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

The Abbott Government

Besides, I don't think facts are debatable...are they?

Well, it would depend if people accept the facts as true, or id they are debating if the information is actually correct. Just look at the whole climate change debate. We've still not really made it past the point where there's breoad political acceptance of the facts.

Then there's people's inbuilt biases to ignore inconvenient facts. What weighting do you put on each fact?

Without a reasonable consensus it's hard to progress.
 

Sorry syd. A fact is always true and will stand on it's own merits and it is irrelevant whether people accept them or not. If what you are posting about the Abbott government is actually factual then it is not debatable, and why you should ask someone to debate these "facts" with you beats me, unless your "facts" are just suppositions. Facts can't be embellished, weighted or debated

As for the climate change debate that's a different kettle of fish. There we are debating theories...not facts.

Of course people ignore "inconvenient" facts. Like we ignore the inconvenient fact that there is no sunrise.

Although the Sun appears to "rise" from the horizon, it is actually the Earth's motion that causes the Sun to appear.
Wikipedia
 
Please, please, can we not turn this thread into yet another argument about global warming.
 
Global warming is not a theory, it is here and accelerating. New huge storm about to hit the phillipines as we speak. The cause we could debate.

In Aus, unseasonal rains, drought, bushfires in spring.

This should be loud and clear on top of the Abbott Government agenda and is most relevant to this thread.

But then Abbott has God and he of course will look after us.
 

Global warming should not be at the forefront of government policy. Thats what stuffed the whole thing up in the first place. You have two sides shouting out fudged figures until nothing gets done. Shove it at the back and don't make a song and dance about it when you pass it through. It does not need to be politicized anymore then it already has been.
 
Yeah ok, saying you worked for labor was a bit low.

Actually moxjo if you read ifocus tisme and sirrumpole responses. He is the only one that has an original thought. If you don't believe me look at I focus and tisme posts. Then look at the smh headlines on the same dates. Syd at least has original and creative ideas.
 
Then look at the smh headlines on the same dates. Syd at least has original and creative ideas.

Yes he does. Unlike your good self who just disparages and criticises.

Someone is cracking down on multinational tax avoiders, let's hope Hockey follows


Britain slaps 'Google tax' on multinationals


 
Seems that a reshuffle is on.

Can Chiefs of Staff be reshuffled. Too influential, too divisive.
 
It is not surprising that a bunch of cretins in the Senate should be opposing Christopher Pyne's proposals for education reform. Heaven forbid that the teachers of our children should be smarter than Senators.

Compulsory literacy and numeracy tests for aspiring teachers? What sort of nonsense is that? It could lead to aspiring teachers getting jobs for which they are better suited. The wouldn't qualify as check-out chicks...maybe school cleaners.

What the hell are these people doing at a university anyway. Have we gone stark raving mad?:shake:

Our universities used to be "seats of learning". Now they are seats of mediocrity.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...for-sum-disaster/story-fn59nlz9-1227146580360
 

Very sad indeed.

So what is your answer to

the highest common factor of the numbers 28 and 70,

the lowest common multiple of the numbers 40 and 140.

If the total cost of three tickets is $5.64, how much will 10 tickets cost?’’
 
It is not surprising that a bunch of cretins in the Senate should be opposing Christopher Pyne's proposals for education reform. Heaven forbid that the teachers of our children should be smarter than Senators.

So you support the proposed funding of religious studies in privately run religious colleges?

David Leyonhjelm has cited this as a significant reason for his support.

I'd ave thought those against so much funding to arts degrees would not be too happy with funding for priests now being added to the public teat.

Seems the age of entitlement is moving further towards the Coalition's natural voting base.
 

The religious Right are getting their claws back into government, our wallets and our lives.

There really should be a law against using taxpayers money to fund religious groups, and that includes chaplains.

Scientology is classified as a religion, and we know what nut jobs they are.

So funding basically comes down to a value judgement by politicians as to what religions are worth funding and what are not, and who are they to make that choice ?
 

Actually they are remarkably weak (the religious right). They have one of their own as PM and the only bone he can throw them is the school chaplains program.
 
So you support the proposed funding of religious studies in privately run religious colleges?
David Leyonhjelm has cited this as a significant reason for his support.

He doesn't sound very religious to me. I think he is just another nutter.

A new player in same-sex marriage politics, Liberal Democratic Party Senator for NSW, David Leyonhjelm, has introduced a bill into the Senate to allow same-sex, transgender and intersex marriages.

http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/d...-conscience-vote-but-why-20141203-11ycao.html
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...