Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[wmetz]

You cannot tell me that Peter would not be a good representative for QLD interest, better then some 20 year old Mr Tony has sitting in a seat north of Brissie.

Yep, strange Tony is not talking about the boats. Well you would think his UN-immigrate shadow minister would be out there.

As for Peter, Kevin was there to launch his campaign, now where have you seen Tony and his revival Malcolm lately together. Also, haven't heard Malcolm out and complaining about the NBN, especially after that media mogul mentioned how the nbn not good for their business model.

 

[Hvr]

It's the same for everything. Healthy competition works against abuses.

Imagine how things would be if the ABC - or any government news agency - had a monopoly. We'd be North Korea.

Pete, who subscribes to a Fairfax rag

Any why is it that only a government monopoly is bad?

Murdoch has the power to unduly influence news and maybe even corrupt people, vis-a-vis the UK phone hacking scandal which seems to have been treated very softly.

 

[amaroo]

who subscribes to a Fairfax rag

I'm doing my little bit to keep Gina in the lifestyle she's accustomed too

 

[amaroo]

Another raging endorsement of the mining tax Mining tax embarrassment as Rio funds returned

Reports now running hot that last weeks budget update is already cactus!

"Last week's pre-election financial statement forecast the mining tax would raise $4 billion over the next four years, well below the original prediction of $22.5 billion."

Given that Rudd keeps banging on how the mining boom is over.....I wonder where the $4.4B will come from?

 

[Skyring]

Any why is it that only a government monopoly is bad?

Not at all. If there was only one domestic airline, - Virgin, say - then that would be a monopoly and that would be bad for passengers. Inevitably fares would rise and services fall because passengers had no easy alternative.

The rise of Walmart in the USA is an excellent example of a non-government near monopoly. They destroy independent retailers, eliminate competition and reduce once thriving small town commercial districts to wastelands. Eventually they abandon their town-based Walmarts and construct "Super Centers" between towns.

Where once residents could walk into town to do their shopping with family-run businesses, now they are forced to drive to get their shopping done.

 

[drsmithy]

Imagine how things would be if the ABC - or any government news agency - had a monopoly. We'd be North Korea.

Looks like a non-sequitur to me.

 

[medhead]

That's as maybe. Murdoch's law says Rudd has lost the election.

Murdoch has a heap of catching up to do then. I said a long time ago the Rudd will not win this election.

I think your the only one who thinks mentioning Godwin's law means you've lost an argument. That's a totally bizarre position.

 

[Skyring]

I think your the only one who thinks mentioning Godwin's law means you've lost an argument. That's a totally bizarre position.

Not at all. There's a difference between mentioning naz_s and intentionally invoking Godwin's Law:

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[SUP][3][/SUP] than others.[SUP][1][/SUP] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the naz_s has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[SUP][7][/SUP] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.[SUP][8][/SUP]

 

[medhead]

Not at all. There's a difference between mentioning naz_s and intentionally invoking Godwin's Law:

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[SUP][3][/SUP] than others.[SUP][1][/SUP] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the naz_s has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[SUP][7][/SUP] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.[SUP][8][/SUP]

Did you actually read that? The critical words:

"raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful."

Such a comparison means a comparison to naz_'s, with the motive of ending the thread. I did not make a comparison to naz_s. I simply pointed out that Murdoch's newspaper made such a comparison.

Seriously that does not say what you think it does.

 

[Skyring]

Re: Where will you be election day (September 14th)

Vote Compass - Antony Green examines the data.

Rudd's attempt to spruik his economic credentials - such as they are - may be ineffectual. Labor voters don't care.

And on asylum-seekers and the environment, it's the Greens that matter. Rudd giveth and taketh away.

 

[Skyring]

Did you actually read that? The critical words:

"raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful."

Such a comparison means a comparison to naz_'s, with the motive of ending the thread. I did not make a comparison to naz_s. I simply pointed out that Murdoch's newspaper made such a comparison.

And you thereby invoked Godwin's Law, explicitly saying that Murdoch had lost the argument. Looks like an ulterior motive to me.

 

[amaroo]

Re: Where will you be election day (September 14th)

Vote Compass - Antony Green examines the data.

Rudd's attempt to spruik his economic credentials - such as they are - may be ineffectual. Labor voters don't care.

And on asylum-seekers and the environment, it's the Greens that matter. Rudd giveth and taketh away.

Yeah but all the donkey voters end up having their vote shipped over to the ALP - two party preferred style.

 

[Moody]

Re: Where will you be election day (September 14th)

Yeah but all the donkey voters end up having their vote shipped over to the ALP - two party preferred style.

It may surprise you to know that the ballot paper is an infinitely* variable document, and you can choose to preference exactly who you like. The only donkeys are the voters who fail to understand this or who simply don't care. There are rather a lot of them, I'll give you that.

[*In this context, infinity is the factorial of the number of individual candidates. In actuality this is a finite number but approaches infinity in the case of the Senate ballot form]

 

[Skyring]

Re: Where will you be election day (September 14th)

Yeah but all the donkey voters end up having their vote shipped over to the ALP - two party preferred style.

Well, that may be changing. Look at Adam Bandt. There's only so far you can go ignoring minority party candidates before they come second in a three horse race and win the seat.

That's what shocked the cough out of the Coalition when One Nation first contested the Queensland state election. Both major parties directed preferences to One Nation ahead of their traditional rivals. One Nation got 25% of the vote and won a swag of seats. We also see the effect in the Senate, where a minor party only needs 1/7 of the vote to get up.

 

[Mak404matt]

Re: Where will you be election day (September 14th)

Liberal HQ sending questions for the PM to press gallery journos.

This pic was posted by Latika on facebook:

So, I'm always open to spinners on either side offering their views for my consideration but being sent questions to ask the PM is really not cool and actually offensive to professional journalists who are perfectly capable of asking their own questions.

 

[medhead]

And you thereby invoked Godwin's Law, explicitly saying that Murdoch had lost the argument. Looks like an ulterior motive to me.

Just read your quote. It simply does not say what you think. It says that if someone invokes Godwin's law by making a comparison to naz_s. I did not make a comparison to naz_s. I did not invoke Godwin's law. I simply noted that Godwin's law applied to the telegraph. You quote says nothing about that. Just try reading your own quote, the whole sentence before the word invoke has meaning that you seem to be completely ignoring.

Your position is ludicrous.

 

[BadgerBoi]

Looks like a non-sequitur to me.

Trust me - this thread makes a lot more sense with a sparing bit of use of the ignore function. I'll likely clear out my ignore list after the election but I can see from the stuff that people from all sides of the spectrum are quoting here I'm only missing a bit of RWN noise, nothing of any quality.

 

[Skyring]

I did not invoke Godwin's law. I simply noted that Godwin's law applied to the telegraph.

...thereby invoking Godwin's law.

I think you may have an understanding of "invoke" at odds with the actual meaning:

Invoke
Verb
Cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an argument.
Call on (a deity or spirit) in prayer, as a witness, or for inspiration.

You cited Godwin's Law as an authority for your opinion on The Telegraph's use of Third Reich imagery. You didn't make a comparison to naz_s/Hitler/Third Reich, you were the first person in this thread to mention Godwin's Law, citing it as your authority.

 

[Skyring]

Re: Where will you be election day (September 14th)

Liberal HQ sending questions for the PM to press gallery journos.

This pic was posted by Latika on facebook:

Interesting. Albo spent half an hour with Thomson. What were they talking about, I wonder?

 

[eastwest101]

Re: Where will you be election day (September 14th)

That's what shocked the cough out of the Coalition when One Nation first contested the Queensland state election. Both major parties directed preferences to One Nation ahead of their traditional rivals. One Nation got 25% of the vote and won a swag of seats. We also see the effect in the Senate, where a minor party only needs 1/7 of the vote to get up.

Preference deals apparently must be made by August 17. As I recall it was the ALP and Coalition preference deals that effectively buried One Nation (as well as all the internal disputes).

Its interesting that media sources are suggesting that Bob Katters KAP may possibly do preference deals with the ALP and Clive Palmer's PUP may be more likely to preference the LNP despite the widely reported split between Palmer and the QLD division of the LNP, apparently Katter and Rudd get along better than Katter does with the ALP. The greens and the ALP will likely do a preference deal despite all the Green's posturing to the contrary.