George W. Bush
Banned
Would you like to clarify exactly which points you disagreed with?
Latham or Howard? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter freaking_out
- Start date
a little lost
relationships pfft
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 94
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
my sharona
mrs
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
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!
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'm not voting labour because they don't know what they're doin' everytime they get into government the economy goes down big time
Enlightened_One
King of Bullshit
As was proved yesterday when Latham backed down, Liberal and Labour, no matter what they say, are interchangeable when push comes to shove.
my sharona
mrs
go the unity party!!
George W. Bush
Banned
only when you're so far left the distance between each party seems to be nothing
Enlightened_One
King of Bullshit
Better left than right.
asha_ramirez
Member
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!
TheBirdMustFly
Writer for hire!
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
I would rather have 'a couple of trees' than an international war we have no part in... which links to what TheBirdMustFly said
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!
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
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*
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?
Outdated tanks? Is this your expert opinion?
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.
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:
asha_ramirez
Member
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.