NationStates Jolt Archive

From the ABC's The World Today
(see link for the full transcript or scroll down)
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1110676.htm

JOHN VALDER: "...I think that he (john howard) could possible lose his own seat in the forthcoming election, regardless of whether the Liberals as a whole are returned or Labor.

He has three pretty strong independents standing against him in an electorate where there has developed considerable hostility.

I spoke at a meeting on Friday night in the electorate, on the question of refugees, and in a church hall on a Friday night there were 500 people, they're all hostile to John Howard. So I don't exclude the possibility of him losing his seat, and the Liberals being returned, which of course, would solve the problem of succession, wouldn't it?"



http://www.andrewwilkie.org.au/
http://www.nsw.greens.org.au/
http://www.greens.org.au/

From the ABC's The World Today
(see link for the full transcript or scroll down)
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1110676.htm

JOHN VALDER: "...I think that he (john howard) could possible lose his own seat in the forthcoming election, regardless of whether the Liberals as a whole are returned or Labor.

He has three pretty strong independents standing against him in an electorate where there has developed considerable hostility.

I spoke at a meeting on Friday night in the electorate, on the question of refugees, and in a church hall on a Friday night there were 500 people, they're all hostile to John Howard. So I don't exclude the possibility of him losing his seat, and the Liberals being returned, which of course, would solve the problem of succession, wouldn't it?"



http://www.andrewwilkie.org.au/
http://www.nsw.greens.org.au/
http://www.greens.org.au/

Isn't Howard that Australian racist guy?

if it gets rid of him i'll vote.

From the ABC's The World Today
(see link for the full transcript or scroll down)
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1110676.htm

JOHN VALDER: "...I think that he (john howard) could possible lose his own seat in the forthcoming election, regardless of whether the Liberals as a whole are returned or Labor.

He has three pretty strong independents standing against him in an electorate where there has developed considerable hostility.

I spoke at a meeting on Friday night in the electorate, on the question of refugees, and in a church hall on a Friday night there were 500 people, they're all hostile to John Howard. So I don't exclude the possibility of him losing his seat, and the Liberals being returned, which of course, would solve the problem of succession, wouldn't it?"



http://www.andrewwilkie.org.au/
http://www.nsw.greens.org.au/
http://www.greens.org.au/

Isn't Howard that Australian racist guy?

yer, the prime minister

I am an American, but I heard that your "John" "Howard" was mistreating the aborigines. Is this true, mate!?

I am an American, but I heard that your "John" "Howard" was mistreating the aborigines. Is this true, mate!?

in not a typical aussie, so there will be no mate or gday from me, and shrimp are prawns

and yes, to him the aboriginies dont exist or arent important enough to. the only thing important to JH is rich caucasians (white)
he wont even say sorry about almost all of them being wiped out when the english came, even if he doenst agree he could atleast swallow his pride and say it anyway

I am an American, but I heard that your "John" "Howard" was mistreating the aborigines. Is this true, mate!?

in not a typical aussie, so there will be no mate or gday from me, and shrimp are prawns

and yes, to him the aboriginies dont exist or arent important enough to. the only thing important to JH is rich caucasians (white)
he wont even say sorry about almost all of them being wiped out when the english came, even if he doenst agree he could atleast swallow his pride and say it anyway

we are not responsible for our ancestors deeds

I am an American, but I heard that your "John" "Howard" was mistreating the aborigines. Is this true, mate!?

in not a typical aussie, so there will be no mate or gday from me, and shrimp are prawns

and yes, to him the aboriginies dont exist or arent important enough to. the only thing important to JH is rich caucasians (white)
he wont even say sorry about almost all of them being wiped out when the english came, even if he doenst agree he could atleast swallow his pride and say it anyway

we are not responsible for our ancestors deeds

we are not, but what happened was genocide, it is just a word, he doesnt need to mean it, and it will make a lot of people happy

-snip-



we are not responsible for our ancestors deeds

we are not, but what happened was genocide, it is just a word, he doesnt need to mean it, and it will make a lot of people happy

wouldnt that make him lose credability? just saying it to make people happy when its completly false and the current government had nothing to do with it?
I know I would lose what respect I had for him

wouldnt that make him lose credability? just saying it to make people happy when its completly false and the current government had nothing to do with it?

"lose credability" :lol: do you forget who we're talking about, the guy who lied about the tampa, *insert hundred more lies*

http://www.gaiaguys.net/wilcox.jpg


saying sorry is still the good thing to do, so why should it matter

wouldnt that make him lose credability? just saying it to make people happy when its completly false and the current government had nothing to do with it?

"lose credability" :lol: do you forget who we're talking about, the guy who lied about the tampa, *insert hundred more lies*

-snip-


saying sorry is still the good thing to do, so why should it matter

gee im sorry about the starving children in africa, but what difference does that make?
yes he has lied, so do all leaders but this would just be adding another one to the novel
"lies ive told" written by J. Howard

pretty funny cartoon by the way

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

wouldnt that make him lose credability? just saying it to make people happy when its completly false and the current government had nothing to do with it?

"lose credability" :lol: do you forget who we're talking about, the guy who lied about the tampa, *insert hundred more lies*

-snip-


saying sorry is still the good thing to do, so why should it matter

gee im sorry about the starving children in africa, but what difference does that make?
yes he has lied, so do all leaders but this would just be adding another one to the novel
"lies ive told" written by J. Howard

pretty funny cartoon by the way

true, but he can do something about this (but seriously that book would be huge, type in john howard and lies in google)

and Unholy Cyril is right, if he is not going to say sorry (which i dont care about but they do), atleat do something to help the aboriginies, i am sick of if your aboriginal automatic benefits, not only is that unfair it doesnt help, we need a full fix, not a patch

wouldnt that make him lose credability? just saying it to make people happy when its completly false and the current government had nothing to do with it?

"lose credability" :lol: do you forget who we're talking about, the guy who lied about the tampa, *insert hundred more lies*

-snip-


saying sorry is still the good thing to do, so why should it matter

gee im sorry about the starving children in africa, but what difference does that make?
yes he has lied, so do all leaders but this would just be adding another one to the novel
"lies ive told" written by J. Howard

pretty funny cartoon by the way

true, but he can do something about this (but seriously that book would be huge, type in john howard and lies in google)

and Unholy Cyril is right, if he is not going to say sorry (which i dont care about but they do), atleat do something to help the aboriginies, i am sick of if your aboriginal automatic benefits, not only is that unfair it doesnt help, we need a full fix, not a patch

I would like a definition of holy land though, that is a crock, but that could be because im an athesist

the only thing in my eyes that makes a land holy is a church/place of worship or a graveyard

not some drawing on the walls,

I would like a definition of holy land though, that is a crock, but that could be because im an athesist

the only thing in my eyes that makes a land holy is a church/place of worship or a graveyard

not some drawing on the walls,

:? :?: either wrong thread or read wrong

*add pic for funny*

http://www.gaiaguys.net/cartoonhowardandIUncleSam.jpg

I would like a definition of holy land though, that is a crock, but that could be because im an athesist

the only thing in my eyes that makes a land holy is a church/place of worship or a graveyard

not some drawing on the walls,

:? :?: either wrong thread or read wrong

-snip- that one sucked


I was talking about Aboriginal benefits and giving back land etc

I would like a definition of holy land though, that is a crock, but that could be because im an athesist

the only thing in my eyes that makes a land holy is a church/place of worship or a graveyard

not some drawing on the walls,

:? :?: either wrong thread or read wrong

-snip- that one sucked



I was talking about Aboriginal benefits and giving back land etc

i didnt know they had that, i guess it is land they from the dream time eg aires rock (spelling), most of that stuff is in the center, let them have it, or give them some good land and rest further in

http://www.gaiaguys.net/18.4moirhate.jpg

I was talking about Aboriginal benefits and giving back land etc

i didnt know they had that, i guess it is land they from the dream time eg aires rock (spelling), most of that stuff is in the center, let them have it, or give them some good land and rest further in

http://www.gaiaguys.net/18.4moirhate.jpgso true
ayres rock or uluru
yeah there isnt much there but I cannot see how they claim to have ownership of the land

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I would like a definition of holy land though, that is a crock, but that could be because im an athesist

the only thing in my eyes that makes a land holy is a church/place of worship or a graveyard

not some drawing on the walls,

Please tell me that statement was just intended to be provocative.

If you're an athiest, what do you think makes a church holy?

I try to respect other peoples beliefs unless they are just ....... silly

A lot of people hate Howard.

A lot of people hate Howard.

meh he'll probably still get my vote, cause Labor still dont have a strong leader, Mark Latham is better then Kim Beazley but still up to it

ayres rock or uluru
yeah there isnt much there but I cannot see how they claim to have ownership of the land

like i said dream time, which also equals palestine and israel
i say give it to them, i dont care about it, plus it would stop any religious problems later

http://www.gaiaguys.net/moir%20code.jpg



------------------------------
how about voting greens
------------------------------

greens hey, ahh no

greens hey, ahh no

why

ayres rock or uluru
yeah there isnt much there but I cannot see how they claim to have ownership of the land

like i said dream time, which also equals palestine and israel
i say give it to them, i dont care about it, plus it would stop any religious problems later

http://www.gaiaguys.net/moir%20code.jpg



------------------------------
how about voting greens
------------------------------

they don't own it. regardless of it being sacred ground, it still belongs to the people of australia

they don't own it. regardless of it being sacred ground, it still belongs to the people of australia

i thought they are australians too and i thought they were here first, and i thought it means more to them then it does to none native australians

http://www.gaiaguys.net/wilcox%20UN%20foreigners.jpg

greens hey, ahh no

why because the Prime Minister of Australia is most likely going to be from the Labor party or the liberal party not a third party

they don't own it. regardless of it being sacred ground, it still belongs to the people of australia

i thought they are australians too and i thought they were here first, and i thought it means more to them then it does to none native australians

http://www.gaiaguys.net/wilcox%20UN%20foreigners.jpg

so what if they were here first? it doesnt give them automatic ownership of land

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

greens hey, ahh no

why
because the Prime Minister of Australia is most likely going to be from the Labor party or the liberal party not a third party

you do understand voting, majority of votes means they win, you = 1 more vote
plus with prefernce voting, labor gets your vote in the end

they don't own it. regardless of it being sacred ground, it still belongs to the people of australia

i thought they are australians too and i thought they were here first, and i thought it means more to them then it does to none native australians



Fine if we do give the land to the Aboriginals, its in the middle of nowhere the number of preventable Aboriginal deaths will skyrocket even further, then again public outcry

this is a no win situation

so what if they were here first? it doesnt give them automatic ownership of land

yer your right, i also own cuba now, and maybe china

so what if they were here first? it doesnt give them automatic ownership of land

yer your right, i also own cuba now, and maybe china

so what if they were here first? it doesnt give them automatic ownership of land

yer your right, i also own cuba now, and maybe china

so what if they were here first? it doesnt give them automatic ownership of land

yer your right, i also own cuba now, and maybe china

greens hey, ahh no

why
because the Prime Minister of Australia is most likely going to be from the Labor party or the liberal party not a third party

you do understand voting, majority of votes means they win, you = 1 more vote
plus with prefernce voting, labor gets your vote in the end

yes but 1 more vote for the greens wont give them anymore power, plus as you said with preference voting the vote will pretty much go to labor which does not have a strong leader, I agree with Howard as much as I disagree with him and since everyone has different opinions it probably the best it will get

From the ABC's The World Today
(see link for the full transcript or scroll down)
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1110676.htm

JOHN VALDER: "...I think that he (john howard) could possible lose his own seat in the forthcoming election, regardless of whether the Liberals as a whole are returned or Labor.

He has three pretty strong independents standing against him in an electorate where there has developed considerable hostility.

I spoke at a meeting on Friday night in the electorate, on the question of refugees, and in a church hall on a Friday night there were 500 people, they're all hostile to John Howard. So I don't exclude the possibility of him losing his seat, and the Liberals being returned, which of course, would solve the problem of succession, wouldn't it?"



http://www.andrewwilkie.org.au/
http://www.nsw.greens.org.au/
http://www.greens.org.au/

Amusing really...

500 people hate John Howard? WOW I thought it was a lot more. Oh well, he does have charisma.

Besides, the guy (greens) opposing him is a laughing stock with the electorate and Howard is a sure shoe in. Howard has as much chance as being thrown out of his seat as Latham has of being chucked out of Werriwa. It simply isn't going to happen.

...

he wont even say sorry about almost all of them being wiped out when the english came, even if he doenst agree he could atleast swallow his pride and say it anyway

That's because he isn't dumb enough to open the Commonwealth up to a law suit.

Now, I think the government could apologise to the Aboriginals on the following proviso:

That all Aboriginal leaders sign away the right to sue the Australian people for all forms of compensation.

I could live with that. An apology is meaningless anyway when you did no wrong to begin with.

yes but 1 more vote for the greens wont give them anymore power, plus as you said with preference voting the vote will pretty much go to labor which does not have a strong leader, I agree with Howard as much as I disagree with him and since everyone has different opinions it probably the best it will get

1 vote means everything, and i think latham can be very strong, no one can be ready for pm

and sorry for quadriple post, oh the shame *hangs head*

Amusing really...

500 people hate John Howard? WOW I thought it was a lot more. Oh well, he does have charisma.

Besides, the guy (greens) opposing him is a laughing stock with the electorate and Howard is a sure shoe in. Howard has as much chance as being thrown out of his seat as Latham has of being chucked out of Werriwa. It simply isn't going to happen.


the hall could only hold 500
a laughing stock, you dont even know who he is
and the guy who was talking was former Liberal Party president, john valder

1 vote means everything, and i think latham can be very strong, no one can be ready for pm

You have no idea how many Australians vote informal do you? HAHA

Huge numbers waste their vote because they simply couldn't care less who wins (it gets worse on a state and local level).

Latham cannot even tell us how much his policies cost, so I doubt the man has strength. His only strong point is that right hook :lol: I hear he packs quite a punch.

1 vote means everything, and i think latham can be very strong, no one can be ready for pm

You have no idea how many Australians vote informal do you? HAHA

Huge numbers waste their vote because they simply couldn't care less who wins (it gets worse on a state and local level).

Latham cannot even tell us how much his policies cost, so I doubt the man has strength. His only strong point is that right hook :lol: I hear he packs quite a punch.

funny, really
so 1 vote means nothing, why does anyone vote then

Amusing really...

500 people hate John Howard? WOW I thought it was a lot more. Oh well, he does have charisma.

Besides, the guy (greens) opposing him is a laughing stock with the electorate and Howard is a sure shoe in. Howard has as much chance as being thrown out of his seat as Latham has of being chucked out of Werriwa. It simply isn't going to happen.


the hall could only hold 500
a laughing stock, you dont even know who he is
and the guy who was talking was former Liberal Party president, john valder

And the electorate has 80,000. Most vote Howard but naturally there are people who don't.

Wilkie - dissollusioned conservative

And your point?

so 1 vote means nothing, why does anyone vote then

It is the law.

1 vote means everything, and i think latham can be very strong, no one can be ready for pm

You have no idea how many Australians vote informal do you? HAHA

Huge numbers waste their vote because they simply couldn't care less who wins (it gets worse on a state and local level).

Latham cannot even tell us how much his policies cost, so I doubt the man has strength. His only strong point is that right hook :lol: I hear he packs quite a punch.

the only stong point he has is he is not Howard. which isnt a good way to pick a PM.

so 1 vote means nothing, why does anyone vote then

we need a majority to vote but when we are talking such large numbers one person isnt going to effect it, you need a large amount of votes, one by itself means nothing

And the electorate has 80,000. Most vote Howard but naturally there are people who don't.

Wilkie - dissollusioned conservative

And your point?

andrew wilkie - Andrew served in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) from 1980 until early 2001. He singles out as some of the highlights of his service his graduation from the Royal Military College Duntroon in 1984, his year as the Aide-de-Camp to the Governor-General in 1989 and reaching the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in 1999.

In 1999-2000 Andrew was seconded by the ADF to the Office of National Assessments (ONA), Australia's senior intelligence agency, where he worked as a Senior Strategic Issues Analyst. He covered a range of issues including the war in Kosovo and represented ONA at the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) intelligence conference in the United Kingdom. In 2000 Andrew focussed on transnational issues including terrorism and border protection.

After retiring from the ADF Andrew was employed by Raytheon for about a year as head of the company's Australian training consultancy and as a manager of strategic business pursuits.

Shortly after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States Andrew returned to ONA, this time as a civilian. His work again involved terrorism, WMD and border protection. Increasingly it involved Iraq, initially as it related to transnational issues, eventually in preparation for the 2003 invasion.

On 11 March 2003 Andrew resigned over the impending war. He judged that a war at that time would not be the most sensible and ethical way to resolve the Iraq issue. He was sure Iraq did not pose a serious enough threat to justify a war, that too many things could go wrong and that it was bad policy to resort to force so long as there were other options available. Andrew asserted that Iraq's armed forces were weak, that its WMD programme was disjointed and contained, and that there was no evidence of any active cooperation with al Qaida.

the only stong point he has is he is not Howard. which isnt a good way to pick a PM.

he is more liberal (left wing) then howard, against war, wants money in services eg education and health
that wins it for me


we need a majority to vote but when we are talking such large numbers one person isnt going to effect it, you need a large amount of votes, one by itself means nothing.

how do you think anyone wins, one vote is everything

Most people think he is a sore loser. Frankly his running against Howard is bad form and shows just how petty he is. That alone will ruin his chances of throwing out the man of steel this year.

he is more liberal (left wing) then howard, against war, wants money in services eg education and health
that wins it for me

How much more money? He hasn't said. Besides the states control hospitals and education - all run by Labor. They do nothing and would only squander additional funds.

Labor cannot even run a state, let alone a country.

he is more liberal (left wing) then howard, against war, wants money in services eg education and health
that wins it for me

How much more money? He hasn't said. Besides the states control hospitals and education - all run by Labor. They do nothing and would only squander additional funds.

Labor cannot even run a state, let alone a country.

states get money from federal government, deficiet shows they are spending money and trying to change, while federal just taxes everyone (highest in the world) and keeps it

Most people think he is a sore loser. Frankly his running against Howard is bad form and shows just how petty he is. That alone will ruin his chances of throwing out the man of steel this year.

i have talked to him, that is not why he is running

he is more liberal (left wing) then howard, against war, wants money in services eg education and health
that wins it for me

How much more money? He hasn't said. Besides the states control hospitals and education - all run by Labor. They do nothing and would only squander additional funds.

Labor cannot even run a state, let alone a country.

states get money from federal government, deficiet shows they are spending money and trying to change, while federal just taxes everyone (highest in the world) and keeps it

Australia is the 4th highest taxed in the world.

All the GST goes to the state governments. What taxes are you then referring to?

Most people think he is a sore loser. Frankly his running against Howard is bad form and shows just how petty he is. That alone will ruin his chances of throwing out the man of steel this year.

i have talked to him, that is not why he is running

That's irrelevent (even though I don't believe you have met him). Politics is perception. As long as the public think he is a sore loser they won't vote for him.

That's irrelevent (even though I don't believe you have met him). Politics is perception. As long as the public think he is a sore loser they won't vote for him.

:lol: i see him about once a week, i sometimes talk to him

the taxes i am talking about?
unfortunatly i dont know enough about tax to tell you, but with a 9 billion dollar surplus there would be a bit of tax going there



http://www.gaiaguys.net/holy.jpg

That's irrelevent (even though I don't believe you have met him). Politics is perception. As long as the public think he is a sore loser they won't vote for him.

:lol: i see him about once a week, i sometimes talk to him

the taxes i am talking about?
unfortunatly i dont know enough about tax to tell you, but with a 9 billion dollar surplus there would be a bit of tax going there

Yes, yes I am sure you do (not).

The $9 billion surplus was a result of a booming economy. Taxes have not gone up recently but revenue received has as we continue to go strong. All but $2 billion has gone into improving services across the nation.

The GST serves the states and state governments are responsible for public health and public education. Labor has mismanaged every state. In NSW alone Bob Carr squandered over $3 billion dollars alone. You want better health and education, then write a letter to your state Labor premier.

Yes, yes I am sure you do (not).

The $9 billion surplus was a result of a booming economy. Taxes have not gone up recently but revenue received has as we continue to go strong. All but $2 billion has gone into improving services across the nation.

The GST serves the states and state governments are responsible for public health and public education. Labor has mismanaged every state. In NSW alone Bob Carr squandered over $3 billion dollars alone. You want better health and education, then write a letter to your state Labor premier.

i helped make this http://www.andrewwilkie.org.au/

i will trust you on the issue of taxes, but the main problem i have with howard is simply what he does eg ban gay marriages, to war
look at the greens policies you may be interested, i have read labor and liberal policies
and on war watch maash

Psst, Animal, if you want me to vote your way you have to do two things:

a) Enrol me to vote
b) take off your pants...

Psst, Animal, if you want me to vote your way you have to do two things:

a) Enrol me to vote
b) take off your pants...

a) go to post office, or come into my arms :wink:
b)my pants are already off :shock:

Psst, Animal, if you want me to vote your way you have to do two things:

a) Enrol me to vote
b) take off your pants...

a) go to post office, or come into my arms :wink:
b)my pants are already off :shock:

Sorry, no deal on the voting. I plan to out run the government on those stakes for as long as possible...

As for the pants...

Psst, Animal, if you want me to vote your way you have to do two things:

a) Enrol me to vote
b) take off your pants...

a) go to post office, or come into my arms :wink:
b)my pants are already off :shock:

Sorry, no deal on the voting. I plan to out run the government on those stakes for as long as possible...

As for the pants...

well i dont want to be alone with my pants off

Psst, Animal, if you want me to vote your way you have to do two things:

a) Enrol me to vote
b) take off your pants...

a) go to post office, or come into my arms :wink:
b)my pants are already off :shock:

Sorry, no deal on the voting. I plan to out run the government on those stakes for as long as possible...

As for the pants...

well i dont want to be alone with my pants off

Waaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of you!
*throws pants into the distance*

Pants are so constricting, don't you think?

Waaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of you!
*throws pants into the distance*

Pants are so constricting, don't you think?

only on certain people

so what now

Waaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of you!
*throws pants into the distance*

Pants are so constricting, don't you think?

only on certain people

so what now

Well, both of us are pantless. You know what that means....














Food fight!

food, ok
whipped cream :D

food, ok
whipped cream :D

*gasp*
And cheeries, and chocolate sauce and this is turning into a porno very quickly...

food, ok
whipped cream :D

*gasp*
And cheeries, and chocolate sauce and this is turning into a porno very quickly...

is that a bad thing *moves eye brows with a half smile*

Hrm... needs more streaking...

Hrm... needs more streaking...

i was thinking of something with... less movement

Hrm... needs more streaking...

i was thinking of something with... less movement

:?: Really? I expect what I'm thinking of would require slightly less movement, but vigorous nonetheless.

Hrm... needs more streaking...

i was thinking of something with... less movement

:?: Really? I expect what I'm thinking of would require slightly less movement, but vigorous nonetheless.

i was thinking begining slowly, but if you want to get right into, then there will be quite a bit of movement, like the world moving 8)

*Streaks*

Hrm... needs more streaking...

i was thinking of something with... less movement

:?: Really? I expect what I'm thinking of would require slightly less movement, but vigorous nonetheless.

i was thinking begining slowly, but if you want to get right into, then there will be quite a bit of movement, like the world moving 8)

Lol, you silly boy. Right now I'm still thinking about toffee. Now toothpaste. Then sausages. I think I've had too much sugar today.

Lol, you silly boy. Right now I'm still thinking about toffee. Now toothpaste. Then sausages. I think I've had too much sugar today.

you like sugar *runs off, them comes back* i happen to have sugar, and i seem to have spilt it on my stomach
:D too strong :lol:

Lol, you silly boy. Right now I'm still thinking about toffee. Now toothpaste. Then sausages. I think I've had too much sugar today.

you like sugar *runs off, them comes back* i happen to have sugar, and i seem to have spilt it on my stomach
:D too strong :lol:

Well isn't that convenient. This reminds me of O'Camp all over again... chocolate sauce...

Lol, you silly boy. Right now I'm still thinking about toffee. Now toothpaste. Then sausages. I think I've had too much sugar today.

you like sugar *runs off, them comes back* i happen to have sugar, and i seem to have spilt it on my stomach
:D too strong :lol:

Well isn't that convenient. This reminds me of O'Camp all over again... chocolate sauce...

chocolate sauce *looks around* umm i have grapes

Pfft, grapes and chocolate sauce don't mix!
Incidentally, you need hot dog rolls.

Pfft, grapes and chocolate sauce don't mix!
Incidentally, you need hot dog rolls.

:lol: you remember
hows uni

You're a foolish useful idiot if you vote for the Greens. Have a good read of their policies on their website and you'll realise how dangerous they are.

Pfft, grapes and chocolate sauce don't mix!
Incidentally, you need hot dog rolls.

:lol: you remember
hows uni
Exams soon. I'm having fits because of Maths. I think an Arts student has more chance of passing my maths exam than I do, and they need to be told how to use a toilet. Repeatedly.

You're a foolish useful idiot if you vote for the Greens. Have a good read of their policies on their website and you'll realise how dangerous they are.

i may be foolish and an idiot but atleast i am useful :D

i have read them, have you read liberal and labor policies
change is never a bad thing

Pfft, grapes and chocolate sauce don't mix!
Incidentally, you need hot dog rolls.

:lol: you remember
hows uni
Exams soon. I'm having fits because of Maths. I think an Arts student has more chance of passing my maths exam than I do, and they need to be told how to use a toilet. Repeatedly.

:D what are you studying

Don't forget the difference between the Liberal and Labor is that the Liberals have some form of intelligence and aren't at the mercy of factions.

Pfft, grapes and chocolate sauce don't mix!
Incidentally, you need hot dog rolls.

:lol: you remember
hows uni
Exams soon. I'm having fits because of Maths. I think an Arts student has more chance of passing my maths exam than I do, and they need to be told how to use a toilet. Repeatedly.

:D what are you studying

Evil things. Mechanical Engineering. Smells like bottom. I want to change to somthing with less maths in it but me chances are slim, laddy.

Yes, yes I am sure you do (not).

The $9 billion surplus was a result of a booming economy. Taxes have not gone up recently but revenue received has as we continue to go strong. All but $2 billion has gone into improving services across the nation.

The GST serves the states and state governments are responsible for public health and public education. Labor has mismanaged every state. In NSW alone Bob Carr squandered over $3 billion dollars alone. You want better health and education, then write a letter to your state Labor premier.

i helped make this http://www.andrewwilkie.org.au/

i will trust you on the issue of taxes, but the main problem i have with howard is simply what he does eg ban gay marriages, to war
look at the greens policies you may be interested, i have read labor and liberal policies
and on war watch maash

The Greens? Bob brown disgusts me and is an embarassment to the entire nation. Never have I seen such blatant hatred and disrespect to a foreign dignitary when he heckled GW Bush in the Australian Parliament.

I used to have respect for the Greens and their fight in Tasmania on Old Growth Forests and the Franklin River, but they lost the plot on their anti-US, 6 million population and gay marriage policies.

Evil things. Mechanical Engineering. Smells like bottom. I want to change to somthing with less maths in it but me chances are slim, laddy.

icky, maths *spits*

Don't forget the difference between the Liberal and Labor is that the Liberals have some form of intelligence and aren't at the mercy of factions.

Liberals don't have factions? :lol: :lol: :lol:

They do, but the Labor Party has a lot more. That is why they have problems communicating.

Yes, yes I am sure you do (not).

The $9 billion surplus was a result of a booming economy. Taxes have not gone up recently but revenue received has as we continue to go strong. All but $2 billion has gone into improving services across the nation.

The GST serves the states and state governments are responsible for public health and public education. Labor has mismanaged every state. In NSW alone Bob Carr squandered over $3 billion dollars alone. You want better health and education, then write a letter to your state Labor premier.

i helped make this http://www.andrewwilkie.org.au/

i will trust you on the issue of taxes, but the main problem i have with howard is simply what he does eg ban gay marriages, to war
look at the greens policies you may be interested, i have read labor and liberal policies
and on war watch maash

The Greens? Bob brown disgusts me and is an embarassment to the entire nation. Never have I seen such blatant hatred and disrespect to a foreign dignitary when he heckled GW Bush in the Australian Parliament.

I used to have respect for the Greens and their fight in Tasmania on Old Growth Forests and the Franklin River, but they lost the plot on their anti-US, 6 million population and gay marriage policies.

:lol: :lol: your funny

I can't belive they just did that to me! I think I'm going to cry! I loved my nation! What'll i do without it! I have no other name!

I can't belive they just did that to me! I think I'm going to cry! I loved my nation! What'll i do without it! I have no other name!

hug?

John is doing a fine job, thankyou 8)

:lol: :lol: your funny

How am I funny?

Well, I have sifted my way through 3 and a half pages of mindless crap and felt I deserved the right to post after putting myself through that.

Basically the OP doesn't like John Howard because of the war in Iraq, treatment of indigenous Australians and the policies on illegal immigrants.

To be honest, I think John Howard has been right on each of these issues. To find out accounts from Iraqi's themselves on the so called disaster in Iraq I suggest you read the blog at the following address:

http://www.iraqthemodel.com

This will give you an idea of the good that is being done in Iraq post the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Oddly enough the left-biased media in Australia tend not to tell us about the positives in Iraq because they would lose face after predicting it would be a dismal failure with hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties that never eventuated. If Latham gets into government and withdraws the troops from Iraq then thats one point to Al Qaeda and the terrorists as another western nation runs and hides. And guess what....people in Iraq will still be getting killed. But I guess as long as they are not Australians then their lives don't matter.

As far as the illegal immigrants (they are not "asylum seekers" as many are from Pakistan and many pass through other nations without seeking asylum on their way to Australia) are concerned, the government would be extremely negligent to have an "open door" policy on illegal immigrants. If we were to have this and there was a terrorist attack or similar involving one of these illegal immigrants I am sure the anti-Howard media would change sides and ask why they were permitted to reside in our country. See, thats what makes being in opposition so much easier...you don't have to make decisions just criticise those that do. I am not saying all illegal immigrants are terrorists but it is our governments duty to sort out who is and who isn't of good character to reside in our country.
People complain that the illegal immigrants are left in detention centres too long. But have you asked why they are there so long? Appeals. Endless appeals up to the Federal Court that take months and even years. Meanwhile the illegal immigrant remains in detention, the tax payer forks out more money and the lawyers fill their pockets. What has Labor or the Greens proposed on this matter? The silence is deafening because they have no idea what they will do...just "not what Howard is doing".
Now to the treatment of indigenous Australians. Howard did the right thing not to make the token gesture of saying "sorry" for a few reasons. Firstly as has been mentioned by other posters he should not have to apologise and neither should anyone else for any actions of their ancestors. Also, he has no right to apologise on my behalf or the behalf of other Australians. Secondly, if he did apologise on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia for any past mistreatment of indigenous Australians then he would bankrupt the country with the resultant law suits from everyone with a drop of indigenous blood in their veins. Indigenous Australians are not mis-treated or treated as second class citizens, they have separate funding through ATSIC the directors of which have rorted those funds so that indigenous Australians that need the funding for the health, accomodation and education don't receive it. The sooner ATSIC is dissolves (it is in the pipeline) and all Australians are given assistance depending on their financial situation rather than their skin colour or ethnicity then better. Simply throwing money at a problem rarely fixes it, in fact, in the case of indigenous Australians, it has made things worse. It has bred a victim mentality and if you are handed money, accommodation and education why have the motivation to work? Whether we like it or not, we cannot go back to the past. Australia will never go back to what it was prior to the arrival of Europeans and anyone with that goal as their aim is living in a dreamland. The only way for indigenous Australians to progress and get out of the cycle of poverty and welfare dependence is to integrate into Australian society. This does not mean they sacrifice their culture. Many other nationalities maintain their religion and traditions but still join the workforce each day and earn a living.

I'll save my last paragraph for the Greens. Anyone who votes for the Greens might as well place their ballot paper in the nearest recycling bin. This is a "political party" that stands for nothing with regards to the basic elements of government. Health and Education. In a nutshell they want to strangle industry (too much polution!), hand back land to the indigenous Australians so any arable land is no longer available for use in agriculture, open the floodgates for "asylum seekers" of which transexuals will also be classed as asylum seekers if they flee a country that does not recognise their status and best of all they want to open up the dams that hold our precious drinking water to "save" rivers while we all die of thirst watching our drinking water flow out into the ocean. Yes, thats the kind of Australia I want to live in....where will we get our money, food and water from. Doesn't matter, the Earth will be so much healthier!!

I think the OP should read more about the whole story on issues rather than the one-sided anti-Howard media in this country.

Howard is the man who:

...lied about "children overboard'
...sent our troops to war on a lie about weapons of mass destruction
...lies about knowing nothing about US torture allegations
...keeps children locked up behind razor wire
...makes special "deals" for his "mates" in big business and the media
...cannot pronounce "sorry'

Send Howard home by Christmas

You're a foolish useful idiot if you vote for the Greens. Have a good read of their policies on their website and you'll realise how dangerous they are.

i may be foolish and an idiot but atleast i am useful :D

i have read them, have you read liberal and labor policies
change is never a bad thing

Yes, it did a whole lot of good for Germany in the 1930's, didn't it?

But I do agree that we are also foolish for continuing to vote for either Labor or Liberal. They offer no real radical, rational policies.

Since I want to see change, I have become an active member of the Liberal Democratic Party. Unfrotunately, it has not gained the members required to become a registered party. At the same time, the party's present active members are losing interest with the party, including the leader. The irony of a party with a classical liberal or libertarian platform is that while there would be a lot of support for such a party very few people, who would support us, don't want to actively participate in the party since they have too many things presently going on in their lives.

Well, I have sifted my way through 3 and a half pages of mindless crap and felt I deserved the right to post after putting myself through that.

Basically the OP doesn't like John Howard because of the war in Iraq, treatment of indigenous Australians and the policies on illegal immigrants.

.

1. The war in Iraq...our troops were sent in based on the lie regarding weapons of mass destruction. To pretend otherwise is either to develop selective amnesia or to be out of touch with reality.

2. The majority of the Tampa assylum-seekers have now been granted assylum in in Australia or in other nations. These were largely Afghans or Iraqis ...people fleeing from the same oppressive regimes which Howard condemns and says we should fight...talk about double standards.

Well, I have sifted my way through 3 and a half pages of mindless crap and felt I deserved the right to post after putting myself through that.

Basically the OP doesn't like John Howard because of the war in Iraq, treatment of indigenous Australians and the policies on illegal immigrants.

To be honest, I think John Howard has been right on each of these issues. To find out accounts from Iraqi's themselves on the so called disaster in Iraq I suggest you read the blog at the following address:

http://www.iraqthemodel.com
-snip-.

*whistles* someone has not read the greens policies

Howard is the man who:
...cannot pronounce "sorry'


Howard has said on many occasions that he is personally sorry for the Stolen Generations but he will not apologise on behalf of the nation.

Howard is the man who:

...lied about "children overboard'
...sent our troops to war on a lie about weapons of mass destruction
...lies about knowing nothing about US torture allegations
...keeps children locked up behind razor wire
...makes special "deals" for his "mates" in big business and the media
...cannot pronounce "sorry'

Send Howard home by Christmas

...children were thrown overboard and the case was closed.
...sent troops to war on intelligence that proved to be not so intelligent. But is helping to rebuild a democratic Iraq after the dethroning of the tyrannical Saddam Hussein.
...proof? What about Ros Kelly and her "whiteboard"?
...only because their parents won't allow them to be released without them. This cannot be allowed before ascertaining if they are legitimate.
...read up on Bob Hawke.
...sorry is a personal emotion. Howard has done no wrong to the aborigines. He therefore cannot apologise. He has expressed regret.

You sound like someone right out of the ALP on that last comment - or worse, the young labor movement.

What about some real issues? You are obsessed with minorities. What about the real issues that affect Australians? e.g.

...public hospitals
...public schools

Both run by state governments (Labor controlled) yet hopelessly mismanaged.

Well, I have sifted my way through 3 and a half pages of mindless crap and felt I deserved the right to post after putting myself through that.

Basically the OP doesn't like John Howard because of the war in Iraq, treatment of indigenous Australians and the policies on illegal immigrants.

.

1. The war in Iraq...our troops were sent in based on the lie regarding weapons of mass destruction. To pretend otherwise is either to develop selective amnesia or to be out of touch with reality.

2. The majority of the Tampa assylum-seekers have now been granted assylum in in Australia or in other nations. These were largely Afghans or Iraqis ...people fleeing from the same oppressive regimes which Howard condemns and says we should fight...talk about double standards.

Personally and from the logs recorded at the Iraq the Model website many Iraqis could not care less why the coalition overthrew Saddam Hussein. We are just happy he is gone and that the country of Iraq has a chance to start again after 3 decades of tyranny. Likewise Afghanistan, the Taliban have been defeated and this country has a chance to make a start. Of course there are no guarantees, but if you take off your anti-Howard and anti-US glasses you will see that millions of people now have a chance at living a free life. Awful isn't it.

Yes, these people from the Tampa fled Iraq and Afghanistan, but they did not come to Australia directly. They did not seek asylum in Pakistan, Malaysia or Indonesia..why? I mean they were seeking asylum..why so choosy? Regardless, just because they were finally found to be refugees and given refugee visas does not the government was wrong to detain them and check their stories and make sure they were refugees. It is a bit late to try and find them once they have been released into the general population. If they are genuine refugees then well and good but to say our government is wrong to verify the origins of each illegal immigrant is absurd.

I would like to agree with the whole vote greens to get rid of John Howard but their is not a single good reason to go and do something like that.

Bob Brown is dangerous and I mean dangerous. His policies are ultra-radical and could lead Australia down a potentially dark path.

Their is nothing that will have me voting Green at the election.

I would like to agree with the whole vote greens to get rid of John Howard but their is not a single good reason to go and do something like that.

Bob Brown is dangerous and I mean dangerous. His policies are ultra-radical and could lead Australia down a potentially dark path.

Their is nothing that will have me voting Green at the election.

There is a God! Thank goodness for Australia's 100% literacy rate.

Don't forget the difference between the Liberal and Labor is that the Liberals have some form of intelligence and aren't at the mercy of factions.

Liberals don't have factions? :lol: :lol: :lol:

They do, but the Labor Party has a lot more. That is why they have problems communicating.

As I said they're not at the mercy of their factions, in that they are for the most part unified.

Don't forget the difference between the Liberal and Labor is that the Liberals have some form of intelligence and aren't at the mercy of factions.

Liberals don't have factions? :lol: :lol: :lol:

They do, but the Labor Party has a lot more. That is why they have problems communicating.

As I said they're not at the mercy of their factions, in that they are for the most part unified.

True.

Support the greenies? Sorry,i wont support drugs

Well, I have sifted my way through 3 and a half pages of mindless crap and felt I deserved the right to post after putting myself through that.

Basically the OP doesn't like John Howard because of the war in Iraq, treatment of indigenous Australians and the policies on illegal immigrants.

To be honest, I think John Howard has been right on each of these issues. To find out accounts from Iraqi's themselves on the so called disaster in Iraq I suggest you read the blog at the following address:

http://www.iraqthemodel.com
-snip-.

*whistles* someone has not read the greens policies

From the Greens website:

1.2 Goals
The Australian Greens aim to:

a. achieve a society which is just, equitable, and ecologically sustainable, both in Australia and globally, and which lives within the capacity of the Earth to supply renewable resources and to assimilate wastes;

b. ensure that human activities maintain the biological diversity of all named organisms at the level of subspecies and of all other organisms, through the adequate protection of the ecological communities and broader ecological landscapes of which they are part;

c. hold the amount of water captured for human use from surface aquatic systems at or below 1995 levels and provide environmental flows to all freshwater systems and their dependent ecosystems;
d. limit the amount of water drawn from groundwater systems to sustainable levels, managed within a integrated catchment framework;

e. reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012 and to have clear national, regional and local energy policies adopted to enable this target to be reached. Land clearing should be phased out by then also, and the initial reduction of energy-related emissions should be followed by mandatory annual targets leading to the complete elimination of fossil fuels by 2050 and their replacement by a fully renewable energy supply.

f. eliminate human-induced release of ozone-depleting substances in the upper atmosphere;

g. reduce the total quantity of solid, liquid and gaseous wastes (including those from non-point sources) annually disposed into the environment using the waste management hierarchy: reduce, re-use, recycle, treat, and dispose as a last resort;

h. maintain or restore the natural diversity and productivity of soil in agricultural and pastoral areas;

i. reduce the total amount of land occupied by human infrastructure (transport, buildings, roads etc) and agriculture (grazing, cropping etc) to below 1995 levels (see section: Agriculture);

j. facilitate closer liaison between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Australia, such that all might benefit from Indigenous knowledge of our land in order to further its management in ways which are sustainable;
provide for increased participation by local communities in planning and implementing strategies to protect the environment;

k. increase environmental awareness leading to a desire by all Australians to protect the environment; and

l. apply the principle of intergenerational equity in all environmental programmes.

Support the greenies? Sorry,i wont support drugs

Not all drugs. Just the Happy Herbs.

Support the greenies? Sorry,i wont support drugs

And I wont support downers.

e. reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012 and to have clear national, regional and local energy policies adopted to enable this target to be reached. Land clearing should be phased out by then also, and the initial reduction of energy-related emissions should be followed by mandatory annual targets leading to the complete elimination of fossil fuels by 2050 and their replacement by a fully renewable energy supply.

You know this can be achieved fully by 2025. Except the Greens are opposed to private enterprise so they could never achieve their goal.

and yes, to him the aboriginies dont exist or arent important enough to. the only thing important to JH is rich caucasians (white)

he wont even say sorry about almost all of them being wiped out when the english came, even if he doenst agree he could atleast swallow his pride and say it anyway

1. These days more money goes to aboriginies than to us whites
2.half the fights between whites & aboriginies were started by us & the other half by them

e. reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012 and to have clear national, regional and local energy policies adopted to enable this target to be reached. Land clearing should be phased out by then also, and the initial reduction of energy-related emissions should be followed by mandatory annual targets leading to the complete elimination of fossil fuels by 2050 and their replacement by a fully renewable energy supply.

You know this can be achieved fully by 2025. Except the Greens are opposed to private enterprise so they could never achieve their goal.

Precisely, their "policies" undermine their solutions. The more I read their policies the more humourous they became.

How is this for Refugee policy:

all people who arrive in Australia without a valid visa be regarded as intending applicants for asylum

asylum seekers are fully informed of their rights on arrival, having immediate access to legal assistance administered by federally funded Legal Aid;

asylum seekers be given the fullest opportunity to establish their individual refugee status;

asylum seekers receive a comprehensive medical examination (including screens for addictive, physical and psychiatric problems and potential suicide risk);

asylum seekers have access to a full range of culturally sensitive, appropriate health services;

community-based asylum seekers be provided with adequate support services to ensure their immediate needs are met whilst awaiting the processing of their refugee applications;

any centre that houses asylum seekers must be run under a non-punitive model, seek accreditation from the Australian Council of Health Care Standards for all health care services and meet international standards of accommodation;

all staff dealing with asylum seekers be trained in cross-cultural communication;

procedures for considering applications for asylum be improved and made more humane as stipulated by the international conventions Australia has ratified;

community resettlement programs be set up, facilitated by supportive communities and non-government agencies that currently provide support to refugees and consisting of refugee hostels, sponsored hotel accommodation and other humane housing options;

the temporary protection category of refugee visa be abolished and all refugees currently holding a temporary visa be immediately granted permanent residency status with full rights; and

the current system of humanitarian visas only being granted by the Immigration Minister after rejection as a refugee be replaced by an open, accountable humanitarian visa process incorporating an Humanitarian Review Tribunal.

All I have to do is arrive in Australia without a visa and I am an "asylum seeker". Theres a deterent for people to risk their lives and set sail for Australia. I am sure the people smugglers will all be voting Green.

e. reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012 and to have clear national, regional and local energy policies adopted to enable this target to be reached. Land clearing should be phased out by then also, and the initial reduction of energy-related emissions should be followed by mandatory annual targets leading to the complete elimination of fossil fuels by 2050 and their replacement by a fully renewable energy supply.

You know this can be achieved fully by 2025. Except the Greens are opposed to private enterprise so they could never achieve their goal.

They might as well nuke all the capital cities. That would be a cheaper and sane solution according to their policies. Oh, I forgot, they're against anything nuclear :roll: . Well, if they ever get into power, I'm moving to Colorado, or Costa Rica if it becomes libertarian. I'd be moving not because they won power but because I wouldn't be able to walk down the street knowing that half the people I saw were stupid enough to vote for the Greens.

Well as they will return land use for infrastructure to pre 1995 levels I guess I'll have to move too because my house was built in 1997....I'll keep a look out for the solar powered bulldozer. :cry:

and yes, to him the aboriginies dont exist or arent important enough to. the only thing important to JH is rich caucasians (white)

he wont even say sorry about almost all of them being wiped out when the english came, even if he doenst agree he could atleast swallow his pride and say it anyway

1. These days more money goes to aboriginies than to us whites
2.half the fights between whites & aboriginies were started by us & the other half by them

Ok I disagree...

1. We are all Australian. There is no "us" and "them". That is how most of the fights get started.

2. I agree that welfare directed to certain groups are more than generous in some cases, but I argue that at least for the past 14 years the money towards indigenous affairs has been grossly mismanaged.

The way forward is not through apologies and law suits, but by tackling these main problems:

1. Providing stable and secure employment for disadvantaged australians (they may be black, white or asian). The education to achieve social mobility must also be there to support this.

2. Greater attention to healthcare by reforming the hospitals and administering them on similar lines to the private sector. Big government left unchecked = big waste. The money is there, just wasted. e.g. At my local hospital they have 3 people sitting there in radiology doing nothing but have 1 doctor rushing around treating emergency cases first thing in the morning.

3. Get on with life. Stop whinging about the past. We cannot change whatever happened.

Well as they will return land use for infrastructure to pre 1995 levels I guess I'll have to move too because my house was built in 1997....I'll keep a look out for the solar powered bulldozer. :cry:

Lucky for you that no one has yet figured out how to fit enough solar panels onto a bulldozer just to see it move a fraction.

and yes, to him the aboriginies dont exist or arent important enough to. the only thing important to JH is rich caucasians (white)

he wont even say sorry about almost all of them being wiped out when the english came, even if he doenst agree he could atleast swallow his pride and say it anyway

1. These days more money goes to aboriginies than to us whites
2.half the fights between whites & aboriginies were started by us & the other half by them

Ok I disagree...

1. We are all Australian. There is no "us" and "them". That is how most of the fights get started.

2. I agree that welfare directed to certain groups are more than generous in some cases, but I argue that at least for the past 14 years the money towards indigenous affairs has been grossly mismanaged.

The way forward is not through apologies and law suits, but by tackling these main problems:

1. Providing stable and secure employment for disadvantaged australians (they may be black, white or asian). The education to achieve social mobility must also be there to support this.

2. Greater attention to healthcare by reforming the hospitals and administering them on similar lines to the private sector. Big government left unchecked = big waste. The money is there, just wasted. e.g. At my local hospital they have 3 people sitting there in radiology doing nothing but have 1 doctor rushing around treating emergency cases first thing in the morning.

3. Get on with life. Stop whinging about the past. We cannot change whatever happened.

*claps* Well said.

I said similar earlier in my first long-winded post. We cannot go backwards people, the Greens hark back to the past and set goals to go backwards but the future is not back there.
The dissolution of ATSIC will be the best thing to happen to indigenous Australians and will create one welfare system for ALL Australians regardless of race or religion but purely based on financial need. The money involved should be focused to enable these people to left themselves out of poverty and enter the workforce.

Well as they will return land use for infrastructure to pre 1995 levels I guess I'll have to move too because my house was built in 1997....I'll keep a look out for the solar powered bulldozer. :cry:

Lucky for you that no one has yet figured out how to fit enough solar panels onto a bulldozer just to see it move a fraction.

And with industry being cut back then it is unlikely they will make that solar powered bulldozer as industry supports most research. Looks like I have a little time left...unless they OK the use of steam powered machinery. :roll:

and yes, to him the aboriginies dont exist or arent important enough to. the only thing important to JH is rich caucasians (white)

he wont even say sorry about almost all of them being wiped out when the english came, even if he doenst agree he could atleast swallow his pride and say it anyway

1. These days more money goes to aboriginies than to us whites
2.half the fights between whites & aboriginies were started by us & the other half by them

Ok I disagree...

1. We are all Australian. There is no "us" and "them". That is how most of the fights get started.

I said "us & "them" because it was easier than having to say aboriginies & whites again... & yes,i know we are all Australian & shoulb be treatd the same


The way forward is not through apologies and law suits, but by tackling these main problems:

1. Providing stable and secure employment for disadvantaged australians (they may be black, white or asian). The education to achieve social mobility must also be there to support this.

2. Greater attention to healthcare by reforming the hospitals and administering them on similar lines to the private sector. Big government left unchecked = big waste. The money is there, just wasted. e.g. At my local hospital they have 3 people sitting there in radiology doing nothing but have 1 doctor rushing around treating emergency cases first thing in the morning.

3. Get on with life. Stop whinging about the past. We cannot change whatever happened.

I abolutly agree

Well as they will return land use for infrastructure to pre 1995 levels I guess I'll have to move too because my house was built in 1997....I'll keep a look out for the solar powered bulldozer. :cry:

Lucky for you that no one has yet figured out how to fit enough solar panels onto a bulldozer just to see it move a fraction.

And with industry being cut back then it is unlikely they will make that solar powered bulldozer as industry supports most research. Looks like I have a little time left...unless they OK the use of steam powered machinery. :roll:

Oh no, you can't use steam. It runs on coal! :lol:

Of course !! My house is safe. I am interested then on how they plan on reducing the land used by infrastructure to pre 1995 levels. Then again why ask questions about these things, after all as long as Johnny is out of office then the we are fine...right? :wink:

Of course !! My house is safe. I am interested then on how they plan on reducing the land used by infrastructure to pre 1995 levels. Then again why ask questions about these things, after all as long as Johnny is out of office then the we are fine...right? :wink:

They'd have to destroy three suburbs near my suburb which have popped up since 1995.

Considering the growth rate of Australian cities not only over the past 10 years but especially in the last 5 then a significant number of people will find themselves homeless if the Greens get voted in.

I do believe it's fairly safe to say that they will not be voted in...

I realise that, but the people who vote for them WANT them to govern the country. Except Animal who just wants everyone to vote for the Greens to get rid of John Howard.

Unfortunately a number of people (thankfully not a great number) vote for the Greens because they do not like the two major parties without even looking at the disaster the Greens represent. Too many people swallow the one sides rantings of the media in Australia and cannot be bothered making up their own minds.

Considering the growth rate of Australian cities not only over the past 10 years but especially in the last 5 then a significant number of people will find themselves homeless if the Greens get voted in.

Ahhh but the Greens have a plan to support this.

By ceasing immigration and allowing the ageing population take on its full effects, the Greens appear to support the reduction of our population to 6 million!

Naturally, this would have huge economic ramifications (but it isn't like they care about that is it). Meanwhile we would be a sparsely populated continent in an overpopulating neighbourhood.

Bob Brown's delusion wouldn't last very long.
...

BTW thanks for the support on the indigenous affairs issue. The sooner we just get on with life the better we all shall be.

I realise that, but the people who vote for them WANT them to govern the country. Except Animal who just wants everyone to vote for the Greens to get rid of John Howard.

Unfortunately a number of people (thankfully not a great number) vote for the Greens because they do not like the two major parties without even looking at the disaster the Greens represent. Too many people swallow the one sides rantings of the media in Australia and cannot be bothered making up their own minds.

You know the Green's preferences go to the Labor Party anyway.

A vote for Bob Brown is a vote for Mark Latham.

...

All the more reason to not vote Green.

In deference to the fact that I didn't listen to the indigenous affairs conversation, I will volunteer my two cents, that being that positive discrimination is as harmful as the negative variant, and should be discarded as a policy post-haste. We are all Australians, (those of us who are, of course) and should be treated equally... that much, to me, appears self-evident.

I am in the army. Defending the country is my profession. It's hard enough doing so by recruiting from a 20 million population base. Doing so from a 6 million base would be nothing short of impossible. So, no, the Greens are not getting my vote.

In deference to the fact that I didn't listen to the indigenous affairs conversation, I will volunteer my two cents, that being that positive discrimination is as harmful as the negative variant, and should be discarded as a policy post-haste. We are all Australians, (those of us who are, of course) and should be treated equally... that much, to me, appears self-evident.

I am in the army. Defending the country is my profession. It's hard enough doing so by recruiting from a 20 million population base. Doing so from a 6 million base would be nothing short of impossible. So, no, the Greens are not getting my vote.

The tests for gaining entrance into the defence force are getting way too hard. That is why we have a hard job recruiting. However those we do have are the best. The US recruits many low skilled troops (who subsequently get massacred overseas) which I believe to be a bad move.

Fortunately, Australia is building a strong air force and navy. Luckily we are surrounded by sea.

Varessa, you have pretty much caught onto the main theme of our indigenous Australian discussion.

Unfortunately there is an industry in our nation that relies on division between races and religions. Take a look at Victoria's racial vilification legislation, should be a good earner for the lawyers in the state.

Hard?!?! They're child's play. 15 pushups, 45 sit-ups and a shuttle run that I managed to walk. For blokes, that is...

And the airforce and navy are even more up poo-poo creek than the army is at the moment. With the exception of the navy's submarines, which are actually a very effective piece of kit, the RAAF and Navy are really in a bad way.

We are having a hard time recruiting because the defence force pay is shite. As in, abysmal. And the initial training is pretty rigorous, which leads to drop outs...

Hard?!?! They're child's play. 15 pushups, 45 sit-ups and a shuttle run that I managed to walk. For blokes, that is...

Whoa. I backed out of joining the airforce cause i thought I wasn't fit enough. And they're that easy?!?!?!?

Isn't Howard that Australian racist guy?

That's one way of putting it.
Another is that he's that guy who kisses up to people of any power in the world - be they of good character or not - in the hopes of improving his own lot, regardless of the effects it has on the country.

Australia was considering becoming a republic once, and Howard basically - from my layman's perspective - ruined it, making it so that, if you wanted a president, it had to be someone "like him"...you know....a$$holes.

He's the guy who, in his electioneering campaign, ended up falling down the stairs TWICE (if memory serves) on national TV.

Of all the leaders, I think he's the one with his tongue furthest down Bush's pants.

Oh and yeah...he's racist. Not as racist as, say, Pauline Hanson, but certainly racist.

Hard?!?! They're child's play. 15 pushups, 45 sit-ups and a shuttle run that I managed to walk. For blokes, that is...

And the airforce and navy are even more up poo-poo creek than the army is at the moment. With the exception of the navy's submarines, which are actually a very effective piece of kit, the RAAF and Navy are really in a bad way.

We are having a hard time recruiting because the defence force pay is shite. As in, abysmal. And the initial training is pretty rigorous, which leads to drop outs...

No I mean the exams. They gave no less than 5 tests to some people I know. I know for a fact many of the tests are incredibly difficult.

Even the IQ test is hard - and ridiculous. IQ tests measure little in my opinion.

I agree that pay is not perfect, but it is pretty good. The RAAF and RAN are being upgraded. JSF's at a price of $16 billion and 3 air-warfare destroyers will help build up our forces.

...now if only the government would build us some air craft carriers and a few honk'n missile silos!

Hard?!?! They're child's play. 15 pushups, 45 sit-ups and a shuttle run that I managed to walk. For blokes, that is...

And the airforce and navy are even more up poo-poo creek than the army is at the moment. With the exception of the navy's submarines, which are actually a very effective piece of kit, the RAAF and Navy are really in a bad way.

We are having a hard time recruiting because the defence force pay is shite. As in, abysmal. And the initial training is pretty rigorous, which leads to drop outs...

THAT's all you have to do to get into the Australian Defence Force?
HAH!
They must be trolling for people, which is why the entry qualifications
are so low.
*reads the next post* Ahh...so they're trying for people of intelligence rather than fitness? As you say, I don't know how much an IQ test really measures.
I was considering joining the NZ army, and successfully passed the IQ test for that. But, as far as I know, that's the only IQ test you need.
(it was a general IQ test, and covered a lot of stuff, but that's all it was).
As far as I know, you need to complete a 10 kilometre run, along with other fitness drills, for your entry into the NZ army.
But there could be other stuff, too, as I decided that I wanted to do something else *LAY-AY-AY-ZEEE!*
:D

Isn't Howard that Australian racist guy?

That's one way of putting it.
Another is that he's that guy who kisses up to people of any power in the world - be they of good character or not - in the hopes of improving his own lot, regardless of the effects it has on the country.

Australia was considering becoming a republic once, and Howard basically - from my layman's perspective - ruined it, making it so that, if you wanted a president, it had to be someone "like him"...you know....a$$holes.

He's the guy who, in his electioneering campaign, ended up falling down the stairs TWICE (if memory serves) on national TV.

Of all the leaders, I think he's the one with his tongue furthest down Bush's pants.

Oh and yeah...he's racist. Not as racist as, say, Pauline Hanson, but certainly racist.

Yet Howard is more popular than ever...looking at a 4th term even. So does this mean most Australians are racist too?

Honestly you will have to do better than empty Labor rhetoric

Hard?!?! They're child's play. 15 pushups, 45 sit-ups and a shuttle run that I managed to walk. For blokes, that is...

And the airforce and navy are even more up poo-poo creek than the army is at the moment. With the exception of the navy's submarines, which are actually a very effective piece of kit, the RAAF and Navy are really in a bad way.

We are having a hard time recruiting because the defence force pay is shite. As in, abysmal. And the initial training is pretty rigorous, which leads to drop outs...

THAT's all you have to do to get into the Australian Defence Force?
HAH!
They must be trolling for people, which is why the entry qualifications
are so low.

They are not low requirements. The only thing low here is your behaviour.

Hard?!?! They're child's play. 15 pushups, 45 sit-ups and a shuttle run that I managed to walk. For blokes, that is...

And the airforce and navy are even more up poo-poo creek than the army is at the moment. With the exception of the navy's submarines, which are actually a very effective piece of kit, the RAAF and Navy are really in a bad way.

We are having a hard time recruiting because the defence force pay is shite. As in, abysmal. And the initial training is pretty rigorous, which leads to drop outs...

No I mean the exams. They gave no less than 5 tests to some people I know. I know for a fact many of the tests are incredibly difficult.

Even the IQ test is hard - and ridiculous. IQ tests measure little in my opinion.

I agree that pay is not perfect, but it is pretty good. The RAAF and RAN are being upgraded. JSF's at a price of $16 billion and 3 air-warfare destroyers will help build up our forces.

...now if only the government would build us some air craft carriers and a few honk'n missile silos!

To get in the RAAF as a pilot, exams are necessary, I have to say...the pilots need a good understanding of physics and maths.

Hard?!?! They're child's play. 15 pushups, 45 sit-ups and a shuttle run that I managed to walk. For blokes, that is...

And the airforce and navy are even more up poo-poo creek than the army is at the moment. With the exception of the navy's submarines, which are actually a very effective piece of kit, the RAAF and Navy are really in a bad way.

We are having a hard time recruiting because the defence force pay is shite. As in, abysmal. And the initial training is pretty rigorous, which leads to drop outs...

THAT's all you have to do to get into the Australian Defence Force?
HAH!
They must be trolling for people, which is why the entry qualifications
are so low.

They are not low requirements. The only thing low here is your behaviour.
a) I revised what I wrote, so no need for that kind of smart-mouthedness to me.
b) Excuse me? I do more exercise than that on a daily basis.
I've got a martial arts grading coming up, for which I need to do (among other things) 50 press-ups, 70 sit-ups and 25 belt-jumps.
If I expect more from the military, then so be it.
Fitness is (in my opinion) important. If you take that as low, then that's
YOUR loss.

haha vote greens what the hell have you been on, stuff our country up big time then,


FERTILISE THE BUSH, DOZE A GREENIE!!!

GREENS TELL LIES

SAVE THE TREES USE GREENIES FOR WOODCHIPS

HUG A LOGGER AND YOULL NEVER GO BACK TO TREES

STAY WARM THIS WINTER BURN A GREENIE

Isn't Howard that Australian racist guy?

That's one way of putting it.

That is one way of putting it. It would be, as it happens, an incorrect way of putting it. Howard is a slightly right of centre politician who, like politicians everywhere... acts like a politician... :roll:

Another is that he's that guy who kisses up to people of any power in the world - be they of good character or not - in the hopes of improving his own lot, regardless of the effects it has on the country.

Now, that is flatly incorrect. Howard copped a lot of flack for his support for the US, and how that would benefit his own lot is extremely questionable. Howard was supporting the US because, in his informed opinion (far better informed than you or I) that represented the best way to pursue Australia's national interest.

Australia was considering becoming a republic once, and Howard basically - from my layman's perspective - ruined it, making it so that, if you wanted a president, it had to be someone "like him"...you know....a$$holes.

We don't have a president, and thank God for that. There's nothing wrong with the current system, and playing silly-buggers with it is a waste of time and money.

He's the guy who, in his electioneering campaign, ended up falling down the stairs TWICE (if memory serves) on national TV.

That's not a reflection on his policies in any way shape or form. Stick to attacking his politics, not his sense of balance.

Oh and yeah...he's racist. Not as racist as, say, Pauline Hanson, but certainly racist.

Fallacy in every sense of the word. I challenge you to prove even ONE instance of racism. One.

Speak from a position of knowledge and informed opinion, not opinionated dislike and media generated paranoia.

haha vote greens what the hell have you been on, stuff our country up big time then,
My, what rapier-sharp wit you have. :lol:


FERTILISE THE BUSH, DOZE A GREENIE!!!

That's true...it would fertilize the bush. The minerals in a human being would fertilise trees quite well. But for manure, surely the pure
bulls :shock: t coming from Howard outweighs anything a greenie would produce?


GREENS TELL LIES

a) see above
b) John Howard is adding his own lies to an even bigger set of lies i.e. those told by Bush.


SAVE THE TREES USE GREENIES FOR WOODCHIPS

:?: *blinks* People aren't made of wood!


HUG A LOGGER AND YOULL NEVER GO BACK TO TREES

:o Erm...whatever floats yer boat...


STAY WARM THIS WINTER BURN A GREENIE

No thanks...electricity will do for me, thanks all the same.

I think that Australia is a beautiful country and, as such, I hope that more people protect the nature that abounds in it.

Although, Tsorfinn, your response to Uteonia was really well phrased *lifts glass*

Air Warfare Destroyers and JSFs are too far away. The M1A1s are good, as are the soon-to-be-in-service Tigers.

As for the fitness, that's just for the entry exam. The tests and training while you're in there are much harder.

Isn't Howard that Australian racist guy?

That's one way of putting it.
Another is that he's that guy who kisses up to people of any power in the world - be they of good character or not - in the hopes of improving his own lot, regardless of the effects it has on the country.

Australia was considering becoming a republic once, and Howard basically - from my layman's perspective - ruined it, making it so that, if you wanted a president, it had to be someone "like him"...you know....a$$holes.

He's the guy who, in his electioneering campaign, ended up falling down the stairs TWICE (if memory serves) on national TV.

Of all the leaders, I think he's the one with his tongue furthest down Bush's pants.

Oh and yeah...he's racist. Not as racist as, say, Pauline Hanson, but certainly racist.

How did John Howard's support of the US improve his own lot? The fact that he had the courage to ignore the bleating of the vocal minorities and make a statement against world terrorism and tyrants did not improve his own lot but showed to the world that he is a true leader, not a mindless drone of the left-wing media.
What effects has this action had on the country? None. In fact, since the tightening of our immigration laws the steady flow of illegal immigrants has stopped meaning people from the middle east are no longer thinking floating in a leaky boat from Indonesia is worth the risk or the money they pay to people smugglers. The fact that places like Iraq and Afghanistan now have a chance at democracy and freedom also means many are staying to rebuild their countries with the assistance of the coalition.

As far as the Republic referendum goes, the Republic model proposed by the Republican movement was unsatisfactory. Not Howard's fault, it was influential people in the Republican movement that created the model which would have made sure on of their own number was the new President. Something unsatisfactory to most people even if they did support a Republic. I tend to agree with Varessa that there is no need to change a system that works. Did you really think a person of the street could run for President? I would be terrified if they could.

If John Howard fell down the steps 20 times it makes no difference to the policies he has and is just a desperate attempt to insult the person rather than debate the policies. A typical approach by people who have no idea about the policies and swallow the left-wing media propaganda.

John Howard is not racist, I echo Varessa's challenge to you to produce a single example of him being racist. In fact he is doing his best to unravel the racist laws of our land that are supported by the left. He is pushing ahead with the dissolution of ATSIC and ensuring we have a welfare system that is based on need rather than race or religion. Doesn't sound racist to me. People who like to divide the nation into ethnic groups and preach "multiculturalism" are the racists in my view, not John Howard.

John Howard is not racist, I echo Varessa's challenge to you to produce a single example of him being racist. In fact he is doing his best to unravel the racist laws of our land that are supported by the left. He is pushing ahead with the dissolution of ATSIC and ensuring we have a welfare system that is based on need rather than race or religion. Doesn't sound racist to me. People who like to divide the nation into ethnic groups and preach "multiculturalism" are the racists in my view, not John Howard.

Didn't you hear? Being white makes you racist these days :roll:

Air Warfare Destroyers and JSFs are too far away.

2013 is not too far away. But we cannot just make these things magically appear.

Didn't you hear? Being white makes you racist these days :roll:

Yes, I hear it everyday! And such thinking is being indoctrinated in our schools, museums etc so future Australians of European descent can grow up with a strong sense of self-loathing.
I am not racist, some here may disagree and thats their prerogative. I do not care where you came from, what religion your follow or what colour your skin is as long as you contribute positively to society. I do, however, draw the line at eroding our own culture and traditions to accommodate the traditions of migrants to our country. In my opinion, migrants to our country can practise any of their religious beliefs and traditions provided they do not break our laws or prevent others from doing the same. They cannot, however, expect the people of this country to cease celebrating the traditions of our society to accommodate their beliefs. Believe it or not, when you migrate to a new country things are different! It means migrants need to adapt to the changes not that their new country needs to adapt to the migrants.

wow, i never knew there were so many right wing people in aus
i am not supporting greens to get rid of howard, i dont care about him, i believe the greens would do a very good job in power, they want to help the environment, if that is not done soon the australia will become a desert, they are more compasionate and allow more rights, refugees, any sexual orientation, and help the poor, and making drugs a heath issue not a criminal issue. if you read the policy they dont want to allow people to take drugs they just want to be able to help them, even though i would pefer if everyone could do what they want, why should you care what other people do, i dont take drugs, never have, never will. better education, better health and more equality

yes there might not be much of chance they will win, but through out history how do you think other people get into power, a few people vote, people see results, "hey all those people voted for them so i will next time", that is one reason why people vote for a certain party, i vote for a party because i believe they will help the most, that is naive, but i am doing what i believe is right and i would like to see others do the same, but it is up to you, as it is a democracy

wow, i never knew there were so many right wing people in aus

Most Australian voters are conservative (hence Howard in government) and conservatism will grow in the future with an ageing population. The biggest conservative groups are the elderly and upper middle income earners (rich people are 50:50 ALP:LIB).

i am not supporting greens to get rid of howard, i dont care about him, i believe the greens would do a very good job in power, they want to help the environment, if that is not done soon the australia will become a desert, they are more compasionate and allow more rights, refugees, any sexual orientation, and help the poor, and making drugs a heath issue not a criminal issue. if you read the policy they dont want to allow people to take drugs they just want to be able to help them, even though i would pefer if everyone could do what they want, why should you care what other people do, i dont take drugs, never have, never will. better education, better health and more equality

Bob Brown has no concept of economics. He would essentially run us into the ground which would then leave no money for social policies at all. Besides Green votes are preferenced to Labor. Basically a vote for Bob Brown is a vote for Mark Latham (who couldn't run the economy better than a blind platapus even if he tried).

wow, i never knew there were so many right wing people in aus
i am not supporting greens to get rid of howard, i dont care about him, i believe the greens would do a very good job in power, they want to help the environment, if that is not done soon the australia will become a desert, they are more compasionate and allow more rights, refugees, any sexual orientation, and help the poor, and making drugs a heath issue not a criminal issue. if you read the policy they dont want to allow people to take drugs they just want to be able to help them, even though i would pefer if everyone could do what they want, why should you care what other people do, i dont take drugs, never have, never will. better education, better health and more equality

yes there might not be much of chance they will win, but through out history how do you think other people get into power, a few people vote, people see results, "hey all those people voted for them so i will next time", that is one reason why people vote for a certain party, i vote for a party because i believe they will help the most, that is naive, but i am doing what i believe is right and i would like to see others do the same, but it is up to you, as it is a democracy

But your thread title states "vote for the greens and get rid of John Howard". If you do not care about John Howard why call the thread by this title? Why mention John Howard at all?

I have read the Green's policies and quite franky they are naive and unsustainable. Industry would be crippled, our drinking water supplies depleted and we would be a half-way house for anyone with the funds and/or means to reach our shores. To say they will reduce land used by infrastructure to pre-1995 levels is blatantly ridiculous. How do you propose this be implemented? Would the people driven from their homes be compensated? Where Would the money come from? Where would they live?

The Green's would apologise on behalf of every Australian to the Indigenous Australians opening us up for the onslaught of legal action and compensation demands further depleting the nation's funds.

You are free to vote for whoever you like. Your vote is yours to use, there is noone who will deny that. That is democracy as you say. But you also have to respect those that do not follow your ideology and refrain from calling people racist because they do not agree with you on certain issues.

..and refrain from calling people racist because they do not agree with you on certain issues.

Nicely put. I have notice a disturbing trend whereby any ethnic group that doesn't get what it wants on any given issue starts jumping up and down and crying "rascist, rascist". A prime example is the lebanese community kicking up a stink about Sydney Metropolitan police describing offenders as "of Lebanese extraction". How is that derogatory to lebanese? It, put bluntly, is not. The growing refusal to acknowledge issues such as this is frightening to say the least.

I like being able to call a spade a spade. But that's one like I am unable to indulge.

As for Green economics... that is a bigger contradiction in terms that Military intelligence ever was.

Agreed, I call it how I see it. Something that is increasingly frowned upon in a society hiding behind a smokescreen of political correctness.

On the police descriptions, again I agree with you. Any political correctness that hinders the apprehension of a suspected criminal must be stopped. If a suspect is described as Lebanese, Chinese, Caucasian or otherwise it is precisely that, a description. It is not a derogatory comment but purely a statement of fact based on witness accounts or video surveillance.

Hopefully someday soon we will emerge from the politcal correctness fog and start treating people as people and not members of ethnic or religious groups.

..and refrain from calling people racist because they do not agree with you on certain issues.

Nicely put. I have notice a disturbing trend whereby any ethnic group that doesn't get what it wants on any given issue starts jumping up and down and crying "rascist, rascist". A prime example is the lebanese community kicking up a stink about Sydney Metropolitan police describing offenders as "of Lebanese extraction". How is that derogatory to lebanese? It, put bluntly, is not. The growing refusal to acknowledge issues such as this is frightening to say the least.

I like being able to call a spade a spade. But that's one like I am unable to indulge.

As for Green economics... that is a bigger contradiction in terms that Military intelligence ever was.

i only called one person racist, and thats because he is, i put john howard in the title to get more people to look at it
and you keep mentioning bob brown as if he is in charge, greens are all grassroots/comitee he has listen to everyone, and there alot of greens members, and a lot of them know econmics, have a look at kerry nettles budget response
and people get angry if the media says asian or arabic always, not australian or italian or spanish then they are steven or some guy

Bob Brown is the leader of the Greens, fact. He is the public face of the party, fact.
Every party has committees working behind the scenes and the Greens are no different. The difference is that the Greens have policies they can never live up to either because they are logistically impossible or economically floored. It is easy to have outlandish policies and promises when you know you will never have to implement them, Bob Brown knows this and plays on it to make sure he is elected each time.

Personally, I think he is an embarrasment to the Greens, his attention seeking behaviour and blatant disrespect to those who disagree with his policies is a disgrace. His treatment of foreign visitors is nothing short of shameful and he is a poor ambassador for his party and those that follow it.

Your last comment, if I understand it correctly backs up our arguments. Noone complains if the person is described as caucasian, white, European but cry foul when they are described as black, arabic, muslim, chinese etc etc. You have backed up the double-standard we were talking about.

Well this race thing spreads far into the community...

Take for example American Idol 3 and Australian Idol. When there were black people in the bottom 3 of the contest, the media and hosts suggested people were voting on race.

When 3 white people were in the bottom 3 it was because they couldn't sing.

When will society rid itself of political correctness?

It is even worse in public schools.

I'm afraid it will take a long time to undo the damage done by political correctness. Especially as it is now part of school curriculum. School's are now preaching politics to students rather than teaching them to read and write.
The State Museum in Melbourne now has re-written history and removed much of the exhibits of dinosaurs etc and replaced them with Indigenous Australian history. Don't get me wrong, the history of the indigenous people's of our land is important and must be told, but so must the history since the arrival of Europeans and so must the history of our planet and the various cultures and civilisations that live on it.
The State Art Gallery has separated art according to whether it is indigenous art or non-indigenous art. With greater space goven to indigenous regardless of its quality. Why? Because it is politically correct of course. Isn't this discriminatory and racist? No, because it is discriminating against white artists so it is OK.

It seems that some people by discriminating against whites believe they are making up for the past. That's how I see it.

You know the Green's preferences go to the Labor Party anyway.

A vote for Bob Brown is a vote for Mark Latham.

...

All the more reason to not vote Green.

Even scarier is that a vote for John Howard is a vote for John Howard.

And for Abbott and Costello, and Vanstone and Ruddock.

Far better a vote for anyone else.

You know the Green's preferences go to the Labor Party anyway.

A vote for Bob Brown is a vote for Mark Latham.

...

All the more reason to not vote Green.

Even scarier is that a vote for John Howard is a vote for John Howard.

And for Abbott and Costello, and Vanstone and Ruddock.

Far better a vote for anyone else.

LOL Mark...is that you? :lol:

You know the Green's preferences go to the Labor Party anyway.

A vote for Bob Brown is a vote for Mark Latham.

...

All the more reason to not vote Green.

Even scarier is that a vote for John Howard is a vote for John Howard.

And for Abbott and Costello, and Vanstone and Ruddock.

Far better a vote for anyone else.

LOL Mark...is that you? :lol:

No.

It is easy to have outlandish policies and promises when you know you will never have to implement them, Bob Brown knows this and plays on it to make sure he is elected each time.

See doesn't that concern anyone? That he actually gets elected? Perhaps the Howard government needs to sink more funds into mental health.

It is easy to have outlandish policies and promises when you know you will never have to implement them, Bob Brown knows this and plays on it to make sure he is elected each time.

See doesn't that concern anyone? That he actually gets elected? Perhaps the Howard government needs to sink more funds into mental health.

The Greens are one of the minor parties which control the balance of power in the Senate. To dismiss them because they are a minor party is ridiculous.

An investment into mental health is an excellent suggestion. It may be the only answer for John Howard's selective amnesia.

The Greens are one of the minor parties which control the balance of power in the Senate. To dismiss them because they are a minor party is ridiculous.

Actually no. The Greens don't actually matter. The balance lies in the Independents. As long as the current government has them on side, legislation shall pass through the Upper House.

It is even better when the Democrats come aboard. e.g. MedicarePlus.

The Greens are one of the minor parties which control the balance of power in the Senate. To dismiss them because they are a minor party is ridiculous.

Actually no. The Greens don't actually matter. The balance lies in the Independents. As long as the current government has them on side, legislation shall pass through the Upper House.

It is even better when the Democrats come aboard. e.g. MedicarePlus.

The only "Democrat" who could be considered as "on side" is the one who deserted her party, Meg Lees.

She will have no support base in the forthcoming election, and will meet the fate of electoral oblivion which she deserves.

The Greens, according to all the polls, are about to supplant the Democrats in the Senate.

The Greens are one of the minor parties which control the balance of power in the Senate. To dismiss them because they are a minor party is ridiculous.

Actually no. The Greens don't actually matter. The balance lies in the Independents. As long as the current government has them on side, legislation shall pass through the Upper House.

It is even better when the Democrats come aboard. e.g. MedicarePlus.

The only "Democrat" who could be considered as "on side" is the one who deserted her party, Meg Lees.

She will have no support base in the forthcoming election, and will meet the fate of electoral oblivion which she deserves.

The Greens, according to all the polls, are about to supplant the Democrats in the Senate.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

I'm looking forward to Mark Latham's win this election. :P

The budget backfired on Costello, pumping the ALP up drastically in the polls. John Howard looks less and less credible by the day. All that's left is for Latham not to screw it up and he's a shoo in.

As for the Greens, they need to change their luddite policy drastically, and I do mean drastically for me to even look at them. Voting for the Greens would be almost as bad as voting for the Nationals, as far as I'm concerned. Labor are easily the biggest friends to the biotechnology industry.

Look at this! *dances about*
http://www.springboard.net.au/Assets/Graph1enlarged.gif

I'm looking forward to Mark Latham's win this election. :P

That the Coalition primary vote has hit 47% and has stabilised there over the past week means Howard would gain seats at the next election.

But, as I always say, the only poll that counts is the one taken on election day.

As Mark Latham will collapse in a screaming heap in oh I don't know, let us just say 6 weeks from now, I look forward to another 3 years of good government.

I'm looking forward to Mark Latham's win this election. :P

That the Coalition primary vote has hit 47% and has stabilised there over the past week means Howard would gain seats at the next election.

But, as I always say, the only poll that counts is the one taken on election day.

As Mark Latham will collapse in a screaming heap in oh I don't know, let us just say 6 weeks from now, I look forward to another 3 years of good government.

Now who is counting chickens?

Now who is counting chickens?

Oh...but see I know what is going to happen. There is a difference Smeagol.

Now who is counting chickens?

Oh...but see I know what is going to happen. There is a difference Smeagol.

Check your dictionary please.

There is a difference between psychic and psychotic.

There is a difference between psychic and psychotic.

There aint no need for name-calling.

Indeed. I'll see you at the ballot, Benicus! Grrrrr...

What if Mark Latham doesn't screw up? ;)

Now, sabre-rattling aside, what are the big issues for you this election?

Lower taxes, nation building, defence, health, education.

Howard delivers on all 5.

The first three seem fair enough, but I'm curious as to your position on Health and Education, especially since both systems have suffered extensive damage under Howard and his tax cuts.

The first three seem fair enough, but I'm curious as to your position on Health and Education, especially since both systems have suffered extensive damage under Howard and his tax cuts.

Medicare is the realm of the federal government. Hospitals and GP services are a state issue (apart from bulk-billing). I live in an area which has one of the highest bulk-billing rates in the country. Lots of families. I cannot complain.

On education. The federal government has increased Commonwealth funding of public schools by 60%. Public schools are a state issue though, so Howard is being more than generous. Also helping private schools out is saving us billions. I see the bigger picture.

I blame the state Labor governments for health and education failures. They are their responsibilities after all.

I also know that everytime Labor has been in federally we were stuffed. Also, judging by the current mismanagement on a state level by Labor I am definately not going to be bribed by reading books and a promise to shut down kirribilli house.

The first three seem fair enough, but I'm curious as to your position on Health and Education, especially since both systems have suffered extensive damage under Howard and his tax cuts.

Medicare is the realm of the federal government. Hospitals and GP services are a state issue (apart from bulk-billing). I live in an area which has one of the highest bulk-billing rates in the country. Lots of families. I cannot complain.

On education. The federal government has increased Commonwealth funding of public schools by 60%. Public schools are a state issue though, so Howard is being more than generous. Also helping private schools out is saving us billions. I see the bigger picture.

I blame the state Labor governments for health and education failures. They are their responsibilities after all.

I also know that everytime Labor has been in federally we were stuffed. Also, judging by the current mismanagement on a state level by Labor I am definately not going to be bribed by reading books and a promise to shut down kirribilli house.

Medicare especially. They have all but destroyed it; once everyone was entitled to bulk-bill, now only the "lower tier" can do so. They have turned Medicare into Welfare. The number of practices in my area that even bulk-bill at all is a quarter of what it was in '96, if that.

As for Education, this budget is the first budget ever in which the Commonwealth funding for private schools has EXCEEDED that of public schools. This is bad. The point of private schools is that they are private. So the Federal government has pumped the most money into the schools attended by the least Australians, while the public schools that service the majority fall apart.

Medicare certainly could not survive three more years of Howard.

The first three seem fair enough, but I'm curious as to your position on Health and Education, especially since both systems have suffered extensive damage under Howard and his tax cuts.

Medicare is the realm of the federal government. Hospitals and GP services are a state issue (apart from bulk-billing). I live in an area which has one of the highest bulk-billing rates in the country. Lots of families. I cannot complain.

On education. The federal government has increased Commonwealth funding of public schools by 60%. Public schools are a state issue though, so Howard is being more than generous. Also helping private schools out is saving us billions. I see the bigger picture.

I blame the state Labor governments for health and education failures. They are their responsibilities after all.

I also know that everytime Labor has been in federally we were stuffed. Also, judging by the current mismanagement on a state level by Labor I am definately not going to be bribed by reading books and a promise to shut down kirribilli house.

Medicare especially. They have all but destroyed it; once everyone was entitled to bulk-bill, now only the "lower tier" can do so. They have turned Medicare into Welfare. The number of practices in my area that even bulk-bill at all is a quarter of what it was in '96, if that.

As for Education, this budget is the first budget ever in which the Commonwealth funding for private schools has EXCEEDED that of public schools. This is bad. The point of private schools is that they are private. So the Federal government has pumped the most money into the schools attended by the least Australians, while the public schools that service the majority fall apart.

Medicare certainly could not survive three more years of Howard.

If the government didnt help private schools then the taxpayer would be forking out triple the amount for public schools than we are now (probably more once the state governments mismanaged it all).

As for bulk-billing, it is difficult to make doctors bulk-bill. You cannot force them. Even when it was started Medicare only covered 80% of costs. Basically the aim of the new Medicare is to get people to have lots of children. Then they benefit. Not a bad idea if you ask me.

The first three seem fair enough, but I'm curious as to your position on Health and Education, especially since both systems have suffered extensive damage under Howard and his tax cuts.

Medicare is the realm of the federal government. Hospitals and GP services are a state issue (apart from bulk-billing). I live in an area which has one of the highest bulk-billing rates in the country. Lots of families. I cannot complain.

On education. The federal government has increased Commonwealth funding of public schools by 60%. Public schools are a state issue though, so Howard is being more than generous. Also helping private schools out is saving us billions. I see the bigger picture.

I blame the state Labor governments for health and education failures. They are their responsibilities after all.

I also know that everytime Labor has been in federally we were stuffed. Also, judging by the current mismanagement on a state level by Labor I am definately not going to be bribed by reading books and a promise to shut down kirribilli house.

Medicare especially. They have all but destroyed it; once everyone was entitled to bulk-bill, now only the "lower tier" can do so. They have turned Medicare into Welfare. The number of practices in my area that even bulk-bill at all is a quarter of what it was in '96, if that.

As for Education, this budget is the first budget ever in which the Commonwealth funding for private schools has EXCEEDED that of public schools. This is bad. The point of private schools is that they are private. So the Federal government has pumped the most money into the schools attended by the least Australians, while the public schools that service the majority fall apart.

Medicare certainly could not survive three more years of Howard.

If the government didnt help private schools then the taxpayer would be forking out triple the amount for public schools than we are now (probably more once the state governments mismanaged it all).

As for bulk-billing, it is difficult to make doctors bulk-bill. You cannot force them. Even when it was started Medicare only covered 80% of costs. Basically the aim of the new Medicare is to get people to have lots of children. Then they benefit. Not a bad idea if you ask me.

Missing the point...the federal government is throwing 7.6 billion dollars at the small number schools that need it the very least, while the thousands of delapidated public schools to which the overwhelming majority of Australian school students are going are suffering like hell. Aside from the fact that this is blatant mismanagement, it also runs extremely counteractive to the government's social engineering attempts at boosting the birthrate. Why have children if the services to support them are dying?

As for bulk billing, there's more to boosting the birth rate than tax cuts. Perhaps they should try boosting the services which families use, rather than throwing valueless tax cuts at them? Cutting away at one of our most fundamental public services is not going to boost the birthrate.

Missing the point...the federal government is throwing 7.6 billion dollars at the small number schools that need it the very least, while the thousands of delapidated public schools to which the overwhelming majority of Australian school students are going are suffering like hell. Aside from the fact that this is blatant mismanagement, it also runs extremely counteractive to the government's social engineering attempts at boosting the birthrate. Why have children if the services to support them are dying?

As for bulk billing, there's more to boosting the birth rate than tax cuts. Perhaps they should try boosting the services which families use, rather than throwing valueless tax cuts at them? Cutting away at one of our most fundamental public services is not going to boost the birthrate.

There is more in the budget than that. Perhaps you should read it all in detail. Quite a fascinating read (good bed time stuff).

Private schools get $4.7 billion this year, not $7.6. The total amount being spent is $8 billion.

If the federal government were to stop funding private schools the cost would be as such:

education would cost the taxpayer an extra $10 billion a year if the federal government stopped supporting private schools. A waste of money really when you consider that the system is alreading at maximum capcity to serve the economy.

If the federal government were to stop funding private schools the cost would be as such:

education would cost the taxpayer an extra $10 billion a year if the federal government stopped supporting private schools. A waste of money really when you consider that the system is alreading at maximum capcity to serve the economy.

Nice to know the Federal government is putting less to education than I thought. :(

In any case, why $10b? is this like the $100b for the republic? ;)

If the federal government were to stop funding private schools the cost would be as such:

education would cost the taxpayer an extra $10 billion a year if the federal government stopped supporting private schools. A waste of money really when you consider that the system is alreading at maximum capcity to serve the economy.

Nice to know the Federal government is putting less to education than I thought. :(

In any case, why $10b? is this like the $100b for the republic? ;)

Every private school student is funded by the taxpayer at a cost of $3,500 per capita. Every public school student is funded at a cost of $8,000 per capita. Basically you would need to cater for this as pulling private school funding would result in many students returning to the public sector.

Add in about $1 billion or maybe $3 billion at the most for state government waste and teacher's salaries (which would have to go up in the public sector) and you easily have $10 billion in costs.

As for the republic, that is still a given fact.

And Latham's policies are..... *crickets chirping*

And Latham's policies are..... *crickets chirping*

1. free reading books for all
2. free education (funded by the taxpayer)
3. free healthcare (funded by the taxpayer)
4. wide ranging tax cuts for all
5. pull out of Iraq
6. ignore the USA
7. make friends with people who hate us
8. compulsory unionism
9. sign kyoto
10. some other free stuff
11. more free stuff
12. i think free yo-yo's are in there somewhere
13. more free stuff
14. republic
15. ponies for all

...

uh...I can see we have a spendthrift on our hands. back to the days of Keating's $90 billion debt with nothing to show.

While I do not like the thought of taxpayers money funding private schools, it does make economic sense. If it attracts more people to put their children through private education it then frees up money and resources for those in the public system.
Weighing up the extra costs of having a public education system inundated with former private school students if funding was cut would end up costing more than the initial outlay to private schools in the budget.
Well, at least thats how I see it. The bigger picture needs to be taken into account when making judgements on these issues.

And Latham's policies are..... *crickets chirping*

1. free reading books for all
2. free education (funded by the taxpayer)
3. free healthcare (funded by the taxpayer)
4. wide ranging tax cuts for all
5. pull out of Iraq
6. ignore the USA
7. make friends with people who hate us
8. compulsory unionism
9. sign kyoto
10. some other free stuff
11. more free stuff
12. i think free yo-yo's are in there somewhere
13. more free stuff
14. republic
15. ponies for all

...

uh...I can see we have a spendthrift on our hands. back to the days of Keating's $90 billion debt with nothing to show.

yo-yos ! Wow, where do I sign on!!

yo-yos ! Wow, where do I sign on!!

They are free mate! Aint he a great bloke?

...uh...he will have to increase the GST by 8% and increase direct taxation a smidge (maybe 4-10%). Free services aren't cheap you know!

Thats OK, I'll be too distracted by my shiny new yo-yo to notice the extra taxes.

Thats OK, I'll be too distracted by my shiny new yo-yo to notice the extra taxes.

He is such an opportunist. He makes me sick to the stomach. Luckily people are beginning to see right through him. I know several people who saw his budget reply and asked me if that was his summary.

I know a few people where I am who said after the budget they'd vote Howard...if anything just to keep that moron Latham out.

And that is good enough for me.

That, and Howard is a knock-around kind of bloke - not like someone else who "knocks" others around :wink:

And Latham's policies are..... *crickets chirping*

1. free reading books for all
2. free education (funded by the taxpayer)
3. free healthcare (funded by the taxpayer)
4. wide ranging tax cuts for all
5. pull out of Iraq
6. ignore the USA
7. make friends with people who hate us
8. compulsory unionism
9. sign kyoto
10. some other free stuff
11. more free stuff
12. i think free yo-yo's are in there somewhere
13. more free stuff
14. republic
15. ponies for all

...

uh...I can see we have a spendthrift on our hands. back to the days of Keating's $90 billion debt with nothing to show.

Liberal makes money for Labor to spend, you know that. ;)

John Howard has made a lot of money for Labor to spend.

Thats OK, I'll be too distracted by my shiny new yo-yo to notice the extra taxes.

He is such an opportunist. He makes me sick to the stomach. Luckily people are beginning to see right through him. I know several people who saw his budget reply and asked me if that was his summary.

I know a few people where I am who said after the budget they'd vote Howard...if anything just to keep that moron Latham out.

And that is good enough for me.

That, and Howard is a knock-around kind of bloke - not like someone else who "knocks" others around :wink:

That's one of Latham's best features...Taxi driver or MP giving 'im shit? BREAK HIS ARM!

Somehow I think the gloss is wearing off Latham by the day. The media that embraced him because he was not John Howard now realise that that is his only "asset".

Thing is, when you get into government you have to implement your policies and make them viable. Something that has not occurred to Mr.Latham at all. Even his "party faithful" are starting to get wind of his stench. Trying to push a "media personality" in Peter Garrett ahead of other members to run for a seat in parliament. He was genuinely shocked that the party members blocked his plan, afterall he is Mark Latham and everyone loves him right? :lol: a common tactic by desperate parties, get a celebrity to run for office. It has happened a lot in Victoria with the state Labor government.

Why isn't old Pete running for the Greens? Because he knows he won't win a seat if he runs as a Green. Not that he'll win a seat as a Labor candidate either!

Hopefully as the election nears those people that supported Latham in the beginning will see what he represents in the cold hard light of day and vote for the best government and at this point in time that is John Howard and the Liberals.

As an aside, the people that send their children to private schools pay their taxes as well. Why shouldn't the government support them as it does everyone else who pays their taxes...

Don't get me started on Labor's fiscal mismanagement. Nor on their education and defence related idiocy. I have work to do, and can't afford the hours it would take just to list the indiscretions...

Don't get me started on Labor's fiscal mismanagement. Nor on their education and defence related idiocy. I have work to do, and can't afford the hours it would take just to list the indiscretions...

That...And there is a 65 page limit to NS threads and I wouldn't have time to read volumes I - XII.

As an aside, the people that send their children to private schools pay their taxes as well. Why shouldn't the government support them as it does everyone else who pays their taxes...

Don't get me started on Labor's fiscal mismanagement. Nor on their education and defence related idiocy. I have work to do, and can't afford the hours it would take just to list the indiscretions...

Labour hasnt had a chance to manage for 8 years. Its a whole different party. I wonder what gave you that impression? Hmmm, do you watch question time?

Labour hasnt had a chance to manage for 8 years.

PM Bob Hawke (ALP) 1983-1991
PM Paul Keating (ALP) 1991-1996

Uh...let me count...13 years.

I think you selectively read that statement.

I think you selectively read that statement.

Of course it was selective. I don't have to comment on everything you say.

No you dont. But you do. I meant that Labour hasnt been in power for 8 years. Not that they havnt been in for 8 years in the past.

No you dont. But you do. I meant that Labour hasnt been in power for 8 years. Not that they havnt been in for 8 years in the past.

Yes...but the same ALP members from the Keating government are still sitting. Therefore I know Latham would muck things up.

He apparently speaks to Keating over the phone a lot. That is a bad sign.

Apparently? If its true its probably just because they held the same position.

And backbenchers dont really matter. Ministers do.

Apparently? If its true its probably just because they held the same position.

And backbenchers dont really matter. Ministers do.

Same Ministers, same ideological rubbish.

It'd be nice If you could combine the good aspects of both parties.

It'd be nice If you could combine the good aspects of both parties.

Labor rarely has anything good to offer. Latham has come out with nothing that appeals to me.

Apparently? If its true its probably just because they held the same position.

And backbenchers dont really matter. Ministers do.

And look at the talent on display - Abbot and Costello (only not as amusing as the original), Downer, Ruddock and Vanstone - people we can certainly do without.

It'd be nice If you could combine the good aspects of both parties.

Labor rarely has anything good to offer. Latham has come out with nothing that appeals to me.

Is it because He's labour?

It'd be nice If you could combine the good aspects of both parties.

Labor rarely has anything good to offer. Latham has come out with nothing that appeals to me.

Is it because He's labour?

No it is because he offers no realistic policies. That, and everytime they have been in government (state or federal) things only got worse. NSW is bad anough with Carr. I don't want Latham too.

And does he have no good policies because he's labour?

And does he have no good policies because he's labour?

It has nothing to do with the Party, but the ideology behind the policies.

I take issues as they come. Just so happens Latham offers no policies I agree with.

Do you agree with all the Liberals policies?

Do you agree with all the Liberals policies?

No.

Labor's strengths lie in fortifying our essential public services, particularily in education, health and community security. I have never met anyone in medicine who does not vote for Labor. Almost the entirety of Victoria's nursing population voted for Steve Bracks due to his position on ratio quotas. (Which came back to bite, because Steve Bracks has turned into Jeff Kennett MkII)

Labor are about increasing the quality of life for all Australians, making sure everyone has the opertunity to reach their potential. This usually means they're big spenders on education.

Labor is also generally the greatest allies of the unions. They are also the greatest allies of the applied sciences industries, and of the universities.

Currently, everything that Labor builds at the federal level is highly degraded, due to far too much exposure to the caustic Howard regime. I blame this for the most part on Kim Beazley, probably the biggest loser in the history of Australian politics. Much of the recent disruption that Benicus attributes to Labor is more truthfully caused by terrible federal policies since '96.

Labor's strengths lie in fortifying our essential public services, particularily in education, health and community security. I have never met anyone in medicine who does not vote for Labor. Almost the entirety of Victoria's nursing population voted for Steve Bracks due to his position on ratio quotas. (Which came back to bite, because Steve Bracks has turned into Jeff Kennett MkII)

Labor are about increasing the quality of life for all Australians, making sure everyone has the opertunity to reach their potential. This usually means they're big spenders on education.

Labor is also generally the greatest allies of the unions. They are also the greatest allies of the applied sciences industries, and of the universities.

Currently, everything that Labor builds at the federal level is highly degraded, due to far too much exposure to the caustic Howard regime. I blame this for the most part on Kim Beazley, probably the biggest loser in the history of Australian politics. Much of the recent disruption that Benicus attributes to Labor is more truthfully caused by terrible federal policies since '96.

Despite me being able to totally blow this out of the water...I cannot be bothered tonight.

I will say this though...You would be laughed out of any public hall for blaming Carr's mismanagement on Howard.

Labor's strengths lie in fortifying our essential public services, particularily in education, health and community security. I have never met anyone in medicine who does not vote for Labor. Almost the entirety of Victoria's nursing population voted for Steve Bracks due to his position on ratio quotas. (Which came back to bite, because Steve Bracks has turned into Jeff Kennett MkII)

Labor are about increasing the quality of life for all Australians, making sure everyone has the opertunity to reach their potential. This usually means they're big spenders on education.

Labor is also generally the greatest allies of the unions. They are also the greatest allies of the applied sciences industries, and of the universities.

Currently, everything that Labor builds at the federal level is highly degraded, due to far too much exposure to the caustic Howard regime. I blame this for the most part on Kim Beazley, probably the biggest loser in the history of Australian politics. Much of the recent disruption that Benicus attributes to Labor is more truthfully caused by terrible federal policies since '96.

Despite me being able to totally blow this out of the water...I cannot be bothered tonight.

Ooooooooo...I believe you.

Most importantly, Labor tend against making laws based on misplaced morality.

I truly dread the thought of Costello getting his filthy theocratic hands on the reigns of power.

Labor's strengths lie in fortifying our essential public services, particularily in education, health and community security. I have never met anyone in medicine who does not vote for Labor. Almost the entirety of Victoria's nursing population voted for Steve Bracks due to his position on ratio quotas. (Which came back to bite, because Steve Bracks has turned into Jeff Kennett MkII)

Labor are about increasing the quality of life for all Australians, making sure everyone has the opertunity to reach their potential. This usually means they're big spenders on education.

Labor is also generally the greatest allies of the unions. They are also the greatest allies of the applied sciences industries, and of the universities.

Currently, everything that Labor builds at the federal level is highly degraded, due to far too much exposure to the caustic Howard regime. I blame this for the most part on Kim Beazley, probably the biggest loser in the history of Australian politics. Much of the recent disruption that Benicus attributes to Labor is more truthfully caused by terrible federal policies since '96.

I will say this though...You would be laughed out of any public hall for blaming Carr's mismanagement on Howard.

Hey, I never said the state governments weren't mismanaging them too, because they are. Especially Bracksy. Would the Liberal party like Bracksy? He seems to be acting on the basis of Liberal (or at least Kennett) policy, and we don't want him.

Perhaps what has pissed me off the most about Bracks is what he has done to my former allergy and eczema specialist, Dr. David Hill. Hill is the allergy and eczema specialist for the Royal Children's Hospital and treats children with allergies and eczema all across the state. His practice was located in a terrace house, two stories with approximately 10 rooms, across the road of the hospital. He had been in the same house since I was a child. On my last visit, when I was 18, my mother, who was accompanying me, mentioned that my brother also had a few allergies and he suggested that he come and see him. When they went to see him, they had found that he was now located in one room in the hospital. The room was about half the size of his previous room where he would see his patients.
I can't understand why the Bracks government, which has seen a 40% increase in government revenue since it came into office, would relocate a doctor such as Hill into facilities which are much smaller than his previous practice yet promised that he would fix the state's health care system if he were elected. I suspect that the lure of selling the house, which I estimate to have been sold at a price close to a million dollars when you consider the location, was the reason why Dr. Hill was forced to move into the hospital.

Perhaps what has pissed me off the most about Bracks is what he has done to my former allergy and eczema specialist, Dr. David Hill. Hill is the allergy and eczema specialist for the Royal Children's Hospital and treats children with allergies and eczema all across the state. His practice was located in a terrace house, two stories with approximately 10 rooms, across the road of the hospital. He had been in the same house since I was a child. On my last visit, when I was 18, my mother, who was accompanying me, mentioned that my brother also had a few allergies and he suggested that he come and see him. When they went to see him, they had found that he was now located in one room in the hospital. The room was about half the size of his previous room where he would see his patients.
I can't understand why the Bracks government, which has seen a 40% increase in government revenue since it came into office, would relocate a doctor such as Hill into facilities which are much smaller than his previous practice yet promised that he would fix the state's health care system if he were elected. I suspect that the lure of selling the house, which I estimate to have been sold at a price close to a million dollars when you consider the location, was the reason why Dr. Hill was forced to move into the hospital.

My bet is Dr. Hill voted for him, too.

Where the hell is the money going?

My bet is Dr. Hill voted for him, too.

Where the hell is the money going?

If we ever knew, Doyle is bound to be the next premier.

Labor's strengths lie in fortifying our essential public services, particularily in education, health and community security. I have never met anyone in medicine who does not vote for Labor. Almost the entirety of Victoria's nursing population voted for Steve Bracks due to his position on ratio quotas. (Which came back to bite, because Steve Bracks has turned into Jeff Kennett MkII)

Labor are about increasing the quality of life for all Australians, making sure everyone has the opertunity to reach their potential. This usually means they're big spenders on education.

Labor is also generally the greatest allies of the unions. They are also the greatest allies of the applied sciences industries, and of the universities.

Currently, everything that Labor builds at the federal level is highly degraded, due to far too much exposure to the caustic Howard regime. I blame this for the most part on Kim Beazley, probably the biggest loser in the history of Australian politics. Much of the recent disruption that Benicus attributes to Labor is more truthfully caused by terrible federal policies since '96.

Labor lacks the financial responsibility to govern. They have proven this time and again. Who cares if they have not been in government for 8 years? It is not like kids in kindergarten lining up for their turn on the swing it is running a country.
Steve Bracks renegged on his nurse-patient ratios because he could not meet them, simple. I suspect he knew he could never meet them when he made the policy but it got him elected didn't it.
As far as Labor being the closest allies of the unions. Hmmmm....if that is the case then is that necessarily a good thing? Unions tend to take advantage of the "friendship" between Labor and the unions and hold the government to ransom. Take a look at Victorian state government for example. Unions have them bent over a barrel to the extent the Victorian government turned down 90 million dollars in funding for the renovations to the MCG because the condition was that the construction site was an open shop. The CFMEU were running a closed shop, that is only members of their union were to be employed on the site. So rather than confront the union on its illegal practises the state government knocked back the funding to keep their union mates happy.
Labor government in Victoria also banned genetically modified canola crops from being grown in the state costing millions not to mention losing the national research facility into genetically modified crops that was to be built in Victoria and would have attracted money and created research jobs for the state. But no, the Greens decided genetically modified food was evil, despite scientific and historical data that showed they were actually safer and provided no threat to native flora and Labor blindly followed the Green mantra over scientific evidence. Doesn't sound too friendly to reseach and applied science to me.
Basically, we cannot afford to give Latham his "turn" in government because he has no policies, no idea of how to construct a budget and his less than stable temperament will more likely than not portray a poor image to the international community.

In 1951 49% of Australian workers were union members.

Today, that figure is less than 17%

Why? Unions ripped people off.

Where the hell is the money going?

Big ideological programs which never work out.

Where the hell is the money going?

Big ideological programs which never work out.

In the case of Bracks especially, such as? =/

Labor's strengths lie in fortifying our essential public services, particularily in education, health and community security. I have never met anyone in medicine who does not vote for Labor. Almost the entirety of Victoria's nursing population voted for Steve Bracks due to his position on ratio quotas. (Which came back to bite, because Steve Bracks has turned into Jeff Kennett MkII)

Labor are about increasing the quality of life for all Australians, making sure everyone has the opertunity to reach their potential. This usually means they're big spenders on education.

Labor is also generally the greatest allies of the unions. They are also the greatest allies of the applied sciences industries, and of the universities.

Currently, everything that Labor builds at the federal level is highly degraded, due to far too much exposure to the caustic Howard regime. I blame this for the most part on Kim Beazley, probably the biggest loser in the history of Australian politics. Much of the recent disruption that Benicus attributes to Labor is more truthfully caused by terrible federal policies since '96.

Labor lacks the financial responsibility to govern. They have proven this time and again. Who cares if they have not been in government for 8 years? It is not like kids in kindergarten lining up for their turn on the swing it is running a country.
Steve Bracks renegged on his nurse-patient ratios because he could not meet them, simple. I suspect he knew he could never meet them when he made the policy but it got him elected didn't it.
As far as Labor being the closest allies of the unions. Hmmmm....if that is the case then is that necessarily a good thing? Unions tend to take advantage of the "friendship" between Labor and the unions and hold the government to ransom. Take a look at Victorian state government for example. Unions have them bent over a barrel to the extent the Victorian government turned down 90 million dollars in funding for the renovations to the MCG because the condition was that the construction site was an open shop. The CFMEU were running a closed shop, that is only members of their union were to be employed on the site. So rather than confront the union on its illegal practises the state government knocked back the funding to keep their union mates happy.
Labor government in Victoria also banned genetically modified canola crops from being grown in the state costing millions not to mention losing the national research facility into genetically modified crops that was to be built in Victoria and would have attracted money and created research jobs for the state. But no, the Greens decided genetically modified food was evil, despite scientific and historical data that showed they were actually safer and provided no threat to native flora and Labor blindly followed the Green mantra over scientific evidence. Doesn't sound too friendly to reseach and applied science to me.
Basically, we cannot afford to give Latham his "turn" in government because he has no policies, no idea of how to construct a budget and his less than stable temperament will more likely than not portray a poor image to the international community.

The Bracks government is in no way representative of the standard Labor government, filthy thing that it is.

As for Latham's policies, there are plenty. Check the ALP website. Sounds like you just haven't been paying attention...cest la vie.

Incidently I thought it was the treasurer's job to construct the budget...McMullan and Cox aren't looking too bad on the fiscal responsibility front. Much more responsible than this particular budget in any case...can tell it's an election year...

As for the victorian government, every one of them is worthless. I dread the next state election.

"Who would do a better job, Bracks or Doyle?" is a very similar question to "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" You're stuffed whichever way you answer.

Can't vote for the greens, they are such luddites I'd be shooting myself in the foot, and the democrats are the flakiest of them all.

As for Latham's policies, there are plenty. Check the ALP website. Sounds like you just haven't been paying attention...cest la vie.

Incidently I thought it was the treasurer's job to construct the budget...McMullan and Cox aren't looking too bad on the fiscal responsibility front. Much more responsible than this particular budget in any case...can tell it's an election year...

1. Yes their oil policy is ludicrous. They want Australians to pay $3 + a Litre for petrol!

2. I think it was a publicity stunt by Latham giving the budget reply. Only thing is that he was very vague and I believe Crean did a better job last May. At least he HAD Labor's policies costed.

As for Latham's policies, there are plenty. Check the ALP website. Sounds like you just haven't been paying attention...cest la vie.

Incidently I thought it was the treasurer's job to construct the budget...McMullan and Cox aren't looking too bad on the fiscal responsibility front. Much more responsible than this particular budget in any case...can tell it's an election year...

1. Yes their oil policy is ludicrous. They want Australians to pay $3 + a Litre for petrol!

2. I think it was a publicity stunt by Latham giving the budget reply. Only thing is that he was very vague and I believe Crean did a better job last May. At least he HAD Labor's policies costed.

Yeah but the thing is, who's Crean? :P

And which policy on oil was that? *checks the site*

As for Latham's policies, there are plenty. Check the ALP website. Sounds like you just haven't been paying attention...cest la vie.

Incidently I thought it was the treasurer's job to construct the budget...McMullan and Cox aren't looking too bad on the fiscal responsibility front. Much more responsible than this particular budget in any case...can tell it's an election year...

1. Yes their oil policy is ludicrous. They want Australians to pay $3 + a Litre for petrol!

2. I think it was a publicity stunt by Latham giving the budget reply. Only thing is that he was very vague and I believe Crean did a better job last May. At least he HAD Labor's policies costed.

Yeah but the thing is, who's Crean? :P

And which policy on oil was that? *checks the site*

HAHA Yes, poor Crean. Nobody even knows who he is!

It is Labor's "pay more, use less" oil policy.

Imagine the effects of $3 per litre. $90 per full tank. Ouch. That'd hit the economy like an interest rate hike. Another example of terrible financial management. Can't remember who asked, but there's that example. And question time is not an example of democracy in action. It's an example of politics and showmanship, a play for the cameras, if you will.

No, I'd rather work at serving my country, rather than watch them play at doing so.

As for Latham's policies, there are plenty. Check the ALP website. Sounds like you just haven't been paying attention...cest la vie.

Incidently I thought it was the treasurer's job to construct the budget...McMullan and Cox aren't looking too bad on the fiscal responsibility front. Much more responsible than this particular budget in any case...can tell it's an election year...

1. Yes their oil policy is ludicrous. They want Australians to pay $3 + a Litre for petrol!

2. I think it was a publicity stunt by Latham giving the budget reply. Only thing is that he was very vague and I believe Crean did a better job last May. At least he HAD Labor's policies costed.

Yeah but the thing is, who's Crean? :P

And which policy on oil was that? *checks the site*

HAHA Yes, poor Crean. Nobody even knows who he is!

It is Labor's "pay more, use less" oil policy.

Ah yes...that one'd hurt... me especially, since I drive 300km twice weekly.

However something similar is essential for our economy in the medium/long term, else we're setting ourselves up for a crash the likes of which hasn't been seen, come 2030-2050.

And don't knock Question Time, Varessa, Question Time is both an example of democracy in action and an example of politics and showmanship, and it's bloody entertaining too!

Yeah, ok... but it gives me the poo poos that politicians can bitch and whine at each other for an hour or so, and that's them "working for the country", while I (and the rest of the defence force) am working my (our) butts off. And they get paid far more than I ever will.

The first act passed by federal parliament, back in 1901, was an act to increase the salaries of federal MPs.. how's that for a rort

Yeah, ok... but it gives me the poo poos that politicians can bitch and whine at each other for an hour or so, and that's them "working for the country", while I (and the rest of the defence force) am working my (our) butts off. And they get paid far more than I ever will.

The first act passed by federal parliament, back in 1901, was an act to increase the salaries of federal MPs.. how's that for a rort

The bitching and whining at eachother would otherwise be done in private, which doesn't involve the people of Australia, whom they're supposed to represent. (Yeah like hell.)

That's very thin... very thin...

Yeah, ok... but it gives me the poo poos that politicians can bitch and whine at each other for an hour or so, and that's them "working for the country", while I (and the rest of the defence force) am working my (our) butts off. And they get paid far more than I ever will.

The first act passed by federal parliament, back in 1901, was an act to increase the salaries of federal MPs.. how's that for a rort

No, actually the first act was the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (white Australia policy - passed with only 2 NO votes).

Yes...Question Time is a joke. Backbenchers just ask pre-designed questions for pre-designed answers by frontbenchers.

It is what politicians do (policy implemeted) that matters. Not what they say.

Ah yes...that one'd hurt... me especially, since I drive 300km twice weekly.

However something similar is essential for our economy in the medium/long term, else we're setting ourselves up for a crash the likes of which hasn't been seen, come 2030-2050.

And don't knock Question Time, Varessa, Question Time is both an example of democracy in action and an example of politics and showmanship, and it's bloody entertaining too!

Apparently it would cost $210 a week to fill up a family car. I doubt many can afford it.

I understand there is need for alternative fuels (no comment - wait until september) but what Labor doesn't get is you cannot force the price of petrol up without alternative fuels already there, and/or adequate public transport available to support the scores of people dumping their cars.

In NSW, there is no way public transport could support more people. It cannot support the current passenger levels!

What makes anyone think the Greens will be better than John Howard? Bob Brown and the other members of the Homosexual Lobby Party (oops, I meant to say their registered name "the Greens") spread more anti-heterosexual propaganda than Germaine Greer and Madonna combined!

What makes anyone think the Greens will be better than John Howard? Bob Brown and the other members of the Homosexual Lobby Party (oops, I meant to say their registered name "the Greens") spread more anti-heterosexual propaganda than Germaine Greer and Madonna combined!

No need to bullshit, there are enough bad things about the Greens for everyone to bitch about.

And gay rights is a good thing.

Ah yes...that one'd hurt... me especially, since I drive 300km twice weekly.
...

Apparently it would cost $210 a week to fill up a family car. I doubt many can afford it.


If you are going to quote figures, please provide a verifiable source.

Or at least provide a basis for your assumptions, e.g. the price of petrol per litre would be "x", based upon ...

Otherwise readers may suspect you of inventing your "statistics".

Ah yes...that one'd hurt... me especially, since I drive 300km twice weekly.

However something similar is essential for our economy in the medium/long term, else we're setting ourselves up for a crash the likes of which hasn't been seen, come 2030-2050.

And don't knock Question Time, Varessa, Question Time is both an example of democracy in action and an example of politics and showmanship, and it's bloody entertaining too!

Apparently it would cost $210 a week to fill up a family car. I doubt many can afford it.

I understand there is need for alternative fuels (no comment - wait until september) but what Labor doesn't get is you cannot force the price of petrol up without alternative fuels already there, and/or adequate public transport available to support the scores of people dumping their cars.

In NSW, there is no way public transport could support more people. It cannot support the current passenger levels!

Lets see, 30L * $3 = $90.

In any case, the idea is to cut back on oil usage. The way to do this is to up the amount of alternative fuels, and encourage the use of fuel efficient vehicles.

If you've got a Toorak Tank instead of a car, and you're using it to take little johnny to school each morning instead of offroading, you deserve to pay $210 a fill. :P

Ah yes...that one'd hurt... me especially, since I drive 300km twice weekly.

However something similar is essential for our economy in the medium/long term, else we're setting ourselves up for a crash the likes of which hasn't been seen, come 2030-2050.

And don't knock Question Time, Varessa, Question Time is both an example of democracy in action and an example of politics and showmanship, and it's bloody entertaining too!

Apparently it would cost $210 a week to fill up a family car. I doubt many can afford it.

I understand there is need for alternative fuels (no comment - wait until september) but what Labor doesn't get is you cannot force the price of petrol up without alternative fuels already there, and/or adequate public transport available to support the scores of people dumping their cars.

In NSW, there is no way public transport could support more people. It cannot support the current passenger levels!

Lets see, 30L * $3 = $90.

In any case, the idea is to cut back on oil usage. The way to do this is to up the amount of alternative fuels, and encourage the use of fuel efficient vehicles.

If you've got a Toorak Tank instead of a car, and you're using it to take little johnny to school each morning instead of offroading, you deserve to pay $210 a fill. :P

I'd still love to see a source for $210 a fill. This "Lord" appears most inventive in his use of figures.

Ah yes...that one'd hurt... me especially, since I drive 300km twice weekly.

However something similar is essential for our economy in the medium/long term, else we're setting ourselves up for a crash the likes of which hasn't been seen, come 2030-2050.

And don't knock Question Time, Varessa, Question Time is both an example of democracy in action and an example of politics and showmanship, and it's bloody entertaining too!

Apparently it would cost $210 a week to fill up a family car. I doubt many can afford it.

I understand there is need for alternative fuels (no comment - wait until september) but what Labor doesn't get is you cannot force the price of petrol up without alternative fuels already there, and/or adequate public transport available to support the scores of people dumping their cars.

In NSW, there is no way public transport could support more people. It cannot support the current passenger levels!

Lets see, 30L * $3 = $90.

In any case, the idea is to cut back on oil usage. The way to do this is to up the amount of alternative fuels, and encourage the use of fuel efficient vehicles.

If you've got a Toorak Tank instead of a car, and you're using it to take little johnny to school each morning instead of offroading, you deserve to pay $210 a fill. :P

I'd still love to see a source for $210 a fill. This "Lord" appears most inventive in his use of figures.

Seems fair enough if you have a landrover from the 80s, or something similar... otherwise it's not gonna be $210 a week.

Here is my thoughts on it all. First of all Howard would lie about the colour of his tie if he could get away with it. Here are a sample of his lies:

"We had clear intelligence assesments that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction capability."

Uhh... NO! Absolutely no one had clear intelligence on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The Americans knew he had SOME weapons of mass destruction... Now why would that be? Oh yes, because they sold them to Saddam during the Irani-Iraqi war in which Saddam used them to bomb the crap out of the Irani's and gass the hell out of the Kurds...

John Howard also made sure the Australian public thought of Saddam Hussein as a mass murder, torturer and persecutor of his people who must be removed so the Iraqi people will be free of his tyranny. When the Iraqi's sought refuge in Australia they were either locked up in detention centres or turned away.

And by the way, Iraqi's and Afghani's cannot be 'que jumpers' because they have no cue to jump. Australia has no immigration policy with Afghanistan or Iraq. So therefore no one can come from those countries to Australia and be legal. NO ONE.

In October of 2001 many asylum seekers were accused of throwing their children overboard into the sea. There was apparently a video tape of the refugees doing so. This 'evidence' turned out to be totally false. Peter Reith was informed a while before this information was false. John Howard claimed not to know that the accusations were false. So either John Howard is telling massive porky pies or he is so incompetent he doesn't realise what is going on around him.

"There is no way a GST will ever be part of our policy. Never, ever. It's dead, it was killed by the voters in in the last election."

John Howard, May 1995

"My government will not introduce any new taxes, and will not increase existing taxes."

John Howard 1996 (right before Federal Election time)

"My fellow Australians, may I have a few moments of your time to say why the new tax system which starts on Saturday is good for Australia."

John Howard, June 2000

Well the $210 would be based on 70L @ $3 per litre. I assume he has a large fuel tank or is basing it on more than a tank of fuel a week..that is 2 car families. Its not that hard to work out.

As far as the detention of Iraqis and Afghans, which has been covered ad nauseum in this thread so I'll keep it brief. Australia has a right to screen illegal immigrants to sort out who is a refugee and who isn't. Simple. The fact so many spend so long in detention is because those that have their applications for a refugee visa denied then appeal over and over again. They stay in detention during the appeals which last months or years as the taxpayers pick up the bill and lawyers make a killing. Did you notice since the Pacific Solution was implemented that the flow of illegal immigrants has almost stopped? Maybe because the tightening of the laws meant it was not worth paying people smugglers to fly to Indonesia and then jump in a leaky boat and drift towards Australia. Maybe those that would have previously fled Afghanistan and Iraq are now deciding to stay and rebuild their country?

As I have said earlier in this thread. I don't care if there are any WMDs in Iraq, Saddam has been ousted and that is good for Iraq and good fro the world as a whole....and I dare say a large number of Iraqis agree.

As for about faces in policy...did I hear Peter Garrett say he was happy for US military bases to stay in Australia....surely not.

Ah yes...that one'd hurt... me especially, since I drive 300km twice weekly.

However something similar is essential for our economy in the medium/long term, else we're setting ourselves up for a crash the likes of which hasn't been seen, come 2030-2050.

And don't knock Question Time, Varessa, Question Time is both an example of democracy in action and an example of politics and showmanship, and it's bloody entertaining too!

Apparently it would cost $210 a week to fill up a family car. I doubt many can afford it.

I understand there is need for alternative fuels (no comment - wait until september) but what Labor doesn't get is you cannot force the price of petrol up without alternative fuels already there, and/or adequate public transport available to support the scores of people dumping their cars.

In NSW, there is no way public transport could support more people. It cannot support the current passenger levels!

Lets see, 30L * $3 = $90.

In any case, the idea is to cut back on oil usage. The way to do this is to up the amount of alternative fuels, and encourage the use of fuel efficient vehicles.

If you've got a Toorak Tank instead of a car, and you're using it to take little johnny to school each morning instead of offroading, you deserve to pay $210 a fill. :P

I'd still love to see a source for $210 a fill. This "Lord" appears most inventive in his use of figures.

A Holden Commodore (a family car) can hold 75 Litres of petrol (don't believe me, then call Holden and check for yourself - or visit their website). At $3 a Litre for petrol, it would cost you $225 to be precise to fill the tank.

That is in fact $15 more than I claimed. So my apologies. It should be $225 to fill up the family car.

I also hear Mr Garett wants to apologise to a group of people he has done no wrong to...

What's a few hundred billion dollars more in compensation anyway? After all, money grows on trees.

Here is my thoughts on it all. First of all Howard would lie about the colour of his tie if he could get away with it.

Ok. He is a politician. Latham, Brown and all the rest are no different. Need I say more?