First 6 issues for AU$6.00, saving 83% and then AU$78.00 each quarter (13 issues) thereafter.
First 12 issues for AU$12.00, saving 83% and then AU$78.00 each quarter (13 issues) thereafter.
52 issues for $156, saving 50% off using code CCA05
only newspaper worth reading
Use code "LFA02" if you only want the 12 copies for $12 and do not wish for a recurring subscription at full price. It's better value to subscribe twice using this code, once on 6th Nov 2015 and another on 15th Jan 2016
Good in theory but didn't work.
I used the code LFA02 and my email confirmation (received two days later) states:
$12.00 for the first 12 issues, then quarterly payments of $78.00
Will be emailing them to cancel the recurring payment.
Get a one year subscription for The Guardian Weekly at half price. One Year at $153.00 - saving 46% off the retail price.
The 1 year for $20 deal was better.
That's now my benchmark for any subscription for anything anywhere.
… I don't subscribe to much nowadays.
Yes that was my post! ahhh the memories
Great price for an evidenced based newspaper (i.e. Not Murdoch)
If you're a Lefty….
Lefties are more educated (the stats show it), so we prefer journalism based on evidence
'Educated' and 'Intelligent' don't always correlate…
It is observed that most people shift right of the political spectrum as they get older (mature). You could explain that as people age they accumulate more wisdom and experience.
@rokufan:
The brain also shrinks from around the age of 25, so progressively poorer brain function could also be an explanation for that.
@yoyomablue: Using your logic we should hand all forms of leadership to under 25s, because a person's intellect is at it's peak. Well that's a classic bit of lefty logic!
Few people would argue that they are smarter and wiser at 30 than when 20, 40 when 30, and so on. And if not, well I'm sorry for you.
@rokufan:
Using your logic an 80 year old who worked their life as an electrician is more educated than a 35 year old Professor of Physics
@yoyomablue: I didn't say educated, I said as a reliable general rule with more years people are wiser and more experienced - and as a result voting preferences shift right.
Anyway why compare apples with oranges… why not use the same Physics Professor and compare the young version to a somewhat older? Surely the individual would be wiser and more experienced and hence have a deeper pool to draw on when voting.
As the old truism goes - If you're not left-wing at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain. Though maybe this should exclude University lecturers…
Your argument is more proof that the left are always trying to separate themselves as an elite. In your case, arguing the left are more intelligent, a silly point to argue and I shouldn't have participated.
A more commonly displayed lefty characteristic is moral elitism, ie. political correctness, the irony is that differing views are met with utter hate and intolerance.
@rokufan:
The research shows that lefties are, on average, more educated & have higher IQ.
Like a typical right winger, when you don't like the message, deny the science/research. You know, how you guys ignorantly do with anthropogenic global warming (because you're not educated enough to understand how science & peer review works)
As for education, it means an actual piece of paper that confirms one went through the rigours of gaining & testing acquired knowledge and its application. Not some simplistic statement to make someone of lower education feel better like "but I have street smarts", "I've have lived longer", "I've been through the school of life", "I have a job in the real word" (the last an utterly ignorant smear on academics, not realising that academics typically were the original source of research that lead to technology that ultimately gave the wider population a 'job in the real world').
Your statements either exemplify that you don't understand what education is, or more likely, you are trying to make yourself feel better, because you lack it.
@yoyomablue: I'm sure you can only point to hogwash research to backup your silly IQ argument.
But I indeed have good research that proves lefty smugness fumes can make you feel superior and power your motor vehicle! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMTkedIUX8U
@rokufan:
Thanks for proving my point of when you don't like the message deny the research.
As night follows day…..
@yoyomablue: I haven't said a single thing about AGW! Why am I not surprised you are overly keen to talk about the topic…
With your previous reply you have demonstrated the typical unpleasant lefty traits of self righteousness and intolerance, by assuming that anyone with a different opinion is; stupid, not educated, not worthy, immoral - and hence should be shouted down.
Also I believe the mediocrity culture of 'everyone is a winner', unfortunately most obvious in our kid's schools, is a lefty brigade creation.
You talk research but you haven't provided any credible research to back your risible claim.
BTW, I am University educated, 2 degrees, and a professional, and most importantly a tight arse bargain hunter!
It is observed that most people shift right of the political spectrum as they get older (mature). You could explain that as people age they accumulate more wisdom and experience.
You could.
You could also explain that in other ways including but not limited to:
1) Selfishness ("the negative effects of Climate Change won't happen in my lifetime, therefore I don't care if my actions contribute to it")
2) Rational self-interest ("thanks to taxpayer-funded schools, police, roads, infrastructure, universal healthcare, I have maximised my potential in terms of both as a human being and earning power. Now to privatise everything so that the younger generation don't get the same benefits as I did")
3) Alzheimer's disease: "DUURR DEM DARN MEDDLIN' KIDS ARE ON MY LAWN AGAIN! MAAAAAAAAAARRGE, GET ME MAH SHOTGUN! …um… nurse, a little help 'ere? I pooped mah pants again :("
@DeafMutePretender: You could argue those points. But I think they are weak. You need to assume about half the population is selfish. And as many of those same individuals have children, who to be consistent with your argument, the parents are willing to trash their children's future.
Alternatively, maybe as people mature they understand the world is not simple black and white, is complex, that government is not the solution to all problems, and gradual pragmatic solutions are the best approach to improving society.
@DeafMutePretender:
I would agree with you, as well as fear and staid thinking.
1) Older people have, on average, more accumulated wealth. The right wing is synonymous with the free market, so they want to lower social safety nets that benefit the wealthy, so of course older people will vote out of material self interest.
2) It's well known that right wing parties practice fear mongering. As people age they become more fearful, due to fragility and an accumulation of cognitive biases of fearful situations. Hence they will tend to vote right wing, due to this fear mongering and demonisation of minorities.
3) I think there's truth to the unfortunate saying 'you can't teach an old dog new tricks'. As people age they get staid in their thinking. This is linked to increased fear. Hence the simplism of 'Stop The Boats' appeals to them as it requires less mental effort, less questioning of validity, etc.
Like a faulty golf swing, the longer you don't get coaching to rectify the source of the error, the more you will have to invest in said coaching to fix the fault. So people choose to keep the faulty swing, as they do with their worldview paradigms.
Research has also shown that right wingers are, on average, more racist and homophobic, possibly due to the mental heuristic need to compartmentalise minorities.
@DeafMutePretender:
Also, regarding global warming, research shows that right wingers comprise a little over 80% of the deniers.
So effectively in a few decades when people ask why are they living in a hotter and damaged world, it would be fair to say the blame can be placed on right wing voters. Because they chose to vote in governments that would do relatively little about it, so as to protect the mantra of economic growth (which itself will be stunted by a hotter planet)
You could argue those points. But I think they are weak. You need to assume about half the population is selfish.
Those who support the current capitalist system (by and large right-wingers) view "greed" as a feature of the system or they view capitalism as the best tool for guiding this "greed" into an "optimal social outcome". These are the same right-wingers who say "greed is good" and it is "human nature" to be greedy and selfish.
What is your view on the above?
Alternatively, maybe as people mature they understand the world is not simple black and white, is complex,
Says the same person who said:
As the old truism goes - If you're not left-wing at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain
Sounds like a black and white (absolute) statement to me.
that government is not the solution to all problems,
I doubt you'll find a single respectable left-winger who would agree with that statement. I would venture to say that it would be close to, if not is, a strawman.
and gradual pragmatic solutions are the best approach to improving society.
Sounds like another black and white (absolute) statement to me. Sometimes solutions should be gradual (eg. an increase or decrease in a tax should be gradual so that businesses can adjust to it) or it should be immediate (eg. if you're underpaying your employees, you'd better pay them back immediately or face the consquences).
Another thing about "gradual" solutions, suppose that we live in olden day America where black slavery was legal. Would you prefer a "gradual" banning of slavery or would you prefer an immediate illegalisation of slavery? Would your opinion on the legality of slavery change if you were a black slave yourself?
If you're a Lefty….
Why's that? Don't righty's like evidence?
JV I presume is referring to the Guardian's editorials - which are Lefty. Editorials are opinion not evidence. They may or may not be well argued, and may or may not be backed by evidence.
It would be laughable to try and equate the level of evidenced based journalism in the Daily Telegraph to The Guardian
@yoyomablue: I think you confuse what you call "evidenced based journalism" with publications that have an editorial bias that reinforces your existing views.
@rokufan:
I only read news from the government sites such as the ABC & BBC, as I know that they are more likely to report based on evidence, as opposed to Murdoch's own fairy floss (designed for the wilfully ignorant)
As for The Guardian being left wing and being biased, well there is a saying 'facts & reality are the domain of the left wing'.
Even right wingers bandy the comment about that 'academics are lefties', not realising they are shooting their own ideological message in the foot with it.
@yoyomablue: Oh dear, so blind. You would be laughed out of Canberra for saying the ABC is unbiased, the same goes for the BBC. At least you can acknowledge the Guardian is lefty.
Oh dear, so blind. You would be laughed out of Canberra for saying the ABC is unbiased, the same goes for the BBC.
In which commment/post did yoyomablue say, insinuate or imply that the "ABC is unbiased"?
thanks OP, love reading this
Got this before, good deal.