Latham or Howard? (2 Viewers)

[mervvyn]

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.

But surely the air raids against supposedly specific WMD installations in the mid 1990s (1998 i think was the last big one) and patrolling a no fly zone, while compromising sovereignty, don't really aim to directly enact regime change, unlike last year's actions?

I think you'll find most of the world was a bit queasy about setting the precedent of pre-emption, particularly with that sort of evidence. Surely if he had the things, and he knew he was going to be invaded anyway (which he pretty much was guaranteed to be) then why didn't he use them?

 

[mervvyn]

Yes, I am in favour of giving universities more control to decide how to run their institutions free from government control.

The difference between the Liberal Party and ALP is that the Liberal Party is focused on the language of opportunity, of excellence, of aspiration, of ambition whereas the ALP is absorbed with the language of insecurity, injustice, discrimination and disadvantage.

The ALP believes humans are incapable of solving their own problems and the government must do it for them. The Liberal party believes people are capable of making their own decisions and do not need to be told what to do and how to live their lives by the government.

Ultimately the ALP is the negative side of politics seeing the world through a lens of disadvantage whereas the Liberal party is the positive side, seeing the world through a lens of opportunity.

You should balance out dude, you need to listen to some more Labor propaganda. If you had, you would have heard Latham et al going on plenty about aspiration and opportunity. In contrast, it is the Liberal party that has been running a negative campaign, perpetually focussing on experience and interest rates, with scant attention to actually selling their policies. The Labor campaign has been far more positive in its outlook and pitch in my opinion.

 

[raybow]

howard

i dont want no dumbass usyd eco grad who cant get a local council govt bugdet right....running the country...

with the 5mil bugdet he brought about 13mil debt.......so with 800billion bugddet..we'll have around $2,080,000,000 of debt....yes thats 2 TRILLION dollars

and anyone that can 'gaurentee' that interest ratye wont rise....definately is a dumbass......thats up to the RBA , LATHAM U Hoxton Park boi

i mean seriously....with a head like that....

should go bac kto liverpool

 

[mervvyn]

i dont want no dumbass usyd eco grad who cant get a local council govt bugdet right....running the country...

with the 5mil bugdet he brought about 13mil debt.......so with 800billion bugddet..we'll have around $2,080,000,000 of debt....yes thats 2 TRILLION dollars

and anyone that can 'gaurentee' that interest ratye wont rise....definately is a dumbass......thats up to the RBA , LATHAM U Hoxton Park boi

i mean seriously....with a head like that....

should go bac kto liverpool

Surely someone with an economics degree A) is not a "dumbass" and B) has an idea about economics?

If you had cared to watch the campaign, you might have noticed that it was the GOVERNMENT making almost all of the noise about interest rate changes. I don't think Latham was claiming he could prevent rate changes, more about making the point that changes would be the same under either party's governance.
His commitment to no deficits wasn't that clever, but i suppose that's what you have to do to overcome people's inherent prejudices about Labor's economic credentials.

 

[Rorix]

Wait Saddam hadn't done these gas chambers and chemical weapons testing since the early 90's

What's your point? Are you trying to apologise for Saddam again? 'What he was doing wasn't that bad.....if it was the international community would have invaded him!'

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.

No, that is a lie told to the BoS forums by you. On this point you are just totally wrong, which is strange since it's very rare for something to be absolutely false, not just conditionally false.

Here's some evidence, just SOME.

Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack..

Admit you're wrong. It would be a start. I know you won't, but I'm kind of hoping I can get it through your thick 'I HATE AUTHORITY' skull.

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.

Actually they well. The Palestinians won't accept a deal most observers though was generous. Oh and you do hate the Israeli people, because you're apologising for terrorists and their attacks on civilians, claiming that it's all OK because Israel also kills Palestinian civilians (while targetting terrorist leaders, unlike the terrorists who actually seek to kill civilians). Oh, by the way, Israel has compulsory military service, so you can't hate the soldiers.

 

[raybow]

prejudice?

m8 i'm not "prejudice"

i'm just a battler from cecil hills (in the lower socio-economic area) near liverpool,
and i am just mortified by his treatment of our council.....

not to mention labour's role in the closure of the orange clothes complex..

now i cant even buy shoes at rima's!

F*CK!!!!

i just dont want him to create a bad image for us out here!

 

[Rafy]

All I got to say is GO JOHNNY!



and funny isnt it....the winner will be decided by those with no interest for politics at all.....

 

[mervvyn]

I'm not saying you're necessarily prejudiced, just a lot of people assume that the Liberals are better economic managers than Labor and won't creat deficits (this current one has had one deficit year, plus several when Howard was last treasurer) and that Labor will automatically have deficits. So to overcome that negative image, they have to do stunts like signing the big cheque committing them to surpluses.

With all respect, Liverpool council is not the Federal govt of Australia. I would imagine that he has significantly more experience now and a far better support team (shadow ministry) than he did then.
It is the state Labor govt that is responsible for the Orange Grove debacle, not federal. But the state govt has enough of it's own problems, that I don't doubt.

 

[mervvyn]

All I got to say is GO JOHNNY!



and funny isnt it....the winner will be decided by those with no interest for politics at all.....

You mean the swinging voters in the marginals?

 

[raybow]

latham is a d*ckhead

if latham does anything to hurt the image of our community out here in the far west i swear he will have nowhere to hide.....

so he better run his potential govt properly....
and he better do something worthwhile....

as he is a role model...

and a political figure should'nt be on 110% whilst howard is doing interviews on sunrise.....


what does he think he's doing?!?!?!?!?

misuse of position???

FCKN LOSER

 

[Rafy]

You mean the swinging voters in the marginals?

yup...the swinging voters that have little interest in politics.

 

[mervvyn]

Why shouldn't he be on the show? He's using it as a tool for public exposure, to make a good impression on voters and to challenge preconceptions about him - he knows he's doing that, the show's makers do, and the audience should as well. As well, it's not like he hasn't been doing plenty of other interview formats over the last few weeks, so it's hardly like he's solely relying on a sports variety show for his publicity. What about Peter Costello's appearance on Kerri-Anne Kennerly's show, surely that's in a similar style?
(btw, when was he on 110%?, i missed it)

 

[Rorix]

I hear Peter Costello once did porn as a way of getting his head out there into the electorate.

 

[Zecca]

Are you voting this year?

Just wondering who is actually over 18 and voting this saturday?

 

[allstarr69]

Hey.. I have a very limited understanding of politics but this is what ive heard...

1) Howard lies about children being thrown overboard for his own benefit when he knew nothing could be done about it and therefore manipulates the public and cant be trusted,

2) Howard thinks that Latham will increase interests rates yet interest rates have nothing to do with who is elected in power. Therefore he once again manipulating the public.

3) Howard is giving billions back to the public in an attempt to buy his way back into the election. He says he can do this because of good ecnomic management when in fact it is merely all the the taxes he STOLE from us through raised HECS fees and the GST. Where else does he think he can get all that money???

4) The reason the Australian economy is in good shape now is due to a natural boom in the world economy and has little to do with howard despite what Howard boasts.

So how can someone vote for a PM that is manipulative and blatantly lies to the public??

 

[Rorix]

Hey.. I have a very limited understanding of politics but this is what ive heard...

No, you're just some leftist zealot trolling for attention.

1) Howard lies about children being thrown overboard for his own benefit when he knew nothing could be done about it and therefore manipulates the public and cant be trusted,

I'm yet to see any evidence proving that John Howard knew that children weren't thrown overboard and said something to the contrary.

2) Howard thinks that Latham will increase interests rates yet interest rates have nothing to do with who is elected in power. Therefore he once again manipulating the public.

No, that's not what he thinks and no, that's not true. Interest rates have a lot to do with the economic management of the government.

3) Howard is giving billions back to the public in an attempt to buy his way back into the election.

If by giving billions back you mean maintaining his ideology that surpluses should be returned to the people and by buying his way into the election you mean making policy decisions and commitements, like Mark Latham is, then yes, I guess you could say he is.

He says he can do this because of good ecnomic management when in fact it is merely all the the taxes he STOLE from us through raised HECS fees and the GST. Where else does he think he can get all that money???

You. Are. A. Moron.
Firstly, GST tax revenue goes to the states. Secondly, the money is coming from the booming economy. I can't be bothered to dig up any stats for your worthless trolling ass, but go look at company profits.

4) The reason the Australian economy is in good shape now is due to a natural boom in the world economy and has little to do with howard despite what Howard boasts.

YEAH, THE WORLD ECONOMY HAS BEEN JUST FUCKIN BOOMING THIS DECADE. IT'S JUST GOING THROUGH THE ROOF, and it's taking us along for the ride!

So how can someone vote for a PM that is manipulative and blatantly lies to the public??

 

[allstarr69]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisp...n=world&thesecondsubsection=&reportid=1162648

Ok theres your evidence. He was told three days prior that the claims were false but still decided to say it... and how convieniently just before the election.

And as I said I dont have a great knowledge on politics and no I wasnt trying to seek attention. However I have heard off many ppl that such a huge surplus can only come from the fact that he has over taxed us. What about that raise in HECS fees?

 

[Rorix]

In a statement yesterday Howard said Scrafton had told him only that the Navy video of the alleged incident was "inconclusive", and that Scrafton had earlier denied being advised that no children had in fact been thrown into the water.

"inconclusive" doesn't mean false. "inconclusive" means inconclusive. Off the top of my head, the government investigated the matter further, repeating previous advice that children were indeed thrown overboard.

However I have heard off many ppl that such a huge surplus can only come from the fact that he has over taxed us. What about that raise in HECS fees?

I'm not very well versed on HECS fees increases, but they don't total up to 2.4 billion dollars.


The truth is that the Budget is in surplus because taxation revenue is high due to the strong economy.

 

[mervvyn]

Like Rorix said, all the GST money goes to the states. Likewise, all HECS money goes to universities - it's a loan, not a tax in any case.
I don't disagree that the interest rate claims by the government are rather spurious, i suspect they would be fairly similar under either party...

 

[Rorix]

I think the Coalition should have just stuck with the bit of the ad where they say 'If interest rates rise to the average level they were when the ALP was last in power, your repayments go up $1000 a month' or along the lines of that, since it's factually true and very powerful.

Although very misleading.