Rumoured and Confirmed Signings and TheRam's whinging XXVIII

[Suitman]

Gronk, you basically said nobody should have the right to vote on something that doesn't concern them.
I find that comment concerning.
I'm actually serious.
That was a very strange opinion.


Suity

 

[Noise]

No, your federal member should be able to cast an anonymous conscience vote. Abbott vetoed that.

Hmm I think my federal member is Tony Abbott...

 

[TheRam]

Bc a marriage has always been a bond between a man and a woman for thousands of years.

And to many, same sex marriages cheapens what a marriage is all about.

Just because gay people have been kept out of a particular club due to intolerable bigotry for thousands of years doesn't make it right.

I think of it something like when pubs didn't allow women in all those stone age years ago. When women were finally lawfully allowed to take part in the mysterious drinking rituals that men could enjoy, no one said that they could but only if they changed the name.

Stupid and over time will be seen that way.

 

[Gronk]

Gronk, you basically said nobody should have the right to vote on something that doesn't concern them.
I find that comment concerning.
I'm actually serious.
That was a very strange opinion.


Suity

Again you don't get what I am saying. I will try one more time and then leave it.

Your (Fed) local member has a job. His job is to act on your behalf and make decisions. I imagine you would be comfortable with that. It's how the Westminster system works.

If not, you'd be asked to consider 100's of questions every week about how society runs. To avoid that, you vote in a merkin to do it for you. The system works pretty good.

Abbott took the decision away from your local member fingers crossed that it may fail. Based on history there is a good chance, notwithstanding that polling suggests 70% are in favour.

So I am fundamentally against his shenanigans because they are agenda driven and it is designed to fail.

The reality is that there will be a vote in 2016/17 whether I like it or not and everybody will have the right to vote on it. Go for it.

 

[T.S Quint]

You are saying I not entitled to my own core beliefs? You may be for the use of gay marriage term but many are not and we are entitled to our thoughts. Did I say I do not say they can have a union the same as marriage? I did not. Just use their own word for it. Like the word gay used to mean happy now its can't be used by anyone but homosexuals. Let them find their own new words to describe their union.

No.
I'm saying that your beliefs are stupid and outdated.

If they can have a union just like marriage...why not just call it a f**king marriage?

 

[The Phelan Folly]

Why are we giving Fanbase oxygen?

He's never contributed anything to the footy talk on here.

He's an attention seeker who gets off by being obnoxious. He has no redeeming features.

I don't think he's remotely genuine.

You don't have to put him on ignore to ignore him.

Its pretty obvious who he is. I think there's a few roos loose there somewhere.

 

[Dibs]

Why are we giving Fanbase oxygen?

He's never contributed anything to the footy talk on here.

He's an attention seeker who gets off by being obnoxious. He has no redeeming features.

I don't think he's remotely genuine.

You don't have to put him on ignore to ignore him.

Bingo!

 

[TheRam]

Fair nuff. I guess the more important point though, is not the units of measurement, but it is the we didn't sell the gas to China for 'a song'. We sold at the top of the market, and if we wanted to could buy that (future) gas back at 2/3 of the price we are selling it for. But anyway...

You missed my point entirely though. Which was that for a country as rich as Australia with so many natural resources and a people with a can do attitude, why the hell are we paying so much for our energy needs?

We are easily as rich as the Saudi's are for energy resources, just that we have it in gas and coal.

We, if the pollies were working for us and not the international conglomerates, should not be selling all our power stations or the resource itself.

Here's a question for you, what do nations who go to war try to do as quickly as possible?

Answer: Bomb the crap out of all the power stations of their enemy which would hobble them significantly and sway the outcome in their favour from the outset.

So here we are giving away one of the two most important items that makes a sovereignty powerful and wealthy. The other being finance, which we also have outsourced.

I maintain if Australia owned and developed all its own energy needs we would probably be paying around $20-40 a month and not give a damn about market forces. Also the positive knock on affect to all other sectors of economy would be monumental. Talk about trickle down economics, this would be one that actually works.

Now isn't that a outcome for our pollies to put their necks on the line for no matter how much the initial cost was?

 

[Gronk]

You missed my point entirely though. Which was that for a country as rich as Australia with so many natural resources and a people with a can do attitude, why the hell are we paying so much for our energy needs?

We are easily as rich as the Saudi's are for energy resources, just that we have it in gas and coal.

We, if the pollies were working for us and not the international conglomerates, should not be selling all our power stations or the resource itself.

Here's a question for you, what do nations who go to war try to do as quickly as possible?

Answer: Bomb the crap out of all the power stations of their enemy which would hobble them significantly and sway the outcome in their favour from the outset.

So here we are giving away one of the two most important items that makes a sovereignty powerful and wealthy. The other being finance, which we also have outsourced.

I maintain if Australia owned and developed all its own energy needs we would probably be paying around $20-40 a month and not give a damn about market forces. Also the positive knock on affect to all other sectors of economy would be monumental. Talk about trickle down economics, this would be one that actually works.

Now isn't that a outcome for our pollies to put their necks on the line for no matter how much the initial cost was?

NSW gas prices are now linked to the international market. Who other than the mining sector thought that was a good idea ?

Historically, the east coast gas market enjoyed relatively cheap gas, sourced from Bass Strait and the Cooper Basin in South Australia. It was a domestic market shielded from world pricing. The advent of the coal seam gas industry in Queensland saw the need to construct export gas terminals in Gladstone. The government, unlike other governments around the world, allowed unfettered access to global markets. The building of the export gas terminals will see the prices for gas rise inexorably towards world prices. Indeed wholesale gas prices are widely forecast to more than double to match international prices.

In Western Australia, to shield domestic consumers from high gas prices, the government enacted a domestic gas reservation policy. This keeps prices low for domestic consumers. Likewise in the US, consumers benefit from low domestic prices as export licences are hard to come by. The cheap gas benefiting the domestic market in the US has been hailed as one of the reasons for the recent recovery of manufacturing in that nation. On the east coast of Australia consumers and industry have no such protection and the consequences of this can already be seen in the rapid deindustrialisation of our nation.

Looking globally, the explicit government policy of high domestic gas prices is a radical one. The east coast of Australia is an exception to the generally adopted policy of cheap domestic energy.

Many in the gas industry are calling for the rapid development of environmentally suspect coal seam gasfields in NSW to counter higher prices. This policy simply will not work as prices on the east coast are now linked to world prices. No amount of domestic production will change this dynamic.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/elect...paying-more-20140628-zspp1.html#ixzz3y7lHNT1B

 

[TheRam]

NSW gas prices are now linked to the international market. Who other than the mining sector thought that was a good idea ?

Our treasonous Politicians.

 

[Fanbase]

Again you don't get what I am saying. I will try one more time and then leave it.

Your (Fed) local member has a job. His job is to act on your behalf and make decisions. I imagine you would be comfortable with that. It's how the Westminster system works.

If not, you'd be asked to consider 100's of questions every week about how society runs. To avoid that, you vote in a merkin to do it for you. The system works pretty good.

Abbott took the decision away from your local member fingers crossed that it may fail. Based on history there is a good chance, notwithstanding that polling suggests 70% are in favour.

So I am fundamentally against his shenanigans because they are agenda driven and it is designed to fail.

The reality is that there will be a vote in 2016/17 whether I like it or not and everybody will have the right to vote on it. Go for it.

Your points a simplistic and naive. you say a small handful of people should make the decisions for many. My parents fled a country that became like that. The people have a right to have thier say in a democricy not just a handful of people.
Tony abbott has an agenda? and you don't?

 

[Fanbase]

No.
I'm saying that your beliefs are stupid and outdated.

If they can have a union just like marriage...why not just call it a f**king marriage?

Thats very pig headed and self ritious of you.

 

[Fanbase]

Why are we giving Fanbase oxygen?

He's never contributed anything to the footy talk on here.

He's an attention seeker who gets off by being obnoxious. He has no redeeming features.

I don't think he's remotely genuine.

You don't have to put him on ignore to ignore him.

I never talk about footy or our club? You do not read my posts do you. I often post about footy but also get into topics others put on here too. How am I attention seeking? Just because you dont agree with me dosent mean you can lie about me.

 

[Fanbase]

Individual rights should not be subject to the tyranny of the majority, though with that said it will pass.

So the majority wishes should suffer for the minority?

 

[TheRam]

Hey Ram i love how every decision the club has made i right...Signing watmough or letting a junior go.Its quite hilarious how the forumites give the reason why. Id understand if we where a top side but you would wonder is the reason we are at the bottom cause we are making the wrong decisions...

Yes I agree, there have been and continue to be strange decisions made on player retention and acquisition.

But we are here now and our squad for the first time in a long time looks strong enough to contend for a top four spot, barring injury.

The next year signing will decide whether we stay a top 4 side or not. That means Watmough needs to go and probably Scott, who I think will be injured for at least one third of the season this year and will continue to go down hill.

Now losing both Paulo and Pauli, if it happens, seems from the outside looking in, stupid and short sighted. Blind Freddy can see the potential both these players have over others at the club.

But if the coaching staff are not willing to sacrifice others for them, then let it be on their head.

Time will tell.

Gordon also will need to be replaced after this season. That will have a huge baring on how we go from 2017 onwards. Not to mention that there are still many unanswered questions on this squad that will only be answered after we see them play together, no matter how good they look on paper.

Again lets hope that the coaching staff know what they are doing for once in a very, very long time.

As people already know, I am overall a fan of Arthur, but at times I think he has made errors in judgment, but that is to be expected from a rookie coach.

He no doubt will continue to make some when he finally makes the playoffs, until he beds down most scenarios by experiencing them.

The trick is to make less and learn from them. That ultimately separates the great ones from the rest.

 

[Twizzle]

I'll ask you again Fanbase. Who has said that you can't have your own beliefs? You ignored the question last time.

There's a difference between people disagreeing with your opinion, and them saying that you are not allowed to hold them.

You seem to react defensively (and aggressively) anytime someone disagrees with you.

seems to be a bit of that going around lately

some people just think their opinion is the only one that counts and anyone who disagrees is simply wrong rather than just an opposing view

I dont get the agro, life's too short

 

[Twizzle]

Also its funny or (more so mysterious) how we have more aggro in certain times and this just happens to be another one.

We at LU HQ have often commented on how we have to discipline people moreso when its a full moon and it happens so regularly.

Coincidence or not ?

Fullmoon tonight btw, lol

http://www.moongiant.com/moonphases/January/2016/

 

[El Diablo]

seems to be a bit of that going around lately

some people just think their opinion is the only one that counts and anyone who disagrees is simply wrong rather than just an opposing view

I dont get the agro, life's too short

tell that to this guy http://www.themercury.com.au/news/h...2/news-story/45936dfbfccabe608d917e96c7817524

 

[Poupou Escobar]

As people already know, I am overall a fan of Arthur, but at times I think he has made errors in judgment, but that is to be expected from a rookie coach.

He might be a 'rookie coach' (except he isn't) but he still knows more about footy than you ever did.

Every recruitment/retention decision a coach makes carries some risk. Every single decision. The coaches are aware of that. They know that some decisions might blow up and others will turn out better than expected. They also know (early on at least) that their careers live or die on some of these risky decisions. They also know, unlike many of the fans, that not making a decision is not an option. Risks have to be taken, and the best they can hope for is getting the odds in their favour as much as possible.

Just because Pauli and Paulo are huge and can run over the top of merkins doesn't mean we should keep either at any cost. Surely even you can see that.

 

[caylo]

He might be a 'rookie coach' (except he isn't) but he still knows more about footy than you ever did.

Every recruitment/retention decision a coach makes carries some risk. Every single decision. The coaches are aware of that. They know that some decisions might blow up and others will turn out better than expected. They also know (early on at least) that their careers live or die on some of these risky decisions. They also know, unlike many of the fans, that not making a decision is not an option. Risks have to be taken, and the best they can hope for is getting the odds in their favour as much as possible.

Just because Pauli and Paulo are huge and can run over the top of merkins doesn't mean we should keep either at any cost. Surely even you can see that.

Exactl. If we signed paul on 800k, pauli on 400k (no idea, purely guessing) then you lose Norman, Peats and French if he turns out like roosters lost RTS. Who is easier to replace? Halves or Forwards? You need a good pack but forward lay a platform and its the spine that wins you tthe big games.