IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,651
- Reactions
- 4,727
Talking of objectivity where is your criticism of Liberal supporters of the same ilk or is that a hidden bias?
It's the lack of any objectivity amongst a very few devotees in the Labor camp which reduces their credibility.
Why do you say this? e.g. I'm probably slightly to the right of centre in a material and personal responsibility sense, but am pro abortion and pro euthanasia.The Right are those beliefs consistent with humans increasing their position. That is to say, 'pro-life' in the basic biological sense.
Why not start a separate thread for this debate which would be interesting?The Left are those beliefs consistent with humans decreasing their position. That is to say, 'pro-death' in the basic sense.
If you'd like me to detail why this is, I can, but the post will be long and non-NBN related.
Exactly so, as I've pointed out above.The issue is that you are trying to define a group of beliefs according to 'left and right' - whereas this is impossible.
I wouldn't say this is clearly Left at all.An isolated belief can be characterized, for example 'offensive speech should be banned' is clearly Left,
Yep, no argument there but someone else may have a different view.'all property should be private' is clearly Right.
Probably disagree here.However if a (confused) person holds both of these beliefs, he can only be graded on the spectrum.
Libertarians, for instance (which I believe is more or less the same as a classical liberal), hold beliefs on both sides (although mostly on the right). Regarding them being 'social left', not necessarily. Typically on immigration, left.
This should go to the mostly Right convention of personal choice, personal responsibility, but I acknowledge the pro abortion lobby is more often considered Right.On abortion, divided. On race/class/gender, right (no affirmative action, no quotas, no disparity targeting privileges)
Far be it from me to defend the ultra Left but I think to attribute to them that all the above practices are 'fine' is a step too far.. On social conventions, to be logically consistent with 'liberty' they are mostly left (gay marriage fine, incest fine, polygamy fine, public nudity fine etc). On freedom of speech and action, right (full free speech, all non-rights-violating actions fine).
In fairness Julia, that sums up about 90% of ASF; SC merely stands out because he is one of the few lefties posting on a right-wing website.
Eh?
ASF is not a right wing website, it's a stock investing forum.
SC stands out not because he is a lefty, but because when it comes to politics he is a troll.
SC
I think your being a bit precious about entirely justified criticisms of the government and the current batch of characters purporting to run the country. ASF is hardly a Liberal party love fest either with the previous mob copping it long and hard too. I would say they "government bashing" threads rather than Labor bashing"
Political threads are longer than specific stock threads because:
Politics is intertwined with economics and the investing environment so it is natural that there is some political discussion.
- There are over 3000 stocks, there is only on gu'mint.
- Politics is far more subjective than stock investing. In fact as proven in my 2010 thesis on the subject and elsewhere, socialists/social democrats are absolutely incapable of objective thought. It's genetic.
: - Tolerance of trollish posts which provoke multiple replies.
- Government policy does affect stock value/price.
As far as being a troll: If I wanted to waste the time, I could collate an extensive list of posts from you primarily intended to provoke... and you know it's true.
Sooo
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...-phyics-pd20110223-EBRYU?OpenDocument&src=rot
Where is the drama?
Nationalization and centralization by stealth S, and not the only sector of the economy they have their eyes on. Health, mining, banking, all in the frame.This encapsulates the argument perfectly.http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/let-a-hundred-flowers-bloom-in-broadband-field-20110223-1b5ib.html...
Nationalization and centralization by stealth S, and not the only sector of the economy they have their eyes on. Health, mining, banking, all in the frame.
Two other factors I see in action:
- The "..I want super fast broadband and I want it now, the biggest the best, and I don't care what it costs.." crowd, who seem to make up most of the NBN-now foot-stampers.
- Pollies seeking a political legacy, some achievement to hang their hats on, or in fact any achievement, on the back of several false starts.
Here is the drama.
This encapsulates the argument perfectly.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/let-a-hundred-flowers-bloom-in-broadband-field-20110223-1b5ib.html
Just keep chucking buckets of your money at our socialist government and look the other way, everything will be just fine:
Really? I haven't found that. Left and right always appear fairly clear-cut to me, with the blurring only being caused by lack of logical/moral consistency in the persons beliefs.
Here is the drama.
This encapsulates the argument perfectly.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/let-a-hundred-flowers-bloom-in-broadband-field-20110223-1b5ib.html
Just keep chucking buckets of your money at our socialist government and look the other way, everything will be just fine:
I see this as an unfair generalisation. If any generalisation is going to me remotely correct (a difficulty in itself), it would be the pro-NBN crowd largely being involved with the industry, and those against it largely being not (on this thread anyway).- The "..I want super fast broadband and I want it now, the biggest the best, and I don't care what it costs.." crowd, who seem to make up most of the NBN-now foot-stampers.
So_Cyclical ....... what's wrong petal? I think Tony Abbott is a goose. There I've said it. I think the Liberals in their current form are just as useless as the existing clowns we have in Guvmint now. There I've said it again. I think John Howard was fortunate enough to have a mining boom and global economics to assist him in wiping out the debt left by the Labor Party. There I have said it thrice now.
The ideaology of the Liberals running the country like a business and keeping debt under control intrigues me. The ideaology of the Labor Party of running up debt and using the country like a giant credit card confuses me.
Me ...... I just like to argue with anyone when they are WRONG ! Flame on peoples.
Nullas' post on the last page is an excellent example of a reasoned industry view.
3. The highest speed promised by the NBN is 1Gbps, not 100Mbps.
Disappointing that these places are bypassed even though the shiny blue cable is running down the highway not that far away (according to the article).
Who decided on the 7% to miss out on this nation building exercise?
Why are they putting it above ground to create visual pollution? I thought they were utilising Telstras pits and subterranean network?
If the NBN fibre optic cable is being run in conjunction over the electricity poles does this mean that the fibre optic cable will run along the power cable connecting your house?
Anyone?
No, it encapsulates Turnbull's position perfectly. As usual, his article is full of errors and deception. eg:
"Right now 30 per cent of Australian homes are passed by the hybrid fibre coaxial pay TV cables of Telstra and Optus. These systems can, and in some places do, run at 100Mbps, the highest speed promised by the new network."
1. Incorrect. It's more like 25% of homes, but only in a few areas of a few cities.
2. While the network can run at 100Mbps, user speeds cannot. HFC is a shared network, and the 100Mbps is per node of the network. So unless you're the only user on that node, you won't get anything like 100Mbps. This is why Optus and Telstra don't advertise 100Mbps cable speeds anymore.
3. The highest speed promised by the NBN is 1Gbps, not 100Mbps.
4. There is currently no agreement or even proposed agreement to decomission the Optus HFC network for broadband connections.
I just picked one paragraph and found four demonstrably false or misleading statements.
Then there Turnbull's curious statements like:
"The right approach to our broadband needs should not be one size or one technology fits all. It should target under-serviced areas immediately and bring them up to the highest standards available in our cities."
Ummm. Isn't that what the NBN is all about?
The Coalition plan takes "under serviced areas" to 12Mbps, which is most certainly not "the highest standards available in our cities". Turnbull is openly contradicting himself, first saying that cities can currently get 100Mbps, then saying that a) We don't need that; and b) that's what "under-serviced areas" should have, even though his own policy doesn't deliver such speeds.
I can keep going if you'd like.
You'll have to excuse me if I suggest you can keep your ideas of true and false to yourself.
I'm not even sure half the babble you keep spouting is the truth.
In fact you probably are lying through your teeth about a lot of this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?