Australia - you're standing in it
@supa
I hope you are correct and the ALP govt can start to really fix up how fossil fuels and minerals are properly taxed in Australia along with fixing up all the other mess left by previous rabble.
Rudd/ Gillard were worked by the mainly Murdoch media machine with a coordinated media blitz of disinformation (lies) that at the time the Australian public bought which resulted in Tony Abbott and Pets Credlin taking control. Part of campaign being the mining tax was admitted by the architect Credlin to be bullshit and just an attack on a Labor policy. Now she along with others are still are vocal sock puppets for Murdoch n co.
Luckily for Australia it seems Murdoch is finally losing his influence as can be seen from last Federal and Vicco elections, which is a good sign for democracy in Australia.
Below article not re Australia but demonstrates what the kind of company Murdoch has and says a lot for the people that are low enough to work for the dirty digger. Same company that bugged a dead girls phone, and with Fox spreads all kind of hate and nonsense in USA. It seems decent Australians are over the lies and nastiness of the LNP/ media in Australia and find Albo and his govt as decent people, which they do seem to be. Can only wait until next year and ICAC is up and running to discover more shitfuckery they undertook.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/dec/18/jeremy-clarkson-condemned-...
I think this is all good:
Australia needs to avoid at all costs the corporatocracy model that many (most?) western "democracies" have drifted towards, particularly the US. Maybe the ALP realises this.
And free speech, open debate and media diversity are a (the?) central foundation of a properly functioning democracy. I personally would welcome a Murdoch royal commission: https://twitter.com/Murdoch_RC
But the idea of a mining super profits tax puzzles me. I think this kind of debate needs to be careful about not getting emotionally split down political ideology lines.
Would Australia "shoot itself in the foot" with a mining super profits tax?
It all sounds good in theory to tax miners and other energy/resource companies more. But people seem to assume that "all else will remain equal" and mining companies will just "start paying the super tax" as required, simply because they have to.
1. Will a mining super profits tax just encourage reduced mining investment in Australia and encourage other countries to shift to other resource and energy suppliers, negatively impacting on jobs and growth, and reducing mining tax revenue overall? From an environmental perspective, if this is the actual objective then all good, but:
2. Will a super profits tax just encourage mining/resource/energy companies to change business and ownership structures, and domicile themselves in other countries, in order to avoid paying the super profits tax? For example, in a previous link posted above, during covid, energy companies like Spark Infrastructure and AusNet got bought out by US private equity giants, who pay little to no tax...
Hence, will a mining super profits tax negatively impact on jobs, growth and actual mining tax revenue, thus defeating its purpose?
At the moment our big miners are listed on the stock exchange and we can all participate in their profitability simply by owning shares in them.
It would be tragic for Australia if something like a mining tax just resulted in the big miners moving into foreign private equity hands, with all profits just going offshore to tax havens?
I wonder if the most workable solution to this issue of mining companies, national wealth and prosperity, windfall profits, taxes and more generally government revenue from mining and energy, the environment, etc, is the re-nationalisation of some mining and energy etc assets?
gsco wrote:I think this is all good:
Australia needs to avoid at all costs the corporatocracy model that many (most?) western "democracies" have drifted towards, particularly the US. Maybe the ALP realises this.
And free speech, open debate and media diversity are a (the?) central foundation of a properly functioning democracy. I personally would welcome a Murdoch royal commission: https://twitter.com/Murdoch_RC
But the idea of a mining super profits tax puzzles me. I think this kind of debate needs to be careful about not getting emotionally split down political ideology lines.
Would Australia "shoot itself in the foot" with a mining super profits tax?
It all sounds good in theory to tax miners and other energy/resource companies more. But people seem to assume that "all else will remain equal" and mining companies will just "start paying the super tax" as required, simply because they have to.
1. Will a mining super profits tax just encourage reduced mining investment in Australia and encourage other countries to shift to other resource and energy suppliers, negatively impacting on jobs and growth, and reducing mining tax revenue overall? From an environmental perspective, if this is the actual objective then all good, but:
2. Will a super profits tax just encourage mining/resource/energy companies to change business and ownership structures, and domicile themselves in other countries, in order to avoid paying the super profits tax? For example, in a previous link posted above, during covid, energy companies like Spark Infrastructure and AusNet got bought out by US private equity giants, who pay little to no tax...
Hence, will a mining super profits tax negatively impact on jobs, growth and actual mining tax revenue, thus defeating its purpose?
At the moment our big miners are listed on the stock exchange and we can all participate in their profitability simply by owning shares in them.
It would be tragic for Australia if something like a mining tax just resulted in the big miners moving into foreign private equity hands, with all profits just going offshore to tax havens?
I wonder if the most workable solution to this issue of mining companies, national wealth and prosperity, windfall profits, taxes and more generally government revenue from mining and energy, the environment, etc, is the re-nationalisation of some mining and energy etc assets?
I was not particularly referring to super profite tax, but it does appear that Australia is not fully taking advantage of its abundance of natural resources. I don't claim to understand the whole international tax system with transfer pricing, offsets etc, but it does appear some companies are taking unfair advantage of how the rules are set up at the moment. Multi national companies can decide not to invest here, but as we have a product that is needed they would continue to do so as we have the resources and a stable political environment. Norway is always held as an example with their sovereign wealth fund, and I believe Australia should be looking at something similar.
Do not know about re nationalisation of resources as this could be a step too far in regards to breaking deals etc. Sovereign risk, but then Morrison threw that threat from LNP out with submarine deal. However could be used as big stick whilst govt talks softly to extraction companies about re arranging the tax/ royalties situation.
I am hopeful that the situation has changed where the fossil fuel companies in conjunction with msm can mount a campaign against reform like they did in Rudd Gillard years.
For me it is pretty easy. For every ton of coal, iron ore, etc and every Mj of gas that is loaded onto a ship for export, a royalty is paid. An not some piss ant amount dependant on market value, fixed price per year that increases at a rate year upon year.
It is easily measured and there is no smoke and mirrors on company profits and losses with clever accounting. The Australian gov (the people) are paid for every ounce of resource that is dug up and that leaves our shores. They want our resources, they pay accordingly.
Big resource companies won't leave our shores in droves. We have some of the best quality of resource in the world, we have (or had) abundance of it and we are recognised as a safe country, not just security wise, but financially too. We are stable.
fitzroy-21 wrote:For me it is pretty easy. For every ton of coal, iron ore, etc and every Mj of gas that is loaded onto a ship for export, a royalty is paid. An not some piss ant amount dependant on market value, fixed price per year that increases at a rate year upon year.
It is easily measured and there is no smoke and mirrors on company profits and losses with clever accounting. The Australian gov (the people) are paid for every ounce of resource that is dug up and that leaves our shores. They want our resources, they pay accordingly.
Big resource companies won't leave our shores in droves. We have some of the best quality of resource in the world, we have (or had) abundance of it and we are recognised as a safe country, not just security wise, but financially too. We are stable.
That sounds very simple and sensible!!
Yes.
Personally I think what happened to Spark and AusNet was a worst case scenario for Australia:
Great little energy companies listed on the stock exchange that paid a nice dividend enabling everyday Australians able to participate in their profitability, and that had to pay tax under Australian corporations and tax law, suddenly getting sold off to US private equity giants and other foreign owned entities.
Now we Australians can't participate in their profitability and these private equity giants are just too smart at avoiding paying taxes.
It's not our issue what the company then sells it to the customer for. We get paid first for our resource. Like all businesses, they pass on the cost. As long as we get good money per unit for the resource removed, it is then the business to sort the rest, including their clever accounting for tax.
I wouldn't think it is easy cook the books on unit price. Companies depend on the accuracy of the unit they are selling for correct payment.
We have been giving the shit away for far too long and it is costing us, the Australian people, in being over taxed individually. It has got to stop.
@gsco , you would have a far better understanding of how these companies operate and international tax laws . I’m mainly expressing what I’d like to see and welcome those that can point out the flaws with a super profits tax . I can’t see companies downing tools and running for the door if it was introduced. There has to be some type of reform as it’s pretty obvious that everyone but us is laughing all the way to the bank . With the new list of minerals needed to make batteries and such that are in abundance in Australia we need to get it right now so we don’t continue to be ripped off . If other countries can get a better deal and a higher standard of living, I think we are capable of doing the same . If investors run we can hold the door open for them and possibly Australia can invest in itself . If Gina was a decent human being she would hand over her mines to the Australian people. How much money does one person need to maintain their lifestyle ?
For sure.
My view is if Gina was a decent human she’d list her company on the stock exchange for all Australians to own a part of.
She’d make a killing in doing so and at the same time turn over the company’s future profits to the Australian people.
100% what Fitzy says above.
I still cannot believe that I pay less for Oz LNG here in Japan than the original owners (the Australian public) pay for it back home.
How does that work?
udo wrote:Well....
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-19/brian-houston-tells-court-father-...
Scotty’s spiritual advisor
gsco wrote:I think this is all good:
Australia needs to avoid at all costs the corporatocracy model that many (most?) western "democracies" have drifted towards, particularly the US. Maybe the ALP realises this.
And free speech, open debate and media diversity are a (the?) central foundation of a properly functioning democracy. I personally would welcome a Murdoch royal commission: https://twitter.com/Murdoch_RC
But the idea of a mining super profits tax puzzles me. I think this kind of debate needs to be careful about not getting emotionally split down political ideology lines.
Would Australia "shoot itself in the foot" with a mining super profits tax?
It all sounds good in theory to tax miners and other energy/resource companies more. But people seem to assume that "all else will remain equal" and mining companies will just "start paying the super tax" as required, simply because they have to.
1. Will a mining super profits tax just encourage reduced mining investment in Australia and encourage other countries to shift to other resource and energy suppliers, negatively impacting on jobs and growth, and reducing mining tax revenue overall? From an environmental perspective, if this is the actual objective then all good, but:
2. Will a super profits tax just encourage mining/resource/energy companies to change business and ownership structures, and domicile themselves in other countries, in order to avoid paying the super profits tax? For example, in a previous link posted above, during covid, energy companies like Spark Infrastructure and AusNet got bought out by US private equity giants, who pay little to no tax...
Hence, will a mining super profits tax negatively impact on jobs, growth and actual mining tax revenue, thus defeating its purpose?
At the moment our big miners are listed on the stock exchange and we can all participate in their profitability simply by owning shares in them.
It would be tragic for Australia if something like a mining tax just resulted in the big miners moving into foreign private equity hands, with all profits just going offshore to tax havens?
I wonder if the most workable solution to this issue of mining companies, national wealth and prosperity, windfall profits, taxes and more generally government revenue from mining and energy, the environment, etc, is the re-nationalisation of some mining and energy etc assets?
C’mon, those that can afford to can participate, a lot of Australians can’t afford to as far as a share portfolio is concerned. And with the cost of living as it stands and proposed stage 3 tax cuts further increases the divide. Why shouldn’t all Australians enjoy the windfall profits of the miners for a finite resource the Australians own?
If you've earned a wage/salary in Australia and paid compulsory superannuation, you might want to check what shares you already own in your super.
Almost guaranteed that Twiggy, BHP, RIO, Woodside, Newcrest, South32, etc, are all already working around the clock to provide for your retirement.
And therein lies one of the biggest problems we have in this society.
Whether we like it or not, almost all of us are locked into the neo-liberal project.
I hadn’t considered that, but I also know there are large contingencies of Australians working that don’t get paid compulsory super. The building industry is full of sole traders working exclusively for one builder not getting paid super. Yes it’s wrong, but it still happens. I think a stipend on tonnage is a better solution. Far less volatile. I know I contribute voluntarily as I’m a sole trader and super last year was a bad investment.
Fitzroy’s idea sounds pretty good. I’ve said before superannuation was a great idea but should never have been run privately. The government could have used these funds to bankroll projects like chevrons gorgon project. Keep the money in house and profits go to those in the super fund and divided amongst the states for hospitals, schools etc etc what do ya reckon comrades ?
Would love to have my super invested by the likes of Scommo, Albo, Gillardo, Ruddo, Andrewo, Glado and Dumbo. Financial geniuses.
And, hospitals and schools are just profit making machines. State governments are known to be just rolling in their annual surplus profits from their health and education systems wondering what to spend it on.
Supafreak wrote:OPINION
Australia was always bullied by vested interests, until now https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-was-always-bullied-by-...
“Those businesses were profitable, will continue to be profitable,” Albanese told reporters on Friday, “and they will also gain the windfall gains that are on the international market,” where they sell some 90 per cent of their product.
The most glaringly obvious "lightbulb" moment I've ever read. Which feeds into zenagain's question of "how does that work?"
This Michael West article provides an answer Zen's question, with characteristic humour: It’s a gas! Australian gas is a bargain … if you’re Japanese
"The spot gas market run by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) is illiquid, lacks depth and is tightly controlled by the three dominant players. Although they call it a “market”, it is not really a market at all. A real market requires transparency and price discovery. This is a cartel
Besides the stranglehold of the producers’ cartel, gas prices have shot up because the transmission system in Australia, that is the pipelines, is extremely expensive.
Gas transmission is dominated by the pipeline-owner APA Group.
APA is one of the very best performers on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX). Since floating in 2000, its shares have delivered investors a return of 1304 per cent. In share market vernacular, this is a “13-bagger”, increasing in value 13 times its original investment in 15 years. A truly phenomenal run, and a credit to management.."
But never fear, APA is in the ASX 50 index so you'll likely own its shares via your compulsory super... ;)
And here we go, Australia evidently wants to sell off all it's energy, power and electricity assets to gigantic private equity consortiums:
Now it's Origin energy under consideration.
So first off, Australia privatises its energy/electricity assets, and then because these markets have too many characteristics of a natural monopoly, we try to induce competition into them by things like the AEMO, which evidently don't work, so now let's just throw our hands up in the air and sell off the assets to foreign private equity consortiums who just funnel all of the Australian people's wealth into offshore tax havens.
Putting public monopoly style energy and power industries into the hands of foreign private equity groups is the absolute worst thing that could happen, a worst case scenario.
As Midnight Oil said "it's a setback for your country."
"Putting public monopoly style energy and power industries into the hands of foreign private equity groups is the absolute worst thing that could happen, a worst case scenario."
Treason?
Maybe bit melodramatic, but should not this vital asset/ service be kept Australian owned.
Crazy....
Ah the shitfuckery!!!
https://m.
&list=RDCMUCa3kU1spOTWHDmCxterTqIg&start_radio=1 Interesting opinion article on subs , do you think the Scott Morrison Party might have got it wrong ? https://www.smh.com.au/national/scott-morrison-s-booby-trap-buying-us-nu...
Haven’t looked at this issue at all. If this guy is right what the hell are we thinking? Bang for buck and self reliance out the window with no benefits at all.
It’s a good article. No easy answers on this one.
For our ‘operating environment’, I think that nukes make way more sense. Lot of distance to travel to where they need to be to do their job effectively. Lot of (deep) ocean to cover when they get there. A lot of ‘sensors’ that are looking for submarines doing submarine things (like coming up for air). Submarines designed for the Baltic and Mediterranean seas are not optimal for our requirements.
Now, whether we can afford them is a totally different question. Especially the HEU models the US / UK operate.
I’m also not sure that the French model is the answer. We were getting absolutely fucked sideways on the last French Barracuda / Attack project. Binning it was probably the right answer given the cost and schedule blow-outs experienced. Partly due to our change in propulsion from LEU to D/E. Partly due to the French being absolute cnts to work with (allegedly). We were kidding ourselves that they were going to let us build the boats here. Or that we had the capability to do so.
Anyway, fuck knows. It’ll end up being eye-wateringly expensive whichever way we play it.
@etarip , Are 8 nuclear subs going to be better deterrent ( and defence in worse case scenario ) than what was proposed by Rex Patrick ?……” As former submariner and senator Rex Patrick has argued, Australia could have 20 modern, off-the-shelf submarines built in Australia and enhanced by Australian industry, for $30 billion. By contrast, the eight nuclear-powered boats may cost as much as $171 billion. Conventional submarines would free up funds so that Australia can acquire more fighter jets, a $40 billion industry resilience package, a national shipping fleet, long-range rockets and other artillery systems, utility helicopters, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, and more. “ ….. or is the purchase simply buying US protection ? Like you said no easy answers to this one .
@supa. I think there’s an efficiency dividend with a smaller number of nuke boats. Whether that’s worth $140bn…..?
Those figures for 20 off the shelf boats + modifications sound suspiciously low to me ($30bn). It’s easy for Rex Patrick to throw that figure out there, but it does raise a whole bunch of other questions. That’s a lot of crew on 20 subs. The ADF is having huge recruitment and retention challenges.
As for deterrence, depends on who and what we’re trying to deter! I think we’re aiming to generate efficiency and interoperability in scale with AUKUS. The other thing to consider is the combat systems that are part of the deal. US / UK are regarded as leading int his area. So that’s definitely part of it. We’re buying into a club. For me the main question is how is a capability going to deter anything when it isn’t even viable for close to a decade? Maybe it’s more about the information campaign?
As for ‘defence’, I think we want to operate at distance wherever possible, up in the choke points to our north. We don’t want to be fighting on or around our coastline. The case for nuke subs seems to be predicated on this strategy, getting the capability to get north quicker, staying there for longer and having more options when there.
Maybe the answer is a mix - 6 OTS AIP boats sooner and 6 nukes later? Still staggeringly expensive. And I don’t know how we’re going to crew them. Or maintain them.
Would not submarine automatic drones be the future? Surely that technology is not far off? Cheaper, more efficient to stay under indefinitely as no one to feed etc, and from the little I have read on subject, even if Australia source enough submarines, they will have trouble finding the crews to man them?
Would rather see money spent on education or health than feeding military industrial complex.
@etarip , thanks for answering. I hadn’t thought about the crew to man them . My nephew had a crack at the navy but didn’t last , he’s got a brilliant mind when it comes to computer games and tech stuff but lacks discipline and was diagnosed as a child as ADHD . The navy gave him plenty of chances and opportunities but in the end let him go .
There’ll always be a crew of numb nuts willing to pledge their allegiance …
God save the king ;)
In his own wise words :
‘Work together to rescue this precious planet and save the threatened future of our young people’
Oh. And this will happen how exactly? ;)
- No easy answers…
Some easy questions tho ;)
Who has helped create and facilitate this ‘threatened future’ ? ;)
Who continues to stoke the threat ? ;)
Oh yes. Let’s get more weapons ;););)
Gotta spend more to make more too !
Rescuing the planet through military escalation ? Wow.
- We must protect the young people ;););)
Who are we rescuing them from exactly?
https://m.
@andy-mac - drones. Maybe. Depends how much autonomy you want to give them. Armed drones cruising the oceans? Great in theory, but we can’t even get cars to self-drive without crashing into people and things yet. Always going to be challenges with control of unmanned systems. I think a combination of drones paired with crewed systems will be the interim step.
I’m with you on more investment on eduction and health. Add to that infrastructure. And (re) building a manufacturing base on tech industry. We really don’t hold governments accountable for what they spend money on.
Many of the debacles in Defence acquisition have come about due to political imperative to go with a certain manufacturer to keep XX number of jobs in electorate A or B, regardless of whether it’s the most cost-effective option or even if it fails to meet the actual capability requirement… those French helicopters are the best (recent) example of that. $3.8bn in the hole.
And, to get to yours (and what I think was JF’s) point, I’m actually really happy that there is a public debate on defence. From my perspective, it’s the absence of a coherent national strategy that’s baffling.
Jelly Flater wrote:There’ll always be a crew of numb nuts willing to pledge their allegiance …
God save the king ;)
In his own wise words :
‘Work together to rescue this precious planet and save the threatened future of our young people’
Oh. And this will happen how exactly? ;)
- No easy answers…Some easy questions tho ;)
Who has helped create and facilitate this ‘threatened future’ ? ;)
Who continues to stoke the threat ? ;)
Oh yes. Let’s get more weapons ;););)
Gotta spend more to make more too !Rescuing the planet through military escalation ? Wow.
- We must protect the young people ;););)
Who are we rescuing them from exactly?
Haha, enjoyed that video. Cheers.
Geez bring on an Australian Republic.
Oh, and actually start investing in a civil defence organisation like the SES at a national level.
Stop using Defence as an instinctive stop-gap to cover up cost cutting in all those other areas.
etarip wrote:@andy-mac - drones. Maybe. Depends how much autonomy you want to give them. Armed drones cruising the oceans? Great in theory, but we can’t even get cars to self-drive without crashing into people and things yet. Always going to be challenges with control of unmanned systems. I think a combination of drones paired with crewed systems will be the interim step.
I’m with you on more investment on eduction and health. Add to that infrastructure. And (re) building a manufacturing base on tech industry. We really don’t hold governments accountable for what they spend money on.
Many of the debacles in Defence acquisition have come about due to political imperative to go with a certain manufacturer to keep XX number of jobs in electorate A or B, regardless of whether it’s the most cost-effective option or even if it fails to meet the actual capability requirement… those French helicopters are the best (recent) example of that. $3.8bn in the hole.
And, to get to yours (and what I think was JF’s) point, I’m actually really happy that there is a public debate on defence. From my perspective, it’s the absence of a coherent national strategy that’s baffling.
The drones would not be necessarily be autonomous, but controlled via human operators on land. I would think this technology is already doable?
Yes, as you point out the money could be better spent on more pressing things to help Australia, not just join USA in their military industrial spending.
I know we need a viable defence strategy, but defence is key word here, we don't need subs to help USA interests in South China Sea. Our 'defence' forces have been used in military adventures where they would have been better staying out of if, ie Afghanistan and Iraq. And both these were a tragic waste of lives and money.
Maybe I'm naive, but really cannot see China wanting to invade Australia, and this seems to be main factor why we are talking up defence.
etarip wrote:Oh, and actually start investing in a civil defence organisation like the SES at a national level.
Stop using Defence as an instinctive stop-gap to cover up cost cutting in all those other areas.
Yes agree...
@a-m. Depends what your view of ‘Defence’ is. I’d say that having a sovereign capability to deter or prevent coercion via control of sea-lanes, blockade, occupation of offshore territories, control of offshore resources fields and fisheries etc is arguably as important as being able to prevent or defeat an ‘invasion’ of Australia which is not really a plausible scenario anyway. That’s what much of the ‘maritime’ focus of recent acquisitions is about.
I think the days of military adventurism in far-flung places are done; they made little strategic sense at the time and even less in retrospect.
The Houston / Smith Defence Strategic Review is due in March 2023.
I think the autonomous AI technology is definitely more advanced in the military than one might think.
etarip have you seen the DARPA AlphaDogfight where AI bots (based on a kind of machine learning algorithm called deep reinforcement learning) easily beat human pilots in simulated F-16 dogfights?
Deep reinforcement learning is an area in which I've done a lot of work, in a completely different context. It's super interesting.
This article AI Slays Top F-16 Pilot In DARPA Dogfight Simulation is interesting, as is this youtube video (and many others):
To be honest I believe the Chinese are very advanced down the curve with autonomous military AI technology..
@etarip
@a-m. Depends what your view of ‘Defence’ is. I’d say that having a sovereign capability to deter or prevent coercion via control of sea-lanes, blockade, occupation of offshore territories, control of offshore resources fields and fisheries etc is arguably as important as being able to prevent or defeat an ‘invasion’ of Australia which is not really a plausible scenario anyway. That’s what much of the ‘maritime’ focus of recent acquisitions is about""
I agree there, but are high end expensive nuclear submarines required for those purposes? I wouldn't think so.
andy-mac wrote:@etarip
@a-m. Depends what your view of ‘Defence’ is. I’d say that having a sovereign capability to deter or prevent coercion via control of sea-lanes, blockade, occupation of offshore territories, control of offshore resources fields and fisheries etc is arguably as important as being able to prevent or defeat an ‘invasion’ of Australia which is not really a plausible scenario anyway. That’s what much of the ‘maritime’ focus of recent acquisitions is about""I agree there, but are high end expensive nuclear submarines required for those purposes? I wouldn't think so.
Read an article 30yrs? ago that said subs are obsolete cos all "powers" have satelite technology that can pick up a subs propulsion wash and or bow pressure wave under water???
.JORDAN SHANKS is Aussie Journo of the Year. There were some strong contenders in this field, but Shanks has put his life on the line exposing critical stories which are changing the political landscape — all without the backing and protection of a major media employer. #auspol pic.twitter.com/qQbr93l6Yc
— PRGuy (@PRGuy17) December 31, 2022
I’d like to nominate Avi Yemini for grifter of the year
— Mark Smith (@MarkHenry3195) December 31, 2022
Supafreak wrote:https://twitter.com/prguy17/status/1609070570892840965?s=46&t=BIwniQYQF0.... https://twitter.com/markhenry3195/status/1609094604972003328?s=46&t=1rQe...
No one comes close.
Makes Muppets in msm look pathetic.
Does he look back at his career and think geez if I hadn’t been such a jerk I might have done a bit better? https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/bernard-tomic-officially-snubbed-fr...
Supafreak wrote:Does he look back at his career and think geez if I hadn’t been such a jerk I might have done a bit better? https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/bernard-tomic-officially-snubbed-fr...
I would blame the parents for bringing up a spoilt brat.
How’s Burleigh this morning burleigh ? I had some good ones at D- bar first light , was talking to some guys that regularly surf snapper on the full moon, not many out at 2.00 a.m.
Supafreak wrote:How’s Burleigh this morning burleigh ? I had some good ones at D- bar first light , was talking to some guys that regularly surf snapper on the full moon, not many out at 2.00 a.m.
It would have been ok on the high, but its a human soup right now. I surfed a nearby beachie which was fun,
What is Human Soup ....?
Tastes like pork
Long pig
Dear US Congress, thank you for saving Australia from itself
by Rex Patrick | Jan 7, 2023 | Business, Latest Posts https://michaelwest.com.au/dear-us-congress-thank-you-for-saving-austral.... Big job cleaning up after Scott no friends
That’s a good article supa.
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.