Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Some sobering lessons from socialism
74 views
Skip to first unread message
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 17, 2012, 10:37:17 AM4/17/12
to
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
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
Kangaroo Court Australia
Apr 17, 2012, 10:56:47 AM4/17/12
to
On Apr 18, 12:37 am, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 17, 2012, 11:01:14 AM4/17/12
to
Not that Pauline Hanson was ever one.
B J Foster
Apr 17, 2012, 3:34:40 PM4/17/12
to
On 18/04/2012 12:37 AM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax 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.
>
6. You cannot operate a mine when unions control the roster.
> 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.
>
DonH
Apr 17, 2012, 3:40:55 PM4/17/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1...@dont-email.me...
# Ah, yes, the standard response from the doff-your-cap brigade, who see the
rich man in his mansion, and the poor man at the gate - as the Natural Order
of things.
True, dear old Capitalism is having some problems at the moment, what
with GFC and PIIGS in Europe - but the Solution is: Everyone will just have
to work that much harder. Austerity!
Of course, our "socialist" ALP govt has had the temerity to impose and/or
increase taxes on those hard-working mining companies (mostly foreign-owned)
who are repatriating massive profits to their overseas shareholders, who,
having invested, can sit back and do nothing more - except welcome the
dividends.
Indeed, locally, if you choose your parents right, you can grow a Money
Tree - your dad may have discovered minerals, planted a claim, and he and
offspring can then pluck the leaves off the Money Tree for generations to
come.
On the other hand, there is some truth in what you say, as even the
Commos had to change their rule of "From each according to his ability, to
each according to his need", so the last word rehd "work". And Cuba has had
to cut the numbers on its public pay-roll.
However, while the workplace in our Western Utopia consists of "those who
do the work, versus those who get the profit", ie. employees vs external
shareholders, then you can expect the "class war" to continue, like it or
not. Aided by greed for Profit; urged on by Competition Policy.
To summarise: you can be a Predator or Prey, in today's society, and even
among predators the Bigger eat the Smaller - which is why most of Oz is now
run by Transnationals (called welcoming in "foreign investment").
In the Corporate Jungle of Plutocracy, Wealth is a sign of Virtue, and if
you are Poor it is probably all your own fault; so Couch Potatoes, and Dole
Bludgers, get a Job!
Meanwhile, those who live mainly on Dividends, Interest, and Rents, go on
endless Cruises, blissfully aware that their loyal CEO back home is pruning
the Workforce.
Toyota workers - what are you complaining about? Market Forces?
"Control the Economy, or it will control you!"
message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1...@dont-email.me...
rich man in his mansion, and the poor man at the gate - as the Natural Order
of things.
True, dear old Capitalism is having some problems at the moment, what
with GFC and PIIGS in Europe - but the Solution is: Everyone will just have
to work that much harder. Austerity!
Of course, our "socialist" ALP govt has had the temerity to impose and/or
increase taxes on those hard-working mining companies (mostly foreign-owned)
who are repatriating massive profits to their overseas shareholders, who,
having invested, can sit back and do nothing more - except welcome the
dividends.
Indeed, locally, if you choose your parents right, you can grow a Money
Tree - your dad may have discovered minerals, planted a claim, and he and
offspring can then pluck the leaves off the Money Tree for generations to
come.
On the other hand, there is some truth in what you say, as even the
Commos had to change their rule of "From each according to his ability, to
each according to his need", so the last word rehd "work". And Cuba has had
to cut the numbers on its public pay-roll.
However, while the workplace in our Western Utopia consists of "those who
do the work, versus those who get the profit", ie. employees vs external
shareholders, then you can expect the "class war" to continue, like it or
not. Aided by greed for Profit; urged on by Competition Policy.
To summarise: you can be a Predator or Prey, in today's society, and even
among predators the Bigger eat the Smaller - which is why most of Oz is now
run by Transnationals (called welcoming in "foreign investment").
In the Corporate Jungle of Plutocracy, Wealth is a sign of Virtue, and if
you are Poor it is probably all your own fault; so Couch Potatoes, and Dole
Bludgers, get a Job!
Meanwhile, those who live mainly on Dividends, Interest, and Rents, go on
endless Cruises, blissfully aware that their loyal CEO back home is pruning
the Workforce.
Toyota workers - what are you complaining about? Market Forces?
"Control the Economy, or it will control you!"
B J Foster
Apr 17, 2012, 5:26:35 PM4/17/12
to
On 18/04/2012 5:40 AM, DonH wrote:
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1...@dont-email.me...
>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work
>> for without receiving.
>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does
>> not first take from somebody else .
>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
>> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
>> half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
>> going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any
>> nation.
>>
>> --
>> "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
>> for about a thousand years. "
>> -- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
>> - Australian Climate Commissar
>
> # Ah, yes, the standard response from the doff-your-cap brigade, who see the
> rich man in his mansion, and the poor man at the gate - as the Natural Order
> of things.
Complete & utter rubbish. Most 'rich' people are there because they
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1...@dont-email.me...
>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work
>> for without receiving.
>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does
>> not first take from somebody else .
>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
>> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
>> half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
>> going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any
>> nation.
>>
>> --
>> "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
>> for about a thousand years. "
>> -- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
>> - Australian Climate Commissar
>
> # Ah, yes, the standard response from the doff-your-cap brigade, who see the
> rich man in his mansion, and the poor man at the gate - as the Natural Order
> of things.
identified an opportunity and pursued it (instead of sitting on the
couch). They certainly don't set out with the ambition of looking down
their noses at anyone.
Clive Palmer treats his employees with respect & rewards them well.
Wayne Swan just cut budgets in Canberra knowing full well that it would
result in job cuts (or if he didn't, he's too stupid to be Treasurer).
dechucka
Apr 17, 2012, 7:20:43 PM4/17/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1...@dont-email.me...
> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
> wealthy out of prosperity.
> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work
> for without receiving.
> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does
> not first take from somebody else .
> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
> half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
> going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any
> nation.
you should really cite your source
> wealthy out of prosperity.
> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work
> for without receiving.
> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does
> not first take from somebody else .
> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
> half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
> going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any
> nation.
http://rightwingnews.com/religion/you-cant-legislate-the-poor-into-prosperity/
;-)
dechucka
Apr 17, 2012, 7:22:20 PM4/17/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
message news:jmjv6s$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
> 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.
ahead or behind from an accident of birth.
Kangaroo Court Australia
Apr 17, 2012, 7:52:44 PM4/17/12
to
On Apr 18, 12:56 am, Kangaroo Court Australia
HD
Apr 17, 2012, 8:10:48 PM4/17/12
to
"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m4adnUthCYRAZxDS...@westnet.com.au...
Trevor
Apr 17, 2012, 8:18:06 PM4/17/12
to
news:kKCdnexwJ9yhZhDS...@westnet.com.au...
everyone else?
It starts in kindergarten, long before any difference in work value or
education. Some people are just born that way.
Trevor.
> 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
> be ahead or behind from an accident of birth.
everyone else?
It starts in kindergarten, long before any difference in work value or
education. Some people are just born that way.
Trevor.
dechucka
Apr 17, 2012, 8:24:29 PM4/17/12
to
"HD" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:2Enjr.5841$v14....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
dechucka
Apr 17, 2012, 8:36:23 PM4/17/12
to
"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote in message
news:jml17t$snk$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
never forget the less fortunate and give them a fair go as well
Trevor
Apr 17, 2012, 9:14:16 PM4/17/12
to
news:aZudnSJgF5MFkRPS...@westnet.com.au...
take from the weaker ones.
Just how much "work" have Gina Rheinhardt and Clive Palmer actually done? I
bet their cleaning lady works harder!
Hard "work" and income are more often inversely related in our society in
fact. The higher you are, the more lackies you employ to do the real work
(at basic wages), and the more time you spend at long lunches (at company
expense) and on the golf course "networking".
It is simply impossible for anyone to "work" a thousand times harder than
those on minimum wage, yet many "earn" even more than that.
> 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. :-(
Trevor.
>> 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
How much work and reward do kindergarten kids achieve? The greedy ones just
>> 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
take from the weaker ones.
Just how much "work" have Gina Rheinhardt and Clive Palmer actually done? I
bet their cleaning lady works harder!
Hard "work" and income are more often inversely related in our society in
fact. The higher you are, the more lackies you employ to do the real work
(at basic wages), and the more time you spend at long lunches (at company
expense) and on the golf course "networking".
It is simply impossible for anyone to "work" a thousand times harder than
those on minimum wage, yet many "earn" even more than that.
> but one should never forget the less fortunate and give them a fair go as
> well
unfortunately. :-(
Trevor.
jg
Apr 17, 2012, 9:48:39 PM4/17/12
to
On 17/04/2012 10:37 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax 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 would refer to the 3-5% of Australians assumed not to want work,
> 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.
>
and all those bludging Russians, Chinese and North Koreans?
And yet the ultimate aim of the rich is generally not to have to work
hard if at all. We now have a giant dollop of grey nomads with their own
sports classification and 'lifestyle villages' for anyone over 55 who
has 'made it'.
15 odd years of potential work down the drain while we import slave
labour to cover their arses while those who have 'worked hard for it'
sit on the beach in Broome.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 17, 2012, 11:31:15 PM4/17/12
to
On 18/04/2012 5:40 AM, DonH wrote:
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1...@dont-email.me...
>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work
>> for without receiving.
>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does
>> not first take from somebody else .
>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
>> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
>> half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
>> going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any
>> nation.
>>
>> --
>> "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
>> for about a thousand years. "
>> -- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
>> - Australian Climate Commissar
>
> # Ah, yes, the standard response
Not a response. Statements of fact.
> message news:jmjv6s$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.
>>
>> --
>> "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
>
> # Ah, yes, the standard response
the teat of this once great nation, who expects to be continually
drip-fed by the hard-working wealth generators of society. Take note of
the above - the free lunch won't last forever.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 17, 2012, 11:40:57 PM4/17/12
to
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/still_no_heartbeat_in_the_labor_corpse/
but nice try with the Googling. ;-)
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 17, 2012, 11:43:03 PM4/17/12
to
nobody ends up prepared to supply & maintain the footing. See "Some
sobering lessons from socialism" above.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 12:05:28 AM4/18/12
to
and the systems which succeed and fail to keep it flowing. The leftard
couch potatoes stare at rocks lying on the ground from their recumbent
languor, but then demand a share from those who would toil to dig and
turn them into money. Parasites at best.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 12:07:16 AM4/18/12
to
dechucka
Apr 18, 2012, 12:07:34 AM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> On 18/04/2012 9:20 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must
>>> work for without receiving.
>>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government
>>> does not first take from somebody else .
>>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
>>> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the
>>> other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody
>>> else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the
>>> end of any nation.
>>
>> you should really cite your source
>> http://rightwingnews.com/religion/you-cant-legislate-the-poor-into-prosperity/
>> ;-)
>
> Actually,
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/still_no_heartbeat_in_the_labor_corpse/
>
> but nice try with the Googling. ;-)
backing down from your original source? Fair enough.
>>
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must
>>> work for without receiving.
>>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government
>>> does not first take from somebody else .
>>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
>>> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the
>>> other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody
>>> else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the
>>> end of any nation.
>>
>> you should really cite your source
>> http://rightwingnews.com/religion/you-cant-legislate-the-poor-into-prosperity/
>> ;-)
>
> Actually,
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/still_no_heartbeat_in_the_labor_corpse/
>
> but nice try with the Googling. ;-)
You run into problems when you plagiarise.
dechucka
Apr 18, 2012, 12:08:51 AM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> On 18/04/2012 9:22 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must
>>> work for without receiving.
>>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government
>>> does not first take from somebody else .
>>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
>>> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the
>>> other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody
>>> else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the
>>> end of any nation.
>>
>> This would be OK if everybody started off on an equal footing rather
>> than be ahead or behind from an accident of birth.
>
> Reality check - if you try to *keep* everybody on an equal footing, nobody
> ends up prepared to supply & maintain the footing. See "Some sobering
> lessons from socialism" above.
Comprehension not your strong point. I'll write this slowly for you:- This
>>
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must
>>> work for without receiving.
>>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government
>>> does not first take from somebody else .
>>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
>>> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the
>>> other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody
>>> else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the
>>> end of any nation.
>>
>> This would be OK if everybody started off on an equal footing rather
>> than be ahead or behind from an accident of birth.
>
> Reality check - if you try to *keep* everybody on an equal footing, nobody
> ends up prepared to supply & maintain the footing. See "Some sobering
> lessons from socialism" above.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 12:24:41 AM4/18/12
to
wealth generation going and to supply the essentials (but not the
luxuries) to all of the population is the key to a successful economic
system. Reduce the incentive to work and it reduces the incentives of
the wealth creators. As shown in the valuable "sobering lessons from
socialism".
dechucka
Apr 18, 2012, 12:30:41 AM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
dechucka
Apr 18, 2012, 12:54:21 AM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> On 18/04/2012 10:36 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote in message
>> news:jml17t$snk$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>
>>> "dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kKCdnexwJ9yhZhDS...@westnet.com.au...
>>>> This would be OK if everybody started off on an equal footing rather
>>>> than be ahead or behind from an accident of birth.
>>>
>>> Why would that make it OK for the most greedy to take whatever they
>>> can from everyone else?
>>> It starts in kindergarten, long before any difference in work value or
>>> education. Some people are just born that way.
>>
>> If one works hard and ethically than one deserves the rewards but one
>> should never forget the less fortunate and give them a fair go as well
>
> You're starting to get the idea. Achieving the right balance to keep the
> wealth generation going and to supply the essentials (but not the
> luxuries) to all of the population is the key to a successful economic
> system.
Always been my pov
>>
>> "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote in message
>> news:jml17t$snk$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>
>>> "dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kKCdnexwJ9yhZhDS...@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.
Reduce the incentive to work and it reduces the incentives of
> the wealth creators. As shown in the valuable "sobering lessons from
> socialism".
Trevor
Apr 18, 2012, 2:00:05 AM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> You need to learn the lessons from history about who creates the wealth
> and the systems which succeed and fail to keep it flowing. The leftard
> couch potatoes stare at rocks lying on the ground from their recumbent
> languor, but then demand a share from those who would toil to dig and turn
> them into money.
SOOO funny, It's not Gina Rheinhart, Twiggy Forrest and Clive Palmer who dig
> and the systems which succeed and fail to keep it flowing. The leftard
> couch potatoes stare at rocks lying on the ground from their recumbent
> languor, but then demand a share from those who would toil to dig and turn
> them into money.
the minerals out of the ground, it's those *real* workers you despise so
much.
Trevor.
Trevor
Apr 18, 2012, 2:05:40 AM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>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
>supply the essentials (but not the luxuries)
philosophy.
Babies are the only thing they consider essential, but only until they get
to school. And definitely not when they are adults.
Very strange concept in a world with 7 Billion people already.
Trevor.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 2:30:32 AM4/18/12
to
On 18/04/2012 11:14 AM, Trevor wrote:
> "dechucka"<dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:aZudnSJgF5MFkRPS...@westnet.com.au...
>>> 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
>
> How much work and reward do kindergarten kids achieve? The greedy ones just
> take from the weaker ones.
> Just how much "work" have Gina Rheinhardt and Clive Palmer actually done? I
> bet their cleaning lady works harder!
> Hard "work" and income are more often inversely related in our society in
> fact. The higher you are, the more lackies you employ to do the real work
> (at basic wages), and the more time you spend at long lunches (at company
> expense) and on the golf course "networking".
> It is simply impossible for anyone to "work" a thousand times harder than
> those on minimum wage, yet many "earn" even more than that.
You seem to think that "hard work" is restricted to breaking rocks 8 hrs
> "dechucka"<dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:aZudnSJgF5MFkRPS...@westnet.com.au...
>>> 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
>
> How much work and reward do kindergarten kids achieve? The greedy ones just
> take from the weaker ones.
> Just how much "work" have Gina Rheinhardt and Clive Palmer actually done? I
> bet their cleaning lady works harder!
> Hard "work" and income are more often inversely related in our society in
> fact. The higher you are, the more lackies you employ to do the real work
> (at basic wages), and the more time you spend at long lunches (at company
> expense) and on the golf course "networking".
> It is simply impossible for anyone to "work" a thousand times harder than
> those on minimum wage, yet many "earn" even more than that.
a day, 5 days a week (not counting RDOs). 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?
>> 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. :-(
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 2:43:17 AM4/18/12
to
On 18/04/2012 11:48 AM, jg wrote:
> On 17/04/2012 10:37 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax 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 would refer to the 3-5% of Australians assumed not to want work,
> and all those bludging Russians, Chinese and North Koreans?
Soviet socialism collapsed and China is now a booming capitalist Mecca,
> On 17/04/2012 10:37 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax 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 would refer to the 3-5% of Australians assumed not to want work,
> and all those bludging Russians, Chinese and North Koreans?
despite the "traditional label". North Korea? Who knows what people
really want there, other than to get out of starvation and deprivation.
> And yet the ultimate aim of the rich is generally not to have to work
> hard if at all. We now have a giant dollop of grey nomads with their own
> sports classification and 'lifestyle villages' for anyone over 55 who
> has 'made it'.
retirement savings are entitled to spend it as they wish, having
contributed over their working lives to the general pool. Just as
handout recipients are entitled to save and spend as they wish, after
contributing nothing.
> 15 odd years of potential work down the drain while we import slave
> labour to cover their arses while those who have 'worked hard for it'
> sit on the beach in Broome.
leftards, which Howard was castigated for?
Kangaroo Court Australia
Apr 18, 2012, 2:38:28 AM4/18/12
to
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 2:51:31 AM4/18/12
to
you find them linked to your warmist blogs.
> You run into problems when you plagiarise.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 2:52:23 AM4/18/12
to
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 2:54:50 AM4/18/12
to
HINT: pla.gia.rism - The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas
and passing them off as one's own.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 2:57:32 AM4/18/12
to
lessons from socialism".
Trevor
Apr 18, 2012, 2:58:18 AM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> 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
> day, 5 days a week (not counting RDOs).
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.
>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?
who work in soup kitchens, meals on wheels deliveries etc, who are "largely
unpaid"!!
>>> 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?
himself.
Trevor.
Trevor
Apr 18, 2012, 3:02:48 AM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> So you are suggesting the "work till you drop" idea, as labelled by the
> leftards, which Howard was castigated for?
And the fascist right think the working class should work till they drop,
> leftards, which Howard was castigated for?
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!
Trevor.
jg
Apr 18, 2012, 3:19:07 AM4/18/12
to
On 18/04/2012 2:43 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
> On 18/04/2012 11:48 AM, jg wrote:
>> On 17/04/2012 10:37 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax 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 would refer to the 3-5% of Australians assumed not to want work,
>> and all those bludging Russians, Chinese and North Koreans?
>
> Soviet socialism collapsed and China is now a booming capitalist Mecca,
> despite the "traditional label". North Korea? Who knows what people
> really want there, other than to get out of starvation and deprivation.
>
We are talking about working for a living, aren't we?
> On 18/04/2012 11:48 AM, jg wrote:
>> On 17/04/2012 10:37 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax 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 would refer to the 3-5% of Australians assumed not to want work,
>> and all those bludging Russians, Chinese and North Koreans?
>
> Soviet socialism collapsed and China is now a booming capitalist Mecca,
> despite the "traditional label". North Korea? Who knows what people
> really want there, other than to get out of starvation and deprivation.
>
Capitalism may be better and entrepreneurial skills highly valued etc,
but you hit the wrong nail on the head to suggest supporters of
socialism want someone else to do all the work.
>> And yet the ultimate aim of the rich is generally not to have to work
>> hard if at all. We now have a giant dollop of grey nomads with their own
>> sports classification and 'lifestyle villages' for anyone over 55 who
>> has 'made it'.
>
> Really? I'd think that those who have earned their self-funded
> retirement savings are entitled to spend it as they wish, having
> contributed over their working lives to the general pool. Just as
> handout recipients are entitled to save and spend as they wish, after
> contributing nothing.
>
does - you might have worked vewy vewy hard, but you're not doing much
when you retire and everyone else is still working.
>> 15 odd years of potential work down the drain while we import slave
>> labour to cover their arses while those who have 'worked hard for it'
>> sit on the beach in Broome.
>
> So you are suggesting the "work till you drop" idea, as labelled by the
> leftards, which Howard was castigated for?
>
Without a lurk or an advantage, working longer is about the only option
one has to be delightfully independent.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 3:21:53 AM4/18/12
to
bludgers. 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? Have a think before laughing at your illogical "so
funny" conclusions. Also ask how many hours a week Gina Rheinhart,
Twiggy Forrest and Clive Palmer have to work to keep their
wealth-generating enterprises going.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 3:25:21 AM4/18/12
to
On 18/04/2012 4:05 PM, Trevor wrote:
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmlfm4$7m6$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"? They are the fruits of a healthy capitalist
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmlfm4$7m6$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.
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.
> Babies are the only thing they consider essential, but only until they get
> to school. And definitely not when they are adults.
> Very strange concept in a world with 7 Billion people already.
dechucka
Apr 18, 2012, 3:27:23 AM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>
> 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
> HINT: pla.gia.rism - The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas
> and passing them off as one's own.
dechucka
Apr 18, 2012, 3:27:59 AM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
dechucka
Apr 18, 2012, 3:29:10 AM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
snip
dechucka
Apr 18, 2012, 3:30:30 AM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
kept at an equal footing just started
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 3:34:23 AM4/18/12
to
On 18/04/2012 4:58 PM, Trevor wrote:
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@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
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@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.
for equal hours, or no hours at all, then see "Some sobering lessons
from socialism".
>
>> 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?
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"!!
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.
>
>>>> 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???
> Apparently he sponges on other taxpayers by paying nothing himself.
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.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 3:39:59 AM4/18/12
to
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.
Trevor
Apr 18, 2012, 5:02:27 AM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> 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%
> bludgers.
of the population then, which includes Liberal voters!
>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?
their way. Right, slave wages like they once were.
>Have a think before laughing at your illogical "so funny" conclusions.
>Also ask how many hours a week Gina Rheinhart, Twiggy Forrest and Clive
>Palmer have to work to keep their wealth-generating enterprises going.
I'm sure anybody would love to earn 1% of that! I'd be happy with 0.01%.
I'd love to know why you stick up for the $billionaire robber barons? You
really think you are ever going to be one! :-)
Trevor.
Trevor
Apr 18, 2012, 5:08:40 AM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>> 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.
>>> supply the essentials (but not the luxuries)
>>
>> Yeh, "luxuries" like food, shelter and healthcare according the the
>> Liberal
>> philosophy.
>
> You call these "luxuries"?
> 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.
"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.
Trevor.
Trevor
Apr 18, 2012, 5:22:25 AM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> 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
>> 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,
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)
>>> 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.
than an hourly rate. Or those who recieve $billions in royalties whether
they do anything or not.
Unpaid is what REAL volunteers do.
>> 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.
yearly salary you deem incorrectly as "unpaid".
The issue is "unearned" income received by those who claim Australia's
resources belong only to them! :-(
> Apparently he treats his workers extremely well. Well, that's according
> to them.
not the goodness of his heart.
>No doubt you'd have greater insight though;, the same insights
> you appear to have into the world of the professional corporate worker.
Trevor.
Trevor
Apr 18, 2012, 5:26:46 AM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> 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
>> 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.
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.
Trevor.
Kangaroo Court Australia
Apr 18, 2012, 8:10:26 AM4/18/12
to
Gordon Levi
Apr 18, 2012, 8:21:56 AM4/18/12
to
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax <gillar...@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
>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.
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.
Gordon Levi
Apr 18, 2012, 8:38:36 AM4/18/12
to
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:
>On 18/04/2012 9:20 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@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.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> you should really cite your source
>> http://rightwingnews.com/religion/you-cant-legislate-the-poor-into-prosperity/
>> ;-)
>
>Actually,
>http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/still_no_heartbeat_in_the_labor_corpse/
>
>but nice try with the Googling. ;-)
Please don't try to blame Andrew Bolt for your thoughtless post. I
>> http://rightwingnews.com/religion/you-cant-legislate-the-poor-into-prosperity/
>> ;-)
>
>Actually,
>http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/still_no_heartbeat_in_the_labor_corpse/
>
>but nice try with the Googling. ;-)
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
Apr 18, 2012, 9:18:28 AM4/18/12
to
>> 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
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 9:20:12 AM4/18/12
to
related material like warmist blogs. Bad luck you've stuck your foot in
it yet again.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 9:21:23 AM4/18/12
to
to explain the difference to you.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 9:24:30 AM4/18/12
to
equal footing or not, the sobering lessons from socialism still apply.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 9:51:20 AM4/18/12
to
On 18/04/2012 7:02 PM, Trevor wrote:
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmlq2a$hgh$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Who says I despise diggers? They are clearly not leftard couch potatoe
>> bludgers.
>
> Exactly, just like most other union labour. Good to see you only despise 5%
> of the population then, which includes Liberal voters!
I despise leftard couch potato bludgers, who expect me to fund their
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmlq2a$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!
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.
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
>> 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!!!
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%.
mining venture. What? No takers from the couch recliners?
> I'd love to know why you stick up for the $billionaire robber barons? You
> really think you are ever going to be one! :-)
(didn't get Latham very far :-)). And I do admire the way they generate
all the wealth and employment that the country gets to share in. I like
the way I do the same in much lesser degree. But I still object to it
going towards bludging parasites of any description.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 9:57:43 AM4/18/12
to
On 18/04/2012 7:08 PM, Trevor wrote:
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmlq8r$ibq$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> Achieving the right balance to keep the wealth generation going and to
>>>> supply the essentials (but not the luxuries)
>>>
>>> Yeh, "luxuries" like food, shelter and healthcare according the the
>>> Liberal
>>> philosophy.
>>
>> You call these "luxuries"?
>
> No the Lieberals do.
Since when? Can't recall them ever calling to cut out benefits relating
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmlq8r$ibq$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> Achieving the right balance to keep the wealth generation going and to
>>>> supply the essentials (but not the luxuries)
>>>
>>> Yeh, "luxuries" like food, shelter and healthcare according the the
>>> Liberal
>>> philosophy.
>>
>> You call these "luxuries"?
>
> No the Lieberals do.
to any of these. Maybe you're just lying now.
>> They are the fruits of a healthy capitalist economy which become the
>> essentials of the high standard of living such an economy generates.
>> AFAIK, Liberal has always advocated providing for these as essentials. You
>> seem to have things arse up.
>
> Nope YOU do, The Lieberals put a "luxury" tax on housing, tried to put a
> "luxury" tax on ALL food, but settled for a tax on some of it. Plus a
> "luxury" tax on electricity, gas, transport, want to get rid of public
> healthcare,.....
> But hey don't let the facts get in the way of your stupid ideas.
which could be called a luxury tax at a stretch. And there's the GST
which the Australian people, not the Liberal Party, voted for. But where
is this Liberal luxury tax? Or is this now just more leftard lying?
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 10:11:29 AM4/18/12
to
On 18/04/2012 7:22 PM, Trevor wrote:
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmlqpp$ksp$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Never said that, workers at all levels do a job. Some get paid 10 or
>>> 20 times as much as others, but yet those who do little "work" can
>>> get 1,000 times as much or more. Only the *truly greedy* believe that
>>> is appropriate.
>>
>> So who gets to decide on the sliding scale? If you advocate equal pay
>> for equal hours, or no hours at all,
>
> Nope never said that either, what I said was 10,000+ times per hour wage for
> one person than another is TRULY ridiculous. And they greedy bastards are
> still not happy! :-(
> Surely 100 times minimum wage is enough incentive for anyone with ANY moral
> fibre at all. (Obviously doesn't include you then)
So you're saying that *you* should get to decide. Thought so. Have you
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmlqpp$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)
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.
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.
>>> 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".
> The issue is "unearned" income received by those who claim Australia's
> resources belong only to them! :-(
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.
>> 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.
hot air bluster and bullshit.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 10:16:22 AM4/18/12
to
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.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 10:19:44 AM4/18/12
to
jg
Apr 18, 2012, 10:26:49 AM4/18/12
to
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"<gillar...@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
> On 18/04/2012 4:58 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@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".
>
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.
>
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.
>
they believe certain industries should be state or communally owned will
depend on many things.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 10:24:36 AM4/18/12
to
On 18/04/2012 10:38 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
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.
> Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 18/04/2012 9:20 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>
>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:jmjv6s$r6k$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
>>>> wealthy out of prosperity.
>>>> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must
>>>> work for without receiving.
>>>> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government
>>>> does not first take from somebody else .
>>>> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
>>>> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
>>>> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the
>>>> other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody
>>>> else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the
>>>> end of any nation.
>>>
>>> you should really cite your source
>>> http://rightwingnews.com/religion/you-cant-legislate-the-poor-into-prosperity/
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Actually,
>> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/still_no_heartbeat_in_the_labor_corpse/
>>
>> but nice try with the Googling. ;-)
>
> Please don't try to blame Andrew Bolt for your thoughtless post.
I wasn't. I agree with it wholeheartedly. And it wasn't Andrew Bolt who
>
>> On 18/04/2012 9:20 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>
>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:jmjv6s$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.
>>>
>>> you should really cite your source
>>> http://rightwingnews.com/religion/you-cant-legislate-the-poor-into-prosperity/
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Actually,
>> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/still_no_heartbeat_in_the_labor_corpse/
>>
>> but nice try with the Googling. ;-)
>
> Please don't try to blame Andrew Bolt for your thoughtless post.
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.
I visited there, before it fell to bits for exactly the reasons stated
above.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 10:32:28 AM4/18/12
to
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"<gillar...@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
> 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"<gillar...@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.
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.
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.
support, like HSU members.
Kangaroo Court Australia
Apr 18, 2012, 9:59:10 AM4/18/12
to
On Apr 18, 10:10 pm, Kangaroo Court Australia
101
jg
Apr 18, 2012, 11:01:06 AM4/18/12
to
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"<gillar...@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
> 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"<gillar...@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.
>
political system I know of.
not exclusive of any human activity or social theory.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 11:19:43 AM4/18/12
to
On 19/04/2012 1:01 AM, jg wrote:
> 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"<gillar...@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
> 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"<gillar...@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.
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.
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.
dechucka
Apr 18, 2012, 6:23:52 PM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>
>>> 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.
dechucka
Apr 18, 2012, 6:24:54 PM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
dechucka
Apr 18, 2012, 6:30:49 PM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
fact etc is there no level you won't sink to
dechucka
Apr 18, 2012, 6:33:04 PM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
suppose when the governments start paying for nannies for parents the end is
close
jg
Apr 18, 2012, 6:52:04 PM4/18/12
to
On 18/04/2012 11:19 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
> On 19/04/2012 1:01 AM, jg wrote:
>> On 18/04/2012 10:32 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
.........
> 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
>>> 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.
>
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
>>>
>> 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.
>
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
Apr 18, 2012, 8:49:21 PM4/18/12
to
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.
>>>> 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
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 8:51:36 PM4/18/12
to
difference between plagiarism and not bothering to attribute? Poor petal
- just showed your own ignorance all by yourself again.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 8:52:44 PM4/18/12
to
definition and how it doesn't apply here.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 9:15:39 PM4/18/12
to
impending collapse of the system.
> I suppose when the governments start paying for nannies for parents
> the end is close
to prop it up so that people can retire earlier there, while affordable
child care enables people to keep working and contributing.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 18, 2012, 9:28:41 PM4/18/12
to
On 19/04/2012 8:52 AM, jg wrote:
> On 18/04/2012 11:19 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>> 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.
Always a concern. But so are a lot of peripheral issues.
> On 18/04/2012 11:19 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>> 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.
lessons from socialism
Trevor
Apr 18, 2012, 10:20:15 PM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> 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.
As usual you can't accept facts that not all unemployed vote Labor, or are
>> 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.
left wing or socialist. And not all unemployed recieve any government
benefits in any case. Conversely many $millionaires and $billionaires do
recieve taxpayer money. But you never let facts get in the way of your
hypocrisy.
How about all the businesses who liquidate to avoid their debts and taxes,
and just start another "pheonix" company. A far bigger pox on society IMO.
What have your beloved Libs done to stop that? Right, same as Labor,
nothing!
> 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?
about. And ex workers on no pay.
> 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?
have it and can't raise it?
>> 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.
enough taxes to make up for the destruction of other industries it is
causing. Not enough taxes to compensate for the finite reserves of publicly
owned minerals being taken by private interests for their own short term
profits.
Sure 0.01% of the population is doing WELL from the mining boom. How about
the rest?
Trevor.
Trevor
Apr 18, 2012, 10:25:16 PM4/18/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>>>> 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.
food, housing, gas, electricity, transport etc. *IS* declaring them
"luxuries" that should be taxed, rather than necesseties.
> 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?
food, housing, electricity etc.
Trevor.
jg
Apr 18, 2012, 10:37:55 PM4/18/12
to
On 19/04/2012 9:28 AM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
> On 19/04/2012 8:52 AM, jg wrote:
>> On 18/04/2012 11:19 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Always a concern. But so are a lot of peripheral issues.
>
If you are struggling, that sort of thing is central. The home owning
> On 19/04/2012 8:52 AM, jg wrote:
>> On 18/04/2012 11:19 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Always a concern. But so are a lot of peripheral issues.
>
democracy starts to fail when a lot of people can't afford a home.
>>
>>
>> ..........
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> True also. But doesn't detract from the sombre warnings in the sobering
> lessons from socialism
>
works, when corporate or public ownership is mostly about rewarding
anyone but the worker.
Life for the worker is largely the same in either. I have done both.
Gordon Levi
Apr 18, 2012, 11:11:47 PM4/18/12
to
post as relevant to "socialism". If you now recognise that your post
has nothing to do with socialism we agree.
ah...@gmail.com
Apr 19, 2012, 12:10:30 AM4/19/12
to
The sobering lesson is neither party, the rich or poor must not be allowed
to get out of hand. The rich must pay their dues and the poor have a need to
strive to make a living. The government has to work hard to give every one
opportunities to succeed. A level playing field for everyone willing to put
his/her back to achieve is a very good idea. Overall Australia is quite a
good country that provides such level playing fields. It is also quite a
compassionate country that looks after the genuine down trodden. No one who
is responsible starves
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" wrote in message
news:jmmiho$m6q$2...@dont-email.me...
to get out of hand. The rich must pay their dues and the poor have a need to
strive to make a living. The government has to work hard to give every one
opportunities to succeed. A level playing field for everyone willing to put
his/her back to achieve is a very good idea. Overall Australia is quite a
good country that provides such level playing fields. It is also quite a
compassionate country that looks after the genuine down trodden. No one who
is responsible starves
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" wrote in message
news:jmmiho$m6q$2...@dont-email.me...
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 19, 2012, 3:25:55 AM4/19/12
to
entire system - the tipping point which can be arrived at when a govt
finally runs out of other people's money to spend. Because nobody sees
it as worthwhile any longer busting a gut to generate enterprise and
wealth, when they are just as well off doing something much easier, or
nothing at all.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Apr 19, 2012, 3:33:20 AM4/19/12
to
On 19/04/2012 12:25 PM, Trevor wrote:
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmmh8h$f7v$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>>>>> Achieving the right balance to keep the wealth generation going and to
>>>>>> supply the essentials (but not the luxuries)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeh, "luxuries" like food, shelter and healthcare according the the
>>>>> Liberal
>>>>> philosophy.
>>>>
>>>> You call these "luxuries"?
>>>
>>> No the Lieberals do.
>>
>> Since when? Can't recall them ever calling to cut out benefits relating to
>> any of these. Maybe you're just lying now.
>
> What a moron, the Libs replacing a tax only on luxury goods with a tax on
> food, housing, gas, electricity, transport etc. *IS* declaring them
> "luxuries" that should be taxed, rather than necesseties.
It wasn't the Libs who imposed the GST - it was the Australian people
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax"<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jmmh8h$f7v$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.
>
> What a moron, the Libs replacing a tax only on luxury goods with a tax on
> food, housing, gas, electricity, transport etc. *IS* declaring them
> "luxuries" that should be taxed, rather than necesseties.
who voted for it. The carbon tax OTOH was unmandated and most
Australians were/are not in favour of it. Yet it impinges on every
single cost of living. Looks like you're the only moron here if you
can't see the difference between a democratically chosen tax and a
draconian Labor lie.
>
>> 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?
>
> Nope, its the Rabid Right lying about the benefits of the Lieberals GST on
> food, housing, electricity etc.
"There will be *NO* carbon tax under a government I lead".
Spot the difference. Liberal democracy vs Labor lies. Now run away and
learn about the unsavoury realities of you abhorrent political party.
Kangaroo Court Australia
Apr 19, 2012, 3:39:58 AM4/19/12
to
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
MELBOURNE REGISTRY No. M21 of 2012
BETWEEN: Le Tuan Pham
Applicant
and
Minh Nguyen
Respondent
APPLICANT’S SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Part I:
[A concise statement, in the case of an application for special leave
to appeal, of the special leave questions, said to arise.]
I. There are genuine questions of public importance arising from this
application:
a. The Refugee is vilified in public, and in this case by public
authorities; the Applicant is a refugee;
b. Where Racial Hatred has been legislated against directly, as in
Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, inter
alia;
c. The Refugee deserves to be allowed to stand up and make a case for
himself;
d. And not be vilified on his Engrish or bad English, even though
natural justice does not rely on any specific language;
II. There seems to be a difference of opinion between the courts;
III. The interests of justice require
a. that the Refugee be heard,
b. And be given proper and clear reasons for his questions;
c. Where there is clear and direct legislation for protection of basic
human rights;
d. Where there is clear and direct legislation for the protection of
natural justice in lieu of human rights.
Part II:
[A brief statement of the factual background to the application.]
1. On 1 March 2011, the Applicant signed a residential lease under the
Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (VIC) with a landlady at unit 2/23
Virginia St, Springvale 3171;
2. The question then arises whether the “shared room” the garage, was
habitable.
3. At VCAT on 30th August 2011, there was a consent order made by
Member J Kefford for compensation for the Landlady’s Breaches of Duty,
and the validity of Notice(s) to Vacate.
4. The Order states that the Applicant must move out by 30th
September, without further cost as to rent, and that the Landlady may
apply for possession AFTER the 30th September.
5. In addition, the Member struck out one Notice to Vacate and
withdrew another for being incompetent.
6. Two (2) days later, the respondent breached and showed contempt for
the VCAT order and violated the timetable for vacating the premises,
by filing for possession which was subsequent heard on the 26th
September.
7. Due to the breaches and violation of that consent order by the
respondent, the Applicant sought to have his moving costs,
inconvenience and other associated costs compensated,
8. The Applicant then re-issued a Breach of Duty Notice on the
Respondent, and indicated that he would now withdraw his intention to
vacate;
9. The Applicant argued that there was no valid Notice to Vacate, in
front of Member G Cremean; the member refused to hear on Compensation
for breaches of duty.
10. The Member failed to provide any order on the day of the hearing
and took some weeks to provide her reasons.
11. Member Cremean then backdated her orders to the day of the hearing
and order that the Applicant vacate the premises in two (2) days;
12. Knowing the bad faith and willful conduct of the landlady and her
real estate agent, Tony Rachele of McLennan Real Estate, the Applicant
sought review to protect his properties.
13. At the Supreme Court, the Applicant sought to appeal on the merits
of the decision from VCAT and seek an injunction against the
possession order.
14. The affidavit and supporting medical report from the Applicant
that went unchallenged was filed to be heard with Cavanough J in the
practice court, and now resubmitted to the High Court.
15. Cavanough J made the Applicant chase down the Respondent to be
present;
16. Cavanough J refused to allow an adjournment on medical grounds;
17. Cavanough J refused to provide written statements of reasons for
his decision, under valid court procedure rules;
18. In the Court of Appeals, the Respondent failed to turned up
19. The court of appeals erred by failing to indicate which Notice to
vacate was valid
20. The Court of Appeals erred by requiring the Applicant to challenge
on a question of fact that the applicant has moved out to the
premises.
Part III:
[A brief statement of the applicant’s argument.]
The legal profession has a fifty percent (50%) success rate, meaning
every time a case is brought before the courts, one side would lose
any case. If the Australian Medical Association has a fifty percent
(50%) success rate, they would be labeled charlatan.
The Refugee deserves to be heard and be seen to contribute to
Australian values and Way of Life in the Australian Court of Law.
The Grounds of judicial review are satisfied by the Applicant:
a breach of natural justice;
an error of law; and or
a failure to take into account a relevant consideration.
Section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
(Cth) ("ADJR Act") lists the grounds of judicial review, which largely
reflect the common law grounds at both federal and state levels, as
follows:
1. A person who is aggrieved by a decision to which this Act applies
that is made after the commencement of this Act may apply to the
Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court for an order of review
in respect of the decision on any one or more of the following
grounds:
a. that a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in
connection with the making of the decision;
b. that procedures that were required by law to be observed in
connection with the making of the decision were not observed;
c.
d. that the decision was not authorized by the enactment in pursuance
of which it was purported to be made;
e. that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the
power conferred by the enactment in pursuance of which it was
purported to be made;
f. that the decision involved an error of law, whether or not the
error appears on the record of the decision;
g. that the decision was induced or affected by fraud;
h. that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making
of the decision;
i. that the decision was otherwise contrary to law.
2. The reference in paragraph (1)(e) to an improper exercise of a
power shall be construed as including a reference to:
a. taking an irrelevant consideration into account in the exercise of
a power;
b. failing to take a relevant consideration into account in the
exercise of a power;
c. an exercise of a power for a purpose other than a purpose for which
the power is conferred;
d. an exercise of a discretionary power in bad faith;
e. an exercise of a personal discretionary power at the direction or
behest of another person;
f. an exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or
policy without regard to the merits of the particular case;
g. an exercise of a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable
person could have so exercised the power;
h. an exercise of a power in such a way that the result of the
exercise of the power is uncertain; and
i. any other exercise of a power in a way that constitutes abuse of
the power.
Review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
(Cth), especially under section 5, seems to indicate an enactment of
a. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
b. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination,
c. Inter alia;
Into Australian laws: an exercise of a power that is so unreasonable
that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power;
The other grounds of review pursuant to statute: the Victorian Charter
of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
a. Section 8. Recognition and equality before the law
b. Section 13 Privacy and Reputation
c. Section 24 Fair Hearing
d. Section 32 Interpretation
e. Section 38 Conduct of public authorities
f. Section 39 Legal proceedings
Part IV:
[Reasons why special leave should be granted.]
I. There are genuine questions of public importance arising from this
application:
e. The Refugee is vilified in public, and in this case by public
authorities; the Applicant is a refugee;
f. Where Racial Hatred has been legislated against directly, as in
Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, inter
alia;
g. The Refugee deserves to be allowed to stand up and make a case for
himself;
h. And not be vilified on his Engrish or bad English, even though
natural justice does not rely on any specific language;
II. There seems to be a difference of opinion between the courts:
Court of Appeal erred by failing to heed proper Authority:
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32
Gurnett v The Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd [No 2][126]
III. The interests of justice require
a. that the Refugee be heard,
b. And be given proper and clear reasons for his questions;
c. Where there is clear and direct legislation for protection of basic
human rights;
d. Where there is clear and direct legislation for the protection of
natural justice in lieu of human rights.
IV. In M142/2007 Pham vs the Commonwealth, the same Applicant to this
application, asked the court for Writs of Mandamus, the High Court
Australia decides without his consent that the Applicant meant
Certiorari. Surely, the Applicant’s Engrish is not that bad! The
Refugee feels insulted, humiliated and intimidated.
V. Provisions dealing with racial hatred in 1995, the Racial
Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for
1) The act must be done in public;
2) It must be reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or
intimidate the people against whom it is directed; and
3) It must be done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic
origin of the group against whom it is directed.
VI. The threshold is “the victim's perspective is the measure of
whether an act is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate”.
VII. The threshold is indirect unlawful discrimination based on race
and or disability.
VIII. In Reggie Wurridjal, Joy Garlbin And Bawinanga Aboriginal
Corporation V The Commonwealth Of Australia And Arnhem Land Aboriginal
Land Trust, the Honorable Justice Michael Kirby suggesting that the
Aboriginality of the applicants influenced the High Court decision.
IX. "If any other Australians, selected by reference to their race,
suffered the imposition on their pre-existing property interests of
non-consensual five-year statutory leases … it is difficult to believe
that a challenge to such a law would fail as legally unarguable on the
ground that no 'property' had been 'acquired'," he said.
"The Aboriginal parties are entitled to have their trial and day in
court. We should not slam the doors of the courts in their face. This
is a case in which a transparent, public trial of the proceedings has
its own justification."
X. Justice Michael Kirby seems to be taking into consideration the 3
provisions of racial hatred in the Race Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth),
namely it was made in public, the victim's perspective in whether an
act is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate, and that in
all likelihood, natural justice in lieu of human rights, would have
been afforded other Australians in such circumstances.
XI. In this particular case, the applicant submit that property has
been acquired, namely the filing fees for this application,
XII. And that just compensation, must be afforded the Applicant and
that he be heard and that he be given competent and proper reasons as
to why his questions are not valid;
XIII. Justice Michael Kirby seems to be equating natural justice with
human rights, and that protection for natural justice in
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), inter alia.
XIV. The accompanying VCAT Directions of Senior Member G Nihill
Ref:A41/2012, and at least five (5) other cases coming from VCAT, and
at least three (3) coming from G Nihill, seems to indicate that VCAT
requires the Applicant to test what is proper judicial conduct,
especially in providing improper legal advice and the handling of
evidence, and direct legislation of conduct to be compatible with
natural justice if not human rights, enacted by the Victorian
parliament.
Part V:
An order for costs should not be made in favour of the respondent in
the event that the application is refused because the respondent
showed contempt for the legal process and correspondent laws and
courts, by failing to attend the court hearing.
In a related matter in front of VCAT, the representative of the
respondent, Mr Tony Rachele of McLennan Real Estate indicated to the
effect that “he couldn’t be bothered”.
In the absence of the respondent, the Court of Appeal Victoria in
effect acted for the respondent in a capacity that violates their
independence and neutrality.
Part VI:
[A table of the authorities, legislation or other material on which
the applicant relies, identifying the pages at which the relevant
passages appear.]
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Section 5, inter alia
Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006
Section 8. Recognition and equality before the law
Section 13 Privacy and Reputation
Section 24 Fair Hearing
Section 32 Interpretation
Section 38 Conduct of public authorities
Section 39 Legal proceedings
Inter alia
Racial Discrimination Act 1975, 1995 (Cth) and its state counterpart
Including the racial hatred provisions
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and its state counterpart
the Judiciary Act
section 39B
Inter alia
Authority
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32
Gurnett v The Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd [No 2][126]
Reggie Wurridjal, Joy Garlbin And Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation V
The Commonwealth Of Australia And Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust
Enclosed Documents
Medical report from Dr Chi Lye Tang of Springvale South Medical
Centre dated 04 April 2012
Centrelink Medical Certicate dated 04 April 2012
Confirmation of Health Care Card dated 04 April 2012
VCAT Directions of Senior Member G Nihill
Ref:A41/2012 dated 02 April 2012
Part VII:
The applicant seeks to supplement this summary with oral argument.
Dated Thursday, April 19, 2012
................(signed)....................
[Name of applicant / applicant’s solicitor]
101
MELBOURNE REGISTRY No. M21 of 2012
BETWEEN: Le Tuan Pham
Applicant
and
Minh Nguyen
Respondent
APPLICANT’S SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Part I:
[A concise statement, in the case of an application for special leave
to appeal, of the special leave questions, said to arise.]
I. There are genuine questions of public importance arising from this
application:
a. The Refugee is vilified in public, and in this case by public
authorities; the Applicant is a refugee;
b. Where Racial Hatred has been legislated against directly, as in
Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, inter
alia;
c. The Refugee deserves to be allowed to stand up and make a case for
himself;
d. And not be vilified on his Engrish or bad English, even though
natural justice does not rely on any specific language;
II. There seems to be a difference of opinion between the courts;
III. The interests of justice require
a. that the Refugee be heard,
b. And be given proper and clear reasons for his questions;
c. Where there is clear and direct legislation for protection of basic
human rights;
d. Where there is clear and direct legislation for the protection of
natural justice in lieu of human rights.
Part II:
[A brief statement of the factual background to the application.]
1. On 1 March 2011, the Applicant signed a residential lease under the
Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (VIC) with a landlady at unit 2/23
Virginia St, Springvale 3171;
2. The question then arises whether the “shared room” the garage, was
habitable.
3. At VCAT on 30th August 2011, there was a consent order made by
Member J Kefford for compensation for the Landlady’s Breaches of Duty,
and the validity of Notice(s) to Vacate.
4. The Order states that the Applicant must move out by 30th
September, without further cost as to rent, and that the Landlady may
apply for possession AFTER the 30th September.
5. In addition, the Member struck out one Notice to Vacate and
withdrew another for being incompetent.
6. Two (2) days later, the respondent breached and showed contempt for
the VCAT order and violated the timetable for vacating the premises,
by filing for possession which was subsequent heard on the 26th
September.
7. Due to the breaches and violation of that consent order by the
respondent, the Applicant sought to have his moving costs,
inconvenience and other associated costs compensated,
8. The Applicant then re-issued a Breach of Duty Notice on the
Respondent, and indicated that he would now withdraw his intention to
vacate;
9. The Applicant argued that there was no valid Notice to Vacate, in
front of Member G Cremean; the member refused to hear on Compensation
for breaches of duty.
10. The Member failed to provide any order on the day of the hearing
and took some weeks to provide her reasons.
11. Member Cremean then backdated her orders to the day of the hearing
and order that the Applicant vacate the premises in two (2) days;
12. Knowing the bad faith and willful conduct of the landlady and her
real estate agent, Tony Rachele of McLennan Real Estate, the Applicant
sought review to protect his properties.
13. At the Supreme Court, the Applicant sought to appeal on the merits
of the decision from VCAT and seek an injunction against the
possession order.
14. The affidavit and supporting medical report from the Applicant
that went unchallenged was filed to be heard with Cavanough J in the
practice court, and now resubmitted to the High Court.
15. Cavanough J made the Applicant chase down the Respondent to be
present;
16. Cavanough J refused to allow an adjournment on medical grounds;
17. Cavanough J refused to provide written statements of reasons for
his decision, under valid court procedure rules;
18. In the Court of Appeals, the Respondent failed to turned up
19. The court of appeals erred by failing to indicate which Notice to
vacate was valid
20. The Court of Appeals erred by requiring the Applicant to challenge
on a question of fact that the applicant has moved out to the
premises.
Part III:
[A brief statement of the applicant’s argument.]
The legal profession has a fifty percent (50%) success rate, meaning
every time a case is brought before the courts, one side would lose
any case. If the Australian Medical Association has a fifty percent
(50%) success rate, they would be labeled charlatan.
The Refugee deserves to be heard and be seen to contribute to
Australian values and Way of Life in the Australian Court of Law.
The Grounds of judicial review are satisfied by the Applicant:
a breach of natural justice;
an error of law; and or
a failure to take into account a relevant consideration.
Section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
(Cth) ("ADJR Act") lists the grounds of judicial review, which largely
reflect the common law grounds at both federal and state levels, as
follows:
1. A person who is aggrieved by a decision to which this Act applies
that is made after the commencement of this Act may apply to the
Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court for an order of review
in respect of the decision on any one or more of the following
grounds:
a. that a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in
connection with the making of the decision;
b. that procedures that were required by law to be observed in
connection with the making of the decision were not observed;
c.
d. that the decision was not authorized by the enactment in pursuance
of which it was purported to be made;
e. that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the
power conferred by the enactment in pursuance of which it was
purported to be made;
f. that the decision involved an error of law, whether or not the
error appears on the record of the decision;
g. that the decision was induced or affected by fraud;
h. that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making
of the decision;
i. that the decision was otherwise contrary to law.
2. The reference in paragraph (1)(e) to an improper exercise of a
power shall be construed as including a reference to:
a. taking an irrelevant consideration into account in the exercise of
a power;
b. failing to take a relevant consideration into account in the
exercise of a power;
c. an exercise of a power for a purpose other than a purpose for which
the power is conferred;
d. an exercise of a discretionary power in bad faith;
e. an exercise of a personal discretionary power at the direction or
behest of another person;
f. an exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or
policy without regard to the merits of the particular case;
g. an exercise of a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable
person could have so exercised the power;
h. an exercise of a power in such a way that the result of the
exercise of the power is uncertain; and
i. any other exercise of a power in a way that constitutes abuse of
the power.
Review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
(Cth), especially under section 5, seems to indicate an enactment of
a. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
b. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination,
c. Inter alia;
Into Australian laws: an exercise of a power that is so unreasonable
that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power;
The other grounds of review pursuant to statute: the Victorian Charter
of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
a. Section 8. Recognition and equality before the law
b. Section 13 Privacy and Reputation
c. Section 24 Fair Hearing
d. Section 32 Interpretation
e. Section 38 Conduct of public authorities
f. Section 39 Legal proceedings
Part IV:
[Reasons why special leave should be granted.]
I. There are genuine questions of public importance arising from this
application:
e. The Refugee is vilified in public, and in this case by public
authorities; the Applicant is a refugee;
f. Where Racial Hatred has been legislated against directly, as in
Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, inter
alia;
g. The Refugee deserves to be allowed to stand up and make a case for
himself;
h. And not be vilified on his Engrish or bad English, even though
natural justice does not rely on any specific language;
II. There seems to be a difference of opinion between the courts:
Court of Appeal erred by failing to heed proper Authority:
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32
Gurnett v The Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd [No 2][126]
III. The interests of justice require
a. that the Refugee be heard,
b. And be given proper and clear reasons for his questions;
c. Where there is clear and direct legislation for protection of basic
human rights;
d. Where there is clear and direct legislation for the protection of
natural justice in lieu of human rights.
IV. In M142/2007 Pham vs the Commonwealth, the same Applicant to this
application, asked the court for Writs of Mandamus, the High Court
Australia decides without his consent that the Applicant meant
Certiorari. Surely, the Applicant’s Engrish is not that bad! The
Refugee feels insulted, humiliated and intimidated.
V. Provisions dealing with racial hatred in 1995, the Racial
Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for
1) The act must be done in public;
2) It must be reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or
intimidate the people against whom it is directed; and
3) It must be done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic
origin of the group against whom it is directed.
VI. The threshold is “the victim's perspective is the measure of
whether an act is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate”.
VII. The threshold is indirect unlawful discrimination based on race
and or disability.
VIII. In Reggie Wurridjal, Joy Garlbin And Bawinanga Aboriginal
Corporation V The Commonwealth Of Australia And Arnhem Land Aboriginal
Land Trust, the Honorable Justice Michael Kirby suggesting that the
Aboriginality of the applicants influenced the High Court decision.
IX. "If any other Australians, selected by reference to their race,
suffered the imposition on their pre-existing property interests of
non-consensual five-year statutory leases … it is difficult to believe
that a challenge to such a law would fail as legally unarguable on the
ground that no 'property' had been 'acquired'," he said.
"The Aboriginal parties are entitled to have their trial and day in
court. We should not slam the doors of the courts in their face. This
is a case in which a transparent, public trial of the proceedings has
its own justification."
X. Justice Michael Kirby seems to be taking into consideration the 3
provisions of racial hatred in the Race Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth),
namely it was made in public, the victim's perspective in whether an
act is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate, and that in
all likelihood, natural justice in lieu of human rights, would have
been afforded other Australians in such circumstances.
XI. In this particular case, the applicant submit that property has
been acquired, namely the filing fees for this application,
XII. And that just compensation, must be afforded the Applicant and
that he be heard and that he be given competent and proper reasons as
to why his questions are not valid;
XIII. Justice Michael Kirby seems to be equating natural justice with
human rights, and that protection for natural justice in
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), inter alia.
XIV. The accompanying VCAT Directions of Senior Member G Nihill
Ref:A41/2012, and at least five (5) other cases coming from VCAT, and
at least three (3) coming from G Nihill, seems to indicate that VCAT
requires the Applicant to test what is proper judicial conduct,
especially in providing improper legal advice and the handling of
evidence, and direct legislation of conduct to be compatible with
natural justice if not human rights, enacted by the Victorian
parliament.
Part V:
An order for costs should not be made in favour of the respondent in
the event that the application is refused because the respondent
showed contempt for the legal process and correspondent laws and
courts, by failing to attend the court hearing.
In a related matter in front of VCAT, the representative of the
respondent, Mr Tony Rachele of McLennan Real Estate indicated to the
effect that “he couldn’t be bothered”.
In the absence of the respondent, the Court of Appeal Victoria in
effect acted for the respondent in a capacity that violates their
independence and neutrality.
Part VI:
[A table of the authorities, legislation or other material on which
the applicant relies, identifying the pages at which the relevant
passages appear.]
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Section 5, inter alia
Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006
Section 8. Recognition and equality before the law
Section 13 Privacy and Reputation
Section 24 Fair Hearing
Section 32 Interpretation
Section 38 Conduct of public authorities
Section 39 Legal proceedings
Inter alia
Racial Discrimination Act 1975, 1995 (Cth) and its state counterpart
Including the racial hatred provisions
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and its state counterpart
the Judiciary Act
section 39B
Inter alia
Authority
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32
Gurnett v The Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd [No 2][126]
Reggie Wurridjal, Joy Garlbin And Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation V
The Commonwealth Of Australia And Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust
Enclosed Documents
Medical report from Dr Chi Lye Tang of Springvale South Medical
Centre dated 04 April 2012
Centrelink Medical Certicate dated 04 April 2012
Confirmation of Health Care Card dated 04 April 2012
VCAT Directions of Senior Member G Nihill
Ref:A41/2012 dated 02 April 2012
Part VII:
The applicant seeks to supplement this summary with oral argument.
Dated Thursday, April 19, 2012
................(signed)....................
[Name of applicant / applicant’s solicitor]
101
jg
Apr 19, 2012, 4:06:13 AM4/19/12
to
On 19/04/2012 3:25 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
> On 19/04/2012 12:37 PM, jg wrote:
..........
> On 19/04/2012 12:37 PM, jg wrote:
>>>
>>
>> But those 'lessons' miss the mark focusing on how hard the individual
>> works, when corporate or public ownership is mostly about rewarding
>> anyone but the worker.
>>
>> Life for the worker is largely the same in either. I have done both.
>>
>>
>
> The lessons are about the factors which will lead to the collapse of the
> entire system - the tipping point which can be arrived at when a govt
> finally runs out of other people's money to spend. Because nobody sees
> it as worthwhile any longer busting a gut to generate enterprise and
> wealth, when they are just as well off doing something much easier, or
> nothing at all.
>
Yeah the US sails dangerously close to that point, and brought the rest
>>
>> But those 'lessons' miss the mark focusing on how hard the individual
>> works, when corporate or public ownership is mostly about rewarding
>> anyone but the worker.
>>
>> Life for the worker is largely the same in either. I have done both.
>>
>>
>
> The lessons are about the factors which will lead to the collapse of the
> entire system - the tipping point which can be arrived at when a govt
> finally runs out of other people's money to spend. Because nobody sees
> it as worthwhile any longer busting a gut to generate enterprise and
> wealth, when they are just as well off doing something much easier, or
> nothing at all.
>
of the financial world a lot of grief with its starry eyed notions of
profit. A rather weird time to be warning people of the dangers of
socialism.
Swampfox
Apr 19, 2012, 8:17:54 AM4/19/12
to
On 19/04/2012 10:51 AM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
> On 19/04/2012 8:24 AM, dechucka wrote:
<snip>
> On 19/04/2012 8:24 AM, dechucka wrote:
>> 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.
For a second there I thought you'd had an original thought, I should
have known better.
Kangaroo Court Australia
Apr 19, 2012, 10:11:52 AM4/19/12
to
Dear Victorian Premier,
Attorneys General,
Friends,
1. In M21 of 2012, the Refugee is attempting to uphold True Blue
Aussie values.
2. How will the High Court Australia respond? Will they vindicate the
Kirby J dissent in
3. The Refugee deserves to be heard and be seen to contribute to
Australian values,
finally managed to get the documents filed today.
5. Will our audience pardon our Engrish, but surely the rule of law
does not depend on the language.
6. We shall see, what we shall see
Respectfully,
The Refugee
=====================
002
Attorneys General,
Friends,
1. In M21 of 2012, the Refugee is attempting to uphold True Blue
Aussie values.
2. How will the High Court Australia respond? Will they vindicate the
Kirby J dissent in
Reggie Wurridjal, Joy Garlbin And Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation V
The Commonwealth Of Australia And Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust?
3. The Refugee deserves to be heard and be seen to contribute to
Australian values,
and Way of Life in the Australian Court of Law.
4. There are so many hurdles for the Refugee to jump over but we
finally managed to get the documents filed today.
5. Will our audience pardon our Engrish, but surely the rule of law
does not depend on the language.
6. We shall see, what we shall see
Respectfully,
The Refugee
=====================
dechucka
Apr 19, 2012, 8:04:54 PM4/19/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
dechucka
Apr 19, 2012, 8:05:48 PM4/19/12
to
"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
Kangaroo Court Australia
Apr 20, 2012, 6:07:04 PM4/20/12
to
On Apr 20, 12:11 am, Kangaroo Court Australia
> ...
>
> read more »
>
> read more »
dolf
Apr 20, 2012, 11:49:15 PM4/20/12
to
Nous: #31
Time: 02:00 hrs
Date: 2012.4.21
Torah: #10 #200 #400 %81 = #43
Dao: Military Stratagem, Quelling War
Tetra: #51 - Constancy
I-Ching: H32 - Endurance
Latin: Spes {God who punishes the wicked} Alt: Saitel {Roaming of God} {
1. PROTECTS AGAINST UNJUST ATTACKS, CONFOUNDING ONE'S ENEMIES
2. PROPAGATES LIGHT, CIVILISATION & LIBERTY
3. PEACE, JUSTICE, SCIENCES & THE ARTS
4. Hepe
Solar Eclipse 4 December 2002 + 28 years}
Amminadab {My people is liberal}
- http://www.grapple369.com/grapple.html?zen:1,row:1,col:9
“A Saddam Hussein Head Stenciled Upon My Wall”
This Graffiti I read, #20 - Left without Language, Different From the
Vulgar / #1 - To Guide with Names, Reason's Realisation
It was no different to a Saddam head, #70 - Difficulty in Knowing How,
Obtuse / #50 - Fantasies of Avoiding Death, Value of Life
That did the roll when dead. #1 - To Guide with Names, Reason's
Realisation / #12 - Numbing Effect of the Conventional, Abstaining from
Desire
More than enough already said. #31 - Military Stratagem, Quelling War /
#31 - Military Stratagem, Quelling War
So having explained how this neural linguistic programming process
occurs as conceptional / notional “good design” of it as a “historical
(time) and area (spacial) overlay” by a multi-dimensional, geometric
dialectic representation of the Grapple #369 temporal / noumenal reality
paradigm shown above as the memetic {μιμειςθαι (Gk.) -- mimeomai
(G3401): #40, #10, #40, #5, #10, #200, #9, #1, #10 = #325; to imitate:
any one; that which is imitated} cause by (Gk.) “Heiros Logos” and the
impetus of its generation into a thematic and holistic view of “Heaven
in Miniature” as Kosmos:
απεπνιξαν
#337: {#1, #80, #5, #80, #50, #10, #60, #1, #50}
apopnigo-choke [G638]: #337
1) to choke
1a) to suffocate with water, drown
"Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and
the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked
{apopnigo-choke [G638]: #337}." [Luke 8:33]
μιμειςθαι
#325: {#40, #10, #40, #5, #10, #200, #9, #1, #10}
mimeomai-follow [G3401]: #325
1) to imitate: any one
"For yourselves know how ye ought to follow {mimeomai-follow [G3401]:
#325} us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;"
[2Thessalonians 3:7]
"Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto
you to follow {mimeomai-follow [G3401]: #325} us." [2Thessalonians 3:9]
"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you
the word of God: whose faith follow {mimeomai-follow [G3401]: #325},
considering the end of their conversation." [Hebrews 13:7]
"Beloved, follow {mimeomai-follow [G3401]: #325} not that which is evil,
but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth
evil hath not seen God." [3John 1:11]
- dolf
- www.grapple369.com/Rufus.html
Will I forget!
Time: 02:00 hrs
Date: 2012.4.21
Torah: #10 #200 #400 %81 = #43
Dao: Military Stratagem, Quelling War
Tetra: #51 - Constancy
I-Ching: H32 - Endurance
Latin: Spes {God who punishes the wicked} Alt: Saitel {Roaming of God} {
1. PROTECTS AGAINST UNJUST ATTACKS, CONFOUNDING ONE'S ENEMIES
2. PROPAGATES LIGHT, CIVILISATION & LIBERTY
3. PEACE, JUSTICE, SCIENCES & THE ARTS
4. Hepe
Solar Eclipse 4 December 2002 + 28 years}
Amminadab {My people is liberal}
- http://www.grapple369.com/grapple.html?zen:1,row:1,col:9
“A Saddam Hussein Head Stenciled Upon My Wall”
This Graffiti I read, #20 - Left without Language, Different From the
Vulgar / #1 - To Guide with Names, Reason's Realisation
It was no different to a Saddam head, #70 - Difficulty in Knowing How,
Obtuse / #50 - Fantasies of Avoiding Death, Value of Life
That did the roll when dead. #1 - To Guide with Names, Reason's
Realisation / #12 - Numbing Effect of the Conventional, Abstaining from
Desire
More than enough already said. #31 - Military Stratagem, Quelling War /
#31 - Military Stratagem, Quelling War
So having explained how this neural linguistic programming process
occurs as conceptional / notional “good design” of it as a “historical
(time) and area (spacial) overlay” by a multi-dimensional, geometric
dialectic representation of the Grapple #369 temporal / noumenal reality
paradigm shown above as the memetic {μιμειςθαι (Gk.) -- mimeomai
(G3401): #40, #10, #40, #5, #10, #200, #9, #1, #10 = #325; to imitate:
any one; that which is imitated} cause by (Gk.) “Heiros Logos” and the
impetus of its generation into a thematic and holistic view of “Heaven
in Miniature” as Kosmos:
απεπνιξαν
#337: {#1, #80, #5, #80, #50, #10, #60, #1, #50}
apopnigo-choke [G638]: #337
1) to choke
1a) to suffocate with water, drown
"Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and
the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked
{apopnigo-choke [G638]: #337}." [Luke 8:33]
μιμειςθαι
#325: {#40, #10, #40, #5, #10, #200, #9, #1, #10}
mimeomai-follow [G3401]: #325
1) to imitate: any one
"For yourselves know how ye ought to follow {mimeomai-follow [G3401]:
#325} us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;"
[2Thessalonians 3:7]
"Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto
you to follow {mimeomai-follow [G3401]: #325} us." [2Thessalonians 3:9]
"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you
the word of God: whose faith follow {mimeomai-follow [G3401]: #325},
considering the end of their conversation." [Hebrews 13:7]
"Beloved, follow {mimeomai-follow [G3401]: #325} not that which is evil,
but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth
evil hath not seen God." [3John 1:11]
- dolf
- www.grapple369.com/Rufus.html
Will I forget!
0 new messages