Australian Politics Forum - support coalition = reject economics

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49458
At my desk.

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #45 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 7:48pm

Quote:

Up until I referenced the UNFCCC website - you thought I was going to reference a newspaper article

No Maqqa, that is merely what you posted last time I asked you. I never know what you are going to come up with.

Quote:

Just because you can't find it does not mean its not there

The point is Maqqa, you cannot find it.

Quote:

I give something - you give something.

You mean, you make a stupid claim dozens of times, continually fail to back it up, so now it is my fault that your argument is baseless?

Quote:

If you want to know why Direct Action plan is better

Go ahead Maqqa, explain why the vast majority of economists are wrong.

Quote:

I KNOW you don't understand the context of the Carbon Tax vs Direct Action therefore I needed to educate you about Kyoto Penalty

Please explain how your little kyoto diversion is relevant to the tax vs direct action argument. All I see is you fumbling around with silly attempts to change the topic.

Quote:

Once again - it's still relevant. You just have ti be humble enough to admit you don't understand

I admit you make no sense Maqqa. Which is why you waffle on and divert so much instead of getting to the point. So get to the point. It is not my fault you are incapable of explaining yourself, so don't try to blame me.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #46 - Sep 11^th, 2011 at 7:40am MAQQAS AIM IN LIFE IS TO CHEW UP THE INTERNETS ADRRESS SPACE SO NO ONE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION OF IDEAS! YOU THINK I'M JOKING!??!
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #47 - Sep 11^th, 2011 at 7:41am Maqqa wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:52pm: and your perception is clouded by your ignorance you are not humble enough to admit it and my arrogance facade have pushed you down the path where humility is very difficult for you should abbotts poor workers accept slaves have no choices part 2?
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #48 - Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:37am

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 7:47pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about

"In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)"

In addition - you failed to acknowledge why both sides of politics are trying to find a carbon solution. HINT: It starts with Rudd and ends with "ratified Kyoto"

Come up with threads that blame Rudd for this then we'll discuss about the economics of these actions

Like I said in the other threads - in context of total carbon being like a forest of 100 trees how many trees are humans responsible for?

If we are responsible for 1 tree out of the whole forest then discussing the economics of Carbon Tax vs Direct Action is talking about how a twig impacts a tree because the twig only represent 1.35% of this tree

I am NOT trying to stifle your economic debate

I am interested in a balance debate where everyone acknowledge the cause of it and why we are doing it

Once you admit and understand the cause is Kyoto penalty then you'll understand why the Direct Action plan will be better in the long run

Happy to explain it to you - but how will you understand if you won't admit that Rudd got us into this mess.

So Maqqa,
you are asserting that the wrath of the UN &/or God, will decend on Australia
& other nations,
for failing to honour committments under the Kyoto Treaty
?

As you are the one making such assertions,
the onus is on YOU, to show exactly what penalty's there may be in the Kyoto Treaty & exactly what these monumental Penalty's are going to cost Australia!

In other words, as you yourself have been heard to say, very frequently,
PROVE IT!

Of course, if you elect not to "Prove it", by the golden sounds of silence, then that will also confirm that YOU ARE full of -
C
redible
R
eliable
A
bundant
P
aradoxes

http://t3.gstatic.com/imagesq=tbn:ANd9GcSs35B4tJm9CjYgbz8PxA__ROr7hgp1TC1D6bfoRS3yII1vXirVDw
http://t3.gstatic.com/imagesq=tbn:ANd9GcSq3nk2zMaFytvyWMynxSY6YhysRWCCkfYEt-nfrUGRvFSsRHtJCw

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #49 - Sep 12^th, 2011 at 3:16pm

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:37am:

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 7:47pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about

"In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)"

In addition - you failed to acknowledge why both sides of politics are trying to find a carbon solution. HINT: It starts with Rudd and ends with "ratified Kyoto"

Come up with threads that blame Rudd for this then we'll discuss about the economics of these actions

Like I said in the other threads - in context of total carbon being like a forest of 100 trees how many trees are humans responsible for?

If we are responsible for 1 tree out of the whole forest then discussing the economics of Carbon Tax vs Direct Action is talking about how a twig impacts a tree because the twig only represent 1.35% of this tree

I am NOT trying to stifle your economic debate

I am interested in a balance debate where everyone acknowledge the cause of it and why we are doing it

Once you admit and understand the cause is Kyoto penalty then you'll understand why the Direct Action plan will be better in the long run

Happy to explain it to you - but how will you understand if you won't admit that Rudd got us into this mess.

So Maqqa,
you are asserting that the wrath of the UN &/or God, will decend on Australia
& other nations,
for failing to honour committments under the Kyoto Treaty
?

As you are the one making such assertions,
the onus is on YOU, to show exactly what penalty's there may be in the Kyoto Treaty & exactly what these monumental Penalty's are going to cost Australia!

In other words, as you yourself have been heard to say, very frequently,
PROVE IT!

Of course, if you elect not to "Prove it", by the golden sounds of silence, then that will also confirm that YOU ARE full of -
C
redible
R
eliable
A
bundant
P
aradoxes

Ah yes, those golden sounds of SILENCE, say so much?

On the horns of a dilemma & what a dilemma?
http://t3.gstatic.com/imagesq=tbn:ANd9GcSs35B4tJm9CjYgbz8PxA__ROr7hgp1TC1D6bfoRS3yII1vXirVDw
http://t3.gstatic.com/imagesq=tbn:ANd9GcSq3nk2zMaFytvyWMynxSY6YhysRWCCkfYEt-nfrUGRvFSsRHtJCw

Back to top

IP Logged

corporate_whitey Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 8896 Archivist	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #50 - Sep 12^th, 2011 at 3:22pm Neoliberal economics equals pro class bigotry, pro violence, pro hedonists, pro warmongers, pro fundies, pro racists and other haters right - thats competition policy right?
Back to top	World Wide Working Class Struggle IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #51 - Sep 12^th, 2011 at 4:15pm

freediver wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 7:48pm:

Quote:

Up until I referenced the UNFCCC website - you thought I was going to reference a newspaper article

No Maqqa, that is merely what you posted last time I asked you. I never know what you are going to come up with.

Quote:

Just because you can't find it does not mean its not there

The point is Maqqa, you cannot find it.

Quote:

I give something - you give something.

You mean, you make a stupid claim dozens of times, continually fail to back it up, so now it is my fault that your argument is baseless?

Quote:

If you want to know why Direct Action plan is better

Go ahead Maqqa, explain why the vast majority of economists are wrong.

Quote:

I KNOW you don't understand the context of the Carbon Tax vs Direct Action therefore I needed to educate you about Kyoto Penalty

Please explain how your little kyoto diversion is relevant to the tax vs direct action argument. All I see is you fumbling around with silly attempts to change the topic.

Quote:

Once again - it's still relevant. You just have ti be humble enough to admit you don't understand

I admit you make no sense Maqqa. Which is why you waffle on and divert so much instead of getting to the point. So get to the point. It is not my fault you are incapable of explaining yourself, so don't try to blame me.

So you say

But you still can't back it up

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Maqqa Gold Member Offline 14% - that low?! Posts: 16000	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #52 - Sep 12^th, 2011 at 4:19pm Like with buzz, pperception and now freediver I've positioned you guys whereby your pride will always get in the way of finding out the truth Are you humble enough to lower yourself to ask? Or are you hell bent on political point scoring that you are not interested or will you vote based on your ignorance?
Back to top	Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #53 - Sep 12^th, 2011 at 5:46pm

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 4:19pm:

Like with buzz, pperception and now freediver

I've positioned you guys whereby your pride will always get in the way of finding out the truth

Are you humble enough to lower yourself to ask?

Or are you hell bent on political point scoring that you are not interested or will you vote based on your ignorance?

Is your SILENCE ON FACTS, only exceeded by your IGNORANCE OF ECONOMICS!

As I have said previously Maqqa,
you are asserting that the wrath of the UN &/or God, will decend on Australia
& other nations,
for failing to honour committments under the Kyoto Treaty
?

As you are the one making such assertions,
the onus is on YOU, to show exactly what penalty's there may be in the Kyoto Treaty & exactly what these monumental Penalty's are going to cost Australia!

In other words, as you yourself have been heard to say, very frequently,
PROVE IT!

Of course, if you continue not to "Prove it", by the golden sounds of silence, then that will only confirm that YOU ARE full of -
C
redible
R
eliable
A
bundant
P
aradoxes

Ah yes, those golden sounds of SILENCE, say so much?

On the horns of a dilemma & what a dilemma?
http://t3.gstatic.com/imagesq=tbn:ANd9GcSs35B4tJm9CjYgbz8PxA__ROr7hgp1TC1D6bfoRS3yII1vXirVDw

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #54 - Sep 12^th, 2011 at 7:17pm

normally all you need to say is "maqqa I don't understand - what do you mean by that"

since you are so pig headed about it - then you'll need to humbly admit you are too stupid and you need me to explain it to you in simple terms

lets see if you can lower yourself

if you think I don't know then call my bluff

but the fact that I am willing to throw out the bluff - you and buzz are pretty sure I know the answer so you can't afford to call the bluff

calling the bluff it's a sure way to changing your ID

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #55 - Sep 12^th, 2011 at 7:41pm

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 7:17pm:

normally all you need to say is "maqqa I don't understand - what do you mean by that"

since you are so pig headed about it - then you'll need to humbly admit you are too stupid and you need me to explain it to you in simple terms

lets see if you can lower yourself

if you think I don't know then call my bluff

but the fact that I am willing to throw out the bluff - you and buzz are pretty sure I know the answer so you can't afford to call the bluff

calling the bluff it's a sure way to changing your ID

I think I've already called your bluff a number of times, IF you have any information, THEN PROVE IT, chapter & verse - show the details, otherwise I will take it as yet another ocassion of Political Spin/CRAP!

In other words, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa Gold Member Offline 14% - that low?! Posts: 16000	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #56 - Sep 12^th, 2011 at 7:50pm meet my terms to call my bluff perception if you want to be arrogant about it - so can I if you are nice I'll be nice but you are not you want to learn but you want to abuse the person teaching you as well not under those terms
Back to top	Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number IP Logged

corporate_whitey Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 8896 Archivist	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #57 - Sep 12^th, 2011 at 7:53pm Capitalism is dead
Back to top	World Wide Working Class Struggle IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #58 - Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:06pm

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 7:50pm:

meet my terms to call my bluff perception

if you want to be arrogant about it - so can I

if you are nice I'll be nice

but you are not

you want to learn but you want to abuse the person teaching you as well

not under those terms

Your continued refusal to confirm details, only serves to confirm that you have nothing to put up, other than hot air, typical of most Politicians & their helpers, such as yourself!

As I said, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #59 - Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:13pm

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html Roll Eyes

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html Roll Eyes

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged