Liberal/Labor: Whats The MAJOR difference? (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

Sorry? You're getting me mixed up : confused :

Ok, lets get this clear.
After some research, I realised that Beazley was never a PM.

But at times when Labor was still in power, Johnny at that time, I don't know what his position in the Liberal was, but he critisiced Kim Beazley about interest rates (should be regarding an increase in interest rates).
And that's the story.
Johnny was even wearing a pair of glasses that's enough to cover a quater of his face! So it gotta be long ago.

Source ?

 

[Arvin Sloane]

if labor and antilabor united there would be a terrible clash of matter and then the world would explode in a lot of white goo.

dont you be talking to waf while im reading what your saying to waf.

 

[berry580]

Kim Beazley is fat and therefore untrustworthy.

Oh..... so no wonder everyone trusts Bush but not Hussein................... * What a breakthrough!! *

 

[zahid]

Kim Beazley is fat and therefore untrustworthy.

CBUST .

 

[withoutaface]

How do you know that 2 x 2 = 4 and not 9?
You assume what is taught is correct.

How do you know its 1-2-3-4-5 and not 1-2-3-9-5?
Once again........................ * someone tell that dude for me please *

Because we define it to be so. There is no truth in mathematics until after we expand the axioms.

 

[berry580]

Way to miss the point, doofus.

I was right on target.
If you don't get it, then I only have I thing to say to you.
Think again.
If you still don't get it, refer to the phrase above.

If you still don't get it, look at the description of you here

 

[berry580]

Source ?

Like I said, its from Seven News from 7days a week, 6pm-6.30pm

I watched it probably on the day or 2 after the last rise in interest rates.
If you ring them up, they might be able to help you.

 

[berry580]

Because we define it to be so. There is no truth in mathematics until after we expand the axioms.

Same with this.
America and its Allies and Russia sold weapons to Iraq, and those deals obviously includes WMB (chem/bio weapons). Considering out of all the weapons sold to Iraq, a large proportion was from America, and it shouldn't be too out of the question if they were indeed from the US, would it?
So with probability, the US is known to have a 'good' chance in selling them it, so I'll assume they did it (although Russia, the allied countries all also maybe the seller), but you'll never know the truth until some classified documents come out, but it won't until another half a century at the minimum, if ever.
So I'll allow it to be so with an "educated guess" with probability aiding me in making this assumption.

In conclusion, I can still be regarded as "correct" until proven incorrect.

 

[malkin86]

It's a combination, I think, of how you see yourself, how you see Australia, and how you see the political party/individual pollie in question.

 

[loquasagacious]

Berry580 that you say it was on the news is not enough, do us the dignity of finding at least a transcript or better the source that they used.

Insofar as your postulation on mathematics: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. Because that it is what is defined as being. 0,1,2,3,9,5 is infact the same as the aforementioned string you are just asigning a different name to what we know as 4, this is no great revelation and could only ever serve to make your maths incomprehensible to anyone else.

 

[Xayma]

Mate, there's no way to even prove that Iraq even had WMD when Bush was saying "you disarm yourself or we'll disarm you".
But American invaded Iraq anyway? Why?
Because they KNOW no one can stop them.
But since they've talked things up so much, people will assume Iraq "does" have WMD and threatens them.

So grow up, that's the world, you assume things unless you can know things like how the US military can!!
But do you have the power like how they do? No you don't, so there you go.

How do you know gravity is 9.8 meter/second square?
You assume the text book is correct.

There are many experiments which you can conduct which will show that. I believe a few are conducted (or at least were by us) withinside the senior Physics Syllabus. The answer of 9.8ms^-2 was within the error margin.

How do you know that 2 x 2 = 4 and not 9?
You assume what is taught is correct.

The axioms of mathematics are set up in such a way that 2*2=4. It comes to the definitions of 2 and 4.

Addymac answered the last.

But berry580 we rely on experts to tell us, we place our trust in experts. We can never be sure what they tell us is 100% accurate. The administration also relied on these experts. Inquiries have cleared the administrators. What they went in under was an error but not by the administration.

They fucked up, they fucked up big time, however, there will always be the possibility of error. One can just look at the lives wasted throughout history due to faulty intelligence. However, the risk to ignore that intelligence was too great.

 

[loquasagacious]

Indeed the entire point of maths and science is to do things so that others can check them. The laws of science are not contrived by a bunch of scientists in a bunker. One scientist comes up with a hyopthesis and tests it. If correct he writes papers on it, other scientists replicate his experiments to check his conclusions. His theory is subjected to decades of inquiry and double-checking. Then after a great deal of time it may become a law. As a note the theory of relativity is still a theory....

 

[leetom]

If you can saving the world by invading some oil filled defenceless country because they have something that YOU sold them, then whatelse can’t be true?

Berry580, you do realise that an embarassing grammatical error is in your sig, don't you?

 

[llamalope]

I've said it before... I'll say it again.... Unless Labor develops some clearly defined... DIFFERENT policies that will differentiate it as a unit (and unless it can stop its fighting) they won't be voted in for some time yet

 

[loquasagacious]

Developing different policies would be counterproductive, that both parties have similar polices could indicate that the electorate wants policies along that same vein.... By extension differing policies would alienate the electorate.

 

[withoutaface]

Exactly, it's got to show that it's stronger than the Liberals on the existing policies.

 

[berry580]

They fucked up, they fucked up big time, however, there will always be the possibility of error. One can just look at the lives wasted throughout history due to faulty intelligence. However, the risk to ignore that intelligence was too great.

They fucked it up, fine.
Not like they insisted that their intelligence was flawless, but they fucked it up AND not suffer the consequence that they should be facing. Instead, they took advantage of their superiority and invaded the country, captured their leader, imprisoned the Iraqi soldier, torture them and western terrorists all return home as "heroes" as according to a "Times" magazine.

 

[withoutaface]

Dude you really need to get a hold of the concept of plurals.

 

[berry580]

Berry580, you do realise that an embarassing grammatical error is in your sig, don't you?

Yes I do.
But you do realise it's irrelevant, right?

But some people chose to go off topic (not refering to you, but neither am I going to name anyone) and talk my grammatical mistake, which is everything but relevant nor constructive.

Whoever that person maybe, (another grammatical mistake)--> withoutadoubt, s/he is just like the current Labor Party.

Exactly, it's got to show that it's stronger than the Liberals on the existing policies.

You're right, but too bad Labor's current leader is simply inferior to John Howard to a degree in terms of experience as a leader.

I've said it before... I'll say it again.... Unless Labor develops some clearly defined... DIFFERENT policies that will differentiate it as a unit (and unless it can stop its fighting) they won't be voted in for some time yet

Although I'm not a Liberal supporter, but as an economics student, I got to say they've done a quite "good" job. With that momentum, I don't see why would voters swing to Labor unless something dramatic happens (e.g a terror attack).

 

[Arvin Sloane]

Children! This system of politics is tearing Australia apart! We must all fall under the banner of Arvin!