Fat is a type of crazy

11 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Rain!!!!!!!!!

 

Nothing! Or as I might say to a fellow Essex lad; 'sweet eff a'.

Sweet FA. One of my favourite sweet albums. 1974. I said I wasn't going to post. 

15 minutes ago, Poet said:

That isn't what you said. You suggested that Fox News was labeling small, unaffiliated violent groups who were not Antifa as Antifa. That happens to be incorrect.

I have no doubt that Fox News and any of the deeply partisan TV news organisations on the other side will make the maximum use of whatever cards they are dealt. You can hardly fault them for that in the current hyper-reality.
 

 

It might be painful to face this reality head on, but any solution will require more cops, not fewer. The actual Democrat establishment knows this, which makes their use and endorsement of BLM deeply hypocritical. This has become a "By Any Means Necessary" election for the Democrats and, even if they win, the legacy of that will be more damaging to America than anything Trump has done.

In any case, while I respect your exposition of your views, we are clearly experiencing different realities. It would be foolhardy of me to try to argue fact-by-fact, so, I shall wish you a good day and head out in search of a strong coffee and a delicious banana pancake ????☕????

 

Fair nuff. Enjoy your pancake.

2 hours ago, owl sees all said:

Not at all FFF.

 

Considering there are just a few million people in Australia, their athletes have conquered the world in many sports.

 

I've great respect for some of Australia's athletes; Dawn Fraser*, Ms Goolagong, Rod Laver, more recently Shane Warne and their distance swimmers. A group of world beaters; Ian Thorpe, Grant Hackett, Glen Housman** and Kieren Perkins. Too many to mention. Not as enthusiastic about their politicians; especially Brundage. 

 

Ned Kelly's spirit lives on; needed more than ever in these tyrannical times.

 

My mum took no nonsense from anyone. No sisters, but seven brothers. Irish father; London mother. Passed away aged 84, in the same month as my wife, 13 years ago. That's why I find myself here. We all have a tale to tell though.

 

* Harshly treated by a nasty politician.

** Cheated out of the world 1500m record.

 

We struggle a bit in Tennis now though we had a good result in the recent US Open. They took away a lot of the  tennis courts and built apartments so for the average person there's not many places to play.

It's funny seeing how some portray the Aussie slang. Just finished an interesting series, though slow to start, called the Leftovers. Voted best series of the last decade by many in the States about what would happen if a whole lot of people just disappeared. The third series was set partly in Australia and though it wasn't too cliched there were lots of blokes eating tucker and having a coldie and fair dinkum shielas. Like if the English were portrayed saying 'Cor Blimey' all the time.

10 hours ago, Poet said:

No, they call themselves Antifa. They are not "sometimes violent", their raison d'être is violence and intimidation. Such groups have been a key tactic for all extremist groups to attain power, whether on the left or right. Yes, all such criminal networks operate in cells

It is a self-damaging blindness on the part of Democrats to ascribe everything you are uncomfortable with to Fox News.

Again, I am saying that this election is yours to lose. A president has never been re-elected in a situation this dire. If Trump does get re-elected, it will be 100% down to the Democrat failure to react appropriately and bravely in realtime to the overreactions of those with whom you are associated.

 

 I think you'll agree that their motives of combating fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other far-right extremists, has some merit, though I 100 per cent agree the use of violence should not be tolerated. They are not democrats.

If you don't think Fox News saw Antifa as a go to scare tactic on the law and order issue then we can agree to disagree. The violent protests is a fair issue of concern but Fox News coverage, and blaming of democrats, is over the top. 

I will say gun violence in say Chicago is a different issue and it shocks me it is allowed to continue. I put it down to kids being allowed access to guns and breakdown of families. If anywhere there should be a crackdown its there. Probably getting off topic.

10 minutes ago, JusticeGB said:

The American system of political parties choosing judges stinks. The judges are appointed for life so the Court can swing to the left or right dependant on who dies when a particular party has control of the Senate and is President. 

 

It's tasteless to begin appointing another judge when Ginsburg hasn't even had her funeral. In the UK judges are appointed by fellow judges. The Law Courts are separate from Parliament. 

I saw some where that when they made the lifetime appointment rule people didn't tend live so long. Maybe in 2020 they could limit it to 20 years. Still long enough to be independent but not so long that it's a bit ridiculous.

9 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

I dont just find it offensive, I find it repulsive. 

The main point I wish Democrats could get out is that no one is pro abortion as such. They are saying that people are going to have abortions regardless and so it is better to do it safely than with a coat hanger. 

Headline in todays Age ' Jobseekers in limbo as pensioners get a boost within weeks' They say a one off or ongoing increase to the pension is coming shortly. Maybe for expats an ongoing increase might be better than a one off. More chance of being eligible.  At least my mum will get it. 

3 minutes ago, FlyingThai said:

Find a new girl. Not that hard and no vaccine required.

She's a keeper. And in  lockdown in Melbourne it's not so easy. Can't even leave the house except to go to the shop. 

If I don't get the jab I wont get to see my girl in Ubon. And have a nice holiday in Thailand. Got so much annual leave now. So not a tough choice. 

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So not all scientists then? If it's not unanimous then it's not settled.

 

If worried why not wear goggles?

That's the beauty of science. Scientists get the opportunity to question the current beliefs and if they are smart enough and do the hard research they'll convince others. 

You and I aren't scientists so I think you'll agree there is a point where you have to draw a conclusion based on statistics logic and common sense. 

If 97 per cent of scientists believe in something I'll tend to go with that. You can always look  at the arguments of the 3 per cent, and maybe 3 out of a 100 times they'll be right, but living day to day I'll go with the consensus. 

Similar with the goggles. If new research says my chances of catching it would be reduced by 97 per cent ..I'll wear goggles. At this point it appears to be a theory with some possible merit. Or I'll believe the scientists but just decide I don't want to wear goggles and I'll keep my distance.

You can take the word of  scientists and not be a sheep at the same time.

'You haf taken away my childhood' I like Greta. Gutsy and a straight talker. Not sure she deserves it but we all know who she is and what she's after and I can't think of others of a similar ilk. Sometimes the most intense people get the message through. Nice to see a scientist get it who works out smart ways to actually achieve climate outcomes and at the same time  can help the poorer and richer economies to cope and grow and lead to a stronger peace.  

Many thai young ladies have jobs that involve waiting around for customers so they just sit there playing on the phone. And all those sweet drinks and western fast food still has some allure as something special and some thing there parents and grand parents never had. It's a concern as their DNA might find it hard to cope with such a big change to diet towards dairy sugar and fried meats - just see the ballooning rate of diabetes in India.

Vanity and youthful vigour may win the day though - they need to look good for their tiktok videos and facebook posts so many will probably limit the fat.

3 hours ago, PattayaJames said:

That's the MSM for you, relentless anti Trump propaganda.

Surprised it's taken you 4 years to notice.

Actually I was taking it the other way round. That he is doing these things. Day after day. I just run out of ways to say how bad he is.

23 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

A mask without eye protection INCREASES the risk to yourself. See how many people are adjusting the mask with fingers that could be infected, which means they could introduce the virus into their eye. Not many in public wear eye protection.

I'm far more likely to pick up the virus on my fingers than through the air.

I am not sure if you are saying this, but nearly all scientists say that a mask is better than no mask including those at the CDC.

But Donald says that a mask may be worse than no mask, and he says he knows people who agree, so he's probably right. 

As you say it sounds  like eye protection may be even better though. Not sure about wearing safety goggles to the supermarket.

6 hours ago, oznomad said:

They dont even have to be sneaky about it.

Simply ceasing pension increases, whilst not actually 'taking away' anything will reduce the debt burden on the national purse, as inflation eats away at the relative amount of the payments.

Don't forget where you saw this theory first.

It's a logical step.

 

For what its worth I really doubt this. Being outside Australia you might not see it but I think pensioners have more political clout than you give them credit for. A decision not to increase and A Current Affair and all the radio stations would be on the warpath. If liberals said no increase, and labour said keep the increase for example, I think it would be enough for labour would win.

If they were to limit increases they might use a  method similar to that they used ín 2015 where they changed the index to increase the pension from the higher of the CPI and Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index, and then benchmarked to average weekly earnings, to just the increase in CPI. That was aimed to save $450 million over 5 years.   As it happens wages haven't increased much so CPI increase has probably been pretty much as good. Haven't  got the figures though.

I think they might be more likely to change the age of eligibility which would affect future generations but not those currently getting it or those currently over 55. They might also tinker with the assets and income tests.  

11 minutes ago, oznomad said:

Permission granted.

However, who will be providing the money for the pensions?

 

Did you miss the issue of changing the pension age? That went through without blood in the streets.

 

No reason why they cant keep upping the age, or decrease the amount, or reduce the assets level for cutoff, or include the primary home in the assets, or a bazillion other things.

 

A wise person would make other arrangements, with any future (reduced) pension simply considered a bonus - and much more than most of the world gets.

 

They can find sneaky ways to cut things. The rebate for private health insurance was set at 30 per cent but subsequently  they, I think it was Tony Abbott,  introduced new rules so each year that 30 per cent goes down bit by bit. Each year it's only a small amount and you don't notice it but now its about 25 per for some and a lot less for others.   They might do the same with the pension. It's likely those in the system will be OK. The next generation will cop it.

6 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Not sure I follow the above as you need to be deemed a resident to qualify for the pension, where the ATO comes into this I have no idea, as far as I know there is no tax payable on the pension.

 

The above said, assets are deemed and tax is paid accordingly, but if I keep it under the threshold, should be all and good until I decide to exit and come back to Thailand, that said, I do also know that there is a new ruling that I have heard on the grapevine, i.e. that you have to be in Australia 2 years prior to you being able to qualify if you are a non resident, then once approved, you can have it paid while you are overseas, but you have to let them know you are going abroad for an extended holiday so to speak.

 

No, that's not the new ruling, the new ruling is if you return after qualifying age, wait the two years and then go, and then return, and then go again, they cut you off, suffice to say, once I exit after receiving the OAP, that's it, no ins and outs for me, i.e. unless I return to stay and that won't make a difference because I will receive it. 

I just thought you meant that you have investments now that are only tax free because you are a non-resident but that you would incur tax if you are a resident. The income for those investments may be taxable if you go back to being a resident of Australia to meet Centrelink rules. If you are 60 now I don't think you become eligible for the pension until you are 66 or 67 and  so if you have substantial investment income and go back as a resident now it could mean some tax.

As an aside the Age Pension is taxable and forms part of your taxable income. However there is the Seniors and Pensioners Tax Offset and if the pension will be your main source of income you pay no tax. 

13 hours ago, Nout said:

A speculative asserstion

It was just an observation that the biggest tax revenue in the states comes from democrat leaning places like California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Washington etc. Bigger productive cities in other states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania tend to be democrat.    Big cities in even red states like Texas are more democrat than you think. So it may be an assertion that the people who already tend to be working and have health insurance and benefit from lower taxes might overall lean democrat. There may be exceptions in pockets like Wall street but even there in 2020 they may be leaning democrat.

The strong republican and Trump supporters in states like Kentucky,  Alabama,  the Dakotas etc are a range of people but many are lower income, lesser educated whites on lower income and often do not hail from the big cities. They bring in less tax revenue and might benefit most from Democrat policies.

So it can seem a bit ironic that in practical terms these Trump supporters that you see at rallies,  who probably most need health care and could benefit from higher minimum wages and some income redistribution, vote republican. Seeing Trump argue and win over his supporters at a rally that the estate tax should be reduced or abolished, when few if any of them would benefit, except for large scale farmers, makes the point.

His supporters would argue that a freer, more capitalist low tax economy, gives them better chances of a job, and that issues like gun control, tough immigration etc are of most importance. 

You just get a sense though at a republican rally that the supporters could really benefit in practical terms from the Democrat policies they hate.