. And unsurprisngly, no one answered it. Even FD who claims to have answered it, didnt.

so john, you are one that actually sort of answered it by stating that you dont care what he majority wants, only what you want. I gues that was honest, if not particularly impressive.

don't give me your condescending crap ... you are the one tossing and turning with every statement .. You claim Howard had a mandate for a GST even though over 50% of the people voted against it ... it is you that doesn't care what the majority wants

we are talking about mandates, and you are trying to muddy the water by pretending they are the same as a plebiscite ... they are not , stick to topic ... elections are won and lost on multiple issues and no one can ever claim a win was over one issue only ... a plebiscite is a very clear cut decision on one issue. Most people will tell you Howard lost the election because of work choices, I disagree, sure it was a issue but he lost it for a variety if reasons, of which work choices was just one .. trying to say it was about one issue is misleading, I know it didn't factor into my vote against him ... the same goes for mandates .. I said I don't believe labor should support a removal of the carbon tax because this is why I voted for them in the first place .. win or lose that is my decision. I spoke when I voted .. they have no right to change what I say just because the election didn't go their way. If the libs want to claim a mandate they need to ask a seperate question during the election ... if they give everyone a seperate sheet of paper that asks do we keep the carbon tax, and the majority votes no, I'll support that even though I don't agree with it ... but for you to try and claim every vote for a party during an election was for one issue, that is ridiculous and misleading.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51806 At my desk.	Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax? Reply #292 - Apr 13^th, 2013 at 9:14am Quote: if they give everyone a seperate sheet of paper that asks do we keep the carbon tax, and the majority votes no, I'll support that even though I don't agree with it You have to be careful using words like majority with Longy. He might think you mean 20%.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Mnemonic

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1530
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #293 - Apr 24^th, 2013 at 12:30am

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

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 7^th, 2013 at 6:01pm:

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.

I didn't actually say "no benefit." I said "insignificant." It's simple mathematics. If a person is already performing at 80% at a public school, the maximum improvement in performance when going to a private school is 20%. If their performance in a public school is 85%, the maximum possible improvement is 15%. If they perform at 90% in a public school, the maximum is 10%.

I could model this with a linear equation:

Let x = performance in public school (as percentage)
Let y = maximum possible improvement after going to private school (as percentage)
= maximum possible score (as percentage) - performance in public school (as percentage)
= 100 - x

As we go from considering worse performing students to better ones, the maximum possible improvement in going to a private school decreases at the same rate as indicated by the linear equation above (a gradient of -1). This is my "proof." There is no need for statistics and demographic data here because this is a simple mathematical relation.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #294 - Apr 24^th, 2013 at 5:22pm

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 24^th, 2013 at 12:30am:

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

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 7^th, 2013 at 6:01pm:

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.

I didn't actually say "no benefit." I said "insignificant." It's simple mathematics. If a person is already performing at 80% at a public school, the maximum improvement in performance when going to a private school is 20%. If their performance in a public school is 85%, the maximum possible improvement is 15%. If they perform at 90% in a public school, the maximum is 10%.

I could model this with a linear equation:

Let x = performance in public school (as percentage)
Let y = maximum possible improvement after going to private school (as percentage)
= maximum possible score (as percentage) - performance in public school (as percentage)
= 100 - x

As we go from considering worse performing students to better ones, the maximum possible improvement in going to a private school decreases at the same rate as indicated by the linear equation above (a gradient of -1). This is my "proof." There is no need for statistics and demographic data here because this is a simple mathematical relation.

its not mathematics at all. you clearly have close to zero idea about education and basic psychology. to try and reduce someones potential and performance to a single percentage pretty much demonstrates that you have no idea whatsoever about learning and education.

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