This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

2010 Federal Election

Who do you support?

  • Labor

    Votes: 27 12.0%

  • Liberal

    Votes: 133 59.1%

  • Neither

    Votes: 39 17.3%

  • Haven't decided yet

    Votes: 26 11.6%
  • Total voters
    225
Jump to new
Calliope said:
So-Smelly and So-Gullible have a lot in common, and it's certainly not objectivity or intelligence.
Click to expand...

Got anything else besides personal attacks?

This forum has been so much more enjoyable since i put noco on ignore last week..i have a feeling its going to be even more enjoyable with you on ignore, the Labor bashing threads that the gang of 4 find so interesting would certainly look strange with all of them on ignore.
 
Taken from the Greens website:

2: equity of access to the essentials of life and promoting equality are central goals for a civilised society. (read Communism)
I'd like to see what they consider as appropriate marginal rates for income tax. All they present is 50% for incomes over $1mil.

6: the fulfilment of human potential and the enrichment of lives is best achieved when people work together for common goals. : Hahahahahhaaa
A bit tree huggy that statement. What to they mean in terms of policy specifics ?

9: long term government borrowing is the preferred mechanism for funding long term infrastructure investments. More debt !
Do they understand the difference between debt as a slave and debt as master ?

13: progressive taxes such as income taxes are preferable to regressive forms of taxation such as the GST. HEY !! What happened to rule #2 where we are all equal? HUH ??
Progressive taxes such that everyone earns the same amount of income is a manifestation of true Communism.

29: return the company tax rate to 33% and broaden the company tax base by reducing tax concessions. Yeah right ..... they got my vote ! Pffffffttttttt
Add that to their 50% resources profit tax and the total take from resources profit would be 66.5%. Perhaps they just want it to stay in the ground regardless of the economic cost.
 
So_Cynical said:
Save your breath Smelly...apparently only right wing conservative capitalists have objectivity and the required intelligence to make good political decisions.
Click to expand...

And so you put your non-objectivity and miscomprehension on show.

I never said only right wing conservative capitalists have objectivity and the required intelligence to make good political decisions. I said that social democrats (AKA socialists) cannot be objective for the reasons I detailed at the time.

The leap from my statement to your sarcasm is a non sequitur and a tad disingenuous.

The ASF gang of 4 have said so...so it must be true.
Click to expand...

As my point above was referenced above, I can only conclude that I am a member of your "right wing, conservative gang of 4".

Excuse me, but I'd like to refuse membership of said gang. If you had been following along you would know that I am a classical liberal/libertarian, not a conservative. I was a member of the Lib Dems and was active within the "Orange" group (classical liberals) when I lived in the UK.

Although admittedly if presented with a binary choice between socialists and conservatives, I'll go with the conservatives every time.
 
So_Cynical said:
Got anything else besides personal attacks
Click to expand...

Have you?

This forum has been so much more enjoyable since i put noco on ignore last week..i have a feeling its going to be even more enjoyable with you on ignore
Click to expand...

Well thats a shame. If you keep this up you will have nobody to insult and abuse.

P.S. I know you will read this. If you think I am a right wing capitalist you must be a Marxist.
 
wayneL said:
Smelly,

The article purports that a socialist economy is no longer the goal. I don't believe that.

Do you honestly believe that with a free rein, that SDs wouldn't create a socialist economy poste haste?

Neither does Wikipedia apparently:
Click to expand...

1. YOU quoted from that source to support your argument. YOU DID.

Now you want to tell me it's a crap source?

2. You intentionally deleted the part of the quote that directly refuted what you were saying, and then used that quote and that source as an authority to back you up.

That is nothing more than lying. YOU ARE A LIAR. And unrepentant once caught. Nice.

I have explained how your view of social democracy is wrong. The only source YOU have also says you're wrong. So what on earth does it take to convince you that you're wrong about anything? Whatever vague opinion you have about a complex economic and political ideology must be right, and any evidence to the contrary is clearly flawed? When the actual definition of the thing you’re criticising refutes your criticism, you what? You just blindly assume that your own prejudice trumps political theory?

Arrogance? Or just ignorance?

Calliope said:
No, quite the reverse. It has been suggested to me that you are on substance abuse. Your posts seem to indicate that. And you do have long periods when you are out of this world.

Try and chill out.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that you've clearly made an **** of yourself? By failing to read what you were responding to, you have admitted to being an idiot. You still don't seem to understand that, even with me using small words.

You seem to have the ultimate defence: unassailable ignorance. Your only answer is a completely nonsensical and irrelevant post. You could copy-and-paste that same line and use it in every argument you ever get into with the same effect.

Me: I don’t think you’re an idiot.
You: Yes I am!
Me: Uh, you just said you’re an idiot.
You: No I didn’t. Quite the reverse. Also, you’re on drugs!

Read the words. Understand the words. Pretty sure it’s a forum rule.


So let's see. I've shown that Wayne has intentionally misquoted a source to prove himself right, when the source actually says he's wrong. Can you address this point? Does it matter to you? Am I wrong? Go read the quote. Go read what he said. How on earth am I insane for pointing out a clear and easily verifiable fact? How is it an amazing feat of insanity to be offended when someone clearly and blatantly lies? Is lying ok in your world?

I've clearly shown that Calliope doesn't actually read what he responds to, because in his own post he essentially admitted he was an idiot (because he skimmed the post just enough to see "you're proving me wrong" and decided I was talking about his awesome points of logic, not my own judgement that he wasn't an idiot). This is a simple matter of following the conversation. And even with it being explained in several different ways now, he doesn’t seem to understand.

...and your response is a completely irrelevant screed.

So pointing out when you guys are saying stupid **** is actually insane, is it? Maybe I should leave you to your circle-jerk. Or maybe you guys would be better to take all of this to PM or email, since you clearly can't handle anyone disagreeing with you.

HOW CAN YOU GUYS EVER BE SHOWN TO BE WRONG? When the facts are clearly against you, you just bluster, call names, and wave your hands in the air, all the time accusing others of being irrational.

People who disagree with you are not automatically frothing madmen. You are capable of being incorrect, right? – but how will you ever know if you don’t bother to address the points?

And to clear up some misperceptions:
1. My posts to now haven’t been angry – I’ve been using bold and caps to highlight parts so that the folk who so clearly have minimal attention spans will be able to see which bits are more important. Hell, I put in a comic. You think comics are signs of rage?
2. …but this post was a bit angry, in a rolled-eyes, frowny sort of way.
3. I type fast, but not hard.
4. I’m voting Liberal this year (since the net filter is now the only point of significant difference) – though my primary / preferences will go to a good half of the minors first, because the majors **** me.
 
Mein Gott Smelly Terror you do bait up easily don't you? If your sublime intellect slowed down to grasp the inferences of my post you would comprehend the point I was making is that you are IN THE ASYLUM ! It does not matter whether you are wrong or right, who is a liar and who is Godlike in their approach. YOU have chosen to enter through the front doors of this mad house willingly, now YOU are the one postulating like a prima donna on steroids complaining you don't like the conversation and the Kool Aid tastes off !! Pfffffffffftttttttt irrelevant screed indeed.

HENCE my reference to the classic movie "One flew over the cuckoo's nest". It must be tough being the only sane person when the lunatics are on the grass.

Now for the other part of your derogatory post to the members of ASF that you feel that it is necessary to sharpen your tongue on. Perhaps if you showed a MODICUM of tolerance and stopped treating people like IDIOTS then you might have half a chance of engaging someone in a conversation where you get to shine and you can show everyone how clever you are with your razor quips and scintillating dialogue.

I bet you are a real JOY in the outside world where people are to be stepped on and abused the moment they cannot keep up with your sagacity. Waaaaaaahhhh !
 
SmellyTerror said:
Do you understand that you've clearly made an **** of yourself? By failing to read what you were responding to, you have admitted to being an idiot. You still don't seem to understand that, even with me using small words.
Click to expand...

Never mind Smelly I find your nasty posts good comedy, and unlike So_Gullible you do not put me on "ignore.".

You seem to have the ultimate defence: unassailable ignorance. Your only answer is a completely nonsensical and irrelevant post. You could copy-and-paste that same line and use it in every argument you ever get into with the same effect.
Click to expand...

I don't get into arguments. I just try to point out to you and the rest of the small gang of leftiies the stupidities of your contributions to this thread. I try to do this without the use of abuse, insults or gutter language. No doubt it upsets you that I won't join you in the gutter.
 

ROTFLMAO

Dude! This is politics. Such is the nature of politics, but I'm not a liar any more than you or the Fabian Socialist riff raff you have become seduced by.

That you actually believe the SD's "for public consumption" rhetoric shows a quaint and endearing naivete on your part... and a typical lack of objectivity.

There are several layers to political parties and none more so than those of the left. Start peeling that onion and you eventually come to the putrid core of socialist ideology.
 
drsmith said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/photos/2010/08/07/2976441.htm

The happy couple.
Click to expand...

Are we witnessing a 'PUNCH AND JUDY SHOW' or some sort of 'SOAP OPERA' with the Labor Party.

The ginger pussy cat (Julia) scratches the eyes out of the little jack russell (Kevin 07). Now Kevvie when you you can see again I want you to help me because I'm in a bit of trouble. I've mad a bit of a mess of things over the past month and everyone is laughing at me. Kevvie will you please help me, stand by me and be my body guard?

I'm also a bit shaken by that bull terrior (Mark Latham) down the road. I think he is about to pick a fight with me and I need you Kevvie to prorect me.

I also know Mr Rabbit (aka Tony) is sitting up on the hill looking down on all that's happening to us and laughing his head off.

Now Kevvie I want you to find Mr. Magoo ( Bill Shorten). Tell him to get his shot gun out and shoot that bull terrior and that wabbit before the election. If you don't do as I say we'll all be in the poo on the 22 August. So Kevvie get movin forward for Christ sake.
 
Now Latham is in the mix
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillard-attacks-mark-latham-over-inappropriate-ambush/story-fn59niix-1225902607150

JULIA Gillard has attacked Mark Latham over his ambush in Brisbane yesterday, accusing him of "inappropriate" treatment of a prime minister.
Click to expand...

Old Abbott must be thanking his lucky stars that he has to do bugger all. Rudd, Gillard and Latham are currently like the three stooges. Then there is the call of one of the union members to get their $500k back
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/union-boss-wants-500k-alp-donation-back/story-fn59niix-1225902317727


Seems the factions are turning on one another in an ugly fashion
 
The Australian Greens ....... Ya gotta love 'em ! http://greens.org.au

3.people have the right to assume their self-identified sex. I am a Klingon ... does this count?

38.oppose the establishment of new coal-fired power stations, new coal mines and the expansion of existing mines, as the technology to capture and store greenhouse gas emissions remains unproven. Last time I looked Australia is one great big mine. We are not a manufacturing nation. We are a primary producer.

46.amend the Fringe Benefits Tax to remove the incentive to increase vehicle use. HUH ?? The more you use the vehicle under FBT the less tax incentives there are?? HUH?

I have scanned their website and there is not much substance in the way of well thought out policy. Mainly feel good rhetoric which is not commecially viable in the real world.
 
The meeting of two Labor deadbeats. I love it.
 

Attachments

  • 463648-latham-gillard.jpg
    32.7 KB · Views: 67

So your response is basically "I know we're wrong, but nyah nyah nyah nyah nyaaaah". Hell, you're reduced to criticising me for being grammatical. Have I criticised anyone's grammar, or spelling, or ideology? No. I have stuck completely to the arguments (or lack of them) presented here on this forum.

And that's a lot more than I can say for you guys.

And re: tolerance: My first post to Wayne (you read it, right?) started with: "With all due respect (which is a lot)..." etc. and was perfectly polite. There were no "quips". It was a fairly dry and factual description of a political ideology. He responded by lying, and others backed him up with, as you describe it, "baiting".

Yeah, you guys are real noble.

The whole Calliope thing was from me saying he WASN'T an idiot, and he completely failed to grasp what I'd said, and disagreed with me. How is it intolerance to say someone is NOT an idiot? How is it treating someone like an idiot to say someone is not an idiot? And hell, if I did call him an idiot now (and I HAVEN'T) I'd actually be agreeing with him. Every time I try to make him understand this, he throws back a nonsensical insult.

You guys have done nothing but try to insult me. You've made no points - by your own admission, you're just baiting me. So, what now? You want me to be more civil? Is that the response you usually expect from someone you're baiting?

WTF?

You seem to read disagreement, and automatically assume it's an insult. Again, if you can't handle disagreement, why are you on a public forum?

I am addressing the points (or lack of them) from three people. You are "baiting" one with no attempt to explain your position. No crap my posts are longer.

Calliope said:
Never mind Smelly I find your nasty posts good comedy, and unlike So_Gullible you do not put me on "ignore.".
Click to expand...

I said you were NOT an idiot, and you (rudely) disagreed with me!!!

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Why is this hard for you to understand? How is that me being nasty? WTF is wrong with you???

Who am I insulting? I called Wayne a liar only after I showed without any ambiguity that he lied. It's a statement of fact. I've pointed out over and over that you don't read what you're responding to, and this is also a statement of fact.

Case in point:

...you and the rest of the small gang of leftiies the stupidities of your contributions to this thread.
Click to expand...

From the very post you are responding to:


So how the HELL does voting Liberal make me a lefty?

READ THE POSTS YOU ANSWER. It's common courtesy, and there's no way you can possibly have a sensible discussion without doing that.


---
So you guys enjoy baiting? Sweet. Because I enjoy butchering people's flawed arguments. As I have yours. Hell, you're not even bothering to defend yourselves anymore.

You guys are like the black knight. Your limbs are all over the floor, and you're just plowing on like nothing's happened. "Only a scratch"!


It's a political ideology. It has a definition. You don't get to come along and say, "pfff, that's not what it means". That IS what it means. Look it up!

Great, they might well have cunning plans to take over the world in a communist revolution. The Libs might have plans to eat babies. But someone who says "I'm a social democrat" is saying they subscribe to the actual official meaning of the phrase, not whatever it is a dude on the forums thinks it means. In fact, the modern term is used to specifically *distance* themselves from other forms of socialism. They are NOT saying that they're commies. If you want to chose to believe that's what they're saying, great, but you can hardly criticise people for following a irrational ideology that they do not actually purport to follow.

I can't say "Liberals are crazy, because they want to eat babies!" But, they don't want to eat babies! "Oh sure, they say that, but they really DO want to, so anyone who votes Liberal is a baby-eating bastard!"

I think it's true, therefore it's true. That doesn't work.

And yes, you deliberately took out part of the quote that contradicted you. You made the quote say the opposite of what it actually said (ie that it was about the present form of the ideology, and not the past form). If someone says "I am not a murderer" and I quote them as saying "I am a murderer", that's a lie.
 
RE: The Trade Unionist wanting the 500,000 dollars donation back.

After reading the article I am perplexed that 500k can be EFT by a Union to the Labor party to assist a TV campaign in NSW and QLD ? I understand that both are intertwined but surely they would have sorted out the budget for their advertising campaigns long before this?
 
So your response is basically "I know we're wrong, but nyah nyah nyah nyah nyaaaah". Hell, you're reduced to criticising me for being grammatical. Have I criticised anyone's grammar, or spelling, or ideology? No. I have stuck completely to the arguments (or lack of them) presented here on this forum. Smelly Terror wrote.

Nope ........ it's more like "ner ner ner ner Nerrrrrrrrrr" ! Why do you bother to respond? To prove how great a wordsmith you are? Once again you have misinterpreted my post about using bait. I never said that we were baiting you ! I said that YOU bait up easily. Now who is not reading the posts correctly ?

Now leave me alone as Nurse Ratched has my medication for me.
 
(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?
 
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.
 
Smelly, I offered you the easy way out by suggesting that your nonsense posts could be blamed on "medication".

How else can you explain this nonsense Smellyism?;

Me: I don’t think you’re an idiot.
You: Yes I am!
Me: Uh, you just said you’re an idiot.
You: No I didn’t. Quite the reverse. Also, you’re on drugs!
Click to expand...
 
Arguing on the internet

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.

Evolution of competing philosophies by natural selection can only happen if I cram different ones into the same head and see which eats the other.

Think about all those dudes who were certain the world was flat, or that draining your patient's blood was really good for them, or that eplipetics were possessed by demons. Or the people who think communism is flawless, or that nuclear power is an unalloyed evil.

Think of all those things that are clearly wrong on a blazing, fundamental level, while the people who believe(d) them somehow walk(ed) around without noticing.

Now think about all the things you believe. What are the chances that you have managed to be perfectly right about all of them? That you have not one belief that future generations will scoff at? That you don't hold on to something as obviously wrong as (pick anything you think is obviously wrong)? All of those other people, convinced of something that is critically, laugably wrong - what are the chances that you don't suffer from the same disease? What are the chances that you are the one, perfect human?

The chances are pretty much nothing.

SOMETHING YOU BELIEVE IS UTTERLY, FUNDAMENTALLY, WRONG.

...probably lots of things. Maybe most things.

That's why I like to read and discuss stuff on this forum - a lot of smart people believe things that are frequently contrary to what I believe. I want them to convince me, or at least for my own belief system to have had a good test. I don't want to find a group of people who agree with me and engage in a textual circle-jerk. What's the point?

And that's why I get frustrated when people don't want to address the points, and just want to throw insults or one-liners. How the hell am I going to see if you actually have a firmer grip on reality than I do, if you won't actually explain yourself? If I point out what I think is a flaw in your reasoning, this is as much an opportunity for you to show me why it's not a flaw, as it is an opportunity for you to reconsider your own opinion.

It is NOT an insult.

I am guilty of sloppy reasoning, and unsupportable positions. Everyone is. It is not an insult to point that out to me. You are doing me a FAVOUR.

I mean, why else are people here? Are some people really just trying to show other people how smart they are, or looking for their beliefs to be vindicated by faceless strangers? Are people just looking for an echo-chamber?

What's the point?
 
Calliope said:
Smelly, I offered you the easy way out by suggesting that your nonsense posts could be blamed on "medication".

How else can you explain this nonsense Smellyism?;
Click to expand...

Ugh.

Dude. FFS. Just... just read the bloody posts. Look, here are direct quotes, in chronological order.

you:
I didn't read the rest of your long winded diatribe. The above was enough to see where you are coming from.
Click to expand...

me:
I could have read your first line and assumed you’re an idiot, but I’ll give the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Click to expand...

you:
Trainspotter, according to Smelly I am an idiot...
Click to expand...

me:
Actually, I explicitly refrained from calling you an idiot. See? It's right there in the bit of my post that included the word "idiot".

You seem to be having a good go at proving me wrong, though.
Click to expand...

you:
You make it easy, when your political views are based on hate.
Click to expand...

Do you see? Does it make sense now? I pointed out that reading one line of a post, out of context, is silly. If I'd read just the first line of your post, I could have concluded you were an idiot. But I won't conclude that, and will give you the benefit of the doubt.

You decide I actually called you an idiot. I pointed out that I'd actually avoided saying it, and I was assuming you were not an idiot, but that you were apparently trying to prove me wrong. You answered that I was making it easy (to prove me wrong). Ie. that I was wrong about you not being an idiot. Ie. that you are an idiot.

Do you get it now? I honestly can't see any more ways I can explain this. Every time I try to point this out, you just throw brief insults and nonsensical non-arguments, like a chimp flinging pooh.

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

W
T
F
?

(PS: the chimp thing might be considered an insult, but 1. I hope it's clear I'm describing your actions, not you; and 2. apparently the people want "quips", and I thought it was a funny image. Hope there's no offense).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Election 2025 + Preferential Voting
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
JohnDe
2026 Victorian Election
Replies
2
Views
833
sptrawler
Special Envoy to Combat anti-Australianism. Mr.G.Gumnut
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
farmerge
Official Trump Crypto $Trump
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
6K
Dona Ferentes
US Election 2024 : Stock and Economic Comment
7 8 9
Replies
171
Views
10K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...