Australian Politics thread [merged]

[1965]

Straight from the horses mouth.

Proof the Libs lied about any sort of crisis.

Australian economy is not in trouble, Joe Hockey tells NZ
 
July 26, 2014 - 2:37PM

Joe Hockey has told New Zealand that there is no crisis in the Australian economy, nor is it in trouble.

The treasurer also made no mention of the "budget emergency" he and his government referred to when justifying their unpopular budget to Australians.

Instead, Mr Hockey reassured Kiwis that their second biggest trading partner is benefiting from 23 years of consecutive economic growth.

"The Australian economy is not in trouble," he told New Zealand political current affairs show The Nation on Saturday


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/australian-economy-is-not-in-trouble-joe-hockey-tells-nz-20140726-zx6ie.html#ixzz38byISxSp

[Judge Roughneck]

http://imgur.com/HKBOKd4

[Smokey]

One of your better posts Bents!!


 

[Chuck17]

All I can see is a white box with a red cross in it

[Judge Roughneck]

85 Wealthiest Are Richer Than Poorest 3.5 Billion


The U.N.'s annual Human Development Report released Thursday shows that the world's 85 richest people are wealthier than the poorest 3.5 billion.



http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/2014/07/27/85-wealthiest-are-richer-than-poorest-35-billion-a-536174.html


 

[Francois Jackson]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abbotts-strong-mh17-response-reflected-in-polls/story-fn59niix-1227004992839?nk=99553949965964fc81c4af73a96526f2

any comments 65?

[Judge Roughneck]

85 Wealthiest Are Richer Than Poorest 3.5 Billion


The U.N.'s annual Human Development Report released Thursday shows that the world's 85 richest people are wealthier than the poorest 3.5 billion.



http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/2014/07/27/85-wealthiest-are-richer-than-poorest-35-billion-a-536174.html


 

Hypothetically

Say you kill these 85

And distribute said wealth between the poorest 3-4 billion

Would that be a bad thing ? You could argue under the more popular branches of philosophy that it'd in fact be the correct course of action as a/the humanity...

[wiki]  Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives. Classical utilitarianism's two most influential contributors are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. In simple words, it is the way one helps himself in the art of decision-making. John Stuart Mill, in his book Utilitarianism, stated, "In the golden rule of Geez of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality." According to both Bentham and Mill, utilitarianism is considered to be a hedonistic approach only if the results of an action do not directly cause a negative impact on others.[1] It is now generally taken to be a form of consequentialism, although when Anscombe first introduced that term it was to distinguish between "old-fashioned utilitarianism" and consequentialism.[2] In utilitarianism, the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting consequences; however, there is debate over how much consideration should be given to actual consequences, foreseen consequences and intended consequences. In A Fragment on Government, Bentham says, "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong"[3] and describes this as a fundamental axiom. In An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, he talks of "the principle of utility" but later prefers "the greatest happiness principle."[4][5]

*come to think of it you wouldn't even have to kill them just take the gear

[🏅Dooks]

85 Wealthiest Are Richer Than Poorest 3.5 Billion


The U.N.'s annual Human Development Report released Thursday shows that the world's 85 richest people are wealthier than the poorest 3.5 billion.



http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/2014/07/27/85-wealthiest-are-richer-than-poorest-35-billion-a-536174.html


 

thats pretty disgraceful.

the UN need to make countries sign a new international law  introducing massive tax increases with no option to not pay on the extreme wealthy. the money should then fund humanitarian, development and environmental programs.

then again, that would be a red flag to many here because that would infringe on the rich peoples rights and the 3.5 billion poorest are probably either bludgers or no hopers

[1965]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abbotts-strong-mh17-response-reflected-in-polls/story-fn59niix-1227004992839?nk=99553949965964fc81c4af73a96526f2

any comments 65?

Nope

[Francois Jackson]

Didn't think so

Tears

[WilliamPowell]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abbotts-strong-mh17-response-reflected-in-polls/story-fn59niix-1227004992839?nk=99553949965964fc81c4af73a96526f2

any comments 65?

Sadly Angus I cannot open the link the Australian are wanting me to pay to view it 

But I gather it is about the PM's approval rating?

Sorry but they don't mean much. As was proven at the last election. Gillard believe it or not constantly came out ahead as preferred PM, ditto with Rudd but it didn't help them at all come Election Day.

My question is what impact has the MH17 tragedy had on the Govts numbers? Last week the polls suggested it had little if any impact and that the opposition would easily win an election if it was held.

Don't get seduced by popularity numbers over who people are likely to vote for. 

And before you go off on one your "rants".

I actually think Abbott and the usually ineffective Julia Bishop are doing a very good job on this. They are standing up not only for Australia but for everyone affected by this disaster. And for that they they get this  from me

[Francois Jackson]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abbotts-strong-mh17-response-reflected-in-polls/story-fn59niix-1227004992839?nk=99553949965964fc81c4af73a96526f2

any comments 65?

Sadly Angus I cannot open the link the Australian are wanting me to pay to view it 

But I gather it is about the PM's approval rating?

Sorry but they don't mean much. As was proven at the last election. Gillard believe it or not constantly came out ahead as preferred PM, ditto with Rudd but it didn't help them at all come Election Day.

My question is what impact has the MH17 tragedy had on the Govts numbers? Last week the polls suggested it had little if any impact and that the opposition would easily win an election if it was held.

Don't get seduced by popularity numbers over who people are likely to vote for. 

And before you go off on one your "rants".

I actually think Abbott and the usually ineffective Julia Bishop are doing a very good job on this. They are standing up not only for Australia but for everyone affected by this disaster. And for that they they get this  from me

It was more directed at mr 65 over there. As for the numbers not meaning much, im pretty sure you over the years would have quoted them at some point, so please don't down vibe the sterling comeback we are witnessing here from big tone.

[Chuck17]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abbotts-strong-mh17-response-reflected-in-polls/story-fn59niix-1227004992839?nk=99553949965964fc81c4af73a96526f2

any comments 65?

Sadly Angus I cannot open the link the Australian are wanting me to pay to view it 

But I gather it is about the PM's approval rating?

Sorry but they don't mean much. As was proven at the last election. Gillard believe it or not constantly came out ahead as preferred PM, ditto with Rudd but it didn't help them at all come Election Day.

My question is what impact has the MH17 tragedy had on the Govts numbers? Last week the polls suggested it had little if any impact and that the opposition would easily win an election if it was held.

Don't get seduced by popularity numbers over who people are likely to vote for. 

And before you go off on one your "rants".

I actually think Abbott and the usually ineffective Julia Bishop are doing a very good job on this. They are standing up not only for Australia but for everyone affected by this disaster. And for that they they get this  from me

It was more directed at mr 65 over there. As for the numbers not meaning much, im pretty sure you over the years would have quoted them at some point, so please don't down vibe the sterling comeback we are witnessing here from big tone.

If I am not mistaken there were about 15 consecutive posts from 1965 about it a few months ago when the budget ratings started.





And dont ask me to quote because I CBF





Plus I made it up as well

[WilliamPowell]

It was more directed at mr 65 over there. As for the numbers not meaning much, im pretty sure you over the years would have quoted them at some point, so please don't down vibe the sterling comeback we are witnessing here from big tone.

With respect, I've never posted about "preferred PM numbers" because they mean nothing.

But yes I have over time said that "polling numbers" can mean very little come election day. And I still believe that to a point - last Vic State Election was a good example and when Rudd first got elected. Numbers said it would be close but Rudd & the ALP got elected pretty easily, polls got it wrong. But they certainly got it right at the last federal election 

[Judge Roughneck]

http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/us-only-country-of-47-to-vote-against-investigating-possible-human-rights-violations-during-israeli-occupation-of-gaza-140728?news=853817
U.S. Only Country of 47 to Vote against Investigating Possible Human Rights Violations during Israeli Occupation of Gaza