Oh wow, rly? I had no idea it was so common.spiny norman said: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.
She's part of Assemblies of God, the equivalent here would be Hillsong. I had an acquaintance, a Hillsong faithful, that tried to kill himself by speeding down the M2 because he couldn't hack being gay. I don't think this kind of stuff happening is uncommon for young gays in AoGMissSarajevo said:
Lol that's hardly that crazy. Catholics even let them enter the clergy if they convince the Bishop over 2 years that they wouldnt act on it. But it would always be bad policy for everyone involved to encourage homosexuals to attempt a heterosexual life.MissSarajevo said:
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.Iron said:Liberal democracy is a lot more than the mob. The incumbent must have some secuirty to make unpopular decisions. Deposing of a government should have overwhelming consensus, not just 50.1%
There are always minority rights at stake which are worth protecting!
Kimbo was probably right to lose 98 because the GST has proven essential (perhaps even insufficient) to the states, who have defered the power to levy an income tax since ww2 and therefore scramble for nasty little taxes like excise and stamp duties and yer
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 smaller than city seats, hence why all but 1990 of the examples given of the party with the less votes winning were conservative party victories. For the current system to work, equity should be the aim for seat sizes.Iron said:It should be hard to displace the incumbent. The process should be slightly rigged against the Opposition -and it is. Stablity is the real aim of government.
Come now, he wanted to ban the Communist Party. That's fucked, no matter how much you may want to praise him as the nation's greatest Prime Minister (sending Australia into three wars = greatness?).And lol at calling Menzies 'mad' compared to Evatt.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Feels good, dont it?sam04u said:It's not their fault they were bred through television and movies to be imbeciles. The American population is largely stupid and uneducated, and that's the way the government likes it.
Not really. It actually really sucks.Iron said:Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Feels good, dont it?
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).Iron said:NSW Labor is an example of when a government stops being the defender of stability and therefore must be turfed.
Silly error on my part. That is an argument, but I'd say it's wrong. Healthy democracy shouldn't allow any one person's vote to be more important than another's.And I assume you mean unfair weighting to RURAL seats? That's true enough, but I think that there's an arguement that rural Australians bear the brunt of making the economy go - whether in mining or agriculture. THey are the foundations of our prosperity. The cities are just parasites - gaping sores to their honest labour.
But he sent our forces to Europe, leaving us completely open to Japanese attack? Curtin had to come in and save us from this massive hole in our own country's defence. I don't mind our involvement in WWII, it's actually the one time in our history I feel we were absolutely right to fight, but it shouldn't have been for the vast majority of our troops in Europe.How dare you blight Menzies for 'sending us to war'. You appeasing worm. You think he provoked the Japanese attack!? THere was a way out? My God boyu@! Korea and Vietnam were largely fought for us. Leaving aside whether the US was right, it was absolutely right for us to support them. We had practically no alternative.
I'd always thought you were being facetious in your McCain fandom. McCain is not better for Australia's interests. He'll keep government spending through the roof in this Iraq occupation, which is going to continue to send America's economy down the shitter and take Australia's with it. Obama's not really a secret Indonesian Muslim spy who's going to take over America when he comes to government. He was on the other side of the country campaigning when Rudd was in Washington! They have spoken via telephone a number of times. Australia is America's greatest ally in this area, and would be helped by any American leader in the highly unlikely event of our being attacked. Surely Obama, who'll end America's commitment to Iraq, will have a better numbered force available to come to Australia's aid than McCain?This is really why I support McCain - it's in Australia's interests. Never mind America. Obama was schooled in shifty Indonesia, his campaign basically started with an attack on Australian troop committments as cowardly and hypocritical, and he refused to see Rudd. McCain by contrast gave generous time to Australian journos on his trip, met Rudd, and talks fondly of our alliance and the time his grandfather was stationed here during the war. Objectively, McCain is better for us. I doubt that he'd hesitate for a second to help us out. Honestly, I really think that Obama threatens the strength of the alliance.