• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

Latham or Howard? (1 Viewer)

Who would u vote if u had to choose b/w the following:

  • Latham

    Votes: 344 65.4%
  • Howard

    Votes: 182 34.6%

  • Total voters
    526

a little lost

relationships pfft
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
94
Originally posted by kochou
since when did this thread turn into an economics lesson??
well i guess there trying to give their reason as to why their chosing howard or latham.

even though they both have similar tax policy:rolleyes:
 

pc_wizz

ρ s y c н o ρ α τ н ™
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Messages
345
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
they both suk ...

but latham is the best out of the two .. :p

damn right wing mofos ... :rolleyes:


pcwizz
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Messages
1,866
Location
North Shore
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
howard sucks and he's ugly...

and i love labour, labour has produced the best politicians australia has had...

but mark latham doesn't seem to know what he's doing. did you watch the 7-30 report yesterday night? he sidetracked every question and gave no specific details about his policies or budget...

*sigh* if only kevin rudd had won
 

TheBirdMustFly

Writer for hire!
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
171
Location
Campbelltown, Sydney.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I didn't vote, I'm either voting Democrats or The Greens, Liberal are dickheads coz they went to war, they've lied prior to every election to get in, the won't free the refugees, they suck up to the US, the FTA is crap, the list goes on
I'm not voting labour because they don't know what they're doin' everytime they get into government the economy goes down big time
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
629
Location
America
Originally posted by Enlightened_One
As was proved yesterday when Latham backed down, Liberal and Labour, no matter what they say, are interchangeable when push comes to shove.
only when you're so far left the distance between each party seems to be nothing
 

asha_ramirez

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
216
Location
Newcastle, NSW
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
Originally posted by TheBirdMustFly
I didn't vote, I'm either voting Democrats or The Greens, Liberal are dickheads coz they went to war, they've lied prior to every election to get in, the won't free the refugees, they suck up to the US, the FTA is crap, the list goes on
I'm not voting labour because they don't know what they're doin' everytime they get into government the economy goes down big time
I agree, Labour and Liberal should not be in government.

I would like to see the Greens in office, because at least their policies are focused towards Australia as a nation, as a growing nation of families and communities; rather than as an allie to the U.S.A...

It was said that if John Howard wants to win this election on the basis of Foreign Policy and National Security then he deserves to lose, and I damn well agree!
 

.:b-me:.

memories consume
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
109
Location
-sydn3y-
Originally posted by asha_ramirez
I agree, Labour and Liberal should not be in government.

I would like to see the Greens in office, because at least their policies are focused towards Australia as a nation, as a growing nation of families and communities; rather than as an allie to the U.S.A...

It was said that if John Howard wants to win this election on the basis of Foreign Policy and National Security then he deserves to lose, and I damn well agree!
but the greens would sacrifice ANYTHING to save a couple of trees...

but i dont like liberal either.
 

TheBirdMustFly

Writer for hire!
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
171
Location
Campbelltown, Sydney.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I had an argument over the Free the refugees issue. They were just quoting from what Minister for Cruelty to Children, Amanda Vanstone said. People have to much faith in the current government, they think there right, hah their just on the yankees side who are taking out all the dictators to take the world for themselves, just in the name of so called "Democracy"
 

asha_ramirez

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
216
Location
Newcastle, NSW
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
Originally posted by .:b-me:.
but the greens would sacrifice ANYTHING to save a couple of trees...

but i dont like liberal either.
I would rather have 'a couple of trees' than an international war we have no part in... which links to what TheBirdMustFly said

Originally posted by TheBirdMustFly
I had an argument over the Free the refugees issue. They were just quoting from what Minister for Cruelty to Children, Amanda Vanstone said. People have to much faith in the current government, they think there right, hah their just on the yankees side who are taking out all the dictators to take the world for themselves, just in the name of so called "Democracy"
Australia is in the war for America, which is obvious. To me is seems like a simliar thing to the Vietnam war, in that we were not required to go, America is the acting nation, our government is basically ignoring national policies and issues, and focusing on in international and foriegn policies/military/security. Any opinions?
 

TheBirdMustFly

Writer for hire!
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
171
Location
Campbelltown, Sydney.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Yes I agree, and considering the UN and Nato has totally outlawed the war, it shows where the australian government's loyalty really lies. They don't care about human rights or UN conventions just about money and being saved by America's ass, if something happens. Like with the budget we spend so many billion dollars on outdated tanks on america and we hardly use them. I say spend more money on stuff that matters like lower-class familys. And no more tax cuts for the rich, it's the lower class that really need it.
 

Rorix

Active Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Messages
1,818
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Originally posted by TheBirdMustFly
Yes I agree, and considering the UN and Nato has totally outlawed the war, it shows where the australian government's loyalty really lies.



I'm sorry, I think you'll find that incorrect. Firstly, the UN or NATO don't have the power to 'outlaw' a war, or something like that. Secondly, even if they did, I think you'll find that if you read the various resolutions on Iraq over the years, there's plenty of basis for the war against Iraq. The Coalition didn't even NEED to come back to the Security Council one last time - but they did it anyway, because they thought that no reasonable person would object, I guess. *shrug*

They don't care about human rights or UN conventions just about money and being saved by America's ass, if something happens.
Yeah, those damn Aussies. Let's all move to Zimbabwe! Now that's a country which has real respect for human rights. BTW: Are you dumb enough to vote against national security?

Like with the budget we spend so many billion dollars on outdated tanks on america and we hardly use them.
Outdated tanks? Is this your expert opinion?

I say spend more money on stuff that matters like lower-class familys. And no more tax cuts for the rich, it's the lower class that really need it.
Hmmm, I seem to remember something about a $3000 payment that applied to lower class families....guess I was mistaken, there's just so much in the Budget these days!

BTW: I'm not sure where you've been, but in Australia, we have what's called a 'progressive income tax system'. This means that the poor people pay less per share of dollar earned than the richer people in tax. If you'd like to have an economic discussion about the problem with the top tax bracket being too high resulting in tax avoidance through assets, I'd be happy to oblige.
 

.:b-me:.

memories consume
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
109
Location
-sydn3y-
Originally posted by asha_ramirez
I would rather have 'a couple of trees' than an international war we have no part in... which links to what TheBirdMustFly said


i don't want the war either. i think its another of john howard's excuses to go bow down to his god, gwb. however, i'm saying that other than the liberals and greens, there are other parties that don't support the war.

rorix- i'm pretty sure the outdated tanks were supposed to read 'faulty planes'
and whilst Australia does indeed have a prgressive tax system, the lowest tax rate is still significantly higher than other developed countries. so yes, they do pay less in the dollar than people in the higher tax brackets, but because they're being taxed on such a puny amount of gross income to begin with, they are left with a pittance that is insufficient to support family life.

and the UN didn't actually support the war in iraq. the coalition went back to the un because they thought that they would have the undoubted backing of the un, and thus be able to justify the thinly disguised attempt to gain power over valuable oil resources, but after the UN didnt support it, went through with it anyway.
 
Last edited:

Rorix

Active Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Messages
1,818
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Yeah, Australia has no place in global security:(
 

asha_ramirez

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
216
Location
Newcastle, NSW
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
Originally posted by TheBirdMustFly
it shows where the australian government's loyalty really lies. They don't care about human rights or UN conventions just about money and being saved by America's ass, if something happens.
That's not entirely true, look at the issue with the South Korean Translator being murdered? America had nothing but praise for the South Korean government for remaining loyal to the war, where as basically the rest of the world, including John Howard and the Australian government, were appauled by the act; now I'm not sure if that shows that the Aus. Gov. has more care for human rights, or if they're just trying to save their own ass in not trying to do something more about the capture of the, now dead, translator.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top