Dnarever wrote on Jul 13^th, 2026 at 9:58pm:



You are totally ignorant and proud of it.
Your belly full of peas, you make up silly duckwittery, add 'basically' and 'this means' randomly and idiotic things you make up, like 'market capitalist socialism', and then rejoice in your blinkered small-mindedness.

Eat mo' peas.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 13^th, 2026 at 9:58pm:


Meanings of the terms "socialist",  "revolutionary socialist" (Lenin), "democratic socialist" (Sanders)   do tend to become vague/ill-defined,  in this debate.

eg, Bernie - a self-proclaimed  "democratic socialist", supports "an economy which works for all" - which is not a requirement or characteristic of market economies.

Market economies are subject to market failure....eg, unaffordable housing, electricity etc.

Quote:


Addressed above: 'invisible hand' markets are obsolete in today's global supply chains, increasingly so as AI and robots increase production of goods and services.

"A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism." - (c) Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Dnarever wrote on Jul 14^th, 2026 at 11:41am:

If you didnt say so many stpid things they wouldnt be pointed out so nany times, duckwit.

At the recent women’s rights rallies in Melbourne and Brisbane, the message from trans activists was unmistakeable and menacing. While women gathered peacefully to defend sex-based rights and urge fixes to the Sex Discrimination Act, counter-protesters brought signs that crossed into explicit threats of violence.

These were not subtle expressions of disagreement. They were public, intimidating warnings aimed at women who dared to state that biological sex was real and that female-only spaces must stay that way.

Across the two cities, hundreds of trans activists carried large, handpainted placards such as one reading “TERFS GET THE WALL!” in bold red lettering – a direct euphemism for execution by firing squad – and another demanding that I be thrown into a men’s prison. Activists posted pictures and videos of themselves preparing these banners alongside trans flags to social media. Once in the public square, most of the activists wore masks.

Groups including the Trans Action Network, Queer Solidarity Magandjin and Socialist Alternative UQ organised and celebrated the counter-protests.

Far from spontaneous individual outrage, the co-ordinated presence, matching signage and targeted messaging revealed a deliberate campaign of intimidation. This level of organisation turns isolated anger into something far more systematic.

Anthony Albanese previously has framed the whole issue as a tiresome “culture war”. Yet when a rally sign explicitly threatens a woman for defending her rights, that is not cultural debate. It is incitement that demands serious attention. The Prime Minister’s characterisation airbrushes away the aggression that makes this debate so urgent.

As the woman named on one of those signs, I felt the fear first-hand. It is not abstract. It forces you to confront your own safety in a country where speaking biological truth can make you a target. The chilling effect is deliberate and it is being ignored by too many in positions of influence. This is the reality for growing numbers of Australian women who refuse to pretend away material facts.

Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody should be the first line of defence for women confronting such threats.

Her role exists to protect sex-based rights. Instead, she has prioritised gender ideology to the point of stretching pregnancy-related protections to cover biological males and treating sex as something negotiable rather than immutable.

For women facing real intimidation, her office is about as useful as the morning-after pill is to a man. When the institution charged with safeguarding women on the basis of sex subordinates that mandate to ideology, women are left isolated and unprotected. Vulnerable.

The rallies made the case more powerfully than any argument could. The aggression, entitlement and explicit threats on display are textbook male-pattern behaviour, the reason female-only spaces in prisons, shelters, sports and changing rooms were created.

David Swift
Declaring yourself a woman does not alter chromosomes, reproductive biology or well-documented patterns of violence. It merely insists that everyone else ignore those realities, usually at women’s expense.

Media hesitation, political re­framing and ideologically captured human rights bodies only worsen the problem. Many of these institutions now redefine “woman”, place self-ID above biological sex and treat the defence of single-sex spaces as the genuine offence. It is little wonder a direct threat on a public sign is ignored while the women targeted are cast as provocateurs.

The path forward is obvious. Governments and institutions must acknowledge biological reality and the reality of the situation. Men cannot become women and the explicit threats from trans activists prove exactly why female-only spaces are essential for safety, privacy and fairness. It is beyond time for the Albanese government and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to recognise that the women in this fight are right.

Reality cannot be shouted or legislated away. The threats make that clearer than ever.

Sall Grover is founder and chief executive of Giggle and an accidental women’s rights advocate.

Frank wrote on Jul 14^th, 2026 at 8:45pm:


You omitted the letter 's', changing the orignal meaning, namely, dem. soc. Sanders supports an economy which works for all.

Quote:


Correct: in a money economy, we all need money to survive.   

Quote:


1. Abos nail it on the head with their term indicating contempt for the dole:  "sit-down money"; most healthy  adults want to participate in the nation's economy, thereby supporting themselves. 

2.C-i governments can issue money out of thin air IF the resources required to house clothe and feed everyone (aka 'socialism') are available for purchase by the government (avoiding inflation).

But that requires people to work, to convert available resources into goods and services we all need.    So we need a public and private sector (the latter driven by self-interest) operating side by side.

Preferably with  everyone participating in the economy, no unemployment necessary (unless you are rich enough to support yourself.)

Quote:


Addressed above: the goods and services we all need still require most people to work; but note Musk's remark - looking forward - that "AI will make work optional and money irrelevant"...... 

Dnarever wrote on Jul 16^th, 2026 at 11:36pm:



Like the 'OIL families' in the Gulf, and the Iranian Mullahs,
on the other side of the gulf,
they keep it all too.

Its called a 'Lord and serf' system.


COMPARE;
What are the Gulf 'OIL families' and Iranian Mullahs doing with their wealth ?

And what is Elon Musk doing with his wealth ?

Dnarever wrote on Jul 16^th, 2026 at 11:36pm:


As a matter of fact: (google)

In 1930, economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that by the year 2030, technological advancements would increase productivity enough to reduce the standard working week to just 15 hours. He theorized that humanity’s basic material needs would be easily met, making work mostly optional and shifting the human struggle to filling newfound leisure time.

He was wrong.....but Musk's predictions may prove to be right.

As for Musk: it's not a matter of an individual  sharing his wealth with the community, it's
a matter of good government delivering the essentials for all.

And in the era of fiat currencies, we know the legal currency-issuer doesn't need taxpayer money to purchase the necessary resources (provided the resources exist).