Post election thoughts (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter somborac
- Start date
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
No, it doesn't [require a 'doctrinal system'] - not strictly, although that is the dictionary definition.Bone577 said:
Propaganda is anything that intends to negatively sway an opinion to a particular cause; in this case, an opposing party.
waterfowl
Member
As much as I hate USA government and our close relationship with them, if Latham had gotten into government he would have most probably turned a powerful ally against us.
I know that it sux that we are their allies but we need allies.
USA would probably have gotten so self righteous and defensive that they would have been petty and tried to "ruin" us somehow. (My opinion anyway)
I know that it sux that we are their allies but we need allies.
USA would probably have gotten so self righteous and defensive that they would have been petty and tried to "ruin" us somehow. (My opinion anyway)
Generator said:
This is a first as far as i know. Out political system was never supposed to have a clear senate majority. It is supposed to act as a regulator and check, with 50% it cannot achieve its purpose.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
It's not steady, change is happening but they are liberal policy changes which have been happening for the past 9 years, so perhaps that could be called easy going.
Maybe since you haven't been working from the labor to the liberal years you haven't noticed the changes, people are having it better and that's the reason why the liberals won.
Maybe since you haven't been working from the labor to the liberal years you haven't noticed the changes, people are having it better and that's the reason why the liberals won.
Rorix
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,818
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
you fucking idiot, US Politics DOESN'T MEAN US HISTORY.
It's like I say, let's discuss the election, and you talk about East Timor.
The topic is Bush vs Kerry. I shall be arguing for the Republicans, and ignoring the random shitty posts by idiots saying 'lol bush is a reatd lol'
It's like I say, let's discuss the election, and you talk about East Timor.
The topic is Bush vs Kerry. I shall be arguing for the Republicans, and ignoring the random shitty posts by idiots saying 'lol bush is a reatd lol'
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
No labor once had a senate majority and they did stuff it up.Bone577 said:
Kwayera said:
Yes it does require indocrination. Nazi PR was propoganda, an essay about politics writen by a uni student is not.
Propoganda is a mechanism of the powerful with no exceptions.
Persuasion is not propoganda.
waterfowl
Member
Maybe because they didn't want to vote for Latham.veanz said:
And if they were going off track record...of course they're going to vote Howard because Latham hardly has a track.
a little lost
relationships pfft
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 94
i think people are missing the curucial picture. Howard will most likely retire some time soon. And Costello will most likely move on from the treasury role.
so the future prime minister will in effect be Costello. Now despite all the things, there is actually some hope with Costello, up to this pt Howard has been the one dictating policy and despite liking Lamthan i think if one thought about it clearly he probably isn't ready, next election will seem him more adapted to the job and people will have a different view of him. And i seriously would not trust simon cream to run the tresaury.
So overall we'll just have to wait and see what Costello has to offer, there is some hope. You'll find that other moderates may be able to return to the original form if Costello takes over, like Joe Hockey, Robert Hill.
So don't despair there is some hope not the best outcome but latham needed time to learn how the game works, and 10 months really was not long enough.
And beazely would not have done any better, think about it his had two elections to prove his stuff already, just hope latham improves his shadow cabinet. by removing cream.
so the future prime minister will in effect be Costello. Now despite all the things, there is actually some hope with Costello, up to this pt Howard has been the one dictating policy and despite liking Lamthan i think if one thought about it clearly he probably isn't ready, next election will seem him more adapted to the job and people will have a different view of him. And i seriously would not trust simon cream to run the tresaury.
So overall we'll just have to wait and see what Costello has to offer, there is some hope. You'll find that other moderates may be able to return to the original form if Costello takes over, like Joe Hockey, Robert Hill.
So don't despair there is some hope not the best outcome but latham needed time to learn how the game works, and 10 months really was not long enough.
And beazely would not have done any better, think about it his had two elections to prove his stuff already, just hope latham improves his shadow cabinet. by removing cream.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
That would be true if electing the same party meant no more reform.. however it doesn't, you can continue to elect the same party for 1000 years and reform can still occur.Generator said:
Ziff
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,366
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Quotes from International Commentaries:
From my experience, I think the vast majority of Australians have a few fundamental problems;
1. No matter how much australians espouse "egalitarianism" they really don't believe in it. In theory there's a belief in a classless society, but this doesn't really mean anything when a user-pays system emerges in primary, secondary and tertiary education as well as in the health sector. If you believe you have a right to be able to pay for better treatment than the next person you have adopted the stance that a class-based society is good. To use a political tool here, that's very "unAustralian"! Yet, Howard tries to reconcile these two views through a cunning tactic, a money-based class system is OK, however, one that rewards intellectial and critical thought is not. This can be seen through the media who have no exercised criticism of the government (and to that extent have not been very critical of the opposition either). In NSW at least, the term extends to wanting to demolish State Selective Schools in some areas (this is a recurring theme in Wollongong) and yet, private schools are protected.
2. Australians have an enormous inferiority complex. They fear anyone or anything better than them in regards to sport or intellectually. This is particularly shown in the intellectual aspect, deep down they know sport doesn't beat intelligence. Hence we have the tall poppy syndrome, Australians say or at least deep down think, "Fuck, that person is smart! I hate them!" They will then make every attempt to drag them down. This may not apply to some people, particularly those in private schools or selective schools who are sheltered from such attitudes (except in the media), but it does exist and it is rife amongst the majority. I was once a victim, however, since high school I have been reasonably sheltered (as it is a selective high school).
3. Australians are on the whole ignorant. They will accept any propaganda and they refuse to check facts. They don't read widely but most importantly, on the whole - they don't care. They lack passion (the Europeans and even the Americans have passion about many subjects, particularly politics). Australians revile passion, that is why I believe a lot of attacks have been launched by the conservatives and Liberals against Latham's passionate stances and some what expressive arugments. I also think that his well considered arguments were ignored whilst what the people focused on was his passionate stance which, they inherently revile because they have no passion about anything themselves. I think Keating was the only one who tried to challenge this tall poppy syndrome and inject some culture into the nation, however, he didn't do it well enough and was instead attacked, cut down and deposed by Howard.
4. Howard makes the majority, who are ignorant, comfortable. He comforts them in regards to their past e.g. black armband v. white blindfold versions of history. He comforts them in the present by lying to them and telling them "oh it's all ok". He comforts their future "Latham will make interest rates go higher! Only i can protect you!" At the same time he asserts he is the only one capable of protecting Australia's national interests, best interests, interest rates, defence and so forth and he has run a very good propaganda campaign around it.
These are my observations, however, I find them extremely dangerous to the well-being of the nation and its potential to progress. I deplore the constant harrassment of those with critical thought or intelligence, and no, I don't mean this in terms of "wow, you vote Liberal, you're smart!" or "Oh, Labor voter, you're obviously not self-centred!" but I mean it in terms of being able to evaluate and judge the actions of people around you, the biases inherent in political statements, newspapers and in fact writings of any kind (yes, there's bias in this very diatribe as well as in whatever you respond with! Get over it!).
To be truthful, as I have stated in a previous post, I am afraid of what might happen. Not only in terms of the destruction of many of our social services, but in what Australia may become. It is entirely likely that Australians will continue to subside further into a laziness and uncritical acceptance of propaganda from the government and others that they will fall so far into a pit of dispair they may never come out.
This is why I believe that the majority of Australians uncritically believe in Howard and have continuously re-elected him:
From my experience, I think the vast majority of Australians have a few fundamental problems;
1. No matter how much australians espouse "egalitarianism" they really don't believe in it. In theory there's a belief in a classless society, but this doesn't really mean anything when a user-pays system emerges in primary, secondary and tertiary education as well as in the health sector. If you believe you have a right to be able to pay for better treatment than the next person you have adopted the stance that a class-based society is good. To use a political tool here, that's very "unAustralian"! Yet, Howard tries to reconcile these two views through a cunning tactic, a money-based class system is OK, however, one that rewards intellectial and critical thought is not. This can be seen through the media who have no exercised criticism of the government (and to that extent have not been very critical of the opposition either). In NSW at least, the term extends to wanting to demolish State Selective Schools in some areas (this is a recurring theme in Wollongong) and yet, private schools are protected.
2. Australians have an enormous inferiority complex. They fear anyone or anything better than them in regards to sport or intellectually. This is particularly shown in the intellectual aspect, deep down they know sport doesn't beat intelligence. Hence we have the tall poppy syndrome, Australians say or at least deep down think, "Fuck, that person is smart! I hate them!" They will then make every attempt to drag them down. This may not apply to some people, particularly those in private schools or selective schools who are sheltered from such attitudes (except in the media), but it does exist and it is rife amongst the majority. I was once a victim, however, since high school I have been reasonably sheltered (as it is a selective high school).
3. Australians are on the whole ignorant. They will accept any propaganda and they refuse to check facts. They don't read widely but most importantly, on the whole - they don't care. They lack passion (the Europeans and even the Americans have passion about many subjects, particularly politics). Australians revile passion, that is why I believe a lot of attacks have been launched by the conservatives and Liberals against Latham's passionate stances and some what expressive arugments. I also think that his well considered arguments were ignored whilst what the people focused on was his passionate stance which, they inherently revile because they have no passion about anything themselves. I think Keating was the only one who tried to challenge this tall poppy syndrome and inject some culture into the nation, however, he didn't do it well enough and was instead attacked, cut down and deposed by Howard.
4. Howard makes the majority, who are ignorant, comfortable. He comforts them in regards to their past e.g. black armband v. white blindfold versions of history. He comforts them in the present by lying to them and telling them "oh it's all ok". He comforts their future "Latham will make interest rates go higher! Only i can protect you!" At the same time he asserts he is the only one capable of protecting Australia's national interests, best interests, interest rates, defence and so forth and he has run a very good propaganda campaign around it.
These are my observations, however, I find them extremely dangerous to the well-being of the nation and its potential to progress. I deplore the constant harrassment of those with critical thought or intelligence, and no, I don't mean this in terms of "wow, you vote Liberal, you're smart!" or "Oh, Labor voter, you're obviously not self-centred!" but I mean it in terms of being able to evaluate and judge the actions of people around you, the biases inherent in political statements, newspapers and in fact writings of any kind (yes, there's bias in this very diatribe as well as in whatever you respond with! Get over it!).
To be truthful, as I have stated in a previous post, I am afraid of what might happen. Not only in terms of the destruction of many of our social services, but in what Australia may become. It is entirely likely that Australians will continue to subside further into a laziness and uncritical acceptance of propaganda from the government and others that they will fall so far into a pit of dispair they may never come out.
Rorix said:
There is no better guage of the current administration than its history and the history of the Reagan administration with which it holds soo much in common.
Though i do believe we were supposed to haev a general argument about US policy.
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
Agreed (notice the careful non-use of any word that could 'contradict' myself?).Not-That-Bright said:
Feel free, everyone, to argue until you're blue in the face about this - by all means, be immature and sore.
In regards to the US, there are some things about Bush's policy that I disagree with (proposal to drill oil in Alaska, etc.) but in the whole he's not too shabby a President, considering what he had to deal with so early on in his term. I like the US as a whole, and its government. If I didn't love my country so much i'd live there.
Anyway, it's 2am, and I need my beauty sleep. Night everyone (take II, hopefully the final one take *wink*)!
As I said before, yes economy is great for the country. But running a country is not just about economy. Education plays a vital part of it. Bad education means bad citizens. It means less competitive and eventually the reputation of the country will be damaged and people stop investing in Australia, it will eventually leads to bad economy. Likewise to medical.
I believe older generation tends to vote to liberal, maybe Howard, together with Costello can protect their money (ie property) for the next 3 years or so. But the younger generation may think the otherwise. Think about this, it is almost impossbile for us to buy a house in Sydney. The price is ridiculously high nowadays. We need to work for the rest of our life to pay off the mortgage. Back to the point, if the interest rate decides is time to go up, Howard and Costello can't do anything about it.
Although it is true the Govenor General can dismiss Howard just like he dismissed me before. But when Howard has no problem of dealing with senate, do you think the Govenor General will dismiss him?
Wait for next election? That's only if he doesn't screw us up badly.
I believe older generation tends to vote to liberal, maybe Howard, together with Costello can protect their money (ie property) for the next 3 years or so. But the younger generation may think the otherwise. Think about this, it is almost impossbile for us to buy a house in Sydney. The price is ridiculously high nowadays. We need to work for the rest of our life to pay off the mortgage. Back to the point, if the interest rate decides is time to go up, Howard and Costello can't do anything about it.
Although it is true the Govenor General can dismiss Howard just like he dismissed me before. But when Howard has no problem of dealing with senate, do you think the Govenor General will dismiss him?
Wait for next election? That's only if he doesn't screw us up badly.