Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by Gronk, Dec 10, 2018.
The UN has a whole lot of agendas that make them unreliable authorities.
Well of course. That's Lizard People HQ.
It's an anti-Anglosphere coalition. If they had any morals they'd be anti-China, but sticking it to the colonisers is more important than checking the human-rights-violating fascist Chinese state.
The UN is a multi-ball juggling act. They might get it wrong here and there, but that does not mean that their definition of climate change is erroneous FFS.
Their definition is extremely political, as you'd expect from a political vehicle like that.
They've certainly politicised the subject matter, but the definition of "climate change"? Nah mate, that's just what it is.
The term was coined with that definition ( the human contribution to...) back in the early seventies, when climatologists were still split on whether aerosols ( particulate matter ) would cause an early onset of an ice age, or Co2 emissions from burning fossil fuels ( amongst other greenhouse gases ) would warm the planet.
Honestly this is just fact, it shouldn't even be up for debate. That it is, is just indicative of how toxic the debate has become.
there's a shock
Must be why those seats voted for him.
That would only be true if the spending was announced prior to the election.
And I'm pretty sure they didn't run the line that "the economy's slowing so we'll spend some money here" as part of their campaign in any electorate, least not as I've heard anyways.
I'm sure the seats have more in common than just whom they voted for. Where there's a need for funding they know who's more likely to provide it. It shapes how members of a given area vote.
If there's an electorate without a "need" for funding come election time it's a f**king rare beast.
TBH that's just meaningless drivel
It's pork barrelling, plain and simple, and it's obviously considered to be so run of the mill that they haven't even bothered disguising it.
"Every marginal Coalition seat in WA and SA and all but one in Queensland will receive a share of the infrastructure cash."
Marginal you say? Hmmm.
Would it be unethical if they had promised to spend the money prior to the election? I really don't see the difference. Should the ALP promise to spend more in these places next time? If they're marginal seats they should expect to be the battleground. I wish I had political parties fighting over my electorate but it's all urban professionals and public housing here. Labor are very safe.
Look it's an interesting question, and what I would say is that promises made should be kept. But that's not what this is , so what I would also say is that in this case where the spending is supposed to be stimulating the economy, then the spending should be where it would have the most effect in that regard.
Not a satirical account.
FYI Actual socialist countries in 2019
There are many countries around the world that claim to be socialists. Current states that follow the Marxist-Leninist principles include the Laos People’s Democratic Republic, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Cuba, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. This number has dropped dramatically in recent years. Former countries under the Marxist-Leninist idea of socialism included Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Belarus, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Congo, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, East Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, Ukraine, North Vietnam, South Yemen and Yugoslavia.
Countries that have constitutional references to socialism and are thus considered to be Socialist states include: People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Co-operative Republic of Guyana, Republic of India, North Korea, Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, Portuguese Republic, Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, and the United Republic of Tanzania.
Countries that once referenced socialism in their constitutions but no longer do so include: Algeria, Burma, Cape Verde, Egypt, Grenada, Iraq, Libya, Madagascar, Seychelles, Sudan and Syria.
There are also multi-party states with governing Socialist parties. These states are: Angola, Bolivia, Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guinea- Bissau, Greece, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Tanzania, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Did he mean Democratic Socialist ?
Both democratic socialism and socialism advocate for a redistribution of wealth and power to meet public needs, not make profits for a few. Both aim to weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of the working people.
Democratic socialists, however, do not think the government should immediately take control of all aspects of the economy. Democratic socialism focuses more on providing basic needs to all people, such as health care and education. Democratic socialism, unlike socialism, would achieve this through democratic means and not an authoritarian rule.
He is just looking for a good excuse to shoot shit.
Lion drink and dairy sold to China.....
Wage growth has stopped.
Property prices rising
Population growth rising.
People not spending.
How long before we are working 60hrs a week just to survive? I'll predict sooner rather then later
You don’t work 60 hours a week already? What a lazy merkin!
Separate names with a comma.