Who to blame... (1 Viewer)

[P_Dilemma]

Well, as we all know, in 2004 the majority voted, ultimately, to put J-Ho in the PM seat once again. And the Libs have got a majority in the Senate to boot.

Nobody may be perfect, but... Lots of ppl have been complaining about how J-Ho and his mates have been running the place. And i can't say i disagree; "Workchoices" my arse... "Iraq" my foot...

Now what i'm wondering is this: who is it that's ultimately to blame? Sure, J-Ho may be a pain in the arse, but, unfortunately, we're the ones who put him up there.

And my next question is: are we stupid enough to put him up there again next year?

Or perhaps there's really no choice at all; they all suck anyway, i guess...

-P_D

 

[mr_brightside]

lol.

lock and ban.

 

[Optophobia]

You can complain about "j-ho" all you want. Look at the alternative. Having a crap PM is better than having a shit one.

J-ho could be as shit as a piece of shit that's as shit as a shit that ate a shit piece of shit for dinner, and he's still better than what Labor is currently. Beazley does not have an ounce of what it takes, and the liberals have exploited this, and will continue to exploit it until the cows come home.

We as Australians cannot afford to have an unstable government, merely because we don't like the "vibe" that one gives off.

 

[Generator]

1. It's John Howard, not 'j-ho'.
2. You're not going to gain much by saying that however many people are stupid for merely exercising their right/responsibility to vote, especially when many were then and continue to be happy with the Coalition's and the PM's performance.
3. http://community.boredofstudies.org...-election-coalition-labor-howard-beazley.html