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.

**I will say once more: The Feds didn't manage COVID horribly. They
could have done better.

>
>
>
>>> 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.

**Sure. We have guys like Harvey making off like bandits with taxpayer
funds.

>
>>> 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.

**Medical scientists do not know. NO ONE knows how evolution will affect
COVID. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON.

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.

**Bullshit. A 'super strain' might appear tomorrow. Or never. No one knows.

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

**Done.