Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Australian PM Gillard ousted

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Australian PM Gillard ousted
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Axiom

Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:35 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Julius wrote:

Axiom wrote:

Julius wrote:

any PM is best judged by their record in office.

Correct and hers was appalling.

She delivered 14% economic growth.

In this thread you said:

Julius wrote:

But its amazing how generally unaware people are of a far more important factor.

Our modern economies are unsustainable.

They are based on short term exploitation and degradation of our environment. Globally, our natural operating systems- the oceans, the forests..and everything else that works together to make life on earth possible... are on their last legs. By 2025 there is projected to be 800 million Chinese. If they all want big macs and fast cars then...we need another planet.

It can't continue.

Our financial system is ultimately based on natural resources. Water, clean air, healthy ecosystems.

Either people learn to think beyond churning out babies and consuming, or the system as we know it is going to come to a shuddering halt.

I agreed with you then. But now, suddenly, in defense of Julia Gillard, you are holding up a 14% growth in that "unsustainable" economy which "can't continue" as a sign of success? By your own standard, you should be condemning that upward spike in materialistic consumption.

So which is it? Is consumeristic economic growth good or bad? Is it an unsustainable thing which cannot continue, or should political leaders be applauded and supported when they preside over sharp increases in economic activity?

I think Julius is referring to economic growth of 14% over the last 6 years of Labor government rule. That should be sustainable. Unfortunately, any contribution that the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Labor government has been through debt accumulation.

Julius

Joined: 27 Jul 2006

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:01 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

So which is it? Is consumeristic economic growth good or bad? Is it an unsustainable thing which cannot continue, or should political leaders be applauded and supported when they preside over sharp increases in economic activity?

I know its difficult for you, but this argument is based on the general belief that a good government is one that brings economic growth. In other words I'm using axioms own belief system against him.

..as i told you before, growth per se is not necesarily a problem.

Specifically it is environmentally harmful and unsustainable growth that is bad. Growth does not always have to come at the expense of the environment.

In any case shouldn't you just be happy that you have married into a race with a superior IQ?

Julius

Joined: 27 Jul 2006

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:23 am Post subject:

Axiom wrote:

Julius wrote:

Axiom wrote:

Julius wrote:

any PM is best judged by their record in office.

Correct and hers was appalling.

She delivered 14% economic growth.

Business, and in particular mining, delivered 14% economic growth despite her not because of her.

Neat sidestep. So governments have zero effect on the countries they rule? I see.

The Gillard administration has been a very successful one, by any standard. Under her watch Australia has had :

1. The lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD.
2. The highest growth in the OECD.
3. One of the lowest debt/ GDP ratios.
4. Has prospered through the worlds worst global crisis
5. Has been the only developed nation to avoid a recession

There is no legitimate reason to describe her govt as "appalling". Australian govt has been the envy of the world.

Either you're simply uncomfortable with the idea of a successful female premier, or you have been suckered into believing murdochs media agenda.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:03 am Post subject:

Julius wrote:

Fox wrote:

Disappointing answer. And I mean that, I thought you actually cared about this issue, but now I see it was just oh so much moralizing, to be casually discarded the moment doing so rhetorically benefitted you. Ah well.

Julius wrote:

In any case shouldn't you just be happy that you have married into a race with a superior IQ?

Is this going to turn into another thread where Julius, the self-proclaimed zero fitness male, tries to give us evolutionary advice? Because I'd live to hear another lecture on why we should prioritize natural swimming talent over general intelligence.

Axiom

Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:56 am Post subject:

Julius wrote:

Axiom wrote:

Julius wrote:

Axiom wrote:

Julius wrote:

any PM is best judged by their record in office.

Correct and hers was appalling.

She delivered 14% economic growth.

Business, and in particular mining, delivered 14% economic growth despite her not because of her.

Neat sidestep. So governments have zero effect on the countries they rule? I see.

Nice try. Governments can have a positive, negative or zero effect. Governments get money in the form of taxes and give money in form of social services. If they do this well, their effect can be positive. If they do this poorly, they effect can be negative.
Are you suggesting their effect is always positive?

Julius

Joined: 27 Jul 2006

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:28 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

I'd live to hear another lecture on why we should prioritize natural swimming talent over general intelligence.

You said all immigrants are inferior and must be stopped.
Despite being one yourself.

You claimed that Koreans have superior dna due to their high IQ's.
What exactly do you base this on, the ingenious turtle-ship?

Axiom wrote:

Are you suggesting their effect is always positive?

I'm suggesting you apologise for your lack of knowledge on this issue and admit defeat.

Alternatively, you could actually answer the points raised, or defend your assertion that Ms Gillard's record as PM was "appalling".

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:28 am Post subject:

Julius wrote:

Axiom wrote:

Julius wrote:

any PM is best judged by their record in office.

Correct and hers was appalling.

She delivered 14% economic growth.

China delivered 14% economic growth. AUS supplies commodities to China. The remaining "growth" is the on-going housing bubble.

Axiom

Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:04 pm Post subject:

Julius wrote:

Axiom wrote:

Are you suggesting their effect is always positive?

Now who's sidestepping.

Last edited by Axiom on Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:20 pm Post subject:

Julius wrote:

Fox wrote:

I'd live to hear another lecture on why we should prioritize natural swimming talent over general intelligence.

You said all immigrants are inferior and must be stopped.
Despite being one yourself.

So first you get the thread deleted with your rhetoric, then you lie about its contents? Lie about my words, to me? This is pointless, you are literally willing to say anything, from questionable misrepresentation to outright lie, if you feel it helps your position in the moment. In the past, I have given you the benefit of the doubt because at the very least you seemed to hold a few admirable positions, implying there was a decent human being somewhere in there, but now that you've made it clear that was all one big moralizing ruse, I see no point in you and I speaking again.

Axiom

Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:33 pm Post subject:

Julius wrote:

Axiom wrote:

Julius wrote:

Axiom wrote:

Julius wrote:

any PM is best judged by their record in office.

Correct and hers was appalling.

She delivered 14% economic growth.

Business, and in particular mining, delivered 14% economic growth despite her not because of her.

The Gillard administration has been a very successful one, by any standard. Under her watch Australia has had :

1. The lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD.
2. The highest growth in the OECD.
3. One of the lowest debt/ GDP ratios.
4. Has prospered through the worlds worst global crisis
5. Has been the only developed nation to avoid a recession

You are correct that Australia has been very successful at a time when most of rest the world is struggling to remain out of recession.

But Australia has been very fortunate in that, as Titus pointed out, Australia has resources that China, and to lesser but still significant extent India, Korea and Japan, are hungry for.

I will assert again that all of the points that you have raised above have been managed despite the Gillard government not because of it.

Business confidence has slumped in the Rudd/Gillard government. Only 8% of Aussie CEO's now think she has an understanding of business. My guess is that that 8% are the CEO's of renewable energy companies who have their mouths firmly on the government teat.

Axiom

Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:57 pm Post subject:

Julius wrote:

There is no legitimate reason to describe her govt as "appalling".

Then why isn't she still PM?

A majority of her own caucus finished up with no confidence in her or do you think they took the decision to knife the first female PM lightly?

Axiom

Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:13 pm Post subject:

Julius wrote:

Either you're simply uncomfortable with the idea of a successful female premier.

You are correct, I didn't vote for her. But not because she was a woman. I was fed up with the previous Rudd government (which I did vote for) and couldn't see hers being different as the cabinets were going to be almost the same.

I actually hope that one day Julie Bishop becomes PM.

Last edited by Axiom on Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:46 pm; edited 2 times in total

Axiom

Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:56 pm Post subject:

Julius wrote:

you have been suckered into believing murdochs media agenda.

What the agenda to produce media that consumers wish to purchase.

Rolling Eyes

It tends to be the left and their groupthink that gets "suckered into" ideas.

Here is an article about a survey on Australian journalist and their political biases.

http://theconversation.com/whose-views-skew-the-news-media-chiefs-ready-to-vote-out-labor-while-reporters-lean-left-13995?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+20+May+2013&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+20+May+2013+CID_ec3fba5ac86d12d9cbbd958b305026c6&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Whose%20views%20skew%20the%20news%20Media%20chiefs%20ready%20to%20vote%20out%20Labor%20while%20reporters%20lean%20left

It's actually a fairly unremarkable report showing that journalist political views are pretty much in line with the general public, accept for this little pearl.

Quote:

However, 41.2% of the 34 ABC journalists who declared a voting intention said they would vote for the Greens, followed by 32.4% for Labor and 14.7% for the Coalition.

I always thought the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was the media arm of the Labor Party. It seems I was wrong. You want to talk about media agenda look no further than the publicly funded ABC.

Last edited by Axiom on Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:36 pm; edited 1 time in total

Axiom

Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:31 pm Post subject:

Julius wrote:

I'm suggesting you apologise for your lack of knowledge on this issue.

That's rich coming from someone who said "hardly surprising in a nation that has reduced half of its female population to being skimpy barmaids".

Julius

Joined: 27 Jul 2006

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:18 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Lie about my words, to me?

That was exactly what you said.

Fox wrote:

Low IQ populations do in fact generally breed faster, which is precisely why wise national policy includes strong immigration barriers
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?p=2885465&highlight=#2885465

They haven't been strong enough to keep you out though.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe