Latham Picture (1 Viewer)

[katie_tully]

I will remember to ask permission next time.

... And dont you forget it!

 

[Tommy_Lamp]

We need a communist government here
that would certainly shut everyone up
Hmmzt maybe Putin is getting sick of Russia....

 

[katie_tully]

We need a communist government here
that would certainly shut everyone up
Hmmzt maybe Putin is getting sick of Russia....

Or maybe we can just like, become a state of Russia..
YEAHHH! STALIN! RAARR!

 

[Tommy_Lamp]

Na Stalin wasnt cool enough, what with the whole mass murder and all.

Putin would do juuust fine

 

[katie_tully]

Yes but Putin has become all trigger happy now as well. =\

 

[Tommy_Lamp]

But he's so cool
And he's finally going to turn Russia into what it should be

The world needs another superpower

 

[katie_tully]

Russia as a superpower?

Why do I find that notion so overwhelmingly hilarious?

Let's do it.

 

[Tommy_Lamp]

Well they were the strongest nation 40 or 50 odd years ago

its about time they rose from the ashes

oh and china too

and the E.U.

 

[paper cup]

... And dont you forget it!

...I wasn't addressing you.

 

[katie_tully]

...I wasn't addressing you.

No shit sherlock.

 

[paper cup]

No shit sherlock.

...children should speak when spoken to or else keep their mouths shut.

 

[katie_tully]

...children should speak when spoken to or else keep their mouths shut.

So why are you still talking?

 

[breaking]

lollercoaster

 

[paper cup]

So why are you still talking?

...is that really the best you can come up with. I am disappointed. do you think I enjoy replying to your stupid remarks?

 

[cHe^gUeVaRa]

now now kiddoes... play nice

 

[thorrnydevil]

...is that really the best you can come up with. I am disappointed. do you think I enjoy replying to your stupid remarks?

Obviously, otherwise you wouldn't be replying!

 

[neo o]

...children should speak when spoken to or else keep their mouths shut.

I thought we advocate free speech in this great nation of ours. I will remember to ask permission next time.

1) This is a forum, there is no free speech.

2) You only caught less than half my post it seems. it said : Stop barning asqy and pasting random articles WITHOUT COMMENT OR OPINION.

 

[paper cup]

1) This is a forum, there is no free speech.

2) You only caught less than half my post it seems. it said : Stop barning asqy and pasting random articles WITHOUT COMMENT OR OPINION.

erm, actually I think you're the one that read my post wrong.

1. It wasn't a random article, therefore, according to your rules - btw I don't recall anyone giving you permission to make rules around this place - I could post it without comment.

2. ...wtf...what I said, and what you said, are totally unrelated. As for free speech, this is a public forum, I say what I want, without any restriction from you, thank you very much. This is a DISCUSSION BOARD, where ppl, shock horror, discuss things. You have every right to delude yourself into thinking Mr Howard will make an able leader and I'll just be right in knowing Mark Latham is what this country needs.

I will let Anne Summers and Miranda Devine speak for me on this subject:

Labor brings women in from the cold
By Anne Summers
July 21, 2004

At the last election, the federal Labor leader, Kim Beazley, slipped out a women's policy two days before polling day. Its centrepiece? A promise to remove the GST on tampons. There wasn't much to sell and no time to sell it.

It was pretty much the same in 1998, another year in which far fewer women voted Labor than for the Coalition.

So it was a distinct break with recent Labor tradition on Monday when Mark Latham strode into a child-care centre in the marginal Sydney seat of Lowe and, surrounded by some of his most prominent women MPs, launched a commitment-laden women's policy.

It was also a pretty big change for Latham, who is on record as disdaining women's issues as elitist feminism (which he dislikes) or as wanky "identify politics" which, he argued in his 2001 book, The Enabling State, had cost Labor the 1996 election.

You would have thought he wouldn't be caught dead presiding over a women's policy launch. But that was not the only surprise on Monday.

Introducing him, Nicola Roxon, the savvy young Victorian who is the shadow attorney-general and assists the leader on the status of women, reminded him of a pledge he'd made to the Caucus women the night he was elected leader. That was, she said, to launch a women's policy and to do it before the election campaign.

In fact, several women had made it a condition of their breaking factional ranks to vote for him for the leadership and this week he delivered.

The policy, entitled "Choice and Opportunity", contains potent campaign ammunition and, if communicated adequately, could help to win over enough of those women in marginal seats whose vote will determine the outcome of the next election.

Latham says the central issues as conveyed to him by women all over the country were preserving Medicare and providing quality child care. He also dealt with a range of economic, social and other issues. There were plenty of specifics that would provide a welcome restoration of women's equality to the national political agenda, but what was most interesting to me was the language the Labor leader brought to this subject.

He talked about "power imbalances" in women's jobs and pay (compared with men's) and promised a raft of reforms so "people don't have to make the false choice between being a good parent and a good worker".
He addressed women's disadvantages but he brought men into the solutions. This is unprecedented in an Australian political leader. In the past, leaders on both sides of politics have tended to either ignore or marginalise women, to address them only in their role as mothers or to subsume them within the rhetoric of families. (including your beloved John Howard)

Surprisingly, Latham did none of these things. Instead he caused a frisson of anxiety with some Labor women on Monday when he said, "I know from personal experience that women's issues are now men's issues." Was this the crisis of masculinity all over again? Perhaps.

But it seemed more as if he had achieved a personal policy reconciliation between the sexes. He talked of men needing to be more involved in raising children and managing the home (that'll be popular with blokes, I bet), and he also spoke of the need for men to "own" the "dreadful cycle of domestic violence" if we are to really "tackle" (bad word, Mark) something that afflicts as many as a quarter of Australian women.
With his speech, Latham signalled that it's up to men, not just women, to redress the power imbalance. In doing so, he placed women's policy firmly into the mainstream of his political agenda.
In the process perhaps women themselves will finally be brought back in from the political cold.
http://www.annesummers.com.au
http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/20/1090089156920.html

Can't buy me love
July 11, 2004
The Sun-Herald
Miranda Devine

These are tough times to be a woman of child-bearing age. Teens are being accused of trying to become pregnant to claim the $3000 baby bonus. Generation X women in their 20s and 30s are being hounded by the Government to have more babies more quickly. And current affairs programs are preaching cautionary tales of women in their 40s who left it too late and are now locked into the despair of infertility and IVF.
Suddenly, if you have a functioning uterus, everyone has an opinion about when you should use it.
Meanwhile, social researchers and commentators are madly speculating as to why our birth rate is declining.
Some believe it's all because generation X doesn't want to grow up. The average age of first-time motherhood has just pushed past 30 as more kidults and adultescents choose to delay the settle-down phase of life that comes with marriage and babies. Ensconced in our urban tribes and with friends as the new family of choice, more gen Xers are shunning government bribes and putting kids further down their to-do list. (Had a baby since the 1970s Mr Howard? I guess not. It costs waaaay more than $3000 in modern times. Heck, that won't even cover nappies.)There is so much pressure on women to have kids at the moment and none are feeling it more keenly than the 30-somethings. It was in our formative years that the world learned of the famine in Ethiopia, the hole in the ozone layer and, of course, AIDS.
Gen Xers have never had sex in a world without AIDS. No such thing as free love for us unlike our baby boomer parents. We got a recession and the first Iraqi war instead. We had to grow up so fast, is it so surprising to see many women (and men) returning to some of the adolescent behaviour we were rushed out of?
The good news about adultescence is that fewer women are waiting for a guy to come along and complete them. In growing numbers, we are completing ourselves. We're buying our own jewellery and taking out our own mortgages.
But with this empowerment comes the financial burden of a single income. The childless women I know aren't caught up in some heady vortex of power suits and status, they're working hard to support themselves because they know that knights on white horses exist only on Disney Channel.
Are they selfish? Not necessarily. Having a child means the absolute end to being the centre of the universe and, for some, this comes as a relief. But for those who had to grow up too fast and jumped on the career treadmill at an early age, there is a tangible desire for some down time, the chance to have fun later in life.
It's a choice women are facing every day, and increasingly they're choosing to wait. Take a look at the divorce statistics and you get an insight on the reproductive reticence that dominates modern relationships.
Recently, there have been scathing suggestions that some women are too picky when it comes to men. That they reject potential partners on the basis of their cars, their shoes, their jobs. But when you fall in love, none of that superficial stuff matters. If it bothers you, that simply means the chemistry isn't there.
So should women really force themselves to merge with men they don't love or who don't love them? Should we settle? Or worse, should we be less reproductively picky and just get knocked up by any bloke who'll sleep with us?
More women are choosing not to bring a child into an uncertain relationship or to exacerbate existing financial pressure within their household. Instead of branding them selfish, we should be applauding these women for knowing their limitations. We shouldn't be shaming or guilting them into settling for men they don't love and encouraging them to have children they can't afford.
Sorry Mr Howard, fast money won't buy you love. We need to look at the bigger issues of child care, maternity leave and family services if we're to make motherhood a less daunting proposition.

http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?t=40388

And so on. I'm a female student. These are the issues that concern me. John Howard has done little to address them, why shouldn’t we turn to Latham?

3. asquithian doesn't need any help, I'm just one of the demure bystanders watching him cream all of your respective arses.

Thank YOU for proving to me that there is actually someone stupider than berry580 on this board.

 

[Jago]

chill pill?

 

[thorrnydevil]

You have every right to delude yourself into thinking Mr Howard will make an able leader and I'll just be right in knowing Mark Latham is what this country needs.

I think Howard has already proven he is an able leader, and most of the Labor Party actually agree with me believe it or not.

3. asquithian doesn't need any help, I'm just one of the demure bystanders watching him cream all of your respective arses.

At least you've got one admirer Asquithian.

Haha...and the hippys all say I'm naive!!!