2010 Federal Election

[SmellyTerror]

Smelly,

So what you are saying is:

1/ The socialists have realized their ideology is a failure.

2/ Recognized that free enterprise is the only viable way to have a successful economy.

3/ Decided to leech from the producers to create a welfare dependent client constituency, AKA welfare state.

Yes?

It's still socialism, abeit a pragmatic version that recognizes and farms the power of the profit motive.

Pretty much, yeah (though I'd object to the subjective language ).

But the quote from you I was responding to was this:

...has never worked successfully as a system, ever, without the the influence of the capitalistic spirit to prop it up.

Point being that it's not supposed to.

Your error (still making it? "The socialists have realised...") was lumping all socialists together. Like I said in the first post. There are plenty of socialists who believe in a command economy, and there are plenty who disagree with that and believe in moderated capitalism. These groups have different names.

Social democrats do NOT want communism. That's why they're called social democrats, and why they're very VERY different (to the point of spitting hate) from democratic socialists. As I said: very "Peope's Front of Judea".

Plenty of hard-core socialists haven't recognised the failure of their ideology. That's why the dudes that have discovered that socialism can only work in small doses and only inside a democratic and largely capitalist framework need a name to differentiate themsevles from the nuts. And if it's a crap and misleading name, well blame the politics professors that decide to go on using it... /shrug

My point was to correct what you appeared to believe: that is, that social democrats reject capitalism. They don't. The world is not black-and-white, all-or-nothing.

Re: point 3, again, I'd use universal health care as an example of a successful "socialist" policy. It's not all bad. It's a philosophy that - we agree - needs to be scrutinised carefully to prevent ridiculous excess, and will always carry a element of inefficiency and corruption, but it also gives us some pretty decent net-outcomes. Just like a lot of philosophies.

So it's unfair to dismiss anyone who identifies as an SD as lacking objectivity.

The "welfare state" can be an unmitigated disater if it goes too far. But with no welfare at all, you've got something just as bad, IMO.

Or do you oppose universal health care?

 

[basilio]

Well this debate is becoming heated. Why doesn't that surprise me?

On the actual issue of the thread , 2010 Election, I feel pretty disappointed with both Labour and Liberal approaches. I feel as if all we see are either mindless, nasty negativity or juicy little bribes scattered around localities and interest groups.

I've yet to see a coherent policy position put forward explaining what should be done in a particular area, why we should do it and how it's going to be achieved. And this is supposed to be about how we run the country.

The only party that actually puts up some clear policies along the above lines is The Greens (Boo, hiss, Bxxxxx communist/fascist ratbags... Let's get the abuse over with quickly shall we.. )

_____________________________________________

Once upon a time I actually tried to engage other members in discussions that could explore big picture issues. But then I discovered that there was a large lack of respect for evidence, little respect for another point of view and a reflex determination from some participants to mindlessly abuse other members. Just not much fun is it ? And a lot like being One flew over the Cuckoos Nest. And maybe one of the reasons for a slowing down in participation on this site.

Cheers.

 

[SmellyTerror]

I think I need to use more smilies.

Problem with the Greens is uncosted half-policy. Even for people who agree with the general thrust, there's nothing to go on. You want to do a million amazing things? Cool! How? Oh, you have no idea? Just trust you? Uh...

There is genuinely nothing worth voting for this year, IMO.

The only tidbit I've got, the only difference in the major parties, is the recent Libs announcement that they'll ditch the net filter. That's it. I otherwise disagree with / have contempt for as much in Lab and Lib policies, and that's a LOT of disagreement and contempt, but since my electorate will come down to one or the other, it looks like the Libs win my bit of paper.

Democracy reduced to choosing between dumb and dumber. To think people died for this...

 

[basilio]

( Totally) Out of left field - but maybe has something to say.

This fragile Filament

This little string we have – this little line between you and me – it’s fragile.

The internet is an amazing thing: for all the data available, and the fun and the wealth of knowledge that even ten years ago was out of most people’s reach. But for me, the most valuable thing about the internet is the very deep friendships I have made here. I have relationships that stretch back for years. People who I may never meet, but I love nonetheless.

It sounds nuts, and there is a huge sociological and psychological debate about how bonded or real these sorts of relationships can be. I don’t want to argue this. Honestly, I won’t entertain having the legitimacy of my feelings diminished.

However, we live in a world where it is in the financial interest of corporations and integral to certain schools of economic thought to convince us that everything is disposable, has a shelf-life, streams, can be bought, sold, turned on and off. If something breaks you can buy a new one. Bored of the colour, the taste the sound? Throw it away, get another, get a newer one. Don’t like your t1ts, your ass, your face? Buy another. The pressure on us to be consumers is immense.

It becomes easy, especially in the absence of a warm hand, or a break in someone’s voice, or the scent of someone’s skin, to begin to feel the same way about the humans we meet on the internet and the relationships we make here. It’s so easy to misread a sentence, to infer a slight, to misinterpret a motive. And it seems that, when that happens, we often resort to consumerist behaviour. It becomes very easy to treat people like the toy you don’t want anymore, or the song that has begun to bore you, or the pair of jeans that don’t fit.

That person, at the other end of this fragile filament, is a person. Not a CD or a laptop or a piece of clothing, or a package of crisps. It’s not okay to consume them like you consume the things you buy and blow them off like a used up tube of toothpaste. It is so fxxxxxx easy to act this way. But if we allow ourselves to do it, we make this place meaningless, and we impoverish ourselves. We hurt people, but worse than that, we damage our own souls.

It’s not that people don’t mistreat each other in the real world. Of course, they do. But it’s just so much easier to treat someone as disposable when you don’t have to look them in the eye as you throw them away. You can do it just by logging off. Blocking someone. Unfriending them on chat. Not answering an email. Like a switch you just turn off and it will be as if that person never existed. With one little click of your mouse, you have erased them.

So, here is my plea to you. Don’t do it. Don’t ever close down that fragile line. It is all we have that joins us. We can get angry, and be pissed off, and feel offended. Relationships evolve and change over time, naturally. People disagree, and misunderstand each other, but if you keep on communicating, then you keep on acknowledging your humanity and theirs. The minute you cut that thread is the moment you shut down any possibility of retrieval. It’s the flush of the toilet. The turning out of the light.

And, if we all keep doing it, one day we might wake to find out that we are all each in our own private darkness. And the people who always envisioned the internet as nothing more than one huge shopping mall will have won.

http://remittancegirl.com/discussions/this-fragile-filament/#comments

 

[SmellyTerror]

New discussion, worth a thread? I'll go make one...

...even though I'm not going to have time to post in it for at good week...

 

[Calliope]

You think I insulted you. When I try to point out that I didn't, your only answer is to keep insulting me.

Never mind, you will get over it in time. You worry too much about whether I am a liar and why I won't play along with you on such trivia. It may be OCD.

 

[Julia]

Well this debate is becoming heated. Why doesn't that surprise me?

On the actual issue of the thread , 2010 Election, I feel pretty disappointed with both Labour and Liberal approaches. I feel as if all we see are either mindless, nasty negativity or juicy little bribes scattered around localities and interest groups.

I've yet to see a coherent policy position put forward explaining what should be done in a particular area, why we should do it and how it's going to be achieved. And this is supposed to be about how we run the country.

The only party that actually puts up some clear policies along the above lines is The Greens (Boo, hiss, Bxxxxx communist/fascist ratbags... Let's get the abuse over with quickly shall we.. )

_____________________________________________

Once upon a time I actually tried to engage other members in discussions that could explore big picture issues. But then I discovered that there was a large lack of respect for evidence, little respect for another point of view and a reflex determination from some participants to mindlessly abuse other members. Just not much fun is it ? And a lot like being One flew over the Cuckoos Nest. And maybe one of the reasons for a slowing down in participation on this site.

Cheers.

( Totally) Out of left field - but maybe has something to say.

This fragile Filament


http://remittancegirl.com/discussions/this-fragile-filament/#comments

Completely agree with both your above posts, Basilio (with the minor exception that I cannot share your enthusiasm for The Greens).
The quoted passage "This Fragile Filament" is great. Thank you.

 

[drsmith]

The meeting of two Labor deadbeats. I love it.

Julia handled the encounter with Mark Latham well, but it is another stark reminder of how much the furniture has been trashed in the house of Labor.

 

[Calliope]

This useless clown is my local member.

FEDERAL Sunshine Coast MP Peter Slipper clocked up almost $30,000 in taxi fares over 14 months, among a raft of claims that made him the state's most expensive politician after former prime minister Kevin Rudd.

New figures reveal that Mr Slipper's expenses bill for the six months to the end of 2009 was $640,562 – above Treasurer Wayne Swan's $491,236 and second only to Mr Rudd's $1.18 million.

The LNP's Member for Fisher – who was photographed while apparently asleep in Parliament earlier this year – racked up $16,038 in taxi fares from July to December of 2009 (the latest figures available for parliamentarians' expenses). His taxi bill came on top of $3000 for chauffeured cars and $10,000 for government cars, with his vehicle expenses totalling $41,483.

Mr Slipper also left taxpayers to pick up a $1764 tab for reading materials – revealing an eclectic range of interests with magazines including Australian Aquarium Keeper, Men's Fitness, Sportdiving, Vogue, Wealth Creator, Nature and Health, Gourmet Traveller, Organic Gardener, Harper's Bazaar and Australian Traveller.

Taxpayers also paid $15,800 for a 27-day overseas study tour to Argentina and Chile.

The Member for Fisher had one of the largest bills to keep his electorate office running, $525,740 for the six months.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...0-in-mp-expenses/story-e6freoof-1225902504533

I hope this bloke does his dough;

Centrebet spokesman Neil Evans said they had received a $250,000 bet at 9.08pm yesterday on Mr Slipper to win Fisher at $1.08 - potentially giving the regular Brisbane client a profit of $20,000.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...l-seat-of-fisher/story-e6freon6-1225902598275

 

[IFocus]

Well this debate is becoming heated. Why doesn't that surprise me?

On the actual issue of the thread , 2010 Election, I feel pretty disappointed with both Labour and Liberal approaches. I feel as if all we see are either mindless, nasty negativity or juicy little bribes scattered around localities and interest groups.

I've yet to see a coherent policy position put forward explaining what should be done in a particular area, why we should do it and how it's going to be achieved. And this is supposed to be about how we run the country.

The only party that actually puts up some clear policies along the above lines is The Greens (Boo, hiss, Bxxxxx communist/fascist ratbags... Let's get the abuse over with quickly shall we.. )

_____________________________________________

Once upon a time I actually tried to engage other members in discussions that could explore big picture issues. But then I discovered that there was a large lack of respect for evidence, little respect for another point of view and a reflex determination from some participants to mindlessly abuse other members. Just not much fun is it ? And a lot like being One flew over the Cuckoos Nest. And maybe one of the reasons for a slowing down in participation on this site.

Cheers.

Nice post Basilio one of the better efforts on the thread thanks for putting it up.

 

[IFocus]

( Totally) Out of left field - but maybe has something to say.

This fragile Filament


http://remittancegirl.com/discussions/this-fragile-filament/#comments

The bating going on in this thread is quite horrible thanks again.

 

[IFocus]

The bating going on in this thread is quite horrible thanks again.

The Baiting is also horrible

 

[IFocus]

"Coalition cracks show as populism reigns"

Tony Abbott has a very strong chance of becoming prime minister, having run the most invisible campaign in living memory. Abbott is not even really playing small-target politics at the moment. He's playing no-target politics. It's not "me too". The government isn't popular enough for that. It's just "look at them".

http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/coalition-cracks-show-as-populism-reigns-20100807-11pib.html

 

[wayneL]

Re: point 3, again, I'd use universal health care as an example of a successful "socialist" policy. It's not all bad. It's a philosophy that - we agree - needs to be scrutinised carefully to prevent ridiculous excess, and will always carry a element of inefficiency and corruption, but it also gives us some pretty decent net-outcomes. Just like a lot of philosophies.

So it's unfair to dismiss anyone who identifies as an SD as lacking objectivity.

The "welfare state" can be an unmitigated disater if it goes too far. But with no welfare at all, you've got something just as bad, IMO.

Or do you oppose universal health care?

Do I sense some objectivity creeping in?

Hence you cannot be a Social Democrat. Indeed I suspect that you are actually a Social Liberal... folk who retain a vestige of objectivity while possessing a so called "social conscience"

Regarding UHC, I must admit to a cognitive dissonance. The compassionate me insists that in a civilized society, no person should go without at least some sort of state safety net with regards to health care. The objective me observes how badly the state can f~~~ up UHC, making it substandard and expensive to run. But the issue runs much deeper as far as I'm concerned.

I think health care should be universally attainable, but with as little government involvement as possible. How this could be achieved is beyond me, but IIRC Oz had a pretty workable system along these lines before the Great Socialist Balls Up of the early 70's.

 

[trainspotter]

(my added bold)



Uh.....uh.

Saying "ner ner ner ner Nerrrrrr" is baiting.

...but.... but let me see if I understand you: you're not baiting. And I bait up easily, but that doesn't mean anyone is baiting. Because "bait up" means.... um, something different. Obviously. There's certainly no bait, in any case.

And you're not trying to make any point, and completely nonsensical posts are fine, because it's an asylum. And that means, what? That no-one can be wrong? That saying people are wrong is... failing to show decorum? If someone says something dopey, or actually lies, we should pretend they didn't? That saying someone is NOT an idiot is, in fact, saying that they ARE an idiot, because, again, this is an asylum?

And we're really just here to show off our wit, not to actually have any meaningful discussion. Oh, and we should use small words because long words might mean you're saying you're smart, and smart people totally ruin the mood.

Is that it?

Anyone else care to translate for me?

"Yes, I do think there's a point. I do think people can change their minds.

I change my mind.

I argue hard because I want to LOSE. I can test my beliefs and my thinking against people who think otherwise, and I can hope to be convinced by them and switch sides, because then my outlook has been improved. "

I was going to write some massive missive to this response ....... but I gave up. You go and LOSE it Tiger !

If you want to test your beliefs and ideals please PM me and I wll be only be too happy to discourse your diatribe.

I look forward to hearing from you and wil be only too happy to offer you a one way ticket to "Carnivale"

 

[Julia]

Back on the election, television shots this evening of Kevin Rudd campaigning in Queensland show a pale, somehow diminished figure. I found it hard not to feel sorry for him. Even if he has negotiated some sort of deal to be Foreign Minister or whatever, he has still been publicly humiliated in the most dramatic way.

 

[trainspotter]

"Once upon a time I actually tried to engage other members in discussions that could explore big picture issues. But then I discovered that there was a large lack of respect for evidence, little respect for another point of view and a reflex determination from some participants to mindlessly abuse other members. Just not much fun is it ? And a lot like being One flew over the Cuckoos Nest. And maybe one of the reasons for' .....

more than happy to discourse a meaningful topic once you lose all respect for the other participants ...... What you need to keep in mind is YOUR perspective and what YOU hope to get out of the conversation, just becuae you did not receive the responses YOU wanted does not mean it was a waste of time? Please try again ......... as useless as it sounds ....

 

[drsmith]

Back on the election, television shots this evening of Kevin Rudd campaigning in Queensland show a pale, somehow diminished figure. I found it hard not to feel sorry for him. Even if he has negotiated some sort of deal to be Foreign Minister or whatever, he has still been publicly humiliated in the most dramatic way.

According to Ol Kev, the Coalition will be ripping up broadband from the ground (complete with hand gesture).

 

[trainspotter]

I completely enjoyed Laurie Oakes this Morning:

Laurie " So six weeks ago you could not wait to get rid of Kevin Rudd as he was seen as a liabilty to the Labor Party?"

Patsy " Yes that is rigHt Laurie"

Laurie "So what has changed that you now need him back to bolster your campaign to be re-elected?"

Patsy : DEAFENING SILENCE !

 

[basilio]

more than happy to discourse a meaningful topic once you lose all respect for the other participants ...???... What you need to keep in mind is YOUR perspective and what YOU hope to get out of the conversation, just becuae you did not receive the responses YOU wanted does not mean it was a waste of time? Please try again ......... as useless as it sounds ....

Not quite sure what you are saying trainspotter. Would you like to recheck your comment and perhaps clarify ?