Skip to main content

Michael and his antics

Poxy said:
He said he went to a private school. He also said he would not marry a girl that wants a wedding ring wtf.
Click to expand...

I actually agreed with his sentiments regarding engagement rings. They are a symptom of a sick culture, and people who place too much store in the ideals represented by fancy engagement rings really need to reassess their approach to life.

Unfortunately, Michael expressed himself in the way I would have done five years ago by stubbornly proclaiming that he would never, EVER marry a women who wanted one. :rolleyes: In reality, anyone with any sense would accommodate their partners desire for a ring if they were in love with them. There's no such thing as a perfect person, nor is there anyone in the world that that opinionated people like me (and presumably Michael) would be able to agree with on everything. I'm not sure why Michael hasn't realised this by the age of 25.

He sounds like a silly rich socialist virgin, no girlfriend or kids and divorced from reality. Probably votes for the socialist workers party & drinks imported chablis. The sort that knows how to cook a perfect Thai curry from scratch without looking at a recipe but cant read a bus timetable. At school for sport he would have been captain of the chess team.
Click to expand...

Michael works in advertising so I would be surprised if he was a socialist.
 
My friend just got married, no ring. Her husband gave her a car, but no ring :D

ps, the car was not for the wedding, she needed a new car so he gave her one
 
Someone said:
I actually agreed with his sentiments regarding engagement rings...
Click to expand...

Thank BB that someone has brought the thread back to topic. I thought some peoples' hair was on fire. Also I prefer to read peoples' views on Michael than their views on each other.
 
l.a.r.a said:
My friend just got married, no ring. Her husband gave her a car, but no ring :D

ps, the car was not for the wedding, she needed a new car so he gave her one
Click to expand...

I want a new car, does he have a brother?
 
Someone said:
I actually agreed with his sentiments regarding engagement rings. They are a symptom of a sick culture, and people who place too much store in the ideals represented by fancy engagement rings really need to reassess their approach to life.

Unfortunately, Michael expressed himself in the way I would have done five years ago by stubbornly proclaiming that he would never, EVER marry a women who wanted one. :rolleyes: In reality, anyone with any sense would accommodate their partners desire for a ring if they were in love with them. There's no such thing as a perfect person, nor is there anyone in the world that that opinionated people like me (and presumably Michael) would be able to agree with on everything. I'm not sure why Michael hasn't realised this by the age of 25.



Michael works in advertising so I would be surprised if he was a socialist.
Click to expand...


I said similar things in agreement to his sentiment on wedding rings in the daily show thread. The whole diamond industry is insane, that while you can appreciate them, you shouldn't buy into it. I know girls who literally have bought the line of a wedding ring should cost 3 months salary ect. That's a brilliant part of marketing right there. That the more you spend on a rock with an artificially inflated price due to controlled demand some how equals love.

I can see why you might use someone who thinks that as an indicator of them being the wrong match, and it probably would be. In general though, you would compromise. I am sure the ring cost has to be going down for most people. A lot of people I know are choosing to save for a house instead of a big wedding. So spending a lot on a ring is low priority.


When Michael expresses opinions like this, it's where I can see he'd be someone I'd maybe have some common ground with. However he's still a bit too immature and way too arrogant.

Advertising doesn't equal socialist. I've worked in that industry and there's plenty of hard line capitalists above all else. People who'd sell poison apples to children and not feel bad. "It's the free market."
 
duckie said:
Alien-She, you do think highly of yourself, don't you? You just slipped in the info about your IQ being higher than Michael's in your example that being good at chess does not equate to a high IQ. I've read some of your posts love, and as much as you want to be, you're no Germaine Greer.
Click to expand...

eye said:
Lol. I wondered whether anyone would ever comment on that.

alien-she is so playing the game here ;)
Click to expand...

Hahaha, I had a good chuckle at this. duckie, I assure you that my IQ has little weight on this forum and was simply a way of emphasising my point.

While I do identify as a feminist I do not have any desire to be Germaine Greer as my beliefs generally do not align with hers. Not sure why you would mention her in particular? To suggest that she is representative of all modern feminist thought is pretty weird and ignorant.
 
Someone said:
So what? Does Michael work for that agency or something? The ALP are not socialists in the slightest and I fail to see your point.
Click to expand...

The ALP has been infiltrated more and more thoroughly by the Fabians.

Gillard is a card carrying Fabian, as socialist as socialist gets. Btw I think both Liberal and Labor parties are on the same side of the true political spectrum. That is that they are on the side of big government and not far away from total government (examples of which are dictatorships like communism, and fascism which are both totalitarian). Liberal and Labor are both on that side of the true spectrum.

The opposite side to that is libertarian republicanism or anarchism where high individual freedom and smallest government is found.

Political science teaches an orthodox standard but very false view of reality.
 
It's against the rules to create multiple accounts, Derspatz.

eye said:
The ALP has been infiltrated more and more thoroughly by the Fabians.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The ALP is less influenced by socialism now than it ever has been. Since the Hawke and Keating years the ALP has been an unwavering supporter of free market economics. They are the party who opened up Australian markets to begin with!

eye said:
Btw I think both Liberal and Labor parties are on the same side of the true political spectrum. That is that they are on the side of big government and not far away from total government (examples of which are dictatorships like communism, and fascism which are both totalitarian). Liberal and Labor are both on that side of the true spectrum.

The opposite side to that is libertarian republicanism or anarchism where high individual freedom and smallest government is found.

Political science teaches an orthodox standard but very false view of reality.
Click to expand...

Seriously, this notion that smaller government correlates with increased personal freedom is preposterous. In reality, those countries with larger governments (i.e. virtually all European/western countries) are exactly the same countries which have a deeply engrained cultural respect for individual rights. In reality, a large government is necessary to protect individuals from the corruption and corporate exploitation which flourishes in any modern state which lacks the resources to regulate against the violation of individual rights.

The higher levels of taxation required to fund large governments poses very little threat to individual rights because virtually everyone who pays taxes has signed a moral contract with the government by choosing to use publicly funded roads, footpaths, schools, libraries, hospitals and broadcasting institutions. Hence they have become a willing party to the transactions of payment and services. Right wing libertarians love to bitch and moan about how they don't want to pay tax for things they don't use. Of course, this is typically a reflection of their own selfish (and occasionally even sociopathic) psychological disposition. In reality, this sort of attitude is akin to walking into Safeway and having a tantrum because they are forcing you to buy 6 eggs when you only wanted one.
 
BBParty said:
Watching the show yesterday, Zoe was spot on about Michael.

Michael finally showed his true colors. It took being nominated to bring them out. All this so-called 'being funny' crap was all an act. He wants to fool the viewers to think that he is so funny, but we know he is not being genuine. For example, trying to run the house and like Zoe said trying to get the house to vote his way.

He gets the guys in a group and starts talking about Estelle, putting her down etc. He also did the same thing with Ava. When it is time for nominations, they vote his way.

Yesterday during nominations, all the bad things he said about Estelle.. How dare he be so cruel and mean? When Estelle has been nothing but a genuine, honest, kind person. He might not like the things that she does and in his mind they're 'weird' but his hatred for her continues.

Another example when Ava hooked up with Josh, he was so jealous and moped around, talking badly about Ava. Estelle was doing the opposite, it shows who was being genuine.

Hope that ugly looking, bad teeth asshole leaves Sunday.... but I doubt it:mad:
Click to expand...

Hypocrite much...
 
Someone said:
It's against the rules to create multiple accounts, Derspatz.



What are you talking about? The ALP is less influenced by socialism now than it ever has been. Since the Hawke and Keating years the ALP has been an unwavering supporter of free market economics. They are the party who opened up Australian markets to begin with!



Seriously, this notion that smaller government correlates with increased personal freedom is preposterous. In reality, those countries with larger governments (i.e. virtually all European/western countries) are exactly the same countries which have a deeply engrained cultural respect for individual rights. In reality, a large government is necessary to protect individuals from the corruption and corporate exploitation which flourishes in any modern state which lacks the resources to regulate against the violation of individual rights.

The higher levels of taxation required to fund large governments poses very little threat to individual rights because virtually everyone who pays taxes has signed a moral contract with the government by choosing to use publicly funded roads, footpaths, schools, libraries, hospitals and broadcasting institutions. Hence they have become a willing party to the transactions of payment and services. Right wing libertarians love to bitch and moan about how they don't want to pay tax for things they don't use. Of course, this is typically a reflection of their own selfish (and occasionally even sociopathic) psychological disposition. In reality, this sort of attitude is akin to walking into Safeway and having a tantrum because they are forcing you to buy 6 eggs when you only wanted one.
Click to expand...



I always think when people talk about small government, unfetted capitalism. It's an even more insane and unworkable ideology that communism was. It won't work for the same reasons. People are selfish, people are corrupt. The Ayn Rand selfish objectivism stuff only works if there's people below you being used to support your desires, or feeling the impact from them. It's just a ridiculous notion that as much total freedom will work to benefit everyone. If a system designed around people working together to help everyone doesn't work. Why would a system based around people seeking out their own selfish desires?

I think a problems people see with democracy and government today is ignoring the fact we have seen it work. The system has been broken. There's a combination of expanding and intrusion of government. However there's been a big problem from a retreat of government. Where the kind of problems they are causing are more apparent and directly what will happen more so if the Ayn Rand capitalists get their way. Just because things are broken doesn't mean we can't fix it.

Currently it seems our governments are trying to work towards the Singapore style of governance. Which is fascism in disguise.
 
eye said:
The ALP has been infiltrated more and more thoroughly by the Fabians.

Gillard is a card carrying Fabian, as socialist as socialist gets. Btw I think both Liberal and Labor parties are on the same side of the true political spectrum. That is that they are on the side of big government and not far away from total government (examples of which are dictatorships like communism, and fascism which are both totalitarian). Liberal and Labor are both on that side of the true spectrum.

The opposite side to that is libertarian republicanism or anarchism where high individual freedom and smallest government is found.

Political science teaches an orthodox standard but very false view of reality.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous hypothesis.
 
Someone said:
It's against the rules to create multiple accounts, Derspatz.



What are you talking about? The ALP is less influenced by socialism now than it ever has been. Since the Hawke and Keating years the ALP has been an unwavering supporter of free market economics. They are the party who opened up Australian markets to begin with!



Seriously, this notion that smaller government correlates with increased personal freedom is preposterous. In reality, those countries with larger governments (i.e. virtually all European/western countries) are exactly the same countries which have a deeply engrained cultural respect for individual rights. In reality, a large government is necessary to protect individuals from the corruption and corporate exploitation which flourishes in any modern state which lacks the resources to regulate against the violation of individual rights.

The higher levels of taxation required to fund large governments poses very little threat to individual rights because virtually everyone who pays taxes has signed a moral contract with the government by choosing to use publicly funded roads, footpaths, schools, libraries, hospitals and broadcasting institutions. Hence they have become a willing party to the transactions of payment and services. Right wing libertarians love to bitch and moan about how they don't want to pay tax for things they don't use. Of course, this is typically a reflection of their own selfish (and occasionally even sociopathic) psychological disposition. In reality, this sort of attitude is akin to walking into Safeway and having a tantrum because they are forcing you to buy 6 eggs when you only wanted one.
Click to expand...

All governments and all parties in the political game on earth today are socialist and "left wing". All believe in big government, and huge interventions into personal freedoms.

Try to leave the system if you can. Try not having any identifying papers and going out on your own to some remote part and establishing your own small village etc. just try it and see whether you get anywhere. There's no escape from the real tyranny of government.
 
eye said:
All governments and all parties in the political game on earth today are socialist and "left wing". All believe in big government, and huge interventions into personal freedoms.
Click to expand...

That is an absurd notion. The very concept of political ideology exists simply in order to help us understand and categorise the various political viewpoints which arise within the modern state. By trying to classify virtually all of these viewpoints as "left wing" and "socialist" you have effectively rendered the very notion of political ideology a useless concept.

eye said:
Try to leave the system if you can. Try not having any identifying papers and going out on your own to some remote part and establishing your own small village etc. just try it and see whether you get anywhere. There's no escape from the real tyranny of government.
Click to expand...

Have you ever tried it? Or, more pertinently, would you ever try it if our government allowed people to drop out of society and establish independent settlements where they didn't have to pay tax? I'm not saying that there isn't any moral issue with these restrictions placed on us by the state, but only an infinitesimally small number of people would drop out of society if they were actually granted to us by the state.
 
Someone said:
That is an absurd notion. The very concept of political ideology exists simply in order to help us understand and categorise the various political viewpoints which arise within the modern state. By trying to classify virtually all of these viewpoints as "left wing" and "socialist" you have effectively rendered the very notion of political ideology a useless concept.



Have you ever tried it? Or, more pertinently, would you ever try it if our government allowed people to drop out of society and establish independent settlements where they didn't have to pay tax? I'm not saying that there isn't any moral issue with these restrictions placed on us by the state, but only an infinitesimally small number of people would drop out of society if they were actually granted to us by the state.
Click to expand...

These are very big issues but I'll try to summarise into a few paragraphs or points.

All governments are socialist because they believe in stealing from one to give to another. "Left" believes in welfare to its supporters ie. the so called working class; and "Right" is about welfare to its supporters ie. corporations and elites. Social welfare vs corporate welfare. It's all about big government and robbery.

In terms of leaving the system the key is taxation and the way it is expected to be paid. By establishing a monopoly on the creation of currency, the control of which is in the hands of a "money power" and expecting payment of taxes in that currency the state and the "money power" is able to indenture entire societies and nations into a modern form of slavery. Anyone who believes that we live in a free society knows not what freedom is. All this rubbish about free markets is moot when you consider that the most important part of an economy - its money and its supply are a monopoly and the cost of money (ie. interest rates) are fixed again by a monopoly system and is not open to competition.

This is a huge topic but let me recommend to you a book called "The Creature from Jekyll Island". It will open your eyes to how enslaved you are.
 
TraLa said:
What do we want?
Michael in the Top 3!
When do we want it?
N O W !

RANGA FOR THE TOP 3!
Click to expand...

NO I really dont want to watch him that long, I realise its only a few weeks however I am sick of looking at him.would rather see his face when they sat its time to go Michael.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top