NationStates Jolt Archive

Prime Minister Johnny Coward (sorry John Howard) of Australia has declared an election for the Parliament and Senate on October 9th this year. How are you going to vote?

hummm....
i dont trust howard
i dont like latham
i think the democrats are a waste of time and they will just follow who gives them more attention

and i hate the greens for being fuckknuckles.

Time for a donkey vote i think :-)

If I could vote, I'd vote Labor.

Unfortunately, I'm only 16, so I'm getting 5 people to vote for me.

:D

hummm....
i dont trust howard
i dont like latham
i think the democrats are a waste of time and they will just follow who gives them more attention

and i hate the greens for being fuckknuckles.

Time for a donkey vote i think :-)

That sums up my feelings on Politics in Australia perfectly.

They're ALL Thieves, Liars, and Fuckwits- you're wasting your vote no matter who you vote for.

Time for a Revolution to install myself as Supreme Overlord of Australia (For Life, naturally), methinks... ;)

I won't be 18 by the election date, but a few of my friends will be. Unfortunately I live in one of the safest liberal seats in the country, so my House of Reps vote would count for very little anyway. The best I could hope for is to influence the Senate results, and I'd vote Labour, since next year I'm going to be in uni, and I really don't see how Howard's university reforms have given more choice to people. We'll give more people the chance to pay their way into university over people who worked harder and achieved better results, a much fairer system indeed. As for the economic arguments, I think Labour would not be silly as to repeat their performance of their last term in office. I think they will have learned from the Liberal party how to manage the economy.

hummm....
i dont trust howard
i dont like latham
i think the democrats are a waste of time and they will just follow who gives them more attention

and i hate the greens for being fuckknuckles.

Time for a donkey vote i think :-)
Dear Lord, Liberal is top of the paper...

John Howard 'our fearless leader' is a lieing, thieveing, despot. Words cannot describe the distaste I feel at the mention of his name :sniper:

Not only that but when he lies and gets caught out, he blames it on the janitor, or the gardener, or whoever happens to be around.

He has taxed certain elements of Australian society into the ground.

His foreign policy has a name. It is the AMERICAN foreign policy. (That stuff he's doing with China fools no-one).

His University scheme involves having ONLY the ULTRA RICH attending higher education.

His tax policy has the ULTRA POOR always staying ULTRA POOR since any improvement in income will result in FAR HIGHER TAX.

BTW: I really don't like John Howard. :mad:

I hope John Howard is returned to government to save us from another era of Labor mismanagement. That coupled with the non-policies of Latham after he backflipped on any semblance of a policy that he had means Howard and the Liberals are the only party to lead the country.
The Greens and Democrats don't count as their presence on the ballot is a waste of ink.

Pity the party I am an active member of, the Liberal Democrats, didn't get enough members to become a registered party. Then you all might have a rational alternative.

The Greens and Democrats don't count as their presence on the ballot is a waste of ink.

Don't forget the trees. "Fuck humanity, we have to save the trees" would be a slogan more suited to The Greens.

Don't forget the trees. "Fuck humanity, we have to save the trees" would be a slogan more suited to The Greens.

Yes, hence their immense popularity...wait..they aren't popular. Besides their ridiculous "policies" their leader is a complete nutcase whose only true value is to drive people away from his hoax of a political party.

Yes, hence their immense popularity...wait..they aren't popular. Besides their ridiculous "policies" their leader is a complete nutcase whose only true value is to drive people away from his hoax of a political party.

Good thing about him is that he'll drive votes away from the Labour Left.

Please don't vote for Howard. He's still trying to fix up the bloody mess he left when he was Treasurer. They went up a friggin lot and Keating (the wanker) was fixing up his mess. Vote for Bob Brown because he's not leaning towards the right like Latham is and he has good foriegn and economic policy. But if you must, vote for Latham just to get Howard out of Parliament.

It's a choice between Labor and the Coalition, and the choice is between a lying, violent bastard who is our prime minister, and the lying, violent bastard who is the oppostion leader.

I'm voting Labor though, for 2 reasons:

1. We don't actually vote for the PM, and my MP (Wayne Swan) is a great guy and should himself be PM one day. On that note I don't want a Liberal or even National MP, so Labor it is.

2. All politicians are pricks. Latham's going to be alive for a guaranteed longer time than Howard (in terms of life expectancy). Howard may or may not resign. And do not quote him, because he is a lying prick. AND if we return the Coalition to power, then they will gut medicare further, redirect more funding to private schools, who incidentally only educate the minority of the population, and he'll have us becoming more like AMERICA every day... do we really want to be like AMERICA?

C'mon, we're better than that.

Vote Labor, It's a vote for your family. It's a vote for your own well-being.

Liberals have been in too long. Let them cool off for a few years at least.

But of course, keep the Democrats in the senate. If not then vote Labor.

Good thing about him is that he'll drive votes away from the Labour Left.

OK, he has 2 purposes. :p

I hope John Howard is returned to government to save us from another era of Labor mismanagement. That coupled with the non-policies of Latham after he backflipped on any semblance of a policy that he had means Howard and the Liberals are the only party to lead the country.
The Greens and Democrats don't count as their presence on the ballot is a waste of ink.

Round Up of Australia under John Howard

National Security

The lie:
"We had clear intelligence assessments that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capability."

John Howard, October 2003

The Fact:
The Iraq Survey Group (comprising of 1200 weapons inspectors) spent four months trying to confirm the claim that, as of March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of completed chemical and biological weapons. The head of the Survey Group, Mr David Kay, informed the US Congress in October that no evidence of stockpiles of completed chemical and biological weapons have been found.

The lie:
"I have also reports of Australian officials who have on a number of occasions visited Guantanamo Bay and seen detainees. There were no reports of any torture."

Phillip Ruddock, 16 October 2003

The Fact:
The Department of Foreign Affairs told a Senate Committee: "I think it is important to say that on the first Australian visit to Mr Habib in Guantanamo Bay, which was only 10 days after his transfer there from Egypt, Mr Habib made some serious complaints about his time in Egypt."

The Department revealed that Mr Habib made similar complaints in 2004 during a further visit by Australian officials.

Senate Hansard, 3 June 2004

The Lie:
"This week, the Times of London detailed the use of a human shredding machine as a vehicle for putting to death critics of Saddam Hussein. This is the man, this is the apparatus of terror we are dealing with."

John Howard, Address to Nation 20 March 2003

The Fact:
Like the Weapons of Mass Destruction, no human shredding machine has even been found.

Economy:

The Lie:
"I can promise you that we will follow policies which will ... bring down foreign debt ... our first priority ... will be to tackle the current account deficit."

John Howard, 20 September 1995

The Fact:
Foreign debt was $361 billion at the end of September 2003, an increase of 90 per cent on the September 1995 level. The current account deficit was $11.9 billion at the end of September 2003, an increase of 112.5 per cent on the September 1995 level.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS@, Time Series Spreadsheets (Balance of Payments and Investment Position, Australia 5302.0, Reserve Bank of Australia (H) Bulletin, Current Account) .

The Lie:
"We're not going to increase any taxes."

"We do not intend to increase any taxes in our term, full stop."

John Howard, May 2001

The Fact:
Since 2001, the Howard Government has introduced or increased taxes 32 times.

Total income tax collected has risen from $90.6 billion in 1996 to $136.5 billion in 2003-04 and is projected to rise a further $26.5 billion over the next three years.

Health:

The Lie:
"Medicare will be retained in its entirety."

John Howard, February 1996

The Fact:
The Howard Government abolished the dental plan and increased the co-payment Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Bulk billing rates are now at 68.3 percent DOWN from more than 80 percent in 1996.

The average "gap" fees have risen from $10 to $14.

The Lie:
"We absolutely guarantee the retention of Medicare. We guarantee the retention of bulk billing."

John Howard, 1995

The Fact:
The rate of bulk billing by GPs has declined by more than 12% since the election of the Howard Government.

In April 2003, a confidential Government directive was issued which instructed public servants in the Department of Health that Government documents should, in future, no longer contain any reference to the words “bulk billing”.

The directive, marked “IN CONFIDENCE” and distributed by email among senior officers of the Department of Health, stated:

“We have moved away from discussion of bulk billing.”

“Words not to be included in the lexicon include… bulk billing.”

Education:

The Lie:
"The Coalition will maintain the level of Commonwealth funding to universities in terms of operating grants."

John Howard, November 1995

The Fact:
In real terms, universities received on average $1,170 less per student in 2001 than they did in 1996. This represents a cut of approximately $1 billion.


The Lie:
"I can guarantee we're not going to have $100,000 university degree courses."

John Howard, interview with Neil Mitchell on Radio 3AW, 15 October 1999

The Fact:
The Australian newspaper reported on 1 July, 2004 that: "Melbourne University plans to charge upfront fees of $35,000 a year for full-fee degrees in dentistry, medicine and veterinary science from next year - or $120,000 to become a qualified doctor .... a five-year dentistry degree would cost $175,000 under the proposed fee increases."

Medicare:

The Lie:
"It is our policy, without qualification, to retain Medicare . . . Not only does Medicare stay but so does bulk billing . . . They are the fundamentals, the underpinnings of the policy."

John Howard, Health Policy launch of "A Healthy Future", 12 February 1996

The Fact:
"No-one can guarantee bulk billing. No-one can guarantee bulk billing without conscripting the medical profession. Medicare has never been universal bulk billing-never . . ."

Tony Abbott, Minister for Health and Ageing, Meet the Press, 23 November 2003

How has Australia been better off under the liberals?

Vote for Bob Brown because he's not leaning towards the right like Latham is and he has good foriegn and economic policy.

And that good foreign and economic policy would be? All their policy list on their website states is goals, not any actual policies to reach those goals. Can you shed some light?

Saw this sign today on a noticeboard:

"A Hypothetical Question

You're out walking one day when you come across John Howard drowning in the middle of a torrential river after being caught in a flash flood. You have only a moment to decide whether to rescue him, or take a Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of the event.
Which shutter speed do you use?"

Let's also not forget that John Howard was responsible for the fiasco of an Arms Buyback in 1997, and to this day it's almost impossible to own a pump-action shotgun, and you can forget about having a semi-auto longarm.

More recently, he ordered changes to the handgun legislation, creating a lot of pointless new rules for law-abiding shooters and making everyone's life that bit more complicated.

Howard won't be getting my vote. I'm tempted to run for Parliament myself, but I don't have 500 mates with which to form a political party...

imo it's time for howard to step aside. I don't partically like any of the others (especially the greens) so I'll just have to say Labour.

Saw this sign today on a noticeboard:

"A Hypothetical Question

You're out walking one day when you come across John Howard drowning in the middle of a torrential river after being caught in a flash flood. You have only a moment to decide whether to rescue him, or take a Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of the event.
Which shutter speed do you use?"

Let's also not forget that John Howard was responsible for the fiasco of an Arms Buyback in 1997, and to this day it's almost impossible to own a pump-action shotgun, and you can forget about having a semi-auto longarm.

More recently, he ordered changes to the handgun legislation, creating a lot of pointless new rules for law-abiding shooters and making everyone's life that bit more complicated.

Howard won't be getting my vote. I'm tempted to run for Parliament myself, but I don't have 500 mates with which to form a political party...


Run as an independant

Looks like Australian NS-ians want Johnny Coward and co out!
My local MP David Tollner is a Liberal who said the Northern Territory had an obligation to store government nuclear waste. Oddly he's isn't repeating this during an election. Oh yes, he won by 88 votes ... less than Florida.

:D

Round Up of Australia under John Howard

National Security

The lie:
"We had clear intelligence assessments that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capability."

John Howard, October 2003

The Fact:
The Iraq Survey Group (comprising of 1200 weapons inspectors) spent four months trying to confirm the claim that, as of March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of completed chemical and biological weapons. The head of the Survey Group, Mr David Kay, informed the US Congress in October that no evidence of stockpiles of completed chemical and biological weapons have been found.

That does not mean the government did not have intelligence assessments saying there were stockpiles in Iraq.

The lie:
"I have also reports of Australian officials who have on a number of occasions visited Guantanamo Bay and seen detainees. There were no reports of any torture."

Phillip Ruddock, 16 October 2003

The Fact:
The Department of Foreign Affairs told a Senate Committee: "I think it is important to say that on the first Australian visit to Mr Habib in Guantanamo Bay, which was only 10 days after his transfer there from Egypt, Mr Habib made some serious complaints about his time in Egypt."

The Department revealed that Mr Habib made similar complaints in 2004 during a further visit by Australian officials.

Senate Hansard, 3 June 2004

From our Labor-loving, left-wing ABC:

An investigation into the treatment of Australian prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has found no evidence of mistreatment or abuse.

(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200408/s1185983.htm)

The Lie:
"This week, the Times of London detailed the use of a human shredding machine as a vehicle for putting to death critics of Saddam Hussein. This is the man, this is the apparatus of terror we are dealing with."

John Howard, Address to Nation 20 March 2003

The Fact:
Like the Weapons of Mass Destruction, no human shredding machine has even been found.

Despite this "lie" being immensely feeble I will ask you to read this and perhaps you will see that despite the shredder not being found, Saddam tortured and mutilated his citizens.

http://patriotparadox.mu.nu/archives/036182.php

Economy:

The Lie:
"I can promise you that we will follow policies which will ... bring down foreign debt ... our first priority ... will be to tackle the current account deficit."

John Howard, 20 September 1995

The Fact:
Foreign debt was $361 billion at the end of September 2003, an increase of 90 per cent on the September 1995 level. The current account deficit was $11.9 billion at the end of September 2003, an increase of 112.5 per cent on the September 1995 level.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS@, Time Series Spreadsheets (Balance of Payments and Investment Position, Australia 5302.0, Reserve Bank of Australia (H) Bulletin, Current Account) .

Actually, I found this which sugegsts that national debt soared between 1981 and 1986 under Labor but has since levelled out and actuall dropped slightly from a high in 1992-93.

(Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/mesi/features/foreigndebt.htm)

The Lie:
"We're not going to increase any taxes."

"We do not intend to increase any taxes in our term, full stop."

John Howard, May 2001

The Fact:
Since 2001, the Howard Government has introduced or increased taxes 32 times.

Total income tax collected has risen from $90.6 billion in 1996 to $136.5 billion in 2003-04 and is projected to rise a further $26.5 billion over the next three years.

And how much has the average wage increased in that time? By how many has the population increased?
Also, Latham has claimed there will be not tax increases yet he has proposed spending increases across the board. Where is all that money coming form. One guess!

Health:

The Lie:
"Medicare will be retained in its entirety."

John Howard, February 1996

The Fact:
The Howard Government abolished the dental plan and increased the co-payment Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Bulk billing rates are now at 68.3 percent DOWN from more than 80 percent in 1996.

The average "gap" fees have risen from $10 to $14.

The government does not determine the "gap" fees. Doctors do. When I asked the AMA about it they said it was in the constitution for doctors to determine their own fees. Therefore, regardless of the fee covered by Medicare, there will always be "gaps". Doctors also decide if they wish to bulk bill or not, not the government. If doctors want to charge an additional fee they can.
The Howard government introduced private health insurance rebates to encourage those that can afford insurance to take it thus removing the strain from the public health system.
Unfortunately the visionary that is Latham decided to make point by refusing a private bed (which was available to him as an insured patient) to be treated like a "normal Australian". In his infinite wisdom he was not treated like a "normal Australian", as a "normal Australian" with health insurance would have used the private bed. Instead Latham refuses and decides to wait in the emergency department therefore meaning a public patient had to wait while Latham used public resources AND a public patient was denied a bed because Latham planted his date in one while a private one was waiting for him upstairs.
A brilliant scheme to encourage those wealthy enough to afford insurance to scrap it and get treated for free in a public hospital therefore placing huge strain in the public health system. Nice one, Mr. Latham!!

The Lie:
"We absolutely guarantee the retention of Medicare. We guarantee the retention of bulk billing."

John Howard, 1995

The Fact:
The rate of bulk billing by GPs has declined by more than 12% since the election of the Howard Government.

In April 2003, a confidential Government directive was issued which instructed public servants in the Department of Health that Government documents should, in future, no longer contain any reference to the words “bulk billing”.

The directive, marked “IN CONFIDENCE” and distributed by email among senior officers of the Department of Health, stated:

“We have moved away from discussion of bulk billing.”

“Words not to be included in the lexicon include… bulk billing.”

How is that a lie. Bulk billing still exists does it not?

Education:

The Lie:
"The Coalition will maintain the level of Commonwealth funding to universities in terms of operating grants."

John Howard, November 1995

The Fact:
In real terms, universities received on average $1,170 less per student in 2001 than they did in 1996. This represents a cut of approximately $1 billion.


The Lie:
"I can guarantee we're not going to have $100,000 university degree courses."

John Howard, interview with Neil Mitchell on Radio 3AW, 15 October 1999

The Fact:
The Australian newspaper reported on 1 July, 2004 that: "Melbourne University plans to charge upfront fees of $35,000 a year for full-fee degrees in dentistry, medicine and veterinary science from next year - or $120,000 to become a qualified doctor .... a five-year dentistry degree would cost $175,000 under the proposed fee increases."

Plans to charge, not currently charges. did ot not occur to you that Dentistry and Medicine are expensive courses to run and therefore the fees are higher? Universities control the costs of their courses not Howard. The University of Tasmania has elected not to increase HECS fees this year while most others have.

Medicare:

The Lie:
"It is our policy, without qualification, to retain Medicare . . . Not only does Medicare stay but so does bulk billing . . . They are the fundamentals, the underpinnings of the policy."

John Howard, Health Policy launch of "A Healthy Future", 12 February 1996

The Fact:
"No-one can guarantee bulk billing. No-one can guarantee bulk billing without conscripting the medical profession. Medicare has never been universal bulk billing-never . . ."

Tony Abbott, Minister for Health and Ageing, Meet the Press, 23 November 2003[QUOTE=Trophonius]

Bulk billing is still part of Medicare, so where's the lie? As I said earlier, it is up to doctors as to whether they bulk bill or not.

[QUOTE=Trophonius]How has Australia been better off under the liberals?

Let me see, interests rates are 7% as opposed to 18% under Labor. Foreign debt is under control after the mismanagement of past Labor governments, we have improved foreign policies with free trade agreement with the US, reduced inflation, increased GDP to name a few.
What does Mr.Latham have to offer?

I'm too young to vote, but if i could I'd go for Liberal. Labor suppports drugs :gundge:

But then again the world would be better off if I ruled all :D

I feel I can no longer trust Labor or Liberals ... Mainly because I think their both as bad as each other, and Mark Latham has that slightly crazy glazed look in his eyes ;) ... and Bob Brown and his little side-kick think jumping up and down and yelling in Parliment during an official visit is acceptable behaviour for our country on the world stage. I don't care if it was George W Bush ... Its still not a fair portrayle of our country during a historic moment.

Oh, and Labour and Liberals worked together to out-right ban gay marriage, several weeks before the election is called. A real boo-yah ! for our civil rights record was that ... Bastards.

And don't even get me started on the pathetic public school funding.

Hell, I'll vote Democrat, even if I doubt they'll win. At least I'll still be able to live with myself. I say its time to give them a chance. " Its time " ... As has been said long ago ... maybe not the same party, but maybe, the same hope for a chance.

I've never understood how anyone could vote for Howard. He is without a doubt the most boring public speaker I have ever heard! He mumbles monotoneously through clenched teeth. I thought in this day and age, being a dynamic speaker was a necessary qual in becoming a politician.
Could an Aussie please explain his appeal?
I wonder if Howard's brought the election forward because he's worried about possible negative fall-out after the US election if Kerry wins?

To those who support the greens, how true is the story in the news this morning that we will all be forced to ride a bike more often and eat less meat? Oh, and the whole buying heroin over the counter thing. Is Bob Brown crazy, or is somebody making this up?

[QUOTE=Roycelandia]That sums up my feelings on Politics in Australia perfectly.

They're ALL Thieves, Liars, and Fuckwits- you're wasting your vote no matter who you vote for.

Time for a Revolution to install myself as Supreme Overlord of Australia (For Life, naturally), methinks... ;)[/QUoute]

Nice to know that America is not the only country with this problem.

To those who support the greens, how true is the story in the news this morning that we will all be forced to ride a bike more often and eat less meat? Oh, and the whole buying heroin over the counter thing. Is Bob Brown crazy, or is somebody making this up?

Does it matter? If they are anything like american politicions they wont do anything they say they will lol

I've never understood how anyone could vote for Howard. He is without a doubt the most boring public speaker I have ever heard! He mumbles monotoneously through clenched teeth. I thought in this day and age, being a dynamic speaker was a necessary qual in becoming a politician.
Could an Aussie please explain his appeal?
I wonder if Howard's brought the election forward because he's worried about possible negative fall-out after the US election if Kerry wins?

Last I knew it was not a beauty contest but an election in which people choose the person they feel will best serve our country. I could not care less what Howard looked like or how boring his speeches are.
People are not sucked in by glitzy campaigns and hype in Australia. Have a look at Natasha "I'm too cool" Stott-Despoja. The youth image and Doc Martens really got her to the top. Take a look at the hype and "look at me" tactics of Bob Brown....no-one cares!

To those who support the greens, how true is the story in the news this morning that we will all be forced to ride a bike more often and eat less meat? Oh, and the whole buying heroin over the counter thing. Is Bob Brown crazy, or is somebody making this up?

Its true, Bob Brown is crazy and the policies are real. No-one could think of making up such ridiculous policies even if they were trying to take the piss.

My favourite was their policy to teach our defense forces to use "non-violent resistance" as opposed to weapons. I can see it now...our armed forces puffing on joints and singing peace hymns as they get shot to pieces.

Brown also advocates an open door policy to immigration and the removal of the requirement for people to seek work while claiming unemployment benefits.

Couldn't stop laughing when I read all that this morning. :D

How are you going to vote?

I'm not going to vote because I'm german and not permitted to vote in Australia ;-)

But: Yesterday I made the test at some funny page, www.smartselect.com, I hope the adress is correct. The first three results of me:

#1 One Nation
#2 National Party
#3 Australian Democrats

And that good foreign and economic policy would be? All their policy list on their website states is goals, not any actual policies to reach those goals. Can you shed some light?

Simple, they aren't going to break UN laws by locking up asylum seekers and plenty of new job prospects will arise in the search for cleaner fuel sources... There you go

Tygaland, you are just begging for me to rip into your right-wing conservative views aren't you? Ahem here is a brief summary of what Howard has lied about in no apparent order:

Children Overboard - More than three government related officials have come forth and said he knew about the falseness of the children overboard claim. How can he deny it now? Personally I thought it was a load of crap from day one because I remembered back to a little incident involving the TAMPA. Why would you care about refugees and their children when you open fire on them?

GST - Don't even get me started on this one. Increase of fuel to basically denying never going to have one. Tons of horse manure piled on top of this one.

War in Iraq - Not so much Howard but rather his 'good friend' ( :fluffle: ) George W. Bush. Why in the world would you start a war in Iraq when you've got fundamentalist extremeists in Afghanistan who would rather burn your corpse than look at you? Yes let's give them so many opportunities to escape. Let's focus on some dingy country with lots of oil. Yes Saddam was a bastard and he needed to be stopped, but he was no immediate threat to Australia, USA or it's allies. The only WMD's and biological weapons they had was from the ones the US gave them during the Irani/Iraqi War. So many lies from Howard and George W.

There are just 3 that have piles of horse shit all over them. That should keep you quiet for a while

Simple, they aren't going to break UN laws by locking up asylum seekers

Allowing "asylum seekers" into our country unchecked is "good foreign policy"?

...and plenty of new job prospects will arise in the search for cleaner fuel sources... There you go

The same jobs that are already filled researching alternative fuels?

But I guess our country can only improve by throwing our borders open, allowing everyone access to unemployment benefits without having to look for work and legalising drugs! What a country that would be....come to Australia, everyone's welcome and you don't even need to work!!

Tygaland, you are just begging for me to rip into your right-wing conservative views aren't you?

No, but be my guest.

Ahem here is a brief summary of what Howard has lied about in no apparent order:

Children Overboard - More than three government related officials have come forth and said he knew about the falseness of the children overboard claim. How can he deny it now? Personally I thought it was a load of crap from day one because I remembered back to a little incident involving the TAMPA. Why would you care about refugees and their children when you open fire on them?

I haven't mentioned the "Children Overboard" topic but as you have mentioned it, it does seem that Howard has repeated the claims despite evidence suggesting it never happened.
On the other issue you raise. Australia is within its right to protect its borders and if that involves turning boats away or boarding those boats that refuse then that is fine by me. As far as shooting at the Tampa, can't find anything stating that happened. The nearest I could find was warning shots fired 50-100 feet in front of SIEV 4 by HMAS Adelaide after it refused to stop. No shots were fired at the boat, nor at its passengers. Can you show me a reputable source for your claim the Tampa was fired upon?


GST - Don't even get me started on this one. Increase of fuel to basically denying never going to have one. Tons of horse manure piled on top of this one.

Yep, voted against Johnny on that one. What??? I voted against the Liberals??? I did indeed, because I always vote for who I feel is the best candidate rather than following a party line. Guess what, he still won...I guess most people thought he was the best leader then despite the GST.

War in Iraq - Not so much Howard but rather his 'good friend' ( :fluffle: ) George W. Bush. Why in the world would you start a war in Iraq when you've got fundamentalist extremeists in Afghanistan who would rather burn your corpse than look at you? Yes let's give them so many opportunities to escape. Let's focus on some dingy country with lots of oil. Yes Saddam was a bastard and he needed to be stopped, but he was no immediate threat to Australia, USA or it's allies. The only WMD's and biological weapons they had was from the ones the US gave them during the Irani/Iraqi War. So many lies from Howard and George W.

Here is the current situation in Afghanistan according to the UN:

http://mirror.undp.org/afghanistan/

So, you disagree with going to war in Iraq. So what? Its your opinion. What does that have to do with Howard as you have freely admitted it has little to do with him.
I support the war on terror and as a result the activities in Iraq. Thats a personal opinion but is not the reason I am voting for Howard.

There are just 3 that have piles of horse shit all over them. That should keep you quiet for a while

Speaking of horseshit, how Latham's non-existent payroll tax...errr..sorry levy going? :D

Labor are and always have been the village idiots of Australian politics, the only thing their good at doing is screwing things up.
Also to our embarressment they relish kissing the butts of aggressive nations in our region, Indonesia for example.
Bob Brown and the Greens, because of our preferential voting system will never hopefully get in, if their was one thing worse that could happen to Australia besides Labor getting in it would be these dickheads.
If they do I'd say Australias first PM to be assassinated would happen shortly after woulds.
Which leaves Liberal, who at least know how to run a country properly and keep it out of dept, even with a world wide recession happening as in their first term.
So sorry to all the boorish Howard haters, but good old Johnny will be back for another term, whether you like it or not, so blow into a tissue and get over it.

Look I'm voting for Latham because he is teh only one with a chance at getting Johnny out. I'm not saying he is teh best person to lead our country, but he is better than the one we have.

John Howard cares only for teh rich. Under his rule, or time in power or whatever you want to call it, we have had more terrorist attacks aimed at Australians then ever before, right back to Port Aurthur (most people have forgotten that one by now). Taxes have gone up more than ever before, Funds are have been cut to Public Schools, Universities, etc. The Center link system has gone from bad to worse (It is now at a point where even teh employees don't know what the rules mean or how they work).

Universities accros the country have been forced to rais HECS fees by 25% just recently. not in a small increase, but in one big hit. There was a time (under a labor government, I might add) when university was considered to be a right, not a privelage. Universties were funded so that there wasn't eny need for HECS. you could go there for free, instead of having to pay thousands of dollars every semester.

John Howard has screwed this country up beyond belief, sorry to have to point that out.

Latham (as I said before) may not be teh best candidate, but he is better than Howard, who has set it all up so that anyone who steps in behind him will have a nearly impossible job to reverse nearly half teh damage he has done.

Oh and the only reason Howard is still in power after all these years? the Coalittion.

P.S. I know my spelling is shocking, no need to point that out. I blame Howard

Look I'm voting for Latham because he is teh only one with a chance at getting Johnny out. I'm not saying he is teh best person to lead our country, but he is better than the one we have.

Thats your opinion and you are entitled to it.

John Howard cares only for teh rich. Under his rule, or time in power or whatever you want to call it, we have had more terrorist attacks aimed at Australians then ever before, right back to Port Aurthur (most people have forgotten that one by now).

John Howard caused the Port Arthur massacre? How was he responsible for a mentally unstable person (Martin Bryant) from shooting people at Port Arthur? Wasn't it Howard who introduced the gun laws after the massacre to make sure such a thing did not recur?

Taxes have gone up more than ever before, Funds are have been cut to Public Schools, Universities, etc. The Center link system has gone from bad to worse (It is now at a point where even teh employees don't know what the rules mean or how they work).

Taxes are a part of life. Under a socialist system such as the one the Labor is moving towards then taxes will increase significantly to cover the cost of the extensive welfare network involved.
funding of schools is for the most part a state government issue and most state governments are...Labor.
Having had limited need for Centrelink, well they were still the DSS when I last dealt with them, I can't really comment too much except to say that the problem with Centrelink is that they are understaffed. My brother worked there so I have some idea. It does need to be looked at.

Universities accros the country have been forced to rais HECS fees by 25% just recently. not in a small increase, but in one big hit. There was a time (under a labor government, I might add) when university was considered to be a right, not a privelage. Universties were funded so that there wasn't eny need for HECS. you could go there for free, instead of having to pay thousands of dollars every semester.

Universities were not FORCED to increase fees, they were given permission to if they wanted to. The University of Tasmania for example has not increased fees.
Education is not a right, it is a priveledge. I paid my way through university and bear no grudges because I reap the advantages in the long run from that education. no-one is entitled to a free ride.

John Howard has screwed this country up beyond belief, sorry to have to point that out.

How? By reducing foreign debt? By increasing GDP? By negotiating free trade agreements?

Latham (as I said before) may not be teh best candidate, but he is better than Howard, who has set it all up so that anyone who steps in behind him will have a nearly impossible job to reverse nearly half teh damage he has done.

What damage? How is Latham better?

Oh and the only reason Howard is still in power after all these years? the Coalittion.

Yes, because the Nationals have so much support...

P.S. I know my spelling is shocking, no need to point that out. I blame Howard

Blame the state Labor government, they look after education. ;)

Wha???

the Labor party are NOT socialist. Under Curtin (before even my parents were born...), I could concede that...or up until the Whitlam dismissal perhaps...but today, labor is right-wing with a totally outnumbered left faction (Latham comes from the right faction and has teamed up with the center-left faction to silence the lefties...) Hell, Labor started the whole privatisation initiative in the 1980's. They're economic rationalists. You cannot justify calling them socialists. They even are pushing for lower taxes...

As for the other parties:

The Greens are whackjobs that just committed electoral suicide with their policy platform...I see little hope for them.

Liberals are lying SOBs that would love to see me paying $100,000 a year for university...

The Democrats are dead in the water...and after the GST backflip they lost all credibility.

And I couldn't be more opposed to the policies of One Nation.

*sigh* Guess i'm voting Labor. They've promised to turn around my uni fee increases at least...

I'm not going to vote because I'm german and not permitted to vote in Australia ;-)

But: Yesterday I made the test at some funny page, www.smartselect.com, I hope the adress is correct. The first three results of me:

#1 One Nation
#2 National Party
#3 Australian Democrats

You would be an ultra-conservative Queensland farmer.

Universities were not FORCED to increase fees, they were given permission to if they wanted to. The University of Tasmania for example has not increased fees.
Education is not a right, it is a priveledge. I paid my way through university and bear no grudges because I reap the advantages in the long run from that education. no-one is entitled to a free ride.

We had zero say in the matter. They were increased mid course- so I will be paying much more than I originally thought I would, which is unfair. How would you feel if you bought a new car and a week before payment is due, it goes up 25%?

Blame the state Labor government, they look after education. ;)

The Federal government distributes the funding to the state governments.

Good one Johnny, more millions to our trade deficit
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200408/s1188867.htm

:confused:

I have no idea who any of those people are. Then again, I am not Austrailian so it really is none of my business who you guys elect as your prime minister.

Good one Johnny, more millions to our trade deficit
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200408/s1188867.htm

:confused:
Whats wrong with a trade deficit.

Since I live in a non marginal seat, I'm going to draw a clown on my ballot, it kills me that I have to turn up to do that. Maybe I'll do something for the senate.

I hate John Howard's Liberals. If they were really my type of right wing they'd be lowering taxes, cutting spending, providing more civil liberties and funding R&D and education more (although the states cop a large part of the blame for this). But they're too much about controlling people, staying in power and spending on bizzare things. For a government that claims to be good economic managers, they appear to know nothing about what a government ought to do to promote long term growth.

They'd also ought to stand up to the US more and not just roll over because once Johnny heard Bush say 'friend' and thought it was referring to him.

To their credit the Liberals did some OK stuff. I don't really object to the GST, and I don't object to being made to pay for my education (so long as I can always get a loan from the government), and I think the implementation of the ACCC, ASIC and APRA was a good move. But most of the good reforms of the Libs has been in their first term. Since then they've become more about getting re-elected.

I'm baffled as to why Howard was elected and Hewson wasn't.

I dislike Labor too. I'm not convinced Latham has much to offer. I think we'll find his promises are unachievable and people will get a lot less than they thought from him. We'll just see the same big government (with a bit more spending perhaps) from Latham.

To their credit, Labor has in the past pushed through important labour reforms, particularly in de-unionizing. I note the Libs like to claim the credit for that though.

Anyway, neither major party offers me anything to vote for. The minors are pointless too.

Having seen how the Greens operate in Tasmania, I have to say they're not worth voting for. Apart from the fact that they do have mad schemes, they're eternally negative. They never have much constructive to say. The few times the government compromises with them, they take the gains and then demand even more. Their actual goals and their stated goals are often different. In short, they're dishonest.

The Dems are ineffectual and basically the 'hair-brained scheme party'.

So in short, I'm voting for the Informal Party as I feel under-represented.

The way I see it, Howard has screwed the country by slashing funding for services. It comes down to do you want to scarifice our proud public sector for the economy with Howard, or risk Labor's economic policies, which I think will have improved over the last 12 years since they were in office, and have a fair funding for government services for everyone. I think the economy is fairly steady, and what we really need now is for someone to fix our underfunded services.

BTW Kanabia I'm pretty sure that HECS fees won't rise by 25% for existing students mid course, only the changes from inflation. It will only hit students starting from 2005, ie me.

Children Overboard - More than three government related officials have come forth and said he knew about the falseness of the children overboard claim. How can he deny it now? Personally I thought it was a load of crap from day one because I remembered back to a little incident involving the TAMPA. Why would you care about refugees and their children when you open fire on them?


Can you even prove that?

If not your just repeating slander, or making it up yourself, the sad thing is even if it was true you would probably just see this more as a positive thing happening as it would get rid of that evil little freedom repressing bastard Johnny Howard.

We had zero say in the matter. They were increased mid course- so I will be paying much more than I originally thought I would, which is unfair. How would you feel if you bought a new car and a week before payment is due, it goes up 25%?

We as in you or we as in the University? The government gave permission for universities to up their fees, it was not mandatory. As I said, The University of Tasmania did not increase its fees.

The Federal government distributes the funding to the state governments.

And the state government decides how it is spent!

Well, I know the Libs will be at the very bottom of my sheet, but it makes me gag to vote for either of the "big two" - maybe Greens, maybe Democrats, with Labour second. I'll see how I feel on the day ;)

Here's a link that may be useful to our overseas friends, for a bit of a "who's who":

http://www.politicalresources.net/austral.htm

The poll pisses me off, Labor are not socialists, not by a long shot, they along with the Liberal Praty are Centre-Right, as are most parties in power in the world are. I have fights at school with those who are voting, and when 18, I suppose it is what your parents vote or say that swings your vote, but I still would probably vote Green, for two reasons:
-The Democrats are at the moment hopeless, who is the current leader anyway?
-Green preferences go to Labor, Howard doesn't deserve another term and we don't want Costello as PM.
-Oh and, they actually have values and may actually stop us being the US's bitch. Though when Bush visited Aus, the protest by Sen. Bob Brown in the Senate was recorded by US officials as "background noise".
Not happy John, or George for that matter.

DO NOT VOTE GREENS!!!!

They are a danger to our society and they will lead Australia down a truly bad path. If you are unsure of your vote for Green or not, read their policies they are radical and completely against Australian values. SO whatever you do, do not vote Green at these elections.

The poll pisses me off, Labor are not socialists, not by a long shot, they along with the Liberal Praty are Centre-Right, as are most parties in power in the world are. I have fights at school with those who are voting, and when 18, I suppose it is what your parents vote or say that swings your vote, but I still would probably vote Green, for two reasons:
-The Democrats are at the moment hopeless, who is the current leader anyway?
-Green preferences go to Labor, Howard doesn't deserve another term and we don't want Costello as PM.
-Oh and, they actually have values and may actually stop us being the US's bitch. Though when Bush visited Aus, the protest by Sen. Bob Brown in the Senate was recorded by US officials as "background noise".
Not happy John, or George for that matter.

The "protest" by Brown during the Bush visit was a disgrace that reflected poorly on our country.

DO NOT VOTE GREENS!!!!

They are a danger to our society and they will lead Australia down a truly bad path. If you are unsure of your vote for Green or not, read their policies they are radical and completely against Australian values. SO whatever you do, do not vote Green at these elections.

Indeed, the fact that Bob Brown was backpedalling like crazy over the Green's drug policies (which he professed to know nothing about) pretty much sums up the Greens....a waste of ink on the ballot.

DO NOT VOTE GREENS!!!!

They are a danger to our society and they will lead Australia down a truly bad path. If you are unsure of your vote for Green or not, read their policies they are radical and completely against Australian values. SO whatever you do, do not vote Green at these elections.

*turns up hearing aid*

Whazzat? Vote Greens, you say? :p

I'm too young to vote, but if i could I'd go for Liberal. Labor suppports drugs :gundge:

But then again the world would be better off if I ruled all :D


The world would be better off if you never got to voting age and others like youself.

Someone also complained about the gun buy back and lack of guns in Australia, thats got to be the best thing Johny did, but I sense we are still going along the path to become a quasi-America.

Also have the "Family First" party gone outside the ultra christian borders of SA, those people are a joke.

[QUOTE=Nuovo Campania]The world would be better off if you never got to voting age and others like youself.

In other words Zwange hes saying he that hopes you die.

Lovely people arent they, Labor voters..


Someone also complained about the gun buy back and lack of guns in Australia, thats got to be the best thing Johny did, but I sense we are still going along the path to become a quasi-America.


That was the worst thing he did, the crims are still well armed from the black market, and the average Australian who is honest and law abiding is now defenceless against them.

Also have the "Family First" party gone outside the ultra christian borders of SA, those people are a joke.

I havent heard of them, but they sound like a good step towards saving our sick society, they sound great, do you have a link for them?

gotta say ill be voting for Johnny, he's far from perfect but still the closest to being a leader

We as in you or we as in the University? The government gave permission for universities to up their fees, it was not mandatory. As I said, The University of Tasmania did not increase its fees.

We as in university students had no say in the matter. I'm as pissed off with my uni as the government, don't worry...



And the state government decides how it is spent!
However, a large proportion of money given is in the form of tied grants...."do this and we'll give you this much, or you get nothing"


BTW Kanabia I'm pretty sure that HECS fees won't rise by 25% for existing students mid course, only the changes from inflation. It will only hit students starting from 2005, ie me.

Nope, becaue HECS fees are recalculated every semester. I have normal rates for this year, 25% extra for next year.

I posted this in another thread a while ago, but now that we have a dedicated Aussie Election thread - I will repost it:

For your consideration:

http://www.cybersalt.org/cleanlaugh/images/m-p/monkeyprincipal.jpg
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/john_howard.jpg

I posted this in another thread a while ago, but now that we have a dedicated Aussie Election thread - I will repost it:

For your consideration:

http://www.cybersalt.org/cleanlaugh/images/m-p/monkeyprincipal.jpg
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/john_howard.jpg

I think the monkey will be insulted! :p

Him and George W. Bush are a perfect couple. :p

Labor are and always have been the village idiots of Australian politics, the only thing their good at doing is screwing things up.
Also to our embarressment they relish kissing the butts of aggressive nations in our region, Indonesia for example. Both parties have appeased Indonesia. Remember East Timor? Howard did nothing when Indonesia was slaughtering East Timorese (despite the fact he supported NATO intervention in Kosovo at the same time).

Australia's support for former Indonesian dictator Suharto really makes me sick. We should have used our F-111s to bomb Suharto during the East Timor crisis in 1999.

I'll personally be voting for Labor. I don't like Latham but Howard's election bribery and dishonesty has annoyed me. Hopefully, the Libs will dump Howard after this election and replace him with somebody less stubborn.

Howard has a good economic record.....but it's been at the expensive of many social services.

Besides, I want an Australian republic.

We as in university students had no say in the matter. I'm as pissed off with my uni as the government, don't worry...

You can be pissed off about it but at the end of the day the buck stops with the universities as they determine their own fees.


However, a large proportion of money given is in the form of tied grants...."do this and we'll give you this much, or you get nothing"

Evidence? I know there are grants for specific purposes but I also know the state government here in Victoria is against assessment testing of students which would give them an idea of which schools are underachieving and more precisely, which students need more assistance. This would enable them to fund proportionate to need and in the areas it is needed. Thats not the Federal Government's job, it is the State Government's job.

Nope, becaue HECS fees are recalculated every semester. I have normal rates for this year, 25% extra for next year.

Yes, they are calculated each semester but it is not retrospective so only semesters started after the price rise will be charged at the higher rate, not earlier semesters.
Unfortunately, like all things, prices go up. Just finished paying my HECS debt off this year..only took me 9 years. Thats life.

Both parties have appeased Indonesia. Remember East Timor? Howard did nothing when Indonesia was slaughtering East Timorese (despite the fact he supported NATO intervention in Kosovo at the same time).

Australia's support for former Indonesian dictator Suharto really makes me sick. We should have used our F-111s to bomb Suharto during the East Timor crisis in 1999.

So who was it that acted in East Timor then? Last I heard the East Timorese were living in an independent country.

So who was it that acted in East Timor then? Last I heard the East Timorese were living in an independent country.
Um for the benefit of the person your responding to, It was John Howard and the Liberal Party who made this happen, with, known to the Indonesian government.. US approval.

Evidence? I know there are grants for specific purposes but I also know the state government here in Victoria is against assessment testing of students which would give them an idea of which schools are underachieving and more precisely, which students need more assistance. This would enable them to fund proportionate to need and in the areas it is needed. Thats not the Federal Government's job, it is the State Government's job.

I'd gladly find evidence for you but i'm not sure where to start....*laughs*

I guess i'll look into the tied grant system....

What I do know for a fact is that the GST was a direct result of the states having no source of income...GST revenues are basically the only non-conditional revenue received by the states.

(BTW federal labor governments are just as bad at exploiting tied grants)

Yes, they are calculated each semester but it is not retrospective so only semesters started after the price rise will be charged at the higher rate, not earlier semesters.
Unfortunately, like all things, prices go up. Just finished paying my HECS debt off this year..only took me 9 years. Thats life.

Well, put it this way. I'm doing an arts course, and at the start of the year made a decision to change into arts/science or maybe economics. I'm now considering forgetting that whole idea because of the fee rise...I will be in debt for years upon years and i'm not guaranteed to get a job straight away...

Because i'm a first year, the majority of my course is charged at the higher rate. Yes, I know that for this year I have ordinary rates...but not the next one, unless Labor get elected. (Or so they promised) Now I certainly wouldn't mind so much if the fees went up according to inflation...I can see a 4% rise as reasonable. People might moan about it, but like you said, that's life...

However, 25% is ridiculous and unfair to be forced upon me when I originally did not envision paying that. When I chose my course, I knew what I was paying. Having them change by 25% mid course is unfair upon all students under HECS...

I'd gladly find evidence for you but i'm not sure where to start....*laughs*

I guess i'll look into the tied grant system....

No need, I know they exist but not to the extent you intimatd in your initial post on the matter.

What I do know for a fact is that the GST was a direct result of the states having no source of income...GST revenues are basically the only non-conditional revenue received by the states.

Well, I am aware that the Victorian State Government make nice little profit out of our punitive stamp duties amongst other things. So to say they generated no income is not entirely true. Now they have the GST revenue yet nothing has improved in the education system which is governed by the states.
Bracks also rejected $90M in Federal Government funding for the MCG renovations because the only condition was making the workplace an open shop. Bracks didn't want to upset CFMEU mates and knocked back the funding...guess who pays for that now!

(BTW federal labor governments are just as bad at exploiting tied grants)

Indeed they are.

Well, put it this way. I'm doing an arts course, and at the start of the year made a decision to change into arts/science or maybe economics. I'm now considering forgetting that whole idea because of the fee rise...I will be in debt for years upon years and i'm not guaranteed to get a job straight away...

I wasn't guaranteed a job either. You have to make these decisions, thats part of being an adult.

Because i'm a first year, the majority of my course is charged at the higher rate. Now I certainly wouldn't mind so much if the fees went up according to inflation...I can see a 4% rise as reasonable. People might moan about it, but like you said, that's life...

I can understand you being annoyed at the fee rise but it is a part of life.

However, 25% is ridiculous and unfair to be forced upon me when I originally did not envision paying that. When I chose my course, I knew what I was paying. Having them change by 25% mid course is unfair upon all students under HECS...

The government permitted universities to raise their fees up to 25%, your university obviously decided to take as much as they could while other universities raised their fees to a lesser extent or not at all. When I frst started university HECS was an interest free loan, then after a year they introduced indexation which was essentially adding interest. Things change and as far as costs go, rarely for the better.

As a university student, i know how much the howard government has screwed me over. however, i don't see a viable alternative. i'd probably vote labor if it came to it, but... well eventually i want to go in to politics (gotta do *something* with this law degree, and we'll see if i can make this country better. or at least get rid of some of the stupidity.

aside from that, i am somewhat annoyed that i won't be able to vote. i understand that i would have been quite impossible for little johnny to call the election any later, but it is somewhat disappointing that i turn 18 one month and 5 days after the election. i miss out, and yet my less opinionated/educated peers get to decide who is gonna run the country i live in, based on what their parents tell them.

So who was it that acted in East Timor then? Last I heard the East Timorese were living in an independent country. Pity a portion of their population didn't live to see independence.

As a university student, i know how much the howard government has screwed me over. however, i don't see a viable alternative. i'd probably vote labor if it came to it, but... well eventually i want to go in to politics (gotta do *something* with this law degree, and we'll see if i can make this country better. or at least get rid of some of the stupidity.

aside from that, i am somewhat annoyed that i won't be able to vote. i understand that i would have been quite impossible for little johnny to call the election any later, but it is somewhat disappointing that i turn 18 one month and 5 days after the election. i miss out, and yet my less opinionated/educated peers get to decide who is gonna run the country i live in, based on what their parents tell them. and I thought I was the only person from Perth on here... :cool:

The thing that annoys me about the HECS increases is that there's nothing we as students can do about it. We can't go to a different Uni (almost all of them charge the same ridiculous prices), and we cant refuse to pay and drop out because we end up with no degree, and therefore no hope of getting a decent job.

The days of starting at the bottom and working your way up are Loooooong gone...

Pity a portion of their population didn't live to see independence.

And whos fault was that Drabikstan, no harsh words for the Indonesian sponsored militas who slaughtered innocent civilians until the UN led by Australia stepped in between them?

And whos fault was that Drabikstan, no harsh words for the Indonesian sponsored militas who slaughtered innocent civilians until the UN led by Australia stepped in between them? Too little, too late from Australia is my point.

Indonesia is a backwards country ruled by corrupt little men. We can't expect the protection of human rights from the Indonesian government.

Too little, too late from Australia is my point.

We had to be careful, Indonesia has a big army and we were practically in their backyard, although we were right going in finally, with UN approval(what choice did they have this time) and US backing.
Our Army isnt big enough, if Indonesia had called us on anyway they would have wiped us out up there with numbers, we need more soldiers, ships, jets, missiles and subs.

[QUOTE]Indonesia is a backwards country ruled by corrupt little men. We can't expect the protection of human rights from the Indonesian government.

Just hope they dont come down here to Australia, besides the US in our pocket we have got nothing much to stop them.

Too little, too late from Australia is my point.

Indonesia is a backwards country ruled by corrupt little men. We can't expect the protection of human rights from the Indonesian government.

Hmmm...so waiting for UN approval in East Timor is too late but then when the war in Iraq started without UN approval it was "unnecessary and illegal"

It just confirmed my belief...damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I vote for Socialist Alliance. Not too big yet, but fairly. We're getting up to 15% in some parts of Melbourne.

When I vote, I often put socialist alliance first, simply because they won't get a seat. As soon as they start winning seats, I'll stop putting them first (afterall, I don't really want them elected).

And speaking as a university student I think we ought to pay for our own education. Why should we expect people who didn't attend uni to pay for us? Most of them are poorer than people with degrees. To me it seems very selfish to expect poorer people to pay for my education. All I ask for is that I don't have to pay it up front (because then I'd never be able to go to uni).

Also, if you chose to do one of the soft degrees (e.g. Arts) you really can't expect much, and you probably won't be paying back your HECS any time soon. It seems simple to me: when you go into uni, you should make yourself aware of the labour market conditions on the other side. If you do or don't, you really don't have much of a case to complain about the wages, or to expect someone else to foot the bill for your education.

And speaking as a university student I think we ought to pay for our own education. Why should we expect people who didn't attend uni to pay for us? Most of them are poorer than people with degrees. To me it seems very selfish to expect poorer people to pay for my education. All I ask for is that I don't have to pay it up front (because then I'd never be able to go to uni).


Exactly. We have a government loan system that allows many people who ordinarily could not afford to go to university to go. No-one is owed a tertiary education so I have no problem with HECS.

Also, if you chose to do one of the soft degrees (e.g. Arts) you really can't expect much, and you probably won't be paying back your HECS any time soon.

On a connected matter, the removal of meaningless courses from universities would mean lower fees as these courses would not drain funds. Not saying all Arts courses are meaningless but look through a course guide at a university and see some of the ridiculous courses offered that will give nothing back to the community at all. Get rid of those courses and then fees will come down.

It seems simple to me: when you go into uni, you should make yourself aware of the labour market conditions on the other side. If you do or don't, you really don't have much of a case to complain about the wages, or to expect someone else to foot the bill for your education.

That is also true. Job markets do change and wages fluctuate but when choosing your course you must have an idea of where you want to go and the demand for that job.

Allowing "asylum seekers" into our country unchecked is "good foreign policy"?

You'll have to excuse me for not being on in a while but I am back and have just read some of what you have said. Who ever said letting them into the country unchecked? Yes check them and get as much information on them as possible but odds are that if they have travelled in a small, leaky, overcrowded boat then they are probably not terrorists. Put them on a temporary VISA or something else but we are violating UN laws by locking up asylum seekers. All citizens of the world have the right to claim asylum.



The same jobs that are already filled researching alternative fuels?

First of all I wasn't just talking about research, I was talking about production. Production of solar powered-cars, lights (trust me it's not that stupid. I have a couple of solar powered laterns that charge up during the day and can be turned on at night), enviromentally friendly packaging. There would be tons of jobs created.

But I guess our country can only improve by throwing our borders open, allowing everyone access to unemployment benefits without having to look for work and legalising drugs! What a country that would be....come to Australia, everyone's welcome and you don't even need to work!!

Do you like just throwing things in that are not based whatsoever on what people have just said? who said anything about unemployment benefits for those who don't work? Who said anything about legalising drugs? And is it really so bad to welcome people to our country with open arms? Would it be so horrible to let people in to our country who are trying to escape regime's like the Taliban's and Saddam Hussein's? Think about what the person has said before you start making comments that have had nothing to do with what they have stated. I mean I could easily go:

"You're a right-wing, discriminating, bible thumping, Andrew Bolton reading, capitalist, facist dog"

on what you've just said but I don't because for all I know you could be an athiest, hate Andrew Bolton, and you could like cats. Hesitate before you speak.

You'll have to excuse me for not being on in a while but I am back and have just read some of what you have said. Who ever said letting them into the country unchecked? Yes check them and get as much information on them as possible but odds are that if they have travelled in a small, leaky, overcrowded boat then they are probably not terrorists. Put them on a temporary VISA or something else but we are violating UN laws by locking up asylum seekers. All citizens of the world have the right to claim asylum.

Have you read the Greens policies? I suggest you do and you will see they will detain "asylum seekers" for a short period then release them into the community. They state that no asylum seekers will be denied residence.
Have you noticed that since the Tampa the numbers of "asylum seekers" heading to our shores has dried up. Have you realised that many Afghans and Iraqis granted temporary visas as refugees are now returning to their homelands to help rebuild? All the Greens policy will do is drum up more business for people smugglers.

First of all I wasn't just talking about research, I was talking about production. Production of solar powered-cars, lights (trust me it's not that stupid. I have a couple of solar powered laterns that charge up during the day and can be turned on at night), enviromentally friendly packaging. There would be tons of jobs created.

How can you produce something that has not been researched and shown to be viable?

Do you like just throwing things in that are not based whatsoever on what people have just said? who said anything about unemployment benefits for those who don't work? Who said anything about legalising drugs? And is it really so bad to welcome people to our country with open arms? Would it be so horrible to let people in to our country who are trying to escape regime's like the Taliban's and Saddam Hussein's? Think about what the person has said before you start making comments that have had nothing to do with what they have stated.

I was alerting you to other Greens' policies, if you had read up on their policies you would have realised that. Afterall, that is what you were challenging me on was it not?

I mean I could easily go:

"You're a right-wing, discriminating, bible thumping, Andrew Bolton reading, capitalist, facist dog"

on what you've just said but I don't because for all I know you could be an athiest, hate Andrew Bolton, and you could like cats. Hesitate before you speak.

Well, if I remember correctly it was you who aggressively attacked me and not the topic initially. Besides that fact, as my statemetn above shows, the things I were referring to were Greens' policies so, seeing as you so devoutly support the Greens, it was not too long a bow to draw to assume you were aware of their policies and therefore supported them.

For the record, it is Andrew Bolt. I read his articles along with many other writers including Jill Singer. I am also an atheist, I do not discriminate and am not a fascist. I am right-leaning centrist and support a competitive culture where people are encouraged to succeed rather than being encouraged to do nothing and rely on government handouts. If that makes me a capitalist, then so be it but I have no real interest in money asides from being able to enjoy my life.

And speaking as a university student I think we ought to pay for our own education. Why should we expect people who didn't attend uni to pay for us? Most of them are poorer than people with degrees. To me it seems very selfish to expect poorer people to pay for my education. All I ask for is that I don't have to pay it up front (because then I'd never be able to go to uni).

So, only those who have rich parents should be able to undertake university study? I doubt that any student could earn the $20000 while completing the HSC, in order to pay for the first year of courses like medicine and law. This means instead of having the smartest/hardest working doctors, we have the ones who could afford to study, which is better for our country in what way?
I don't even need to write anything new to answer this. It's funny, because you even quoted me saying it:
All I ask for is that I don't have to pay it up front (because then I'd never be able to go to uni).
Any poor person who gets a degree (of any employment value) will be able to pay off their debt AFTER they graduate and are working.

Any poor person who gets a degree (of any employment value) will be able to pay off their debt AFTER they graduate and are working.

Yes, it still doesn't stop the people who think the world owes them a living moaning about it.

HECS enables people who ordinarily could not afford a tertiary education to gain that education under the proviso you repay the costs once in the workforce. Sounds fair to me. On average people would pay back $1500-$2500 per year depending on their wage so it is as fair a system as you can get.

"You're a right-wing, discriminating, bible thumping, Andrew Bolton reading, capitalist, facist dog"


More class from the Left who love to state how much their the voice of reason in Australia.

More class from the Left who love to state how much their the voice of reason in Australia.

Oh, good on you. You've proven that you can take quotes out of context and make the person involved look bad. *claps* :rolleyes:

Yay, what choices. We can vote for Howard (Traitor and American Arse Licker) or Latham (Traitor)

I will vote One Nation myself, the only party that won't stab us in the back! All the others hate Australia and Latham while not the US Arse licker that Howard is, wants to break away from the British Commenwealth, which I don't agree with. Given the chance he like Howard will be nothing but a treasonous pig!

Oh, good on you. You've proven that you can take quotes out of context and make the person involved look bad. *claps* :rolleyes:

Calling someone a dog isnt really nice mate.

Yay, what choices. We can vote for Howard (Traitor and American Arse Licker) or Latham (Traitor)

I will vote One Nation myself, the only party that won't stab us in the back! All the others hate Australia and Latham while not the US Arse licker that Howard is, wants to break away from the British Commenwealth, which I don't agree with. Given the chance he like Howard will be nothing but a treasonous pig!

Hes not an arse licker, hes doing if you can realise it, whats in Australias best interests, you always stand by your allies, no matter what, because they fought with us.

And that overrules everything else.

You think its bad that we sent troops to the middle east to help the US, worse would be if we didnt, then got in trouble ourselves in the future and then asked for help, which we would, from the ally we didnt support.

And dont come at me with Australia has no threat from terrorism or something else if we didnt stand with the US because that would only mean we would be standing for something or with someone else.

Calling someone a dog isnt really nice mate.

No, you took the quote out of context. He wasn't calling him that. Read what he said again:
Think about what the person has said before you start making comments that have had nothing to do with what they have stated. I mean I could easily go:

"You're a right-wing, discriminating, bible thumping, Andrew Bolton reading, capitalist, facist dog"

on what you've just said but I don't because for all I know you could be an athiest, hate Andrew Bolton, and you could like cats. Hesitate before you speak.

Howard is the least worst and he will probably win the election. The labor party needs to do some serious restructuring.

The greens are a bunch of marxist idiots.
The democrats are useless and politically dead.

I am lodging a protest vote. Apart from the war in Iraq, Howard has been alright as far as they go.

Howard is the least worst and he will probably win the election. The labor party needs to do some serious restructuring.

The greens are a bunch of marxist idiots.
The democrats are useless and politically dead.

I am lodging a protest vote. Apart from the war in Iraq, Howard has been alright as far as they go.

I dont agree with the Iraq stuff, but even though the Greens are made up of brain dead idiots their preference votes which will definitely go labors way could win it for Latham.
I pray every night from now on that this will not eventuate into Australias worst nightmare.

No, you took the quote out of context. He wasn't calling him that. Read what he said again:

OK my mistake I apologise to Khockist fully.

I may not be old enough to vote, but I'll be casting my vote for the Communist party... if we had one. So in reality I'd vote for the Socialist Alliance, and Labor as second. SA because I believe in equality for everyone, and Labor because I've hated Howard ever since the GST was introduced.

I may not be old enough to vote, but I'll be casting my vote for the Communist party... if we had one. So in reality I'd vote for the Socialist Alliance, and Labor as second. SA because I believe in equality for everyone, and Labor because I've hated Howard ever since the GST was introduced.

So now we know what you are voting against (Howard) but what are you voting FOR?

"So in reality I'd vote for the Socialist Alliance, and Labor as second"

"So in reality I'd vote for the Socialist Alliance, and Labor as second"

"So now we know what you are voting against (Howard) but what are you voting FOR?"

What, not who...

Hes not an arse licker, hes doing if you can realise it, whats in Australias best interests, you always stand by your allies, no matter what, because they fought with us.

And that overrules everything else.

You think its bad that we sent troops to the middle east to help the US, worse would be if we didnt, then got in trouble ourselves in the future and then asked for help, which we would, from the ally we didnt support.

And dont come at me with Australia has no threat from terrorism or something else if we didnt stand with the US because that would only mean we would be standing for something or with someone else.

I have no problem with Australia sending troops, however Howard lied to us, to me, to Australia! He got in on Bushes little lie and said "I'll be on that Daddy Bush"

There is a difference between standing with your allies and kissing arse.

If i was old enough LABOUR AND GREENS.

I have no problem with Australia sending troops, however Howard lied to us, to me, to Australia! He got in on Bushes little lie and said "I'll be on that Daddy Bush"

There is a difference between standing with your allies and kissing arse.

Well said.

You can be the ALLY of a country without being it's STOOGE.

We're heading back to the situation that we used to have with England, where she'd snap her fingers, and we'd send our boys off to die on her behalf.

I will be 18 5 days before the election ... thus I am happy to report LABOUR HAS MY VOTE!!!

I may not like Latham all that much, but compared to Howard ... well, he doesnt look *that* bad.

I suggest a family first protest vote. Vote them first and whoever you would normally vote second. Whoever wins will have a minority lead, so they will have to prove themselves.

I'd hate to be in the U.S. for their election, almost no choice :-D

Well said.

You can be the ALLY of a country without being it's STOOGE.

We're heading back to the situation that we used to have with England, where she'd snap her fingers, and we'd send our boys off to die on her behalf.

Yeah too bloody right. I mean I am a Patriot Aussie as much as anyone. I want Australia to be part of the Commonwealth (Hence Latham lost my vote) yet I don't want to be known as a resident of a country that sucks arse (Hence Howard lost my vote)

And let’s not touch the greens or the democrats.

I guess One Nation is the only party that sets Australia first.

I supported the war to REMOVE Saddam, I supported the WOT however the lies to send us to Iraq were unforgivable. WMD my arse, it was all political. Howard lied to the Australian people, like Bush and Blair lied to their own people, and many innocent Iraqi, American, and British boys died as a result for a war fought on a false pretense
.

I want Australia to be part of the Commonwealth (Hence Latham lost my vote) yet I don't want to be known as a resident of a country that sucks arse (Hence Howard lost my vote)

Well, love to be the one to break it to you mate, but you can vote Latham if you want, as there are no plans to leave the Commonwealth at all, even if Australia becomes a republic at some point. The commonwealth and who our head of state is, are two different things. Many many nations in it are already republics. Us Aussies would never give up entry to the commonwealth games eh? Just thought you should know. :-)


Now, if you like actually like the British Queen on the other hand, then don't vote for him.

Labor - no
Liberal - no
The rest - no

Is Skippy the Bush Kangaroo running? He has my vote.

[QUOTE=Austrealite]I have no problem with Australia sending troops, however Howard lied to us, to me, to Australia! He got in on Bushes little lie and said "I'll be on that Daddy Bush"


Its not like we sent thousands over to Iraq and hundreds got sent home in bodybags is it?

There is a difference between standing with your allies and kissing arse.

We stood with our major ally, as they have stood before with us, theres no arse kissing in that.


How narrow is the ground you stand on with your allies anyway?

Let me hazard a guess, Australia and yourself is under threat from a superior power in near or so future, then you stand with them right?

[QUOTE]


Its not like we sent thousands over to Iraq and hundreds got sent home in bodybags is it?



We stood with our major ally, as they have stood before with us, theres no arse kissing in that.


How narrow is the ground you stand on with your allies anyway?

Let me hazard a guess, Australia and yourself is under threat from a superior power in near or so future, then you stand with them right?

The fact is, Howard lied, who cares, it doesn't matter if we lost 1 soldier, or 1000 soldiers, he lied plain and simple.

Your right we stood with our ally, but did they stand with us in say...oh East Timor? No they didn't. Your putting words in my mouth

As for that rhetoric about education being a priviledge...allow me to point out a little part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Sure looks like a right to me.

As for that rhetoric about education being a priviledge...allow me to point out a little part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Sure looks like a right to me.

Nice one. *Jots down in black debate fodder book*

=Austrealite]The fact is, Howard lied, who cares, it doesn't matter if we lost 1 soldier, or 1000 soldiers, he lied plain and simple.

No he didnt, he was given a choice of backing Americas action in the middle east or not, what lies are you talking about?
So no WMDS got found, OK move on and look at the benefits Iraq gained instead from loosing a tyrant and getting a democracy, but noooooooooooooo Johnny 'lied' so this overules everything else.

It doesnt matter that we lost 1 or a 1000 soldiers.... nice.
We didnt loose one.


Your right we stood with our ally, but did they stand with us in say...oh East Timor? No they didn't. Your putting words in my mouth

Yes they did actually, Megawatis government was personally contacted by Bush and told to watch their step with us, Im sure they would have carried enough weight to be taken seriously.
The US also sent some non combatant personal in.

No he didnt, he was given a choice of backing Americas action in the middle east or not, what lies are you talking about?
So no WMDS got found, OK move on and look at the benefits Iraq gained instead from loosing a tyrant and getting a democracy, but noooooooooooooo Johnny 'lied' so this overules everything else.


Except for the democracy. Because the government that Iraq has currently was 'appointed', and not elected. In fact, unless the elections in Iraq go ahead (which is still not certain), the war in Iraq will have acheived no more than handing Iraq's oil production primarily into American controlled hands, a lot of shooting, 1000 American deaths and 10,000 Iraqi deaths.

At the moment, whether or not the regime is benign, Iraq is a religious dictatorship. Which means, it's the same as it was before the war, just with an American puppet at the wheel.

=Grave_n_idle] Except for the democracy. Because the government that Iraq has currently was 'appointed', and not elected.


It was appointed to avoid more bloodshed, when th country becomes more stable in a few years proper elections will be held.

In fact, unless the elections in Iraq go ahead (which is still not certain),


You mean the appointment.

the war in Iraq will have acheived no more than handing Iraq's oil production primarily into American controlled hands,

Untrue, Iraq will control its own oil and who it distributes it to.

a lot of shooting, 1000 American deaths and 10,000 Iraqi deaths.

Sad but as the old saying goes 'if you want to make an omelet..'
Alot of those Iraqi deaths could have been avoided and still can be if terrorists are rounded up and killed.
How many Iraqis have died from Islamic fundementalist bombs over the last 6 months do you think Grave?

At the moment, whether or not the regime is benign, Iraq is a religious dictatorship. Which means, it's the same as it was before the war, just with an American puppet at the wheel.

Its not the same at all, lets see how this government treats its peoples rights and welfare first in the next couple of years before we make quick judgements.

It was appointed to avoid more bloodshed, when th country becomes more stable in a few years proper elections will be held.


Why? Why would you believe proper elections would be held? They weren't held when the US handed over control. And what would be a proper election anyway? Al Sadr has said he is interested in running in the upcoming elections... do you think he will be allowed to? And - suppose he is allowed to, and suppose he wins, how long will the US tolerate Al-Sadr as president of Iraq?


You mean the appointment.


No. I mean the elections. Reread my post maybe. The APPOINTMENT did happen, the elections HAVE YET to happen.


Untrue, Iraq will control its own oil and who it distributes it to.


Iraq doesn't control it's own oil now. The head of state is an American appointed puppet - how could they operate any other way than to do exactly as they are told?

Sad but as the old saying goes 'if you want to make an omelet..'
Alot of those Iraqi deaths could have been avoided and still can be if terrorists are rounded up and killed.
How many Iraqis have died from Islamic fundementalist bombs over the last 6 months do you think Grave?

Funny, I don't remember the old saying going "If you want to make an omlette, you have to butcher thousands of civilians" - but, maybe they tell it different where you come from.

Why would Islamic Fundamentalists bomb Iraq? Iraq is the victim of a religious war by the Americans, the same enemy that most of those Islamic Fundamentalists are fighting. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, remember?

If you mean Iraqis blowing up collaborators with the invading force, that's not a new trick.

Hey, maybe Al-Sadr's men all blew each other up... what do you think? And the american tanks and helicopters were just spectators, no doubt?

Its not the same at all, lets see how this government treats its peoples rights and welfare first in the next couple of years before we make quick judgements.

Like we did with Saddam. So - help them into power (like we did with Saddam), arm them and train them (like we did with Saddam) and then leave them for a few years to see if they turn out okay? (Like we did with Saddam)?

And, if we don't like the way they go... we can always send troops in again, right?

it is being an interesting campaign - have seen hardly any advertisements so far...

but just got the greens pamplet, some of their aims:
No more freeways at all (and cancel the Mitcham/Franga one)
Renationalise Public transport
Abolish HECS (does this mean cancel those who have outstanding debt as well?)
Cover all complementary medicines under medicare (what is complementary medicine, anyone?)
keep australia totally GE free
end all energy production from coal

and some other stuff - but that covers most of it...

hmm...

lets see.

Howard is annoying.
Lathom gives me the shites

the greens have SOME good ideas (free uni degrees, oh HELL YEAH!) but some of there other ideas should stay as ideas.

the democrates?
one in parliment is good, the rest (say 3 or so) in the senate is good.
more would be.,... annoying.

the inderpendents?
most are just fookwits trying to gain some basic power for themselves

moral of the story?
weigh the options, and vote for the lesser evil.

for me, this means a vote for little johnny.
why?
because a government under Labour is going to cause more trouble than it's worth, and will take more time to fix than letting little johnny toddle along as he is doing now. (the other teams get the senate.)

all I can say?

God save Australia, cause else we're screwed.

Without trying to sound too insensitive, Howard probably creamed himself upon hearing the Indonesian attack. That's guaranteed him another term.

it is being an interesting campaign - have seen hardly any advertisements so far...

but just got the greens pamplet, some of their aims:
No more freeways at all (and cancel the Mitcham/Franga one)
Renationalise Public transport
Abolish HECS (does this mean cancel those who have outstanding debt as well?)
Cover all complementary medicines under medicare (what is complementary medicine, anyone?)
keep australia totally GE free
end all energy production from coal

and some other stuff - but that covers most of it...

Good Ideas...lets see them enforce them...

so how do we pay for all these things?
take getting rid of all coal power... i think 80+% of australian power is coal... and i doubt they would accept the nuclear option...
some of the ideas are nice (like the HECS and PT one) but how to pay for them again?

getting rid of freeways is a bad idea - cars produce less polution when traveling freely... (ie on a road without traffic lights or high traffic density)

finally to those points i raised before i like GE stuff (probably cause my degree and hopeful job is in making them)

The trouble with Howard is he's been parrotting the US diplomatic line since Bush has been in power. Everytime the US says X, then Howard is soon on TV repeating X. To those Islamic extremists, it confirms Australia is more than a US ally, more a stooge. The Bali bombing and Jakarta bombing were attacks on Australia which to them is an attack on US as well.

Australia is unique the way attached it itself to US as other nations required being bribed or extorted.

The trouble with Howard is he's been parrotting the US diplomatic line since Bush has been in power. Everytime the US says X, then Howard is soon on TV repeating X. To those Islamic extremists, it confirms Australia is more than a US ally, more a stooge. The Bali bombing and Jakarta bombing were attacks on Australia which to them is an attack on US as well.

Australia is unique the way attached it itself to US as other nations required being bribed or extorted.
I think you are wrong. The Bali bombings are revenge from extremists groups within Indonesia for the Australian support for the independence of East Timor. But that was right to stand for the right of the East Timorese to decide their destiny themself. And it was right to push the reformer in Indonesia to allow it.
It was a rejection not things Australia may have done wrong, but those it did right. The same can be said for the US though. It was before Afghanistan and Iraq 9/11 took place. Some people seem to forget that.

I think you are wrong. The Bali bombings are revenge from extremists groups within Indonesia for the Australian support for the independence of East Timor. But that was right to stand for the right of the East Timorese to decide their destiny themself. And it was right to push the reformer in Indonesia to allow it.
It was a rejection not things Australia may have done wrong, but those it did right. The same can be said for the US though. It was before Afghanistan and Iraq 9/11 took place. Some people seem to forget that.

It's true extremists would have not liked Australia's intervention in East Timor, but inwardly Indonesia is still distrustful of Australia after East Timor and now Iraq. Outwardly they are "cooperating" for PR purposes and they do need the help from Australia. Beware of the government officials who do support JI and co in Indonesia.

Australia was a target after East Timor but Iraq is simply the final verification to Islamic extremists that it is a US stooge.

I'm American so I know nothing about the Australian elections, and who those people are. I just hope that Australia gets somebody who the people like and somebody who likes America. It doesnt matter though :D We signed a mutual protection pack after WW2 so wherever the US fights, Australia is there and whereever they fight, the US is there...I like Australia :D

I'm American so I know nothing about the Australian elections, and who those people are. I just hope that Australia gets somebody who the people like and somebody who likes America. It doesnt matter though :D We signed a mutual protection pack after WW2 so wherever the US fights, Australia is there and whereever they fight, the US is there...I like Australia :D

Like
(1) Korean War
(2) Vietnam War
(3) Afghanistan
(4) Gulf War I and II (Iraq)

=Grave_n_idle Why? Why would you believe proper elections would be held? They weren't held when the US handed over control.


As if they could be, do you think they were drumming the Germans up to the polls after Hitler died?

if And what would be a proper election anyway? Al Sadr has said he is interested in running in the upcoming elections... do you think he will be allowed to? And - suppose he is allowed to, and suppose he wins, how long will the US tolerate Al-Sadr as president of Iraq?

Well as long as he doesnt turn into another Saddam as long as hes elected.


No. I mean the elections. Reread my post maybe. The APPOINTMENT did happen, the elections HAVE YET to happen.

That was my point too, you are arguing about something we both agree on.


Iraq doesn't control it's own oil now. The head of state is an American appointed puppet - how could they operate any other way than to do exactly as they are told?

Well they could always take it up with the UN if their not happy.


Funny, I don't remember the old saying going "If you want to make an omlette, you have to butcher thousands of civilians" - but, maybe they tell it different where you come from.

The US did their best to keep civilian casulties down, its war, mistakes are bound to happen and innocent people will die.
Civilians were allowed to leave Baghdad, to get out of harms way so why did they stay there.


Why would Islamic Fundamentalists bomb Iraq? Iraq is the victim of a religious war by the Americans,

a religous war, funny I thought it was all about the oil.

the same enemy that most of those Islamic Fundamentalists are fighting. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, remember?

Tell that to all the Iraqis who have been blown up by these freedom fighters lining up for jobs as policemen or of any effort to help establish a democracy.

The American Army has killed and captured people from all over the middle east fighting against the efforts to establish a democracy, and these particular people had no qualms about killing innocent Iraqis either no matter how many along with Americans.


If you mean Iraqis blowing up collaborators with the invading force, that's not a new trick.

Of course their collaboraters, well we see your true colours now and where you really stand.


Like we did with Saddam. So - help them into power (like we did with Saddam), arm them and train them (like we did with Saddam) and then leave them for a few years to see if they turn out okay? (Like we did with Saddam)?

Well do you suggest we leave them defenceless and at the mercy of Iran instead?



And, if we don't like the way they go... we can always send troops in again, right?

I doupt they will, you know what they say about history never repeating itself.

Without trying to sound too insensitive, Howard probably creamed himself upon hearing the Indonesian attack. That's guaranteed him another term.

I certainly hope not :(

Time for a donkey vote i think :-)

Dear Lord, Liberal is top of the paper...
Relax, it's random from electorate to electorate. There were noises about having it random within electorates, to completely cancel out the donkey vote, but I don't know whether they've worked out a way to allow sheep to follow the party ticket with that system - and it won't be introduced until that's been done...

"I'm glad the worm doesn't have a vote!" LOL! :D

Pity I missed the debate. :(

"I'm glad the worm doesn't have a vote!" LOL! :D

Pity I missed the debate. :(

Didn't miss much. The debate was two people saying very little about anything.

Didn't miss much. The debate was two people saying very little about anything.

Ditto. Watched it, but saw the same old. Have never voted (35yo), never will. Wont contribute to the mess. :)

I will vote but the "debate" did not offer anything new to think about. I think theatrically staged productions designed for TV ratings that involve two speakers coached in the art of saying nothing are a waste of time. Particularly as the most common answer was something along the lines of "we have a policy and we will release it later in the campaign but...". Oh, and if I had a dollar for everytime Latham said "ease the squeeze on middle Australia"!!!

It's called politics and electioneering.

It's designed to get your message across.

Much like Howards' ' Cut and Run' broken record.

It's called politics and electioneering.

It's designed to get your message across.

Much like Howards' ' Cut and Run' broken record.

I would prefer he spent more time telling me how he planned to "ease the squeeze" rather than repeatign the same thing over and over again. A message of no substance is a message not worth conveying.

One of the sad things about these debates is that the public can't get involved, aside from "the worm". So you end up with two blokes in a room desperately trying not to annoy anyone, being "grilled" by a bunch of journalists who have a vested interest in not pissing them off, since they make their living by talking to them, well exchanging words them. Therefore the chances of either Latham or Howard being asked a question they don't want to answer is pretty slim.

If the debate was open to some public input, no matter how ill-informed it might make the principals engage on topics not on the script and induce some unpredictable reactions. It might even degererate into a good old fashioned barney, more people would watch then.

On another note, it's sad that we do "end up with two blokes in a room desperately trying not to offend anyone"; in the good old days the whole point was to annoy a whole stack of people by being very , very different to your opponent and hope the odd 1% fell your way. If big Kim had of stood up and been different about boat people he might have got Howards job.

Latham does make some good points of difference, but almost all with foreign affairs (although the tax thing was clever), but critically not with respect to terrorism. The problem for him is that from a macroeconomic perspective little Johnny has done OK, and a middle class nation mortgaged to the hilt cares more (on average) about the next monthly house payment than whether Aussie troops are in Iraq. This sort of nation wants stability, not change and most likely won't risk it.

Gulf War I and II (Iraq)
That is rather a western perspective.
There were three gulf wars:
1. Gulf War I: Iran-Iraq 1980-88 - mass casualties on both sides
2. Gulf War II: Iraq-Kuwait/UN led by a coalition under US leaership - Iraq contained but the problem with the regime still existent
3. Gulf War III: US/Britain, Australia, Poland - Iraq:
End of the regime; occupation of Iraq.

Some people might compare that with the three Punian (sp?) wars between the Punians and Rome. Well, if you´ve heard about it.
History was always full of wars. The old greec said: War is the father and king of all things.
It seems to be the case that this is never going to be changed. Though the west - especially Western Europe - has lost its awareness of that fact due to the unfortunate luck of 60 years of peace for many.

I would prefer he spent more time telling me how he planned to "ease the squeeze"

Yeah. That's why they have these things called 'policies'. Like or loathe them, they explain just how both sides will do and cost the things they waffle on about.

rather than repeatign the same thing over and over again.

Exactly the same way Howard goes on and on about interest rates and cutting and running etc ? Yeah, know what you mean there.

A message of no substance is a message not worth conveying.

Yup. See where I explain what 'policies' are.

I'm American so I know nothing about the Australian elections, and who those people are. I just hope that Australia gets somebody who the people like and somebody who likes America. It doesnt matter though :D We signed a mutual protection pack after WW2 so wherever the US fights, Australia is there and whereever they fight, the US is there...I like Australia :D

Well I think we are still waiting for Ammerica to make good on their end... Australia has followed America into war 4 or 5 times already, and thus has turned what was once a well liked country into a terrorisim target.

and when Australia went into help out with East Timor (and i might add that we were asked to, we didn't just assume that it was our business) America didn't back us up, or even deign to notice.

anyhoo... i don't blame you, i just think your government likes the idea of using our armed forces to do the work that your own armed forces aren't up to.

Afghanistan votes the same day :D

Well, I'll be off to the polls on Saturday, and my vote, along with the vote of almost everyone I know, is going to the Greens, not out of favour for their policies, but because they have assumed the mantle of "Protest Vote Party" from the pathetic mess which is the Democrats/Australian Progressive Party.

I'm simply sick of John Howard running my country, and I'd like a leader whose foreign policy is not dectated by Washington, and whose domestic policy doesn't revolve around reaming education. As a university student I can tell you for a fact that both HECS and upfront uni students will be worse off under proposed Howard government hikes than under the more or less pathetic Labour scheme.

Basically, my vote goes to the Greens in the hope that their preferences get Labour up, but that once that has happened, Labour has to listen to the Greens to get stuff done. The Greens are the only party in Australia at the moment which is in any way non-conservative, and that's something I appreciate and think is a vital part of politics.

I'm not going to tell people how to vote, all I ask is that people consider the following:

> You don't have to vote for "the big two" (Labour and Liberal) - a vote for a third party is NOT a wasted vote - it's a vote that tells the big two that we are sick of stagnation

> The Greens and the Democrats are not neccessarily the "joke" parties some people would have you believe

> Study the policies - don't just vote Labour or Liberal because you did last time, or because your parents did. Try to make sure you understand the policies of whoever your'e voting for properly. If you still want to vote Labour or Liberal after studying their policies, then go for it

> Don't put in a donkey vote, unless you really don't understand what's going on

4 simple things to consider on Saturday ;)

> The Greens and democrats are not neccessarily the "joke" parties some people would have you believe


Are you serious, you actually believe the greens are not a joke party, like

legalising all drugs, opening the countrys borders to let anyone in no

questions asked, and lol, having an Army that doesnt use violence, to be

trained instead, I guess in 'councilling' the enemy not to use violence right.

Not to mention the Christianity hatred.


Get real.

The Lie:
"I can promise you that we will follow policies which will ... bring down foreign debt ... our first priority ... will be to tackle the current account deficit."

John Howard, 20 September 1995

The Fact:
Foreign debt was $361 billion at the end of September 2003, an increase of 90 per cent on the September 1995 level. The current account deficit was $11.9 billion at the end of September 2003, an increase of 112.5 per cent on the September 1995 level.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS@, Time Series Spreadsheets (Balance of Payments and Investment Position, Australia 5302.0, Reserve Bank of Australia (H) Bulletin, Current Account) .

Umm Howard is talking about the public debt, ie government debt, that figure is the foreign debt and trade deficit of all of Australia, including ALL private enterprise. The government doesn't manage the money of companies or individuals....

[QUOTE=Bobitality]Well I think we are still waiting for Ammerica to make good on their end... Australia has followed America into war 4 or 5 times already, and thus has turned what was once a well liked country into a terrorisim target.


Beating the Japs in WW2 and the consequences of that for Australia help you

out any?

I take it your young, so you probably dont know any better, but Australia

appealed to the US for help, and got it, when Britain ditched us.

Is this one of the 4 or 5 times your referring too?

Also is your view on Australia staying a well liked country, based on nothing

less than terrorist appeasement?


and when Australia went into help out with East Timor (and i might add that we were asked to, we didn't just assume that it was our business) America didn't back us up, or even deign to notice.

Showing your ignorance now, Indonesia was warned to be careful by the US,

advice they decided to take.

The US also sent in military advisors.

anyhoo... i don't blame you, i just think your government likes the idea of using our armed forces to do the work that your own armed forces aren't up to.

Like what, sitting around in boredom, protecting an International airport,

that hardly anyone is using for obvious reasons and nowhere near any

fighting.

How many Aussies have died doing this work the yanks wont mate?

Answer none.

How many yanks have died trying to restore democracy to a country that

hardly anyone else will risk having their citizens killed for?

Answer over a 1000, and rapidly climbing.

So whos doing, and not doing the dirty work again?

Answer the yanks are doing nearly all of it, as usual.

WTF is up with all you rabid anti-Greens people?

First off: Legalisation of drugs, is not only not a joke, it actually makes sense. People will take drugs whether or not they are legal - witness the recent overdoses on E in Sydney. If drugs are legalised, it does two things. Firstly, it allows the government to monitor the quality and potency of the drugs available, and offer advisories on safe usage. Secondly, it begins to put a crimp on the activities of illegal drug sellers, as they have competition which does not have to hide in the shadows, and which could have a much larger buget than theirs. I personally don't take drugs, never have, never will, but I think that something has to be done about drugs, and the current system just doesn't work.

Second point: "Opening the borders to let people in no questions asked" is not, and never has been, a policy of any group other than those idiot protesters. What the entire refugees debate has been about is not the process undergone, but the way in which it is handled. The Greens, and the Democrats, and several other nonmajors, simply believe that it is morally wrong to take people off boats and put them into prison camps. I disagree, but I can see their point.

Third point: An army that doesnt use violence? WHere the fuck did you get that from? I have friends in the Army, and they certainly aren't voting Green, but I've never heard of anything so idiotic in my life. The only possible explanation for what you've apparently heard is that the Greens are not in favour of the so-called 'pre-emptive strikes' and disagree with using the Armed forces in any role other than peace-keeping.

Fourth point: "Christianity hatred"? Secular government doesn't mean Christianity hatred, it means seperation of Church and State. Having a Government which doesn't trot out Christian idiocies all the time would be a nice change, and would recognise the fact that Christianity is not the dominant religion in the world. In fact, if I could get every government in the world to secularise, preferable on the French model, I'd be very happy. Religion and politics don't, and shouldn't, mix.

And I really need to emphasise the importance of not making donkey votes. Please, guys, there are people across the world who have died and are dying to try to get the ability we have, to vote for our government, and you want to throw that away because you haven't made the effort to be politically aware? Anyone who makes a donkey vote is a complete fuckhead, and should be fined as if they didn't vote at all.

How many yanks have died trying to restore democracy to a country that hardly anyone else will risk having their citizens killed for?

Answer over a 1000, and rapidly climbing.


I;d like to point out that Iraq has, in fact, never had a democratic government of any kind. And that America has repeatedly shown that governments being democratic is not an issue to it, as seen the First Gulf War, when America 'liberated' Kuwait and retuned it to its rightful dictators. Also in America's support for the military junta currently ruling Pakistan, one of America's staunch allies. And of course I don't need to mention 'incidents' like Pinichet, do I?

And I should also point out that America did it's best to completely alienate anyone who didn't lend forces to the initial, illegal assault on Iraq, most especially the Europeans. In particular, America's shameful and bizarrely vicious attacks on France, which was, incidentally, the very first country to sign up for GW1.

Are you serious, you actually believe the greens are not a joke party, like

legalising all drugs, opening the countrys borders to let anyone in no

questions asked, and lol, having an Army that doesnt use violence, to be

trained instead, I guess in 'councilling' the enemy not to use violence right.

Not to mention the Christianity hatred.


Get real.I am very serious - the issues that you state don't make them a "joke" party, it just makes them incompatible with your own set of ideals.

Not to mention I don't agree with half of what you say: can I have a quote that shows "Christianity Hatred" by the Greens or Democrats?

I would not vote for labor, actually I agree with what Terminalia stated, I wouldn't really want to vote for either party but I dislike Liberal less than Labor.

[QUOTE=Axin]I;d like to point out that Iraq has, in fact, never had a democratic government of any kind.


Tell that to Saddam, he got rid of the last one.

And that America has repeatedly shown that governments being democratic is not an issue to it, as seen the First Gulf War, when America 'liberated' Kuwait and retuned it to its rightful dictators. Also in America's support for the military junta currently ruling Pakistan, one of America's staunch allies. And of course I don't need to mention 'incidents' like Pinichet, do I?

Everyone needs allies, why do you have such a big problem with America

having them?


And I should also point out that America did it's best to completely alienate anyone who didn't lend forces to the initial, illegal assault on Iraq, most especially the Europeans. In particular, America's shameful and bizarrely vicious attacks on France, which was, incidentally, the very first country to sign up for GW1.

lol the Americans asked Europe for help, the alienisation was coming the other way I think, but you ignore those little facts.

WTF is up with all you rabid anti-Greens people?

First off: Legalisation of drugs, is not only not a joke, it actually makes sense. People will take drugs whether or not they are legal - witness the recent overdoses on E in Sydney. If drugs are legalised, it does two things. Firstly, it allows the government to monitor the quality and potency of the drugs available, and offer advisories on safe usage. Secondly, it begins to put a crimp on the activities of illegal drug sellers, as they have competition which does not have to hide in the shadows, and which could have a much larger buget than theirs. I personally don't take drugs, never have, never will, but I think that something has to be done about drugs, and the current system just doesn't work.

Second point: "Opening the borders to let people in no questions asked" is not, and never has been, a policy of any group other than those idiot protesters. What the entire refugees debate has been about is not the process undergone, but the way in which it is handled. The Greens, and the Democrats, and several other nonmajors, simply believe that it is morally wrong to take people off boats and put them into prison camps. I disagree, but I can see their point.

Third point: An army that doesnt use violence? WHere the fuck did you get that from? I have friends in the Army, and they certainly aren't voting Green, but I've never heard of anything so idiotic in my life. The only possible explanation for what you've apparently heard is that the Greens are not in favour of the so-called 'pre-emptive strikes' and disagree with using the Armed forces in any role other than peace-keeping.

Fourth point: "Christianity hatred"? Secular government doesn't mean Christianity hatred, it means seperation of Church and State. Having a Government which doesn't trot out Christian idiocies all the time would be a nice change, and would recognise the fact that Christianity is not the dominant religion in the world. In fact, if I could get every government in the world to secularise, preferable on the French model, I'd be very happy. Religion and politics don't, and shouldn't, mix.

And I really need to emphasise the importance of not making donkey votes. Please, guys, there are people across the world who have died and are dying to try to get the ability we have, to vote for our government, and you want to throw that away because you haven't made the effort to be politically aware? Anyone who makes a donkey vote is a complete fuckhead, and should be fined as if they didn't vote at all.

I agree with most of what you are saying but legalising drugs would not be a good idea, making them mainstream would give people access who would otherwise have none, hence more addicts.
it would diminish the message that they are unhealthy for you hence more addicts.
the price would still be reasonably high, hence more crime as the above shows more addicts

it might ruin a few drug dealers but the affects would be worse

ok it's time for middle east 101

Why? Why would you believe proper elections would be held? They weren't held when the US handed over control. And what would be a proper election anyway? Al Sadr has said he is interested in running in the upcoming elections... do you think he will be allowed to? And - suppose he is allowed to, and suppose he wins, how long will the US tolerate Al-Sadr as president of Iraq?

How could Al-Sadr become president? the country will be a parliamentary caucus with a prime minister, I doubt america would have issues with Al-Sadr having a seat in parliament, do you?

Iraq doesn't control it's own oil now. The head of state is an American appointed puppet - how could they operate any other way than to do exactly as they are told?

There's really no other option currently, it's not a nice option, but there isn't a better one.

Why would Islamic Fundamentalists bomb Iraq? Iraq is the victim of a religious war by the Americans, the same enemy that most of those Islamic Fundamentalists are fighting. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, remember?

If you mean Iraqis blowing up collaborators with the invading force, that's not a new trick.

Hey, maybe Al-Sadr's men all blew each other up... what do you think? And the american tanks and helicopters were just spectators, no doubt?


That's not true at all, do you know why Al-Sadr distances himself so vehemently from Al Qaeda etc? It's not for the "West's" sake, it's for HIS people. The Wasabi Sunni muslims that Bin Laden and co are part of state their enemies in Iraq are the Shi'a, The Americans (and sympathisers) and the Kurds, Al-Sadr may not be a member of those first 2 groups, but he's certainly a member of the first. They claim the Shi'a of which Iraq is a majority of are the TRUE enemies of true islam.

this is the quote about the Shi'a

These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in [their] religious, political, and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies … and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts.

http://jimmarshall.house.gov/Zarqawi.html

this is an intercepted letter from Al Zarqawi to Bin Laden, hosted on the lower house government site under the name of someone whom is a 3 times congressman and member of their Armed Forces Committee.

Al-Zarqawi says that they should hit Shi'a religious sites, you say they wouldn't, I wonder whose opinion is the valid one....

Like we did with Saddam. So - help them into power (like we did with Saddam), arm them and train them (like we did with Saddam) and then leave them for a few years to see if they turn out okay? (Like we did with Saddam)?

Bush has admitted to the failures of the previous administrations in dealing with the middle east and promised not to allow it to occur again under him, what's your solution? hide it under the rug and let it all go?

Since when is Labor Socialists? Are you high? How come the poll is closed? :(

I posted my vote for the Greens.

labour haven't been socialists for 2 decades, it was paul keating who tony blair copied for his "new labour" with its "right of centre but not as far as the conservatives" stance

Tell that to Saddam, he got rid of the last one.


I think you'll find, if you actually look, that Saddam overthrew a pseudo-communist group which had overthrown a monarchy. No democracies there.


Everyone needs allies, why do you have such a big problem with America having them?


I don't have a problem with America having allies, in fact I'm thankful for it - fuck knows what they'd do if everyone really did hate them. My problem is that America is crusading through the Middle East proclaiming it's new Manifest Destiny - to bring Liberal Democracy to the world - yet at the same time it is allying itself with repressive totalitarian states, like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Syria.


lol the Americans asked Europe for help, the alienisation was coming the other way I think, but you ignore those little facts.

America asked Europe for help invading Iraq. Europe said they didn't believe that the evidence justified that action. America declare Europe traitors to the human race. Tell me again who alienated whom?

[QUOTE=Axin]I think you'll find, if you actually look, that Saddam overthrew a pseudo-communist group which had overthrown a monarchy. No democracies there.

OK you can have that one.


I don't have a problem with America having allies, in fact I'm thankful for it - fuck knows what they'd do if everyone really did hate them. My problem is that America is crusading through the Middle East proclaiming it's new Manifest Destiny - to bring Liberal Democracy to the world - yet at the same time it is allying itself with repressive totalitarian states, like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Syria.

America is crusading for a good reason, Islamic fundementalism.

Syria, is Israels worst enemy, why would the US ally themselves with them?

America asked Europe for help invading Iraq. Europe said they didn't believe that the evidence justified that action.
America declare Europe traitors to the human race. Tell me again who alienated whom?

Regardless, Europe will be fighting alot of Islamic terrorism anyway, and I

dont think America will help them.

That will be a big split with France, Russia will also soon have an open hand

to do what it likes with Islamic terrorism, say goodbye to Chechyna.

Since I can't be stuffed looking into politics (not yet voting age) I was wondering what other parties there are besides labour liberal green national democrats family first and independent. Is there anything else?
Finally, someone please explain what family first are on about because I have no idea. What the hell are their stances and views?

I am very serious - the issues that you state don't make them a "joke" party, it just makes them incompatible with your own set of ideals.

Not to mention I don't agree with half of what you say: can I have a quote that shows "Christianity Hatred" by the Greens or Democrats?

Come on its well known the Greens are anti Christian, and anti semitic as are

the left in general.

Here this might amuse you:

This is what makes so much of the Left's rhetoric so maddening. After all, the Left frequently likens Republicans to Nazis, from the protesters carrying signs depicting President Bush with a Hitler mustache, to Janet Reno's Nazi reference at a group of Jewish voters in Florida just last week. The Left simply can't have it both ways. If a leader were to arise-a man who was a vegetarian, a radical environmentalist, a tea-drinking, nature worshipping, anti-smoking fanatic, a socialist, a proponent of abortion and of medical research utilizing fetal tissue, who would outlaw speech and ideas that he didn't approve of, an animal rights activist, a controversial artist and writer, a pagan who's harshest rhetoric was directed against Jews and Christians - he could rise quickly to the leadership of the Green Party. Indeed, such a man would find few critics among democrats, and would be welcomed by the faculty of most colleges. Such a man did once exist, and did become the leader of a modernnation only a few decades ago. That man was Adolph Hitler.

Adolph Hitler would love the greens.

Judson Cox is a conservative columnist and a college student. He writes for a few small print newspapers, a few conservative websites and his own Conservativejud Newsletter.

Since I can't be stuffed looking into politics (not yet voting age) I was wondering what other parties there are besides labour liberal green national democrats family first and independent. Is there anything else?
Finally, someone please explain what family first are on about because I have no idea. What the hell are their stances and views?

Here you go.

http://www.familyfirst.org.au/

They have my preference vote.

Come on its well known the Greens are anti Christian, and anti semitic as are the left in general.

Adolph Hitler would love the greens.

Judson Cox is a conservative columnist and a college student. He writes for a few small print newspapers, a few conservative websites and his own Conservativejud Newsletter.

Um, retard, those are the AMERICAN GREENS. Not the Aussie variety led by Bob Brown. It's a well known fact that the American Greens are quite insane - they had a group break off a few years ago and form the National Socialist Greens Party. The Australian Greens Party is just a nonconservative political party.


America is crusading for a good reason, Islamic fundementalism. Syria, is Israels worst enemy, why would the US ally themselves with them?


I've always been dubious about the whole Islamic extremist thing, especially as it relates to states. Other than Afghanistan, which was fucked up anyway, no state has supported terrorism since the end of the Cold War. In particular, Iraq never bothered. The major exception here is that most Middle Eastern countries support the Palestinians in their struggle for statehood. The Israeli thing is extremely complex, so I'd suggest we leave that by the wayside and concentrate on the rest. Oh, and America is allied with Syria - witness the recent revelation of the CIA kidnapping some Canadian Arab and sending him to Syria to be tortured, cos they can't do it at home.


Regardless, Europe will be fighting alot of Islamic terrorism anyway, and I don't think America will help them. That will be a big split with France, Russia will also soon have an open hand to do what it likes with Islamic terrorism, say goodbye to Chechyna.

That carefully avoids the point I raised, which is that it was America which alienated Europe, not the other way around. The Europeans, particularly the French, have much more experience at dealing with Islamic extremists than America, as shown in France's dealings with Algeria and Tunisia since decolonisation. Spain is commonly seen to have 'caved in to terrorism' due to its pull-out from Iraq following their election, two days after a horrific bombing in Madrid. The unseen side of this story is that the party which won the election had had pulling out of Iraq as one of its campaign promises from the very beginning, much like Mark Latham here.

With regard to Russia, they were always going to do whatever the hell they wanted in Chechenya. The Chechens were, until a couple of years ago, valiant freedom fighters. Then, all of a sudden, Islam was the mortal enemy of Western civilisation, and they were the enemy. Now, before you throw things like the theatre in Moscow, the airliner and the school at me, consider this: Russia has, since its annexation of Chechenya in the 19th century, repeatedly and systematically tried to commit genocide against the Chechens. The Tsars organised pogroms, Stalin sent in tanks and gassed them, and now Yeltsin and Putin have sent in the Russian army, and have in fact destroyed Grozny, the Chechen capital, and most Chechen towns. Thousands of Chechens have died in the conflict so far, which has seen the pitting of a modern army against ordinary people. It has even reportedly seen the use of Fuel-Air explosives, a weapon which Russia is not allowed to posses under international arms control arrangements. While what the Chechens have done recently is utterly immoral and wrong, consider the position they're in.

Two more days! and hopefully the retirement of John Howard :)

Here you go.

http://www.familyfirst.org.au/

They have my preference vote.

The Australian version of the Christian Coalition ...

Um, retard, those are the AMERICAN GREENS. Not the Aussie variety led by Bob Brown. It's a well known fact that the American Greens are quite insane - they had a group break off a few years ago and form the National Socialist Greens Party. The Australian Greens Party is just a nonconservative political party.

The australian greens are every bit as insane, its just that Brown is a seasoned poli, but the people who control the party would disintegrate the party if he didn't hold those radical views, as they care little to nothing about anyone else. Of course Brown has that extra special gift of being able to act like a prick, and rather than slink back into the shadows, come back the next day and be a prick again.

That carefully avoids the point I raised, which is that it was America which alienated Europe, not the other way around.

That would be why Angela Merkel wrote an article in new york times saying Germany's stance on Iraq was driven by blatant anti americanism and not real intelligence. Who is Angela Merkel you may ask? she'd be the next chancellor of Germany, leader of the CDU who will displace the now grossly unpopular Gerhard Schroeder.

The australian greens are every bit as insane, its just that Brown is a seasoned poli, but the people who control the party would disintegrate the party if he didn't hold those radical views, as they care little to nothing about anyone else. Of course Brown has that extra special gift of being able to act like a prick, and rather than slink back into the shadows, come back the next day and be a prick again.


Not they aren't. Saying that the Australian Greens are anything like the American Greens is complete bullshit. The American Greens are radical extremists. The Australian Greens are a liberal party, much like the Australian Democrats and the Australian Progressive Party. In fact, the Australian Greens are about as radical as the Australian Democrats. Don't ever compare Australian and American parties of the same name, they're nothing alike.

Bob Brown, to quote the song, might be a **** but he's not a fucking ****. At least he's stood up for what he believes in. I can respect that. And that whole thing about him being chucked out of parliament when George W. came over was blown out of proportion by the media. It is, in fact, remarkably easy to be evicted from parliament.


That would be why Angela Merkel wrote an article in new york times saying Germany's stance on Iraq was driven by blatant anti americanism and not real intelligence. Who is Angela Merkel you may ask? she'd be the next chancellor of Germany, leader of the CDU who will displace the now grossly unpopular Gerhard Schroeder.


And you don't think, even for a second, that her writing here might be slightly biased by the fact that (a) she's writing for an American paper and (b) she's the opposition party - that is, the one which bitches about everything the government party does? Now, I'll give you that some of the European reaction to Bush was based on the continuing European drive to create a second pole of power in Europe, but a lot of still was revolving around the fact that they didn't see the evidence presented by the Americans and Brits as being adequate to justify an invasion. And were then told by the Americans that anyone who didn't jump on board was a traitor to democracy.

Here you go.

http://www.familyfirst.org.au/

They have my preference vote.

I would put these guys dead last on if I could vote, I certainly don't support this:

"lesbians are witches and should be burned to death"

Or this one either:

Mr Nalliah, who heads the Catch the Fire Ministries, is on the Family First Senate ticket in Victoria.

In a recent "Rise up Australia" call-to-prayer pamphlet, Mr Nalliah told followers to ask the Lord to give them insights.

"Spot Satan's strongholds in the areas you are living in (brothels, gambling places, bottle shops, mosque, temples-Freemason/Buddhist/ Hindu etc, witchcraft)," the leaflet says.

He urged followers to circle the place on a map.

"If you are ready to pray against it, do so. If not, bring it to your church and ask your intercessors, through the pastor, to pull these strongholds down," the document says.

Come on its well known the Greens are anti Christian, and anti semitic as are the left in general.
<snip>
Judson Cox is a conservative columnist and a college student. He writes for a few small print newspapers, a few conservative websites and his own Conservativejud Newsletter.Wow! Now can we have a "fair and balanced" piece by someone who isn't a right-wing scaremonger or has a personal axe to grind?

Opinions DO NOT equal facts.

Look at Andrew Bolt - his opinion pieces masquerade as facts, but half of it only exists in his addled mind...

P.S. The left anti-semitic? Hmm, like that famous left winger call Adolf someone? :p

And you don't think, even for a second, that her writing here might be slightly biased by the fact that (a) she's writing for an American paper and (b) she's the opposition party - that is, the one which bitches about everything the government party does?

That's not the German political system, since no party ever has control of their parliament without a coalition (lots of strong minority parties), they call a spade a spade, Schroeder even ran an anti american platform last election (he's the most blatant about it of any euro politician), as for the US paper, the paper she wrote for is very left wing, now if it had been the post, different story.

Not they aren't. Saying that the Australian Greens are anything like the American Greens is complete bullshit.

Do you know that the Labor party in Tasmania told them to go screw themself rather than form a coalition government with them in '95 because of how ridiculous they are? in 89 they did, however in 95, they offered the labor party, and the labor party said no, because they refused to deal with the Greens any longer. Yes, that's right, rather than dealing with the Greens, they let the liberal party take charge because they believed being in opposition was a better choice than dealing with the Greens. They are every bit as ridiculous as the American greens, HOWEVER the only green we see at a federal level is Bob Brown, who himself is not, he's a very seasoned politician with very good oratorical skills, but you just wait until we get to see the ridiculous level of the drabs the rest of the party is made up of.

and this is what the former Labor Premier of Tasmania had to say about them.

"The radicals moral certitude is awesome, they are incapable of compromise"

Repeated times, the green politicians needed to change agreements because of pressure from the unelected radicals.

"They would pocket concessions, and then use them to create new benchmarks"

The green parliamentarians bowed to the radicals because they knew they "didn't give a damn about the party" and would destroy it without a qualm.

Here you go.

http://www.familyfirst.org.au/

They have my preference vote.

*shakes head in dismay*

Religion and politics should never mix. I don't care what they say...they are definitely a religion oriented party.

Two more days! and hopefully the retirement of John Howard :)

lol not according to the latest polls. :p

lol not according to the latest polls. :p

Polls can have as much as a 10% swing. They're not at all reliable.

lol not according to the latest polls. :p

Polls can have as much as a 10% swing. They're not at all reliable.

Though I do think Howard will end up winning >:(

[QUOTE=Kanabia]*shakes head in dismay*

Religion and politics should never mix. I don't care what they say...

So even if they come up with some great policys that work, and most people

approve of them, you wont.




they are definitely a religion oriented party.

Nothing wrong with that.

Polls can have as much as a 10% swing. They're not at all reliable.

Though I do think Howard will end up winning >:(

diddums

So even if they come up with some great policys that work, and most people

approve of them, you wont.

Oh yeah? What do they have to offer me?

I dont care at all for their ultra-conservative agenda.

And if most people approved of them, it just means that most people are wrong and not that I should change what I think to fit in with the majority.

Nothing wrong with that.

There certainly is if you aren't religious (or at least not christian) and are having it imposed upon you.

It would be interesting to see them try and close down those "Islamic temples of satan" and burn lesbians at the stake however.

diddums

What's your problem? I'm allowed to express my disgust.

It would be interesting to see them try and close down those "Islamic temples of satan" and burn lesbians at the stake however.
They never said they wanted lesbians burned at the stake, just "burned to death". So much better :rolleyes:.

They never said they wanted lesbians burned at the stake, just "burned to death". So much better :rolleyes:.

Oh, my bad. :p

Like a good portion of you, I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel no matter who I vote for. Although Howard sides with Bush (smart move, the world's only true superpower) and some of his policies of late are strange (Dammit why didn't he go on Rove?), Howard has been a good leader for Australia. We only hate him 'cos he's funny-looking. And for that, Latham isn't much better...

They never said they wanted lesbians burned at the stake, just "burned to death". So much better .

Really they're just after stopping labour winning by suring up a lot of the undecided/possibly labour christians with preferences to liberal. A lot of their policies are greenesque pandering, just they do it to the unbending ultra right instead of the ultra left.

What it's really about for them is making sure full rights civil unions dont happen as per latham's proposal.

those are the AMERICAN GREENS. Not the Aussie variety led by Bob Brown. It's a well known fact that the American Greens are quite insane - they had a group break off a few years ago and form the National Socialist Greens Party. The Australian Greens Party is just a nonconservative political party.

The Aussie variety are just as insane, as they are the world over, if Bob loony

Brown is the best they have got, then I hate to think what the rest of the

partys like.

I've always been dubious about the whole Islamic extremist thing, especially as it relates to states. Other than Afghanistan, which was fucked up anyway, no state has supported terrorism since the end of the Cold War.

You really need to open your eyes up, Africa... SE Asia...


In particular, Iraq never bothered. The major exception here is that most Middle Eastern countries support the Palestinians in their struggle for statehood.

Yes, and in any way, the Palistinians think fit too, that should presumably tell

you something.


The Israeli thing is extremely complex, so I'd suggest we leave that by the wayside and concentrate on the rest.

Yeah, all they want to do is to live in peace, pity you cant see that.


Oh, and America is allied with Syria - witness the recent revelation of the CIA kidnapping some Canadian Arab and sending him to Syria to be tortured, cos they can't do it at home.

The US Congressional bill, known as the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, would demand that Damascus changed its behaviour or face American sanctions.

The Bush administration has not taken a position on the proposed act, which also condemns Syria's military presence in Lebanon, but has in recent months weeks been indicating it is toughening its stance towards Damascus.

Oh yeah, their great Allies arent they.


That carefully avoids the point I raised, which is that it was America which alienated Europe, not the other way around.

But dont you think Europe is accountable for the middle east mess too, why

should they get away with selling millions of dollars of weapons to countrys in

this region, and then walk off and wash their hands of it.

At least the US at considerable cost in lives, is trying to do something to fix

the mess.



The Europeans, particularly the French, have much more experience at dealing with Islamic extremists than America,


anything like um... 9/11, or the pentagon attack?



as shown in France's dealings with Algeria and Tunisia since decolonisation.

That wasnt in France but was it.

Different scenario altogether.

Spain is commonly seen to have 'caved in to terrorism' due to its pull-out from Iraq following their election, two days after a horrific bombing in Madrid. The unseen side of this story is that the party which won the election had had pulling out of Iraq as one of its campaign promises from the very beginning, much like Mark Latham here.

Which should tell you something, why did the Islamic terrorists go through

with the train bombs then?

A). It was really the Basque seperatists.

B). It was planned years before.

c). Islamic extremists see no difference in terrorising a country no matter

whos going to win an election, as long as its a western nation.


With regard to Russia, they were always going to do whatever the hell they wanted in Chechenya. The Chechens were, until a couple of years ago, valiant freedom fighters. Then, all of a sudden, Islam was the mortal enemy of Western civilisation, and they were the enemy.

You really did graduate from some school of leftist propaganda didnt you.

Maybe if Islam stopped attacking the West with bombs, they might not be

seen as 'the mortal enemy', did you even think of that?




Now, before you throw things like the theatre in Moscow, the airliner and the school at me, consider this: Russia has, since its annexation of Chechenya in the 19th century, repeatedly and systematically tried to commit genocide against the Chechens. The Tsars organised pogroms, Stalin sent in tanks and gassed them, and now Yeltsin and Putin have sent in the Russian army, and have in fact destroyed Grozny, the Chechen capital, and most Chechen towns. Thousands of Chechens have died in the conflict so far, which has seen the pitting of a modern army against ordinary people. It has even reportedly seen the use of Fuel-Air explosives, a weapon which Russia is not allowed to posses under international arms control arrangements. While what the Chechens have done recently is utterly immoral and wrong, consider the position they're in.

Pfft what aload of garbage, if Stalin had wanted to completely wipe the

Chechyans out he could have done it easily back in the fifties, and no one

at the time, would have been any the wiser.

Seriously but, Chechnya is fighting a loosing battle, its way outnumbered and

out gunned, and as they are aligned with Islam, they will get little sympathy

or support from Westerners, if the Islamic terrorists really cared about

Chechnya they would give up and except Russian rule.

[QUOTE=Kanabia]Oh yeah? What do they have to offer me?

Probably not much.


I dont care at all for their ultra-conservative agenda.

Yes, not wanting familys to break up is soooo ultra conservative.

And if most people approved of them, it just means that most people are wrong and not that I should change what I think to fit in with the majority.

Maybe your the one thats wrong.

Have you ever considered that?




There certainly is if you aren't religious (or at least not christian) and are having it imposed upon you.

Well if they get into power, and you cant handle it, my advice is to move.



It would be interesting to see them try and close down those "Islamic temples of satan"

That isnt part of their policy sorry.


and burn lesbians at the stake however.

The guy who said that has since been pretty much banned from the Family

First party, but dont let that get in the way of your rant.



What's your problem? I'm allowed to express my disgust.

Whats your problem, I never said you couldnt.

[QUOTE=Tupping Liberty]I would put these guys dead last on if I could vote,

I certainly don't support this:


Who would, it was said by a raving lunatic, who has since been disciplined

and distanced from by the party.

It isnt a policy of theirs to burn anyone for anything, but you just take

something and present it totally out of context, with none of the other facts

present, to support your rant.



What this minister has said in your other quote, is also not part of the partys

policys either, as in going around and burning liqour shops, casinos and

religous places of worship to the ground with torch carrying God fearing mobs.

It would be done much more within the law.

Like a good portion of you, I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel no matter who I vote for. Although Howard sides with Bush (smart move, the world's only true superpower) and some of his policies of late are strange (Dammit why didn't he go on Rove?), Howard has been a good leader for Australia. We only hate him 'cos he's funny-looking. And for that, Latham isn't much better...*cough* 3rd party *cough* It doesn't matter which one (Greens, Democrats, even One Nation or Family First or Christonazis or whatever they're called), a big enough swing AWAY from "the big two" might scare them enough to do a better job next time. Just make sure you know who their preferences are going to, and that you fill in your ballot correctly.

A wasted vote is a vote for the status quo.

Brown also advocates an open door policy to immigration and the removal of the requirement for people to seek work while claiming unemployment benefits.

Couldn't stop laughing when I read all that this morning. :D

I don't see what's so funny about this.....
Australia, like many other developed Western countries, suffers from something known as an AGING POPULATION.
For all you Howard supporters, who probably wouldn't have a clue what this means for our economy, it is ESSENTIAL for Australia's economic growth that we increase immigration.
Currently, Australia has an immigration target rate less than nearly all other developed countries- even the U.S. (!) has a higher immigration target rate -and we still only actually fulfill around three quarters of our target under Howard.
Howard's pathetic $600 baby bonus won't save this country from a shrinking economy, nor will it change the cultural values of modern Australians so that they 'magically' decide that it's a good idea after all to reproduce younger, and have larger families:
Howard's vision to end the desperate issue of our aging population seems to be the revival of 1950's-style, disturbingly hetero-sexual family lifestyle from the past that is (thankfully) unlikely to occur in Australia ever again, especially with our rising divorce rates.
Nor will Howard's 'Super' plans help- with the current levels of inflation alone, a 16-year-old Australian today would have to save close to a million dollars by the time they're 65 to retire and live comfortably without government support.

The only practical end to our problem (i.e. one that would solve the problem of there being more elderly, retired people than young, working people, therefore less working people to support retirees), is to allow far greater rates of immigration into Australia.
What the previous Labour Government put into place and the Liberal Government has supported in the form of refugee detention centres is ILLEGAL.
Under an international convention that Australia is signatory to, it states that all human members of this planet have an explicit legal right to seek asylum in any country in the world if they fear persecution in their own country, and have the right to egalitarian treatment, regardless of their means of entry into the country or whether they are in posession of the correct documents or not. The convention also states that any person claiming asylum cannot be held legally responsible for the legality of their entry, and must be treated without prejudice.
The Howard Government, while showing a distinct lack of brains, is also demonstrating (once again) their total disrespect for human rights, and their contempt for the U.N. (who detests and opposes Australia's detention system) in their ILLEGAL detention of refugees.
I challenge anyone who thinks that detained refugees have it easy in detention centres, or thinks that it is just, to actually visit a detention centre. I bet you all don't have the guts. Or worse. You couldn't even be bothered.

I am shocked and suprised to hear, in our beautiful country, people express ideas and opinions that are racist and selfish in the extreme-such as supporting the detention of refugees, and it appalls me that, in the first country in the world to make relationships between same-sex couples legal (a remarkable step forward in human rights) and host the world's first mardi-gras, we still cannot apologise to the REAL custodians of our country, or allow people the marital rights they are owed as Australian citizens under our constitution.

Shame on all of us Australians for allowing our successive governments to violate the human rights of our fellow human beings.
Shame.

[QUOTE]
What this minister has said in your other quote, is also not part of the partys
policys either, as in going around and burning liqour shops, casinos and
religous places of worship to the ground with torch carrying God fearing mobs.
It would be done much more within the law.

So its then government sanctioned intolerance against other religions? Using the law to close down places of worship of other religions is not something I want to see done in our multicultural society.

The Howard Government, while showing a distinct lack of brains, is also demonstrating (once again) their total disrespect for human rights, and their contempt for the U.N. (who detests and opposes Australia's detention system) in their ILLEGAL detention of refugees.

The High Court of Australia has final say on the legality of actions within this country.

Not the ICJ and certainly not the UN.

So its then government sanctioned intolerance against other religions? Using the law to close down places of worship of other religions is not something I want to see done in our multicultural society.

I think Islamic ones should be, they say their peaceful in Australia, but I dont

believe that for one moment, their only waiting for the call.

I think Islamic ones should be, they say their peaceful in Australia, but I dont believe that for one moment, their only waiting for the call.
That's your opinion and there is nothing I can do to change that. However the Buddhists and Hindus, are you against them too? And bottle shops? Want to introduce prohibition?

However the Buddhists and Hindus, are you against them too?

Unless they become the great majority of global terrorism, they're perfectly fine.

I recently saw an article in an arab paper, where one of them said "It's about time we admitted to the truth and that is that the majority of global terrorists are indeed Muslim", it was a step in the right direction, but until the moderates start owning up more for the actions of their extremist brethren actually BEING their brethren, the problem could never hoped to be solved.

I don't think for a minute that they need to take responsibility for stuff that happened 50 or 100 years ago, but if it were Australians who blew up the WTC, I'd be disgraced if my nation tried to bury it's head in the sands saying it's not us, it's the extremists and henceforth took no responsibility to try and fix the problem.

And bottle shops? Want to introduce prohibition?

Yeah that's what the neo cons want, to ruin one of our biggest growing export markets, have you forgotten about where our economic priorities are? :P

[QUOTE=Dingo Country]I don't see what's so funny about this.....
Australia, like many other developed Western countries, suffers from something known as an AGING POPULATION.


Do you think maybe, just maybe, this could have alot to do with the majority

of the population which is, whether you like it or not, Anglo, having just

more than two kids each at present?


For all you Howard supporters, who probably wouldn't have a clue what this means for our economy, it is ESSENTIAL for Australia's economic growth that we increase immigration.

In other words you advocate replacing the current make up of our population

with a mix you would prefer, why not advocate instead Anglo familys in

Australia not divorcing as much, and having more kids, or is that too racist

for you?

Why does increasing the population of Australia always have to, in your view

depend soley on immigration?


Currently, Australia has an immigration target rate less than nearly all other developed countries- even the U.S. (!)

lol, the US takes in more immigrants than anyone, its not getting the name

Amexica down texas way for nothing.



Howard's pathetic $600 baby bonus won't save this country from a shrinking economy, nor will it change the cultural values of modern Australians so that they 'magically' decide that it's a good idea after all to reproduce younger, and have larger families:


Why not it would solve the economic problems your so worried about.

Is it because there would be as aresult, probably more Anglos around, is that

what you dont like?


Howard's vision to end the desperate issue of our aging population seems to be the revival of 1950's-style, disturbingly hetero-sexual family lifestyle from the past that is (thankfully) unlikely to occur in Australia ever again, especially with our rising divorce rates.

Gee you really know how to present things in a warped way, disturbingly

heterosexual family life style... whats so disturbing about it, are you a

heterophobe?

...especially(thankfully, he even says, lol) with our rising divorce rates,

thats such a great thing isnt it mate... :rolleyes:



The only practical end to our problem (i.e. one that would solve the problem of there being more elderly, retired people than young, working people, therefore less working people to support retirees), is to allow far greater rates of immigration into Australia.

That would probably create more problems if anything.


What the previous Labour Government put into place and the Liberal Government has supported in the form of refugee detention centres is ILLEGAL.


Its not actually, any country has the right to put people into processing

camps, who enter their territory illegally.

Its called protecting the borders in the nations interest, but dont let the

importance of that sink in.


Under an international convention that Australia is signatory to, it states that all human members of this planet have an explicit legal right to seek asylum in any country in the world if they fear persecution in their own country, and have the right to egalitarian treatment, regardless of their means of entry into the country or whether they are in posession of the correct documents or not. The convention also states that any person claiming asylum cannot be held legally responsible for the legality of their entry, and must be treated without prejudice.

What right has the UN got to tell its members who and who they shouldnt

take.

Is there anything in this convention, that says Australia has to accept the

illegals?


The Howard Government, while showing a distinct lack of brains, is also demonstrating (once again) their total disrespect for human rights, and their contempt for the U.N. (who detests and opposes Australia's detention system) in their ILLEGAL detention of refugees.

Oh yeah, the UN champions of human rights, lol if the US pull out, which they

will, they will have no relevance anymore, whatsoever.

Soon may that happen.

They are a sham of an organisation.

You want to crap on about human rights, try looking at all the countrys the

UN trys to keep the peace in, and fails miserably with each effort time and

time again.

And who do we have on the UN board at the moment... Mr. Col. Gaddafi of

Libya!! Come on dowwwnnnn!!!!

One of the greatest violaters of human rights around, doesnt it

bother you, that an Organisation you support, would elect someone like this?

Not to mention their incredibly sucessful peace keeping efforts!!

Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Hatii, Somalia... um did I forget the Mid east?



I challenge anyone who thinks that detained refugees have it easy in detention centres, or thinks that it is just, to actually visit a detention centre. I bet you all don't have the guts. Or worse. You couldn't even be bothered.

Lets see, access to language classes, medical treatment including dental

care, sports equipment, radio, DVDs, playstations, three meals aday,

somewhere comfortable to sleep..yeah, their real hellholes.



Shame on all of us Australians for allowing our successive governments to violate the human rights of our fellow human beings.
Shame.

No shame on you for presenting Australia in such a poor way, we bend over

backwards to help people in trouble at enormous cost to the taxpayer, and

then we have to put up with fools like you.

DRINK DRIVE BLOODY IDIOT...VOTE LABOR BIGGER IDIOT...VOTE GREEN FUCKING IDIOT!!!

Hey im from tasmania and im voting Liberal, i agree that johnnie howards a wanker but compared to the restve the choices well there aint much to choose from. Bob brown is a raving lunatic poof and the greens are an ulcer on the arse of Australia. Latham is rooting bob brown up the arse and sacrificing tasmanian traditional labor strongholds just for a few greens preferances on the mainland!

Unless they become the great majority of global terrorism, they're perfectly fine.

I recently saw an article in an arab paper, where one of them said "It's about time we admitted to the truth and that is that the majority of global terrorists are indeed Muslim", it was a step in the right direction, but until the moderates start owning up more for the actions of their extremist brethren actually BEING their brethren, the problem could never hoped to be solved.

I don't think for a minute that they need to take responsibility for stuff that happened 50 or 100 years ago, but if it were Australians who blew up the WTC, I'd be disgraced if my nation tried to bury it's head in the sands saying it's not us, it's the extremists and henceforth took no responsibility to try and fix the problem.

Yeah that's what the neo cons want, to ruin one of our biggest growing export markets, have you forgotten about where our economic priorities are? :P

The reason I asked these questions of Terminalia is in this news story I quoted earlier a Family First candidate produced a leaflet saying that Buddhist and Hindu places of worship and bottle shops are "Satan's strongholds" and that you should "through the pastor, to pull these strongholds down". In response Terminalia said they would do this in a lawful way, and later clarified that Islamic places of worship should be closed down by law. I wanted to know if this would also apply to bottle shops and Buddhist and Hindu places of worship as well.

With regard to Russia, they were always going to do whatever the hell they wanted in Chechenya. The Chechens were, until a couple of years ago, valiant freedom fighters. Then, all of a sudden, Islam was the mortal enemy of Western civilisation, and they were the enemy. Now, before you throw things like the theatre in Moscow, the airliner and the school at me, consider this: Russia has, since its annexation of Chechenya in the 19th century, repeatedly and systematically tried to commit genocide against the Chechens. The Tsars organised pogroms, Stalin sent in tanks and gassed them, and now Yeltsin and Putin have sent in the Russian army, and have in fact destroyed Grozny, the Chechen capital, and most Chechen towns. Thousands of Chechens have died in the conflict so far, which has seen the pitting of a modern army against ordinary people. It has even reportedly seen the use of Fuel-Air explosives, a weapon which Russia is not allowed to posses under international arms control arrangements. While what the Chechens have done recently is utterly immoral and wrong, consider the position they're in.

I've already voted for the greens (overseas postal vote), but that is one hell of an ignorant statement. You sound like you've been eating propaganda for breakfast, lunch, dinner, supper, tea and however else many meals you can cram in a day.

Firstly (and I have no idea what this has to do with this topic, but it is in direct reply to your post), the "Chechens", as in the Chechen people are not terrorists, or freedom fighters, many of them are not Muslims and most, the vast majority, do not want independence. They had complete autonomy from 1996 to 2000 and the terrorists that were in control of the country turned it into a bandit state. Worse than Afghanistan. Not only did they turn it into a mass recruiting and training ground for world terrorism but they made their money by kiddnapping people from neighbouring regions of Russia and collecting ransoms from their relatives. The recent terrorist acts commited by terrorist claiming to be fighting in the name of Chechnya (most of them weren't even Chechen) are by far not the first. They've blown up residential apartment buildings in Russian cities, they've seized and held hostage a amternity hospital and they regularly rigged major roads with explosive. All WHILE they were independent.

Nobody ever tried to commit genocide against the Chechens. The people claiming to be "Chechen freedom fighters" are in fact nothing more than bandits, mercenaries and volunteers from Muslim countries around the world who believe that killing non-believers is their fast track to heaven, or more accuratly, a quick buck from more concervative Muslim sponsors. The Chechen people meanwhile, have chosen a new president and are as much victims of the actions of these terrorist as anyone. So before you go saying that the actions of the terrorist were somehow justified, take a good hard think about whether some "justified" terrorist is going to do something near where you live next. :mad:

[QUOTE=Tupping Liberty]That's your opinion and there is nothing I can do to change that.


Likewise.

However the Buddhists and Hindus, are you against them too?

No, why, because there dont seem to be many Buddhists and Hindus going

around bombing and murdering whoever they like, for not being part of their

faith.


And bottle shops? Want to introduce prohibition?

No, I dont mind a beer myself.

What I dont support is the increasing availabilty of alcohol being sold at

places outside of bottle shops, also Alcohol consumption is huge with young

Australians, always has been, but its really getting out of control in some

areas.

they disowned that candidate though.

Really Family First, even with its religious ties isn't run by people who are as religious as it seems you've been led to believe.

Now I've met their party chairman, the guy albeit a crazy pentacostal, is actually very practical when it comes to politics. And he is effectively the dictator of his party.

He's trying to consolidate more than just religious vote by pushing his party line, and generally disposing of extremists in his own party.

They're a pressure group though, really everyone but the major 2 are, and by that I mean the main 2 are the only ones who have all encompassing policies, whether you agree with them or not, they do have policies for all facets of the nations.

Now Family first are really after 2 things.

No civil unions/same sex marriages

and Family impact statements added to Enviro impact statements etc with government policy.

Now, the former is a point of contention, you either do or don't agree.

The latter though in my opinion makes sense, and I hope that even if Labor win, they bring it in.

The High Court of Australia has final say on the legality of actions within this country.

Not the ICJ and certainly not the UN.
Actually, the government says what is legal or not. The High Court can only rule on whether something is constitutional or not.

At any rate. There's no one to vote for. Why doesn't there exist anything like a libertarian party?

I was swaying to Labor, but after this whole forestry issue, I'm very annoyed at them. I'm Tasmanian, we have an RFA which protects 80% of the old growth forest in the state. Why isn't 80% protected enough? It's not like the mainland states do better. Indeed, Tasmania protects more of its forests than any other state. I'm sick of suburban middle-class mainlanders telling us what to do with our forests. The RFA is fine and I side with Johnny on that issue.

Not to mention, his protection plan is better than Latham's because the forest would immediately be protected under Howard, while under Latham it would take about a year before anything gets done, and you can be assured, loggers will be racing ahead to log as much as possible in that time before it's protected.

I dislike Howard's foreign policy, with exception to how they've been with China (I think improving trade and relations with China is always a good idea), and East Timor. We should maintain our boundaries at the continental shelf, and not compromise on that. What we should probably do, though, is lease them our parts of the oil feilds at some cheap rate for a hundred years or something.

I dislike both parties' approach to spending and taxation. You want to give families with incomes a what-benefit? Just give us a freaking tax cut! We're over taxed, and the government really does provide far too much in the way of unnecessary services.

I dislike how Howard lies about his 'good economic management'. He doesn't set interest rates. Sure, he's run fairly consistent budget surplusses which does help keep down interest rates, but he's dishonest when he claims that he's somehow the cause of low interest rates. Indeed, his first home buyer's grant helped put pressure on interest rates, not alieviate it. And Latham is stupid for not calling Howard out on the fact that the RBA is the main determinant in interest rates, and the RBA looks mostly at overseas issues when setting interest rates.

In fact, the whole idea that the government can somehow make the economy good on a day-to-day (or even year-to-year, or term-to-term) basis, is ludicrous. ANd Howard actually has no long term vision when it comes to the economy. He may call himself an economic rationalist, but he obviously hasn't paid attention to the long-term growth theory out there, because it quite clearly indicates that the government has a very big role in that, particularly in what it does to: promote education and research and development (both of which Howard is pretty weak on).

No that doesn't mean I think the government has to pay for everyone to go to uni, or to fund any hairbrained research plan. But it does mean that it needs to be aware that a lot of people cannot (upfront) afford to increase their skills, nor do people necessarily have the right incentives to improve their skills in the right areas (especially no thanks to Amanda Vanstone). And it also means that the government needs to realise that supporting R&D with 'a clear commercial application' is pointless. If it had a clear commercial application, then businesses would fund research into it!

Howard only really practices good day-to-day economic policies (read: not causing things to go bad; oh, and some good ones with regards to labour market reform and things like the ACCC, ASIC and APRA), but seems to lack any good understanding of what drives sustainable long term growth. Howard works OK for the Aussie economy in the short to medium term, although he has a habit of throwing out economic rationalism out the window every election.

Who knows what Labor has planned? I don't believe they really have a coherent policy plan. Actually Knowledge Nation wasn't too bad (a bit too socially funded), but obviously they've dumped that. And their medicare plan belies their claim of not having a two teired system: if you're older than 75, you're in the upper teir, everyone else will be in the lower teir. Not to mention he dodges the issue of what he'll do when the number of 75+'s grow.

Labor has, probably, a better foriegn policy plan IMO, but since I'm not a foriegn policy analyst, I can't really say. It just seems to me that focussing regionally makes more sense.

In the cases of both parties we really need to ween ourselves off this view of dependence for security from the US. I'm definitely not anti-American, but I think their government acts in their own interests and not in ours. I don't feel it's sensible to expect the US to save us if it's not in their own best itnerests. In that light, doing things like selling out on the FTA is stupid. A better (but hugely unpopular) way of improving our security would be to pull an Israel and develop our own nuclear arsenal (yes, I know it won't happen beacuse of the 'atomophobia' lots of Australians have, but I can dream).

The Greens, well, speaking as someone who previously voted for them in the state: they are untrustworthy and uncompromising. Although, lately they've moved from being blatantly uncompromising, to pretending to compromise, and then as soon as you sign the dotted line, they demand more. That to me is very dishonest and worrying. I honestly believe, in the case of Tasmania, they won't be happy until everything is protected, the state's population is down below 100 000, and they're the only people allowed to enjoy nature (because of course, it's been proven too much ecotourism will damage the environment and so only a few people will be allowed to enjoy it, and we know it won't be us ordinary folk), but they way they're planning on doing it is by slowly eating away at everything.

Family First seem like a bunch of nazis. They talk about how the Greens aren't a moderate party between the Libs and Labor, but they're nothing of the sort either. They're to the right of the Liberals! They're authoritarian and I hate that.

At any rate, every party is daftly big government (in the ordinary sense, or in a most passive sense--i.e. the Liberals) and authoritarian. That's definitely not my thing.

I do feel confused as to why people voted for John Howard when they voted against John Hewson. I think it was a huge mistake of the electorate not to elect Hewson as his model of rightwing government is so much better than Howard's.

Anyway, I'm disgruntled and feel unrepresented, so I think I'm still likely to vote for the Informal Party.

I really just wanted to hear my own voice... then remembered I'm typing.

I've already voted for the greens (overseas postal vote), but that is one hell of an ignorant statement. You sound like you've been eating propaganda for breakfast, lunch, dinner, supper, tea and however else many meals you can cram in a day.

Firstly (and I have no idea what this has to do with this topic, but it is in direct reply to your post), the "Chechens", as in the Chechen people are not terrorists, or freedom fighters, many of them are not Muslims and most, the vast majority, do not want independence. They had complete autonomy from 1996 to 2000 and the terrorists that were in control of the country turned it into a bandit state. Worse than Afghanistan. Not only did they turn it into a mass recruiting and training ground for world terrorism but they made their money by kiddnapping people from neighbouring regions of Russia and collecting ransoms from their relatives. The recent terrorist acts commited by terrorist claiming to be fighting in the name of Chechnya (most of them weren't even Chechen) are by far not the first. They've blown up residential apartment buildings in Russian cities, they've seized and held hostage a amternity hospital and they regularly rigged major roads with explosive. All WHILE they were independent.

Nobody ever tried to commit genocide against the Chechens. The people claiming to be "Chechen freedom fighters" are in fact nothing more than bandits, mercenaries and volunteers from Muslim countries around the world who believe that killing non-believers is their fast track to heaven, or more accuratly, a quick buck from more concervative Muslim sponsors. The Chechen people meanwhile, have chosen a new president and are as much victims of the actions of these terrorist as anyone. So before you go saying that the actions of the terrorist were somehow justified, take a good hard think about whether some "justified" terrorist is going to do something near where you live next. :mad:

Well said.

Axin crashes into the truth.

1996 -2000... do you have any comments about that, Axin.

And Latham is stupid for not calling Howard out on the fact that the RBA is the main determinant in interest rates, and the RBA looks mostly at overseas issues when setting interest rates.

The onus of interest rates is predominantly domestic (since the cash rate is predominantly for the 4 major banks whose majority is still domestic loans/deposits), it's the way the RBA controls currency that's international. Of course the 2 of them have an effect on eachother, although yeah, accelerating the property market is a great way to put upward pressure on interest rates.

As for Latham calling him out, all political parties in every country play this card, they're not willing to call themselves out on their own scam ;)

He may call himself an economic rationalist, but he obviously hasn't paid attention to the long-term growth theory out there

I don't think Costello agrees with it tbh, I'm not a huge fan of it, and I'm surprised someone who wants a libertarian party particularly agrees with it either.

Howard only really practices good day-to-day economic policies (read: not causing things to go bad; oh, and some good ones with regards to labour market reform and things like the ACCC, ASIC and APRA), but seems to lack any good understanding of what drives sustainable long term growth.

I'm guessing your background is more micro than macro?

Personally i prefer the more open market entrepreneurial approach Howard uses (this is what is generally attached to libertarians btw, laugh), I don't like the government getting involved, and have found our economy has gotten stronger the more the government opens things up. We're becoming a consumer driven economy much akin to the USA, which is imho a good thing.

And it also means that the government needs to realise that supporting R&D with 'a clear commercial application' is pointless. If it had a clear commercial application, then businesses would fund research into it!

Getting minor government support for starting up a small business is not really that hard, I know quite a few people who have, and they really aren't very strict on handling that "for clear commercial application" unless the grants are going to be irregularly large, and rightfully so. I just don't think the government should be playing Angel though.

In the cases of both parties we really need to ween ourselves off this view of dependence for security from the US. I'm definitely not anti-American, but I think their government acts in their own interests and not in ours. I don't feel it's sensible to expect the US to save us if it's not in their own best itnerests.

Let me ask you something here?

If it's not anti-american, then why do you feel America can't be trusted to honour it's mutual protection pact?

It wasn't Bush who decided that the mutual alliance with Europe shouldn't be honoured :headbang:

Has America ever done anything in the past that would indicate they wouldn't defend a nation they have such a pact with? the MP pact/ANZUS treaty is one of their most all encompassing positive agreements.

The US president said their country was under threat, nowhere in the alliance does it say that we can then decide whether we "like the president" (they choose their government, we choose ours, mutual respect of sovereignty here, the French etc deserved to get kicked in the face for their lack of disregard for the rights of the American people to choose their own leader for such alliances) or "agree with him", now if we didn't agree, we could voice our opposition, now you may think Bush doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks, the reality though is, the only foreign opinions they ultimately respect above all others are those of the Anglophone (Tony Blair has a lot of bargaining power in Washington, Howard has some also), as we share a common heritage and culture. I really don't know why we should somehow trust France, Germany or Russia either though, it's not exactly like they've ever really done much positive for the UK, US or Australia.

Taiwan on the other hand, the outcomes are not a perceived threat to the US, and other than some minion in the state department, there hasn't been any murmurings, certainly not even a squeak from the Administration. In fact, I would be very surprised that Bush's Administration didn't already know (and were fine with) our Taiwan policy before Downer made that statement. I seriously doubt out government would blind side its most important ally with a statement saying it didn't feel we would assist the US if they chose to defend Taiwan (especially considering that the reality seems to be China will only attack if Taiwan declares independence, and the US have stated if they do, they're on their own).

In other words, what our government has really said is that we wouldn't help the US if China homoured it's word, now the only way the US and China could end up at war over Taiwan is if one of them breaks their word and changes their policy. I think the US certainly stands by its statement, the US aren't going to try and help Taiwan if Taiwan is not going to listen to them, and so if Taiwan declares independence, they're on their own.

So at the end of the day, the Australian government has pulled a swifty to garner Chinese support but in reality hasn't promised jack shit :D

Realistically though, the Taiwan pro reintegration party is going to win eventually (they keep getting closer), and that will be that.

And even when it's all said and done, we are increasing military spending markedly so that we are safe from potential regional enemies in our own right.

I do feel confused as to why people voted for John Howard when they voted against John Hewson. I think it was a huge mistake of the electorate not to elect Hewson as his model of rightwing government is so much better than Howard's.

Well our voting history seems to be

If you screw the economy up, you get voted out.

If you don't, you stay.

Whitlam - economy issues - out; Fraser, the same; then 13 years of labour, recession we had to have - out.

Australians are very conservative, we also never have constitution changes ever succeed with, we don't change unless we see a reason to, and with government it seems to be when our economy tanks.

Unless they become the great majority of global terrorism, they're perfectly fine.

I recently saw an article in an arab paper, where one of them said "It's about time we admitted to the truth and that is that the majority of global terrorists are indeed Muslim", it was a step in the right direction, but until the moderates start owning up more for the actions of their extremist brethren actually BEING their brethren, the problem could never hoped to be solved.

I don't think for a minute that they need to take responsibility for stuff that happened 50 or 100 years ago, but if it were Australians who blew up the WTC, I'd be disgraced if my nation tried to bury it's head in the sands saying it's not us, it's the extremists and henceforth took no responsibility to try and fix the problem.

Yeah that's what the neo cons want, to ruin one of our biggest growing export markets, have you forgotten about where our economic priorities are? :PYou seem to not be able to determine race from religion - Arabs are a race (or ethnic group) Muslims are a religion. (And grammatically, both deserve a capital letter as a proper noun!) :p

The main point, anyway, is that if I'm understanding you correctly, you're buying into the stereotypes being portrayed by US and other Western media and movie stereotypes.

There's one thing I think you need to understand - last time I checked, Islam is one of the most widely practiced religion in the world. That equals 100's of millions or billions of Muslims worldwide (if I wasn't half-asleep I'd check it myself) - terrorists comprise maybe 10,000 world wide (guesstimate). That means only somewhere between 0.00025% and 0.01% of Muslims are terrorists. Would you judge ANY group by such a miniscule amount of their populace?

P.S. An article by a self-depreciating Muslim is not a fact, it's an opinion.

...anyway, having said of that, in about 3 hours I'm off to do my patriotic duty and vote (Howard out) ;)

Oh yeah? What do they have to offer me?

You do realise that 'separation of church and state' is a RELIGIOUS belief, that the Calvinist churches insist on it to prevent politics corrupting the church? Secular government has been created by religion. While we owe that to Calvinism, we owe Freedom of Belief to the Anglicans.

The only reason OZ has public schools is that the Anglican, Prespyterian and Methodist churches handed over the schools (that they'd spent decades buliding up) to the state governments in the 1890s. (Pity they hadn't waited a decade, and given them to the Federal govt).

Further, the churches are still the driving force behind the charities, including the 'non-religious' ones.

Turning your question back on you - what have non-religious organisations ever offered us?

*cough* 3rd party *cough*
*cough*independents*cough*
Or shock horror, ignore the parties and vote for individuals.
Oh well, my local member Bob McMullan has done a good job, so at least I'll be able to vote for someone I approve off.

[QUOTE=New Fubaria]
There's one thing I think you need to understand - last time I checked, Islam is one of the most widely practiced religion in the world. That equals 100's of millions or billions of Muslims worldwide

Its around 900 million, but at the rate their recruiting...


terrorists comprise maybe 10,000 world wide (guesstimate). That means only somewhere between 0.00025% and 0.01% of Muslims are terrorists. Would you judge ANY group by such a miniscule amount of their populace?

Well first its a guestimation, and an extremely light one at that, there are

probably ten times that many in Afghanistan alone.

Also, you dont take into account of the wide support they get

around the world, covertly, or out of fear in Islamic nations, by moderate

muslims.


...anyway, having said of that, in about 3 hours I'm off to do my patriotic duty and vote (Howard out)

I just did mine and voted him back in.

I just did mine and voted him back in.Or better, yet, a third party gets up and wins - never gonna happen, but I can dream! :p

Well first its a guestimation, and an extremely light one at that, there are

probably ten times that many in Afghanistan alone.

Also, you dont take into account of the wide support they get

around the world, covertly, or out of fear in Islamic nations, by moderate

muslims.

OK then, for the sake of argument, let's say there are 9,000,000 Muslim terrorists and supporters worldwide - a figure I personally believe is hugely inflated, but to illustrate my point: that still makes them around 1% of the Mulsim worlwide population. Still want to judge a whole religion by their "worst" 1%? You could easily do the same with Christians, Hindus, pagans, atheists or any other group.

The stereoptype of all Muslims as "evil" is an outright lie. Should I judge atheists by the actions of Charles Manson? Should I judge the actions of Chrisitians by Timothy McVeigh?

Anyway, this is all waaay offtopic for this thread - sorry all...

Just did my duty and voted for Howard. Only the Greens saved Labour from the last preference on my ballot.

Voted this morning...Labor first pref, Liberal third-last. Was going to put them last, but couldn't bring myself to let the CEC or Family First get a higher preference.

I voted about 2 hours ago, Voted for Labor, and with my Local MP being Kim Beazley I am extremely happy that he will do what is needed for my Area in his Position and the power he has in Labor.

I hope Labor wins.

Dr_Twist.

OK then, for the sake of argument, let's say there are 9,000,000 Muslim terrorists and supporters worldwide - a figure I personally believe is hugely inflated, but to illustrate my point: that still makes them around 1% of the Mulsim worlwide population. Still want to judge a whole religion by their "worst" 1%? You could easily do the same with Christians, Hindus, pagans, atheists or any other group.

How often do you see these "moderate" muslims condemning their extremist brethren? or trying to stop them? no seriously?

Ever seen the US government assist their right wing nutjob christians give support to them going around killing abortion doctors?

The onus of interest rates is predominantly domestic (since the cash rate is predominantly for the 4 major banks whose majority is still domestic loans/deposits), it's the way the RBA controls currency that's international. Of course the 2 of them have an effect on eachother, although yeah, accelerating the property market is a great way to put upward pressure on interest rates.No sane RBA board is going to let the interest rate differential between Australia and the RoW get too far out of line. The ease of international capital flows wouldn't allow them to do anything else without drastic consequences. Minor movements within certain tolerances may occur due to domestic issues of course.

And the RBA really can't compete with the forces in the currency market, so it's little wonder they barely try.

As for Latham calling him out, all political parties in every country play this card, they're not willing to call themselves out on their own scam ;)Probably so...

I don't think Costello agrees with it tbh, I'm not a huge fan of it, and I'm surprised someone who wants a libertarian party particularly agrees with it either.Well, my desire for a libertarian party is the end result of what I believe to be the best economic policies, not the reverse. So of course if there's sufficient exceptions, I'm all for it. But there usually aren't.

I'm guessing your background is more micro than macro?Good guess.

Personally i prefer the more open market entrepreneurial approach Howard uses (this is what is generally attached to libertarians btw, laugh), I don't like the government getting involved, and have found our economy has gotten stronger the more the government opens things up. We're becoming a consumer driven economy much akin to the USA, which is imho a good thing.I agree too, except I still think the growth theory literature suggests that, in the long run, a government is going to want to help along intellectual property output.

Getting minor government support for starting up a small business is not really that hard, I know quite a few people who have, and they really aren't very strict on handling that "for clear commercial application" unless the grants are going to be irregularly large, and rightfully so. I just don't think the government should be playing Angel though. OK.



Let me ask you something here?

If it's not anti-american, then why do you feel America can't be trusted to honour it's mutual protection pact?Because I don't think any other country would do differently.

I think it can be trusted to honour its mutual protection pact though. At least, until soemthing happens in the US that means that they have to sacrifice too much to do it. I might add that the ANZUS treaty isn't exactly a mutual protection pact. The only obligation, in the event any partner is attacted, is "that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes." That can mean a lot of things, and not necessarily an armed response.

The US president said their country was under threat, nowhere in the alliance does it say that we can then decide whether we "like the president". . .True, but it clearly only pertains to an "armed attack in the Pacific Area". Iraq isn't in the Pacific and Iraq didn't even mount an armed attack on the US, so the ANZUS treaty is silent on Iraq. At any rate, I wasn't against the war in Iraq. My view was, we could do some good (I don't know if we will in the long run or not) but I certainly wouldn't order Australian men and women off to war for that.

Anyway, at the moment things don't look wonderful there. I think the US administration needs to think more carefully about what they're doing, maybe take a second approach. But unfortunately I think the rigidity of the administration there prevents that.

Anyway, that's not what I'm annoyed about. Afterall, it's really the US's problem, and it's their choice.

No, what I'm annoyed about is John Howard calling up the FTA negotiator and ordering him to end the negotiations before we'd reached a fair and equitable deal. The deal most certainly could have been better. It won't be bad for Australia as it is, but it won't be as good as it could have been, and it'll definitely be much better for the US.

As I said, I think the US, like any other country, will take as much as it can get. And let's face it, if it comes down to a choice between Australia and the farmers of the US, I know which side the US government will take. That's been borne out by the FTA.


Well our voting history seems to be

If you screw the economy up, you get voted out.

If you don't, you stay.

Whitlam - economy issues - out; Fraser, the same; then 13 years of labour, recession we had to have - out.
Yes, but the RWHtH happened before the 1993 election. By that argument, Hewson ought to have gotten in, and Howard would never have seen the leadership. Anyway, I like Hewson's brand of Liberals over Howard's.

How often do you see these "moderate" muslims condemning their extremist brethren? or trying to stop them? no seriously?

Ever seen the US government assist their right wing nutjob christians give support to them going around killing abortion doctors?
Google something like: 'condemns islamic terrorism', and you'll see a lot of Muslims have publically condemnned it. It's just not as news worthy as say: 'Muslim Extremists Kill A Million People! Dancing in the Streets of Faluja! Imam praises act!'

Or better, yet, a third party gets up and wins - never gonna happen, but I can dream! :p

Bloody prefential voting system we have, it should be one vote one party.

Just did my duty and voted for Howard. Only the Greens saved Labour from the last preference on my ballot.

lol even I put Labor in front of the Greens, and that Socialist Alliance party,

filthy pinko traitors, I put them dead last.

[QUOTE=New Fubaria]OK then, for the sake of argument, let's say there are 9,000,000 Muslim terrorists and supporters worldwide - a figure I personally believe is hugely inflated, but to illustrate my point: that still makes them around 1% of the Mulsim worlwide population. Still want to judge a whole religion by their "worst" 1%? You could easily do the same with Christians, Hindus, pagans, atheists or any other group.

This whole religon is based on war on other cultures, that dont except Islam,

dont let that get past.

What is the ultimate thing a young muslim can do to prove himself worthy of

paradise, go on a Jihad.

1%...doing it, 10% aspiring to, the rest....

Even your 9 million is a formidable force, 9 million people ready to die for Allah

in any way their asked, think about the ramifications of that.

And no, I dont think there are 1% of other religons going around Earth doing

what the Islamic extremists are doing.


The stereoptype of all Muslims as "evil" is an outright lie.

Stereotypes....

Evil, no... uncompromising, yes, violent, yes.



Should I judge atheists by the actions of Charles Manson? Should I judge the actions of Chrisitians by Timothy McVeigh?

How can you judge religons or philosphys on the actions of a few men, crazy

ones at that, the Islamic problem is much bigger than that.


Anyway, this is all waaay offtopic for this thread - sorry all...

Not really, terrorism is affecting this election.

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/

For anyone wanting updates on the Australian 04 elections.


For those not from Australia, the Liberal and the National partys joined

together as the Coalition, to Defeat the Labor party in 1996, and have held

power in Australia since, with John Howard as their leader, challenging him is

Mark Latham of the Labor party.

And the Liberals take it again ... so far ...

And .. so far, the Greens = nyet ... heh ...

But the Democrats are in danger too, grrr.

And the Liberals take it again ... so far ...

And .. so far, the Greens = nyet ... heh ...

But the Democrats are in danger too, grrr.

The Democrats have been slowly dying since the mid eighties, its amazing

their still even around, other partys to die are One nation which captured

9.8% of the vote in 96, but have just over 1% at present, the Greens are the

new emerging power at present with nearly 8% so far, not doing as well as I

thought, either is the Family First party, early days but.

Coalition is looking a shoo in so far.

You do realise that 'separation of church and state' is a RELIGIOUS belief, that the Calvinist churches insist on it to prevent politics corrupting the church? Secular government has been created by religion. While we owe that to Calvinism, we owe Freedom of Belief to the Anglicans.

The only reason OZ has public schools is that the Anglican, Prespyterian and Methodist churches handed over the schools (that they'd spent decades buliding up) to the state governments in the 1890s. (Pity they hadn't waited a decade, and given them to the Federal govt).

Further, the churches are still the driving force behind the charities, including the 'non-religious' ones.

Turning your question back on you - what have non-religious organisations ever offered us?

Oh, so by your logic, because religion created secular society, i should vote for a non-secular religious party?

Do you seriously think that we would never have created a public school system if it weren't for religious institutions? That's seriously deluded...

(I'm not even bothering to check your facts. For all I know, you could be spewing bullshit, but i'll take it at face value.)

Hmm, what have non-religious organisations ever offered us?

Roads, Telephones, Internet, technological advancement, just to name a few...considering of course, all aspects of social welfare must be ENTIRELY influenced by religion :rolleyes:

lol even I put Labor in front of the Greens, and that Socialist Alliance party,

filthy pinko traitors, I put them dead last.

Hah. So call me a filthy pinko traitor.

Hah. So call me a filthy pinko traitor.

as above :p

Looks promising for Howard to stay on another term. Fingers crossed. Hopefully that zero sits safely next to the Loons, sorry Greens.

as above :p

Conservative christian nazi :p

Conservative christian nazi :p

lol you guys are the nazis, but I'll happily accept the first two names.

lol you guys are the nazis, but I'll happily accept the first two names.

I'm as anti-nazi as you can get, mate.

I prefer the term Fascist

hoho

I support the war in Iraq
I hate Medicare Gold
I value the American Alliance
I like the FTA
I think the HECS changes are fair
I think the increased military spending is a good idea
I hate the Greens
I really hate the Greens
Did I mention that I hate the Greens?

interesting result, greens have done well, the conservatives have done really well, i hope they get a majority on the senate because that way what ever successes or failures that australia has in the next three years can be sqaurely placed on the shoulders of one group.

I support the war in Iraq
I hate Medicare Gold
I value the American Alliance
I like the FTA
I think the HECS changes are fair
I think the increased military spending is a good idea
I hate the Greens
I really hate the Greens
Did I mention that I hate the Greens?

I agree with you.

I support the war in Iraq
I hate Medicare Gold
I value the American Alliance
I like the FTA
I think the HECS changes are fair
I think the increased military spending is a good idea
I hate the Greens
I really hate the Greens
Did I mention that I hate the Greens?

I support the war on terror
I value universal health care
Labor created the American alliance
I value free trade agreements, what we have with the US is not a free trade agreement
I believe in universal education
I value the environment
I really value the environment

I'm as anti-nazi as you can get, mate.

Me too.

I support the war in Iraq
I hate Medicare Gold
I value the American Alliance
I like the FTA
I think the HECS changes are fair
I think the increased military spending is a good idea
I hate the Greens
I really hate the Greens
Did I mention that I hate the Greens?

Agreed, especially about the Greens.

Me too.

OK. We're just on opposite extremes of anti-nazism :)

Okay, these are only guesses, but as I’m a swinging voter (although basic Left) and have discussed this with other swinging voters (most of whom voted Liberal) they count as educated guesses. So:

The ongoing protests against the war actually improved the Liberal vote!
For three reasons – firstly because the protests tended to be insulting, and swinging voters prefer politics to be polite. Secondly it reminded people that Johnny was maintaining an alliance with one of our traditional allies, and Thirdly because they drowned out more relevant protests (so issues which could have persuaded people to vote against the Libs were lost).

People haven’t forgotten prior Labour actions.
This was particularly notable with the refugee issue. Anybody over 40 remembers how Al Grassby used selective immigration to improve the Labour vote; anyone over 35 remembers what happened to Geoffrey Blainey(for people under 35 – Blainey was/is a respected historian who pointed out that we could only bring in a small fraction of the world’s refugees, so what we should do instead was to bring in a selected cream, train them at our universities and then send them home (with support) to rebuild their countries. He was vilified as ‘racist’ for this).
Similar, with the economy, Howard and Costello are being compared with Keating – which is a comparison anyone can win.

Finally, because none of the parties had a ‘vision for the future’. The electioneering bribery doesn’t count! If everyone is just saying the same-old same-old, then it makes sense to vote conservative: they’re the experts at not changing, after all. We really expect better of Labour – ‘the light on the hill’ and all that – and the Deomcrats and Greens seem lost in the 1980s. Maybe Labour should bring Barry Jones out of retirement! Then at least they’d have decent policies for science and technology.
What do people think I’ve missed?

Oh, so by your logic, because religion created secular society, i should vote for a non-secular religious party?
If you want a secular society, you should consider it.

Do you seriously think that we would never have created a public school system if it weren't for religious institutions? That's seriously deluded...
No one else ever bothered. So why would there be?

Athiesm is a lot older than Christianity - it got started in Ancient Greece.

(I'm not even bothering to check your facts. For all I know, you could be spewing bullshit, but i'll take it at face value.)
Fair point. "Australians - A Historical Atlas" (which was funded by ANU and UNSW) is my source for the schools. The religious history is fairly widely available.

Hmm, what have non-religious organisations ever offered us?

Roads, Telephones, Internet, technological advancement, just to name a few...considering of course, all aspects of social welfare must be ENTIRELY influenced by religion :rolleyes:

Running through - okay, I should have specified non-government, which is the source of roads, telephones (even when that was done priately, they were following the govt telegraph lines) and the internet (yep, it's originally military).
The industrial revolution required the increase in education caused by the Reformation, and was supported by the churches. The Anglican love of steam is not modern, but dates from the days when they were pioneering it..

OK. We're just on opposite extremes of anti-nazism :)

Im anti nazi mainly because his party was really only a bunch of thugs,

masquarading as poiliticians who would stoop to any depth of human

depravity to get and hold power.

I see Bob Brown in this light, only the thuggery is one of mouth only at the

moment, but who knows, that could lead to anything.

Hitler was ironically sent to spy on a meeting of prominant German socialists

called the German Workers Party (GPW) in Munich by the army in 1919, he

found himself after a few visits, liking their ideals.

So inspired was he, that one fatefull night he got up and gave a speech of

his own, so impressed were the 200 or so members listening, they

encouraged him to give more.

Soon word spread and people began attending in their thousands, Hitler

realising he was the reason why, challenged Anton Drexler for leadership of

the party and won.

That party ended up growing to millions of members and having its own army

that outnumbered the German one 4 to 1.

Thanks to fear of communism by prominant German industrialists, it ended up

controlling the German parliment in 1932.

If you want a secular society, you should consider it.

Don't be daft. They aren't progressive christians, (which I have no problem with) they are aiming for greater social controls.


No one else ever bothered. So why would there be?

Because its a natural progression of history that public education would be deemed profitable....a literate workforce is much more efficient and productive than an illiterate one.

Athiesm is a lot older than Christianity - it got started in Ancient Greece.
What has that got to do with the price of cheese in Albania?

Running through - okay, I should have specified non-government, which is the source of roads, telephones (even when that was done priately, they were following the govt telegraph lines) and the internet (yep, it's originally military).

You mean to say what have NGO's ever done? Sorry, i'm a little unclear.

The industrial revolution required the increase in education caused by the Reformation, and was supported by the churches. The Anglican love of steam is not modern, but dates from the days when they were pioneering it..

Supported by, but not entirely owed to.

Greed and the pursuit of wealth was just as important, and it is possibly the strongest driving factor in (our) society.

Gore Lawsuit Challenges Australian Election Results
(2004-10-09) -- Just hours after the polls closed across Australia, and Prime Minister John Howard headed for his fourth term, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore filed a lawsuit in international court at the Hague alleging "irregularities" in the balloting.

The election was seen by many as a referendum on Australia's participation in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the subsequent efforts to bring democracy to Iraq. Mr. Howard's opponent, Mark Latham, had promised to withdraw Australian troops from the Coalition.

"Somebody was disenfranchised or coerced down under," said Mr. Gore, now an itinerant professor. "John Howard betrayed his country. He played on their fears. There's no way they could have re-elected him legally. We'll fight this result all the way to the U.N. Security Council if need be."

Democrat presidential contender John Forbes Kerry expressed displeasure at the Australian election outcome.

"This is the wrong election result, in the wrong place at the wrong time," Mr. Kerry said. "Think of the precedent this sets."

by Scott Ott

Gore Lawsuit Challenges Australian Election Results
(2004-10-09) -- Just hours after the polls closed across Australia, and Prime Minister John Howard headed for his fourth term, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore filed a lawsuit in international court at the Hague alleging "irregularities" in the balloting.

The election was seen by many as a referendum on Australia's participation in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the subsequent efforts to bring democracy to Iraq. Mr. Howard's opponent, Mark Latham, had promised to withdraw Australian troops from the Coalition.

"Somebody was disenfranchised or coerced down under," said Mr. Gore, now an itinerant professor. "John Howard betrayed his country. He played on their fears. There's no way they could have re-elected him legally. We'll fight this result all the way to the U.N. Security Council if need be."

Democrat presidential contender John Forbes Kerry expressed displeasure at the Australian election outcome.

"This is the wrong election result, in the wrong place at the wrong time," Mr. Kerry said. "Think of the precedent this sets."

by Scott Ott


Hey dickhead, keep your partisan American political rubbish out of our Aussie thread, ya wanker :mad:

Gore Lawsuit Challenges Australian Election Results
(2004-10-09) -- Just hours after the polls closed across Australia, and Prime Minister John Howard headed for his fourth term, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore filed a lawsuit in international court at the Hague alleging "irregularities" in the balloting.

The election was seen by many as a referendum on Australia's participation in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the subsequent efforts to bring democracy to Iraq. Mr. Howard's opponent, Mark Latham, had promised to withdraw Australian troops from the Coalition.

"Somebody was disenfranchised or coerced down under," said Mr. Gore, now an itinerant professor. "John Howard betrayed his country. He played on their fears. There's no way they could have re-elected him legally. We'll fight this result all the way to the U.N. Security Council if need be."

Democrat presidential contender John Forbes Kerry expressed displeasure at the Australian election outcome.

"This is the wrong election result, in the wrong place at the wrong time," Mr. Kerry said. "Think of the precedent this sets."

by Scott Ott

Where's that from? I find the bit in bold a little weird. Wtf would they fight the result that is keeping troops in Iraq?

John Howards rules and that is why hes been voted in yet again!!!!

Where's that from? I find the bit in bold a little weird. Wtf would they fight the result that is keeping troops in Iraq?

I believe Clean Harbors was being sarcastic.

I believe Clean Harbors was being sarcastic.

Oh. It looked like a cut and paste.

Damn internet sarcasm!!! :/

Oh god, John Howard got in again, and this time either with a clear majority or with the balance of power held by "Families First" (a conservative Christian party that spends half it's website abusing the greens)? I don't think I could think of a worse situation.

Obviously I don't like John Howard and didn't vote for him. IMO, he's a deceptive liar who will do just about anything to get re-elected (including telemarketing, SPAM, lying, mudslinging, and who can forget the famous "childeren overboard" incident?).

What really irked me about the Liberal Campaign was that their two primary tactics was hurling as much abuse about Latham as possible, and telling everyone that Interest rates will soar under labour.
The first is just childish, and I have no respect for anyone who abuses others to make themselves look better. The second was just plain wrong. Just about everyone in the know, from economic commentators right up to the Reserve bank itself, said that whichever party is in power will have no effect on interest rates. Yet Liberal continued running their campaign on an outright lie.

Then there's the budget. After so many years of cutting funding to whatever they can, suddenly we have this enormous budget surplus, all thanks to Howards "sound economic management". So why didn't we have this wonderful surplus on a non-election year? Could it really be just a coincidence? Bullshit it was.

And yet despite all this, somehow the Australian people fell for it, hook, line and sinker. My faith in the intelligence and integrity of the "Average Australian" just sunk to a new low.

Damn it, I think I wanna leave this country and start my own. Anyone care to join me? :rolleyes:

Oh god, John Howard got in again, and this time either with a clear majority or with the balance of power held by "Families First" (a conservative Christian party that spends half it's website abusing the greens)? I don't think I could think of a worse situation.

Obviously I don't like John Howard and didn't vote for him. IMO, he's a deceptive liar who will do just about anything to get re-elected (including telemarketing, SPAM, lying, mudslinging, and who can forget the famous "childeren overboard" incident?).

What really irked me about the Liberal Campaign was that their two primary tactics was hurling as much abuse about Latham as possible, and telling everyone that Interest rates will soar under labour.
The first is just childish, and I have no respect for anyone who abuses others to make themselves look better. The second was just plain wrong. Just about everyone in the know, from economic commentators right up to the Reserve bank itself, said that whichever party is in power will have no effect on interest rates. Yet Liberal continued running their campaign on an outright lie.

Then there's the budget. After so many years of cutting funding to whatever they can, suddenly we have this enormous budget surplus, all thanks to Howards "sound economic management". So why didn't we have this wonderful surplus on a non-election year? Could it really be just a coincidence? Bullshit it was.

And yet despite all this, somehow the Australian people fell for it, hook, line and sinker. My faith in the intelligence and integrity of the "Average Australian" just sunk to a new low.

Damn it, I think I wanna leave this country and start my own. Anyone care to join me? :rolleyes:

Yes, the majority of the country is completely stupid because they voted the opposite to you.

Yes, the majority of the country is completely stupid because they voted the opposite to you.

Damn right. :p

Oh. It looked like a cut and paste.

Damn internet sarcasm!!! :/

:p Sometimes it is hard to tell, I am assuming it was sarcastic or facetious.

Damn right. :p

I am guessing your new country will be an "Authoritarian Democracy" to use an NS term. That is, you are free to hold any beliefs you like provided you agree with your leader. ;)

I am guessing your new country will be an "Authoritarian Democracy" to use an NS term. That is, you are free to hold any beliefs you like provided you agree with your leader. ;)
Yep, because I, obviously, know what's best for everyone, and I'll while i'll listen to the people, I'll not hesitate to ignore those who are so obviously wrong. :D

Seriously though, maybe I should have stuck the above post in thingys. Obviously, this is just my opinion, and I guess I'm just a little (understatement...) disappointed with the results of the weekend.

*sigh* :)

I support the war on terror
I value universal health care

Fair enough. I wouldn't mind it if the govt merely subsidized it to make it cheap enough to be universally accessible (to offset some of the costs..)

Labor created the American alliance

Sorta, Menzies ultimately gave us ANZUS..

I value free trade agreements, what we have with the US is not a free trade agreement

More to the point, it is unlikely to be a "Fair" Trade Agreement: the US is probably going to simply reject the PBS amendments, send it back to Howard who will likely be stupid enough to use his (likely) senate majority to let it go through. Don't get me wrong, mutual free trade is generally great idea imo, but the US is still well and truly protectionist in effect.

I believe in universal education

Damn right. WTFF was that HECs crap about? Of course, who the fuck needs a higher education anyway....oh wait... :rolleyes:

I value the environment
I really value the environment

Actually burn the environment for all I care: fuck wind farms, lets get some reactors happening. I personally despise the Greens now, they have drained support from my beloved Democrats and worst still, polarized politics: there are no longer any decent, practical left-leaning parties to balance out our politics. The Liberals have had a decent economic policy (though most of there other stuff is shitty), but I think this term they may take it too far. Hopefully I'm wrong here though..

One thing that also pisses me off: just because I don't agree with the Liberals, people call me left wing. Does anyone actually realize anymore that you can be pro-free market whilst still maintaining some government control of some sectors (health edu and some infrastructure would be enough for me [in order to raise/maintain the populations productivity]: bar them, I say most of the time; let the market decide..)

Fair enough. I wouldn't mind it if the govt merely subsidized it to make it cheap enough to be universally accessible (to offset some of the costs..)



Sorta, Menzies ultimately gave us ANZUS..



More to the point, it is unlikely to be a "Fair" Trade Agreement: the US is probably going to simply reject the PBS amendments, send it back to Howard who will likely be stupid enough to use his (likely) senate majority to let it go through. Don't get me wrong, mutual free trade is generally great idea imo, but the US is still well and truly protectionist in effect.



Damn right. WTFF was that HECs crap about? Of course, who the fuck needs a higher education anyway....oh wait... :rolleyes:


Actually burn the environment for all I care: fuck wind farms, lets get some reactors happening. I personally despise the Greens now, they have drained support from my beloved Democrats and worst still, polarized politics: there are no longer any decent, practical left-leaning parties to balance out our politics. The Liberals have had a decent economic policy (though most of there other stuff is shitty), but I think this term they may take it too far. Hopefully I'm wrong here though..

One thing that also pisses me off: just because I don't agree with the Liberals, people call me left wing. Does anyone actually realize anymore that you can be pro-free market whilst still maintaining some government control of some sectors (health edu and some infrastructure would be enough for me [in order to raise/maintain the populations productivity]: bar them, I say most of the time; let the market decide..)


Hmm..you seem a little agitated this evening Morroko.

Yep, because I, obviously, know what's best for everyone, and I'll while i'll listen to the people, I'll not hesitate to ignore those who are so obviously wrong. :D

Seriously though, maybe I should have stuck the above post in thingys. Obviously, this is just my opinion, and I guess I'm just a little (understatement...) disappointed with the results of the weekend.

*sigh* :)

I detected a hint of disappointment there. :D

I detected a hint of disappointment there.

Your powers of deduction are astounding. :D

Your powers of deduction are astounding. :D

Tygaland P.I. ;)

Hmm..you seem a little agitated this evening Morroko.

Grrrrr

lol your probably right, goddamn stress and all.

you know things like: the probable holders of the balance of power in the senate (Christian version of the Taliban most likely), final SAC tomorrow, it's hot, I have to wait two months for a new mobile, nothing decent on TV....

Grrrrr

lol your probably right, goddamn stress and all.

you know things like: the probable holders of the balance of power in the senate (Christian version of the Taliban most likely), final SAC tomorrow, it's hot, I have to wait two months for a new mobile, nothing decent on TV....

Sounds shitty! Wondering what the Christian equivalent of Burkhas look like...

Sounds shitty! Wondering what the Christian equivalent of Burkhas look like...


lol. If only I knew who the Burkhas were...

lol. If only I knew who the Burkhas were...

Burkhas were the head to toe "potato sacks" the Taliban made women wear under their regime.