Effects of an Entirely Labor Australia? (1 Viewer)

[circusmind]

Uh uh. True shit.

Labor loathe the yanks, or so it would seem. So if they got in power I wouldn't be surprised if Ruddy and Bushy had a tiff with each other, resulting in our nations going their separate ways...

Please go and read Rudd's foreign policy position in the last edition of The Diplomat. You are horribly misinformed.

 

[thebeardedlady]

Bring in Julia Gilliard!.

Now, I love big red as much as any other cynical, legal studies taking, gay, environmentalist, left wing member of young labor.
Which is alot.

But Big Red, will never get in.
She's a woman.
The only other women democratically elected to lead westernized countries are Margaret Thatcher, and Helen Clarke... and people refer to them as Sir.
She's from the left.
Flaw in a center political system.
She's from the ALP.
And finally:
Howard. Wants. Her. Dead.

Now, just one other thing as I strain from refraining on commenting on every post made.

Rudd seems to have any opinion on everything. Even on Australia's involvement in cricket in zimbabwe. He's fallen into the same trap that Beazely did. Doing things and saying thing simply because he thinks its what an opposition leader would do, and people are quick to pick up on this. Much like when they view ads on TV... They always view them as being Ads, with the ultimate goal of getting money. The moment people start viewing him as saying things simply to get votes, he loses support.

Wrong.

I can think of ten lies off the top of my head, that John Howard has made. Here's a hypothetical.

John Howard makes 'Statement A'.
John Howard gets votes.
'Statement A' proves to be false, and something contradictory occurs.

How long has this been happening now?
Since 1996.
So much for your "the electorate being quick to pick up on things" theory.

 

[jimmayyy]

I can think of ten lies off the top of my head, that John Howard has made. Here's a hypothetical.

John Howard makes 'Statement A'.
John Howard gets votes.
'Statement A' proves to be false, and something contradictory occurs.

How long has this been happening now?
Since 1996.
So much for your "the electorate being quick to pick up on things" theory.

while the first part of this post disqualifies your opinion from holding any gravitas whatsoever, i am interested to see if you are able to back up such a claim.

please list these ten lies in chronological order, citing any references and sourcing any quotes accurately

i await your reply with great anticipation

 

[han-]

BritneySpears more like Indian Princess?

 

[thebeardedlady]

please list these ten lies in chronological order, citing any references and sourcing any quotes accurately

i await your reply with great anticipation

currently rummaging through federal hansard, and varying media sources for quotes.
will have it to you soon.
but if you'd like a brief overview:

1. Medicare: Bulk Billing.
2. Medicare and Private Health
3. Foreign Debt
4. Iraq: Weapons of Mass Destruction
5. Welfare Cuts
6. Parlimentary Sitting Periods
7. Parlimentary Commitee reforms
8. Children Over Board
9. Aged Care and Pension Claw Backs
10. 2004 Federal Election: Interest Rates

 

[jimmayyy]

currently rummaging through federal hansard, and varying media sources for quotes.
will have it to you soon.
but if you'd like a brief overview:

1. Medicare: Bulk Billing.
2. Medicare and Private Health
3. Foreign Debt
4. Iraq: Weapons of Mass Destruction
5. Welfare Cuts
6. Parlimentary Sitting Periods
7. Parlimentary Commitee reforms
8. Children Over Board
9. Aged Care and Pension Claw Backs
10. 2004 Federal Election: Interest Rates

how explicit

4. oh not this old one. all intelligence in the entire western world, like it or not, pointed to the fact he was building up arms. how is it howards fault if every single person before him got it wrong? i know he is the leader and that, but far out, he cant wipe everyones arse for them

10. he doesnt control the banks, either

ill wait for sources and quotes on the rest, because so far u have just listed 8 other events/issues and nothing else.

 

[frog12986]

currently rummaging through federal hansard, and varying media sources for quotes.
will have it to you soon.
but if you'd like a brief overview:

1. Medicare: Bulk Billing.
2. Medicare and Private Health
3. Foreign Debt
4. Iraq: Weapons of Mass Destruction
5. Welfare Cuts
6. Parlimentary Sitting Periods
7. Parlimentary Commitee reforms
8. Children Over Board
9. Aged Care and Pension Claw Backs
10. 2004 Federal Election: Interest Rates

I believe you said 'off the top of my head'...

As for Medicare, it has been continually strengthened with record Bulk Billing levels for many age groups across the country. St. Kevin also stated when Foreign Affairs spokesman that the intelligence suggested that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which is why he is not contesting the reasons for going to war in the first place.

 

[wheredanton]

Australian/US relations would be shot to shit

ALP governments of the past have been close allies of the US. Latham was a bad abberation. Rudd knows the US alliance is critical to Australia and isn't going to undo 60 years of history.

 

[ogmzergrush]

A sub-debate on election promises that have turned out to be blatantly misleading or which we're still waiting on?

Short memory indeed.

 

[TwoNiner]

Please go and read Rudd's foreign policy position in the last edition of The Diplomat. You are horribly misinformed.

Would you care to inform me then, please?

It's one thing to say 'ohh go read such and such', but it's another to actually front up and tell me what you mean...So please, what does The Diplomat say?

Thanks in advance...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

So please, what does The Diplomat say?

Well if what it says means that you're horribly misinformed on the issue and your take on it is that the US/AU alliance would be weaker under rudd then it's pretty easy to put it together and realise it means Rudd is keen on the US/AU alliance and is fairly hawkish.

 

[circusmind]

Would you care to inform me then, please?

It's one thing to say 'ohh go read such and such', but it's another to actually front up and tell me what you mean...So please, what does The Diplomat say?

Thanks in advance...

Rudd basically says that the American alliance is vital to Australian interests and he will continue to keep it in good repair. His point of difference with Howard is that he supports a more multilateral diplomatic style--engaging Asia and the South Pacific positively while still keeping the traditional US alliance running smoothly.

He's obviously especially knowledgeable in this field, so naturally his actual policy is fairly well thought-through and frankly, impressive. Rudd is no maverick on foreign policy.

 

[jb_nc]

1. Iraq: Weapons of Mass Destruction

1. 
   
   What the fuck? Kevin Rudd and the Labor party acknowledged Iraq was meant to have WMDs. As did Britain. So did France and Germany. Hell, just about everyone thought they did. Stop bringing up that stupid point (or save it for your Socialist Alliance meetings).

 

[thebeardedlady]

What the fuck? Kevin Rudd and the Labor party acknowledged Iraq was meant to have WMDs. As did Britain. So did France and Germany. Hell, just about everyone thought they did. Stop bringing up that stupid point (or save it for your Socialist Alliance meetings).

While everyone thought Iraq had WMDs, one of the first points of argument for the War in Iraq were those weapons of mass destruction. John Howard in a Speech to Parliament on February 4th 2003:

"Iraq will not only keep her current weapons but add to them. Saddam Hussein will not abandon his chemical and biological
weapons programs. He will keep striving to build a nuclear capacity. And he will almost certainly, at some time in the future, use these weapons to fulfil his ambition to dominate his region."
​

​

​

(Full Speech available in the Day's Hansard: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr040203.pdf )

So John Howard seemed pretty sure there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq's arsenal.
And now, more then four years after he made that claim, the global population still has no evidence of any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in their aresenal.

And so, everyone lied about it. Does that makes it okay?
I personally think it's incredibly unaustralian.

 

[frog12986]

And so, everyone lied about it. Does that makes it okay?
I personally think it's incredibly unaustralian.

There is a big difference between a lie and false assumptions.
As most would know, if there is an element of incredibility or unreliability in relation to a single piece of information in the intelligence cycle, it can greatly distort the ability to firstly effectively analyse and subsequently disseminate appropriate information.

There are no questions that the intelligence relied upon were greatly misleading, however to suggest that the world leaders (and oppositions) blatantly lied is misleading in itself.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Oh for fuck's sake frog, the man invaded a country killing thousands of people with inadequate evidence. Stop mustering up pathetic excuses and bite the fucking bullet. He didn't lie outright, so what, it doesn't make one shithouse of a change.

the welfare state

Oh heavens no. God forbid the day when the government whose SOLE purpose can all be drawn down to providing welfare for its citizens.

 

[frog12986]

Oh for fuck's sake frog, the man invaded a country killing thousands of people with inadequate evidence. Stop mustering up pathetic excuses and bite the fucking bullet. He didn't lie outright, so what, it doesn't make one shithouse of a change.



Oh heavens no. God forbid the day when the government whose SOLE purpose can all be drawn down to providing welfare for its citizens.

And the best form of welfare a government can provide to it's people is income and employment; income generated via the incentive and opportunity to work not through the burdensome policies of the welfare state. Policies that ultimately create dependent and economically downtrodden societies.

Are you also saying that Kevin Rudd lied in relation to Iraq? Is he as equally as culpable for believing any such misinformation?

Why is it you always launch into these irrational tirades? It seems when you lack substance you attack the person. It's definitely becoming a regular occurrence in relation to a number of members..

n.b. I also feel touched that I qualified for the 'smelly jerks' list.

 

[kokodamonkey]

Oh for fuck's sake frog, the man invaded a country killing thousands of people with inadequate evidence. Stop mustering up pathetic excuses and bite the fucking bullet. He didn't lie outright, so what, it doesn't make one shithouse of a change.

i hope your not referring to howard, because he didnt lie.

Oh heavens no. God forbid the day when the government whose SOLE purpose can all be drawn down to providing welfare for its citizens.

Your right, lets just abolish welfare

 

[TwoNiner]

Thanks for the info further above, circusmind.

Just as a hypothetical though, if the AUS/US relationship deteriorated for one reason or another, would Rudd make as overt an effort to save the relationship as much as Howard would no doubt make?

 

[kokodamonkey]

Thanks for the info further above, circusmind.

Just as a hypothetical though, if the AUS/US relationship deteriorated for one reason or another, would Rudd make as overt an effort to save the relationship as much as Howard would no doubt make?

no. i believe labour fail to see how important it is.