Global Warming

[Disco08]

Hi Liverpool. I had heard a little about your previous life on here from someone that was around at the time. I notice you are up against the 'group' on here again. You know you are wasting your time trying to argue against the 'gang' - people of the left tend to prefer to cluster, it gives them a feeling of strength.

I try to forgive this character flaw though, as I tend to think much of it stems from them having been bullied at some point themselves, or perhaps 'left out' or overlooked, so they gravitate to where they know the 'group' is close by, having like-minded people close-by gives them some security and assists with their 'group-think.'

I doubt very much any of these posters would spend time arguing 'one up' against a group of dissenters on a different forum, as you and Glardiasis do here at times. Let me say there would be many 'lurkers' that agree with you, have agreed with you, and admire your enrgy to debate and courage to stand against the 'gang' on here.

That's hilarious.

 

[mld]

Don't expect a reply to this post today. The gang are having a Carbon Tax Party ;D

The first rule of the gang is you do not talk about the gang.

 

[Azza]

Hi Liverpool. I had heard a little about your previous life on here from someone that was around at the time. I notice you are up against the 'group' on here again. You know you are wasting your time trying to argue against the 'gang' - people of the left tend to prefer to cluster, it gives them a feeling of strength.

I try to forgive this character flaw though, as I tend to think much of it stems from them having been bullied at some point themselves, or perhaps 'left out' or overlooked, so they gravitate to where they know the 'group' is close by, having like-minded people close-by gives them some security and assists with their 'group-think.'

I doubt very much any of these posters would spend time arguing 'one up' against a group of dissenters on a different forum, as you and Glardiasis do here at times. Let me say there would be many 'lurkers' that agree with you, have agreed with you, and admire your enrgy to debate and courage to stand against the 'gang' on here.

Wow, thanks for the epiphany Merv. It’s all come back to me - that bullying at kindergarten. I feel so cleansed. I can now go forth opposing AGW in all it’s form and those sheep who promote it. Long live rugged individualism and the Heartland Institute

 

[bullus_hit]

Hi Liverpool. I had heard a little about your previous life on here from someone that was around at the time. I notice you are up against the 'group' on here again. You know you are wasting your time trying to argue against the 'gang' - people of the left tend to prefer to cluster, it gives them a feeling of strength.

I try to forgive this character flaw though, as I tend to think much of it stems from them having been bullied at some point themselves, or perhaps 'left out' or overlooked, so they gravitate to where they know the 'group' is close by, having like-minded people close-by gives them some security and assists with their 'group-think.'

I doubt very much any of these posters would spend time arguing 'one up' against a group of dissenters on a different forum, as you and Glardiasis do here at times. Let me say there would be many 'lurkers' that agree with you, have agreed with you, and admire your enrgy to debate and courage to stand against the 'gang' on here.

Maybe we should all join Rupert Murdoch in our quest for unity and equality, or jump aboard the Rinehart Express and celebrate the loss of journalistic independence, or cheer on Twiggy Forrest in his quest to become the first billionaire to never pay tax, or elevate Clive Palmer to parliament so he can expose all the CIA operatives parading as pinko greenies.

Three cheers for pollution, deforestation, fracking, trashing the Great Barrier Reef and screwing over farmers. :clap :clap :clap

And by the way Merv, your attempts at pyscho analysis are very amusing to say the least. I take it you learnt your craft at some young liberal convention where it's just uncool to talk about anything environmental.

 

[TigerForce]

Don't expect a reply to this post today. The gang are having a Carbon Tax Party ;D

A devil was born today.

 

[bullus_hit]

A devil was born today.

The Great Depression has officially begun, I strongly advise everyone to use their compensation money on baked beans and parafinn candles.

 

[Rosy]

Let me say there would be many 'lurkers' that agree with you, have agreed with you, and admire your enrgy to debate and courage to stand against the 'gang' on here.

Nothing like calling on imaginary beings to support a cause. :hihi

 

[TigerForce]

The Great Depression has officially begun, I strongly advise everyone to use their compensation money on baked beans and parafinn candles.

Walking billboards for sale.

 

[Giardiasis]

Not a fan of Rinehart or any of the other billionaires who prance around like they were the ones who planted the minerals in the earth. It's all about self interest and has little to do with the general health of the country. It irks me even more that characters like Rinehart think they can hijack democracy and simply buyout the media, her disgraceful attempt at abandoning the charter of editorial independence at Fairfax reeks of megalomania and narcissism.

I think you will find individuals will always serve their self interest. Altruism is a myth. I think it is just as important to remember the people that benefit from such people has Rinehart, as those that do not.

How is Rinehart hijacking democracy by spending her money on an asset on the open market? Is private property not a fundamental aspect of democracy? Rinehart has every right to direct the paper that exists because of her. It is her capital that is at risk, not the editors. She will face the consequences of poor decisions, and should therefore have a say in them. Why would anyone in their right mind put at risk that much capital otherwise? Especially to a group of people that led Fairfax to spectacular failure.

Do you show equal outrage to recent government plans to regulate the media?

Even the most starry-eyed idealist would concede that we have given little consideration to an economic paradigm which is clearly unsustainable.

The destruction of society tends to be accompanied by thunderous applause.

 

[Azza]

I think you will find individuals will always serve their self interest. Altruism is a myth. I think it is just as important to remember the people that benefit from such people has Rinehart, as those that do not.

It's in the best interest of me and my children that Australia is a civil society with equality and opportunity for all and not dominated politically by individuals who happen to be wealthy.

Why would anyone in their right mind put at risk that much capital otherwise? Especially to a group of people that led Fairfax to spectacular failure.

After buying Farifax Rinehart wil have a fraction under $20 billion (and growing). Why would she care if the share price plummets if it means she can get her political views across?

 

[bullus_hit]

Do you show equal outrage to recent government plans to regulate the media?

I most certainly do, anything that threatens freedom of speech should be questioned and challenged if we truly value democracy. Rinehart has an agenda, she couldn't give a stuff about the journalists at Fairfax and couldn't give a stuff about certain segments of the community.

As an example, do you think Rinehart cares about rural Australia and the fact that big miners are destroying livelihoods? Do farmers deserve a voice or are we expected to listen to her self-serving drivel at the expense of everyone else in society?

As for risking her hard earned capital on an ailing media organisation, do you honestly think this is about restoring the company to profitability? I would consider that notion naive in the extreme, and that has been backed up by her refusal to allow for editorial independence. This is about controlling information and using the media to influence politicians and public opinion.

If Fairfax goes under, I also suspect Rinehart would be laughing all the way to the bank, at present, it would probably be worth more if it was carved up and sold off on the open market. And if that happens, Australia would play host to the most homogenised media in the world.

Just gotta love livin' in the free world.

 

[Sintiger]

I think you will find individuals will always serve their self interest. Altruism is a myth.

It's rare but it's not a myth. you need to get out more.

 

[Giardiasis]

It's in the best interest of me and my children that Australia is not dominated politically by individuals who happen to be wealthy

True, what is your point?

Why would she care if the share price plummets if it means she can get her political views across?

As an investor, she isn't concerned with the share price as much as the company's net profit. Just because she has a lot of money doesn't mean she can't lose it all. She can't afford to keep propping the company up.

At the end of the day, consumers will determine whether they want to hear what her paper puts out. She can't just put out any old rubbish.

 

[Giardiasis]

It's rare but it's not a myth. you need to get out more.

People can do good things for others at their own expense, but they are still serving their own interest.

 

[Giardiasis]

I most certainly do, anything that threatens freedom of speech should be questioned and challenged if we truly value democracy

Good to hear.

As an example, do you think Rinehart cares about rural Australia and the fact that big miners are destroying livelihoods? Do farmers deserve a voice or are we expected to listen to her self-serving drivel at the expense of everyone else in society?

If farmers want a voice, they can all go and start a paper. We don't have to read anything she puts out.

As for risking her hard earned capital on an ailing media organisation, do you honestly think this is about restoring the company to profitability? I would consider that notion naive in the extreme, and that has been backed up by her refusal to allow for editorial independence. This is about controlling information and using the media to influence politicians and public opinion.

Er, a big part of it is of course. You don't throw the sort of money she put into Fairfax down the drain and be happy about it. The whole notion that editors should be free to ruin shareholder capital through poor decision making is a bizarre concept to me personally. A paper is a business at the end of the day, and people that invest money in it should have a say how it is run.

The idea that Rinehart can turn Fairfax's papers into some mouthpiece for her political views at the expense of what the market wants is naive in the extreme.

If Fairfax goes under, I also suspect Rinehart would be laughing all the way to the bank, at present, it would probably be worth more if it was carved up and sold off on the open market. And if that happens, Australia would play host to the most homogenised media in the world.

Sorry mate, but that is just nonsense. You lose your capital, you don't go laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Azza]

After buying Farifax Rinehart wil have a fraction under $20 billion (and growing). Why would she care if the share price plummets if it means she can get her political views across?

Well? = soory, missed your post - see below

 

[Brodders17]

She can't just put out any old rubbish.

Works for the herald-sun.

 

[Giardiasis]

Works for the herald-sun.

Doesn't for the Age.

 

[Azza]

True, what is your point?

Your idea of self-interest is too narrow. It can extend to wishing well of others, which is not too far from altruism.

As an investor, she isn't concerned with the share price as much as the company's net profit. Just because she has a lot of money doesn't mean she can't lose it all. She can't afford to keep propping the company up.

At the end of the day, consumers will determine whether they want to hear what her paper puts out. She can't just put out any old rubbish.

At $20 billion and growing she can keep it afloat for a hell of long time without impacting her lifestyle one iota, and offsetting losses with financial gain through the influence provided by the paper. Are you really this naive, or just being disingenuous?

 

[bullus_hit]

The idea that Rinehart can turn Fairfax's papers into some mouthpiece for her political views at the expense of what the market wants is naive in the extreme.

Then why doesn't she just sign the charter of independence? I wonder if you have watched FOX News lately, now there's a perfect example of turning a supposed news agency into a Republican propaganda machine.

Sorry mate, but that is just nonsense. You lose your capital, you don't go laughing all the way to the bank.

So you're suggesting that assets can't be sold and business operations rationalised? Ever seen Wall St? Ever wondered how guys like Mitt Romney made their fortunes? Selling off assets is common place, particularly when the share price doesn't reflect the resale value of a business. Fairfax still has some lucrative assets, it's just that it's paper division is haemoraging money at an alarming rate. Newscorp is already beginning the task of restructuring it's business, Fairfax is doing the same, it's not a question of whether Fairfax will be broken up, but an issue of how far the board is willing to go. Rinehart is very unlikely to lose in the wash-up, and if she does, it will be a drop in the ocean when one considers her 29 billion dollar retirement fund.