Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
That's a very black and white simplification... from someone who seems to be looking for a simplification.
If you just admitted occasionally that your own side has their issues then you’d be taken more seriously.
Yep, Andrew Constance rissoled the Transport Secretary 2 versions back because the Secretary wouldn't blindly play ball with Constance's directive to clear trees either side of highways to reduce bushfire hazards down in his south coast electorate.... the Secretary got a payout, ~800K from memory, and then just brought in his own captain's pick and away they go....
Lay off on the text overload Rammy.I'm gonna spend a bit more time on this, mainly because of the surety displayed in the statement "So lets go for a biggy that everyone should knows is true" The reasoning being that in stating it in that manner it proposes the statement to be universally accepted as true, and beyond dispute.
If you so happen to believe it not to be true, well obviously you should know better. I think the confidence displayed in that statement, despite it actually being incorrect, is telling in the type of mindset that accepts such a thing so uncritically, whilst simultaneously inferring to not accept it as true renders the doubter incapable of critical thought. Or indeed a simple investigation into the claim and seeing it as lacking somewhat in substance.
However what it actually is, is the product of an echo chamber of like minded individuals who have convinced themselves and each other through repeated re-enforcement of the central idea through sharing the same hackneyed shit takes over and over again.
So anyways, here's a link to the essay itself.....
Here's a link to the wiki page on it. There's some detail in there worth reading for those interested.....
You'll own nothing and be happy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Here's what the WEF has to say about it in a policy sense. It might not be immediately apparent that this particular essay is directly related to their push for a circular economy, but it's not the flowery detail in the essay that's important, it's the central train of thought, that resources be used and reused more efficiently.
There's more links at the bottom of that page.
What is clear there is that though they do endorse the ideas of shared ownership and goods as a service, it's certainly not some plot that you'll own nothing, what it encompasses is the more efficient and productive use of resources, and those two concepts are part of their proposed solution to the problem of ever increasing consumption.
Now I'm all up for debate around the pros and cons there, but blatant misrepresentation as means to vilify ideas or discussion is what's actually happening in this space, so we don't get debate, what we get is active suppression of ideas.
Fair point, but I'd have to say that whether Suity (or anyone else) takes my forum persona seriously is not of great concern... if Suity wants to try and point score in playing to his own biases, then that's entirely up to him.
I haven't dismissed it. I'm just talking about the biggest issue of the day's news.
That seems to be the standard operating model for these type of conspiracy theorists
Just once (again), lol.
You're entitled to your view and your take on things. As are others whose views you mightn't agree with or understand.
Are you quoting a joke about City Extra I made 5 years ago back at me, as if it was some central part of my world view about (against) the trickle down capitalism approach to urban development?
In your opinion, which you're entitled to. But I think the factors impacting economic policy and capacity of a state (or country) it's more complex than a black and white view of credit or blame for which party is in the seat of government at a particular time. But it seems to be a party-based blame game mantra that you keep returning to (here or in your non-political development thread, lol), more often than anyone else does.
I know you will also vote YES, for something I hope you also thing is a bigger issue today, this week, this month, than Jo Hayden and whatsisname. As you know there are Liberals (Turnbull, Julian Leeser) openly advocating YES votes - YES and No in this referendum shouldn't be about party politics.
Hold your horses, and take your blood pressure tablets - I just typed you a big reply.
So true, but the ridiculous ego that accompanies it is appalling given how many highly successful people they are trying to convince. Most, if not all are failures under the current system and are reacting largely as a result of their own inadequacies.
In the ghetto...
Yet in the post you made above that, and above my post referencing you, you wrote in reply to Gary's post...
Lol, glass houses. Billy Joel would be proud.
