Search results

You failed to bold, when they're clearly the best act playing there, aside Public Enemy. I only hope this is through ignorance. Give 100 Days 100 Nights a download - excellent album.

There are some incredibly shit posters in this folder. You're really right up there.

But none of that says why he's no good as a minister, as you claim. You certainly can't think him any worse than Meagher? As I said, his private life is irrelevant in judging his capabilities as a Minister. Thomas Jefferson, for example, fucked regularly a slavegirl 30 years his younger - a shit...

Probably someone who recognised he was a good, compotent minister, regardless of what you/they might think of his personal life?

We wouldn't catch you doing that.

An independent? You're loving your unsubstantiated statements, hey.

eg. 1969 Liberals, 1940 UAP? It at least happened in the latter case, but, as I've said, whoever gets the majority vote should win the election (and electorate distribution should be as such). Silly error on my part. That is an argument, but I'd say it's wrong. Healthy democracy shouldn't...

While he's not right-wing himself, that was his faction. It's just that the Labor Right has become more conservative since then. Chifley also was from the Right, and he tried to nationalise the banks, which is again not exactly a right-wing agenda. Nevertheless, that was their Labor faction...

Disagreed. Given you're, in the Iemma thread, advocating the Labor government to go, surely you should be supporting a system that doesn't so easily allow incumbent governments to hang around forever? Also, a large problem with it is the unfair weighting given to urban areas so their seats are...

I'm pretty sure you'll find Whitlam was from the Right. Last from the Left, at a national level, was John Curtin. Who was quite the abomination, you know. On a state level, Anna Bligh's from the Left.

While I actually do think the GST was probably the best of all Howard's policies, I disagree - whoever has the majority should win. And given his 1998-2001 term would begin his going from conservative to radical regressive I certainly wish Beazley'd won. And come now, the other examples are...

I agree, hence my hope in Rees has been that he picks a different ministry. In the sense of senior figures, he seems to have done so - only Kenneally, Roozendaal and Tripodi remain so far as shitty party hacks remain, and I'm disappointed he's conceded that. A 1996 Hawke vs Howard is...

1998, 1990, 1969, 1961, 1954 and 1940. Ours is a very flawed system like that, and it seems to happen far more frequently than in America.

Tripodi's said to be staying in the ministry. Now that leaves me a little worried. Sartor to go, which I think he's a mistake - terribly corrupt, no doubt, but he's a very compotent organiser. I'd have kept him for some ministry wherein he won't be susceptible to bribes.

Really? I don't think I would've in the past year, at least. And before then I doubt I'd have gushed, just more proclaimed them the lesser of two evils.

Even if they all did stay on, who springs to mind as being more compotent than someone you'd feel, presumably, neutral about? Tebbutt or Watkins would've been my preference, but I'd take neutral over negatives like Iemma, Costa, Sartor, Meagher, Tripodi etc. Is that who you'd honestly...

It's not. I take it more as people going "Hey, that's not a run-of-the-mill job for a politician. And it's a very working-class job that will appeal to a good number of Labor supporters. It also seems kind of Chifley-esque in his being a train driver (though that was seen as a pretty decent job...

And people say state Labor has no chance of improving.

Brilliant.

Farewell Iemma - the greatest Premier NSW has ever had.