Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:
>1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the >wealthy out of prosperity.
>2. What one person receives without working for, another person must >work for without receiving.
>3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government >does not first take from somebody else .
>4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work >because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other >half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is >going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any >nation.
This is the truly dopey extreme of the opponents of socialism. How
would Australia Post or Singapore Airlines be improved if they were
not Government owned? Why would we be worse off if the Australian
government bought all the shares in Telstra or the Commonwealth Bank?
Do you really believe that a chip shop proprietor works "harder" than
a soldier or a nurse? How would you compare the work ethic of a senior
Government paid worker such as Tony Abbott with that of a privately
employed worker like Gina Rinehart?
Large corporations, Government or private, are unsuited to running
some businesses such as restaurants that need an individual touch.
Many other businesses, particularly "natural monopolies", need to be
run by large corporations and you can decide whether they should be
"socialised" or so highly regulated that they might as well be.
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1@dont-email.me...
>>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must
>>> work for without receiving.
>>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government
>>> does not first take from somebody else .
>>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
>>> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the
>>> other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody
>>> else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the
>>> end of any nation.
Please don't try to blame Andrew Bolt for your thoughtless post. I
find his right wing views appalling but he is not stupid. Your source
was a comment on a Bolt blog and neither your source nor the
RightWingNews original were silly enough to mention socialism.
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmlofi$8b4$5@dont-email.me...
>> On 18/04/2012 2:30 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:jmlelc$3j4$2@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 18/04/2012 10:24 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> in message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>>>>>>>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>>>>>>>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person
>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>> work for without receiving.
>>>>>>>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the
>>>>>>>> government does not first take from somebody else .
>>>>>>>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>>>>>>>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to
>>>>>>>> work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when
>>>>>>>> the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because
>>>>>>>> somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the
>>>>>>>> beginning of the end of any nation.
>>>>>> The American religious right. The devil's playground.
>>>>> and Oy's it seems :-(
>>>> Seems Google failed you again. Or in fairness to Google, you failed
>>>> again.
>>> Plagiarism is not worth it eh Oy and ausebell
>> ausebell? No plagiarism here - never claimed those wise words to be my
>> own.
> but you did by not referencing them
No I didn't.
>> HINT: pla.gia.rism - The practice of taking someone else's work or
>> ideas and passing them off as one's own.
> exactly what you did
Never claimed the sobering lessons to be mine. URA liar.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmlo9b$8b4$3@dont-email.me...
>> On 18/04/2012 2:07 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:jmld41$rpf$3@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 18/04/2012 9:20 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid>
>>>>> wrote in
>>>>> message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>>>>>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>>>>>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must
>>>>>> work for without receiving.
>>>>>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government
>>>>>> does not first take from somebody else .
>>>>>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>>>>>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
>>>>>> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the
>>>>>> other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because
>>>>>> somebody
>>>>>> else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the
>>>>>> end of any nation.
>>> backing down from your original source? Fair enough.
>> That was my original source. Don't know of any religious sites. I
>> guess you find them linked to your warmist blogs.
>>> You run into problems when you plagiarise.
>> I didn't plagiarize. Quite happy to confirm my source. See above.
> pity you didn't until caught. Bit late
You're deluded as usual. Unlike you, I don't frequent religious sites or related material like warmist blogs. Bad luck you've stuck your foot in it yet again.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmlokk$8b4$7@dont-email.me...
>> On 18/04/2012 2:54 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:jmlfm4$7m6$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 18/04/2012 10:36 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>>> "dechucka" <dechuc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:kKCdnexwJ9yhZhDSnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>>>>>> This would be OK if everybody started off on an equal footing rather
>>>>>>> than be ahead or behind from an accident of birth.
>>>>>> Why would that make it OK for the most greedy to take whatever they
>>>>>> can from everyone else?
>>>>>> It starts in kindergarten, long before any difference in work
>>>>>> value or
>>>>>> education. Some people are just born that way.
>>>>> If one works hard and ethically than one deserves the rewards but one
>>>>> should never forget the less fortunate and give them a fair go as well
>>>> You're starting to get the idea. Achieving the right balance to keep
>>>> the wealth generation going and to supply the essentials (but not the
>>>> luxuries) to all of the population is the key to a successful economic
>>>> system.
>>> Always been my pov
>>> Reduce the incentive to work and it reduces the incentives of
>>>> the wealth creators. As shown in the valuable "sobering lessons from
>>>> socialism".
>>> the ones you plagiarised?
>> What did I plagiarize?
> Your Op by not referencing where you got it from
That's a lack of attribution, not plagiarism. Get an educated big person to explain the difference to you.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmloav$8b4$4@dont-email.me...
>> On 18/04/2012 2:08 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:jmld7v$rpf$4@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 18/04/2012 9:22 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid>
>>>>> wrote in
>>>>> message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>>>>>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>>>>>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must
>>>>>> work for without receiving.
>>>>>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government
>>>>>> does not first take from somebody else .
>>>>>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>>>>>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
>>>>>> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the
>>>>>> other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because
>>>>>> somebody
>>>>>> else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the
>>>>>> end of any nation.
>>>>> This would be OK if everybody started off on an equal footing rather
>>>>> than be ahead or behind from an accident of birth.
>>>> Reality check - if you try to *keep* everybody on an equal footing,
>>>> nobody ends up prepared to supply & maintain the footing. See "Some
>>>> sobering lessons from socialism" above.
>>> Comprehension not your strong point. I'll write this slowly for you:-
>>> This would be OK if everybody started off on an equal footing
>> Comprehension not your strong point. Reread the above.
> I did and it is obvious you missed my point, I never suggested people be
> kept at an equal footing just started
Your comment is mindless as usual. Whether people started off on an equal footing or not, the sobering lessons from socialism still apply.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmlq2a$hgh$1@dont-email.me...
>> Who says I despise diggers? They are clearly not leftard couch potatoe
>> bludgers.
> Exactly, just like most other union labour. Good to see you only despise 5%
> of the population then, which includes Liberal voters!
I despise leftard couch potato bludgers, who expect me to fund their idle non-contributory lifestyles.
>> But what would they be doing if not for Gina Rheinhart, Twiggy Forrest and
>> Clive Palmer? What wages would they be on by comparison with their current
>> pay?
> What wages would they be on if not for the unions and if the Liberals had
> their way. Right, slave wages like they once were.
>> Have a think before laughing at your illogical "so funny" conclusions.
> I'm still laughing at you and your hypocrisy.
No hypocrisy there at all. You simply fucked up in your interpretation. That still doesn't answer the question you just tried to avoid:
But what would they be doing if not for Gina Rheinhart, Twiggy Forrest and Clive Palmer? What wages would they be on by comparison with their current pay?
>> Also ask how many hours a week Gina Rheinhart, Twiggy Forrest and Clive
>> Palmer have to work to keep their wealth-generating enterprises going.
> Ask how many dollars an hour they earn even *IF* they worked 24/7/365!!!
Ask how much wealth and employment opportunity they generate for the country per hour. Compare that with your own contribution in these areas.
> I'm sure anybody would love to earn 1% of that! I'd be happy with 0.01%.
What's stopping them? All they have to do is undertake some risk in a mining venture. What? No takers from the couch recliners?
> I'd love to know why you stick up for the $billionaire robber barons? You
> really think you are ever going to be one! :-)
Of course not. But I see no need to operate on the politics of envy (didn't get Latham very far :-)). And I do admire the way they generate all the wealth and employment that the country gets to share in. I like the way I do the same in much lesser degree. But I still object to it going towards bludging parasites of any description.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmlq8r$ibq$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> Achieving the right balance to keep the wealth generation going and to
>>>> supply the essentials (but not the luxuries)
>>> Yeh, "luxuries" like food, shelter and healthcare according the the
>>> Liberal
>>> philosophy.
>> You call these "luxuries"?
> No the Lieberals do.
Since when? Can't recall them ever calling to cut out benefits relating to any of these. Maybe you're just lying now.
>> They are the fruits of a healthy capitalist economy which become the
>> essentials of the high standard of living such an economy generates.
>> AFAIK, Liberal has always advocated providing for these as essentials. You
>> seem to have things arse up.
> Nope YOU do, The Lieberals put a "luxury" tax on housing, tried to put a
> "luxury" tax on ALL food, but settled for a tax on some of it. Plus a
> "luxury" tax on electricity, gas, transport, want to get rid of public
> healthcare,.....
> But hey don't let the facts get in the way of your stupid ideas.
Sure, the carbon tax represents a price increase on all these items, which could be called a luxury tax at a stretch. And there's the GST which the Australian people, not the Liberal Party, voted for. But where is this Liberal luxury tax? Or is this now just more leftard lying?
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmlqpp$ksp$1@dont-email.me...
>>> Never said that, workers at all levels do a job. Some get paid 10 or
>>> 20 times as much as others, but yet those who do little "work" can
>>> get 1,000 times as much or more. Only the *truly greedy* believe that
>>> is appropriate.
>> So who gets to decide on the sliding scale? If you advocate equal pay
>> for equal hours, or no hours at all,
> Nope never said that either, what I said was 10,000+ times per hour wage for
> one person than another is TRULY ridiculous. And they greedy bastards are
> still not happy! :-(
> Surely 100 times minimum wage is enough incentive for anyone with ANY moral
> fibre at all. (Obviously doesn't include you then)
So you're saying that *you* should get to decide. Thought so. Have you decided whether you're a marxist or stalinist totalitarian yet?
>>>> What about the project manager who puts in 80 hrs per week, largely
>>>> unpaid, to set up the job for the rock breakers in the first
>>>> place?
>>> "Largely unpaid", where the hell do you get THAT idea from?
>> Because it's what I've done for lots of years. You ought to ask somebody
>> with a professional job in a corporate environment how many extra unpaid
>> hours they put in each week.
> "Unpaid" is a truly stupid statement for people on a yearly salary rather
> than an hourly rate. Or those who recieve $billions in royalties whether
> they do anything or not.
You clearly have no idea of what goes on in the professional world. Typically a decade ago, a corporate IT professional might put in an extra 20 hrs per week on $90K pa. Hardly billions and hardly for doing nothing. Get a reality check into how the corporate world works before making comment on it. FFS.
> Unpaid is what REAL volunteers do.
Yes. I *still* find the time to do that.
>>> It's volunteers who work in soup kitchens, meals on wheels deliveries
>>> etc, who are "largely unpaid"!!
>> And them. I still found time to do voluntary work for the local school,
>> despite all the extra unpaid hours I worked for "the job". All depends
>> on how efficient you are. Sounds like you need to get out more.
> Fuck off, I do lots of unpaid work, not that work which is included in your
> yearly salary you deem incorrectly as "unpaid".
No. It's not included in the yearly salary. It's extra unpaid work. Fuckwit.
> The issue is "unearned" income received by those who claim Australia's
> resources belong only to them! :-(
You sound more like a fuckwit the more you type. The leftards see rocks on the ground and have no interest in them until someone else decides to do some work and turn them into dollars. Then they demand their share from their recumbent couch sprawl. Fuck the parasites.
>> Apparently he treats his workers extremely well. Well, that's according
>> to them.
> He probably does when times are good, thanks to the mining unions of course,
> not the goodness of his heart.
You talk shit. The unions have nothing to do with his generosity.
>> No doubt you'd have greater insight though;, the same insights
>> you appear to have into the world of the professional corporate worker.
> At least I have a better idea than you, that's not hard though.
No. You have shown yourself to be an ignorant fuckwit, full of leftard hot air bluster and bullshit.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmlr49$ma2$1@dont-email.me...
>>> And the fascist right think the working class should work till they drop,
>>> while those on the highest incomes get the biggest superannuation
>>> benefits
>>> to retire on incomes *far* above those the workers will ever get by still
>>> working!
>> That's because the latter have furthered themselves, mostly at their own
>> expense, and/or taken risks with their own money (or debt) to create their
>> own wealth or shared wealth-generating enterprises. That is their reward
>> for contributing comparatively so much.
> Did you forget the smiley? Many pay no income tax at all, and pay the same
> 15% on their super income, even if it's $millions, as do the poor struggling
> to forego their 9% compulsory super, which was traded off years ago for not
> recieving pay increases.
I agree there are inequities in taxes and benefits which IMO are unjustified. But the entire thread is about "Some sobering lessons from socialism". Bottom line is that the more equal you try to make everybody, the less wealth will be generated for the nation as a whole. The marxist method has failed and the lessons are there to be learned.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
> Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax<gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:
>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must
>> work for without receiving.
>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government
>> does not first take from somebody else .
>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
>> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
>> half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
>> going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any
>> nation.
> This is the truly dopey extreme of the opponents of socialism. How
> would Australia Post or Singapore Airlines be improved if they were
> not Government owned? Why would we be worse off if the Australian
> government bought all the shares in Telstra or the Commonwealth Bank?
> Do you really believe that a chip shop proprietor works "harder" than
> a soldier or a nurse? How would you compare the work ethic of a senior
> Government paid worker such as Tony Abbott with that of a privately
> employed worker like Gina Rinehart?
> Large corporations, Government or private, are unsuited to running
> some businesses such as restaurants that need an individual touch.
> Many other businesses, particularly "natural monopolies", need to be
> run by large corporations and you can decide whether they should be
> "socialised" or so highly regulated that they might as well be.
Nice rant but how does it relate to any of the lessons to be learned above?
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
On 18/04/2012 3:34 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
> On 18/04/2012 4:58 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote
>> in message news:jmln22$42s$1@dont-email.me...
>>> You seem to think that "hard work" is restricted to breaking rocks
>>> 8 hrs a day, 5 days a week (not counting RDOs).
>> Never said that, workers at all levels do a job. Some get paid 10 or
>> 20 times as much as others, but yet those who do little "work" can
>> get 1,000 times as much or more. Only the *truly greedy* believe that
>> is appropriate.
> So who gets to decide on the sliding scale? If you advocate equal pay
> for equal hours, or no hours at all, then see "Some sobering lessons
> from socialism".
Everything is worth what you can get for it, but for some the strength is not in negotiating a good price.
>>> What about the project manager who puts in 80 hrs per week, largely
>>> unpaid, to set up the job for the rock breakers in the first
>>> place?
>> "Largely unpaid", where the hell do you get THAT idea from?
> Because it's what I've done for lots of years. You ought to ask somebody
> with a professional job in a corporate environment how many extra unpaid
> hours they put in each week.
>> It's volunteers who work in soup kitchens, meals on wheels deliveries
>> etc, who are "largely unpaid"!!
> And them. I still found time to do voluntary work for the local school,
> despite all the extra unpaid hours I worked for "the job". All depends
> on how efficient you are. Sounds like you need to get out more.
Voluntary work is after hours, unless you are paid so well you can afford to piss off from work in the day time. It's generally not private domain of the well healed, nor anti-socialists by any stretch.
>>>>> but one should never forget the less fortunate and give them a
>>>>> fair go as well
>>>> That's rules out the Liberals and their billionaire mates then
>>>> unfortunately. :-(
>>> You mean like the generosity of Clive Palmer, for instance?
>> Generousity???
> No, "generosity".
>> Apparently he sponges on other taxpayers by paying nothing himself.
> Apparently he treats his workers extremely well. Well, that's according
> to them. No doubt you'd have greater insight though;, the same insights
> you appear to have into the world of the professional corporate worker.
Well treated workers probably have no great need of a union. Whether they believe certain industries should be state or communally owned will depend on many things.
> Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax<gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:
>> On 18/04/2012 9:20 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>>>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>>>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must
>>>> work for without receiving.
>>>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government
>>>> does not first take from somebody else .
>>>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>>>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
>>>> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the
>>>> other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody
>>>> else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the
>>>> end of any nation.
> Please don't try to blame Andrew Bolt for your thoughtless post.
I wasn't. I agree with it wholeheartedly. And it wasn't Andrew Bolt who wrote it. I was simply exposing dechucka as the fuckwit who leads in with his chin... again.
> I
> find his right wing views appalling but he is not stupid. Your source
> was a comment on a Bolt blog and neither your source nor the
> RightWingNews original were silly enough to mention socialism.
Yet it fits so well. Reminded me instantly of USSR (especially 5.) when I visited there, before it fell to bits for exactly the reasons stated above.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
> On 18/04/2012 3:34 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>> On 18/04/2012 4:58 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote
>>> in message news:jmln22$42s$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> You seem to think that "hard work" is restricted to breaking rocks
>>>> 8 hrs a day, 5 days a week (not counting RDOs).
>>> Never said that, workers at all levels do a job. Some get paid 10 or
>>> 20 times as much as others, but yet those who do little "work" can
>>> get 1,000 times as much or more. Only the *truly greedy* believe that
>>> is appropriate.
>> So who gets to decide on the sliding scale? If you advocate equal pay
>> for equal hours, or no hours at all, then see "Some sobering lessons
>> from socialism".
> Everything is worth what you can get for it, but for some the strength
> is not in negotiating a good price.
True. So different tasks, expertises and outcomes will end up being worth different hourly rates. Sounds like the basis of a good system.
>>>> What about the project manager who puts in 80 hrs per week, largely
>>>> unpaid, to set up the job for the rock breakers in the first
>>>> place?
>>> "Largely unpaid", where the hell do you get THAT idea from?
>> Because it's what I've done for lots of years. You ought to ask somebody
>> with a professional job in a corporate environment how many extra unpaid
>> hours they put in each week.
>>> It's volunteers who work in soup kitchens, meals on wheels deliveries
>>> etc, who are "largely unpaid"!!
>> And them. I still found time to do voluntary work for the local school,
>> despite all the extra unpaid hours I worked for "the job". All depends
>> on how efficient you are. Sounds like you need to get out more.
> Voluntary work is after hours, unless you are paid so well you can
> afford to piss off from work in the day time. It's generally not private
> domain of the well healed, nor anti-socialists by any stretch.
It's not the private domain of any particular group. Much the same as donating to charities I'd imagine.
>>>>>> but one should never forget the less fortunate and give them a
>>>>>> fair go as well
>>>>> That's rules out the Liberals and their billionaire mates then
>>>>> unfortunately. :-(
>>>> You mean like the generosity of Clive Palmer, for instance?
>>> Generousity???
>> No, "generosity".
>>> Apparently he sponges on other taxpayers by paying nothing himself.
>> Apparently he treats his workers extremely well. Well, that's according
>> to them. No doubt you'd have greater insight though;, the same insights
>> you appear to have into the world of the professional corporate worker.
> Well treated workers probably have no great need of a union. Whether
> they believe certain industries should be state or communally owned will
> depend on many things.
True. Lowly paid workers obviously do have a need for dependable union support, like HSU members.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
Discussion subject changed to "Some sobering lessons from socialism; bloody oath, National Socialists like Pauline Hanson should be ashamed!! Does Pauline subscribe to the Gina Rinehart brat pack's whining in court about mommy's ill-conceived loot came from raping Abo Lands" by Kangaroo Court Australia
From: Kangaroo Court Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 06:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Apr 18 2012 9:59 am
Subject: Re: Some sobering lessons from socialism; bloody oath, National Socialists like Pauline Hanson should be ashamed!! Does Pauline subscribe to the Gina Rinehart brat pack's whining in court about mommy's ill-conceived loot came from raping Abo Lands
<nwn.webmas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 4:38 pm, Kangaroo Court Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Apr 18, 9:52 am, Kangaroo Court Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Apr 18, 12:56 am, Kangaroo Court Australia
> > > <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 18, 12:37 am, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
> > > > <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
> > > > > wealthy out of prosperity.
> > > > > 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must
> > > > > work for without receiving.
> > > > > 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government
> > > > > does not first take from somebody else .
> > > > > 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
> > > > > 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
> > > > > because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
> > > > > half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
> > > > > going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any
> > > > > nation.
> > > > > --
> > > > > "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
> > > > > for about a thousand years. "
> > > > > -- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
> > > > > - Australian Climate Commissar
> On 19/04/2012 12:26 AM, jg wrote:
>> On 18/04/2012 3:34 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>>> On 18/04/2012 4:58 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote
>>>> in message news:jmln22$42s$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> You seem to think that "hard work" is restricted to breaking rocks
>>>>> 8 hrs a day, 5 days a week (not counting RDOs).
>>>> Never said that, workers at all levels do a job. Some get paid 10 or
>>>> 20 times as much as others, but yet those who do little "work" can
>>>> get 1,000 times as much or more. Only the *truly greedy* believe that
>>>> is appropriate.
>>> So who gets to decide on the sliding scale? If you advocate equal pay
>>> for equal hours, or no hours at all, then see "Some sobering lessons
>>> from socialism".
>> Everything is worth what you can get for it, but for some the strength
>> is not in negotiating a good price.
> True. So different tasks, expertises and outcomes will end up being
> worth different hourly rates. Sounds like the basis of a good system.
Anybody talking equal pay whatever you do, is no part of any social or political system I know of.
>>>>> What about the project manager who puts in 80 hrs per week, largely
>>>>> unpaid, to set up the job for the rock breakers in the first
>>>>> place?
>>>> "Largely unpaid", where the hell do you get THAT idea from?
>>> Because it's what I've done for lots of years. You ought to ask somebody
>>> with a professional job in a corporate environment how many extra unpaid
>>> hours they put in each week.
>>>> It's volunteers who work in soup kitchens, meals on wheels deliveries
>>>> etc, who are "largely unpaid"!!
>>> And them. I still found time to do voluntary work for the local school,
>>> despite all the extra unpaid hours I worked for "the job". All depends
>>> on how efficient you are. Sounds like you need to get out more.
>> Voluntary work is after hours, unless you are paid so well you can
>> afford to piss off from work in the day time. It's generally not private
>> domain of the well healed, nor anti-socialists by any stretch.
> It's not the private domain of any particular group. Much the same as
> donating to charities I'd imagine.
>>>>>>> but one should never forget the less fortunate and give them a
>>>>>>> fair go as well
>>>>>> That's rules out the Liberals and their billionaire mates then
>>>>>> unfortunately. :-(
>>>>> You mean like the generosity of Clive Palmer, for instance?
>>>> Generousity???
>>> No, "generosity".
>>>> Apparently he sponges on other taxpayers by paying nothing himself.
>>> Apparently he treats his workers extremely well. Well, that's according
>>> to them. No doubt you'd have greater insight though;, the same insights
>>> you appear to have into the world of the professional corporate worker.
>> Well treated workers probably have no great need of a union. Whether
>> they believe certain industries should be state or communally owned will
>> depend on many things.
> True. Lowly paid workers obviously do have a need for dependable union
> support, like HSU members.
No system works unless everyone does his or her job properly, and that's not exclusive of any human activity or social theory.
> On 18/04/2012 10:32 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>> On 19/04/2012 12:26 AM, jg wrote:
>>> On 18/04/2012 3:34 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>>>> On 18/04/2012 4:58 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote
>>>>> in message news:jmln22$42s$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> You seem to think that "hard work" is restricted to breaking rocks
>>>>>> 8 hrs a day, 5 days a week (not counting RDOs).
>>>>> Never said that, workers at all levels do a job. Some get paid 10 or
>>>>> 20 times as much as others, but yet those who do little "work" can
>>>>> get 1,000 times as much or more. Only the *truly greedy* believe that
>>>>> is appropriate.
>>>> So who gets to decide on the sliding scale? If you advocate equal pay
>>>> for equal hours, or no hours at all, then see "Some sobering lessons
>>>> from socialism".
>>> Everything is worth what you can get for it, but for some the strength
>>> is not in negotiating a good price.
>> True. So different tasks, expertises and outcomes will end up being
>> worth different hourly rates. Sounds like the basis of a good system.
> Anybody talking equal pay whatever you do, is no part of any social or
> political system I know of.
The point being that if (say) Clive Palmer was allowed to be paid (a bit) more than a truck driver, he'd probably, being the smart bloke he is, figure that he'd be better off truck driving supplemented by some weekend runs, than risking it all in generating economic wealth to serve the nation. You'll note those lessons have an implicit suggestion of "degree" within. Once the degree gets to, say, that of the former USSR, the system collapses.
>>>>>> What about the project manager who puts in 80 hrs per week, largely
>>>>>> unpaid, to set up the job for the rock breakers in the first
>>>>>> place?
>>>>> "Largely unpaid", where the hell do you get THAT idea from?
>>>> Because it's what I've done for lots of years. You ought to ask
>>>> somebody
>>>> with a professional job in a corporate environment how many extra
>>>> unpaid
>>>> hours they put in each week.
>>>>> It's volunteers who work in soup kitchens, meals on wheels deliveries
>>>>> etc, who are "largely unpaid"!!
>>>> And them. I still found time to do voluntary work for the local school,
>>>> despite all the extra unpaid hours I worked for "the job". All depends
>>>> on how efficient you are. Sounds like you need to get out more.
>>> Voluntary work is after hours, unless you are paid so well you can
>>> afford to piss off from work in the day time. It's generally not private
>>> domain of the well healed, nor anti-socialists by any stretch.
>> It's not the private domain of any particular group. Much the same as
>> donating to charities I'd imagine.
>>>>>>>> but one should never forget the less fortunate and give them a
>>>>>>>> fair go as well
>>>>>>> That's rules out the Liberals and their billionaire mates then
>>>>>>> unfortunately. :-(
>>>>>> You mean like the generosity of Clive Palmer, for instance?
>>>>> Generousity???
>>>> No, "generosity".
>>>>> Apparently he sponges on other taxpayers by paying nothing himself.
>>>> Apparently he treats his workers extremely well. Well, that's according
>>>> to them. No doubt you'd have greater insight though;, the same insights
>>>> you appear to have into the world of the professional corporate worker.
>>> Well treated workers probably have no great need of a union. Whether
>>> they believe certain industries should be state or communally owned will
>>> depend on many things.
>> True. Lowly paid workers obviously do have a need for dependable union
>> support, like HSU members.
> No system works unless everyone does his or her job properly, and that's
> not exclusive of any human activity or social theory.
Again, the message (I got) from those sobering lessons from socialism, was in relation to the degree... something to monitor very carefully. Joe Hockey made a very salient point on Lateline just before - that the EU countries are now effectively asking Australia for money so that they can support their people on pensions at an _earlier_ age, while Australia is trying to push the qualifying age up! The more socialist wanting to borrow money from the less socialist. I think there might be something in that for all of us.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:jmlofi$8b4$5@dont-email.me...
>>> On 18/04/2012 2:30 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>>> message news:jmlelc$3j4$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 18/04/2012 10:24 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote
>>>>>>>> in message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating >>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>>>>>>>>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person
>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>> work for without receiving.
>>>>>>>>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the
>>>>>>>>> government does not first take from somebody else .
>>>>>>>>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>>>>>>>>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to
>>>>>>>>> work because the other half is going to take care of them, and >>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>> the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because
>>>>>>>>> somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the
>>>>>>>>> beginning of the end of any nation.
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:jmlo9b$8b4$3@dont-email.me...
>>> On 18/04/2012 2:07 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>>> message news:jmld41$rpf$3@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 18/04/2012 9:20 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>>>>>>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>>>>>>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must
>>>>>>> work for without receiving.
>>>>>>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the >>>>>>> government
>>>>>>> does not first take from somebody else .
>>>>>>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>>>>>>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to >>>>>>> work
>>>>>>> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the
>>>>>>> other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because
>>>>>>> somebody
>>>>>>> else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of >>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> end of any nation.
>>>> backing down from your original source? Fair enough.
>>> That was my original source. Don't know of any religious sites. I
>>> guess you find them linked to your warmist blogs.
>>>> You run into problems when you plagiarise.
>>> I didn't plagiarize. Quite happy to confirm my source. See above.
>> pity you didn't until caught. Bit late
> You're deluded as usual. Unlike you, I don't frequent religious sites or > related material like warmist blogs. Bad luck you've stuck your foot in it > yet again.
Oy caught plagiarizing now the ad hom attacks and the dancing begins
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:jmlokk$8b4$7@dont-email.me...
>>> On 18/04/2012 2:54 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>>> message news:jmlfm4$7m6$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 18/04/2012 10:36 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>>>> "dechucka" <dechuc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:kKCdnexwJ9yhZhDSnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>>>>>>> This would be OK if everybody started off on an equal footing >>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>> than be ahead or behind from an accident of birth.
>>>>>>> Why would that make it OK for the most greedy to take whatever they
>>>>>>> can from everyone else?
>>>>>>> It starts in kindergarten, long before any difference in work
>>>>>>> value or
>>>>>>> education. Some people are just born that way.
>>>>>> If one works hard and ethically than one deserves the rewards but one
>>>>>> should never forget the less fortunate and give them a fair go as >>>>>> well
>>>>> You're starting to get the idea. Achieving the right balance to keep
>>>>> the wealth generation going and to supply the essentials (but not the
>>>>> luxuries) to all of the population is the key to a successful economic
>>>>> system.
>>>> Always been my pov
>>>> Reduce the incentive to work and it reduces the incentives of
>>>>> the wealth creators. As shown in the valuable "sobering lessons from
>>>>> socialism".
>>>> the ones you plagiarised?
>>> What did I plagiarize?
>> Your Op by not referencing where you got it from
> That's a lack of attribution, not plagiarism. Get an educated big person > to explain the difference to you.
I'll go with the definition you gave. Plagiarizing, posting viral e-mails as fact etc is there no level you won't sink to
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:jmloav$8b4$4@dont-email.me...
>>> On 18/04/2012 2:08 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>>> message news:jmld7v$rpf$4@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 18/04/2012 9:22 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>>>>>>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>>>>>>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must
>>>>>>> work for without receiving.
>>>>>>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the >>>>>>> government
>>>>>>> does not first take from somebody else .
>>>>>>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>>>>>>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to >>>>>>> work
>>>>>>> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the
>>>>>>> other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because
>>>>>>> somebody
>>>>>>> else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of >>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> end of any nation.
>>>>>> This would be OK if everybody started off on an equal footing rather
>>>>>> than be ahead or behind from an accident of birth.
>>>>> Reality check - if you try to *keep* everybody on an equal footing,
>>>>> nobody ends up prepared to supply & maintain the footing. See "Some
>>>>> sobering lessons from socialism" above.
>>>> Comprehension not your strong point. I'll write this slowly for you:-
>>>> This would be OK if everybody started off on an equal footing
>>> Comprehension not your strong point. Reread the above.
>> I did and it is obvious you missed my point, I never suggested people be
>> kept at an equal footing just started
> Your comment is mindless as usual. Whether people started off on an equal > footing or not, the sobering lessons from socialism still apply.
If the situation as you described ever occurred you may have a pint, I suppose when the governments start paying for nannies for parents the end is close
> On 19/04/2012 1:01 AM, jg wrote:
>> On 18/04/2012 10:32 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
.........
>>> True. So different tasks, expertises and outcomes will end up being
>>> worth different hourly rates. Sounds like the basis of a good system.
>> Anybody talking equal pay whatever you do, is no part of any social or
>> political system I know of.
> The point being that if (say) Clive Palmer was allowed to be paid (a
> bit) more than a truck driver, he'd probably, being the smart bloke he
> is, figure that he'd be better off truck driving supplemented by some
> weekend runs, than risking it all in generating economic wealth to serve
> the nation. You'll note those lessons have an implicit suggestion of
> "degree" within. Once the degree gets to, say, that of the former USSR,
> the system collapses.
It's not so much Clive's pay people are bothered about, it's the truck driver who takes nodoze to work enough hours to support his family.
..........
>> No system works unless everyone does his or her job properly, and that's
>> not exclusive of any human activity or social theory.
> Again, the message (I got) from those sobering lessons from socialism,
> was in relation to the degree... something to monitor very carefully.
> Joe Hockey made a very salient point on Lateline just before - that the
> EU countries are now effectively asking Australia for money so that they
> can support their people on pensions at an _earlier_ age, while
> Australia is trying to push the qualifying age up! The more socialist
> wanting to borrow money from the less socialist. I think there might be
> something in that for all of us.
This is Australia with a debt 23% of GDP, supposed to be ruined by our socialists? The USA has the biggest debt of all by shear amount, I wonder how anti-socialist their unemployed are when they get kicked off the dole after a few months.
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmmeus$1ia$2@dont-email.me...
>> On 18/04/2012 5:27 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:jmlofi$8b4$5@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 18/04/2012 2:30 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid>
>>>>> wrote in
>>>>> message news:jmlelc$3j4$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> On 18/04/2012 10:24 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid>
>>>>>>>>> wrote
>>>>>>>>> in message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by
>>>>>>>>>> legislating the
>>>>>>>>>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>>>>>>>>>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person
>>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>> work for without receiving.
>>>>>>>>>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the
>>>>>>>>>> government does not first take from somebody else .
>>>>>>>>>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>>>>>>>>>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to
>>>>>>>>>> work because the other half is going to take care of them, and
>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>> the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because
>>>>>>>>>> somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the
>>>>>>>>>> beginning of the end of any nation.
>>>>>>>> The American religious right. The devil's playground.
>>>>>>> and Oy's it seems :-(
>>>>>> Seems Google failed you again. Or in fairness to Google, you failed
>>>>>> again.
>>>>> Plagiarism is not worth it eh Oy and ausebell
>>>> ausebell? No plagiarism here - never claimed those wise words to be my
>>>> own.
>>> but you did by not referencing them
>> No I didn't.
> exactly you didn't reference them when they were a direct quote
Exactly - a lack of attribution, not plagiarism since I didn't claim the quote as my own. Get someone with some experience to explain the difference to you.
>>>> HINT: pla.gia.rism - The practice of taking someone else's work or
>>>> ideas and passing them off as one's own.
>>> exactly what you did
>> Never claimed the sobering lessons to be mine. URA liar.
> You did. Poor oy a direct quote unreferenced
Yes. Not plagiarism. Dumb dickhead.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmmf24$1ia$3@dont-email.me...
>> On 18/04/2012 5:27 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:jmlo9b$8b4$3@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 18/04/2012 2:07 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid>
>>>>> wrote in
>>>>> message news:jmld41$rpf$3@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> On 18/04/2012 9:20 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid>
>>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>>>>>>>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>>>>>>>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person
>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>> work for without receiving.
>>>>>>>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the
>>>>>>>> government
>>>>>>>> does not first take from somebody else .
>>>>>>>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>>>>>>>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to
>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the
>>>>>>>> other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because
>>>>>>>> somebody
>>>>>>>> else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> end of any nation.
>>>>> backing down from your original source? Fair enough.
>>>> That was my original source. Don't know of any religious sites. I
>>>> guess you find them linked to your warmist blogs.
>>>>> You run into problems when you plagiarise.
>>>> I didn't plagiarize. Quite happy to confirm my source. See above.
>>> pity you didn't until caught. Bit late
>> You're deluded as usual. Unlike you, I don't frequent religious sites
>> or related material like warmist blogs. Bad luck you've stuck your
>> foot in it yet again.
> Oy caught plagiarizing now the ad hom attacks and the dancing begins
Ad hom? Pointing out that you're thick because you don't know the difference between plagiarism and not bothering to attribute? Poor petal - just showed your own ignorance all by yourself again.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmmf4a$1ia$4@dont-email.me...
>> On 18/04/2012 5:29 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:jmlokk$8b4$7@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 18/04/2012 2:54 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid>
>>>>> wrote in
>>>>> message news:jmlfm4$7m6$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> On 18/04/2012 10:36 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>>>>> "dechucka" <dechuc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:kKCdnexwJ9yhZhDSnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>>>>>>>> This would be OK if everybody started off on an equal footing
>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>> than be ahead or behind from an accident of birth.
>>>>>>>> Why would that make it OK for the most greedy to take whatever they
>>>>>>>> can from everyone else?
>>>>>>>> It starts in kindergarten, long before any difference in work
>>>>>>>> value or
>>>>>>>> education. Some people are just born that way.
>>>>>>> If one works hard and ethically than one deserves the rewards but
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> should never forget the less fortunate and give them a fair go as
>>>>>>> well
>>>>>> You're starting to get the idea. Achieving the right balance to keep
>>>>>> the wealth generation going and to supply the essentials (but not the
>>>>>> luxuries) to all of the population is the key to a successful
>>>>>> economic
>>>>>> system.
>>>>> Always been my pov
>>>>> Reduce the incentive to work and it reduces the incentives of
>>>>>> the wealth creators. As shown in the valuable "sobering lessons from
>>>>>> socialism".
>>>>> the ones you plagiarised?
>>>> What did I plagiarize?
>>> Your Op by not referencing where you got it from
>> That's a lack of attribution, not plagiarism. Get an educated big
>> person to explain the difference to you.
> I'll go with the definition you gave. Plagiarizing, posting viral
> e-mails as fact etc is there no level you won't sink to
Your opinion clearly doesn't count, since you can't even understand the definition and how it doesn't apply here.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
