Latham or Howard? (4 Viewers)

[neo o]

1. The statstics and what they mean. When it's quoted that we have 6% unemployment, it means anyone who works more than 1hr a week. So issues of underemployment need to be considered too.

1. So what's better, high unemployment or high underemployment?

2. I don't agree with the unfair dismissal laws the Liberals want to bring in re: small business. Natural justice is a fundamental right for all human beings.

2. In what way do Howard's policies violate justice? What do you feel justice is?

Tertiary education should be a right.

You should have the right to choose how you benefit society, be it through TAFE, apprenticeships, going straight to a job or University. Everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want provided they are capable of it.

I have bolded the appropriate keywords.

 

[Rorix]

And it's not as simple as with or against. If you can't see that then you're the stupid one

You've never met a cause you didn't like.

 

[TheBirdMustFly]

You've never met a cause you didn't like.

If I was met to be offended by that I'm sorry to disappoint you, I'm a lefty

 

[TheBirdMustFly]

1. So what's better, high unemployment or high underemployment?



2. In what way do Howard's policies violate justice? What do you feel justice is?



I have bolded the appropriate keywords.

Yes 'should'
Then why are you against it?

 

[Rorix]

If I was met to be offended by that I'm sorry to disappoint you, I'm a lefty

Well then, I'm glad Mark Latham is a centrist, if lefty means 'willing to apologise for Saddam'.

 

[Ziff]

1. So what's better, high unemployment or high underemployment?



2. In what way do Howard's policies violate justice? What do you feel justice is?



I have bolded the appropriate keywords.

Underemployment or unemployment... it's subjective. It depends on if you want people to be poor even though they work hard (yet still starving), if you want people to be poor but live off government subsidides or be working hard however, be proped up by the government so they aren't desperately poor.* It's subjective. Personally, I think that if someone works hard they should be rewarded with a fair quality of life.

I said the notion of NATURAL justice. Natural justice is not "justice" (justice being a more subjective term).

Natural justice is that logical reasoning may allow the determination of fair or just processes in legal proceedings. It is essentially the notion of procedural fairness. This means things such as the decision maker should at least try and act in an unbiased manner and that all parties have the right to tell their side of the story. The Liberal party wants to change the unfair dismissal laws to make it easier for small businesses to fire people.

Look, I use the term should because that's what I think. I don't state opinion as fact (unless accidently) because I realise that it's wrong to do that. I draw attention to the fact that these are my opinions, feel free to refute them, but don't attack them as being opinion.

* And the other option that I forgot to put in.

 

[neo o]

I said the notion of NATURAL justice. Natural justice is not "justice" (justice being a more subjective term).

Natural justice is that logical reasoning may allow the determination of fair or just processes in legal proceedings. It is essentially the notion of procedural fairness. This means things such as the decision maker should at least try and act in an unbiased manner and that all parties have the right to tell their side of the story. The Liberal party wants to change the unfair dismissal laws to make it easier for small businesses to fire people.

Are you interested in seeing procedual justice served?

If so, why then do you want to impose limitations on business owners who obtained their position justly?

 

[TheBirdMustFly]

Well then, I'm glad Mark Latham is a centrist, if lefty means 'willing to apologise for Saddam'.

I'm not going to bother with you anymore

 

[Ziff]

Are you interested in seeing procedual justice served?

If so, why then do you want to impose limitations on business owners who obtained their position justly?

Procedural fairness in terms of unfair dismissal laws.

---
Bastard! STOP WRITING MORE ONCE I HAVE REPLIED!!!

I didn't say I wanted to impose unfair limitations at all. I said that in legal circles, there is a notion of natural justice. This is concerning procedural fairness.

You need to have a balance of rights and responsibilities between workers and employers, however, this should not be at the cost of undermining some of the fundamental legal principles in our society. The notion of natural justice (procedural fairness) is one of these. It ensures that the person accused can a) tell their side of the story and b) can do so to an impartial and unbiased (hopefully - this comment can apply to either side) judge.

 

[TheBirdMustFly]

Rorix did u say Saddam was bad, yeah he took all those people of political opposition to a prison and tortured them, yeah that was pretty bad.

BTW. Have you seen the photos from Abu Graib recently

 

[Rorix]

Rorix did u say Saddam was bad, yeah he took all those people of political opposition to a prison and tortured them, yeah that was pretty bad.

BTW. Have you seen the photos from Abu Graib recently

Ah-ha! You're apologising for Saddam again.



'Yeah, he wasn't that bad. Just tortured a few people........oh and like, gassed a few thousand people...sponsored terrorism...and other stuff that I don't want to mention because I'm a Saddam apologist'.

 

[Ziff]

Ah-ha! You're apologising for Saddam again.



'Yeah, he wasn't that bad. Just tortured a few people........oh and like, gassed a few thousand people...sponsored terrorism...and other stuff that I don't want to mention because I'm a Saddam apologist'.

Saddam was bad. America invaded Iraq. As I've said before, history is yet to determine whether this was a good thing or a bad thing - Iraq is still in massive turmoil. I don't agree with America going against the UN so quickly, especially because their reasoning was untested. I would have liked to have seen the US try and gather more legitmate support under the auspices of the UN.

I don't like Saddam, I don't like the Kings aka dictators in Middle-Eastern nations, I don't like the dictators in Africa, but I also don't think that us civilised western nations should violate our own laws in order to effect change in other nations. If we are civilised, we need to act under the laws which we have created and with the support of international bodies which are representative of the nations who are democratised and no longer under the reign of autocrats. It is a hard position to reconcile, but I would always prefer the support of organisations which are meant to represent all nations (and also are the best hope of international stability and effective international law) than wading into battle without it.

Anyway, as I've said, we're not far enough removed from Iraq and eventually history will judge the effectiveness of the operation.

 

[Rorix]

I don't agree with America going against the UN so quickly, especially because their reasoning was untested. I would have liked to have seen the US try and gather more legitmate support under the auspices of the UN.

The UN was doing its thing against Iraq since the previous Gulf War.

So, basically, the UN was comitted to the removal of Saddam, except France and China weren't happy about taking real action.

Sure, invading soverignity is an issue, but that had been going on for the past decade, so it wasn't a reason to object to military conflict.

This post is really incoherant.

I want to go to bed.

 

[Rorix]

I'm not going to bother with you anymore

Rorix did u say Saddam was bad, yeah he took all those people of political opposition to a prison and tortured them, yeah that was pretty bad.

BTW. Have you seen the photos from Abu Graib recently

Is this the sort of doublethink that's necessary to act like the removal of Saddam wasn't a good thing?

 

[Ziff]

The UN was doing its thing against Iraq since the previous Gulf War.

So, basically, the UN was comitted to the removal of Saddam, except France and China weren't happy about taking real action.

Sure, invading soverignity is an issue, but that had been going on for the past decade, so it wasn't a reason to object to military conflict.

This post is really incoherant.

I want to go to bed.

Yeah, I'm a little drunk.

It's not incoherent. If we are a society that adheres to the rule of law, just because international law is not really enforceable doesn't mean we shouldn't adhere to it... (I take the view that under the UN resolutions the move towards war wasn't legal, however, I do think that they should have gone to war but in a better way.)

 

[Rorix]

So basically the UN should have said 'we're committed to the removal of Saddam, except we're not really'?

 

[TheBirdMustFly]

Rorix, my postition on Iraq is clear, Saddam is bad, but that doesn't give America the right to walk in and blow shit up, causing the deaths of innocent Iraqis. Logic tells me you can't save Iraqis by killing them. The UN saw this and wouldn't condone an Invasion, pure and simple.
You can't say Saddam is bad and then when Iraqis come here as refugees and lock them up, that is really inhumane

 

[Rorix]

Rorix, my postition on Iraq is clear, Saddam is bad, but that doesn't give America the right to walk in and blow shit up, causing the deaths of innocent Iraqis.

So your brilliant (apprently logical) suggestion is that we sit back and let Saddam kill way more innocent Iraqis than the war could ever do, as well as let him continue his support of terrorism against Israel and the West.

BRILLIANT ANSWER! You're just apologising for Saddam again...'Sure Saddam killed some people..........BUT AMERICANS KILLED SOME PEOPLE TO!'.

The UN saw this and wouldn't condone an Invasion, pure and simple.

By the UN, you mean France and China, right?

You can't say Saddam is bad and then when Iraqis come here as refugees and lock them up, that is really inhumane

Wait a minute - you're talking about being inhumane? You're the terrorist apologist and Saddam apologist.

Sure, suicide bombers are killing Israeli children and then Saddam is delivering the family with a big fat pay cheque, but I hate Israel so much that I'm just going to overlook all that!

By the way, it's also quite inhumane to think Iraqis are too stupid to be able to democractically elect their own leader. But you think that too.

 

[Rorix]

You've never met a cause you didn't like.

Guys, this is like the smartest thing I've ever said on the internet. Show some appreciation.

 

[TheBirdMustFly]

Wait Saddam hadn't done these gas chambers and chemical weapons testing since the early 90's, and everyone seems to forget Saudi Arabia because they pay the US lots of money.
You have been swallowed up by too much hysteria, Saddam has nothing to do with terrorists, that is a lie told to the world by the Bush administration.
I hate Israel? I don't hate the Israeli ppl, just their US funded government, they have nukes and they wont let palastine rightfully have a state of their own.