Anyone want to call the election?

Latham or Howard?

I have a nasty feeling it's going to be Howard, but I hope not.

So can any wannabe poltical analysts call this one?

Btw, I can't wait till electio night...party time!

Howard.

I have a nasty feeling it might be Latham. I get the feeling that Australians are sick of seeing and hearing Howard all the time, and ready for a change. I have a rather low opinion of most people's ability to decide on issues rather than personalities.

This prediction is, of course, contrary to my prediction in the sciforums Nostradamus thread...

Whatever happens, I think it will be a close election.

I would prefer Latham at the moment, however a week ago I was in Howards camp..
I'm just too over the sucking up the U.S. thing and care far too much for the environment to vote for Howard. And Latham cares about the poor people in Australia...
I want our troops out of Iraq once and for all, the Iraqi's have voted that they do not want us there so I don't see what our business is over there.

I would like to see Australian troops out of Iraq, too.

I was not impressed with Latham's big cheque thing where he promised to keep interest rates down. That is something the government cannot control, since interest rates depend on all kinds of economic factors not amenable to government interference. I saw it as a cheap stunt aimed at misleading voters.

About time someone else’s elections was covered then the dam USA's. I’ll sticky this until the 9th of Oct or when the elections are over. Ok pretend I'm an Australian voter, convince me of which candidate(s) to vote for.

I would predict Latham, because he will get out of the quagmire that is Iraq. I don't suspect Austrialians are that stupid to stay longer then they have to.

james why the "nastie feeling"?

im PRAYING latham wins

i think i will become a hitman if howard wins again, i cant stand one more minute of his "bushing"

everything he does seems to be aimed at either apeasing the americans or scaring the australians. He also made uni and secondry school more expencive on the sly by removing the tax exeption for second sermester, hiting uni students (who probably wouldnt vote for him) now but secondry school students (whos parents are more likly too) just after the next election

plus there is the tamper thing which i think should cost him the election on prinerple. He didnt just lie to the press (something everyone expects) he stood up in parliment and lied bare faced and when he was caught out he blamed the very people who ARE serving us, the ships captan and its crew. That is low to use the millerty to cover your lies

Then there is the uni fees (do i really need to say more?)
iraq
afganistan
ect

can latham really do WORSE for australia?

i KNOW we will be hit now by terriousts (im surprised it wasnt today actually, blow up the MCG, what a target) and its HIS fault.

2 atacks in how long arguably against australians if not against australia (altho the embasy IS our soil) compared to how many before?
and now they are saying its going to be so regular that they have to upgrade darwin hospital to a major emergency hospital because of it

what about the PM's comments on premptive action? That scares me the MOST about him. Can you see us winning against indoneasia if our suicidle PM goes up against them?

i pray that australia learns to vote with there head rather than voting for the donky

PS i am not a member of the labor party, or anyway associated

B\W

i agree with you dream, i cant wait either

and Mr G can you please tell me
are you just shooting off your mouth, is howard the only guy you know or do you have a seriouse reason for thinking he will win


and everyones right, it will be close. Altho thats what they thought when ketting was ousted too

Asguard,

james why the "nastie feeling"?

Just mirroring daydream's post. He said he felt "nasty" about Howard winning, so...

im PRAYING latham wins

I'm not so sure I would trust Latham. Not that I trust Howard all the time either...

everything he does seems to be aimed at either apeasing the americans or scaring the australians.

I think the whole terrorist thing is played up way too much. The US election is all about scare tactics to do with terrorism, and the Australian one seems to be going the same way. There are other issues, but it is often convenient for the politicians not to talk about them. That is particularly true for Bush, less so for Howard. Also, the media seems to be fixated.

plus there is the tamper thing which i think should cost him the election on prinerple. He didnt just lie to the press (something everyone expects) he stood up in parliment and lied bare faced and when he was caught out he blamed the very people who ARE serving us, the ships captan and its crew. That is low to use the millerty to cover your lies

Are you talking about the children overboard issue, or the Tampa? I hope you're not mixing the two issues together.

There's no evidence that Howard knowingly lied about the children overboard thing, as far as I can tell. Anyway, its fairly irrelevant 4 years on, don't you think?

can latham really do WORSE for australia?

Well, yes, he could. That's why it is important to look at the big picture. The election is not just about personalities. Hell, you don't even vote for Howard or Latham. You'll be voting for your local MPs and senators. There are whole parties there apart from Latham and Howard. Why concentrate on the leaders to such an extent? It's not like the US system, where in effect the President is popularly elected.

I notice that Labor has started playing scare ads on TV warning people that a vote for Howard may be a vote for Peter Costello. But so what? Costello seems like an OK guy, and anybody should admit he has done a great job as Treasurer. (I've met his brother in person.)

i KNOW we will be hit now by terriousts (im surprised it wasnt today actually, blow up the MCG, what a target) and its HIS fault.

Do you really think Labor will do a better job of protecting us from terrorists?

what about the PM's comments on premptive action? That scares me the MOST about him. Can you see us winning against indoneasia if our suicidle PM goes up against them?

All he has said is that the government would work with foreign governments to act preemptively against terrorists in Asia. He isn't talking about interfering in other sovereign nations without invitation, which is what Bush decided to do.

i pray that australia learns to vote with there head rather than voting for the donky

So do I.

PS i am not a member of the labor party, or anyway associated

I'm not a member of any party. And I haven't decided for sure who I will vote for yet. I've voted for different parties in the House of Reps and the Senate the last couple of elections.

PS I doubt Mr G knows much about Australia or Australian politics. He likes Howard because Howard likes Bush, and Mr G likes Bush.

James i hate to disagree with you but thats what Downer said. The PM said that he would atack anywhere he saw a threat

i maybe mestaken but the children overboard thing WAS the tampa (that was the ship i belive) and no i dont think its time to forgive and forget because i how can i trust what he says NOW after the lies last time? if he wins now because of a lie am i surposed to trust him next time?

i agree with you about Costello tho, i have herd that he is the reason howard keeps hanging around. because he doesnt want to be succeded by a moderate like costello. If latham loses i do hope that costello takes over fast

As for wether labor would do better at protecting us, untill recently our aim has been to keep our head down basically. We didnt get involved in the reprisals from the US embassy bombing that i rember or anything else. Temor was our biggest action and that was virually unoposed by anyone (basically). Can we say that now? not really. I know its potenually a coincidence that after surporting bush in iraq 2 of our interests are sepratly atacked but i honestly think if we hadnt been in the coalistion of the gullable that we may have been left alone. I cant prove im right or wrong in this

i only said that im not involved in the labor party to qualify that these are personal opinions not party retroic. To be honest i have already judged who i will vote for and havent read any of the stuff phill barasie sent me. Normally i would judge the goverment by what they have done and the oposition by what they propose to do. There really isnt any point judging a goverment by what they say in the electrol campain when there past actions show them better.

i know latham is unknown and i would feel much safer personally voting for beezly (i herd a few bad things about latham when he was made leader which im surprised havent been brought out now) but in a system where you vote for the lesser of 2 evils i will vote 2 (or maybe 3) to the labor candiate.

One thing that does ender me to latham for himself (rather than anti howard) is that he has shown he is willing to stand up to america if it is called for. I DONT like seeing my country becoming a subsidray to another no mater wether they are right or wrong. Of the people FOR the people so to speak. I quite like how latham and especially senitor Fawkner showed that they were and are willing to stand up for australian interests. For example the free trade agreement which from what i have seen of it wasnt a reward for our service so much as another cowtow to the US

yes i strongly disagree with the US pollicy and that will effect my vote this year (as much as howard was trying to distance himself from bush) but i would feel the same if he was surporting NZ to that exstent. No matter how "good" the cause we still need to put US (you know it gets really hard to emphosize us and not have it confused as USA) first not another country

i just feel that labor is a much safer choice. Maybe if it was costello as leader then i would look at them differently but at the moment its howard and its always a chance that costello could be overlooked and we could get abott as PM *shudder*

A vote for Howard is a vote for Global Warming in my opinion ...

I'm not so sure I would trust Latham. Not that I trust Howard all the time either...


The question is, who do you trust more ? Somebody that has deliberately misled the Australian public against the populations wishes or somebody that crticisies those moves ?


I think the whole terrorist thing is played up way too much. The US election is all about scare tactics to do with terrorism, and the Australian one seems to be going the same way. There are other issues, but it is often convenient for the politicians not to talk about them. That is particularly true for Bush, less so for Howard. Also, the media seems to be fixated.


I personally felt that there was TOO MUCH focus on the local issues and not enough on foreign issues that affect our lives so much. One thing I can see is that if the problems continue on in Iraq, and it sure as hell looks like it will, with Iraq this wealthy country in a state of anarchy it in fact increases all the dangers that we will face -- Howard has opened up a warehouse-full of extremism against our interests --- the more trouble we see in Iraq, the more guilty we will feel. I reckon it's in our interests to move out and protect our own country and make friends with our neighbours....


I notice that Labor has started playing scare ads on TV warning people that a vote for Howard may be a vote for Peter Costello. But so what? Costello seems like an OK guy, and anybody should admit he has done a great job as Treasurer. (I've met his brother in person.)


I certainly don't hold the same esteem for Costello. He was afraid of the challenge of having a debate with Latham this Sunday..


Do you really think Labor will do a better job of protecting us from terrorists?


I think Labor will do a much better job of settling extremism and uniting us with other countries in the fight against terrorism, yes. I think we will have the sympathies of more people with a Labor government.


Anyhoo it's going to be an interesting one that's for sure!

So long as the Greens get as few seats as possible, I'm happy. They're total watermelons (green on the outside, red in the centre). I'm all for being a red, just so long as you're open about it, especially if you're a politician. But no. Instead of joining the Socialist Alliance or the Communist Party of Australia and being proper reds, they have to pretend to be just super enviromentalists. They're too afraid to be real communists. And Bob Brown is a pothead with no real policies.

Btw, I'm in the Bennelong seat, and about this Wilkie bloke from the Greens there?

What's the go with him?

i will have to go against you on that

the 2 politions i admire at the moment are Fawkin (for the way he had hill over the barrel:p i loved that day:D) and Bob brown

i real admire that guy, i know its true that he only has the power to stop things and will never have to make the compromises you do when your in power but each of those double dissalusion triggers im SOOO glad he and the greens, along with labor and the democrats blocked

but then i admire anyone who stood up AGAINST the bush wars (wonder if thats what all this will be called in the future)

one note: i find it personally interesting that the politions i admire always seem to come from the senate, the same senate that howard wants to abolish if he could

Bob Brown would be better if he could come out of the closet and just ADMIT he's a communist. But i suppose we can't expect honesty from politicians. *smirks and wear a hammer & sickle t-shirt with a karl marx underneath*

And he was unforgivably rude during GWB's visit to Oz. I hate Bush, but a guy in Brown's posisition has to be more sophisticated than that. And then Brown was fawning all over Bush later.

Brown = hypocritical tosser

what do i care if he is rude to bush?

i wish i had known howard was down the street the other day so i could have gone and "been rude" to him

this is a man who has killed god knows how man people and your crying cause a senitor was rude to him?????????

seriously i would rather see brown runing the country than howard but then i would rather see my pet CAT runing the country than that brown nose

you actually think howard is BETTER than brown? whats worse? being rude to him or bending over for him everytime he asks?

B\W he isnt a comunist, he maybe a socialist but i hate how the word communist is missused

i dont understand your dislike of him actually, Most people dislike the greens because they are a one issue party (which i can understand), now your saying he is bad because he is starting to move away from just the enviroment?

Did i say I liked brown over howard?

No, I did not.

Because I do not.

Brown cannot be considered a serious politician for any cause if continues to break political protocol which makes all his ideology all the more worthless. If he wants to play the politics game, he has to play be the rules otherwise he will just look stupid. Which he did.

Environmentalism, socialism, whatever. Bob Brown is a very poor politician for either agenda. His heart may well be in the right place, but he's going the wrong way about it.

By the looks of things in the media lately , it's all set to be Howard again.


Well I guess at least he can work on cleaning up the mess in Iraq, which is a good thing.

But I don't think I'll be voting for Global Warming unfortunately -- I know Labor has got better direction for its environmental policies and is not just all diversions on the matter!!

hey we might be lucky

when they said howard couldnt win he did, now they are saying he cant lose maybe he will, likes to do the unexpected does our little johnny

Sadly, the only alternative to Howard is Latham. I can't stand Howard and his policies and I don't trust Latham. :( Howard has stated that he will attack any threat and he has also showed gleeful support for that US star wars style missile defence program. Scarier still, he has also pledged support for Bush if the US decides to 'look into' Nort Korea. Lets face it, Howard is Bush's proxy. I would have to agree with Latham when he referred to Howard as an arse licker... heh.. Anywho, I digress... This is the man who won the last election on a big lie. He feels no remorse at locking children up in detention centers and cares nothing for the environment. And he also happily announced a huge bonus from the GST... disregarding the fact majority of Australians are being taxed through the nose to allow him to triumphantly state that we have a surplus. And the man is a staunch monarchist. I must admit that his election campaign is amusing. Especially when he told a woman that her baby was sweet and then looked at her stomach and proclaimed 'and another one on the way I see'.. the look of embarrassment on his face when she looked blankly back and replied 'no', still has me laughing.

Latham on the other hand doesn't appear to know where he is going. He said he'd have the troops back by Christmas and then said ermmm no, some would stay there to protect our embassy and aid workers... and some more would remain if the UN took over. Yeah right... His tax policy appears wishy washy. Although I do like his education policy... hmmmm

Sadly, there's no good alternative to Howard. Both he and Latham can send the country further up the creek. I can't stand Howard and don't trust Latham. I know that I won't be voting for Howard because his policies have and will continue to put us on dangerous ground. As for voting for Latham... hmmm... he did call Howard an arse licker..heh...

As to who will win this election... who really knows. I have a bad feeling that Howard will win it. I just want the whole thing to be over and done with so that I don't have to look at any more election campaign ads.

Bell to be fair i THINK all embasys are garded by aussie troops

i just wish Besly had managed to hold on to the leadership but i would trust latham more than someone who is a PROVEN lier

but about the GST increase i didnt hear about it

whats the story?
is it already gone up? or is it going to?
what?

The GST is not going up... yet. Howard only claimed a winfall from it. Saying that under the Howard Government, there is a greater surplus gained from the GST. He thought it was a marvellous thing. Go figure. Howard was basically telling Australians that its done a great job in getting the surplus by taxing us more.

Asguard,
...Mr G can you please tell me are you just shooting off your mouth, is howard the only guy you know or do you have a seriouse reason for thinking he will win?
I have a serious reason for thinking he must win. Two, actually.

1.) Australian troops, more than those of any other country, have shared foxholes with US troops in every war that I can recall -- presumably because we've shared common values.

2.) I don't trust your values.

James R,
I doubt Mr G knows much about Australia or Australian politics. He likes Howard because Howard likes Bush, and Mr G likes Bush.
1.)No, I don't know all that much about Australia, even less about Australian politics. I have no on-the-ground experience. Truth be told, in 1981, my s.o. & I cashed in our plane tickets to Australia because we were presented the opportunity to go to recently opened China (for twice as long a stay).

Nevertheless, I've always thought that I've some intuitive, familial-like connection with Australia/Australians, though certainly not Australian politics, that made me think I'd always feel welcomed there because of common values.

2.) I don't trust your values.

You don't trust mine? Fair enough.

Regardless, the issues most important to me are larger than many/most Australians' preferences for US foreign policy.

My opinion is: don't go French on us. There will be consequences.

No threat; a fact.

in that case keep your nose out of it

for once australia will be FOR australia and not for the US or for britton

this is OUR election not yours and your not invited

we dont care about your threats, what we care about is getting a PM who surports AUSTRALIAN INTREST. you know? the people who employ him

So, this is where you permanently disavow any future interests in, and comments on, US politics?

This is where you publicly commit to "...keep your nose out of..." US politics?

Of course, you're more scared of others than you are of us, otherwise you'd be falling all over yourself to do our bidding.

Frightened little child.

We'll still be here for you when you've matured in your thinking.

Vote Howard, the lesser of your two mistakes.

Same as I'm voting for Bush.

I really don't think you know enough about my values to judge, Mr. G.

No more than you know mine, eh?

And you presume to judge, nonetheless.

You're either with us, or you're superfluous.

You're either able to contribute, or you're only able to complain.

You either embrace testosterone, or you're estrogen encarnate.

Step aside. Move along. Nothing to see here amongst the masses.

Vote Bush ???

Hahahahahaa...

Whenever I think of Global Warming, Corporate Scheisters etc., I will think of you!!

So, Asguard. Now that you've told Mr G to keep his nose out of Australian politics (whereas you, hypocritically, comment on Bush and American politics rather vociferously whenever you feel the urge), why don't you elaborate your ideas on where Australian interests actually lie rather than shouting slogans?

Very pithy, Mr. G. It is nice to see you are above "the masses".

i comment on american politics because it effects me very directly (hell it could KILL me if howard won and kept surporting the bush wars, we could become the next terror target because of it).You will never see me comment on canadian elections or anyone else, not even the NZ ones because they are internal matters that arnt my bussiness, but when its the "leader of the free world" being elected i think i have a right to a say. I cant vote for him but i cna try to sway other people to vote in a way that doesnt hurt me. I doubt that most americans will be at all effected if labor wins or if the librals win and costello takes over.

but this is what i HOPE will happen if labor wins

i dont know that it will but i hope

troops out of iraq
uni fees fixed again instead of sky rocketing
the huge spending that howard "promises" not to happen
pulling back a little from US relations so that australian intrests are first again
signing the koto treaty
pushing the world court again
a republic
better relations with aborigional afairs
the exesption from the GST for text books resestablished
a little HONESTY in goverment instead of the blatent lying of our PM


as i said wether any of this happens time will tell but i KNOW that australia cant aford bush i mean howard as our leader anymore

hell maybe the atacks against australia will subside when we pull back to working in the background like we should

as for Mr G, he said unequivically that howard WOULD win (thats the purpose of this thread i belive) when he has no knowlage of even the recent POLLS let alone any feel of the county or her people. I dont belive you will find i have once said that kerry WILL win or even commented on it. I do know that people like Mr G and his leader are exactly what howard DOESNT want in this campain. He was cringing when Bush was trying to "help" his campain because he knows that the australian people dont want that sort of interferance in our election. feel free to rig your own but keep your nose out of ours

Pentagon Tells Bush: Climate
Change Will Destroy Us


Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
By Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
The Observer - UK
2-22-4

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global
catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The
Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas
as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict,
mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.


The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the
planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to
defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to
global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts
privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,'
concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human
life.'


The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration,
which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said
that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted
national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser
Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over
the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed
at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld.


Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a
US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA
consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug
Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible
and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be
considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread
flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large
body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to
suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy
Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of
the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could
prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and
happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to
sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to
voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get
the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that
American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced
with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of
touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about
some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's
chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the
issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were
Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the
German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists
at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the
Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading
Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological
Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change
to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of
message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's
dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this
sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest
priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group,
generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to
national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups
the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,'
added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and
across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars.
It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this
issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a
higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of
water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome,
plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic
conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass
migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid
climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he
said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no
enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a
disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It
could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are
unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be
worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may
prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known
to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with
Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in
his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid
Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive
think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the
Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his
vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of
Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said
that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House
trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why
this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'

Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered
energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was
received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring
the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil
companies,' he added.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004


Interesting read ay ?

So. In effect, Asguard, you really have no answer to the question. When directly pressed on where Australian interests actually lie, you start crying about how much you had to pay for your university education. As an aside, perhaps you should have spent more time in high school perfecting your literacy levels prior to "advancing" to university, but that's beside the point really. Actually, it seems more probable you didn't get to uni at all because you couldn't afford it (or more likely, they never understood your application letter), and you have a two by four on your shoulder as a result. One or the other.

Now. Are you going to elaborate on where you think Australian interests lie, without predjudice, and without being a hypocrite, or are you going to shut up and go back to writing badly spelled placards and marching in peace rallies with the rabble where you belong?

On topic... Where the hell is Paul Keating when you need him?

Assguard, there isn't enough money on earth for you to legitimately earn the right to go anywhere near a real university. The fact you are even allowed to pay for university and actually get in is mind boggling, AND you complain about it!?
Who even gave you money? Did someone mistake one of your finger paintings for a picasso? or is begging on the street big business when you have down syndrome?

I want to vote for whoever it is that will make sure retards are contained securely in special schools specifically set aside for them.

oh yea i forgot

americans think that if you cant pay your dumb

well i dont need to go to uni for what i do but my sister is, her uni fees went up by 15% just this year. This was after john howard specifically said that this legislation wouldnt raise fees at all

in my country uni isnt surposed to be limited to the ritch, its surposed to be for whoever can get the marks. You do realise that MOST uni students live below the povety line dont you?

yea but to a yank whos unemployment benifits dont even cover the long term unemployed that would seem the right way to go right?

WRONG

No, I think you're dumb because it's emphatically evidenced all over the forum. I actually thought you could pay to go to university and were going... phew, that would have driven me insane.

And not everyone who is opposing you is automatically a "yanK" :rolleyes: I'm australian.

James R,
Very pithy, Mr. G. It is nice to see you are above "the masses".
I have a natural distrust of 'herding instinct'.

How about you?

Need the roar of the crowd to define your nature?

I recognise that there is a crowd, and I take that into account in forming opinions. To do otherwise would be to live in a fantasy world.

Assgird,
as for Mr G, he said unequivically that howard WOULD win (thats the purpose of this thread i belive) when he has no knowlage of even the recent POLLS let alone any feel of the county or her people.
All I posted was a single proper noun, "Howard".

It is a guess; a preference; an opinion.

One has to question -- once again -- your powers of reason, as you equate guessing with "unequivically".

...australian people dont want that sort of interferance in our election. feel free to rig your own but keep your nose out of ours
My opinions originate from the opposite side of the planet from your election.

I can imagine that you protest the existence of my opinion as interference in your national election because there exists your fellow Austrailians who more closely identify with my opinion than your own.

One can safely conclude that you only presume to speak for all "australian people".

James R,
I recognise that there is a crowd, and I take that into account in forming opinions. To do otherwise would be to live in a fantasy world.
So, what role in your thinking is served by the pop-culture of "turtles, all the way down"?

That's a little too cryptic for me, Mr. G. Can you express yourself more clearly, please?

...americans think that if you cant pay your dumb

well i dont need to go to uni for what i do but my sister is, her uni fees went up by 15% just this year. This was after john howard specifically said that this legislation wouldnt raise fees at all

in my country uni isnt surposed to be limited to the ritch, its surposed to be for whoever can get the marks. You do realise that MOST uni students live below the povety line dont you?

yea but to a yank whos unemployment benifits dont even cover the long term unemployed that would seem the right way to go right?
If you can't pay, you can't pay.

"Uni", in a market economy, is for people with the marks, and the $.

Yanks offer opportunity, but not guaranteed monetary support for chronic incompetence.

You may not have needed to go to "Uni", but you shouldn't expect that you'll be given "Uni"-graduate-like wages just because you and your incompetence exist.

Your personal inadequacies are not the fault, nor the responsibilty, of the producers within your community.

Nor are your failings my obliged concern.

James R,
That's a little too cryptic for me, Mr. G. Can you express yourself more clearly, please?
Do your homework. What is it with you Aussies? :P

I guess not.

Guess whatever you like.

didnt you know, its bush

if i could vote, id vote greens, they rock my socks

anyhoo, i think that howard has totally destroyed public supprot for himself,and that a good leader would be able to beat him no problem, unfortunately we have latham as opposition...

oh yea i forgot

americans think that if you cant pay your dumb

well i dont need to go to uni for what i do but my sister is, her uni fees went up by 15% just this year. This was after john howard specifically said that this legislation wouldnt raise fees at all

I see that you have forgotten who imposed the fees for higher education in the first place. This is something that many Labor supporters appear to have forgotten. Personally I can't stand Howard, I hate his policies and I don't like the way he is driving this country. However I do still remember that it Labor who implemented the higher education fee system in the first place.

in my country uni isnt surposed to be limited to the ritch, its surposed to be for whoever can get the marks. You do realise that MOST uni students live below the povety line dont you?
You've just contradicted yourself. If 'most uni students' lived below the poverty line, then they would not be rich and that shows that university is not limited to the rich. Higher education is not limited to the rich in society. We have the HECS system which allows poor students to still attend university and then pay it back after they have reached a certain wage. While they will be paying through the nose once they've reached that salary amount, the amount paid is a very low percentage of your wage, similar to the Medicare Levy. Many students head straight overseas to avoid repaying their HECS.


My opinion is: don't go French on us. There will be consequences.

No threat; a fact.
What? Consequences? Heh... You're going to do to us what you did to the French when you named your french fries 'freedom fries' and dumped all the French wine down the drain? I can assure you Mr G, if it comes to the point where you start setting fire to stuffed koalas and send Mel and Nicole back, we won't be insulted.

And I'm sure that there are many Australians out there who will be dancing in the streets at the thought of the FTA falling through. Sugar cane farmers come most prominently to mind.

There are always consequences to all actions Mr. G, and I don't feel in any way frightened at any consequences that may arise if we do 'go French' on you. I do however feel frightened if we don't 'go French' on you.

Bell its true

most students atending university are forced to live below the povety line even WITH HECS

and no im not talking about HECS repayments im talking about fees, and books ect. My sister is lucky that mum and dad help her and let her live at home and pay for food ect because if they didnt there isnt a hope in hell that she would have the time (doing a full time science degree) to earn enough money to cover the corse she is doing

Maybe your sister should get a part time job like just about everyone else at uni.

Asguard, I attend and also teach part time at university in Australia and yes I am fully aware of the plight of many students, even with HECS. However, most of the students who find that their Austudy payments don't help them enough financially do get a job. I did a double degree in law and accounting and worked as well. My best friend did a full time science degree and worked at the same time, and then he went on to start a full time law degree in his final year of science and still managed to work at the same time. In fact, the majority of university students studying full time do work part time to supplement their Austudy. And some don't even qualify for Austudy and still manage to support themselves through working part time.

Your sister is lucky that your parents are helping her out. But there are many students out there who are studying full time and working at the same time to allow them to pay rent, electricity, buy food, etc. Maybe your sister should look into getting a part time job to help her financially.

bell who said she doesnt?

i wasnt talking about her but people she knows and to be honest so what you did a law degree, how many hrs of face to face teaching was it?

now compaire that to a REAL full time corse like a BS or even enginering or even computer science where your at uni 5 days a week PLUS whatever work outside you have to do

you were lucky that you didnt have a problem with poverty and so is my sister, most uni students arnt that fortunate. Especially country students who come to the city just for uni. Why do you think they have free food mondays? because most students are that poor that may be the only decent meal they GET in a week

Bells,
What? Consequences? Heh... You're going to do to us what you did to the French when you named your french fries 'freedom fries' and dumped all the French wine down the drain?
No. Not stuff like that idiocy. That's playground bully, kid-stuff.

Rather, stuff like levels of trust. If Aussies choose to irrationally distrust the US, the US has no other choice but to equally distrust you, and not share with you secret & highly confidential information in our possession that may be important to your own national defense, too.

No brag, just fact. Your choice how you play the relationship.
I can assure you Mr G, if it comes to the point where you start setting fire to stuffed koalas and send Mel and Nicole back, we won't be insulted.
Seems Aussies are prone to playground bully, kid-stuff, too. It's the local demographic, so no surprise there.
And I'm sure that there are many Australians out there who will be dancing in the streets at the thought of the FTA falling through. Sugar cane farmers come most prominently to mind.
Living in Florida, I'm also inclined to relieve the sugar cane robber barons of their artifical price supports.

There's international politics and there's domestic politics. Both are far from exact sciences.

That implies broader operational freedom in either direction, along the length of both political spectrums.
I don't feel in any way frightened at any consequences that may arise if we do 'go French' on you. I do however feel frightened if we don't 'go French' on you.
That's supposed to make us all feel better?
"There is no connection between the political ideas of our educated class and the deep places of the imagination." - Lionel Trilling

bell who said she doesnt?

i wasnt talking about her but people she knows and to be honest so what you did a law degree, how many hrs of face to face teaching was it?

You intimated that she wasn't working. Maybe if you made your points a bit more clearly, you'd make that little bit more sense.

And as for my contact hours while doing a double degree in law and accounting? Hmmm lets see... maximum of 5 subjects per semester (sometimes I overloaded and did 6)... half of my required law subjects had 2 lectures each week (so for approximately two law subjects per semester that was 4 hours of lectures a week for each of those law subjects, plus tutorials which were usually 1 hour each, then offices which is also one hour a week... plus private study time which was usually approximately 4 hours per subject per week and when there were assignments that went up)... My other law subjects were easier with two hours of lectures each week per subject, plus tutorials, plus offices or mooting times which usually ranged from 1 to two hours. And then of course there were the accounting subjects which usually involved 2 hour lectures each week plus one hour tutorials and compulsory group work studies. Is that enough contact hours for you to qualify? :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, Asguard, I was usually at uni from 8 am Monday morning for lectures and I had uni 5 days a week and most days were full days. The latest class I ever had during the week was a class that finished at 10pm on a Friday night... and I had tutorials and offices from 9am on that friday morning... Now you look at your sister's timetable and you tell me what time she's home most nights from uni.

now compaire that to a REAL full time corse like a BS or even enginering or even computer science where your at uni 5 days a week PLUS whatever work outside you have to do
HEH!! Asguard, I take it you've never been to university? Never done a law degree or any other type of degree? Obviously you have no idea of the amount of work a student has to put in if they want to actually pass their subjects? Any subjects. As to your little comment about the real full time courses like engineering and science? Engineering students are the most notorious for actually having time to party. Science students usually only did 3 to 4 subjects per semester and their contact hours were nowhere near what we had. Hell, some of them had less contact hours then most students doing BA's. Asguard, I'd really suggest that you actually attend university before you make any comments on what constitutes a full time course. Because it is obvious that you have absolutely no idea.

And as for computer science? LMFAO!! Asguard, I'd suggest you try and attempt a university degree if you actually manage to get in and then compare what everyone else is doing at uni to what you are doing. Computer science... hehehehe... my other half did computer science at uni originally and he always tells me that it was the slackest (sp?) degree he'd ever done.

you were lucky that you didnt have a problem with poverty and so is my sister, most uni students arnt that fortunate. Especially country students who come to the city just for uni. Why do you think they have free food mondays? because most students are that poor that may be the only decent meal they GET in a week
What makes you think I didn't have a problem with poverty? Asguard, I worked and studied full time. When I wasn't at uni or studying I was working. I earned just enough to get me by. And country students who come to the city to study usually get supplements in their Austudy to help them (living away from home allowance), plus they worked part time. And as for free food days? Heh.. never heard of it.

Rather, stuff like levels of trust. If Aussies choose to irrationally distrust the US, the US has no other choice but to equally distrust you, and not share with you secret & highly confidential information in our possession that may be important to your own national defense, too.

Mr. G, your own federal agencies don't even trust each other enough to share information with each other and you think they're going to share with other countries. The US is renown for only giving out the bare minimum if at all. And the highly confidential information in your possession has not even helped you in the past. Had it helped you and had it been gathered properly, you'd have known, and most importantly, understood, that there were no WMD's in Iraq. :rolleyes:

Aussies don't irrationally distrust the US. We rationally distrust you. You have a leader, who like ours, lies through his teeth and who has absolutely no concept of foreign policies or relations. And you expect a us, a foreign country, to trust you?

in that case bell why are we arguing?

you think its RIGHT that people should be forced to live below the poverty line?

and you have oviously never been involved in the student union

the biggest change would be you not being able to use the SAS whenever you feel like it, after all if you didnt need them why have they been on permedent loan for the past 5 years?

Bells,

Thank you. You are refreshing.
Mr. G, your own federal agencies don't even trust each other enough to share information with each other and you think they're going to share with other countries.
Skeptical compartmentalization generally is more healthy than not (experiential trend). Not always, but there's no formula cast in stone either way.
The US is renown for only giving out the bare minimum if at all.
And that makes the US different amongst all other nations, regimes, etc., how?
And the highly confidential information in your possession has not even helped you in the past.
Once, maybe: 9/11.

Oh, and Pearl Harbor, certainly.

Probably a few other times, too.

But can you logically assert that what has come to be known to us, by our more aggressive means than anyone else, hasn't actually saved us from an unguessable number of similar assualts?

Of course you can't.

...you'd have known, and most importantly, understood, that there were no WMD's in Iraq.
So Kurds and Iranians died in masse because Saddam's Iraq possessed no WMDs at all?

Ask for a refund of the cost of your education.
Aussies don't irrationally distrust the US. We rationally distrust you.
Oh, please. As many of you do one as do the other.

I encourage your sense of significant Nationalism. But I also counsel skeptical restraint.
...you have a leader, who like ours, lies through his teeth and who has absolutely no concept of foreign policies or relations. And you expect a us, a foreign country, to trust you?
No more than I should trust you, and your own personal take on reality, just because of the fact that you exist. ;)

in that case bell why are we arguing?

you think its RIGHT that people should be forced to live below the poverty line?

and you have oviously never been involved in the student union
Asguard, did I say that people should be forced to live below the poverty line? Hmmm? And Asguard, I'd suggest you actually try to attend a university before you attempt to discuss student union issues with me or anyone else.

And that makes the US different amongst all other nations, regimes, etc., how?
No, it makes you the same as everyone else. That's the point. You may have more resources available to you, but its not always put to good use and it's not always analysed properly or even read.

Once, maybe: 9/11.

Oh, and Pearl Harbor, certainly.

Probably a few other times, too.

But can you logically assert that what has come to be known to us, by our more aggressive means than anyone else, hasn't actually saved us from an unguessable number of similar assualts?
9/11, you had no idea.

Pearl Harbour you only found out when the generals playing golf saw the planes flying over.

It may have saved you on a number of occasions, but more than not, it was either ignored or not analysed properly, resulting in numerous deaths.

So Kurds and Iranians died in masse because Saddam's Iraq possessed no WMDs at all?
No they died because the US and allies sold it to him. Actually, you not only sold it to him, but you then gave him the capacity to build more and then you even provided him with access to your sattelites so that he'd know exactly where to bomb and use those WMD's. Hmmm... US helped Saddam and Saddam goes on to use chemical weapons against others while US sits back and watches and claims part ignorance. So much for that intelligence again. Rings a nasty bell doesn't it?

You went to war on the premise that Saddam had the capacity and the weapons to pose a threat to the US and to her allies. You went to war on the premise that he was selling his weapons to terrorist organisations like Al quida, not realising or recognising that Al quida posed a bigger threat to the US without a need of WMD's. So tell me Mr. G. Where are the WMD's now? Where are the WMD's that Saddam supposedly had last year that posed a threat to you and I? Hmmmm? The UN didn't find them before you attacked and you still haven't found them today. So where are they? If he had them, do you seriously think that he wouldn't have used them when you invaded? After all, he had no guilt in using them against the Iranians on their territory. Don't you think he'd have used them if he had them when you invaded him? Could it be that the UN was right and he had destroyed his stockpile? Gosh Mr. G, your intelligence is so amazing that it couldn't even figure out that the UN and Blix may in fact have been right. Imagine that...

But that's right, after you didn't find the WMD's that Saddam had that threatened you in your bed at night, your reason for war then became the ideal that you were there to get rid of Saddam and make Iraq safe again for the Iraqi people. I can still hear Bush's voice as he proclaimed that no more will people be killed or tortured in Saddams notorious prisons... And that's turned out so well hasn't it? :rolleyes:

Ask for a refund of the cost of your education.
I will as soon as I start paying for it. ;)

No, it makes you the same as everyone else. That's the point. You may have more resources available to you, but its not always put to good use and it's not always analysed properly or even read.[quote]
It's good that you're one of the few here who freely admits to exactly the same flaws as besets the rest of us prime examples of human pulchritude.
[quote]9/11, you had no idea.
Australia neither predicted the Bali nightclub bombing nor 9/11.

You had no idea, either. Why not? Austalia's dick wasn't as big as ours? TLDU wasn't able to compensate for it's physical inadequacy by being more situationally aware than the neighborhood stud? ;)
No they died because the US and allies sold it to him. Actually, you not only sold it to him, but you then gave him the capacity to build more and then you even provided him with access to your sattelites so that he'd know exactly where to bomb and use those WMD's. Hmmm... US helped Saddam and Saddam goes on to use chemical weapons against others while US sits back and watches and claims part ignorance. So much for that intelligence again. Rings a nasty bell doesn't it?
The urban myth parts, or the "screw the American hostage-taking Iranians" part?

None of us is Mother Theresa. Darwin rules.
You went to war on the premise that Saddam had the capacity and the weapons to pose a threat to the US and to her allies. You went to war on the premise that he was selling his weapons to terrorist organisations like Al quida, not realising or recognising that Al quida posed a bigger threat to the US without a need of WMD's. So tell me Mr. G. Where are the WMD's now? Where are the WMD's that Saddam supposedly had last year that posed a threat to you and I? Hmmmm?[quote]
Maybe we went to war in Iraq for none of the reasons you imagine would possibly motivate you. Maybe because you aren't us, and you don't know what we know/knew --except what has been popularly reported, as though you can trust that for certain accuracy.

Maybe taking down Iraq served us in ways not obvious to your own nationalistic perspectives. How is your need for situational clarity not by your own means a reason for us to postpone defending ourselves?

[The UN didn't find them before you attacked and you still haven't found them today. So where are they?
The UN hasn't found a compelling need to intercede in Darfur. Who gives a f'k what the UN wants/thinks/does?
If he had them, do you seriously think that he wouldn't have used them when you invaded? After all, he had no guilt in using them against the Iranians on their territory. Don't you think he'd have used them if he had them when you invaded him? Could it be that the UN was right and he had destroyed his stockpile? Gosh Mr. G, your intelligence is so amazing that it couldn't even figure out that the UN and Blix may in fact have been right. Imagine that...[quote]
Maybe yours is actually the more uncertain, irrational set of assumptions.;)
[quote]But that's right, after you didn't find the WMD's that Saddam had that threatened you in your bed at night, your reason for war then became the ideal that you were there to get rid of Saddam and make Iraq safe again for the Iraqi people. I can still hear Bush's voice as he proclaimed that no more will people be killed or tortured in Saddams notorious prisons... And that's turned out so well hasn't it?
Surely it is vexing to unsatisfyingly imagine what you would/should do were you in control of the US, and its potentials and capabilities, while not actually having the opportunity to be in control of the US, nor actually being the US.

So, why should we be limited by your powers of imagination?

Surely it is vexing to unsatisfyingly imagine what you would/should do were you in control of the US, and its potentials and capabilities, while not actually having the opportunity to be in control of the US, nor actually being the US.

Might makes right, right?

Has it occurred to you that not everyone works on that principle, or advocates it? And if so, has it occurred to you that it may be for some reason other than that they don't have the might?

I thought not.

Australia neither predicted the Bali nightclub bombing nor 9/11.

You had no idea, either. Why not? Austalia's dick wasn't as big as ours? TLDU wasn't able to compensate for it's physical inadequacy by being more situationally aware than the neighborhood stud? ;)

We had no idea because we were gormless. The signs were there but for some reason we felt too safe to even worry about it. I wish we had worried about it, then at least one of my friends would still be alive and we wouldn't have had to bury just the few remains that were found at the site.

The urban myth parts, or the "screw the American hostage-taking Iranians" part?
No, the political fact part.

None of us is Mother Theresa. Darwin rules.
Survival of the fittest is not helping the US in Iraq at the moment either. Plane loads of dead soldiers returning on a daily basis puts paid to that idea.

Maybe we went to war in Iraq for none of the reasons you imagine would possibly motivate you. Maybe because you aren't us, and you don't know what we know/knew --except what has been popularly reported, as though you can trust that for certain accuracy.

Maybe taking down Iraq served us in ways not obvious to your own nationalistic perspectives. How is your need for situational clarity not by your own means a reason for us to postpone defending ourselves?
Maybe you're right. But maybe you're not. You've trusted what was popularly reported for reasons to go to war and for why Bush may have been correct haven't you? Or are you trying to say that you have inside information as to why Bush went after Saddam in the first place?

Defending yourselves against what exactly? Did Saddam attack the US? Nope. Did he even pose a threat to the US? No, as he didn't have the weaponry to actually attack the US. So who did attack the US? Ah yes, it was Bin Ladin. And where is he? Yet to be found. Your true enemy was Bin Ladin and when he slipped through the tight little fingers that your President promised would catch him, Saddam came back to the fore. And now hundreds of American families are burying their dead loved ones for being sent after someone that posed no true threat to you and your countrymen.

And as for what you know/knew? Seems that in hindsight it's easier to say oopsy you didn't know much at all.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appeared Monday to back off earlier statements suggesting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda.

He also conceded that U.S. intelligence was "wrong" in its conclusions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Before the war, in a speech in Atlanta, Georgia, in September 2002, Rumsfeld said the CIA had "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are in fact al Qaeda in Iraq."

In his speech Monday, Rumsfeld said the U.S. intelligence analysts have changed their assessment: "I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

On the question of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld dropped his common assertion that weapons "may yet be found." Instead, he said the world was "a lot better off" without Saddam in charge of Iraq.

"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction. And does everyone know he had them at one point? Certainly. Does everyone believe -- even those in the U.N. who voted the other way -- acknowledge the fact that he had filed a fraudulent declaration with the United Nations?" Rumsfeld said.

"And why the intelligence proved wrong, I'm not in a position to say. I simply don't know. But the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail than they were with him in power."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

Hmmmm..

And attacking Iraq has only served you in that you can now place who you want in power there so that your own interests will be well cared for. The number of people dying to allow you to achieve this is merely collateral damage isn't it?

Sadly for us, Howard has also followed Bush in his quest and now we only pray that no Australian families will have to bury their loved ones who were sent there.

The UN hasn't found a compelling need to intercede in Darfur. Who gives a f'k what the UN wants/thinks/does?
The UN's lack of action in Sudan sickens me. But I will admit that they were at least correct in the fact that Iraq no longer had WMD's and no longer posed a threat to the West. And I don't see the US clamouring to help in Sudan either. Sadly, nor do I see my own Government itching to be let into Sudan to stop the genocide. I guess they feel that they have bigger and more interesting fish to fry and a genocide is not as important to them as it is for you and I.

Surely it is vexing to unsatisfyingly imagine what you would/should do were you in control of the US, and its potentials and capabilities, while not actually having the opportunity to be in control of the US, nor actually being the US.
Hardly vexing. Being a meglomaniac who craves power and control is not me. The US has a lot of potential and capabilities. Unfortunately it's not using its powers for good or for the good of mankind. ;) Instead of being the superheroes that you could be, you're sadly fast becoming the villian.

So, why should we be limited by your powers of imagination?
Attacking Iraq proved imagination? Heh.. That's cute.

James R,
Might makes right, right?
No, Might makes a quorum.
Has it occurred to you that not everyone works on that principle, or advocates it?
Yes.
And if so, has it occurred to you that it may be for some reason other than that they don't have the might?
Yes.
I thought not.
No harm. You aren't a quorum.

Bells,
No, the political fact part.
Oxymoronic. ;)
Survival of the fittest is not helping the US in Iraq at the moment either. Plane loads of dead soldiers returning on a daily basis puts paid to that idea.
We lost in one day three times more people than have since been lost in Irag and Afghanistan in the better part of two years+.

How is waiting to be killed more honorable and less tragic than risking death in the service of those who won't be killed?
Or are you trying to say that you have inside information as to why Bush went after Saddam in the first place?
No. I'm saying were I in a position to do so I'd have taken out Saddam reguardless of whether or not he had WMDs. I would have done it because he was a danger to his neighbors, he had killed Americans, he had threatened Americans with violence, he had attempted to assassinate a US President, he had supported terrorists (monetary support of palestinian sucide bombers, for certain, if not others), and do so to mind-f'k Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Lybia, Pakistan, North Korea, China, Russia, France, Germany, Cuba, al Quieda, Hamas, Hezbollah, my grandmother, and Cmdr Aton's fleet from the Pleiades.
Defending yourselves against what exactly?
Ignorance, mostly.
Did Saddam attack the US? Nope.
Wrong. He attacked US air, sea and land forces, a President, American POWs, and American interests.
Did he even pose a threat to the US? No, as he didn't have the weaponry to actually attack the US.
Wrong. We haven't attacked Australia. We have dragged Saddam out of his spider hole. Why haven't we attacked Australia if we're prone to attacking just anyone without provocation?
So who did attack the US? Ah yes, it was Bin Ladin.
And Saudi Wahabbists. And muslim jihadists. And the French.
And where is he? Yet to be found. Your true enemy was Bin Ladin...
The invisbile and the non-existant look very much alike. How do you know Usama isn't wind-blown dust bunnies in the dirt of Tora Bora?
...and when he slipped through the tight little fingers that your President promised would catch him,...
Assuming facts even you admit are not in evidence.
Saddam came back to the fore. And now hundreds of American families are burying their dead loved ones for being sent after someone that posed no true threat to you and your countrymen.
A matter off opinion that is only of spectating relevence to US foreign & domestic policies. ;)

:Edited for a "/"

A matter off opinion that is only of spectating relevence to US foreign & domestic policies

WHich is a good argument for changing your government.

We lost in one day three times more people than have since been lost in Irag and Afghanistan in the better part of two years+.

How is waiting to be killed more honorable and less tragic than risking death in the service of those who won't be killed?

And was it Saddam who ordered those planes to fly into the WTC and the Pentagon?

No. I'm saying were I in a position to do so I'd have taken out Saddam reguardless of whether or not he had WMDs. I would have done it because he was a danger to his neighbors, he had killed Americans, he had threatened Americans with violence, he had attempted to assassinate a US President, he had supported terrorists (monetary support of palestinian sucide bombers, for certain, if not others), and do so to mind-f'k Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Lybia, Pakistan, North Korea, China, Russia, France, Germany, Cuba, al Quieda, Hamas, Hezbollah, my grandmother, and Cmdr Aton's fleet from the Pleiades.
So you'd have taken out Saddam because you see yourself as the world's policeman? Funnily enough, when many in the world wanted to remove Saddam from power when he'd committed genocide, the US remained silent. He had killed Americans, just like you have killed Iraqi's. He had threatened Americans with violence just as you had threatened and continue to threaten Iraqis with violence. And if I recall correctly, the threats to the US didn't come until after the US rushed in to liberate Kuwait.

Sure he had supported terrorists, but you supported him in the first instance. What does that make you?

And he attempted to assasinate Bush Snr? Really? Amazing! It didn't even make the news here. I honestly had no idea that there was an assasination attempt on old George. Or do you mean when he said that he'd like to kill old George? Hardly an attempt. Big exaggeration on your part there wouldn't you say? Are you following the Bush line of 'he wanted to kill my daddy'?

Wrong. He attacked US air, sea and land forces, a President, American POWs, and American interests.
He attacked you? Ohhh you mean he attacked you after you bombed him when he'd invaded Kuwait. And as for the US POW's... Do you really want to go there after the damning reports of how you have treated Iraqi POW's? And please show me a report where Saddam actually went to the US or anywhere else and tried to kill a US President.

Wrong. We haven't attacked Australia. We have dragged Saddam out of his spider hole. Why haven't we attacked Australia if we're prone to attacking just anyone without provocation?
Who says you won't one day? Who's to know?

And Saudi Wahabbists. And muslim jihadists. And the French.
Yet the US is sooo friendly with the Saudi's. I wonder why... :rolleyes: And the Muslim jihadists? That would encompass Bin Ladin wouldn't you say? After all, it was Al quida who attacked you and your interests.

The French attacked you? In the last 20 years? Really? When and how?

The invisbile and the non-existant look very much alike. How do you know Usama isn't wind-blown dust bunnies in the dirt of Tora Bora?
So now Bin Ladin may not exist at all or might be invisible? Strange... his images on his video's appear to be real enough. The photo's of him posted by the US appear to be real enough. If Bin Ladin is a 'wind-blown dust bunny', then your Government has some real issues that need to be addressed... preferably in a mental asylum.

Assuming facts even you admit are not in evidence.
I thought you said he may not exist or be invisible? So now you're saying he has been caught? Funny... I'd have thought with an election coming up, Bush would have heralded that news with glee in front of every camera available.

A matter off opinion that is only of spectating relevence to US foreign & domestic policies.
I don't think the families of those killed in this war would agree with you. As James has pointed out to you, that is a good idea for changing your government.

James R,
WHich is a good argument for changing your government.
Thought experiment time:

Define a good argument for no change of our goverment.

Prove you are rational, if impossibly non-partisan -- and not otherwise easily ignorable.

Define a good argument for no change of our goverment.

Maybe if Bush suddenly turned over a new leaf, became less under the influence of the religious right, got himself a new cabinet, started participating for real in the United Nations, started caring about social issues in the United States...

Bells,
And was it Saddam who ordered those planes to fly into the WTC and the Pentagon?
Is this your proudest rhetorical moment?
So you'd have taken out Saddam because you see yourself as the world's policeman?
I'd have taken out Saddam as the defender of my family, my friends, my co-workers, my fellow citizens, and also to really, really piss off the French -- while, at the same time, selling to them the world's largest supply of Viagra.
Funnily enough, when many in the world wanted to remove Saddam from power when he'd committed genocide, the US remained silent. He had killed Americans, just like you have killed Iraqi's. He had threatened Americans with violence just as you had threatened and continue to threaten Iraqis with violence. And if I recall correctly, the threats to the US didn't come until after the US rushed in to liberate Kuwait.
But, I thought you just said that he had already killed Americans, before you said "Kuwait" was when he first threatened us?

"Norman, compute!"
Sure he had supported terrorists, but you supported him in the first instance. What does that make you?
Self-correcting.
And he attempted to assasinate Bush Snr? Really? Amazing! It didn't even make the news here. I honestly had no idea that there was an assasination attempt on old George. Or do you mean when he said that he'd like to kill old George? Hardly an attempt. Big exaggeration on your part there wouldn't you say? Are you following the Bush line of 'he wanted to kill my daddy'?
Ouch. You better ask for a tuition refund. You've been left out of the information loop.

Even I'm pissed for you.
He attacked you? Ohhh you mean he attacked you after you bombed him when he'd invaded Kuwait. And as for the US POW's... Do you really want to go there after the damning reports of how you have treated Iraqi POW's? And please show me a report where Saddam actually went to the US or anywhere else and tried to kill a US President.
You're drone-like behavior has me thinking you're not nearly as engaging as I first estimated.

I blame the local demographic (while I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt). Don't disappoint me. Recover well.
Who says you won't one day? Who's to know?
I can't believe you think we eat our babies. Then you speak.

So, why not? Your all acting little different from inert proteins available to opportunistic harvesters. Easy marks, easy meal.

Good choice.

Thank you for your participation.
“
Yet the US is sooo friendly with the Saudi's.
Let me guess: You paid money to see Moore's 9/11?

Ouch.
The French attacked you? In the last 20 years? Really? When and how?
How's the weather on Mars? Got that tuition refund yet? There must be more to history than has been revealed to you. Where's your skeptical sense of open-minded curiosity?
So now Bin Ladin may not exist at all or might be invisible? Strange... his images on his video's appear to be real enough.
Ah, Photoshop == Real.

That will be $100.00. Thank you.

I accept Visa, Mastercard, or American Express.

And I'll issue you a 1098-T, for your freely offered payment of tuition.

So now...
So now? Who cares? You're no longer refreshing.

One more fornula drone.

Sue your university.

I'm not going to find the outcome terribly compelling, either way.

Mr.G:

You seem to have a policy of "When you can't answer the question, divert to something else, or post a non sequitur".

It is endearing, but rather transparent.

James R,
Maybe if Bush suddenly turned over a new leaf,...
And you're a self-respecting physicist? Ouch.
... became less under the influence of the religious right,...
The same religious Right that's openly complaining that he is inadequately representing their narrow self-interests?
...got himself a new cabinet,[;/quote]
Voters, and non-voters, don't choose cabinets. Presidents recommend, congresses confirm.

Spectators play no role. ;)
[quote]...started participating for real in the United Nations, started caring about social issues in the United States...
UN ignoring of Darfur means that any UN member can ignore any domestic social issue they might want to.

It's a wonderful system.

Screw the UN, and your little dog, too.

Have I mentioned you also seem to have a large chip on your shoulder? About what, I'm not sure.

James R.:
You seem to have a policy...rather transparent.
You seem to make an insubstantial point.

Have I mentioned you also seem to have a large chip on your shoulder? About what, I'm not sure.
And that makes your initial assertion of high confidence exactly how?

I'd have taken out Saddam as the defender of my family, my friends, my co-workers, my fellow citizens, and also to really, really piss off the French -- while, at the same time, selling to them the world's largest supply of Viagra.

Awww... aren't you the superman wannabe now....

But, I thought you just said that he had already killed Americans, before you said "Kuwait" was when he first threatened us?

"Norman, compute!"
Superman wannabe with a reading comprehension problem it seems. Would you like me to use smaller words? Yes Mr. G, he killed Americans after you originally invaded him for invading Kuwait. Tit for tat. You shoot at them, they shoot at you. Usually happens in a war.

Self-correcting.
If that's what you want to call it, sure. You made a booboo and now you're finding out that the whiteout just won't cut it.

Ouch. You better ask for a tuition refund. You've been left out of the information loop.

Even I'm pissed for you.
No proper answer so you resort to childish insults Mr. G?

I'm sure if there was an assasination attempt on old George, there'd be reports on it, don't you think? There's a difference between saying you'd want to kill someone and actually attempting to kill that someone. Maybe you should learn the difference.

You're drone-like behavior has me thinking you're not nearly as engaging as I first estimated.

I blame the local demographic (while I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt). Don't disappoint me. Recover well.
Again, can't answer the question? Why not? You were the one to say that he attacked you first. If you can't back it up, then don't say it in the first place.

I can't believe you think we eat our babies. Then you speak.

So, why not? Your all acting little different from inert proteins available to opportunistic harvesters. Easy marks, easy meal.

Good choice.

Thank you for your participation.
Hmmmm... It appears as though you're having some sort of mental meltdown. Maybe you should take some quiet time to try to regroup.

Let me guess: You paid money to see Moore's 9/11?
Actually no.

How's the weather on Mars? Got that tuition refund yet? There must be more to history than has been revealed to you. Where's your skeptical sense of open-minded curiosity?
I'd like you to teach me Mr. G. Tell me when the French launched an attack on the US in the last 20 years. Since you know so much, dazzle me with your knowledge of history. Otherwise I'll really start to think that you're just another conspiracy nut who actually calls his french fries 'freedom fries'.

/sometimes_useful_pedant_gene_unnecessarily_on_by_a ctual_request
Awww... aren't you the superman wannabe now....
I'm nobody.

So, why do you personally know to hope that superman wannabe-ism can be a usefully effective psychological tool against your lessers, and not also know how to actually recognize them?

Superman wannabe with a reading comprehension problem it seems. Would you like me to use smaller words?
You know humor. That's in your favor.
Yes Mr. G, he killed Americans after you originally invaded him for invading Kuwait.
And how about before then? Prove to us your scholarly, unbiased researching prowess.
If that's what you want to call it, sure. You made a booboo and now you're finding out that the whiteout just won't cut it.
If that's what you want to call it.
No proper answer so you resort to childish insults Mr. G?
Isn't that one of yours?
I'm sure if there was an assasination attempt on old George, there'd be reports on it, don't you think?
Don't you think you should engage in actual research before you presume to do more than opine? ;)
There's a difference between saying you'd want to kill someone and actually attempting to kill that someone. Maybe you should learn the difference.
This is where we ask Kerry, right?
It appears as though you're having some sort of mental meltdown. Maybe you should take some quiet time to try to regroup.
My analyst suspects you're just one more market-correcting, unemployed comedian.
Let me guess: You paid money to see Moore's 9/11?
Actually no.
Aw, you bought into it on someone else's nickel. Owning two categories of poverty, righteous.Sorry; twice not my thing.
I'd like you to teach me Mr. G.
Obviously not.
/sometimes_useful_pedant_gene_off

Mr. G:

And you're a self-respecting physicist?

Yes.

Ouch.

Something hurting?

The same religious Right that's openly complaining that he is inadequately representing their narrow self-interests?

No, the other Religious Right.

Voters, and non-voters, don't choose cabinets. Presidents recommend, congresses confirm.

Precisely.

UN ignoring of Darfur means that any UN member can ignore any domestic social issue they might want to.

Please explain to me how you reached that conclusion. It could be interesting.

It's a wonderful system.

Could be better.

Screw the UN, and your little dog, too.

No thankyou.

James R,
Yes.
In that, you have my vote.
Something hurting?
Anesthetized?
No, the other Religious Right.
Occam's Razor Violation! Intiate self-destruct sequence...
Please explain to me how you reached that conclusion.
Please list those UN member states with actual peace-keeping citizens on the ground in Sudan-- only those actually doing something mitigationally useful.
No thankyou.
I can relate to that.

keep up with the one liners, it is beautiful! :) :m:

just 2 days to go:)

Don't you think you should engage in actual research before you presume to do more than opine? ;)

So now a plot to use a car bomb is an attempt? Hmmmm...

If I recall correctly, reports at the time stated that the plot was just that... a plot. The alleged suspects detained by the Kuwaiti's were thought to have been tortured to force them to confess to plotting to put the car bomb on a street that would have been approximately 500 yards or so away from the Bush motorcade. As anyone with a brain can attest to, confessions given during torture can rarely be relied upon.

just 2 days to go:)
Thank God! If I have to listen to or see one more political ad, I'm going to scream.

And on the election front, has anyone seen or heard of this from the Family First Party?

FAMILY First, the party backed by the Assemblies of God, has confirmed it will not swap preferences with lesbian Queensland Liberal candidate Ingrid Tall or parliamentary secretary Warren Entsch, who supports gay marriage.

However, Family First said it would swap preferences with Ross Cameron, the Liberal MP for Parramatta who last week moved out of his family home after publicly confessing to an affair while his wife was pregnant with twins.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Family First has raised $1 million to contest its first federal election, personally brokering a deal with the Prime Minister to give the Coalition its lower-house preferences in exchange for input on family policies.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C5744%2C10902379%255E2702%2C00.html

Please tell me these peons aren't serious. And how could Howard not step away from a party that refuses to even give preferences to his party members because one is gay and the other supports gay marriage? So much for supporting your party members and standing side by side with them. Howard is so keen on retaining his leadership that he's selling out members of his own party. Disgusting...

Howard is on record as saying he would rather give preferences to Family First than to the Greens. Of course, in this election, the Greens are much more likely to take votes from the Liberal Party than Family First is.

I will be putting Family First second-last in my electorate, narrowly in front of the Citizen's Electoral Council. At least Family First is up front about what they stand for. The CEC is a front for all kinds of bizarre and divisive policies. They are a bunch of nutters who make even Family First look almost sane.

By the way, when you're voting for the Senate, beware of the many groups who seem to be Family First/CEC under other names. These include:

Liberals for Forests: These people are certainly NOT liberals, in any sense. Check them out.
Australian Progressive Alliance: Not progressive in any way. Rather, regressive.
Non-custodial Parents: These are people with FF-style views who the courts obviously judged as not the best people to be bringing up their own children.
Ex-servicemen/Veterans party: Presumably a bunch of "older" FF people, given their platform.

Actually, while I'm on this...

The following web page has the "Group Voting Tickets" of all parties in the election, listed by state for the Senate election. It makes for interesting reading.

http://www.aec.gov.au/election2004/candidates/index.htm

If you want to know where your senate preferences will go if you put a "1" above the line on your Senate ballot, check out the Group Voting ticket for whichever party you're interested in. (I'll be voting below the line.)

This is a good way to get around the rhetoric and see which parties are truly aligned with which other parties, too.

Democracy in action: You don't have to agree to love it.

Ballots, not bullets.

the elections tomorrow, right?

Good luck to Mr. Latham tomorrow !!!!! :D

No prizes for guessing which party Marsoups will be voting for. :)

WCF: Yes, it is.

james i have to say i agree with marsoups

good luck labor
and the greens and democrats

to add to that list is the DLP and one nation:p

I heard on the radio this afternoon that the Greens are in a very good position to take some seats, some away from the Libs. David Koche also stated that while the Coalition would probably be returned, Howard's and Abbotts seats would be very close and it could result in Howard and/or Abbott losing their seats. I had a quiet chuckle in the car as I was stuck in traffic as I heard him say this on the radio. I would cherish the look on Howard's face if his party won the election and he and Abbott did not win their seats. Just the thought of it brings a smile to my face.

And James, I did hear that Howard would prefer to give preferences to the Family First Party then the Greens. Bad move from where I'm sitting. Australians have always seemed to back away from overly religious groups like the Family First Party and their views stated over the last week have been so out there that it would turn a lot of people off, even the conservatives. My other half's parents are extremely conservative and they feel disgusted by the views put forward by Family First. They hate the Greens but were saying last night that they'd prefer to put Greens ahead of Family First. The other half nearly fell off his chair in shock... lol..

And I agree with you James, it's best to vote below the line for the Senate, because of the way the preferences are being worked out to make sure that my vote goes for the party I wish to vote for.

And WCF, yes the election is tomorrow. And I also have to agree with Marsoups, I just hope the Coalition don't win, and if they do win, I just hope Howard and/or Abbott lose their seats.

hey bell

who do you think is worse abott or howard?

Either or. Both are bad. Howard is a compulsive liar and Abbott is too smarmy and... well.. he reminds me of a rat with those beady little eyes of his. I can't stand either of them. I actually prefer Costello to Howard and Abbott. I mean I dislike Costello but I'd actually trust him over Howard and his little lacky, Abbott. I can still remember Costello's speech about becoming a republic... hehehe.. when he commented on why the Queen should not be our Head of State. Howard and Bishop looked as though they were going to have a fit. Was highly amusing.

im praying to God that the greens win, that would fix our country up a tad

but i think that Lathm will win

Lets hope that it is Latham alain.

I just wished they'd run a better campaign. Very little has been made of the children overboard debarcle and of the children in detention camps controversy. It's all too late now, but so much more could have been done. I just hate how the campaigns on both sides became so personal and petty during the last two weeks. It all went the way of childhood playground taunting at the end, as all election campaigns do in the end I guess, but it was ridiculous.

I'm just glad it's all over actually. If I have to see Howard or Latham fawning over yet another baby in a shopping centre, I'd probably vomit.

LOL very funny Bells :D

Yeh I felt Latham's campaign was pretty weak in general.

Too much of bring out new policy, howard attacks or betters policy, latham defends attack and nudges Howard and says why his policy is better (not well mind u), costello and various other liberal henchmen attack latham's policy, Latham releases new policy and the cycle repeats again. There was a lot of bighting going on there and Latham unfortunately was relatively unconvincing and uncharismatic, in fact he allowed the opportunity for the scare campaign to actually work on people.
Just about every Joe you speak to says "interest rates" is what they're worried about. The fear tactics have been a great success.

I just wish the democrats would get a decent leader and just take over these two terrible parties to be honest! The greens will never make it into power but the democrats have got great environmental inclinations in fact they've got a lot of potential.

I think we're up for another 3 years of a country that doesn't give care too much care about the environment.. ..... Just because some people are making stacks of money for themselves with our precious forests and they want to be able to afford their precious flight into space and luxury holiday in Hawaii or something...

Did any of you read that some African women just got a Nobel peace prize for planting new forests in Kenya to replace the empty land where the forests used to grow...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11013245%255E1702,00.html

yea if we have to have a libral let it be costello at least then the republic will get off the ground

hey did anyone see the libral add about voting for the greens?

"a vote for the greens is a vote for latham"
next line
"somethings latham will be forced to compromise on by the greens"
"heron injecting rooms" YAYYYYYYYYYY these should have been active 3 years ago
"decrimnalising drugs" finally it will be a health problem rather than a crime problem
"regulating the exstacy surplie" not sure how they would do this but if it stops all those killer drugs being sold as e pills then good on them

and howard thinks this will STOP me voting for latham and the greens???????????

well heres how i voted

greens
democrats
labor
then i put the libs and everyone else

go labor:)

The only constant in Nature is 'change'.

Change begets change.

Good luck.

Caveat emptor.

I know how I'll be voting in the aftermath.

Just returned from voting. I'm in a new electorate compared to last election. I've always lived in safe Liberal seats, so my vote has never made much difference to the outcome of the election. In my current electorate, things might be different!

Ah, the joys of democracy. Rah rah rah.

Yeah I've just returned from voting. I actually managed to make through the throng of 'how to vote' flyer givers outside the voting centre and I wasn't even arrested and I managed to not take a single one thrust in my face as I tried to squeeze my way through the throng. There seems to be more and more of the vultures each year.

And I must add that if the Senate voting sheet gets any wider we'll need wider voting booths.

I wonder who Porfiry is voting for... can he vote in the Australian elections?

no he cant

not unless he is an australian citizan

bell i admit i colected them all (because my mum asked me to bring them home for my sister, she needed to go through it before she got there) and what do you mean IF they get any wider

bloody hell, i was in a corner between 2 other people (think american phone thingys except bent so basically your shoulder to shoulder) and it kept sliding off the both while i was trying to do the house

B\W guys what seats are you in? (just so i can see if your votes counted when they do the tally on the ABC)

im in Deaken, DOWN WITH PHIL BARASSIE (i have actually met my local member a few times and i despise him, and not just because he is a libral)

So did Howard win?

WCF

its only 430 in the afternoon (Easten standered time)

polls close at 600, so perth wont close for hrs

THEN they start counting, if its close we could not know untill tomorow, we wont know some seats for a week

My voting booth certainly wasn't wide enough to spread out the Senate ballot.

I stood there filling in all the little boxes from 1 to 65, while about 20 people came and went next to me, filling in their 1s above the line.

You have to be dedicated!

I think they start counting the Eastern states before the Western ones have closed. They have a media black out until their polls close, though.

Not that that stops somebody on the East coast phoning the West with the preliminary results....

yea but you cant get a result till the votes have stoped everywhere

what seat you in james?

I'd rather not say, Asguard. It would give away the location of my secret bat cave.

fair enough:p

Howard won, sorry you all. :(

For those that did not want Howard to win, I can only say you should be a pessimist like me, that why the inevitable defeat will not seem bad: you saw it coming and you were ready for it without hope. To me Howard’s victory is proof positive that Bush and Blair will win. I have no doubt now. :)

So, it would appear that Australia has made its choice, and put this ship of fools into proper perspective. ;)

G'day, mates. :D

Unbelievable!

Had Labor not given its preferences to the right-wing parties, the Coalition would not be in a place to also have a majority in the Senate. Christ, even the Democrats gave some of their preferences to the Family First Party in the Senate and now with the Coalition having claimed 38 seats in the Upper House, and with Family First possibly being in a position to claim one seat, the Government will have a majority in the Upper House. Labor and the Democrats will rue the day they preferenced the conservatives and the coalition, especially when Telstra is sold. They'll have no one to blame but themselves.

So basically the Liberal and National parties not only remained in power in the Prime Minister seat but also took the House and Senate?

I have to admit, it does come as somewhat of a relief.
Seeing Asguard and co. in here was a bit of a jolt - for a while there, I was thinking that perhaps they did represent a majority.

I don't think I would have liked being French.

i cant belive how stupid we are

how can anyone trust howard yet thats who they voted for, congrats Mr G, i guess we really are the 50 whatever state of the US

bloody hell, i should move to the land of the sheep lovers, at least they vote for there own country and not to join another

bloody hell, i should move to the land of the sheep lovers, at least they vote for there own country and not to join another
I've read that your compatriates warn to avoid sheep with a spray-painted "X" -- they kick their 'lovers'.

No wonder you want to be alone.

Please Asguard... if you're going to threaten moving to another country, at least make good on it. It would help clean up the gene pool just that little bit more.

so thats howards plan, he acts as stupidly as he can, and then all the smart people leave the country so he gets all the votes from the idiots

good points of this election
*greens did well
*one nation is basically dead

bad points
*liberals got re-elected
*the family first, lesbians dead party did well
*a majority in the senate can be reached by a combination of the coalition and the christian fundies that call themselves family first
*my dream of getting a medical degree is down the drain (Howard is gonna increase its price tag by approx $2500 a year, shit


ladies and gentlemen, our country is fucked

thank you australia

all those bills that the greens labor and the democrats blocked for us and now passed

oh and any chance of heroin injecting rooms, legalising weed or helping the police keep those pills they CLAIM are e pills out of the hands of young kids is gone, and so is any chance of the republic, reconciliation, and gay marages

So that was your platform.
Gay marriage, free rides for university students and free heroin and extasy if you could swing it. Now there's a country with a future.

"*my dream of getting a medical degree is down the drain (Howard is gonna increase its price tag by approx $2500 a year, shit"

Which you don't need to pay until after you begin working, and then only 3% of your income after you begin to earn 30k per annum or more.

In the meantime, if you're too lazy to get a job you can complain about the free Austudy they give you which, although adequate to survive on, puts you below the poverty line. I suppose you should be paid an average wage while studying as well?
We won't mention how much doctors actually earn, will we? God forbid you should actually have to pay them back, it might mean you have to drive a falcon instead of a BMW.

Bloody whingers.

Ahhh, the curse of being a hard winner. Why else so much moaning from those who support the winners?

I don't think Australia is fuck, you have to live in a 3rd world country to understand what “fucked” is. Take my motherland of Venezuela, by comparison all the crap here in the states in nothing!

But moving to New Zealand is not a bad idea, I hear it really nice there and the sheep loving problem (probably because there are many more sheep per person then people there) is not a problem unless you partake in it.

oh and any chance of heroin injecting rooms, legalising weed or helping the police keep those pills they CLAIM are e pills out of the hands of young kids is gone, and so is any chance of the republic, reconciliation, and gay marages
Ermmm Asguard, those pills are ecstasy pills and I don't think the majority of Australians would feel comfortable at the thought of children having better access to ecstasy tablets or heroin. As for the chance of a Republic, we had a chance and we blew it because we didn't like the model proposed by the Government. Instead of just voting yes the first time and then lobbying to change the proposed model and having a chance at a Republic, for some reason we voted no, so blame the Australian people for that.

Gay marriage, free rides for university students and free heroin and extasy if you could swing it. Now there's a country with a future.
I'd always picked you as a conservative Wolfy, but I would never have picked you as that much of a conservative.

And what would be wrong with gay marriages and free university? One would result in equal rights and the other would mean that the kids wouldn't have a HECS debt looming over their heads when they start working. Not that I blame the Liberals for introducing the damn fees for university students in the first place, but they could have not made it worse by increasing it as much as they did.

bell the reason i havent said it because it was a while ago and i cant rember