This was posted 2 years 3 months 17 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Campaign Stickers: Free via Email Request or $1 Donation (Expired) @ Smart Energy Council

1131190
Campaign Stickers: Free via Email Request or $1 Donation (Expired) @ Smart Energy Council
Go to Deal
Korban Dallas on 10/01/2022 - 12:12 smartenergy.org.au (9746 clicks)
Last edited 11/01/2022 - 11:34 by 2 other users

Here here an election is near and what better way to express your thoughts at the current Government or our industrious leader on a bin.

If you want better ones they will cost you

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/scott+morrison+pm+stickers
https://shop.australianunions.org.au/products/scomo-bumper-s…

From the Council. If you want them free Contact Lindsay.

You can bulk order them to a single address for free (just let me know quantities) or people can pay as little as $1 $5 $10 $5 for a pack via the donation link. There's also the option to pay another amount.

Mod - Description edited. Donation minimum is now $5 $10 $5 (custom field) instead of $1. Free stickers are via email only (according to information above). We'll consider the donation part expired due to the minimum price increase, we assume they are still available for free unless told otherwise (please report if so).

Mod - This deal meets our posting guidelines & there have been previous similar deals posted. #1 Stop Adani Sticker Pack, #2 Start Adani Sticker Pack, #3 Australian Greens Bumper Sticker, #4 Free Tote Bag Delivered From Sam Hibbins MP.

As always, votes need to be made within the voting guidelines. Any negative vote without an explanation given (e.g. "agree" or "no deal") will be revoked by a moderator as per this list. Neg votes for any other reason won't be removed by a mod. These are verbatim phrases.

Home & Garden Sticker

Related Stores

Smart Energy Council
Smart Energy Council

closed Comments

                                        • ihfree on 14/01/2022 - 20:18
                                          -1

                                          @1st-Amendment: We still disagree on key points: I don't consider your argument valid and you don't consider my argument valid. There's nowhere to go from here other than cheap shots which you're just as guilty of. In fact, your first comment here is a cheap shot.

                                          I do wonder about Lib voters who are effectively abandoning Liberal principles. They see a list of corruption and think "Daddy, give me more"

                                          • 1st-Amendment on 15/01/2022 - 09:35
                                            +2

                                            @ihfree:

                                            We still disagree on key points: I don't consider your argument valid

                                            Well you actually do agree you even said so here:

                                            Other aspects such as cost to the economy based on additional testing would likely be harder to model accurately.

                                            You see that is my entire point, models are guesses and shouldn't be substituted for fact, and you actually agreed with that here without being aware of it.

                                            I do wonder about Lib voters

                                            That's nice. What does this have to do with the reliability and accuracy of models?

                                            They see a list of corruption and think "Daddy, give me more"

                                            Making wild assumptions again? Do you see the pattern here?

                                            • ihfree on 15/01/2022 - 10:18

                                              @1st-Amendment: Well, it's a fact that RATs cost less than a PCR test with or without modelling.

                                              What's your education level, btw? Cwongtech asked you on that other thread and you went silent.

                                              • 1st-Amendment on 15/01/2022 - 10:49

                                                @ihfree:

                                                Well, it's a fact that RATs cost less than a PCR test with or without modelling.

                                                Cool, and no testing costs even less. So now explain how spending some money on something is cheaper than spending no money?
                                                The only way to do this is to assume some value from spending the money that gives a return on investment that outweighs the original investment using some sort of… what for it… economic modelling. Welcome to where we started…

                                                What's your education level

                                                Argument from authority is one of the most basic of logical fallacies. But you and your goofy mate seem to have no idea what these are, hence why a simple discussion has dragged on and on while I explain the basics of deductive logic to you over and over again

                                                • ihfree on 15/01/2022 - 10:52

                                                  @1st-Amendment: So, what is your education level?

                                                • ihfree on 15/01/2022 - 11:00

                                                  @1st-Amendment: To be fair, you did bring up education level first

                                                  Most likely you never finished high school and vote Labor or Greens lol…

                                                  Nobody likes a hypocrite.

                                                  • 1st-Amendment on 15/01/2022 - 14:49

                                                    @ihfree:

                                                    Nobody likes a hypocrite

                                                    So once again your entire position is based on yet another a false assumption… what a wonderful world it must be in your head…

                    • ihfree on 14/01/2022 - 12:12
                      -1

                      @1st-Amendment: Hi @Payton, Nice to see you following along in all these discussions! I guess you're one of them Quiet Australians we hear about.

                      • payton on 14/01/2022 - 13:35

                        @ihfree: na I just like audience participation

            • Korban Dallas on 13/01/2022 - 18:19

              @1st-Amendment: Wayyy cheaper than getting a PCR mate.

              Makes perfect economic sense. Maybe 4 hrs waiting in a queue instead of picking up one of these RATs see how much traffic jambs cost the economy?

              The issue is there is not enough RATs to go around. It's a cluster fudge

              Not exactly free in Holland but look at the stocks

              https://twitter.com/AlisonSBarrett/status/148118823709614490…

              Does 3.5b of new tanks make economic sense?

              • 1st-Amendment on 14/01/2022 - 11:34

                @Korban Dallas:

                Wayyy cheaper than getting a PCR mate.

                This is not an argument for why the tax payer should pay for something.
                They are cheaper because they are less reliable which feeds into why the taxpayer should be forced to pay for something that will probably offer very little value.

                Makes perfect economic sense

                Only if you have no idea how economics works…

                • loki niflheim on 14/01/2022 - 12:01
                  +1

                  @1st-Amendment: I am no economist so I don't know how to calculate the cost of public good.

                  I can only say that historically it has been a good move when a resource that is beneficial for common good (ie. reduction in spread of COVID), is made accessible with as few barriers possible. The effect often observed otherwise is those who 'have' ends up squandering and monopolizing the resource, reducing access for the 'have nots', increasing the gap between the haves and have nots which further restricts democratic freedom and bargaining power of the have nots.

                  This generally further stagnates progress and beneficial change driven by community need (as their bargaining power weakened). For ozbargainers, this is not a good thing because bargains don't come out of a monopoly :P

                  • 1st-Amendment on 14/01/2022 - 14:38

                    @loki niflheim:

                    I am no economist so I don't know how to calculate the cost of public good.

                    Good start. Being aware of your own limitations is the first step to progress :)

                    I can only say that historically it has been a good move when a resource that is beneficial for common good (ie. reduction in spread of COVID), is made accessible with as few barriers possible

                    I sort of agree, but who decides what is 'beneficial'? In the case of Covid, some experts think that a 'suppression strategy' offers the most benefit, but other experts think that a 'herd immunity' approach is better. Who decides?

                    The effect often observed otherwise is those who 'have' ends up squandering and monopolizing the resource, reducing access for the 'have nots'

                    I disagree. In a free market, resources do flow down as observed by every free market economy where the average worker now has access to much more luxury than even the world's richest people had 100 years ago. Monopolies are more prevalent in heavily controlled markets, so the lesson here is more freer markets, less centralised control.

                    increasing the gap between the haves and have nots which further restricts democratic freedom and bargaining power of the have nots.

                    Also not true. Contrary to popular belief, an increasing gap is a good sign of economic growth. In poor and tightly controlled markets, everyone is equal, equally poor. In wealthier and freer markets, there is more variation, because as the economic pie grows, people are free to work harder or easier according to their need, ie greater variation. As long as everyone still gets a vote, economic variability is a good thing.

                    This generally further stagnates progress and beneficial change driven by community need

                    Also not true. Innovation comes from freer markets (there is a reason why the US invents most things) because creators are willing risk more to make more. The thing that stagnates progress is too many regulations and overly restricted markets (See the old Communist China or Soviet Union, they had almost no innovation). These countries became more productive only once they opened up their markets somewhat.

                    For ozbargainers, this is not a good thing because bargains don't come out of a monopoly

                    Correct. So why would you want a government controlled monopoly for test kits when the private sector does it so much better?

                    Here's a good analogy, A SpaceX launch (private sector) cost $60M. When the USAF uses SpaceX it cost the taxpayer $100M. Why is this? Same hardware, same outcome, the difference is the layers of bureaucracy that government bureaucrats add in. If you want a bargain, ensure the government is nowhere near it.

                    • loki niflheim on 25/01/2022 - 22:56

                      @1st-Amendment:

                      I sort of agree, but who decides what is 'beneficial'? In the case of Covid, some experts think that a 'suppression strategy' offers the most benefit, but other experts think that a 'herd immunity' approach is better. Who decides?

                      The thing is, people still use 'basic principles' with COVID, something like herd immunity. Possible approaches changes with time. Suppression strategy worked before vaccine was available and herd immunity became possible when vaccines were available. It can be both, not a question of one or the other. Herd immunity is one type of 'suppression strategy' while the virus is still actively mutating. This behaviour is similar to flu, herd immunity through flu vaccination does not eradicate flu, it suppresses an outbreak.

                      Now for the below points you raised, you're mixing a few things that sounds true but not quite right in detail.

                      I disagree. In a free market, resources do flow down as observed by every free market economy where the average worker now has access to much more luxury than even the world's richest people had 100 years ago.

                      The access to more luxury in the world now is not due to resources that 'flown down', you're implying as if the resources given to the rich benefits the poor or that the rich gave away resources that they had to the poorer. It was due to the competition among the producers that forced them to innovate and came up with the complex supply chains we now have, driving down cost. However as we now knew, many of these producers don't necessarily put into account any human, social or environmental costs into their pricing model. Providing resources to the rich have, historically seen, improvements in money-making activities that stimulate the economy in the short term but not necessarily support the communities it serves in the long term.

                      Monopolies are more prevalent in heavily controlled markets

                      This depends on context and country's policies/level of government corruption. Monopoly aren't necessarily more prevalent in heavily-controlled markets nor heavily-controlled markets make monopoly more prevalent. Depends on the meaning/context and level of 'heavily-controlled'. Before anti-competition laws exist, markets weren't heavily controlled and we had monopoly which gave birth to anti-competition laws.

                      Contrary to popular belief, an increasing gap is a good sign of economic growth.

                      As above, most of the time it is short term economic growth that then lost steam after some time and people start accepting it as 'cyclical' (ie. bulls and bears).

                      In wealthier and freer markets, there is more variation, because as the economic pie grows, people are free to work harder or easier according to their need, ie greater variation.

                      This line is true, but having previous two lines in the same paragraph you were suggesting that greater wealth gap means wealthier and freer markets, which is not true. You're an expert in mixing up the false and the true to make the false sounds true.

                      Innovation comes from freer markets

                      Also not quite true. What brings about innovation is not just 'freer markets' however I agree that removing many obstacles or better framework for entrepreneurship in Australia would be beneficial.

                      Correct. So why would you want a government controlled monopoly for test kits when the private sector does it so much better?

                      I wasn't arguing for government controlled monopoly, I was talking about free kits and, during shortage, it should be distributed where the government mandated its use so that the distribution enables the execution of government policy.

                      Here's a good analogy, A SpaceX launch (private sector) cost $60M. When the USAF uses SpaceX it cost the taxpayer $100M. Why is this? Same hardware, same outcome, the difference is the layers of bureaucracy that government bureaucrats add in. If you want a bargain, ensure the government is nowhere near it.

                      Government is a monopoly on its own, this is basically your point. However the context we're discussing here is the distribution of an essential product for public good that is in short supply.

                      • 1st-Amendment on 26/01/2022 - 18:27

                        @loki niflheim:

                        you're implying as if the resources given to the rich…

                        Nope, not implying that at all.
                        With any new innovation, being new and rare means it will be expensive to start with, so only wealthy people can afford it at first.This is expected.
                        In a free market, suppliers will then compete to make it cheaper and more available to sell more of them to profit. This profit incentive and desire to compete drives pretty much all progress. So innovation flows down from rich to everyone thanks to free market forces.
                        This is the reason why almost all the world's innovation comes from capitalist economies.

                        The alternative is where you mandate all new innovation goes to everyone equally, because bruh, equality! No company can afford that business model so they simply stop inventing new things and then no-one ever gets new stuff. Everyone suffers equally. See every socialist economy ever for examples of this.

                        This depends on context and country's policies/level of government corruption.

                        Name a monopoly that didn't require government interference?

                        you were suggesting that greater wealth gap means wealthier and freer markets which is not true.

                        Yet you are unable to demonstrate why you think this is not true.
                        You only have to think about it a little to see it. If two people freely choose different paths in life, one might decide to be a plumber, the other might decide to develop a fancy new app. Person A makes a comfortable living, and Person B becomes a billionaire. Big gap, but free choice all the way.
                        Compare that to Ivan and Dmitry, they also want to be a plumber and app dev respectively, but the socialist government has decided that in order to keep things fair, they will both work in the exact same job in the salt mines earning the exact same $10/day. No gap, no choice, no new apps for anybody, but hey we're all equal!

                        Which do you think is a better outcome? Bigger wealth gap or smaller wealth gap? Which one has the freer market? More overall wealth?

                        Also not quite true.

                        Once again you never say why.

                        I wasn't arguing for government controlled monopoly, I was talking about free kits

                        The only way you get 'free' stuff is if the government is taking money from someone to give to someone else. And if this scheme relies solely on government power then it is a monopoly, not a free market.

                        However the context we're discussing here is the distribution of an essential product for public good that is in short supply.

                        RATs are not essential, they're not even that reliable. So the fact the the government has tried to make them essential just proves my point that the government are useless at everything. Why would you want these people more involved in more of your life when they are so objectively useless at everything?

                • Korban Dallas on 14/01/2022 - 12:47

                  @1st-Amendment: I guess we are the lucky country.

                  Aren't some as high as 95% effective?

                  https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jan/05/scott…

                  • 1st-Amendment on 14/01/2022 - 13:13

                    @Korban Dallas:

                    Aren't some as high as 95% effective?

                    95% effective at giving an accurate result, not 95% effective at preventing further infection. Two vastly different things.

                    So let's play this out. Say you get symptoms, get your free test which shows positive but because you were infectious for the past 48 hours prior to symptoms you've already infected 2 other people? Rinse repeat for them, then add in 5% of the population that get incorrect results, and another 10% that do the tests wrong so get incorrect results, and another 20% that don't give a damn and you start to paint a picture of the likely real world outcome.

                    • Korban Dallas on 14/01/2022 - 13:20

                      @1st-Amendment: At the moment there are long wait times for PCR tests, definition of close contact has changed and RATs are hard to come by. Not to mention reporting of positive rat tests is flakey.

                      Can't exactly quantify this current state of affairs. But I bet it's pretty diabolical. But the case numbers are skyrocketing.

                      People are like F it.

                      Imagine if our covid safe app actually worked.

                      We have many that don't know they are infected.

                      • 1st-Amendment on 14/01/2022 - 13:30

                        @Korban Dallas:

                        But the case numbers are skyrocketing. People are like F it.

                        And yet strangely, the sky hasn't fallen, so maybe all this testing isn't so important after all?

                        Remember we had skyrocketing numbers under strict PCR testing. There is no reason to think that more vague RAT will produce a better result.

                        • Korban Dallas on 14/01/2022 - 13:38

                          @1st-Amendment: It's a case of actually worse than what it is.

                          Hopefully numbers will start to come down I hope

                          • 1st-Amendment on 14/01/2022 - 13:45
                            +1

                            @Korban Dallas:

                            Hopefully numbers will start to come down I hope

                            That will happen once a significant percentage of the population have been infected and have developed necessary antibodies to protect against it. At the rate we're going this could be a only a few months away.
                            Blowing taxpayer funds on expensive and flaky test schemes won't achieve that.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2022 - 13:03
        +6

        Its NOT Free as you still need to pay to get the stickers

      • vicsta on 10/01/2022 - 14:22
        -1

        Actually not really a free sticker, you go to the link and it will ask you for a donation of $20

        "Free" actually isn't even mentioned on the website

        • taki on 10/01/2022 - 14:55
          +3

          Donation is voluntary. The inaction is too costly.
          Prevention is the cheapest solution. It cost us too much with this incapable government.

      • taki on 10/01/2022 - 14:54
        -1

        Prevention is the cheapest solution. It cost us too much with this incapable government :(

    • pizzaguy on 10/01/2022 - 12:20
      +6

      It is to me. Eneloops and airfryers may be to somebody else.

    • Jazza2400 on 10/01/2022 - 12:23
      +7

      stop making it political, your children's children will thank you

      • pizzaguy on 10/01/2022 - 12:25
        +28

        There's a genocide happening in our country!
        STOP MAKING IT POLITICAL

      • bobbieb on 10/01/2022 - 12:25
        +5

        LOL How exactly how does one make the offer of a sticker with a political slogan on it, not political?

        • Jazza2400 on 10/01/2022 - 12:40
          +1

          Ummm, it's a man holding a piece of coal and we want to throw him in the bin?

          Tell me again how is that political?

      • ThithLord on 10/01/2022 - 12:52
        +6

        yes this is a christian server

      • justtoreply on 10/01/2022 - 13:43
        +1

        Don't worry. All the old people dying is scomo's way of fixing affordability for the younger generation.

        Derp. Of course not. But there's no way this thread can't be political. After a while the pollies based their policy on "we (profanity) up let's just make sure we get voted in next time.. Sorry Nanna but you're done."

    • compound on 10/01/2022 - 14:26
      +3

      It's always been free for the LNP via the MSM.

    • sethowar on 10/01/2022 - 16:55
      +1

      Wow, clearly mods either like politics on ozbargains or hate scomo enough to overlook it. Every other comment is unpublished.

    • arcticmonkey on 10/01/2022 - 17:53
      +1

      That's what exists for the LNP in the Murdoch and Nine/Costello press.

      This poster summed things up well: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/11592556/redir

      Even people who went to school with Morrison have issues with his character.

      An evil and incompetent person who is making the country a laughing stock and causing us great pain

    • furyou on 10/01/2022 - 22:44

      yep, outrage is in, and ozb wants part of the pie.

  • dynaflow on 10/01/2022 - 12:18
    +98

    No Politics or Religion discussed on this Forum please.

    • Owl on 10/01/2022 - 12:38
      +36

      100% agree. Anyone who wants this kind of material should go to Reddit or Twitter.

      • diddy50 on 10/01/2022 - 14:16
        +8

        twitter is a cesspool

      • BugsBunnyAUS on 10/01/2022 - 15:29
        +19

        Well said. This isn't a bargain, it's political activism and it shouldn't really have a place in this site.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2022 - 16:01
        +9

        Well-said. The post will remain up because OzB is loving the sweet, sweet advertising revenue from Google.

    • Koffee on 10/01/2022 - 12:57
      +25

      This is political advertising, not a bargain.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2022 - 13:05
        +6

        Its worse than that as the stickers are NOT Free as you still need to pay to get the stickers

      • WillKillfor5Cents on 10/01/2022 - 14:30
        +6

        How is this a bargain lol… there's no use to me unless I'm politically inclined to a certain party. But all of them lot are useless anyway, the far left, the center, the far right. all garbage!

        Just commenting so can neg this deal. Rubbish!

        • wizza13 on 10/01/2022 - 15:46
          -2

          I pity people that think this way… when political difference is too much for a simple mind, the reaction is "they're all the same!"

          Not even a semblance of critical thought

    • AustriaBargain on 10/01/2022 - 12:57
      +1

      dyna-no.

    • bchliu on 10/01/2022 - 12:59
      +9

      Lol. "Agreed" only when it's about the Fascist LNP government. But hey, ok if it was just politics about Chinese culturally related products that have nothing to do with Chinese government and just a facade for racism??

      If there is a ban, ban everything Politics instead of making up the rules as you go along because right wing snowflakes are too hurt.

      • FabMan on 10/01/2022 - 13:23

        Lefty here, should be banned.

        • JPerez on 10/01/2022 - 14:17

          The far-left do not like moderate liberals.

          Hence they negged your comment.

          • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2022 - 14:45
            +1

            @JPerez: this just in, extremists don't like centrists. more shocking news coming your way at 6pm.

    • FabMan on 10/01/2022 - 13:23
      +4

      I concur!

      Also

      "If you are game you can do some guerrilla marketing and do everyone's bin in your street."

      Don't do this scummy shit to people.

    • Zilch on 10/01/2022 - 13:43

      Agreed

    • BarrytheBargain on 10/01/2022 - 13:53
      +2

      Agree, particularly if encouraging people to stick it on other people's bins.

      • taki on 10/01/2022 - 14:59
        +1

        You don't understand jokes nor the seriousness of saving money.

        Prevention is the cheapest solution. It cost us too much with this incapable government.

    • 9999fine on 10/01/2022 - 14:46
      +4

      considering firearms deals, nicotine deals and similar 'controversial' deals are banned, partisan political items like this would be logical to remove too

    • taki on 10/01/2022 - 14:58
      +4

      Australia is not secular country. We put religious events ahead of (inter) national.
      It's about saving money.

      Prevention is the cheapest solution. It cost us too much with this incapable government.

    • cbalcs on 10/01/2022 - 17:06
      +3

      This shouldn't be on OzBargain

    • bblackwo on 10/01/2022 - 20:51
      +3

      Agreed. I don't come to OzBargain for politics, I come here for bargains. This isn't a bargain.

  • ssmith78 on 10/01/2022 - 12:18
    +11

    Seriously?

  • Binchicken22 on 10/01/2022 - 12:18
    +59

    🙄 Is this really what ozbargain wants to become?

    If I owned this site I'd be banning political promotions like this.

    • Binchicken22 on 10/01/2022 - 12:22
      +20

      Will order one just to waste their campaign $$$ though 😉 Sorry neggers.

      • ntt on 10/01/2022 - 12:31
        +24

        he using N* word!

        ntt on 10/01/2022 - 12:31 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
        • Brian McGee on 10/01/2022 - 12:47
          +9

          People that annoy you.

          N_GGERS.

          .

          .

          .

          Oh, NAGGERS, yeah right

      • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2022 - 12:35
        +10

        Negger please.

      • Dandaman21 on 10/01/2022 - 13:31
        +3

        So brave!

      • Zaddo on 10/01/2022 - 13:51

        Absolutely brilliant idea!! Minimum donation was $0.70 for delivery, so can get quite a few…. I am already paying for these with my tax $'s, so why not get some and use them as I see fit….

    • snep on 10/01/2022 - 12:39
      +18

      Yeah my personal views support the sentiment of the slogan (not a fan of scomo), but I agree that ozb deals isn't the place for this, free or not.

      I doubt many of the upvoters would be happy to see liberal campaign posters on the front page, and I think we should apply standards equally.

      • veritas_mendax on 10/01/2022 - 13:15
        +3

        this is probably the most reasonable response on this 'deal'

    • Villainous on 10/01/2022 - 13:07
      +7

      "…I'd be banning political promotions like this."

      Isn't that political?

      • ShouldIBuyIt on 10/01/2022 - 14:47
        +3

        Ouch, burnt!

      • Binchicken22 on 10/01/2022 - 15:26
        +1

        I dunno if you are intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying or not, but what I mean is, I'd be banning all political "deals" from being posted on ozbargain.

        Especially just straight up campaign material like this.

        Are we going to have "deals" where people post up saying you can get a "Free LNP pre election sign to stick in your front yard and you even get to keep the timber stake! What a deal guys!"

    • taki on 10/01/2022 - 15:01

      Prevention is the cheapest solution that saves money. It cost us too much with this incapable government.

    • Drakesy on 10/01/2022 - 12:23
      +57

      Charcoal is not coal though?

      • Flyerone on 10/01/2022 - 12:35
        +5

        Although the username totally checks out.

      • ntt on 10/01/2022 - 12:45
        -2

        will they use coal to make charcoal?

        • Drakesy on 10/01/2022 - 12:48
          +13

          They burn wood/woodchips in a low oxygen environment and what you're left with is pure charcoal/carbon.
          No coal needed.

          Briquettes are a combination of this, waxes, binders, charcoal fines, wood charcoal (and on the odd occasion coal, however i haven't found one with coal in it to date).

    • CJ31 on 10/01/2022 - 12:44
      +6

      BBQ fail.

      • burningrage on 10/01/2022 - 14:39
        +1

        Guilty as charged!

    • blergmonkeys on 10/01/2022 - 12:45
      +11

      I nominate this for dumbest ozb comment of the year

      • ThithLord on 10/01/2022 - 14:19
        +1

        Bruh how the heck did you even decide on that? There are millions of worthy comments!

      • burningrage on 10/01/2022 - 14:39

        Wow. That's harsh. I hope you won't make any mistake this year.

    • burningrage on 10/01/2022 - 14:40
      -1

      Not sure why the negative vote is revoked. This is not a bargain.

  • PinzVidz on 10/01/2022 - 12:20
    +13

    Is there an Engadine Maccas one?

    • Korban Dallas on 10/01/2022 - 12:28
      +2

      There is but that would cost you.

      • ThithLord on 10/01/2022 - 14:44
        +4

        When you see the price, well, you might just sh!t your pants

  • pakkapie on 10/01/2022 - 12:21
    +27

    Where's the bargain? Political advertising here will explode if this is a deal.

    • taki on 10/01/2022 - 15:03
      +3

      You don't understand the seriousness of saving money.

      Prevention is the cheapest solution. It cost us too much with this incapable government.

    • Caped Baldy on 10/01/2022 - 16:34
      +1

      Just like all the RAT bargains?

  • ameno on 10/01/2022 - 12:21
    +10

    This sticker would only look good on the inside of a bin.

    • AustriaBargain on 10/01/2022 - 12:22
      +37

      Just like Slomo.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2022 - 13:07
      -1

      The BIN should have enough space left to fill them with Greenies … LOL

  • AustriaBargain on 10/01/2022 - 12:21
    +24

    Good deal. You’d have to pay News Corp $2.30 for a sheet of paper that says “KICK THIS MOB OUT” if ALP were in power. This is a sticker, and it’s free, it’s win/win.

    • RockyRaccoon on 10/01/2022 - 13:56

      What came first?

      Chicken or Egg

      ABC countering Newscorp
      News Corp countering ABC.

      Only difference is that those wanting Newscorp pay out of their pocket, where as those wanting ABC have it free.

      • bokka on 10/01/2022 - 21:47
        +1

        ABC isn't political. News corp is.

      • ihfree on 10/01/2022 - 22:19
        +3

        News Corp countering ABC.

        They don't really counter the ABC, they straight out attack the ABC. Do you really think that News Corp, an organisation started to spread propaganda against workers, has your best interests at heart? Or, maybe that their aim somehow changed?

        New Corp are protecting/expanding their own and their donor's revenue streams, creating a common enemy for their followers to rally against, and playing the victim. From watching News Corp, they use cult like tactics. I was surprised to see all the childish memes, such as "Dictator Dan", used on their channel. I honestly didn't realise to what degree they were like Fox News. (FYI: Fox leaves viewers less informed)

        where as those wanting ABC have it free.

        The government provides services that are not used by everyone. Just because I don't make use of a service the government provides, I don't want it cancelled or privatised. Prime example - The ABC, I don't watch it. They are enough of a public interest organisation that they deserve to exist. They should however be more independent from the government.

        We don't have and American model for media, and you should be thankful for that. Realistically, privatising the ABC would never work. Anything that counters New Corp, an American owned foreign influence over our country, is a good thing.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join