Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom and the GCSB, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Also, they have a budget of $56million. That’s a lot of money to execute “two or three warrants a year”.
As I point out, they also have powers which don't need a warrant. And they have some responsibility for government computer security.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom and the GCSB, in reply to Idiot Savant,
which makes it an offence to disclose a private communication intercepted in violation of 216B. “Poison fruit of a poison tree” may actually have teeth here.
Only with knowledge. That was a pretty big factor in aspects of the Bradley Ambrose case.
It also prohibits disclosure of the existence of such a private communication. Which, I suspect, is why Key was told to wait until the Crown memorandum was filed with the High Court. Key wasn’t disclosing anything, as it was already in the public arena.
-
OnPoint: Re: Education, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Einstein couldn’t read or write until he was 10.
That's not true. Not even remotely.
-
OnPoint: Re: Education, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Our media should be working to improve our education system, instead we get this.
This fundamentally misunderstands the role of the media in a democracy.
Truth to power. Public accountability with public money. Etc.
It's not their job to improve the education system. Or to help police catch criminals. Or anything else many people seem to want them to do.
-
OnPoint: Re: Education, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,
Most of the other low scoring, high ratio schools are remote rural low decile schools with, like one teacher and eleven students. Amazingly they aren't delivering a comprehensive education.
National Standards don't address a comprehensive education.
-
Hard News: Fox News: I know, right?, in reply to WH,
The US is running a huge deficit caused in large part by tax cuts on upper income earners. Before that stroke of genius there was as surplus.
The US is running a deficit because it is spending more than it earns. We could just as easily claim that the failure to raise taxes on poor people is causing it. There is no reason to look at the status quo ante as against any other taxing system.
-
Hard News: Fox News: I know, right?, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Defending such a system does you no credit.
I am not defending such a system. Call it wrong. Call it immoral. But don't call it a subsidy. Calling the taking of $3m from someone to pay for part of social security, and education and everything else, a "subsidy" because you could have taken $7m from them, undermines the fight against the subsidies the rich do get.
-
Hard News: Fox News: I know, right?, in reply to mccx,
If you’re taxing high incomes at 15% and low incomes at 35% then it most certainly is. Or if you’re taxing income from activity A at 15% and income from activity B at 35% then it most certainly is.
I'm going to need a bit more than this to change my mind.
Taking money from people does not subsidise them. I think I would accept that if you are taking less money off someone who earn more, you could properly characterise that as a subsidy. But no-one is suggesting that is the case here.
-
Taxing someone at 15% instead of 35% is not a subsidy.
-
Cracker: Bloggers: Pr*cks, Ars*holes,…, in reply to Paul Williams,
I still don’t know any journalist on the way up who wouldn’t give their right arm to jump on that plane to Vladivostok, knowing how difficult it was.
Needed saying.
Hyperbole is the worst thing in the world =)