Youtube comments of friendlyjordies (@friendlyjordies).
-
42000
-
35000
-
33000
-
33000
-
28000
-
10000
-
7200
-
6800
-
5500
-
5500
-
5200
-
3900
-
3800
-
3700
-
2800
-
2500
-
2300
-
2200
-
2100
-
2100
-
2000
-
1600
-
1600
-
1500
-
1500
-
1400
-
1400
-
1300
-
1300
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1000
-
1000
-
952
-
906
-
889
-
831
-
824
-
815
-
807
-
799
-
794
-
764
-
763
-
763
-
746
-
707
-
696
-
666
-
655
-
650
-
637
-
613
-
607
-
602
-
601
-
596
-
592
-
589
-
586
-
568
-
566
-
565
-
562
-
559
-
549
-
532
-
521
-
520
-
520
-
515
-
508
-
507
-
502
-
498
-
492
-
489
-
478
-
477
-
456
-
450
-
447
-
446
-
443
-
436
-
435
-
431
-
421
-
421
-
415
-
413
-
411
-
399
-
394
-
391
-
380
-
378
-
378
-
370
-
369
-
366
-
358
-
357
-
355
-
355
-
351
-
349
-
346
-
345
-
343
-
337
-
335
-
332
-
331
-
329
-
327
-
324
-
324
-
318
-
310
-
308
-
307
-
305
-
303
-
299
-
298
-
288
-
273
-
264
-
264
-
264
-
263
-
262
-
262
-
259
-
258
-
256
-
255
-
255
-
255
-
254
-
252
-
246
-
243
-
240
-
238
-
238
-
233
-
233
-
230
-
229
-
225
-
224
-
223
-
218
-
212
-
211
-
209
-
208
-
206
-
205
-
202
-
202
-
201
-
201
-
200
-
198
-
196
-
195
-
194
-
194
-
190
-
184
-
183
-
183
-
183
-
183
-
181
-
178
-
174
-
173
-
172
-
170
-
168
-
167
-
166
-
164
-
163
-
160
-
160
-
159
-
159
-
159
-
157
-
156
-
156
-
155
-
155
-
155
-
154
-
154
-
150
-
149
-
149
-
148
-
148
-
148
-
147
-
146
-
145
-
144
-
144
-
144
-
143
-
143
-
143
-
142
-
142
-
142
-
142
-
139
-
139
-
138
-
137
-
136
-
136
-
134
-
133
-
132
-
132
-
132
-
131
-
131
-
130
-
128
-
128
-
126
-
123
-
123
-
121
-
120
-
120
-
119
-
119
-
118
-
117
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
115
-
115
-
115
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
113
-
112
-
112
-
112
-
111
-
111
-
110
-
110
-
109
-
108
-
105
-
104
-
104
-
104
-
103
-
103
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
101
-
100
-
100
-
99
-
99
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
96
-
95
-
95
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
91
-
91
-
90
-
90
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
88
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
81
-
81
-
80
-
80
-
Oh because the conversations I had with some of the hipsters I know and a conference I was at ended in, "well they shouldn't be swearing at the workers crossing the line they're just shooting themselves in the foot, those workers are just trying to make a living too".... you took that away from the situation? It grossed me out! Idiot priorities perpetuated by this seedy narrative that is being pushed in the media that, "getting called names is the worst form of oppression". NO IT'S FUCKING NOT! Which by the way, that's Malcolm Turnbull's understanding of what egalitarianism is, "billionaires and workers sharing a drink with each other at the pub"- see his interview in the monthly from 2012. Isn't it a little creepy that that's pretty much exactly what "wet liberals" stand for and if I quoted that to these people I was talking to they'd go "yeah sounds good".
Look at how much coverage "bullying" or dumb social issues get in the media in comparison to the environment or banks and mining companies ripping billions of tax dollars out of the budget or say even this CUB issue. AMWU tried to put out a 50,000 ad in the Herald Sun about CUB. The Herlad Sun refused to print it. THEY WOULDN'T EVEN TAKE MONEY TO TALK ABOUT IT! But they had plenty of time to shame rudeness on the train or "when jokes go too far at work". Hahah I know how conspiracy theory this sounds but It's a tool being used to silence descent mayynnne. Really gets under my skin.
Probably did dilute the message but I've been seeing this push towards focusing on bullshit like this from our generation more and more, because they clearly think, "oh I remember when someone called me a name in year 9 and it's the worst thing that happened to me so it must be the worst thing in the world" Fuuuucckk ooffffff you pampered little turd. A slap in the face from generations past who fought and died for the rights at work we enjoy today and used the term "scab" as a means of pressure to stop workers from hijacking other worker's jobs at prices that legitimise the decline of wages nation wide.
That same social pressure is being channeled in the opposite way now by the media because that's all they ever fucking talk about. "Karl Stephanovic went toooo faarrrrr", "How racist is this guyyyy" who cares!?!?! He's a fucking dude that has no power what so ever while laws like this that actually affect the entire nation are getting passed in silence without the media raising so much as an eyebrow and a lot of our generation, clearly by the number of shares those kind of stories get don't realise they're a product of that moron level of "political discourse" the media is allowing them to have because it suites them for people to focus on meaningless shit about "did this guy cross the line? DID HE SAY SOMETHING!?!?!".
I mean look at the coverage this story has gotten. The narrative seems to be, "yeah these guys have lost 2 thirds of their wage during a contract that hadn't expired and was valid for years because that's the law now, but they've also been swearing at the workers willing to accept this pay so, you know it's a tough one. Whose in the right?" False equivalency anyone!??! The fact that people I talked to, no where near everyone, probably about 15 - 20% reflected that view freaked me out!
Hahaha sorry about how long this is I would have explained this in the video but you know, 5 minute rule (I never stick to anyway) but it's been gnawing at me for ages and I guess it's that age old gripe comedians have about freedom of expression. I should have done two seperate videos about it but fuck man, those conversations. I couldn't think about anything else when I wrote this video than that fucking pampered response from those nobs.
79
-
79
-
79
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
I don't reckon. See this is the whole point about the sea lanes. Chinas argument is that it's their backyard so they should control them. I agree, they're going to be the regional power. And whether the US likes it or not China will control them sooner rather than later. This is what I'm saying about making sure we're there writing the new rules. Kevin Rudd and Paul Keating saw this coming 25 years ago. They set up bodies and departments for regional cooperation. The Liberals barely engage in it because the US doesn't want us to and they are too stupid to see what's clearly happening/have no back bone. See these military engagement scenarios are such an american view point. China doesn't think like this. I mean they have military aspirations sure, but they're not interested in global military control like the US is. They're interested in trade. You can say there's some conspiracy theory of "that's what they WANT you to think" but no, it's pretty obvious by the statements countries make and their actions what they want. I mean it really is no secret that the US are an extremely combative super power, invading some 70 odd countries since WW2 while the countries china has invaded are those it has a historic claim to/ when it comes to the south China sea, again this is China marking it's territory. That's their back yard. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but what the scenario is. Essentially they're saying these are our trade routes. They are 1.4 billion people with an economy that will surpass the US's by the 2020's getting pushed around by 300 million half way across the world. It's not going to be like this for very long. Hahahaha no one's saying you rip up the ANZUS treaty. You couldn't even if you wanted to. We're the only serious European country in the region (sorry NZ).It's like how France has been extremely critical of the US, still best of friends. But to pretend like the Liberals are that we're beholden to it like it's just after World War 2 and that we have to have whatever foreign policy they wish is moronic, and worst of all is wasting valuable time. I agree with Rudd and Keating, do everything you can to engage China, have a primo seat in rewriting the rules of the region, we were the ones that got the ball rolling under Keating with ASEAN, John Howard abdicated the roll, Rudd tried to pick it up again, and the Liberals have no fucken idea. They virtually don't have a policy
69
-
69
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
63
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
Why is it irresponsible? As mentioned in the video (examples provided) Murdoch goons litter the ABC airwaves, in fact they are the most frequent contributors by a mile. The same think tanks that the Murdoch press frequently quote are frequently on the ABC, and get far more air time than the other think tanks I think at last count 70% to 30%. They frequently quote the Murdoch press, they follow the stories that the Murdoch press turn into stories, examples that spring to mind are shitting on Labor's climate policies, blowing up this whole idiotic Dandemic bullshit, there's nothing in your response that's concrete. Nothing. Even the article you provided doesn't have anything very concrete to say, where as the IA frequently publish articles with hard figures about ABC coverage that you've actively ignored. Again, as was mentioned in the video, the Liberal party has no intention of privatising the ABC, they control the ABC. This idea that "you need to mobilize the public" no you don't. If there's one thing the public is sympathetic towards (and in my view they absolutely shouldn't be) it's the ABC. Again, because they brainwash the public into feeling sorry for them. My point is, you shouldn't feel sorry for it, nor should you watch or defend it.
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
Man used to agree trust me I did, but hahaha I've seen the light on this. Regressive leftists exist and the definition I'm pretty sure everyone agrees on. They're lefties that are counter productive. I'll add to that they're used by the corporate media as a face of the left for 2 reasons, one it makes people on the left appear unreasonable and dumb AND it also gives the illusion of debate.
Never about anything serious, they keep a check on the conversation themselves with their idiocy and straight up narcism. Unable to move the conversation forward because they don't know shit, they're clearly spoilt kids that are in their late 20's to mid 30's and life didn't go their way so rather than look at themselves and think "oh it's because I'm a piece of shit" they blame someone else because that's what little turds do. Ergh sorry to keep harping on about this conference but I need to bloody vent about it! I can't get it out of my head! This sums them up. At this conference, they were all on their moral high horse about whatever issue they "cared" about, it was always an extension of them directly, "this happened to me once so I care about this" I mean how much more self absorbed can you get? No one brought up climate change for instance, our slipping education rankings, decline in union membership, the death of the great barrier reef, the fact that each year hundreds of billions of tax dollars are syphoned away to offshore accounts and multi nationals, no, it was all about "how much a victim I am despite going to a private school here's why..." fuck- off-you-little-shits.
Now this hours and hours of aggressive whining was on - you'll never guess, a stage with screens in the background that said "proudly sponsored by Westpac" It was dystopic. This generation of narcissists who aren't even the better kind of narcissist, the type that get things done because they think they're awesome. The shit type, vulnerable narcissists complaining about minor shit while the world literally burns, pointing fingers at everyone else while a big 4 fucking bank sponsors this frantic dim witted farce. I honestly don't know what else to call it. If you've got a better phrase but it fits for me - Regressive Left. That's what those fuckers are. Again they didn't give a shit about the CUB workers because they're such emotionally stunted idiots they could only relate to the "that's bullying" part. Having said that though - really good idea Simon, I will do a video on this mind set, because hahaha I can't stop thinking about it. I feel like that dude in close encounters of the third kind sculpting that mountain out of mash potato hahaha.
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
@QnonsoseWilson hahaha I did a degree in international politics but ok... look everything you've just said is exactly what the US hass been doing since WW2. It's admitted in your comment. I dunno why you think it's excusable when the US does it but not for China, that's what world powers do, they make scenarios that benefit them. Essentially everyone's scared of china because the media has told them to be. But let me ask you this...on paper who would you be more scared of? A country that has invaded 70 nations since world war two has over half the worlds nukes, essentially commands the global economy yet doesn't have central planning of it under a single institution or a country that has only invaded countries it has historical claim to, is building a military capacity to rival that of a player that already exists, is pushing for a more democratic world finance organisation, trade regulator and banking system and has a government that has moved 600 million people out of abject poverty while the US has moved over 60% of their population into it. Again, I'm not saying they're not going to be more aggressive, they're an emerging super power, I'm saying...they're an emerging super power and at the end of the day there's two schools of thought on this, you can believe that you are suppoed to be getting your defence FROM asia. Or you can believe that you're supposed to get your defense in asia. I believe the latter. Everyone saying "china breaks trade rules all the time" what do you think America does? What do you think the EU does, what do you think we do? The point is most of the time nations follow the rules, super powers break the rules more because they're super powers.
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@Icemeister10 True but why has the US then impoverished it's population and eroded it's middle class while China has made its middle class almost the size of the U.SThe reason is the intention of these nations are different and they are different because in China, their government is in charge. In the US corporate interest runs the show. Sure they play by the US rule book internationally but that's because they have to what choice do they have?But to say that they have been able to get 600 million people out of poverty is because they did what the US wanted is completely false. They did the exact opposite of the US' path for economic growth. The countries that followed their path like the phillipenese, Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia have all been doing much worse than those like Japan, Korea China and Vietnam who haven't. The reason China wants a new international banking and trade system is so they can grow more while the US is doing everything they can to contain that growth from denying them fuel from the middle east, to starting huge international trade pacts like the TPP. Hahaha I would argue virtually all of them are US colonies seeing as they have installed puppet governments and control their economies and banking systems and in many cases like Chile and Argentina completely remodelled their constitutions to serve US corporate interest. The "fighting communism" narrative is patently false. Take Vietnam for example. Vietnam before the US invasion had a democratically elected government that didn't want to become a sweat shop for US companies and so the US invaded them, this caused agitation and sympathy for the communists in the North that then had popular support as a result. This narrative that the US was only trying to protect the world from communism is straight out of a school projector movie from the 50's. It's completely false. They were doing what every country does which is look out for their own interests. Well again Regan had the chance to completely disarm after the cold war but refused, so yeah the number has declined but so what? No where near what it should have. Again look at the history of the soviet era. How many countries did the soviet union invade? Those in their own backyard. How many did the US invade under the pretext of "stopping communism" 70. Yeah yeah you can say the whole "China has a terrible human rights record" but again, who got 600 million people out of abject poverty? China. Who has invaded 70 countries, kept them purposely poor with bogus growth models that are designed to bankrupt the nation and therefore force them to sell their national resources to US companies which god knows how many people that's killed but it would have to be over a hundred million from WW2 to now. Hahaha mate I love how you say that I'm intellectually lazy when I've done a degree in this and am not, unlike you spouting 50's US anti communism propaganda. Again I'm not saying China doesn't have a bad human rights record, I'm saying America has a worse one and I wouldn't expect them not to. They are a super power. Super powers always have bad human rights records so to say that one has a bad one and the other doesn't is ridiculous. It's not about their human rights record it's about how the world is moving. Hahaha you just love the 50's american lines don't you "central planning doesn't work" tell that to China who have gone from an agrarian economy to one worth 7 trillion in40 years and will likely be worth 14 trillion in 10.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
@Lankpants No, as previously explained what gets conservatives elected is when voter enthusiasm wanes. You know what causes voter enthusiasm to wane? When people start saying both major parties are shit. The underlying message of third parties preys on that exact idea to secure votes for themselves. They may succeed in getting wider margins for themselves. Good for them. It's at the cost of the direction of the country. Canada does share one thing in common with Australia, as soon as their conservatives get in power they will attack their public broadcaster and as a result secure multiple terms like they did with Harper, like they've done here. What keeps them out of government is if you can generate excitement for the alternative.
It absolutely does cost Labor votes. It costs them money that they could be redirecting to stronger Liberal seats that they instead have to spend on retaining seats the greens are contesting. These are the seats they will pool their resources into because they have a better chance of winning. Their usual campaign strategy of attacking Labor constantly costs Labor votes. Though I will give them credit that in 2019 they didn't do that as much. The issue is not Greens voters preferences as much as their style of campaigning which costs Labor votes. It's the people who aren't voting greens but swing from Labor to Liberal that make or break elections and if you have the media, the greens, Clive Palmer, the Liberals, the nationals all saying Labor's shit, it eats votes from everywhere, the inner city, the rural seats, the western suburbs. If no one defends Labor, and everyone's attacking them, they don't get elected. That's not ok. The country does astoundingly better by every metric possible under a Labor government.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
I'm sorry I can't this comment is too stupid. Like I honestly don't know where to begin... arrrghh jesus so irksome! Ok here we go. First off yeah other than the dozens of major policy announcements we've covered since election and excluding the hundreds of others that we haven't had time to cover cos we were focusing on the NSW election/had to go into hiding/don't have the man power to keep track off all of it (unless you sign up to patreon ;) If you exclude the biggest overhaul of the healthcare system since medicare, the de privatisation of medicare and the NDIS, creating a climate change super department, implementing some of the strongest environmental protections on earth, overhauling the electric grid, putting in the infrastructure and investment to make Australia an EV and hydrogen superpower, normalising relations with China and the pacific islands, rebuilding the entire public service after the liberals junked it and privatised it, implementing a national emergency service, creating a world leading tax cheat catching mechanism that is the awe of the world, giving us already vastly improved economic figures, promoting competent ambassadors to posts as opposed to people the Liberal party owes favours to (don't you dare say Kevin Rudd that man is one of the most skilled diplomats on earth he's the only reason we got a Paris Accord) then yes yes they're exactly the same "except the culture war stuff" whatever the fuck that means.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@crazykubla My mistake you said estimate not facts. Those are facts. They're not estimates. Right very little effort, except the on average 700 person staff that on average soak up 70 million a year in wages, the specialised safety regulation and regulators you have to instil outside the plant that the tax payer will have to pay for and are notoriously corrupt and cut back to the bone globally, the waste you have to pay for which is costing the US alone billions a year to manage which they will have to manage for tens of thousands of years which is definitely going to happen when the most powerful civilisation in history lasted a thousand tops.... but yeah apart from those little externalities that cost billions to manage and are wide open to privatisation and corruption and historically have been peachy. There's also the fact that not a single nuclear power plant anywhere has ever turned a profit once you factor in all the government subsidies but hey! That sounds cheaper than solar and wind that turn profits in a matter of 1 - 5 years and are now at the stage that they don't even need government subsidies! It doesn't matter that they use very little fuel because there's fuck all uranium in the world. We've already peaked and now we have to dig deeper and deeper to get it, and when we do dig deeper and deeper we have to use more and more fossil fuels to extract it as opposed to solar and wind which once they're up and running really do cost fuck all to maintain and zero dollars in fuel production. There's also the little nasty addition that extracting it is fucking up huge tracks of pristine environment and indigenous land globally and making those local indigenous populations provably sicker. I wouldn't even go as far to say that it's preferential to coal seeing as just one accident very nearly destroyed japan and the other caused the soviet union, a global super power to disintegrate - but even if you cede the point that it's preferential to coal. So? You know what's preferential to both? On every level, economically, ecologically, time frame, maintenance wise, practicality - Wind and Solar.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
No it's not that it's irrelevant and there's certainly benefits from the TPP for sure, but there are massive MASSIVE downsides that in the long term impede growth, impede innovation and jam through a bunch of corporate rights that erode state sovereignty. In fact 2 thirds of the agreement is exactly that, has nothing to do with free trade and are patent protection laws. Yeah maybe, that might be a side benefit of it, but again the design of ISDS is not that, that's something they say to try and sell it, it is predominately used for profit protection, meaning when a country like us wants to beef up environmental laws, workers rights, change social policy that negatively impacts a corporation we'll have to foot the bill for protracted legal battles. No I don't think that, but I equally don't think business should have the right to fuck with national, democratically elected governments at will and bully them into changing their mandates to personally suit them.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@whatis8964 Not going to respond to this in full way too long.
First paragraph - Well if you value human life then you'd appreciate the chess game because in that chess game determines the health and well being of billions of people and their development. Places of note that China are currently developing while the US has done nothing but impoverish these countries are central African nations, south east asian and 500 million of their own people that you keep trying to brush aside as weak arguments. Not to mention doing more than virtually any other nation than the EU's collective efforts to combat climate change.
I'll tell you why I use the US as a standard. Because that's the existing standard. You're talking about bullshit ideals like "human rights" and "freedom" and "dignity" whatever the fuck those things mean. I'm giving you metrics. I'm giving you the real world examples of how peoples lives have been improved and the foreboding circumstances in which they were. You're giving me "but they're also mean". Well good luck to your country if it was under the thumb of the US and they installed an oppressive dictator to keep the population under control like they have in numerous middle eastern, asian, African and South American nations where they not only have no "freedoms and human dignity" but they also have all their nation's wealth plundered and virtually zero development. It's not an "I don't like the CCP and the US yaaaaaaaayyyy I'm a good person" situation, that situation doesn't exist. In many MANY ways the reason you even have the CCP and the way in which it opperates is because of US influence in the region including terrorist training which is the primary reason for the crack down in UN determined human rights in China. Aside from that I've explained the reasons why I think the CCP is overall a force for good in the world. Because it's basically the only counterbalance to a global empire. Those are the facts. Your main argument against that is "but they also do bad things". Yet you think my argument's weak? Yours isn't even based in reality. If you didn't have the CCP you would have a US sanctioned dictator - indisputable historical fact.
Not going to get into the historical claim territory too deeply because it's not the main point but re Taiwan - you actually think that's a government in its own right do you? Complete pawn of the US. The general argument though despite the obvious will of these people to be independent is - yeah obviously in an ideal world I'd like it if Tibet was independent. That would be awesome. But this is not the idealised world you keep retreating to that you can do for anything in politics, not just china v us but republicans v democrats, Labor v Liberal - you can always retreat to "but they both have done shady shit" - so what. That's politics. Always has been always will be. My point is China has a claim to these regions. The US does not have any claim whatsoever to even the minor examples you gave let alone the entire globe which it currently controls. You're trying to conflate the two. That's stupid. Thus given the choice between a power that has risen 500 million out of poverty, takes climate change seriously, has no imperial ambitions either historically or currently, has an economy that is dependent on building infrastructure while the American's economy is dependent on bombing infrastructure, I'm saying, very justifiably so that China's a very important counterweight and would not be if it wasn't for the CCP.
No in fact China is rapidly developing and becoming too expensive for US companies who are moving these industries out to other cheaper predominantly asian nations. Why? Because the CCP raised the standard of living. Vietnam has had constant embargoes on it since the end of the Vietnam war and yet despite coming out of nearly 30 years of total war, one of the most ravaged nations in human history, and economically punished ever since, is surging ahead in both HDI and GDP. Why? Because these governments make decisions that benefit the economies of these countries, not the US's. Do they have sweat shops? Yes. Do they serve the US. Of course. The difference is if it were up to the US there would be no development and improvement of living and economic conditions like there very clearly has under the CCP and CPV.
No it is not a weak argument nor is it a slippery slope. Your point that "even though they have no historic ambition they still might" is a weak argument. It's based off of literally nothing. Mine is based off of a historical track record and how their economy functions as opposed to the US's. I'll repeat. China's economy expands as a result of construction booms, the US's expands as a result of literal booms.
I don't know why China's history starts with the CCP I guess so it fits your comparison to the US's history. OK, but if you're going to use that as the example then shouldn't you only compare the US to what it's done since the republican party became a party? We're going by ruling parties right? China has a track record of thousands of years to show that it has been extremely non combative, like ridiculously so in comparison to European powers despite being the dominant power in its region. Well no that wasn't the beginning of US expansion there was the invasion and consolidation of previously french and Spanish held territories to make the modern US map but I don't understand why the British fighting what later became the US has anything to do with the US not having ambitions of expansion. They absolutely did. Virtually as soon as they became a nation instead of a colony. In fact it was non stop expansion as soon as the revolution ended.
Well I don't know shit about the war of 1812 but if it's as you say and it probably was two distinctions I can guarantee the US would have been way more brutal to the Indians than China is to the Uighurs but 2. yeah. I fully understand why the US would crack down on that shit if the British were funding it. You mistake me being happy about it with understanding it. In both instances you're only proving my point which is that those indians would not have been treated as brutally, nor would the Uighur people if it wasn't for foreign interference of a more powerful global power. So at the end of the day whose really at fault for their treatment? Clearly it's the British and today the US.
No, in fact you're proving yourself wrong again by comparing Britain to the US in terms of it's level of power. Today there is one super power. One. That's it. The US controls the world. In the days of "colonialism" there were several. The most promising counterweight to Britain was not the US it was continental Europe and the numerous competing powers on it. There was a plurality of power. The US was not a global player until world war one. In the world now as it exists today, there is only one force. A near total monopoly on trade, politics and economics, all controlled by a single entity. There has never, in the history of the world, been a power more powerful than the US. Never more invisible, certainly never more insidious as it appears to be doing everything it can to destroy the planet. The fact that a third world country is even worrying a nation that powerful is astonishing.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@xoidbergskywalker9139 No, America instead has an invisible government (the military industrial complex) that demands endless wars to generate profit which has resulted in the invasion of 70 countries since world war 2 and over 100 million deaths world wide. China might be introducing a social credit system but ever heard of the cyber security act? The spyware in all computers? The patriot act? At least China has moved 600 million people out of poverty. No one in the world has ever done anything even close to that astounding. The US instead has plonked over half it's population into poverty. Look I get it, no one's defending China, I just wish people would stop defending the US as this shining light on the hill that "makes a few mistakes every now and then" it's propaganda. Of course most people view the world as China good America bad it's what you've been taught to think by the press and the education system because it suites American interests. Just like if you go though your parents school books as a kid they were all about Britain and how glorious Britain is. But the reality is much more sobering than that - ANY powerful country, ANY will act in its own interests. Not yours. It's own. Period. It's not like I blame them for it, just like I don't blame China for acting in its interests . The reality is not as simple as AMERICA GOOD SIDE WITH THEM CHINA COMMUNISTS BOOOOOOO. The reality is that China is becoming the local hegemonic leader of this region. You can pretend it's not (like the Liberals and the US are) you can deny it by saying their economy will collapse, maybe, anything's possible, I doubt it seeing as the US has been saying that for 20 years and it's gone from strength to strength, maybe a recession might come along but that would only prolong the inevitable. But one day VERY SOON they are GOING to be the hegemonic leader of Asia. We are in that region. So you have to recognise that fact and think about it from that perspective not "oh the US military will protect us". Sorry, won't do that forever, China WILL have a GDP that is at least double the US very very soon. Doesn't mean I wish it was happening, but it is. So MAYBE it might be smarter to do what Labor's been doing for the last 30 years and ENGAGE China by setting up regional committees and forums. Before Paul Keating there was none of that. The Asian countries didn't even talk to each other they despised each other so much. The change in relations is almost entirely because WE AUSTRALIA took the initiative to engage. How fucken baller is that? Keating was key to a rapid expansion of economic and diplomatic cooperation in the region. He got Japan Korean and China and Indonesia to talk to each other for the first time since fucken the 1800's! That's what I want to see more of!!! That's exciting and good for everyone! The Liberals didn't do that. Liberals kept the fear mongering going, still are to this day. Kevin Rudd set up more committees to engage them. The Liberals have just blindly followed America who do not want engagement but combat. They want us to be stand offish with China and check their trade routes to limit their expansion, which, and I know this is an unpopular opinion, I think is a dumb idea for us to do. That isn't in our interests. That only creates tension in the region and limits OUR trade and quality of life. I like what Keating was on about. Sit them down in conferences with other asian nations. We're in a time period of massive prosperity for Asia. Asia's where all the action is going to be this century and the Americans know it and are fucken jealous of it which is why you see them becoming more combative because they know their power and influence will shrink in the area of most profitability. Should we play into their tantrum? Fuck no! But that's what Australia under the Liberals do, ignore the reality and huge opportunity and act like it's still fucken 1952. So in summary stop pretending like it's this epic struggle between good and evil and that the primary concern here is "threat of invasion" that's hogwash. The real issue here is trade and economic expansion.
3
-
3
-
3
-
wellllll you seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on the whole "John Howard was out to get specifically women" narrative and only when I say "no he was out to do what was in his donors interest narrative" only then did you concede that that was a factor. I don't think I'm straw manning you I'm disagreeing that the 68 - 78 stat has anywhere near as much to do with department shrinkage as you are making it out to be seeing as you've written paragraphs on it now and started with that without any real acknowledgement of broader labour law changes that were not gender specific. Ok. Done I'll read it. I hope you read any economics book at all, take your pick. Yeah see that second paragraph is just a lot of incoherent abuse where you've repeated yourself but noooo you've changed your original position, before you were putting a loooooot of emphasis on the whole women were purposefully targeted narrative, now you're ceding and shifting to "oh it was part of a broader attack"... Oh a dictionary definition see, there's a lot to unpack there but essentially by that definition you think that an autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader (Pauline Hanson I'm assuming) is going to take over? Because of the "it's ok to be white" motion? OOO no the cronulla riots! A big bash that happened what 12 years ago? That's why you're scared of a dictatorship with a severe social and economic regimentation? I mean, naaaahhh sorry. I stick by my original sentiment...I think you're being unrealistic. I'm guessing the reason you don't know more about it than my video is because all you've done is watch my video. Right, so you admit you care more about a joke in my video than the TPP? I think that's extremely warped and I don't really feel comfortable being lectured by someone on morality and values who thinks that. Yeah but see here's the thing, baby rape and female mutilation are all backward culture things happening in countries that I don't get a say in, as an Australian citizen I get to say something about the TPP. It's something I can actually do something about maybe, sort of, not likely but reaaalllyy should give it a go. So I choose to focus on that, you choose to focus on jokes you feel personally attacked by. I think that's amoral and to be honest, pretty detestable. Left wing... again another ism, not going into it. Ahhh now we're getting into the "you're straw manning me" no "you're straw manning ME!" part of the argument. This is sort of a dead end so moving on, sorry what facts? The 68 78 thing? That fact? A quote form someone about departments shrinking? A dictionary definition? Mmmm no in fact I'm saying Howard's almost purely responsible for it, I just don't agree with your narrative of it so YOU'RE STRAW MANNING ME STOP STRAW MANNING ME hahaha yeah, I know. It sucks when people disagree with a world view you've spent ages curating.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@whatis8964 Right so again, you're doing the same thing over and over, ignoring the metrics and focusing on personal tragedies while also curiously belittling the ones that occurred in the USSR and Vietnam. You're clearly not listening to the point so there's no point going over old ground. No I'm saying the term human rights is subjective. Metrics are not. The thing you keep ignoring. Again you keep focusing on personal tragedies, it's a stupid way to assess global politics. In fact it's impossible to do so. In fact the leap forward had a lot to do with US and Japanese imperialism, the vast majority of deaths under Mao are the result of famine which was brought on by imperial powers pillaging the nation for hundreds of years and then bombing the shit out of it. It was not them crippling themselves if you look into the history of it, the exact same pattern emerged as it does in all US conflicts, US backed rivals to Mao. Mao I think had to decisively win 5 wars at once from memory, US takes away China's right to sit on the UN, slaps a global trade embargo on them, country is war torn, famine inevitably ensues. It is an indisputable historic fact. The US were backing a guy whose name escapes me because it was years ago I was reading it. That would have been the government of China.
Well if you're going to say that why are you comparing colonial USA to post civil war USA? Why is it fair to compare a US where the political apparatus was made up of independents, then the whigs and the dems to now with the republicans and the dems? Why is that any different? Just because you say something's a straw man argument (I don't actually think you know what that means) doesn't mean it is. The US that was created with the rise of the republican party was completely politically different. So be honest. The reason you chose to count china's history from the CCP's inception is so you could make some arbitrary timeline that suites your "not weak argument" Never said there was no conflict I said the amount was negligible in comparison to Europe. How convenient of you to leave that out of the quote. What a good faith arguer you are. Put aside the fact you're clearly not even attempting to comprehend the arguments I'm making your examples don't even come close to disproving my very obvious, non controversial point.
Hahahaha ahhh yes the terrifying space station in Argentina and the one military base set up in the horn of Africa after decades of deliberte US interfearence and violations of international trade law designed to stymie China's growth. That truly does stack up to the 1000 us military bases world wide designed explicitly to fuck with trade doesn't it? Oh that's right you can't compare the two unless it's in very arbitrarily selected historical time frames. My mistake.
Dude - if you have terrorist cells in your country what do you do? You wipe them out. Duh. This is not hard. This is reality. Something you reeeealllly have troubles grasping. How mighty of you to empathise from your living room with their freedom struggle never faced with the decisions of actually governing. Yup true, and you could say the exact same thing about the US with the Indians. The point is they are. As a result the foreign powers flaming the tension are the ones flaming current the conflict. You know what happens in a conflict? Increased deaths. Do they have any hopes of liberating these people? No, these people are dying just to give China a headache, that's all. It's very simple, you want the conflict to end and the tension to decrease you stop funding the conflict. It's the same as North Korea. What happens every time the US ramps up military presence? North Korea spends more on military, more people starve. This is 2 plus 2 stuff.
Ergh this is getting very tiring. No I don't think the Uighur situation is some noble aspiration of the Chinese to counter the US. I think it's happening because the US are trying to destabilise China.
You're ahhh you're not getting my point with the Soviet infiltration and the China backlash are you? A lot of suffering would have been avoided, if there wasn't foreign interference. Exactly the same with the US and the Indians. Would it be good if China granted these regions independence, yeah. But that's not going to happen. You know what is really really easy to do and happens all the time? You stop funding terrorism cells. And again just because the Soviet Union interfered with China's internal politics doesn't mean I'm withdrawing the bigger point which is still valid which is as you pointed out -that it was a counter balance to the US. That's a good thing. Indisputable. Did the Soviet Union do bad stuff? Yeah - oooooo mad counter, in fact it's the only counter you have, but it's silly. It's juvenile. It doesn't focus on what the realistic alternatives are. Points like if there wasn't the soviet union the US would have definitely nuked more countries, Russia since the collapse of the soviet union went into a spiral of poverty killing millions as did most of the soviet satellite nations, if the soviet union didn't exist and it had the current system it does Chernobyl would have been much MUCH worse. 70 years of total US dominance would have left the world looking much poorer and much more environmentally ravaged. The difference between you and me is you're incapable of looking at the bigger picture. I understand that no players are perfect. I don't care, I care about the net good. You focus on tragedies like 9 news does. I focus on the grand scale.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Oh you need more? Ok
Greens covered up the alleged rape of a NSW campaign worker: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/lauren-ingram-why-im-telling-the-story-of-my-rape/news-story/9d333b85eeb57284d0724c085a9768e9
NSW Greens MPs knew about the alleged rape and the photos, knew the victim had gone to the police and was pressing charges, did nothing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/07/02/greens-knew-about-staffer-sexual-assault-allegations-insiders-c_a_23013083/
Greens covered up alleged assault, denied it.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-04/greens-knew-about-rape-allegations-months-before-taking-action/8772250?pfmredir=sm
Greens lied to the ABC about sexual harassment policy they did not institute: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-04/greens-knew-about-rape-allegations-months-before-taking-action/8772250
Also, in ACT: Greens covered up alleged sexual assault of another campaign volunteer. http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-13/act-greens-party-volunteers-sexual-assault-canberra/8703144
Victim of alleged ACT Greens sexual assault says ACT leader knowingly lied in the record about the assault she reported.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/12/23/exclusive-how-the-greens-failed-me-over-rape/15139476005690
In Victoria: allegations of assaults of sexworkers outside the Kathleen Maltzahn preselection. https://sexliesducttape.me/2017/09/27/victorian-greens-still-failing-sex-workers/amp/
Greens senator accused of sexual harassment, alleged coverup provokes resignations
https://truecrimenewsweekly.com/exclusive-greens-likened-to-catholic-church-as-star-incoming-senator-jordon-steele-john-accused-of-persistent-sexual-harassment/
Graffiti links Greens to #MeToo
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiehMuBmebeAhXQe30KHReyA5wQzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnews%2Fnation%2Fgraffiti-links-greens-to-metoo%2Fnews-story%2F9f0487b36e04a9677b38f6a5862b7de3&psig=AOvVaw0tnSJfNgShKM-E5UE0qBML&ust=1542914086422426
Cover up of alleged assault by prominent Greens member
https://www.crikey.com.au/2018/04/27/victorian-greens-accused-of-mishandling-alleged-assault/
7:30 expose of alleged Greens sexual assaults
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/women-allege-sexual-misconduct-in-the-greens/10067916
Jeremy Buckingham insists he’s been cleared - before investigations have concluded
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/11/greens-mp-jeremy-buckingham-cleared-of-wrongdoing-after-sexual-misconduct-allegations?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Vic Greens leader Greg Barber calls women “fat hairy-legged lesbians”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-06/former-victorian-greens-leader-accused-of-running-sexist-office/10178894
Greens candidate is a rapper who promotes date rape, domestic violence, homophobia
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/vic-premier-slams-greens-culture-problem
Greens Sandringham candidate is a member of Facebook group “Twinkle Twinkle Little Slut, Name One Guy You Haven’t Fucked”
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi5zqW0mObeAhVbU30KHW6tC1wQzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2F2018-11-13%2Fvictorian-greens-stand-by-footscray-and-sandringham-candidates%2F10494022&psig=AOvVaw2wYYV_ZIJ0d0IwGSdh17w0&ust=1542913924329278
Greens candidate raps about “choking a bitch”
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-14/more-video-of-rapping-greens-candidate-emerges/10496640?pfmredir=sm
Greens candidate stood down over rape allegations, but greens won’t release his name
https://amp.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/greens-candidate-stood-down-following-rape-complaint-20181122-p50hpm.html?fbclid=IwAR2FSEhmJ-ffddY4byJv7ZW2BBmNU3sovORQJzXLTBnnJwy0urJNZL-X-FE
Alex Bhathal Resigns over “brutal, and sanctimonious” culture
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj_l8TNuZrgAhXUEHIKHQp1ADsQzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theage.com.au%2Fpolitics%2Fvictoria%2Fi-have-been-loyal-greens-stalwart-alex-bhathal-quits-in-disgust-20190131-p50uq8.html&psig=AOvVaw2u1VfO7OdCqAvQmmvgUvb4&ust=1549107588534531
Greens candidate “front foots” allegations of assault
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-star-candidate-jason-ball-reveals-his-nightclub-sex-secret/news-story/37a27113abd0eb3f5595b81bbc907e55
Former greens MP resigns from party due to “toxic culture”
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-14/samantha-dunn-former-greens-mp-resigns-from-party/10902050?pfmredir=sm
Greens Senator writes character reference for man who admits to domestic violence
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sarah-hanson-young-wrote-court-reference-for-friend-charged-after-he-slapped-wife-20200305-p5479n.html
Greens senator publicly defends writing reference for convicted domestic violence abuser
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/partyroom/live-from-womad-2020/12039698
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ergh a lot of these are the same points over and over which if you boil them down are 1. China has a bad human rights record. And? The US has a far worse one. China is also leading the planet on Climate action while the US is doing everything they can to get us over 2 degrees. All superpowers have bad human rights track records, and I wouldn't expect them to have good human rights track records.... they're super powers. 2. China's economy will implode. Well the US has been saying that for 20 years now and China's economy has only gone from strength to strength, while the US nearly imploded the global economy in 2008 and is looking like they're ramping up to have another go at it. Maybe it won't be by the 2020's that China surpasses the US' economy, perhaps it will be the decade after that but the point is it is they will. 3. China has military expansion aspirations. I strongly disagree with that statement but even if it did, what do you call the US' actions since world war two? Also, if they have military expansion aspirations isn't that even more of a reason to engage? 4. China breaks trade deals and international pacts all the time. As does the EU and the US. All of these points seem to be set in this fantasy world that China are the bad guys and the US are the good guys, which is ridiculous. They also seem to be set in this idea that Australia can if they only hold on to the ANZUS treaty and pretend like it's still 1947 contain China which again is la la land stuff. China is expanding, they will be this regions dominant power and as such they will set the rules. Period. It's not like you have to rip up the ANZUS treaty to accept this reality, you just have to grow a spine and say to the US, "we are going to follow what is in THIS nations best interests, not what is in your strategic interests". And it is UNDENIABLY in this nations interests to follow the Keating model of setting up regional summits, getting the leaders of these Asian nations together and coming up with strategies for how this region moves forward. Not cowering behind the US and expecting their navy will keep Asia forever stuck in the 50's. It's juvenile, archaic, weak thinking and it is the constant strategy of the Liberals. Labor under Whitlam, Keating and Rudd put us in much better positions to deal with the inevitable. The Liberals have done nothing but squander valuable time.
3
-
@QnonsoseWilson And? I don't think you get it. I'll say it one more time and then I can't keep repeating myself. NO ONE IS ADVOCATING A RIP UP OF THE ANZUS TREATY. Ok so in the second paragraph you're basically saying that Chinese invasion is not even a serious possibility. Yeah but what is a rise in nationalism. It's always linked to some internal or external threat. Essentially it's scare mongering. The elite of China, don't seriously think the US are going to invade China, in fact no one with a brain would think that it's even ridiculous having to write this, again it's not a possibility, the US can't even invade North Korea. Well then why bring up that China isn't a democracy and that it will somehow lead to weakness? What evidence is there of that? That other autocracies have fallen in the past? So have many democracies. It's a silly point. No one said conflicts are a thing of the past, they're clearly not, but what your'e talking about is war between two nuclear powers which is absurd. You can't say Russia annexing the Ukraine is evidence that China and the US are going to duke it out. Yeah and the doomsday clock is only 30 seconds behind what it was during the peak of the cold war again, that is separate to the idea that there would be a conventional war. Not many due to policy making? I highly contend that. The Ural Sea, trade sanctions, rampant inflation, a rigid economy that had too many layers of bureaucracy, and little cooperation from the outside world in terms of conventions and conferences where they could share ideas about how to run the economy more efficiently instantly spring to mind. The idea that the geography wasn't in their favor, sure plays a factor fine, but to say that was THE defining factor that it ran up military costs when you're talking about a country that couldn't efficiently feed it's people despite having the capacity to I would guess means the key problem was poor policy making. If it wasn't it would have excluded Great Britain from ever being a super power, or France or Spain or before them Greece, I mean Egypt had much better resources than Greece and Macedonia, it's clearly not the primary reason nations rise and fall. The key reason is poor decision making. For instance Australia's handling of the mining boom as opposed to Norway. Both had similar resources booms,Norway now has a trillion dollars in savings, Australia is in debt. Decision making. Not resources. And China is making far smarter decisions than the US and is capable of doingso for precisely the opposite reasons that you argue. The US has a corrupt and failing political system, an autocracy at least can decide a direction that is in the interest of the nation and not fucken Walmart is better than that kind of democracy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What evidence do you have for that? There are countries that offer 0% tax rates. Are you supposed to compete with them? You think the Bahamas and Bermuda are doing better than countries with high tax rates like Sweden and Norway do you? I'm terribly sorry but what you've just spouted is nothing but lazy thinking. It's nothing but business council talking points. What evidence do you have to suggest that Australia not an appealing place to do business? It's a country with comparatively high wages, so a large population that can afford goods and services, it's extremely productive, it's well resourced, it's extremely developed. This is one of the best countries on earth to do business, We have some of the most profitable corporations on earth. In fact we just well might have the most profitable companies on earth, I'll have to look over the stats again. What societal problems do they solve? Can you list any? Employment? You mean the thing they need to keep their business going and are constantly trying to undermine? That's not a public service, it might have a side benefit of that, but it's motivated by pure self interest. Big business is responsible for collectively billions of dollars of wage theft a year, penalty rates reductions, the winding back of work place safety laws, illegally renegotiating contracts mid term, for no improvement in employment. Australia has one of the worst employment rates in the developed world due to these "business friendly" changes the Liberals instigated. Pay out share holders? How's that a societal good? Their own self interest in expanding their businesses is a societal good? How does that help Australia as a nation? The vast majority of share holders are in the top 2% of society, that helps the average Australian out how? Taxes is what would help the average Australian out, it's what would help the environment and the economy also. This is not my opinion. This is the opinion of hippie lefty organisations like the IMF, The World Bank and the Reserve Bank. It's a very straight forward fact. Don't fall for the Business council's propaganda. Australia is an exceptionally good place to do business. Businesses are not benevolent job creators, they are self interested entities with virtually no exception. They just lobby to reap all the benefits of that environment while slowly but surely disintegrating it by not paying taxes and getting governments elected that allow them to get away with it. That's it. There's no "oooo poor banks and insurance industries" sop story here.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@QnonsoseWilson Yes thank you for your very patronising take on the difference between international politics and geopolitics but as previously stated, numerous times in this thread, I'm not saying we should drop our alliance with the US, no one is saying that so your argument is pointless. The video is to highlight the two schools of thought in Canberra. One says you should essentially be a client state to the US (Liberals) the other is that no, follow what is in the interest of your own country and hammer out deals that suit you instead of blindly hoping the US is working in your interests. I am for the second camp and cannot believe the spinelessness of the Liberals in following to the T, exactly what the US wants. Labor has never done that. Their foreign policy is always characterised by what is in OUR national interest as opposed to what is in the strategic interest of the US. I could point to Kim Beazily demanding sonar technology from the US and when they refused essentially stealing it from them, APEC, ASEAN, opening up trade relations with the US, yet every time the Liberals are in all this progress stagnates. You along with others in this thread keep misrepresenting the argument with ridiculous extremes and then going to ridiculous extremes yourself like "it's a question of survival". What? So you think China's going to invade, ok but that is an extreme position that isn't shared by many foreign policy experts I can assure you. Then using basless analysis to justify this position of following what the US wants to a T like "the US is destined to come out on top" - why? Can you give me a single reason based in fact? Because you certainly haven't displayed any. I can give you a bunch of counter reasons for why I think they won't such as the fact that after world war 2 they had about 50% of the world's GDP, today they have less than 25% and half of that is in foreign bank accounts in the cayman islands avoiding US taxes. I don't see a particularly strong US. If you'd like to give me some evidence as to why they'll "inevitably come out on top" I'd like to hear it but so far it's these predictions of a weak Chinese economy which I don't see at all as they've essentially set up their own world bank and IMF and have huge trade deals in the pipeline that more than nueter the TPP, but ok, the US will remain the singular super power in the world for all eternity because you say so....
2
-
@QnonsoseWilson man, that whole first paragraph is meaningless assumption based off no research at all. As I previously stated in m last comment, and I can't keep repeating myself, the policies between Labor and Liberal on China are starkly different and NEITHER are calling for an end to ANZUS. The world is not that black and white, again the entire first paragraph is pointless. Oh what on the ABC? Hahahaha dude I talk to people in DFAT all the time BELIEVE me when I say none of them think the idea of China invading is a reality, but it's just like them canvassing for Indonesia invading, it's purely an exercise, they're not preparing for it. Again, this is all military nothing talk. China is not going to invade the US, the US is not going to invade China purely because of MAD if nothing else so it's not a question of military invasion. I think you're just watching that infographics youtube channel on "WHO WOULD WIN IN A FIGHT". That is not reality. Sure they have an ageing population which is why they abolished the one child policy but the US has half it's capital in foreign bank accounts avoiding tax and doing nothing to build its economy so I think that's a bigger problem and is reflected when you go to these countries where all the major cities are undergoing intense construction while US cities by their own account are crumbling. Hahaha yeah the US doesn't have a wealth inequality problem that isn't tearing the country.in half sure. Who cares if they reject democracy? What has that got to do with wealth accumulation? See this is another point that everyone in the comments have, they seem to be saying "we should ally with the US no matter what because they have the same values as us" it's juvenile. Again the US has a far worse human rights record than China but as previously stated that's neither here nor there. Look again, stop with the "who would win in a war" stuff it's not reality. No nuclear power is going to attack another nuclear power. You're saying the Soviet Union didn't collapse because of economic reasons? That was the sole reason, none of this "oh Reagan was such a good negotiator" or "the pope talked them out of it". No it was economic collapse.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lorakeet Nope I'm not an expert on it. But I read experts. Thank you for acknowledging that OBVIOUSLY lives are more important than a tree.
Now to the point of being "disrespectful to a culture as a whole" it was disrespectful to superstitious elements of a culture so don't over inflate it. Was it poorly worded? Sure, I was hammered after doing an alcohol review video and then asked a question about a tricky political topic, I highly doubt you're at your most eloquent when you're wasted and even then the clip had to be taken out of context by the AUWU for my main point to be side lined which isn't controversial at all you just accepted it, in fact it's a really basic boring point - superstition is not something to be celebrated.
What I find interesting though is I'm constantly disrespectful to other cultures. CONSTANTLY. Legitimately disrespectful. Lads, bogans, private schools, Italians, hipsters, Japanese, rich, poor, Greek, British, Aussie, Fijian, Turkmen, Pakistani I'm a comedian. Comedians make fun of aspects of cultures for a living. Yet only now are you a "former fan". Only NOW are you discovering that I say loose shit? I mean that's fine you're allowed to like and dislike whatever you like but being disrespectful is sort of the whole game
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kentberwick8700 Dude. This is embarrassing. If you're not going to read the sources so you can at least argue what you're even attempting to argue I'm not going to continue. You're not interested in engaging, you're just regurgitating dogma and I get enough of that on this channel.
For example you completely ignore the 80 billion dollars worth of middle class welfare slapped on the budget by Howard that the mining boom and the global economic conditions were hiding at the time, from your comments its very clear you don't even understand what a structural surplus is, you don't even seem to be aware that the Howard government according to a century long analysis undertaken by the IMF was the most wasteful spender in Australian history, and you would understand that if you bothered to read outside your echo chamber.
The difference is that you're just trying to be right. You don't care about what's correct. For example, I'll freely admit I don't agree with the privatisation of the commonwealth bank. But if you want to get into what Howard privatised that was profitable - I mean fuck me dead, it makes combank look like peanuts.
You don't seem to understand any of the structural changes undertaken by the Hawke/Keating governments to reach a structural surplus. If you did you would not keep repeating "factual surplus" as you'd understand that that doesn't make sense. Howard did nothing to "factually" achieve a surplus, the way you can tell is because he didn't make a single structural change.
You won't acknowledge the huge once in a life time wealth that was completely sold off by Howard and Costello, we're talking about a trillion dollars and you're bitching about a deficit that was self correcting. You don't even know what interest rates where throughout the Hawke Keating years as you're using the peak when if you want to talk about averages it was 7.9% which was the OECD average. Interest rates under Howard were 6% which was the highest in the developed world because he flooded the economy with mining boom money and the reserve bank was forced to double that of the US.
You won't acknowledge any of the middle class welfare programs many of them costing tens of billions of dollars a year that are draining the budget to this day which is why the budget was in record smashing debt before the corona outbreak, not my opinion, that's treasuries.
You don't understand these basic points. They just whir past you because you don't read, you don't engage you just recite dogma. If you'd like to read the sources and then argue I'd be happy to but you're not even in the right ball park. It's sad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hofmann_25 Dude, just unpledge, I don't care. The fact you're using phrases like "left leaning" makes me curious as to why you were even a patron in the first place. It's extremely dissapointing you absorb this much content, all sourced with fact and you still have these vague, implanted, dull vacuuos jingoisms like "you can't go after them because they're left wing" whatever the fuck "left wing" means. No fact, no response to what has been displayed in front of your eyes numerous times of comparative interviewing, just your parental programming of them telling you the ABC is good. It's sad.
You see your response is so predictable and obviously implanted from your parents. "Would you prefer no ABC?" It's a stupid response. It's empty. It's not YOUR thought, you've just had it programmed into you. I've had this conversation a thousand times. It's boring. I've stated my position numerous times that, no I wouldn't want it privatised but only because if a Labor government gets in they might be able to cockroach bomb the place, fire everyone and start again. The institution that stands as I've shown you through numerous examples, all backed by fact and example is that it's a pro government propaganda outlet and the fact you defend it is disappointing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1