Union Board Elections 2006 (1 Viewer)

[what971]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

Noone is taking up my offer of free No.1 vote....

It's not like I know anything about candidate platforms or views, all I know is that Roz is EVERYWHERE.

 

[jogad]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

Noone is taking up my offer of free No.1 vote....

It's not like I know anything about candidate platforms or views, all I know is that Roz is EVERYWHERE.

i'll go drinking with ya



..sorry.. i'm just polish and can't help it

 

[withoutaface]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

why are people preferencing tom green and michelle: they aren't 'serious candidates' as quoted from tom andrews.

Tom Watson. The preferencing system in the elections is weird, and apparently it doesn't flow as it does in the federal electoral system, as in if they do flow, you only get a certain percentage of that vote depending on where you were on the ballot paper, hence preferencing michelle and tom so that the ones below them get less votes.

 

[withoutaface]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

Noone is taking up my offer of free No.1 vote....

It's not like I know anything about candidate platforms or views, all I know is that Roz is EVERYWHERE.

One of Simon/Tim/Jackson's real pushes on board this year has been to refund second semester fees to those who want them, because they were unfairly taken. In that vein, I'm sure Monica and Tim will continue to push for that.

 

[stazi]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

what (i so should learn your real name) - i think roz and the liberals will make it worthwhile for you to pay next year by providing customised packages. well, thats what ill be doing when i run.

 

[withoutaface]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

Tiered membership ftw

 

[what971]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

k. Since I can't vote for u next year, I'll just write a big STAZI over the ballot form.

 

[Phanatical]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

Just vote for me, and be done with it.

 

[what971]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

Just vote for me, and be done with it.

Fuck no.

 

[stazi]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

A vote for quah is a vote for communism.

 

[Phanatical]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

A vote for communism is better than a vote for the Liberals or the Labor Party.

 

[withoutaface]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

 

[what971]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

South Yemen?

EDIT: Never mind, looked up Wikipedia.

 

[melbournian]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

You are an idiot. They are not communist. In the same way Quah is not communist. They are dictatorial states, masquerading as communism. They have nothing in common with anything Marx concieved.

Likewise, how many people has capitalism killed. Billion and billions more than that. Capitalism has caused people to starve (ie. forcing countries into cash crops to loot them, while they can't have subsistence crops to feed themselves), or preventing health care (ie. patented aids drugs etc.). Capitalism is a bigger killer.

If Quah was really a communist, I'd consider voting for him. But he is closer to a Nazi than to a communist, so he isn't worthy of a vote.

 

[withoutaface]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

Likewise, how many people has capitalism killed. Billion and billions more than that. Capitalism has caused people to starve (ie. forcing countries into cash crops to loot them, while they can't have subsistence crops to feed themselves),

Wow. Just wow. If you knew the first thing about laissez faire capitalism you'd realise that it doesn't force anybody to do anything. If countries choose to sell their crops for a pittance, if unskilled workers undersell themselves, the fault lies with them, not with the market who is willing to purchase these things.

or preventing health care (ie. patented aids drugs etc.). Capitalism is a bigger killer.

Firstly, I'm neither here nor there on intellectual property laws at the moment, but in any case, find me proof that these drugs would have been developed under a socialist system, where the incentives to develop them are far less than those in a capitalist system.

Oh and just for good measure, I'll use the exact same cop out excuse as you, because you seem to think that categorically refutes any criticism:

whinge whinge whinge BUT PURE CAPITALISM HAS NEVER BEEN ACHEIVED :'''( waaaaaahhhhhh!

 

[what971]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

billions and billions more than that

lol

 

[stazi]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

A vote for communism is better than a vote for the Liberals or the Labor Party.

and this is why you are preferencing the liberals in front of the 'left wing commies'

 

[melbournian]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

Wow. Just wow. If you knew the first thing about laissez faire capitalism you'd realise that it doesn't force anybody to do anything. If countries choose to sell their crops for a pittance, if unskilled workers undersell themselves, the fault lies with them, not with the market who is willing to purchase these things.

You are an idiot. I mean an absolute idiot.

If you knew anything we don't live in a laissez faire economy. You can use all your economic rationalist and liberal party rhetoric, but the reality is its not laissez faire. It is however, a capitalist economy that is ripping off the world.

Oh yes, it doesn't force them to do anything. Everyone has agency. How could I forget.....IDIOT
Countries do not choose to sell their crops for a pittance. The capitalist market has shaped it this way. They are forced into selling their crops for a pittance, so the first world has a source of cheap food.

Firstly, I'm neither here nor there on intellectual property laws at the moment, but in any case, find me proof that these drugs would have been developed under a socialist system, where the incentives to develop them are far less than those in a capitalist system.

Oh, yes the rhetoric that incentives to develop are all about profit (or intertermporal profit). However, look at most of the technological breakthroughs throughout history that have occured. They haven't occured by profit maximising enterprises, but by state directed policy. I suggest you read some Neo-Schumpetrian litreature.

Your the one asserting that these wouldn't have developed under a socialist system. You made that assertion, you back it up. Don't go shifting it onto to me to prove it, when I didn't make any claim that it would or wouldn't. Because I, like yourself, know that these sort of things cannot be proved or disproved. We don't have multiple planets to conduct experiments on. By trying to shift the blame onto me trying to make me defend myself from your assertion, you are trying to avoid the reality of my irrefuetable claim. I claimed that capitalism has killed people. This can not be refuted. Whether the alternative will lead to a different outcome is all speculation and theorising. But the theories of a 'communist' mode of production certainly hold more promise than Capitalism.

Oh and just for good measure, I'll use the exact same cop out excuse as you, because you seem to think that categorically refutes any criticism:

Has a pure lassez faire economy ever existed. No. Has Capitalism, yes. Capitalism is a mode of production in which for the most part the means of production are owned by individuals, operating for profit. The aim of the system is for capital to reproduce and expand. Capitalism does not require perfect competition. It does not require that everything be held in private hands.

The difference between your comparison and mine, is that communism requires empowering the people. Pseudo-Communist states have not empowered the people. There is a huge distinction.


Your logic is very simplistic. I suggest you broaden your reading.

Note to self: if I ever see withoutaface, he will really be withoutaface after I punch him in the head.

 

[wheredanton]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

I have to back melbie on the point that most of the many of the above places were not based on anything like Marx envisaged. Put it this way, Marx would have not been happy to see Pol Pot do what he did based on some vague notion of his theory of the class.

Same goes for Lenin. When the Leninist fellows discovered more Marx writings that went against what they were doing they proptly lost it.

 

[withoutaface]

Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

You are an idiot. I mean an absolute idiot.

If you knew anything we don't live in a laissez faire economy. You can use all your economic rationalist and liberal party rhetoric, but the reality is its not laissez faire. It is however, a capitalist economy that is ripping off the world.

Mixed economy. Putting the failures of mixed economies down to failures in laissez faire philisophy is just as fallacious as putting them down to socialism.

Oh yes, it doesn't force them to do anything. Everyone has agency. How could I forget.....IDIOT
Countries do not choose to sell their crops for a pittance. The capitalist market has shaped it this way. They are forced into selling their crops for a pittance, so the first world has a source of cheap food.

Or they could, like, you know, not trade at all? Nobody forces countries to trade, and if they can generate enough food to feed themselves and are losing out under free trade (doubtful, but let's go with it), then they should stop trading. If they can't grow enough crops to feed themselves, then it's not the other countries' faults that they are dying of starvation.

Oh, yes the rhetoric that incentives to develop are all about profit (or intertermporal profit). However, look at most of the technological breakthroughs throughout history that have occured. They haven't occured by profit maximising enterprises, but by state directed policy. I suggest you read some Neo-Schumpetrian litreature.

More breakthroughs have occurred in the last 100 years in more liberal countries than less liberal ones.

Your the one asserting that these wouldn't have developed under a socialist system. You made that assertion, you back it up. Don't go shifting it onto to me to prove it, when I didn't make any claim that it would or wouldn't.

You made the first claim, being that patents rob Africans of AIDS drugs. Now I ask you to back that assertion up with evidence showing that these drugs would have been developed without copyright.

Because I, like yourself, know that these sort of things cannot be proved or disproved.

Then why assert them?

We don't have multiple planets to conduct experiments on. By trying to shift the blame onto me trying to make me defend myself from your assertion, you are trying to avoid the reality of my irrefuetable claim. I claimed that capitalism has killed people. This can not be refuted. Whether the alternative will lead to a different outcome is all speculation and theorising. But the theories of a 'communist' mode of production certainly hold more promise than Capitalism.

Please, please, please stop contradicting yourself.

Has a pure lassez faire economy ever existed. No. Has Capitalism, yes. Capitalism is a mode of production in which for the most part the means of production are owned by individuals, operating for profit. The aim of the system is for capital to reproduce and expand. Capitalism does not require perfect competition. It does not require that everything be held in private hands.

I could just as easily call these economies socialism, because a large proportion of their production is controlled by the states. Stop constructing strawmen.

The difference between your comparison and mine, is that communism requires empowering the people.

Why then, has the general trend been as countries become less liberal economically, people have more and more freedoms stripped from them, and earn significantly lower real wages?

Pseudo-Communist states have not empowered the people. There is a huge distinction.

And pseudo-capitalist states have not provided the freedom necessary for maximum quality of life. What's your point?

Your logic is very simplistic. I suggest you broaden your reading.

Note to self: if I ever see withoutaface, he will really be withoutaface after I punch him in the head.

<3 keyboard warriorism.