Discussion:
Samuel Johnson
(too old to reply)
Max
2017-04-23 11:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8

Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
Jeßus
2017-04-23 20:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
What difference does it make? He'll just be replaced by another
equally repulsive freak.
Clocky
2017-04-23 23:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeßus
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
What difference does it make? He'll just be replaced by another
equally repulsive freak.
Whilst I don't think much of him as an actor he's helping to raise
millions for a worthy cause.

Hardly the act of a repulsive.
Jeßus
2017-04-25 21:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clocky
Post by Jeßus
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
What difference does it make? He'll just be replaced by another
equally repulsive freak.
Whilst I don't think much of him as an actor he's helping to raise
millions for a worthy cause.
Hardly the act of a repulsive.
Oh, whoopee-do. Fund raising for a charity, is he? He's positively
UNIQUE! ;)
Clocky
2017-04-26 00:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeßus
Post by Clocky
Post by Jeßus
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
What difference does it make? He'll just be replaced by another
equally repulsive freak.
Whilst I don't think much of him as an actor he's helping to raise
millions for a worthy cause.
Hardly the act of a repulsive.
Oh, whoopee-do. Fund raising for a charity, is he? He's positively
UNIQUE! ;)
He's raised millions and he's made an effort to do it *himself* by
uni-cycling thousands of km's plus other work. Unlike some others who's
contribution amount to little more than showing their face for a charity
ball or similar.

Again, *his* efforts are not the work of a repulsive.
Trevor
2017-04-26 07:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clocky
Post by Jeßus
Post by Clocky
Post by Jeßus
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
What difference does it make? He'll just be replaced by another
equally repulsive freak.
Whilst I don't think much of him as an actor he's helping to raise
millions for a worthy cause.
Hardly the act of a repulsive.
Oh, whoopee-do. Fund raising for a charity, is he? He's positively
UNIQUE! ;)
He's raised millions and he's made an effort to do it *himself* by
uni-cycling thousands of km's plus other work. Unlike some others who's
contribution amount to little more than showing their face for a charity
ball or similar.
*IF* he contributed the "$millions" himself I'd agree. Otherwise it is
ALL simply donations from *OTHER* people. Riding a unicycle thousands of
kilometers (or any other stupid charity stunts) does not create ANY
money by itself. If others can do just as well by appearing at a charity
ball, good luck to them!
The result is exactly the same for the charity involved after all.

Trevor.
Clocky
2017-04-26 09:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor
Post by Clocky
Post by Jeßus
Post by Clocky
Post by Jeßus
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
What difference does it make? He'll just be replaced by another
equally repulsive freak.
Whilst I don't think much of him as an actor he's helping to raise
millions for a worthy cause.
Hardly the act of a repulsive.
Oh, whoopee-do. Fund raising for a charity, is he? He's positively
UNIQUE! ;)
He's raised millions and he's made an effort to do it *himself* by
uni-cycling thousands of km's plus other work. Unlike some others who's
contribution amount to little more than showing their face for a charity
ball or similar.
*IF* he contributed the "$millions" himself I'd agree. Otherwise it is
ALL simply donations from *OTHER* people.
*For* what he was doing, which was to raise awareness and he was putting
in the effort himself.

Riding a unicycle thousands of
Post by Trevor
kilometers (or any other stupid charity stunts) does not create ANY
money by itself.
It raised millions they otherwise would not have had. That is commendable.

If others can do just as well by appearing at a charity
Post by Trevor
ball, good luck to them!
It doesn't matter how, it commendable that he *does*. Many don't.
Post by Trevor
The result is exactly the same for the charity involved after all.
He's done more than most people do.
Trevor
2017-04-26 09:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clocky
Post by Trevor
Post by Clocky
Post by Jeßus
Post by Clocky
Post by Jeßus
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
What difference does it make? He'll just be replaced by another
equally repulsive freak.
Whilst I don't think much of him as an actor he's helping to raise
millions for a worthy cause.
Hardly the act of a repulsive.
Oh, whoopee-do. Fund raising for a charity, is he? He's positively
UNIQUE! ;)
He's raised millions and he's made an effort to do it *himself* by
uni-cycling thousands of km's plus other work. Unlike some others who's
contribution amount to little more than showing their face for a charity
ball or similar.
*IF* he contributed the "$millions" himself I'd agree. Otherwise it is
ALL simply donations from *OTHER* people.
*For* what he was doing, which was to raise awareness and he was putting
in the effort himself.
Riding a unicycle thousands of
Post by Trevor
kilometers (or any other stupid charity stunts) does not create ANY
money by itself.
It raised millions they otherwise would not have had. That is commendable.
If others can do just as well by appearing at a charity
Post by Trevor
ball, good luck to them!
It doesn't matter how, it commendable that he *does*. Many don't.
Post by Trevor
The result is exactly the same for the charity involved after all.
He's done more than most people do.
Actually it's the people who donated the money that should be thanked!
That's FAR more than those who do the gimmick events and get the
publicity. I always think these gimmicks only move donations from one
charity to another since most people can only donate so much per year
regardless of how many gimmick charity events occur. And I never donate
to tax deductible charities, because that simply means the taxpayer
picks up a fair part of the donation anyway!

Trevor.
BruceS
2017-04-27 13:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor
Post by Clocky
Post by Trevor
Post by Clocky
Post by Jeßus
Post by Clocky
Post by Jeßus
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up'
acting, will this be the last we have to hear from this
freak?
What difference does it make? He'll just be replaced by
another equally repulsive freak.
Whilst I don't think much of him as an actor he's helping
to raise millions for a worthy cause.
Hardly the act of a repulsive.
Oh, whoopee-do. Fund raising for a charity, is he? He's
positively UNIQUE! ;)
He's raised millions and he's made an effort to do it *himself*
by uni-cycling thousands of km's plus other work. Unlike some
others who's contribution amount to little more than showing
their face for a charity ball or similar.
*IF* he contributed the "$millions" himself I'd agree. Otherwise
it is ALL simply donations from *OTHER* people.
*For* what he was doing, which was to raise awareness and he was
putting in the effort himself.
Riding a unicycle thousands of
Post by Trevor
kilometers (or any other stupid charity stunts) does not create
ANY money by itself.
It raised millions they otherwise would not have had. That is
commendable.
If others can do just as well by appearing at a charity
Post by Trevor
ball, good luck to them!
It doesn't matter how, it commendable that he *does*. Many don't.
Post by Trevor
The result is exactly the same for the charity involved after all.
He's done more than most people do.
Actually it's the people who donated the money that should be
thanked!
As someone who's been on both sides of gimmick events, I'm ambivalent.
I've ridden in charity bicycle rides and walks, and the whole idea is a
bit silly. Yes, we raised a lot of money, but the actual bicycling or
walking didn't help anyone but ourselves. No, it didn't really "raise
awareness", except the awareness of many drivers that a lot of
bicyclists don't belong on the roads. I've also donated when others did
these events, but I would have been just as happy to donate the same
amount without anyone walking, running, bicycling, etc. In fact, these
events cost a bit of money that could otherwise be spent on the charity.
OTOH, it appears that for most people, these events do work. People
feel somehow better about contributing when someone is doing something
completely unrelated to the charitable cause. I don't get it, but it works.
Post by Trevor
That's FAR more than those who do the gimmick events and get the
publicity. I always think these gimmicks only move donations from one
charity to another since most people can only donate so much per
year regardless of how many gimmick charity events occur. And I never
donate to tax deductible charities, because that simply means the
taxpayer picks up a fair part of the donation anyway!
Maybe it's different there in Australia, but here in the U.S. you can
give all you want to a tax deductible charity and *not* declare it on
your taxes, thereby avoiding that problem. We do take our charitable
donations off on our taxes, but that's more because we want to keep as
much money away from the government as possible than anything related to
the charity. I'd declare my dogs as dependents if I could get away with
it. Surely if the Australian government forces you to take a deduction
for charitable contributions, you can offset that with a voluntary tax
payment. Or was that just an excuse to be cheap?
Trevor
2017-04-28 03:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by Clocky
He's done more than most people do.
Actually it's the people who donated the money that should be
thanked!
As someone who's been on both sides of gimmick events, I'm ambivalent.
I've ridden in charity bicycle rides and walks, and the whole idea is a
bit silly. Yes, we raised a lot of money, but the actual bicycling or
walking didn't help anyone but ourselves. No, it didn't really "raise
awareness", except the awareness of many drivers that a lot of
bicyclists don't belong on the roads.
Right!
Post by BruceS
I've also donated when others did
these events, but I would have been just as happy to donate the same
amount without anyone walking, running, bicycling, etc. In fact, these
events cost a bit of money that could otherwise be spent on the charity.
OTOH, it appears that for most people, these events do work. People
feel somehow better about contributing when someone is doing something
completely unrelated to the charitable cause. I don't get it,
Me either!
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
That's FAR more than those who do the gimmick events and get the
publicity. I always think these gimmicks only move donations from one
charity to another since most people can only donate so much per
year regardless of how many gimmick charity events occur. And I never
donate to tax deductible charities, because that simply means the
taxpayer picks up a fair part of the donation anyway!
Maybe it's different there in Australia, but here in the U.S. you can
give all you want to a tax deductible charity and *not* declare it on
your taxes, thereby avoiding that problem.
No, since most people give to charity to get a tax deduction, I support
those who would otherwise miss out.
Post by BruceS
We do take our charitable
donations off on our taxes, but that's more because we want to keep as
much money away from the government as possible than anything related to
the charity. I'd declare my dogs as dependents if I could get away with
it.
So you don't believe in taxes, but are happy the government does things
for you. A sad but common attitude here too.
Post by BruceS
Surely if the Australian government forces you to take a deduction
for charitable contributions, you can offset that with a voluntary tax
payment.
Nobody is *forced* to declare it, you completely miss the point because
you don't believe in taxes.
Post by BruceS
Or was that just an excuse to be cheap?
Not me who doesn't believe in taxes! I wonder why you would ever support
a charity for those less fortunate, but not taxes to support those less
fortunate? You do realise many charities are just as corrupt as the
government right?

Trevor.
BruceS
2017-04-28 19:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by Clocky
He's done more than most people do.
Actually it's the people who donated the money that should be thanked!
As someone who's been on both sides of gimmick events, I'm
ambivalent. I've ridden in charity bicycle rides and walks, and the
whole idea is a bit silly. Yes, we raised a lot of money, but the
actual bicycling or walking didn't help anyone but ourselves. No,
it didn't really "raise awareness", except the awareness of many
drivers that a lot of bicyclists don't belong on the roads.
Right!
Post by BruceS
I've also donated when others did these events, but I would have
been just as happy to donate the same amount without anyone
walking, running, bicycling, etc. In fact, these events cost a bit
of money that could otherwise be spent on the charity. OTOH, it
appears that for most people, these events do work. People feel
somehow better about contributing when someone is doing something
completely unrelated to the charitable cause. I don't get it,
Me either!
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
That's FAR more than those who do the gimmick events and get the
publicity. I always think these gimmicks only move donations from
one charity to another since most people can only donate so much
per year regardless of how many gimmick charity events occur. And
I never donate to tax deductible charities, because that simply
means the taxpayer picks up a fair part of the donation anyway!
Maybe it's different there in Australia, but here in the U.S. you
can give all you want to a tax deductible charity and *not* declare
it on your taxes, thereby avoiding that problem.
No, since most people give to charity to get a tax deduction, I
support those who would otherwise miss out.
Post by BruceS
We do take our charitable donations off on our taxes, but that's
more because we want to keep as much money away from the government
as possible than anything related to the charity. I'd declare my
dogs as dependents if I could get away with it.
So you don't believe in taxes, but are happy the government does
things for you. A sad but common attitude here too.
Where do I say or imply either of those things? I believe in a
reasonable level of taxes, and a reasonable level of government paid for
with them. I support things like roads and schools at the local level,
national defense at the national level. The U.S. could cut its taxes
drastically and still balance the budget if it cut out all the waste and
counterproductive activity. The way the taxes work, from the first
dollar I make in a year, the federal and state governments take well
over 40%. That's a big part of why I don't bother looking for new
contracts. Our governments' taxes and spending have gotten far out of
control.
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Surely if the Australian government forces you to take a deduction
for charitable contributions, you can offset that with a voluntary
tax payment.
Nobody is *forced* to declare it, you completely miss the point
because you don't believe in taxes.
If you're not forced to declare it, you can (as I said) contribute to a
charity without worrying yourself about taxpayers funding it. The
difference between your contributing and your not contributing is then
simply the amount of your contribution. No taxes are involved at all in
that decision. Whether other people take their tax breaks for their
contributions has nothing to do with whether you contribute.
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Or was that just an excuse to be cheap?
Not me who doesn't believe in taxes! I wonder why you would ever
support a charity for those less fortunate, but not taxes to support
those less fortunate? You do realise many charities are just as
corrupt as the government right?
You keep going on about not believing in taxes. I never said I don't.
In case you don't know, that's what's called a "straw man". And yes, I
realize some charities are quite corrupt, and spend the contributions on
their "top" people. That's why I avoid groups like United Way. Maybe
*your* taxes do some reasonable job of supporting "those less
fortunate", but ours don't. Our welfare programs mainly perpetuate bad
patterns, keeping people poor and unproductive, encouraging a large
group of purely parasitic people.
Trevor
2017-04-29 10:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by Clocky
He's done more than most people do.
Actually it's the people who donated the money that should be thanked!
As someone who's been on both sides of gimmick events, I'm
ambivalent. I've ridden in charity bicycle rides and walks, and the
whole idea is a bit silly. Yes, we raised a lot of money, but the
actual bicycling or walking didn't help anyone but ourselves. No,
it didn't really "raise awareness", except the awareness of many
drivers that a lot of bicyclists don't belong on the roads.
Right!
Post by BruceS
I've also donated when others did these events, but I would have
been just as happy to donate the same amount without anyone
walking, running, bicycling, etc. In fact, these events cost a bit
of money that could otherwise be spent on the charity. OTOH, it
appears that for most people, these events do work. People feel
somehow better about contributing when someone is doing something
completely unrelated to the charitable cause. I don't get it,
Me either!
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
That's FAR more than those who do the gimmick events and get the
publicity. I always think these gimmicks only move donations from
one charity to another since most people can only donate so much
per year regardless of how many gimmick charity events occur. And
I never donate to tax deductible charities, because that simply
means the taxpayer picks up a fair part of the donation anyway!
Maybe it's different there in Australia, but here in the U.S. you
can give all you want to a tax deductible charity and *not* declare
it on your taxes, thereby avoiding that problem.
No, since most people give to charity to get a tax deduction, I
support those who would otherwise miss out.
Post by BruceS
We do take our charitable donations off on our taxes, but that's
more because we want to keep as much money away from the government
as possible than anything related to the charity. I'd declare my
dogs as dependents if I could get away with it.
So you don't believe in taxes, but are happy the government does
things for you. A sad but common attitude here too.
Where do I say or imply either of those things?
Well 2 sentences back you say "I'd declare my dogs as dependents if I
could get away with it." How the fucjk else are we supposed to take that!!!
Post by BruceS
I believe in a reasonable level of taxes,
Yeah, for others obviously.
Post by BruceS
and a reasonable level of government paid for
with them. I support things like roads and schools at the local level,
national defense at the national level. The U.S. could cut its taxes
drastically and still balance the budget if it cut out all the waste and
counterproductive activity. The way the taxes work, from the first
dollar I make in a year, the federal and state governments take well
over 40%. That's a big part of why I don't bother looking for new
contracts. Our governments' taxes and spending have gotten far out of
control.
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Surely if the Australian government forces you to take a deduction
for charitable contributions, you can offset that with a voluntary
tax payment.
Nobody is *forced* to declare it, you completely miss the point
because you don't believe in taxes.
If you're not forced to declare it, you can (as I said) contribute to a
charity without worrying yourself about taxpayers funding it. The
difference between your contributing and your not contributing is then
simply the amount of your contribution. No taxes are involved at all in
that decision. Whether other people take their tax breaks for their
contributions has nothing to do with whether you contribute.
Once again you completely miss the point that others claiming a tax
deduction for their charity contributions means OTHER tax payers must
make up for those deductions if the tax base remains the same. What the
fuck is the point of having no taxes for government support of those in
the shit, then pretending you are generous by donating to tax deductible
charities to do the same job? Just a wank.
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Or was that just an excuse to be cheap?
Not me who doesn't believe in taxes! I wonder why you would ever
support a charity for those less fortunate, but not taxes to support
those less fortunate? You do realise many charities are just as
corrupt as the government right?
You keep going on about not believing in taxes. I never said I don't.
In case you don't know, that's what's called a "straw man".
What a twat, you have no idea what a straw man is. First you say,
"we want to keep as much money away from the government as possible
..... I'd declare my dogs as dependents if I could get away with it!"
Then you try and pretend I'm misrepresenting your desire not to pay tax!
Post by BruceS
And yes, I
realize some charities are quite corrupt, and spend the contributions on
their "top" people. That's why I avoid groups like United Way. Maybe
*your* taxes do some reasonable job of supporting "those less
fortunate", but ours don't. Our welfare programs mainly perpetuate bad
patterns, keeping people poor and unproductive, encouraging a large
group of purely parasitic people.
No those are your $Billionaires claiming a 4 hour tax deductible lunch
at a 5 star restaurant is "hard work" while paying minimum wage to
cleaners, laborers etc. and paying less tax than those on minimum wage.
Naturally greedy assholes like your President, our Prime Minister (and
you apparently) will never get it! All the earths resources belong to
only the lucky few according to them, none for the rest of us. :-(
BruceS
2017-04-30 17:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by Clocky
He's done more than most people do.
Actually it's the people who donated the money that should be thanked!
As someone who's been on both sides of gimmick events, I'm
ambivalent. I've ridden in charity bicycle rides and walks, and
the whole idea is a bit silly. Yes, we raised a lot of money,
but the actual bicycling or walking didn't help anyone but
ourselves. No, it didn't really "raise awareness", except the
awareness of many drivers that a lot of bicyclists don't belong
on the roads.
Right!
Post by BruceS
I've also donated when others did these events, but I would
have been just as happy to donate the same amount without
anyone walking, running, bicycling, etc. In fact, these events
cost a bit of money that could otherwise be spent on the
charity. OTOH, it appears that for most people, these events do
work. People feel somehow better about contributing when
someone is doing something completely unrelated to the
charitable cause. I don't get it,
Me either!
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
That's FAR more than those who do the gimmick events and get
the publicity. I always think these gimmicks only move
donations from one charity to another since most people can
only donate so much per year regardless of how many gimmick
charity events occur. And I never donate to tax deductible
charities, because that simply means the taxpayer picks up a
fair part of the donation anyway!
Maybe it's different there in Australia, but here in the U.S.
you can give all you want to a tax deductible charity and *not*
declare it on your taxes, thereby avoiding that problem.
No, since most people give to charity to get a tax deduction, I
support those who would otherwise miss out.
Post by BruceS
We do take our charitable donations off on our taxes, but
that's more because we want to keep as much money away from the
government as possible than anything related to the charity.
I'd declare my dogs as dependents if I could get away with it.
So you don't believe in taxes, but are happy the government does
things for you. A sad but common attitude here too.
Where do I say or imply either of those things?
Well 2 sentences back you say "I'd declare my dogs as dependents if I
could get away with it." How the fucjk else are we supposed to take that!!!
Anyone with any sense at all would take that as meaning that I'd want to
drastically reduce my taxes. Is that really so hard to understand? Can
you not grasp that an effective income tax rate over 40% is too high?
That's not in any way an indication of "not believing in taxes". I also
accept that legitimate businesses need to charge money for their goods
and services, and that the amount they charge has to be enough to more
than cover their expenses, but if one starts charging ridiculously high
rates, I won't use them. Do you think that means I "don't believe" in
businesses charging a fair price?
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
I believe in a reasonable level of taxes,
Yeah, for others obviously.
Yes, I believe others should *also* pay a reasonable level, as should I.
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
and a reasonable level of government paid for with them. I support
things like roads and schools at the local level, national defense
at the national level. The U.S. could cut its taxes drastically
and still balance the budget if it cut out all the waste and
counterproductive activity. The way the taxes work, from the
first dollar I make in a year, the federal and state governments
take well over 40%. That's a big part of why I don't bother
looking for new contracts. Our governments' taxes and spending
have gotten far out of control.
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Surely if the Australian government forces you to take a
deduction for charitable contributions, you can offset that
with a voluntary tax payment.
Nobody is *forced* to declare it, you completely miss the point
because you don't believe in taxes.
If you're not forced to declare it, you can (as I said) contribute
to a charity without worrying yourself about taxpayers funding it.
The difference between your contributing and your not contributing
is then simply the amount of your contribution. No taxes are
involved at all in that decision. Whether other people take their
tax breaks for their contributions has nothing to do with whether
you contribute.
Once again you completely miss the point that others claiming a tax
deduction for their charity contributions means OTHER tax payers must
make up for those deductions if the tax base remains the same. What
the fuck is the point of having no taxes for government support of
those in the shit, then pretending you are generous by donating to
tax deductible charities to do the same job? Just a wank.
Whether or not you make a donation to a charity has no effect on whether
others take a tax deduction for their donation. You really don't
understand this, do you? You can make a donation, then not take a
deduction for it so your donation won't involve anyone else paying taxes
to make up for it.
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Or was that just an excuse to be cheap?
Not me who doesn't believe in taxes! I wonder why you would ever
support a charity for those less fortunate, but not taxes to
support those less fortunate? You do realise many charities are
just as corrupt as the government right?
You keep going on about not believing in taxes. I never said I
don't. In case you don't know, that's what's called a "straw man".
What a twat, you have no idea what a straw man is. First you say, "we
want to keep as much money away from the government as possible .....
I'd declare my dogs as dependents if I could get away with it!" Then
you try and pretend I'm misrepresenting your desire not to pay tax!
You certainly are doing that. I want to pay *less* taxes, as the tax
rate I pay now is outrageous, and our government wastes the money it
gets. You're creating a straw man argument about someone not believing
in taxes at all, when as far as I can see there's nobody here taking
that position at all. That would be equivalent to me claiming you
believe everyone should pay 110% of their income as taxes.
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
And yes, I realize some charities are quite corrupt, and spend the
contributions on their "top" people. That's why I avoid groups
like United Way. Maybe *your* taxes do some reasonable job of
supporting "those less fortunate", but ours don't. Our welfare
programs mainly perpetuate bad patterns, keeping people poor and
unproductive, encouraging a large group of purely parasitic
people.
No those are your $Billionaires claiming a 4 hour tax deductible
lunch at a 5 star restaurant is "hard work" while paying minimum wage
to cleaners, laborers etc. and paying less tax than those on minimum
wage. Naturally greedy assholes like your President, our Prime
Minister (and you apparently) will never get it! All the earths
resources belong to only the lucky few according to them, none for
the rest of us. :-(
I don't know what silly rags you're reading to get the idea that our
highest earners pay lower tax rates than our lowest, but it simply isn't
true. Our Federal Income Tax system charges *higher* marginal rates for
higher income levels, and each quintile of earners pays a higher
effective rate than the quintile below it. Only at the very highest
levels do earners pay less (percentage-wise only) than those immediately
below them, and they still pay a higher percentage than those farther
below. As for lunch breaks being tax deductible, you appear to not know
how these things work at all. A business lunch is deductible to the
extent of the cost of the lunch itself, which has no connection to the
length of time it takes, nor for that matter to the wealth of the
participants. I've taken deductions for business lunches, and it just
offsets part of a business cost, it doesn't somehow put money in my
pocket or even pay for the lunch. And none of this relates to the
excessive taxes and spending of our government; you're just going off on
a tangent about unequal contribution to those taxes, which you clearly
don't understand. If you're too lazy and untalented to have anything
worthwhile to offer, then of course you won't get the same share of "all
the Earth's resources" as someone who does have value. My own time is
worth far less than that of some others, but that's fine by me. It
always seems to be those whose time is worth nothing, or near to it, who
complain about "pay gaps" and such nonsense. Those of us who contribute
to society simply want to be paid fairly, and then to be able to keep a
fair amount of that instead of being forced to hand it over to the
greedy, arrogant half-wits who believe they have a better idea on how to
spend what we earn.
Trevor
2017-05-05 02:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by Clocky
He's done more than most people do.
Actually it's the people who donated the money that should be thanked!
As someone who's been on both sides of gimmick events, I'm
ambivalent. I've ridden in charity bicycle rides and walks, and
the whole idea is a bit silly. Yes, we raised a lot of money,
but the actual bicycling or walking didn't help anyone but
ourselves. No, it didn't really "raise awareness", except the
awareness of many drivers that a lot of bicyclists don't belong
on the roads.
Right!
Post by BruceS
I've also donated when others did these events, but I would
have been just as happy to donate the same amount without
anyone walking, running, bicycling, etc. In fact, these events
cost a bit of money that could otherwise be spent on the
charity. OTOH, it appears that for most people, these events do
work. People feel somehow better about contributing when
someone is doing something completely unrelated to the
charitable cause. I don't get it,
Me either!
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
That's FAR more than those who do the gimmick events and get
the publicity. I always think these gimmicks only move
donations from one charity to another since most people can
only donate so much per year regardless of how many gimmick
charity events occur. And I never donate to tax deductible
charities, because that simply means the taxpayer picks up a
fair part of the donation anyway!
Maybe it's different there in Australia, but here in the U.S.
you can give all you want to a tax deductible charity and *not*
declare it on your taxes, thereby avoiding that problem.
No, since most people give to charity to get a tax deduction, I
support those who would otherwise miss out.
Post by BruceS
We do take our charitable donations off on our taxes, but
that's more because we want to keep as much money away from the
government as possible than anything related to the charity.
I'd declare my dogs as dependents if I could get away with it.
So you don't believe in taxes, but are happy the government does
things for you. A sad but common attitude here too.
Where do I say or imply either of those things?
Well 2 sentences back you say "I'd declare my dogs as dependents if I
could get away with it." How the fucjk else are we supposed to take that!!!
Anyone with any sense at all would take that as meaning that I'd want to
drastically reduce my taxes. Is that really so hard to understand?
Since *I* said that, what is it you don't understand?
Post by BruceS
Can
you not grasp that an effective income tax rate over 40% is too high?
NOPE, have paid over 50% for much of my working career on average wage!
Post by BruceS
That's not in any way an indication of "not believing in taxes".
Of course it is!
Post by BruceS
I also
accept that legitimate businesses need to charge money for their goods
and services, and that the amount they charge has to be enough to more
than cover their expenses, but if one starts charging ridiculously high
rates, I won't use them. Do you think that means I "don't believe" in
businesses charging a fair price?
Now THAT's a straw man!
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
I believe in a reasonable level of taxes,
Yeah, for others obviously.
Yes, I believe others should *also* pay a reasonable level, as should I.
But Only IF YOU get to decide what is a reasonable level for you. What a
wanker!
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
and a reasonable level of government paid for with them. I support
things like roads and schools at the local level, national defense
at the national level. The U.S. could cut its taxes drastically
and still balance the budget if it cut out all the waste and
counterproductive activity. The way the taxes work, from the
first dollar I make in a year, the federal and state governments
take well over 40%. That's a big part of why I don't bother
looking for new contracts. Our governments' taxes and spending
have gotten far out of control.
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Surely if the Australian government forces you to take a
deduction for charitable contributions, you can offset that
with a voluntary tax payment.
Nobody is *forced* to declare it, you completely miss the point
because you don't believe in taxes.
If you're not forced to declare it, you can (as I said) contribute
to a charity without worrying yourself about taxpayers funding it.
The difference between your contributing and your not contributing
is then simply the amount of your contribution. No taxes are
involved at all in that decision. Whether other people take their
tax breaks for their contributions has nothing to do with whether
you contribute.
Once again you completely miss the point that others claiming a tax
deduction for their charity contributions means OTHER tax payers must
make up for those deductions if the tax base remains the same. What
the fuck is the point of having no taxes for government support of
those in the shit, then pretending you are generous by donating to
tax deductible charities to do the same job? Just a wank.
Whether or not you make a donation to a charity has no effect on whether
others take a tax deduction for their donation. You really don't
understand this, do you? You can make a donation, then not take a
deduction for it so your donation won't involve anyone else paying taxes
to make up for it.
YOU really don't get how taxes work do you! IF others pay less, someone
has to pay more, or services are cut!
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Or was that just an excuse to be cheap?
Not me who doesn't believe in taxes! I wonder why you would ever
support a charity for those less fortunate, but not taxes to
support those less fortunate? You do realise many charities are
just as corrupt as the government right?
You keep going on about not believing in taxes. I never said I
don't. In case you don't know, that's what's called a "straw man".
What a twat, you have no idea what a straw man is. First you say, "we
want to keep as much money away from the government as possible .....
I'd declare my dogs as dependents if I could get away with it!" Then
you try and pretend I'm misrepresenting your desire not to pay tax!
You certainly are doing that. I want to pay *less* taxes, as the tax
rate I pay now is outrageous,
In YOUR opinion, of course!
Post by BruceS
and our government wastes the money it gets.
In YOUR opinion of course!
Post by BruceS
You're creating a straw man argument about someone not believing
in taxes at all, when as far as I can see there's nobody here taking
that position at all. That would be equivalent to me claiming you
believe everyone should pay 110% of their income as taxes.
So you failed mathematics as well as economics! No surprise there.
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
And yes, I realize some charities are quite corrupt, and spend the
contributions on their "top" people. That's why I avoid groups
like United Way. Maybe *your* taxes do some reasonable job of
supporting "those less fortunate", but ours don't. Our welfare
programs mainly perpetuate bad patterns, keeping people poor and
unproductive, encouraging a large group of purely parasitic
people.
No those are your $Billionaires claiming a 4 hour tax deductible
lunch at a 5 star restaurant is "hard work" while paying minimum wage
to cleaners, laborers etc. and paying less tax than those on minimum
wage. Naturally greedy assholes like your President, our Prime
Minister (and you apparently) will never get it! All the earths
resources belong to only the lucky few according to them, none for
the rest of us. :-(
I don't know what silly rags you're reading to get the idea that our
highest earners pay lower tax rates than our lowest,
Who said anything about RATES? What the $billionaires have is the best
accountants and offshore accounts that are not available to the rest of
us. Sadly the richest person in Australia not only pays NO tax but
receives government support from other taxpayers. Corporation like
Google pay no tax here despite earning $Billions in income here.
Things are exactly the same in the USA, England and many other
countries, yet some countries like Norway, Denmark etc. manage to do it
differently and actually have a happier population.
Post by BruceS
but it simply isn't true.
You have NO idea do you, sadly true of most people of course or they
would not vote for twats like Trump!
Post by BruceS
Our Federal Income Tax system charges *higher* marginal rates for
higher income levels, and each quintile of earners pays a higher
effective rate than the quintile below it.
ONLY for those without the ability to avoid paying it. But people even
vote for $billionaire tax avoiders like Trump. :-(
Post by BruceS
Only at the very highest
levels do earners pay less (percentage-wise only) than those immediately
below them, and they still pay a higher percentage than those farther
below. As for lunch breaks being tax deductible, you appear to not know
how these things work at all. A business lunch is deductible to the
extent of the cost of the lunch itself, which has no connection to the
length of time it takes, nor for that matter to the wealth of the
participants. I've taken deductions for business lunches, and it just
offsets part of a business cost, it doesn't somehow put money in my
pocket or even pay for the lunch. And none of this relates to the
excessive taxes and spending of our government; you're just going off on
a tangent about unequal contribution to those taxes, which you clearly
don't understand.
So are you really that stupid about how the system ACTUALLY works in
PRACTICE, or are are you just another rich bull shitting con artist?
BruceS
2017-05-05 15:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by Clocky
He's done more than most people do.
Actually it's the people who donated the money that
should be thanked!
As someone who's been on both sides of gimmick events, I'm
ambivalent. I've ridden in charity bicycle rides and walks,
and the whole idea is a bit silly. Yes, we raised a lot of
money, but the actual bicycling or walking didn't help
anyone but ourselves. No, it didn't really "raise
awareness", except the awareness of many drivers that a lot
of bicyclists don't belong on the roads.
Right!
Post by BruceS
I've also donated when others did these events, but I
would have been just as happy to donate the same amount
without anyone walking, running, bicycling, etc. In fact,
these events cost a bit of money that could otherwise be
spent on the charity. OTOH, it appears that for most
people, these events do work. People feel somehow better
about contributing when someone is doing something
completely unrelated to the charitable cause. I don't get it,
Me either!
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
That's FAR more than those who do the gimmick events and
get the publicity. I always think these gimmicks only
move donations from one charity to another since most
people can only donate so much per year regardless of how
many gimmick charity events occur. And I never donate to
tax deductible charities, because that simply means the
taxpayer picks up a fair part of the donation anyway!
Maybe it's different there in Australia, but here in the
U.S. you can give all you want to a tax deductible charity
and *not* declare it on your taxes, thereby avoiding that
problem.
No, since most people give to charity to get a tax deduction,
I support those who would otherwise miss out.
Post by BruceS
We do take our charitable donations off on our taxes, but
that's more because we want to keep as much money away from
the government as possible than anything related to the
charity. I'd declare my dogs as dependents if I could get
away with it.
So you don't believe in taxes, but are happy the government
does things for you. A sad but common attitude here too.
Where do I say or imply either of those things?
Well 2 sentences back you say "I'd declare my dogs as dependents
if I could get away with it." How the fucjk else are we supposed
to take that!!!
Anyone with any sense at all would take that as meaning that I'd
want to drastically reduce my taxes. Is that really so hard to
understand?
Since *I* said that, what is it you don't understand?
I don't understand how you can fail to see the difference between
reducing taxes to a less outrageous level and eliminating them (or "not
believing in them").
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Can you not grasp that an effective income tax rate over 40% is too
high?
NOPE, have paid over 50% for much of my working career on average wage!
Post by BruceS
That's not in any way an indication of "not believing in taxes".
Of course it is!
You need to either get your legal meds adjusted or stop self-medicating
with the illegal ones.
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
I also accept that legitimate businesses need to charge money for
their goods and services, and that the amount they charge has to be
enough to more than cover their expenses, but if one starts
charging ridiculously high rates, I won't use them. Do you think
that means I "don't believe" in businesses charging a fair price?
Now THAT's a straw man!
No, that's what we call an "analogy".
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
I believe in a reasonable level of taxes,
Yeah, for others obviously.
Yes, I believe others should *also* pay a reasonable level, as should I.
But Only IF YOU get to decide what is a reasonable level for you.
What a wanker!
It is not reasonable for *anyone* to pay over 40% of their income to
income-based taxes. It's not a matter of what's a reasonable level for
me specifically, or any other specific person, it's an outrageously
confiscatory tax rate. I'm trying to decide now whether you're just
trolling, you have a serious mental illness, or you're simply an idiot.
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
and a reasonable level of government paid for with them. I
support things like roads and schools at the local level,
national defense at the national level. The U.S. could cut its
taxes drastically and still balance the budget if it cut out
all the waste and counterproductive activity. The way the
taxes work, from the first dollar I make in a year, the federal
and state governments take well over 40%. That's a big part of
why I don't bother looking for new contracts. Our governments'
taxes and spending have gotten far out of control.
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Surely if the Australian government forces you to take a
deduction for charitable contributions, you can offset
that with a voluntary tax payment.
Nobody is *forced* to declare it, you completely miss the
point because you don't believe in taxes.
If you're not forced to declare it, you can (as I said)
contribute to a charity without worrying yourself about
taxpayers funding it. The difference between your contributing
and your not contributing is then simply the amount of your
contribution. No taxes are involved at all in that decision.
Whether other people take their tax breaks for their
contributions has nothing to do with whether you contribute.
Once again you completely miss the point that others claiming a
tax deduction for their charity contributions means OTHER tax
payers must make up for those deductions if the tax base remains
the same. What the fuck is the point of having no taxes for
government support of those in the shit, then pretending you are
generous by donating to tax deductible charities to do the same
job? Just a wank.
Whether or not you make a donation to a charity has no effect on
whether others take a tax deduction for their donation. You really
don't understand this, do you? You can make a donation, then not
take a deduction for it so your donation won't involve anyone else
paying taxes to make up for it.
YOU really don't get how taxes work do you! IF others pay less,
someone has to pay more, or services are cut!
Your giving money to a charity does not in any way make any other person
pay less taxes, and if you don't take it as a deduction, it doesn't make
you pay less taxes.
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Or was that just an excuse to be cheap?
Not me who doesn't believe in taxes! I wonder why you would
ever support a charity for those less fortunate, but not
taxes to support those less fortunate? You do realise many
charities are just as corrupt as the government right?
You keep going on about not believing in taxes. I never said
I don't. In case you don't know, that's what's called a "straw
man".
What a twat, you have no idea what a straw man is. First you say,
"we want to keep as much money away from the government as
possible ..... I'd declare my dogs as dependents if I could get
away with it!" Then you try and pretend I'm misrepresenting your
desire not to pay tax!
You certainly are doing that. I want to pay *less* taxes, as the
tax rate I pay now is outrageous,
In YOUR opinion, of course!
Post by BruceS
and our government wastes the money it gets.
In YOUR opinion of course!
Post by BruceS
You're creating a straw man argument about someone not believing in
taxes at all, when as far as I can see there's nobody here taking
that position at all. That would be equivalent to me claiming you
believe everyone should pay 110% of their income as taxes.
So you failed mathematics as well as economics! No surprise there.
At this point, I'm leaning toward you simply being an idiot.
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
And yes, I realize some charities are quite corrupt, and spend
the contributions on their "top" people. That's why I avoid
groups like United Way. Maybe *your* taxes do some reasonable
job of supporting "those less fortunate", but ours don't. Our
welfare programs mainly perpetuate bad patterns, keeping people
poor and unproductive, encouraging a large group of purely
parasitic people.
No those are your $Billionaires claiming a 4 hour tax deductible
lunch at a 5 star restaurant is "hard work" while paying minimum
wage to cleaners, laborers etc. and paying less tax than those on
minimum wage. Naturally greedy assholes like your President, our
Prime Minister (and you apparently) will never get it! All the
earths resources belong to only the lucky few according to them,
none for the rest of us. :-(
I don't know what silly rags you're reading to get the idea that
our highest earners pay lower tax rates than our lowest,
Who said anything about RATES? What the $billionaires have is the
best accountants and offshore accounts that are not available to the
rest of us. Sadly the richest person in Australia not only pays NO
tax but receives government support from other taxpayers. Corporation
like Google pay no tax here despite earning $Billions in income
here. Things are exactly the same in the USA, England and many other
countries, yet some countries like Norway, Denmark etc. manage to do
it differently and actually have a happier population.
I suspect this is more hand-waving idiocy from you, but I'm not going to
research the actual tax situation in Australia. You've already clearly
demonstrated you don't understand reality. Those who complain about
things like that here in the U.S. keep quoting numbers they don't
understand, and your terminology implies the same for you. Here's just
one little hint for you: income taxes are not based on how "rich" you
are, or what your company's gross earnings are.
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
but it simply isn't true.
You have NO idea do you, sadly true of most people of course or they
would not vote for twats like Trump!
I didn't vote for him, but that's just another silly diversion from you.
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Our Federal Income Tax system charges *higher* marginal rates for
higher income levels, and each quintile of earners pays a higher
effective rate than the quintile below it.
ONLY for those without the ability to avoid paying it. But people
even vote for $billionaire tax avoiders like Trump. :-(
Apparently, you missed the one Trump tax return that was partially
leaked. FTR, tax *avoidance* is perfectly legal and normal, and here in
the U.S. is practiced by many, if not most taxpayers. It isn't
restricted to those with multi-million dollar incomes. But go ahead and
keep pointing at Trump and his followers; that just shows how little you
know. You may want to look at the tax avoidance history by the Clintons.
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
Only at the very highest levels do earners pay less
(percentage-wise only) than those immediately below them, and they
still pay a higher percentage than those farther below. As for
lunch breaks being tax deductible, you appear to not know how these
things work at all. A business lunch is deductible to the extent
of the cost of the lunch itself, which has no connection to the
length of time it takes, nor for that matter to the wealth of the
participants. I've taken deductions for business lunches, and it
just offsets part of a business cost, it doesn't somehow put money
in my pocket or even pay for the lunch. And none of this relates
to the excessive taxes and spending of our government; you're just
going off on a tangent about unequal contribution to those taxes,
which you clearly don't understand.
So are you really that stupid about how the system ACTUALLY works in
PRACTICE, or are are you just another rich bull shitting con
artist?
Unlike you, I really do know how it works in practice. There are
mechanisms that allow for some, using paper losses to offset income.
These are only usable to a limited extent, and the actual, effective tax
rates for the top earners (in this country at least) are higher than for
those who earn less, with the exception I noted. We also have some
income-based taxes that are built to be regressive, which is how Warren
Buffet pays a lower total income-based tax than his secretary, despite
his FIT and SIT being higher. FYI, those tax avoidance strategies
generally don't affect the regressive taxes.
Trevor
2017-05-06 04:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BruceS
You need to either get your legal meds adjusted or stop self-medicating
with the illegal ones.
So once again that's the level of your intelligence, I'm surprised you
have a job to pay any tax, so what are you bitching about!

Another moron for the kill file.
BruceS
2017-05-06 19:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor
Post by BruceS
You need to either get your legal meds adjusted or stop self-medicating
with the illegal ones.
So once again that's the level of your intelligence, I'm surprised you
have a job to pay any tax, so what are you bitching about!
Another moron for the kill file.
The intellectual level of your reasoning and argument remains
consistent.

Clocky
2017-04-28 00:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor
Post by Clocky
Post by Trevor
Post by Clocky
Post by Jeßus
Post by Clocky
Post by Jeßus
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
What difference does it make? He'll just be replaced by another
equally repulsive freak.
Whilst I don't think much of him as an actor he's helping to raise
millions for a worthy cause.
Hardly the act of a repulsive.
Oh, whoopee-do. Fund raising for a charity, is he? He's positively
UNIQUE! ;)
He's raised millions and he's made an effort to do it *himself* by
uni-cycling thousands of km's plus other work. Unlike some others who's
contribution amount to little more than showing their face for a charity
ball or similar.
*IF* he contributed the "$millions" himself I'd agree. Otherwise it is
ALL simply donations from *OTHER* people.
*For* what he was doing, which was to raise awareness and he was putting
in the effort himself.
Riding a unicycle thousands of
Post by Trevor
kilometers (or any other stupid charity stunts) does not create ANY
money by itself.
It raised millions they otherwise would not have had. That is
commendable.
If others can do just as well by appearing at a charity
Post by Trevor
ball, good luck to them!
It doesn't matter how, it commendable that he *does*. Many don't.
Post by Trevor
The result is exactly the same for the charity involved after all.
He's done more than most people do.
Actually it's the people who donated the money that should be thanked!
*Both* should be and are thanked.
Post by Trevor
That's FAR more than those who do the gimmick events and get the
publicity. I always think these gimmicks only move donations from one
charity to another since most people can only donate so much per year
regardless of how many gimmick charity events occur.
Some people would not donate unless they became aware of the event or cause.

And I never donate
Post by Trevor
to tax deductible charities, because that simply means the taxpayer
picks up a fair part of the donation anyway!
You don't have to deduct the donations.
I'd rather donate to a "gimmicky" awareness raising charity then some
cold calling charity that gives a range of amounts that you can choose
to donate. That's just rude IMO.
Trevor
2017-04-28 03:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clocky
Post by Trevor
That's FAR more than those who do the gimmick events and get the
publicity. I always think these gimmicks only move donations from one
charity to another since most people can only donate so much per year
regardless of how many gimmick charity events occur.
Some people would not donate unless they became aware of the event or cause.
Actually far less expensive ways of raising awareness.
Post by Clocky
And I never donate
Post by Trevor
to tax deductible charities, because that simply means the taxpayer
picks up a fair part of the donation anyway!
You don't have to deduct the donations.
Completely misses the point that others DO, and thus other taxpayers are
simply picking up part of their donation.
Post by Clocky
I'd rather donate to a "gimmicky" awareness raising charity then some
cold calling charity that gives a range of amounts that you can choose
to donate. That's just rude IMO.
Right, I NEVER give to those charities since SO Little of it ends up in
the charities coffers anyway. :-(

Trevor.
Government Shill #2
2017-04-23 23:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
Your post is the *first* I've ever heard of him.

Since he has apparently made a speech at the Logies, he must be someone from
television?

Shill #2
--
Them™
Pay Section
Disinformation Directorate
Ministry of Information
Antipodean Division
F Murtz
2017-04-24 04:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Government Shill #2
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
Your post is the *first* I've ever heard of him.
Since he has apparently made a speech at the Logies, he must be someone from
television?
Shill #2
--
Them™
Pay Section
Disinformation Directorate
Ministry of Information
Antipodean Division
You must live in a cave isolated from the world he is hard to miss, even
away from acting he got heaps of cover when he cycled over 15,000km
across Australia on a unicycle, setting a Guinness World Record and
raising over $1.75 million.
Government Shill #2
2017-04-24 05:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by F Murtz
Post by Government Shill #2
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
Your post is the *first* I've ever heard of him.
Since he has apparently made a speech at the Logies, he must be someone from
television?
You must live in a cave isolated from the world he is hard to miss, even
away from acting he got heaps of cover when he cycled over 15,000km
across Australia on a unicycle, setting a Guinness World Record and
raising over $1.75 million.
You might be right 'cause... nup. Rings no bells.

Shill #2
--
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Computer Nerd Kev
2017-04-24 23:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by F Murtz
Post by Government Shill #2
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
Your post is the *first* I've ever heard of him.
Since he has apparently made a speech at the Logies, he must be someone from
television?
You must live in a cave isolated from the world he is hard to miss, even
away from acting he got heaps of cover when he cycled over 15,000km
across Australia on a unicycle, setting a Guinness World Record and
raising over $1.75 million.
I thought we were talking about Samuel L. Jackson until I looked into
it.

I think anything in the "/lifestyle/health/health-problems/" part
of the news.com.au website it outside of my arena. :)
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
Max
2017-04-25 00:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by F Murtz
Post by Government Shill #2
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
Your post is the *first* I've ever heard of him.
Since he has apparently made a speech at the Logies, he must be someone from
television?
Shill #2
--
Them™
Pay Section
Disinformation Directorate
Ministry of Information
Antipodean Division
You must live in a cave isolated from the world he is hard to miss, even
away from acting he got heaps of cover when he cycled over 15,000km
across Australia on a unicycle, setting a Guinness World Record and
raising over $1.75 million.
How did he raise that much money just by riding a unicycle?
F Murtz
2017-04-25 02:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Max
Post by F Murtz
Post by Government Shill #2
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
Your post is the *first* I've ever heard of him.
Since he has apparently made a speech at the Logies, he must be someone from
television?
Shill #2
--
Them™
Pay Section
Disinformation Directorate
Ministry of Information
Antipodean Division
You must live in a cave isolated from the world he is hard to miss, even
away from acting he got heaps of cover when he cycled over 15,000km
across Australia on a unicycle, setting a Guinness World Record and
raising over $1.75 million.
How did he raise that much money just by riding a unicycle?
read up on him, his sister has cancer and apparently he got enough
publicity, not that riding a unicycle 15000 kms is "just riding a unicycle"
felix
2017-04-24 06:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will
this be the last we have to hear from this freak?
never heard of him..
--
"Multiculturanism equals white ethnocide"
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://www.barenakedislam.com/
http://www.siotw.org
hector
2017-04-25 01:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
I guess no one here has heard of Molly Meldrum either.
Government Shill #2
2017-04-25 01:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hector
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
I guess no one here has heard of Molly Meldrum either.
Grew up watching Molly every Sunday night.

Shill #2
--
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
F Murtz
2017-04-25 02:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Government Shill #2
Post by hector
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
I guess no one here has heard of Molly Meldrum either.
Grew up watching Molly every Sunday night.
He recently played Molly in a tv miniseries.
Post by Government Shill #2
Shill #2
--
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Government Shill #2
2017-04-25 04:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by F Murtz
Post by Government Shill #2
Post by hector
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
I guess no one here has heard of Molly Meldrum either.
Grew up watching Molly every Sunday night.
He recently played Molly in a tv miniseries.
Ah. On one of the commercial stations, was it?

Shill #2
--
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Clocky
2017-04-25 08:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Government Shill #2
Post by F Murtz
Post by Government Shill #2
Post by hector
Post by Max
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/samuel-johnsons-heartbreaking-logies-speech/news-story/2c6a6e7a22eeed4d3fd02b2885a9e4d8
Now that he has a Logie and has said he has 'given up' acting, will this
be the last we have to hear from this freak?
I guess no one here has heard of Molly Meldrum either.
Grew up watching Molly every Sunday night.
He recently played Molly in a tv miniseries.
Ah. On one of the commercial stations, was it?
Yeah, there's been a run of these TV mini-series in recent years. Molly,
INXS, Bond, Hancock, Paul Hogan and soon Olivia Newton-John.
Probably others I have missed.
I saw a bit of Molly, INXS and the Hogan ones. Molly was meh, INXS was
crap and the Hogan one terrible.

Dunno about the others.
Trevor
2017-04-25 10:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clocky
Yeah, there's been a run of these TV mini-series in recent years. Molly,
INXS, Bond, Hancock, Paul Hogan and soon Olivia Newton-John.
Probably others I have missed.
I saw a bit of Molly, INXS and the Hogan ones. Molly was meh, INXS was
crap and the Hogan one terrible.
They were ALL terrible! Don't think I watched all of any of them!
That an inferior version of an himself inferior TV host could win a Gold
Logie says a lot about Australian TV unfortunately. :-(
felix
2017-04-26 03:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor
Post by Clocky
Yeah, there's been a run of these TV mini-series in recent years. Molly,
INXS, Bond, Hancock, Paul Hogan and soon Olivia Newton-John.
Probably others I have missed.
I saw a bit of Molly, INXS and the Hogan ones. Molly was meh, INXS was
crap and the Hogan one terrible.
They were ALL terrible! Don't think I watched all of any of them!
That an inferior version of an himself inferior TV host could win a
Gold Logie says a lot about Australian TV unfortunately. :-(
actually is just says a lot about the viewers, and what a sham the
logies are. remember, Hamish and Andy won the gold logie on the back of
a social media campaign.
--
"Multiculturanism equals white ethnocide"
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://www.barenakedislam.com/
http://www.siotw.org
Clocky
2017-04-26 07:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor
Post by Clocky
Yeah, there's been a run of these TV mini-series in recent years. Molly,
INXS, Bond, Hancock, Paul Hogan and soon Olivia Newton-John.
Probably others I have missed.
I saw a bit of Molly, INXS and the Hogan ones. Molly was meh, INXS was
crap and the Hogan one terrible.
They were ALL terrible! Don't think I watched all of any of them!
Neither did I. I thought the INXS one might be interesting but I seeon
worked out it was shit. I saw a bit of Molly and at least the acting
seemed competent, unlike the bloke who played Paul Hogan, he was like a
parody of Hogan.

Just terrible TV. I expect the Olivia Newton-John one to be even worse.
Post by Trevor
That an inferior version of an himself inferior TV host could win a Gold
Logie says a lot about Australian TV unfortunately. :-(
He was more competent playing Molly than Molly was as a presenter, it
has to be said - but that's not saying much. Winning a Gold Logie is no
different Camira winning the Wheels Car of the Year...
Trevor
2017-04-26 08:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clocky
Post by Trevor
Post by Clocky
Yeah, there's been a run of these TV mini-series in recent years. Molly,
INXS, Bond, Hancock, Paul Hogan and soon Olivia Newton-John.
Probably others I have missed.
I saw a bit of Molly, INXS and the Hogan ones. Molly was meh, INXS
was crap and the Hogan one terrible.
They were ALL terrible! Don't think I watched all of any of them!
Neither did I. I thought the INXS one might be interesting but I seeon
worked out it was shit. I saw a bit of Molly and at least the acting
seemed competent, unlike the bloke who played Paul Hogan, he was like
a parody of Hogan.
Agree with that, (and the guy who played Strop just as bad) but didn't
think much of the acting in Molly either. Actors can get away with a lot
when playing fictional characters, but when portraying a real life
person we are very familiar with, most simply can't cope.
Post by Clocky
Just terrible TV. I expect the Olivia Newton-John one to be even worse.
Hard to imagine!
Post by Clocky
Post by Trevor
That an inferior version of an himself inferior TV host could win a
Gold Logie says a lot about Australian TV unfortunately.
He was more competent playing Molly than Molly was as a presenter, it
has to be said - but that's not saying much.
So True!
Post by Clocky
Winning a Gold Logie is no
different Camira winning the Wheels Car of the Year...
:-)

At least they had the excuse they didn't know how unreliable it was when
first released. The only excuse for these TV docu-drama's is they want
to make money, but can't find anyone good enough to play the parts.
What's the Logie voters excuse I wonder?

Trevor.
Max
2017-04-25 11:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clocky
Yeah, there's been a run of these TV mini-series in recent years. Molly,
INXS, Bond, Hancock, Paul Hogan and soon Olivia Newton-John.
Probably others I have missed.
I saw a bit of Molly, INXS and the Hogan ones. Molly was meh, INXS was
crap and the Hogan one terrible.
Dunno about the others.
The Bond one isn't too bad. It's got Sam Neil in it.
Loading...