On 15/04/2022 11:12 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 15/04/2022 8:42 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 15/4/2022 7:22 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>> For my part, I've read policy documents from:
>>>
>>> UAP - Hysterical. Nothing of substance.
>>> Hanson - Mostly utter crap and a deep desire to take Australia back
>>> to the 1950s.
>>> The Greens - I don't agree with all their policies, but the important
>>> stuff is bang-on.
>>> Labor - Fucked, timid and simply not good enouogh.
>>> COALition - More of the same.
>>>
>>>
>> There had to be at least one person who has bothered to read all that
>> crap, congratulations.
>> Us mere mortals just watch the TV and read other news and make of it
>> what we can, haven't seen much from the Greens but from what I can see
>> their hearts might be in the right place but they really have no idea
>> what they are doing.
>
> Absolutely none whatsoever.

**How curious. You know nothing about the Greens, haven't read their
policy documents, yet you deride them.

>
> Have a look at their page that Trev linked to earlier. The costs
> involved in what they want to do would make Elon Musk, Jeff Bazos and
> Bill Gates shit themselves *so* hard they'd rupture their arseholes, yet
> the Greens method of paying for it all is to "tax rich cunts".

**How much will the Greens' policies cost?

>
> They're delusional.

**If we can cut the waste from the COALition shit over the past 10
years, we'd be in a far better place. Same deal if the tax system worked
for the majority and not the minority.

On 15/04/2022 8:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 15/04/2022 7:22 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 15/04/2022 5:14 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> **Your failure to read the Greens' policy documents is noted.
>>>
>>> Lol :)
>>>
>>> When you do this you remind me a lot of Paul Saccani. He used to do
>>> this all the time in that he would assume that, as he could never be
>>> wrong, then whoever didn't agree with him must simply not understand
>>> what was being discussed :)
>>>
>>> It's just as funny when you do it, too :)
>>
>> **What is sad, is that you have failed to read the Greens' policy
>> documents.
>
> Oh, I've read them Trevor.

**Bullshit. YOu have not read their policy documents.

As I said, they are completely unaffordable.
> Just so you know, Adam Bandt is a fucking lunatic.

**Just so you know, Adam Bandt is the only politician who was able to
answer one of those set-up questions, asked by Murdoch journos, that are
designed to catch pollies out.

>
>> For my part, I've read policy documents from:
>>
>> UAP - Hysterical. Nothing of substance.
>> Hanson - Mostly utter crap and a deep desire to take Australia back to
>> the 1950s.
>> The Greens - I don't agree with all their policies, but the important
>> stuff is bang-on.
>> Labor - Fucked, timid and simply not good enouogh.
>> COALition - More of the same.
>
> That's nice, but given that Governments of all persuasions seldom
> deliver on the majority of their election promises I have to wonder why
> you would bother.

**It's the COALITION that has failed to deliver.

On 15/04/2022 8:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 15/04/2022 7:19 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 15/04/2022 5:11 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> You know when Julia Gillard was Prime Minister, she stated publicly
>>> that balancing the budget was the "responsible thing to do", and she
>>> pledged to do precisely that. Not once, but on eleven separate
>>> occasions.
>>>
>>> However despite those promises, and despite instilling into the
>>> populace the importance of doing so, the number of times she was able
>>> to balance the budget was zero.
>>>
>>> Not even once.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **OK. Now see if you find as many egregious lies, falsifications and
>> outright bullshit, as described in my original post.
>
> Given that she was one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in
> Australian political history, I have no doubt you could find *many*
> occasions of lies, falsifications and outright bullshit as your comedy
> article listed.
>
> Why don't you have a crack at it Trev? Here, I help you by starting you
> off with one of her better ones:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApCwoj35d3M
>
> --
>
>> I bet you cannot.
>
> I bet that if I was interested enough to devote the energy required to
> it that I probably could. But am I going to? No. It would be a waste of
> time as there is nothing I could ever present you with that would make
> you see reason.
>
>> Or are you comfortable with:
>>
>> * More pork-barrelling.
>> * More unfinished, unwanted car parks.
>> * More sports rorts.
>> * Etc.
>
> I honestly don't care Trevor, but I *am* somewhat amused by you carrying
> on as if the Libs are the *only* people who ever do this :)

**They're not, but they've turned it into a fine art. Here's the thing:

Why reward ANY politician who does these things? If Labor get in at the
next election and fail to live up to reasonable standards, then boot
them out. Hell, I'll be yelling it from the roof-tops.

The COALition has acted appallingly over the past 10 years. They should
not be rewarded.

On 15/04/2022 8:36 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 15/4/2022 7:19 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 15/04/2022 5:11 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2022 12:22 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 15/04/2022 11:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>
>>>>> but i'll bet a similar list could easily be made for any period
>>>>> Labor was in office
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Fair enough. Submit your evidence.
>>>>
>>>> I bet you cannot. This government is the most inept bunch of
>>>> arseholes ever to inhabit Canberra.
>>>
>>> You know when Julia Gillard was Prime Minister, she stated publicly
>>> that balancing the budget was the "responsible thing to do", and she
>>> pledged to do precisely that. Not once, but on eleven separate
>>> occasions.
>>>
>>> However despite those promises, and despite instilling into the
>>> populace the importance of doing so, the number of times she was able
>>> to balance the budget was zero.
>>>
>>> Not even once.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **OK. Now see if you find as many egregious lies, falsifications and
>> outright bullshit, as described in my original post.
>>
>> I bet you cannot.
>>
>> Or are you comfortable with:
>>
>> * More pork-barrelling.
>> * More unfinished, unwanted car parks.
>> * More sports rorts.
>> * Etc.
>
> They are all called politicians Trev, they are all as doggy as each
> other, if anyone could be bothered they could drag up dirt on any
> politician past and present.
> I see the next election being between the devil we know vs the devil we
> don't, either way everything will stay much the same and life will go on
> same as it always does.

**I will say once more: DO NOT reward any politician with another minute
in power, if they violate your trust. The COALition has violated our trust.

On 17/04/2022 10:11 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 15/04/2022 4:23 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> Come on Trevor. Even the media was calling the 900 buck "stimulus
>> bonus" the flat panel TV payment :)
>
> **I will state once more:
>
>
> Bullshit. I didn't receive a new TV, nor did anyone I know. That would
> be your lie.

Fucking hell. Really? So what did you spend your 900 buck plasma bonus
on? :)

>>> **700-odd deaths in federally controlled aged care facilities.
>>
>> Yep, sad. Lots of deaths in privately run aged care facilities too.
>
> **The vast majority of deaths occurred in facilities that the Feds are
> responsible for overseeing.

Did they? Do you have the breakdown?

> I've some experience with aged care facilities, with two relatives
> presently in care (where nurses are on duty 24/7), food is excellent and
> costs are reasonable. I examined 27 (TWENTY SEVEN) facilities that met
> my standards of care. It should not be that difficult. In one facility,
> where my mother and sister resided, care was excellent. The facility was
> bought by a larger corporation and staff numbers were cut by 30%
> instantly. All because the Feds refuse to address the very real problems
> in the industry. The COALition have had ten years to do something. They
> failed. Time for a change.

Every single government in the last 30 years has had time to do
something but none of them have. This *isn't* a problem that has just
suddenly appeared under the current government but one that's existed
for decades. Blaming the current government for it's woes is ridiculous :)
>>> * Lack of proper containment facilities for overseas arrivals.
>>
>> We used to have hostels and other facilities for overseas arrivals but
>> they were made redundant by the bleeding hearts who said they were
>> cruel and we didn't need them. *Now* apparently we do, but seemingly
>> only for those times when we have a massive pandemic on our hands
>> which is like once every hundred years or so.
>
> **Well, bleeding hearts like Scummo refused to build the necessary
> facilities.

And even if they started tomorrow, what would they do with them in 2
years time when they were completed and ready for use?

>> Any money bet that if we had them and never used them but continued to
>> pay the ridiculous maintenance costs required to keep them in good
>> order just in *case* we needed them you'd be winging about the waste
>> and how that money could be better spent elsewhere.
>
> **You mean like the millions spent keeping a handful of detainees on
> foreign soil?

Yeah, like that. Or are you going to suggest that off-shore detention is
something we don't need? Is that what you're saying Albo?

>> Do you know of any other Western country that had adequate quarantine
>> containment facilities to deal with their overseas arrivals?

> **Don't know and don't care. I live in Australia. The cost of the
> facility would be minimal, compared to the cost of the escaped virus.

So what you're saying then, is that we should build a *massive*
quarantine facility which would be capable of housing 50 thousand
people, and it should be maintained in a state of permanent readiness
all year round just in case we ever find ourselves in the position of
ever needing to use it?

For fuck's sake. No *wonder* you think Greens policies make sense :)

>>> * Relying on one vaccine and ordering back-up vaccines too late.
>>
>> Bullshit. We ordered Vaccines as soon as we were able to, and the
>> delay in getting them to us was a direct result of the manufacturers
>> themselves.
>
> **Wrong:

Absolutely not. We could not order until the offer to do so was made,
and as soon as it was we did so. As I said in another post, you cannot
force people to sell you something. The companies responsible for making
the vaccines offered them to us once they were in a position to do so.

>>> * Giving huge chunks of money to companies that weren't suffering
>>> under COVID restrictions.
>>
>> Like who? Hardly Normal? :)
>
> **And many, many others.

Which ones in particular, and as you often say be concise. Take a moment
to show which companies were given "huge chunks", and how it is that you
know they didn't need it.

>> History has shown that there have been very few compensation schemes
>> issued in the midst of a national crisis that have been means tested,
>> and generally because the object of the exercise is to get the money
>> out there circulating as quickly as possible. Do you think everyone
>> who got a 900 buck "Plasma TV" bonus thanks to little Kevvy was
>> suffering and needed it?
>
> **I don't know ANYONE who got a plasma TV from Rudd. I sure didn't.

I simply cannot believe that you can be this inane and are taking the
piss here :)

> I know some people who received their stimulus money and spent it on,
> well, stimulating the economy. IOW: It did exactly what it was intended
> to do.

It did wonders for the bottom lines of Hardly Normal, Bing Lee and the
Good Guys :)

>> Most companies stuck their hands out and took the government up on
>> their offer, especially when the full effect of the pandemic was yet
>> to be realised and they needed a margin of safety. But once they
>> realised they weren't as adversely affected as they thought they might
>> be the ones with a decent moral compass handed the money back.
>>
>> Jerry Harvey didn't, despite doing remarkably well during the
>> pandemic, and if you want to blame anyone for than then blame that
>> slimey little cock sucker.
>
> **No. I blame the guys who failed to organise the system properly.

Of course you do, because there's no Liberal bashing to be had in
blaming anyone else. It's an bit like blaming the ATO when people cheat
on their tax returns, right? :)

>>> * Not trying to claw back the money.
>>
>> As much as Government is about giving it to you with one hand and
>> taking it back with the other, you don't hand out compensation
>> payments and *then* take them back if you think the people really
>> didn't need them.
>
> **LOL! Ask the dole recipients who received too much money and were sent
> letters of demand. The government went after those poor buggers and left
> Harvey alone.

If you genuinely can't make a distinction between a business stimulus
package which isn't means tested, and a social benefit payment which is,
then I won't waste my time trying to explain it to you.

>>> * Failing to introduce COVID mandates across the nation in a
>>> homogeneous manner.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> The Federal Government introduced whatever mandates they had the
>> authority to, such as preventing people from entering the country
>> unless they've been double vaxed for example. But unfortunately that's
>> largely where their authority ends, and this is precisely the trouble.
>
> **And yet - Ruby Princess.

What about it in particular?

>> The Federal Government doesn't have the authority to tell State
>> Governments what to do with regards to imposing rules and restrictions
>> which is why we've seen such disparity all over the country, and
>> criticising them for something that they can't legally do is
>> ridiculous. In my opinion this needs to change, and to that end I'd be
>> more than happy to see State Governments completely abolished.
>
> **Not until we dump the cretins in Canberra right now. At least the
> state governments are acting correctly.

ROTFL :) Surely you can't be serious :)

The response from the states has ranged from ridiculous inaction to
total over-reaction and everything in between. They've put on a quite
*remarkable* display of how *everyone* thinks they have the answers and
how everyone's answers differ wildly to those of everyone else.

It's been little other than comical in the extreme :)

>> However given that that's never likely to happen, I'd settle for the
>> Federal Government being granted executive powers during periods of
>> national crisis such as during a pandemic whereby uniform national
>> restrictions are imposed without State Government interference.
>>
>> Until that happens blaming the Federal Government for this is
>> ridiculous as they have nothing to do with it.
>
> **And once more: The Feds have done some stuff right and a whole lot wrong.

So you say, and you seem to have some confusion about what they have
done, and what they're able to do.

On 17/04/2022 11:22 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 10:11 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>  I examined 27 (TWENTY SEVEN) facilities that met
>> my standards of care.
> **Oops. Should read:
>
>  I examined 27 (TWENTY SEVEN) facilities that failed to meet
> my standards of care.

Your standards of care are completely irrelevant. You don't make the rules.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 17/4/2022 12:16 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 15/04/2022 8:36 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 15/4/2022 7:19 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2022 5:11 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 15/04/2022 12:22 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 15/04/2022 11:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> but i'll bet a similar list could easily be made for any period
>>>>>> Labor was in office
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **Fair enough. Submit your evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> I bet you cannot. This government is the most inept bunch of
>>>>> arseholes ever to inhabit Canberra.
>>>>
>>>> You know when Julia Gillard was Prime Minister, she stated publicly
>>>> that balancing the budget was the "responsible thing to do", and she
>>>> pledged to do precisely that. Not once, but on eleven separate
>>>> occasions.
>>>>
>>>> However despite those promises, and despite instilling into the
>>>> populace the importance of doing so, the number of times she was
>>>> able to balance the budget was zero.
>>>>
>>>> Not even once.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> **OK. Now see if you find as many egregious lies, falsifications and
>>> outright bullshit, as described in my original post.
>>>
>>> I bet you cannot.
>>>
>>> Or are you comfortable with:
>>>
>>> * More pork-barrelling.
>>> * More unfinished, unwanted car parks.
>>> * More sports rorts.
>>> * Etc.
>>
>> They are all called politicians Trev, they are all as doggy as each
>> other, if anyone could be bothered they could drag up dirt on any
>> politician past and present.
>> I see the next election being between the devil we know vs the devil
>> we don't, either way everything will stay much the same and life will
>> go on same as it always does.
>
> **I will say once more: DO NOT reward any politician with another minute
> in power, if they violate your trust. The COALition has violated our trust.

So who do suggest we replace them with?
Labor are just as untrustworthy and the Greens are communists who want
to send us back to the dark ages.
Do we get rid of the party system and have a Govt run by independents?
If that happened it would take many many years getting anything done
because not enough of them will agree to pass any legislation so we are
stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.

--
Daryl

On 17/4/2022 1:39 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 10:11 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 15/04/2022 4:23 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Come on Trevor. Even the media was calling the 900 buck "stimulus
>>> bonus" the flat panel TV payment :)
>>
>> **I will state once more:
>>
>>
>> Bullshit. I didn't receive a new TV, nor did anyone I know. That would
>> be your lie.
>
> Fucking hell. Really? So what did you spend your 900 buck plasma bonus
> on? :)
>
>>>> **700-odd deaths in federally controlled aged care facilities.
>>>
>>> Yep, sad. Lots of deaths in privately run aged care facilities too.
>>
>> **The vast majority of deaths occurred in facilities that the Feds are
>> responsible for overseeing.
>
> Did they? Do you have the breakdown?
>
>> I've some experience with aged care facilities, with two relatives
>> presently in care (where nurses are on duty 24/7), food is excellent
>> and costs are reasonable. I examined 27 (TWENTY SEVEN) facilities that
>> met my standards of care. It should not be that difficult. In one
>> facility, where my mother and sister resided, care was excellent. The
>> facility was bought by a larger corporation and staff numbers were cut
>> by 30% instantly. All because the Feds refuse to address the very real
>> problems in the industry. The COALition have had ten years to do
>> something. They failed. Time for a change.
>
> Every single government in the last 30 years has had time to do
> something but none of them have. This *isn't* a problem that has just
> suddenly appeared under the current government but one that's existed
> for decades. Blaming the current government for it's woes is ridiculous :)
>>>> * Lack of proper containment facilities for overseas arrivals.
>>>
>>> We used to have hostels and other facilities for overseas arrivals
>>> but they were made redundant by the bleeding hearts who said they
>>> were cruel and we didn't need them. *Now* apparently we do, but
>>> seemingly only for those times when we have a massive pandemic on our
>>> hands which is like once every hundred years or so.
>>
>> **Well, bleeding hearts like Scummo refused to build the necessary
>> facilities.
>
> And even if they started tomorrow, what would they do with them in 2
> years time when they were completed and ready for use?

We would complain about the wasted money spent on unused facilities.
Reminds me of the Vic Labor Govts desalination plant, by the time it was
finished the drought broke and it turned into a very expensive white
elephant.

--
Daryl

On 17/04/2022 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 16/04/2022 9:43 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>>> Massive and sustained acts of corruption?
>>>
>>> **Yes.
>>
>> And yet there have been no charges laid to date for these "criminal
>> acts". Why is that?
>
> **For EXACTLY the same reason why no charges were laid to convict the
> O'Beids here in NSW. It took a state ICAC to investigate and lay
> charges. The O'Beids are resting comfortably in jail right now. Until we
> have a Federal ICAC, Federal politicians will continue to act like
> criminals.

So, what you're saying then, is that politicians of all persuasions cab
get away with whatever crimes they like because there is as yet no means
in place to prosecute them?

Is that what you're saying? :)

>> Nice editorial, but you completely avoided the question which was if
>> the Libs are as guilty of corrupt and criminal behaviour as you say,
>> why haven't we seen any charges laid over these actions?
>
> **See above. A Federal ICAC is required. The criminal activities of
> Federal politicians will go unpunished, until we have one.

I'm calling flat out bullshit on this. Politicians are *not* exempt from
the law :)

> Scummo promised one and never introduced the legislation.

I posted a link the other day where the legislation was in fact tabled
in 2020, and it was unsupported by both sides of the house.

> Labor said they would.

Labor said they wouldn't introduce a carbon tax and would effectively
control our borders, too.

> Scummo has had 3 years to get his shit together. He has failed
> this nation and must be kicked out.

And the Labor politicians who didn't move to support the bill? What
happens to them? :)

>> I take it you understand that Labor isn't any keener to see a Federal
>> ICAC introduced than the Libs or anyone else, right?
>
> **Then, if they don't do what they promise, boot them out.

Would you have booted out Julia Gillard for introducing a Carbon tax
after she publicly pledged to the electorate that she wouldn't do so?

>  Why do you think
>> Labor has not said a word about it until now at the start of an
>> election campaign? :)
>
> **BULLSHIT! Labor has been asking for the legislation for the past 6 ~ 7
> years. Scummo has been dodging it.

Have they? If that's the case then why did they sit on their hands when
the bill was tabled in 2020?

>>> **Most of it is due to our relative isolation. Let's not forget that.
>>> The STATE governments have, in general, handled the crisis quite well.
>>
>> There has been varied success from different state governments, how
>> does that square with your earlier comments of the Federal
>> government's response to the pandemic being a fuck up?
>
> **Asked and answered.

Yeah, I don't think so. But anyway....

>>>>> The COALition does not deserve another 3 years. To reward them with
>>>>> such, would be to tacitly allow them to be even worse next time.
>>>>
>>>> Why would it? :)
>>>
>>> **The definition of insanity is to vote the same way and expect a
>>> different outcome.
>>
>> Apart from making zero sense in this context, than analogy fails to
>> show how if re-elected the current government would be the slightest
>> bit different one way or the other.
>
> **Here goes:
>
> Read the list of fuck-ups and lies that I submitted previously.

The one from The Chaser? The group who in their "About" section of their
web page describe themselves as a "satirical media empire which rivals
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation in all fields except power, influence,
popularity and profitability".

You mean the list provided by a comedy team? :)

> Voting for the same bunch of arseholes merely guarantees that we will see more
> fuck-ups and lies.

But that's not what you said. What you said was that putting them back
into office would "tacitly allow them to be even worse next time" and
you haven't shown how that is the case.

>> Calling the deaths of over 6 million people, tanked economies,
>> destroyed companies and God only knows what else an "inconvenience" is
>> understating the case somewhat.
>
> **WWII was responsible for the deaths of around 70 ~ 85 million people.
> Around 3% of the planet's population back then. 6 million, whilst
> horrible, is a blip. AND, if you want to know about deprivations, just
> ask someone who lived in Europe at that time. The suffering of hundreds
> of millions of people makes the present issue, barely an issue.

It's relative Trevor. There have been many devastating events over the
course of this planet's history, and as relatively minor as the Covid
pandemic has been compared to some, calling the deaths of 6 and a
quarter million people an "inconvenience" is insulting to say the very
least.

It may have been an inconvenience to you, just like the war going on now
in the Ukraine is an "inconvenience" to us here in Australia thanks to
the effects it has had on the price of petrol. But to others it is a
devastating life changing event.
>
>>> **Barely noticed. However, I'm careful and triple (soon to be
>>> quadruple) vaxxed. I still wear a mask when shopping. It's a seat
>>> belt for my COVID health.
>>
>> Right, and the point being, which largely seems lost on you, is that
>> the actions of our government not only helped to keep you safe and
>> healthy, but also prevented you from suffering financially.
>
> **My STATE government, yes. I have not received a single cent from the
> Feds.

But you have Trevor. Who do you think provided you with those
vaccinations? Who supplied the RAT tests to pensioners? Who provided the
funds to state governments to pay for lab testing? Who provided
"everyday continuance" funds for state governments to cover a massive
drop in revenue from suspended business operations, public transport
patronage, etc etc etc.

No one has knocked on your door and handed you a wad of cash. Sure, me
either. But we have *both* enjoyed the benefits of federally funded
assistance whether we like it or not and to claim otherwise is the
height of ignorance.

>> To a degree, but there have been many fuck-ups along the way. And
>> regardless of what side of the political fence they sit on, they have
>> *all* relied on and received Federal assistance to keep their wheels
>> turning and permit life to carry on in as normal a fashion as possible.
>
> **Actually, not so much. The Feds have helped, but the states have done
> all the heavy lifting. Scummo does like to take credit though.

Actually Trevor all the states have done has to play "administrator",
and in some cases have made a complete pig's breakfast of it. It's the
Federal government who has footed the bill, which is why we're in the
financial state we are now.

>> The fact that we now have around 85% of the population fully
>> vaccinated means that we don't need to have as drastic transmission
>> measures in place as we once did.
>>
>> You're right, it's not over and it probably won't be for quite some
>> time. But if you're triple vaxed and about to get your second booster
>> the chances of you being adversely affected by *any* currently known
>> variant are very low indeed.
>
> **You cannot possibly know that.

No, I don't know that, but the medical scientists seem to. The general
consensus seems to be that vaccines are quite remarkably effective
against all known variants of Covid, and while new variants are
certainly possible there doesn't seem to be anything on the horizon to
suggest that a new "super strain" that makes the vaccines ineffective is
looming any time soon.

Of course, I'm happy to stand corrected if you have anything to state
otherwise.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 17/04/2022 11:20 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 9:00 am, Daryl wrote:

>> Judging by how ineffective the state versions of an ICAC have been
>> what makes you think that a Federal ICAC will actually be anything
>> other than another money wasting exercise?
>
> **Without the NSW ICAC (set up by the NSW state Labor government), Eddie
> O'Beid (a state LABOR politician) would be in one of his luxury homes,
> ripping off taxpayers and violating the law. Thanks to ICAC, Eddie is in
> a jail cell.
>
> ICAC works.

Trevor, people are sentenced to prison after being criminally convicted,
and there is *already* a procedure in place that deals with criminal
activity. It's called the legal system. The NSW ICAC did *not* find
Eddie O'Beid guilty of anything as it wasn't within their authority to
do so. All they did was hold an enquiry whereby they recommended to the
Director of Public Prosecutions that they consider prosecuting O'Beid,
and it was up to *them* if they thought the matter was worth putting
before the court.

In this particular case they did, but the point is that O'beid wasn't
above the law and exempt from prosecution had the ICAC not existed, and
there was nothing to stop the DPP making their own case against him had
they wanted to.

>> No politician from any party would want an effective ICAC because they
>> are all as bad as each other
>
> **You don't know that.

You don't have to be Einstein to appreciate that very few people would
ever willingly vote for a system where the express purpose of said
system was to investigate them should they do anything wrong :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 17/04/2022 7:10 am, alvey wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:03:58 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>> On 16/04/2022 12:18 pm, alvey wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 10:34:43 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/04/2022 4:06 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:52:36 +1000, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15/4/2022 12:29 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> **700-odd deaths in federally controlled aged care facilities.
>>>>>> What makes you think that the Federal Govt could have done anything
>>>>>> about that or that a Labor Govt would have done anything different?
>>>>>
>>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Giving huge chunks of money to companies that weren't suffering under
>>>>>>> COVID restrictions.
>>>>>>> * Not trying to claw back the money.
>>>>>> Agree they didn't do a great job there and were too generous but not
>>>>>> only with companies, individuals also got handouts they didn't need or
>>>>>> deserve.
>>>>>> What makes you think that Labor would have done differently or better?
>>>>> Ahhhh, the classic True Believer. Or, as they're also known, The Compleat
>>>>> Idiot. "Yes, my mob stuffed up there, but the other clowns would have been
>>>>> even worse!". You can't argue with a mind capable of this level of
>>>>> stupidity. It's like a club not wanting to change the players or coach
>>>>> after a hat-trick of wooden spoons because, "no-one could have done any
>>>>> better".
>>>>>
>>>> regardless of how bad (or not) the libs have performed, there's no way
>>>> anyone can know or prove we would be better off now if Labor had been in
>>>> office
>>> This is madness felix. Your crazed reasoning means that people will *never*
>>> change their vote regardless of the performance of the incumbents. "Oh yes,
>>> unemployment is 60%, life expectancy has dropped by 25 years, and selling
>>> North Qld to the Chinese was possibly a mistake, but things would be much
>>> worse if your mob was in power!". You need to have a little think about
>>> your reasoning.
>> there's nothing wrong with my reasoning. what I said is correct, and
>> Trevor agreed.
> Well derr, of course there's no way of knowing.

so why did you disagree then

> My point was beyond that in
> that you are assuming the worst Every Single Time,

I'm assuming nothing, I'm simply stating a fact, one that initially you
disagreed with then agreed with. ??

> and that by using your farcial reasoning

there is no 'farcial' (or 'crazed') reasoning involved in stating a fact

> there is no possibility of you ever changing your
> vote.

of course there is. just because we cannot know how an opposition would
have performed in the past, and just as we cannot know how they will
perform in future if they form government , we are not not precluded
from voting them in on the assumption or expectation that they will form
a better government than if the incumbent were re-elected.

> That is not a good thing for a country felix. cf RM Nixon, DJ Trump.
>
>> it's your deducted scenario that's incorrect.
> There's no way of knowing that...

yes there is. see my comment above

>
>
> alvey
>

On 17/04/2022 7:12 am, alvey wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 14:03:27 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>> On 16/04/2022 1:03 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 16/04/2022 12:18 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 10:34:43 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/04/2022 4:06 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:52:36 +1000, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15/4/2022 12:29 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> **700-odd deaths in federally controlled aged care facilities.
>>>>>>> What makes you think that the Federal Govt could have done anything
>>>>>>> about that or that a Labor Govt would have done anything different?
>>>>>>    snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Giving huge chunks of money to companies that weren't suffering
>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>> COVID restrictions.
>>>>>>>> * Not trying to claw back the money.
>>>>>>> Agree they didn't do a great job there and were too generous but not
>>>>>>> only with companies, individuals also got handouts they didn't
>>>>>>> need or
>>>>>>> deserve.
>>>>>>> What makes you think that Labor would have done differently or
>>>>>>> better?
>>>>>> Ahhhh, the classic True Believer. Or, as they're also known, The
>>>>>> Compleat
>>>>>> Idiot. "Yes, my mob stuffed up there, but the other clowns would
>>>>>> have been
>>>>>> even worse!". You can't argue with a mind capable of this level of
>>>>>> stupidity. It's like a club not wanting to change the players or coach
>>>>>> after a hat-trick of wooden spoons because, "no-one could have done
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> better".
>>>>>>
>>>>> regardless of how bad (or not) the libs have performed, there's no way
>>>>> anyone can know or prove we would be better off now if Labor had
>>>>> been in
>>>>> office
>>>> This is madness felix. Your crazed reasoning means that people will
>>>> *never*
>>>> change their vote regardless of the performance of the incumbents.
>>>> "Oh yes,
>>>> unemployment is 60%, life expectancy has dropped by 25 years, and
>>>> selling
>>>> North Qld to the Chinese was possibly a mistake, but things would be
>>>> much
>>>> worse if your mob was in power!". You need to have a little think about
>>>> your reasoning.
>>>
>>> there's nothing wrong with my reasoning. what I said is correct, and
>>> Trevor agreed. it's your deducted scenario that's incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>> my bad. "deduced scenario" not "deducted scenario"
> I wondered wtf a "deducted scenario" was, but I excused you because of your
> advancing age and retreating intelligence...
>

that's exceedingly generous of you, but your excusing of my mistake was
not really required

>
> alvey
>

On 17/04/2022 12:10 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 15/04/2022 11:12 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 15/04/2022 8:42 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 15/4/2022 7:22 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>> For my part, I've read policy documents from:
>>>>
>>>> UAP - Hysterical. Nothing of substance.
>>>> Hanson - Mostly utter crap and a deep desire to take Australia back
>>>> to the 1950s.
>>>> The Greens - I don't agree with all their policies, but the
>>>> important stuff is bang-on.
>>>> Labor - Fucked, timid and simply not good enouogh.
>>>> COALition - More of the same.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There had to be at least one person who has bothered to read all that
>>> crap, congratulations.
>>> Us mere mortals just watch the TV and read other news and make of it
>>> what we can, haven't seen much from the Greens but from what I can
>>> see their hearts might be in the right place but they really have no
>>> idea what they are doing.
>>
>> Absolutely none whatsoever.
>
> **How curious. You know nothing about the Greens, haven't read their
> policy documents, yet you deride them.

I *do* deride them because they are unicorn riding imbeciles Trevor, and
it is their very own policies that show that as being the case.

I read them Trevor. I've read the link you posted and I have read them
prior to that. I told you that I did, but you refuse to believe that. I
don't know why that is. Perhaps it's a bit of that "Paul Saccani" thing
kicking in where you erroneously conclude that because people don't
agree with you then it must be because they don't *understand* you
because you simply couldn't be wrong :)

Just to show you what I'm talking about, it is a Greens policy to build
a million new "low cost" publicly owned homes to ease the public housing
crisis, and help first home owners get into the housing market. How
they're going to pay for that I'm fucked if I know, as when you look at
their costings all they ever seem to point to is "taxing the rich and
big business".

But it's not only that. They want to launch an attack on the rental
market so tenants get more say and rents get capped. One can only
imagine the whirlwind created by the rush of investors looking to get
the fuck out of a market where their controls have already been limited,
and the devastating effect that would have on the number of available
properties.

They want to limit defence spending, provide free education up to and
including university degrees, have free unlimited dental and mental
health care, free child care, and end to fossil fuel use, and they want
to raise the dole to 88 bucks a day :)

The list of really cool warm fuzzy things they want to do is virtually
endless. Some of it good, and some of it is utterly delusional. However
*all* of it is ridiculously expensive and well beyond what can be
afforded by this little country of a mere 26 million people.

And they are living in La-La land to think otherwise.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 17/04/2022 1:56 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 17/4/2022 12:16 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 15/04/2022 8:36 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 15/4/2022 7:19 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 15/04/2022 5:11 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 15/04/2022 12:22 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 15/04/2022 11:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> but i'll bet a similar list could easily be made for any period
>>>>>>> Labor was in office
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Fair enough. Submit your evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I bet you cannot. This government is the most inept bunch of
>>>>>> arseholes ever to inhabit Canberra.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know when Julia Gillard was Prime Minister, she stated publicly
>>>>> that balancing the budget was the "responsible thing to do", and
>>>>> she pledged to do precisely that. Not once, but on eleven separate
>>>>> occasions.
>>>>>
>>>>> However despite those promises, and despite instilling into the
>>>>> populace the importance of doing so, the number of times she was
>>>>> able to balance the budget was zero.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not even once.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **OK. Now see if you find as many egregious lies, falsifications and
>>>> outright bullshit, as described in my original post.
>>>>
>>>> I bet you cannot.
>>>>
>>>> Or are you comfortable with:
>>>>
>>>> * More pork-barrelling.
>>>> * More unfinished, unwanted car parks.
>>>> * More sports rorts.
>>>> * Etc.
>>>
>>> They are all called politicians Trev, they are all as doggy as each
>>> other, if anyone could be bothered they could drag up dirt on any
>>> politician past and present.
>>> I see the next election being between the devil we know vs the devil
>>> we don't, either way everything will stay much the same and life will
>>> go on same as it always does.
>>
>> **I will say once more: DO NOT reward any politician with another
>> minute in power, if they violate your trust. The COALition has
>> violated our trust.
>
> So who do suggest we replace them with?

**Labor, The Greens, Independents.

> Labor are just as untrustworthy and the Greens are communists who want
> to send us back to the dark ages.

**You mean Communists like these guys?

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/no-one-s-married-to-coal-how-forrest-is-taking-on-the-world-to-save-the-climate-20220415-p5adoo.html

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/nt-sun-cable-project-solar-farm-cost-size-increase/100487452

That's two of Australia's richest commies, who are spending big Bucks,
betting on the future.

You really need to broaden your reading. Try to read anything other than
Murdoch shit.

> Do we get rid of the party system and have a Govt run by independents?

**We don't need to. We just need to inject enough Greens and
independents so that Laboral can't ride roughshod over the people.

> If that happened it would take many many years getting anything done
> because not enough of them will agree to pass any legislation so we are
> stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.

**You mean like it did with Julia Gillard?

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/28/australia-productive-prime-minister

"Julia Gillard had the highest rate of passing legislation with a rate
of 0.495, followed by Bob Hawke at 0.491:"

And she was in a MINORITY government. Gillard got more done than that
idiot hero of yours - Tony Abbott.

On 17/04/2022 12:16 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 15/04/2022 8:36 pm, Daryl wrote:

>> They are all called politicians Trev, they are all as doggy as each
>> other, if anyone could be bothered they could drag up dirt on any
>> politician past and present.
>> I see the next election being between the devil we know vs the devil
>> we don't, either way everything will stay much the same and life will
>> go on same as it always does.
>
> **I will say once more: DO NOT reward any politician with another minute
> in power, if they violate your trust. The COALition has violated our trust.

Trevor, you need to understand something critically important, and that
is that *you* do not speak for anyone other than yourself. *You* may be
unhappy with the current state of play, but that doesn't mean everyone
is. There are no doubt some out there who remember that Anthony Albanese
was once the Deputy PM of this country under a leader who was one of the
most unpopular Prime Ministers in history, and they most likely *don't*
want to see him be given a chance to fuck things up like he did when he
was last in office.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 17/04/2022 8:30 am, alvey wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 10:25:51 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>> On 16/04/2022 6:20 am, alvey wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 21:04:38 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/04/2022 4:13 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:56:43 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15/04/2022 12:20 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:27:49 +1000, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 15/04/2022 11:07 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 15/04/2022 9:04 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 15/04/2022 6:54 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:00:51 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/04/2022 7:58 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/04/2022 5:41 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/04/2022 10:15 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Appalling:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://chaser.com.au/national/an-exhaustive-list-of-the-liberal-partys-corruption-over-the-last-7-years/?fbclid=IwAR2Ac3-VOZ2OBt2PL3aHEZSEbYBeig78oZCG6zqE7lidgWMc04am5_NwP40
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROTFL :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   From one of the world's most credible media outlets :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Then feel free to disprove the claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry Trevor. That would take *way* more energy than I'd ever be
>>>>>>>>>>>> willing
>>>>>>>>>>>> to commit to the exercise.
>>>>>>>>>>> There he goes folks. Galloping down the well-worn Runaway Track.
>>>>>>>>>> he's just not interested. no shame in that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah there is when you're claiming bias. There is no bias, they're facts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As usual gutless Derro runs away after making a statement he can't
>>>>>>>>> back up. Typical.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but i'll bet a similar list could easily be made for any period Labor
>>>>>>>> was in office
>>>>>>> Unless you're going to supply it felix then you're as bad as Fraudster for
>>>>>>> claiming something which you then refuse to substantiate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrong. an opinion doesn't require proof.
>>>>> Wronger. "...i'll bet a similar list could easily be made..." is a
>>>>> statement *not* an opinion,
>>>> wrongerer. it's an opinion.  "I'll bet" qualifies my statement and makes
>>>> it opinion.
>>> Wrongerest. "I'll bet" does no such thing. If anything it reinforces that
>>> the sentence is a statement.
>> wrongerestering. it's not a statement of fact! it's not something that
>> needs to be proven. it's speculation/opinion/belief. if you tell me you
>> can do something and I say "I bet you can't", I'm not saying you cannot,
>> I'm saying I don't believe you can. if I had just said "you can't" that
>> would be a claim that you cannot do it.
> Wrongerest + infinity + 1.
>
> Nope. Your "I bet..." is an affirmative declaration.

call it what you will, but it's not something that needs to be proven,
as you initially said, and as I've taken pains to explain to you. if I
say "I bet you're a lousy cricket player" do I need to prove it?

> Translated into
> unambiguous English you are saying, "Hullo, my name is felix and I'm
> attempting a weasel.

you mean translated in alvenish..

> I'll be voting for the Libs until I cark it.

you shouldn't make assumptions, and make a fool of yourself in public. I
don't vote Liberal

> And possibly even afterwards if that cuddly Peter Dutton can work out a way."
>
>
>
> alvey
>

On 17/4/2022 1:39 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 10:11 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 15/04/2022 4:23 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Come on Trevor. Even the media was calling the 900 buck "stimulus
>>> bonus" the flat panel TV payment :)
>>
>> **I will state once more:
>>
>>
>> Bullshit. I didn't receive a new TV, nor did anyone I know. That would
>> be your lie.
>
> Fucking hell. Really? So what did you spend your 900 buck plasma bonus
> on? :)

It was *not* a *plasma bonus*. Sure, some people would use it for that
but most likely didn't.
>
>>>> **700-odd deaths in federally controlled aged care facilities.
>>>
>>> Yep, sad. Lots of deaths in privately run aged care facilities too.
>>
>> **The vast majority of deaths occurred in facilities that the Feds are
>> responsible for overseeing.
>
> Did they? Do you have the breakdown?

It's been published. You are a Googlemeister, go look it up. Public info.

>
>> I've some experience with aged care facilities, with two relatives
>> presently in care (where nurses are on duty 24/7), food is excellent
>> and costs are reasonable. I examined 27 (TWENTY SEVEN) facilities that
>> met my standards of care. It should not be that difficult. In one
>> facility, where my mother and sister resided, care was excellent. The
>> facility was bought by a larger corporation and staff numbers were cut
>> by 30% instantly. All because the Feds refuse to address the very real
>> problems in the industry. The COALition have had ten years to do
>> something. They failed. Time for a change.
>
> Every single government in the last 30 years has had time to do
> something but none of them have. This *isn't* a problem that has just
> suddenly appeared under the current government but one that's existed
> for decades. Blaming the current government for it's woes is ridiculous :)

Even *Abbott* provided *warning* of impending disaster.

>>>> * Lack of proper containment facilities for overseas arrivals.
>>>
>>> We used to have hostels and other facilities for overseas arrivals
>>> but they were made redundant by the bleeding hearts who said they
>>> were cruel and we didn't need them. *Now* apparently we do, but
>>> seemingly only for those times when we have a massive pandemic on our
>>> hands which is like once every hundred years or so.
>>
>> **Well, bleeding hearts like Scummo refused to build the necessary
>> facilities.
>
> And even if they started tomorrow, what would they do with them in 2
> years time when they were completed and ready for use?

Plenty of alternate purposes for such things.
>
>>> Any money bet that if we had them and never used them but continued
>>> to pay the ridiculous maintenance costs required to keep them in good
>>> order just in *case* we needed them you'd be winging about the waste
>>> and how that money could be better spent elsewhere.
>>
>> **You mean like the millions spent keeping a handful of detainees on
>> foreign soil?
>
> Yeah, like that. Or are you going to suggest that off-shore detention is
> something we don't need? Is that what you're saying Albo?

Off-shore detention, the Liberal way, is cruel and inhumane.
>
>>> Do you know of any other Western country that had adequate quarantine
>>> containment facilities to deal with their overseas arrivals?
>
>> **Don't know and don't care. I live in Australia. The cost of the
>> facility would be minimal, compared to the cost of the escaped virus.
>
> So what you're saying then, is that we should build a *massive*
> quarantine facility which would be capable of housing 50 thousand
> people, and it should be maintained in a state of permanent readiness
> all year round just in case we ever find ourselves in the position of
> ever needing to use it?

Talk to HVAC specialists about the efficacy, or lack, of using hotels
for quarantine. Hint, it doesn't work well, as has been proven. Ditto
the use of untrained and unqualified persons to do security duty.
>
> For fuck's sake. No *wonder* you think Greens policies make sense :)
>
>>>> * Relying on one vaccine and ordering back-up vaccines too late.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. We ordered Vaccines as soon as we were able to, and the
>>> delay in getting them to us was a direct result of the manufacturers
>>> themselves.
>>
>> **Wrong:
>
> Absolutely not. We could not order until the offer to do so was made,
> and as soon as it was we did so. As I said in another post, you cannot

You can put an order in for a vaccine *any time you like. The only
variable - you need to wait until it is produced but at least you are
then at the *head of the queue* and not at the arse end of the queue as
Morrison found himself. Economics 101, you can pre-order products that
are still under development and that will *push* the development.

> force people to sell you something. The companies responsible for making
> the vaccines offered them to us once they were in a position to do so.

Go look up the concept of *pre-ordering* a product before it is
available or even under development.
>
>>>> * Giving huge chunks of money to companies that weren't suffering
>>>> under COVID restrictions.
>>>
>>> Like who? Hardly Normal? :)
>>
>> **And many, many others.
>
> Which ones in particular, and as you often say be concise. Take a moment
> to show which companies were given "huge chunks", and how it is that you
> know they didn't need it.

Google it, the government and even Murdoch published the names of
recalcitrant companies in the past.
>
>>> History has shown that there have been very few compensation schemes
>>> issued in the midst of a national crisis that have been means tested,
>>> and generally because the object of the exercise is to get the money
>>> out there circulating as quickly as possible. Do you think everyone
>>> who got a 900 buck "Plasma TV" bonus thanks to little Kevvy was
>>> suffering and needed it?
>>
>> **I don't know ANYONE who got a plasma TV from Rudd. I sure didn't.
>
> I simply cannot believe that you can be this inane and are taking the
> piss here :)
>
>> I know some people who received their stimulus money and spent it on,
>> well, stimulating the economy. IOW: It did exactly what it was
>> intended to do.
>
> It did wonders for the bottom lines of Hardly Normal, Bing Lee and the
> Good Guys :)

Those enterprises sell a lot more than plasma TVs
>
>>> Most companies stuck their hands out and took the government up on
>>> their offer, especially when the full effect of the pandemic was yet
>>> to be realised and they needed a margin of safety. But once they
>>> realised they weren't as adversely affected as they thought they
>>> might be the ones with a decent moral compass handed the money back.
>>>
>>> Jerry Harvey didn't, despite doing remarkably well during the
>>> pandemic, and if you want to blame anyone for than then blame that
>>> slimey little cock sucker.
>>
>> **No. I blame the guys who failed to organise the system properly.
>
> Of course you do, because there's no Liberal bashing to be had in
> blaming anyone else. It's an bit like blaming the ATO when people cheat
> on their tax returns, right? :)

No, the blame rests with the cheats. Do you blame others for the lies
you tell and the bullshit claims you make? Hmmm, wouldn't surprise me if
you do actually.
>
>>>> * Not trying to claw back the money.
>>>
>>> As much as Government is about giving it to you with one hand and
>>> taking it back with the other, you don't hand out compensation
>>> payments and *then* take them back if you think the people really
>>> didn't need them.
>>
>> **LOL! Ask the dole recipients who received too much money and were
>> sent letters of demand. The government went after those poor buggers
>> and left Harvey alone.
>
> If you genuinely can't make a distinction between a business stimulus
> package which isn't means tested, and a social benefit payment which is,
> then I won't waste my time trying to explain it to you.

The stimulus package didn't need to be means tested, the money just
needed to be spread out into the community - as it was.
>
>>>> * Failing to introduce COVID mandates across the nation in a
>>>> homogeneous manner.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> The Federal Government introduced whatever mandates they had the
>>> authority to, such as preventing people from entering the country
>>> unless they've been double vaxed for example. But unfortunately
>>> that's largely where their authority ends, and this is precisely the
>>> trouble.
>>
>> **And yet - Ruby Princess.
>
> What about it in particular?

On 17/4/2022 1:45 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 11:22 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 17/04/2022 10:11 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>   I examined 27 (TWENTY SEVEN) facilities that met
>>> my standards of care.
>> **Oops. Should read:
>>
>>   I examined 27 (TWENTY SEVEN) facilities that failed to meet
>> my standards of care.
>
> Your standards of care are completely irrelevant. You don't make the rules.
>
You don't have *any* standards, not even with your lies.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 17/4/2022 2:51 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 1:56 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 17/4/2022 12:16 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2022 8:36 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 15/4/2022 7:19 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 15/04/2022 5:11 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 15/04/2022 12:22 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15/04/2022 11:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but i'll bet a similar list could easily be made for any period
>>>>>>>> Labor was in office
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Fair enough. Submit your evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I bet you cannot. This government is the most inept bunch of
>>>>>>> arseholes ever to inhabit Canberra.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know when Julia Gillard was Prime Minister, she stated
>>>>>> publicly that balancing the budget was the "responsible thing to
>>>>>> do", and she pledged to do precisely that. Not once, but on eleven
>>>>>> separate occasions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However despite those promises, and despite instilling into the
>>>>>> populace the importance of doing so, the number of times she was
>>>>>> able to balance the budget was zero.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not even once.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **OK. Now see if you find as many egregious lies, falsifications
>>>>> and outright bullshit, as described in my original post.
>>>>>
>>>>> I bet you cannot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or are you comfortable with:
>>>>>
>>>>> * More pork-barrelling.
>>>>> * More unfinished, unwanted car parks.
>>>>> * More sports rorts.
>>>>> * Etc.
>>>>
>>>> They are all called politicians Trev, they are all as doggy as each
>>>> other, if anyone could be bothered they could drag up dirt on any
>>>> politician past and present.
>>>> I see the next election being between the devil we know vs the devil
>>>> we don't, either way everything will stay much the same and life
>>>> will go on same as it always does.
>>>
>>> **I will say once more: DO NOT reward any politician with another
>>> minute in power, if they violate your trust. The COALition has
>>> violated our trust.
>>
>> So who do suggest we replace them with?
>
> **Labor, The Greens, Independents.
>
>> Labor are just as untrustworthy and the Greens are communists who want
>> to send us back to the dark ages.
>
> **You mean Communists like these guys?
>
> https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/no-one-s-married-to-coal-how-forrest-is-taking-on-the-world-to-save-the-climate-20220415-p5adoo.html
>
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/nt-sun-cable-project-solar-farm-cost-size-increase/100487452
>
>
> That's two of Australia's richest commies, who are spending big Bucks,
> betting on the future.

Nice but what is their connection to the Greens?
Are they Greens party members or Greens politicians?
>
> You really need to broaden your reading. Try to read anything other than
> Murdoch shit.

ROTFL, I don't read "Murdoch shit", I also watch very little commercial
TV and none of the garbage they call "news".
I skim through the ABC news web site most mornings whilst having
breakfast and occasionally Google news but don't bother with anything
else calling itself "news".
>
>> Do we get rid of the party system and have a Govt run by independents?
>
> **We don't need to. We just need to inject enough Greens and
> independents so that Laboral can't ride roughshod over the people.
>
>> If that happened it would take many many years getting anything done
>> because not enough of them will agree to pass any legislation so we
>> are stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.
>
> **You mean like it did with Julia Gillard?
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/28/australia-productive-prime-minister
>
>
> "Julia Gillard had the highest rate of passing legislation with a rate
> of 0.495, followed by Bob Hawke at 0.491:"
>
> And she was in a MINORITY government. Gillard got more done  than that
> idiot hero of yours - Tony Abbott.

ROTFL, IMHO Abbott was appalling, stuffed if I know how you could think
he was my "hero"?
John Howard was even worse.

--
Daryl

On 17/04/2022 2:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 16/04/2022 9:43 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>>> Massive and sustained acts of corruption?
>>>>
>>>> **Yes.
>>>
>>> And yet there have been no charges laid to date for these "criminal
>>> acts". Why is that?
>>
>> **For EXACTLY the same reason why no charges were laid to convict the
>> O'Beids here in NSW. It took a state ICAC to investigate and lay
>> charges. The O'Beids are resting comfortably in jail right now. Until
>> we have a Federal ICAC, Federal politicians will continue to act like
>> criminals.
>
> So, what you're saying then, is that politicians of all persuasions cab
> get away with whatever crimes they like because there is as yet no means
> in place to prosecute them?

**Not quite. A politician couldn't shoot someone and expect to get away
with it. However, here in NSW, the O'Beid family were involved in
extensive corruption and some was known, but nothing much could be done
about it, until the NSW ICAC investigated the family. ICAC, then
referred their findings to the NSW police, who acted.

>
> Is that what you're saying? :)
>
>>> Nice editorial, but you completely avoided the question which was if
>>> the Libs are as guilty of corrupt and criminal behaviour as you say,
>>> why haven't we seen any charges laid over these actions?
>>
>> **See above. A Federal ICAC is required. The criminal activities of
>> Federal politicians will go unpunished, until we have one.
>
> I'm calling flat out bullshit on this. Politicians are *not* exempt from
> the law :)

**I never said they were. However, they get away with a lot of shit,
that only a Federal ICAC can deal with. As happened in NSW. A Federal
ICAC will keep the cunts honest. Which is why Scummo is fighting so hard
NOT to implement a Federal ICAC.

>
>> Scummo promised one and never introduced the legislation.
>
> I posted a link the other day where the legislation was in fact tabled
> in 2020, and it was unsupported by both sides of the house.

**I will state once more: Scummo NEVER tabled his legislation.

>
>> Labor said they would.
>
> Labor said they wouldn't introduce a carbon tax and would effectively
> control our borders, too.

**And it is a good thing that they introduced that carbon tax. We will
see it again, soon enough.

>
>> Scummo has had 3 years to get his shit together. He has failed this
>> nation and must be kicked out.
>
> And the Labor politicians who didn't move to support the bill? What
> happens to them? :)

**I will state once more: Scummo NEVER tabled his legislation.

>
>>> I take it you understand that Labor isn't any keener to see a Federal
>>> ICAC introduced than the Libs or anyone else, right?
>>
>> **Then, if they don't do what they promise, boot them out.
>
> Would you have booted out Julia Gillard for introducing a Carbon tax
> after she publicly pledged to the electorate that she wouldn't do so?

**Nope. A carbon tax has been proven to be the most cost effective
method of reducing CO2 emissions.

>
>>   Why do you think
>>> Labor has not said a word about it until now at the start of an
>>> election campaign? :)
>>
>> **BULLSHIT! Labor has been asking for the legislation for the past 6 ~
>> 7 years. Scummo has been dodging it.
>
> Have they? If that's the case then why did they sit on their hands when
> the bill was tabled in 2020?

**I will state once more: Scummo NEVER tabled his legislation.

>
>>>> **Most of it is due to our relative isolation. Let's not forget
>>>> that. The STATE governments have, in general, handled the crisis
>>>> quite well.
>>>
>>> There has been varied success from different state governments, how
>>> does that square with your earlier comments of the Federal
>>> government's response to the pandemic being a fuck up?
>>
>> **Asked and answered.
>
> Yeah, I don't think so. But anyway....
>
>>>>>> The COALition does not deserve another 3 years. To reward them
>>>>>> with such, would be to tacitly allow them to be even worse next time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would it? :)
>>>>
>>>> **The definition of insanity is to vote the same way and expect a
>>>> different outcome.
>>>
>>> Apart from making zero sense in this context, than analogy fails to
>>> show how if re-elected the current government would be the slightest
>>> bit different one way or the other.
>>
>> **Here goes:
>>
>> Read the list of fuck-ups and lies that I submitted previously.
>
> The one from The Chaser?

**Yes.

The group who in their "About" section of their
> web page describe themselves as a "satirical media empire which rivals
> Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation in all fields except power, influence,
> popularity and profitability".
>
> You mean the list provided by a comedy team? :)

**Yes. If you can find fault with any of the points, then do so.

>
>> Voting for the same bunch of arseholes merely guarantees that we will
>> see more fuck-ups and lies.
>
> But that's not what you said. What you said was that putting them back
> into office would "tacitly allow them to be even worse next time" and
> you haven't shown how that is the case.

**They are just like children. They need to be punished for fucking up,
not rewarded.

>
>>> Calling the deaths of over 6 million people, tanked economies,
>>> destroyed companies and God only knows what else an "inconvenience"
>>> is understating the case somewhat.
>>
>> **WWII was responsible for the deaths of around 70 ~ 85 million
>> people. Around 3% of the planet's population back then. 6 million,
>> whilst horrible, is a blip. AND, if you want to know about
>> deprivations, just ask someone who lived in Europe at that time. The
>> suffering of hundreds of millions of people makes the present issue,
>> barely an issue.
>
> It's relative Trevor.

**Yes, it is relative. COVID restrictions and deaths is a blip, compared
to WWII, WWI and many previous plagues.

There have been many devastating events over the
> course of this planet's history, and as relatively minor as the Covid
> pandemic has been compared to some, calling the deaths of 6 and a
> quarter million people an "inconvenience" is insulting to say the very
> least.

**OK, it's insulting. I find it far more insulting to claim that COVID
restrictions, deaths and deprivations is in any way equivalent to what
Europeans suffered in WWII, WWI, etc.

>
> It may have been an inconvenience to you, just like the war going on now
> in the Ukraine is an "inconvenience" to us here in Australia thanks to
> the effects it has had on the price of petrol. But to others it is a
> devastating life changing event.

**Sure. For the majority of people on this planet (and certainly
Australians), COVID is an inconvenience.

>>
>>>> **Barely noticed. However, I'm careful and triple (soon to be
>>>> quadruple) vaxxed. I still wear a mask when shopping. It's a seat
>>>> belt for my COVID health.
>>>
>>> Right, and the point being, which largely seems lost on you, is that
>>> the actions of our government not only helped to keep you safe and
>>> healthy, but also prevented you from suffering financially.
>>
>> **My STATE government, yes. I have not received a single cent from the
>> Feds.
>
> But you have Trevor. Who do you think provided you with those
> vaccinations?

**The Feds, of course. Same as pretty much everywhere.

Who supplied the RAT tests to pensioners?

**There's another fuck-up. Instead of giving RATs to everyone for free,
they keep giving expensive tests away. It's dumb.

Who provided the
> funds to state governments to pay for lab testing?

**The same guys who DIDN'T give RATs to everyone. 3 Bucks for a RAT. 100
Bucks for a lab test. Someone in the government is not thinking
straight. Maybe they're helping their mates in the labs?

Who provided
> "everyday continuance" funds for state governments to cover a massive
> drop in revenue from suspended business operations, public transport
> patronage, etc etc etc.
>
> No one has knocked on your door and handed you a wad of cash. Sure, me
> either. But we have *both* enjoyed the benefits of federally funded
> assistance whether we like it or not and to claim otherwise is the
> height of ignorance.

On 17/4/2022 2:44 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 12:10 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 15/04/2022 11:12 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2022 8:42 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 15/4/2022 7:22 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> For my part, I've read policy documents from:
>>>>>
>>>>> UAP - Hysterical. Nothing of substance.
>>>>> Hanson - Mostly utter crap and a deep desire to take Australia back
>>>>> to the 1950s.
>>>>> The Greens - I don't agree with all their policies, but the
>>>>> important stuff is bang-on.
>>>>> Labor - Fucked, timid and simply not good enouogh.
>>>>> COALition - More of the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> There had to be at least one person who has bothered to read all
>>>> that crap, congratulations.
>>>> Us mere mortals just watch the TV and read other news and make of it
>>>> what we can, haven't seen much from the Greens but from what I can
>>>> see their hearts might be in the right place but they really have no
>>>> idea what they are doing.
>>>
>>> Absolutely none whatsoever.
>>
>> **How curious. You know nothing about the Greens, haven't read their
>> policy documents, yet you deride them.
>
> I *do* deride them because they are unicorn riding imbeciles Trevor, and
> it is their very own policies that show that as being the case.
>
> I read them Trevor. I've read the link you posted and I have read them
> prior to that. I told you that I did, but you refuse to believe that. I
> don't know why that is. Perhaps it's a bit of that "Paul Saccani" thing
> kicking in where you erroneously conclude that because people don't
> agree with you then it must be because they don't *understand* you
> because you simply couldn't be wrong :)
>
> Just to show you what I'm talking about, it is a Greens policy to build
> a million new "low cost" publicly owned homes to ease the public housing
> crisis, and help first home owners get into the housing market. How
> they're going to pay for that I'm fucked if I know, as when you look at
> their costings all they ever seem to point to is "taxing the rich and
> big business".

Its comical, people who have the money to build a new house can't find a
builder so where are they going to find qualified builders to build a
millions homes?
Even if its spread out over 20yrs its still not achievable.
If the Govt suddenly started supplying a million "low cost" homes why
would anyone in their right mind want to "get into the housing market"?
>
> But it's not only that. They want to launch an attack on the rental
> market so tenants get more say and rents get capped. One can only
> imagine the whirlwind created by the rush of investors looking to get
> the fuck out of a market where their controls have already been limited,
> and the devastating effect that would have on the number of available
> properties.
>
> They want to limit defence spending, provide free education up to and
> including university degrees, have free unlimited dental and mental
> health care, free child care, and end to fossil fuel use, and they want
> to raise the dole to 88 bucks a day :)

Mostly wonderful ideals but they are dreaming if they think they can pay
for any of it, the money simply doesn't exist and raising taxes isn't
going to win them any votes, the "rich and big business" will just shut
up shop and go elsewhere increasing unemployment and decreasing the tax
take.
In today's international climate on the brink of WW3 limiting defence
spending isn't a great plan.

--
Daryl

On 17/04/2022 1:45 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 11:22 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 17/04/2022 10:11 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>   I examined 27 (TWENTY SEVEN) facilities that met
>>> my standards of care.
>> **Oops. Should read:
>>
>>   I examined 27 (TWENTY SEVEN) facilities that failed to meet
>> my standards of care.
>
> Your standards of care are completely irrelevant. You don't make the rules.
>

**THAT'S THE PROBLEM! The Feds have failed miserably in putting rules in
place. Rules surrounding minimum staff levels, food quality and full
time nurses are desperately needed.

Here's the thing: My brother-in-law placed my (65 year old) sister into
the same aged care facility that I placed my mother in. He did so, based
on my investigation that revealed the facility, had excellent staff to
resident ratios, full time nurses and excellent (really excellent) food,
cooked on the facility. The cost was fair too. My mother died a couple
of years back and after, the facility was bought out by a larger
company. They INSTANTLY did several things:

* Reduced staff levels by 30%.
* Cut nursing staff, such that nurses were only on duty during 9 ~ 5.
* Cut kitchen staff and brought in all frozen meals from interstate.

My sister died six months later. She died, due to lack of proper care
(one bed sore was around 170mm across). She spent 27 days in the
palliative care wing of Sutherland hospital. It was truly gut-wrenching,
watching my sister die. She was given no food nor water during those 27
days. Just morphine.

What am I to make of that? Several things:

* The cunts who own and operate the aged care facility need to be
punished. They weren't, despite numerous communications to the
government oversight system.

* The cunts in government who failed to place proper standards for aged
care facilities should be condemned to live in the place where my sister
was murdered for the rest of their miserable lives.

* The cunts in all governments who object to voluntary euthanasia should
watch someone who is dying in a palliative care section of their local
hospital. Scummo is one of those cunts. Scummo is beneath contempt. He
and his band of cunts is, in part, responsible for the miserable way my
sister died.

You can vote for those cunts, but you want to hope like Hell you don't
end up in the aged care system. It is fucked.

On 17/04/2022 3:21 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 17/4/2022 2:51 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 17/04/2022 1:56 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 17/4/2022 12:16 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 15/04/2022 8:36 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>> On 15/4/2022 7:19 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 15/04/2022 5:11 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15/04/2022 12:22 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 15/04/2022 11:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but i'll bet a similar list could easily be made for any period
>>>>>>>>> Labor was in office
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Fair enough. Submit your evidence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I bet you cannot. This government is the most inept bunch of
>>>>>>>> arseholes ever to inhabit Canberra.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know when Julia Gillard was Prime Minister, she stated
>>>>>>> publicly that balancing the budget was the "responsible thing to
>>>>>>> do", and she pledged to do precisely that. Not once, but on
>>>>>>> eleven separate occasions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However despite those promises, and despite instilling into the
>>>>>>> populace the importance of doing so, the number of times she was
>>>>>>> able to balance the budget was zero.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not even once.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **OK. Now see if you find as many egregious lies, falsifications
>>>>>> and outright bullshit, as described in my original post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I bet you cannot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or are you comfortable with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * More pork-barrelling.
>>>>>> * More unfinished, unwanted car parks.
>>>>>> * More sports rorts.
>>>>>> * Etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are all called politicians Trev, they are all as doggy as each
>>>>> other, if anyone could be bothered they could drag up dirt on any
>>>>> politician past and present.
>>>>> I see the next election being between the devil we know vs the
>>>>> devil we don't, either way everything will stay much the same and
>>>>> life will go on same as it always does.
>>>>
>>>> **I will say once more: DO NOT reward any politician with another
>>>> minute in power, if they violate your trust. The COALition has
>>>> violated our trust.
>>>
>>> So who do suggest we replace them with?
>>
>> **Labor, The Greens, Independents.
>>
>>> Labor are just as untrustworthy and the Greens are communists who
>>> want to send us back to the dark ages.
>>
>> **You mean Communists like these guys?
>>
>> https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/no-one-s-married-to-coal-how-forrest-is-taking-on-the-world-to-save-the-climate-20220415-p5adoo.html
>>
>>
>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/nt-sun-cable-project-solar-farm-cost-size-increase/100487452
>>
>>
>> That's two of Australia's richest commies, who are spending big Bucks,
>> betting on the future.
>
> Nice but what is their connection to the Greens?

**Read the articles. According to you, they are Communists.

> Are they Greens party members or Greens politicians?

**No idea, but their ideals match the Greens very nicely.

>>
>> You really need to broaden your reading. Try to read anything other
>> than Murdoch shit.
>
> ROTFL, I don't read "Murdoch shit", I also watch very little commercial
> TV and none of the garbage they call "news".
> I skim through the ABC news web site most mornings whilst having
> breakfast and occasionally Google news but don't bother with anything
> else calling itself "news".
>>
>>> Do we get rid of the party system and have a Govt run by independents?
>>
>> **We don't need to. We just need to inject enough Greens and
>> independents so that Laboral can't ride roughshod over the people.
>>
>>> If that happened it would take many many years getting anything done
>>> because not enough of them will agree to pass any legislation so we
>>> are stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.
>>
>> **You mean like it did with Julia Gillard?
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/28/australia-productive-prime-minister
>>
>>
>> "Julia Gillard had the highest rate of passing legislation with a rate
>> of 0.495, followed by Bob Hawke at 0.491:"
>>
>> And she was in a MINORITY government. Gillard got more done  than that
>> idiot hero of yours - Tony Abbott.
>
>
> ROTFL, IMHO Abbott was appalling, stuffed if I know how you could think
> he was my "hero"?
> John Howard was even worse.

**Because you are a rusted-on COALition supporter.

On 17/4/2022 1:59 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 17/4/2022 1:39 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 17/04/2022 10:11 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2022 4:23 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> Come on Trevor. Even the media was calling the 900 buck "stimulus
>>>> bonus" the flat panel TV payment :)
>>>
>>> **I will state once more:
>>>
>>>
>>> Bullshit. I didn't receive a new TV, nor did anyone I know. That
>>> would be your lie.
>>
>> Fucking hell. Really? So what did you spend your 900 buck plasma bonus
>> on? :)
>>
>>>>> **700-odd deaths in federally controlled aged care facilities.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, sad. Lots of deaths in privately run aged care facilities too.
>>>
>>> **The vast majority of deaths occurred in facilities that the Feds
>>> are responsible for overseeing.
>>
>> Did they? Do you have the breakdown?
>>
>>> I've some experience with aged care facilities, with two relatives
>>> presently in care (where nurses are on duty 24/7), food is excellent
>>> and costs are reasonable. I examined 27 (TWENTY SEVEN) facilities
>>> that met my standards of care. It should not be that difficult. In
>>> one facility, where my mother and sister resided, care was excellent.
>>> The facility was bought by a larger corporation and staff numbers
>>> were cut by 30% instantly. All because the Feds refuse to address the
>>> very real problems in the industry. The COALition have had ten years
>>> to do something. They failed. Time for a change.
>>
>> Every single government in the last 30 years has had time to do
>> something but none of them have. This *isn't* a problem that has just
>> suddenly appeared under the current government but one that's existed
>> for decades. Blaming the current government for it's woes is
>> ridiculous :)
>>>>> * Lack of proper containment facilities for overseas arrivals.
>>>>
>>>> We used to have hostels and other facilities for overseas arrivals
>>>> but they were made redundant by the bleeding hearts who said they
>>>> were cruel and we didn't need them. *Now* apparently we do, but
>>>> seemingly only for those times when we have a massive pandemic on
>>>> our hands which is like once every hundred years or so.
>>>
>>> **Well, bleeding hearts like Scummo refused to build the necessary
>>> facilities.
>>
>> And even if they started tomorrow, what would they do with them in 2
>> years time when they were completed and ready for use?
>
> We would complain about the wasted money spent on unused facilities.
> Reminds me of the Vic Labor Govts desalination plant, by the time it was
> finished the drought broke and it turned into a very expensive white
> elephant.
>
The desal plant won't be a white elephant. You see, even if we get no
more severe droughts, there is another factor that is placing the water
supply system under strain. Most people just think of the water storage
but they should also be looking at water usage. Looked at Melbourne
lately? It's *growing*. More people = more houses = more water usage.
Melbourne is running out of suitable future water storage sites.
You really need to leave the concrete thinking behind. You did pass year
12, didn't you? Should be able to engage in abstract cognitive thinking!

Start here;

https://www.liveability.vic.gov.au/water

https://omny.fm/shows/drive-with-tom-elliott/melbourne-at-risk-of-running-out-of-fresh-water-by/embed

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-23/melbourne-water-supply-could-be-under-threat-within-a-decade/8735400

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/partner-content-australia-water-problem

If you care to look, and to think, there's a whole lot to cogitate on.
Try to leave concrete thinking back in your pre-teen years, don't be a
Darren.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 17/4/2022 2:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 16/04/2022 9:43 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>>> Massive and sustained acts of corruption?
>>>>
>>>> **Yes.
>>>
>>> And yet there have been no charges laid to date for these "criminal
>>> acts". Why is that?
>>
>> **For EXACTLY the same reason why no charges were laid to convict the
>> O'Beids here in NSW. It took a state ICAC to investigate and lay
>> charges. The O'Beids are resting comfortably in jail right now. Until
>> we have a Federal ICAC, Federal politicians will continue to act like
>> criminals.
>
> So, what you're saying then, is that politicians of all persuasions cab
> get away with whatever crimes they like because there is as yet no means
> in place to prosecute them?
>
> Is that what you're saying? :)
>
>>> Nice editorial, but you completely avoided the question which was if
>>> the Libs are as guilty of corrupt and criminal behaviour as you say,
>>> why haven't we seen any charges laid over these actions?
>>
>> **See above. A Federal ICAC is required. The criminal activities of
>> Federal politicians will go unpunished, until we have one.
>
> I'm calling flat out bullshit on this. Politicians are *not* exempt from
> the law :)
>
>> Scummo promised one and never introduced the legislation.
>
> I posted a link the other day where the legislation was in fact tabled
> in 2020, and it was unsupported by both sides of the house.
>
>> Labor said they would.
>
> Labor said they wouldn't introduce a carbon tax and would effectively
> control our borders, too.
>
>> Scummo has had 3 years to get his shit together. He has failed this
>> nation and must be kicked out.
>
> And the Labor politicians who didn't move to support the bill? What
> happens to them? :)

Look into the circumstances a bit deeper Darren.
>
>>> I take it you understand that Labor isn't any keener to see a Federal
>>> ICAC introduced than the Libs or anyone else, right?
>>
>> **Then, if they don't do what they promise, boot them out.
>
> Would you have booted out Julia Gillard for introducing a Carbon tax
> after she publicly pledged to the electorate that she wouldn't do so?
>
>>   Why do you think
>>> Labor has not said a word about it until now at the start of an
>>> election campaign? :)
>>
>> **BULLSHIT! Labor has been asking for the legislation for the past 6 ~
>> 7 years. Scummo has been dodging it.
>
> Have they? If that's the case then why did they sit on their hands when
> the bill was tabled in 2020?

And did you, a typical concrete thinker, actually look into exactly
*why* no one could support that bill?
>
<concrete drivel snipped>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)