On 17/04/2022 3:30 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> 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.

This is nonsense. Something could have *always* been done about it, but
it needed someone to bring it to the attention of the authorities before
the legal process could begin. It's not like the introduction of the
ICAC suddenly opened up a new legal path to prosecute people who were
previously immune to scrutiny.

For the Police and DPP to get involved meant that O'beid was engaged in
criminal activity, and *anyone* could have brought that to their
attention. The fact that no one did is not a failing of the system
itself, but of the people who knew about it and chose to do nothing.

>> 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.

Again, this is more rubbish. The ICAC is *not* a legal authority.

>>> 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.

The link I posted earlier stated that it was presented to Parliament in
2020, and it got support from no one.

Go back and read it.

>> 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.

Hopefully not.

>> 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.

Blindly sticking your head in the sand and pretending something didn't
happen doesn't make it so :)

>> 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.

I see. So apart from supporting a carbon tax that was completely
ineffectual in terms of environmental benefits, what you're saying here
is that you will happily allow politicians to bullshit their brains out
if it means they do things you like but call for the heads of those who
bullshit their brains out and do things you don't.

How do you *ever* expect to be taken seriously? :)

>> 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.

State it as many times as you like Trev. No skin off my nose. But just
out of curiosity, what do you think of Albanese's claims to introduce a
bill himself by the end of 2022 if he pulls off a miracle and gets
elected, but refuses to hold an inquiry into bullying claims within his
own party?

>>> 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.

I reckon I could find *many*, but I'm not sure if there's a point.
You're going to believe what you want regardless.

>>> 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.

Okay, but you're *still* not showing that they'd be worse than before,
which was your original claim. Presumably you're now distancing yourself
from that.

> 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.

No one was saying that they were, and to be honest I have no idea how
you come to that conclusion.

>> 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.

As I said it's relative. 6 and a quarter million deaths is a big deal in
terms of pandemics, not to mention the number of people who came out the
other side permanently affected or the devastation caused to economies
around the globe.

You can be as dismissive as you like about this, but the world wide
effect has been significant.

>>>> 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.

That's right, the Feds. They supplied them so *you* didn't have to pay
for them. Pretty good benefit, huh?

>  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.

Not really. Give the tests to people who can't afford them, but if you
can then pay for them as you need them.

>  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?

Lol :)

Do you understand how unreliable rat tests are? I've had three. One came
back negative, one came back positive, and one came back with no result
at all. I on the two occasions I had non negative results I followed up
with PCR tests just to be sure, and on both occasions I was negative.

It's not about the money. At least not in the begining. It was about
maintaining the most reliable data possible so contagions could be
traced and stopped.

>  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.

Okay. So considering that they ordered millions of doses of vaccines as
soon as they had the chance to do so, closed our borders to
international arrivals *very* early on, assisted the states with as much
financial support as possible and put in place quite generous assistance
programs for both business and individuals which have since shown to be
very effective if the current state of the economy and unemployment
levels are any indicator, what exactly is it that you think they could
have done better?

>>> **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.

Uhuh. So, as he's the bad guy who is ripping *you* off of your hard
earned tax dollars, I fully expect you to never spend a cent in any of
his pox ridden trailer park trash stores.

>>>> 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.

You're a funny guy. You claim that climate scientists can take guesses
with 95% certainty but the medical science world hasn't got a clue what
it's talking about :)

>  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.

I don't think anyone knows for *certain*, but just about every medical
scientist on the planet has been studying this virus in the last two
years and I'm yet to hear of anyone come out and state that that's
likely or even possible.

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

Anything realistic.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.