game over australia

welcome to the rubber stamp country. *Starts looking for a US flag*

i havnt met anyone that voted for howard anyway. like, how the f*** did he win in the first placE?

but yeah, bb rainforest etc.

i know its tin foil hatish but just answer me this, how many ppl were given a pencil to fill in their forms on the day? i thought it was pen everytime before hand. (pointed out to me by a mates gf)

This is funny, since most of us live in Qld where the labor party dissolved the senate as soon as they could and almost guaranteed that it would never come back...

latham is a cocktong siff not howard

Super, now we can finally sell Telstra and get it out of limbo.

I've always been given a pencil cause that's what has always been used.

I'm just amazed that 45,000 people voted 1 for One nation below the line. Maybe the senate paper was much smaller than NSW, but it just seems amazing to me.

I wish that they never sold any of telstra, and just split it into Last Mile (gov't owned) and Service PRovider (private entity)

Now, since its partly sold, they might as well just go sell all of it.

I dont see why you'd be bitter that howard won. Hes not a cocktong like Latham.

Although it is a bit scary that they can pass whatever they like.

Howard got the family and grey hair vote.

He bribed the families and they grey hairs like fuddy duddy right wing politics.

Our political system is bollucks anyways. The senate is meant to represent the state needs not party ones. And your local member is meant to represent your local area. Check out the US system it actually happens there. Here they just vote the way the party says.

We need primaries (that way people have to serve their electorate or they won't get re-elected at primaries regardless of party).

And we need optional voting so people who have no interest in how the country is run don't go poluting the poll with their indifference.

In a way its good, no more expensive senate enquiries, and if somethign goes wrong the government can blame no one but themselves.

I am just glad the democrats and Bob Brown are a nothing now. (I don't mind the greens just don't like Bob Brown).

Now, since its partly sold, they might as well just go sell all of it.

i agree. I don't think they have any intention of splitting it up. (see below quote)

Mr Costello did not endorse the Productivity Commission's recommendation that the Government consider breaking up Telstra before it is fully privatised.

"We have looked at these things over the years and in the past we have put in place some measures which were designed to improve competition ... but we were never moved to structural separation," he said.

and i think the main reason for this is it would ruin the share price before they dump their stock.

Now after it is privitised is an entirely different matter.

And we need optional voting so people who have no interest in how the country is run don't go poluting the poll with their indifference.

this is one of the items on the liberal agenda.

QGL political discussions are always fun.

As fas as I can recall (back to the 1993 Federal election when I was living in Canberra and voted for Ros "The Whiteboard" Kelly) pencils have always been used in all elections (local, state and federal).

As far as Upper Houses of Parliaments go...meh. The Senate has provided the check to the House of Reps in Canberra since 1980 when Malcolm Fraser lost the majority to a few Democrats (nice work Don Chipp).

The Queensland Upper House may have provided a balance to the excesses of the Bjelke-Petersen but I get the feeling that if Joh hadn't rigged the boundaries for it he'd have done away with the Legislative Council himself. The ACT and NT only have one house of parliament although the ACT does have proportional representation for their Legislative Assembly rather than single member electorates - which don't lend themselves to a majority government. Although the ALP in the ACT did manage to do just that a week after
the Federal election, so word up to John Stanhope and my main man Matthew Cossey.

Little Johnny doesn't like to rock the boat to much so I suspect he'll use the Senate majority for a few pet projects - IR reform, selling Telstra, becoming the next state of the US and annexing New Zealand - but apart from that he probably won't change much so that he can win a fifth term.

i dont think its a good idea to have one party controling the senate, this turns the contry from a democracy to a dictatorship....i lived in a dictaorship my whole life untill we came here, never thought it would happen here, but here it is, the howard government can do anything it wants and no one can stop them any more....heck they could(hypothetically speeking) just decide that they are going to ban other oplitical partys....and so on if the wanted they can do what ever they want now :S...unless there is some provision i dont know about...

Don't assume anything just yet, there is a court case in progress that could in the worst case send all of Queensland back to the polls for a full senate poll

whats this court case dude?

Something to do with the oversized novelty senate paper and how no-one could be stuffed doin preferences I assume..

Wasn't it something related to incorrect postal ballot papers being delivered very late to many people in outback Qld towns?

And we need optional voting so people who have no interest in how the country is run don't go poluting the poll with their indifference.

I think people should take a test to demonstrate that they understand the major policies of the party they are voting for. I blame Family First and the idiots that voed for them, for this need.

talked to one of the guys that had that happen to him, he was far from happy.

Little Johnny doesn't like to rock the boat to (sic) much so I suspect he'll use the Senate majority for a few pet projects - IR reform, selling Telstra, becoming the next state of the US and annexing New Zealand - but apart from that he probably won't change much so that he can win a fifth term.

i agree (apart from that annexing NZ part - who would touch those filthy kiwis). however the best thing about this is that the govt's control of the senate allows them to do what they were ELECTED to do.

all this checks and balance stuff is a crock of s***. the party system has ensured that the senate is just a clone of the house of reps. the original intent of the senate was to represent the interests of the states.

that is hard however when all of the seantors (bar a couple of independents) are party politicans?

i struggle to understand why any sane person would vote for one party in the house of reps and a competing party in the senate. it's just crazy stuff!

I do not follow any of this s***, so its jibberish to me. Alli know is everyone in politics speaks s***.

one of the few similarities between the parliament and qgl forum!

I don't understand you problem with Bob brown Obes.

I think he's make a great PM, he is intelligent, forsightfull and has big enough balls to stand up to the big guys (bush) unlike the rest of parliament.

I'm glad the greens got some more senate seats, its just a shame they didn't get control of the senate.

bob brown is a red communist. don't be fooled by their green tag. these are all the people from the far left who can't join a communist party because it is banned in australia.

these filthy people come straight from uni onto your ballot paper with their pie in the sky bulls*** about no one having to pay for anything.

"yes, we can all live for free, no HECS or taxes. The government will just print more money. No wars. Life will be fantastic!"

last edited by infiNex at 14:42:29 28/Oct/04

ummmm check your neck, its looking very sunburnt.

do some research before posting such utter crap please.

last edited by TMWNN at 14:49:55 28/Oct/04

bob brown is a red communist. don't be fooled by their green tag. these are all the people from the far left who can't join a communist party because it is banned in australia.

Have you been taking too much of Acetame's body bulk powder? Man you really need to lighten up.

red neck my ass, i just don't want a party full of utopian fairies running my country.

they don't even have any industry or economic policies.

they would not be the best to run the country no, but they were good at keeping the house of reps honest no matter who got into power. hope you like liveing in america inf

TMWNN Bob Brown is a backwards living ass monkey.

I rekon he would ban the internet in Australia to keep the kiddies safe.

sounds like the family first part should hire him

the ignorance in this thread amazes me

irhabi you idiot:

the "provisions" are the high court and the constitution

infinex:

the "extreme" wing of the greens are ex-marxists whose static theory of wealth has been disproven by massive leaps in absolute wealth for the poor in first world nations and the asian tigers becoming rich.

They are now pushing their political theories based on the assertion that wealth is created by destroying the environment.

last edited by hast at 16:08:05 28/Oct/04

I disagree Obes, from what i've read of greens policy much of it makes alot of sense from both a social and finacial viewpoint.

Of course not everything is perfect but bob brown has impressed my alot more than any other politician I've had the misfortune of watching or reading about.

I can't beleive all these anti-commie comments, the cold war is over guys, it isn't 1975 anymore.

i dont think its a good idea to have one party controling the senate, this turns the contry from a democracy to a dictatorship....i lived in a dictaorship my whole life untill we came here, never thought it would happen here, but here it is, the howard government can do anything it wants and no one can stop them any more....heck they could(hypothetically speeking) just decide that they are going to ban other oplitical partys....and so on if the wanted they can do what ever they want now :S...unless there is some provision i dont know about...

thats a contender for the most retarded thing I've ever read on this forum.

also, Brown is a dirty commie. Any politician like Brown or Latham and the others that have lived off public money their whole lives aren't worth the time of f***ing day. I mean seriously, Latham was our alternative PM and the guy has never even had a job.

So who won, the giant douche or the turd sandwich?

I think people should take a test to demonstrate that they understand the major policies of the party they are voting for. I blame Family First and the idiots that voed for them, for this need.

But what if the people don't care about the policies, but just want that party voted in because they fullfil their purely personal preference that has nothing to do with major policies? Why should you be able to decide one person is more important than the other?

Undemocractic, impracticle, fascist.

um you guys are aware that Bob Brown sucks cock in real life has a boyfriend etc?

the howard government can do anything it wants and no one can stop them any more.

unless its against the constitution(sp?). which protects all our major intrests

I think he's make a great PM, he is intelligent, forsightfull and has big enough balls to stand up to the big guys (bush) unlike the rest of parliament.

erm.. forsightfullness and "big balls"... i don't like brown noseing bush as much as the next guy. but it does have its benifits i guess. and forsightfullness would see them would they not? i mean, im sure johnny howard has his reasons?

omg now the libs control the senate all games will be banned. internet content locked, and owning pron will carry a death sentence !

politics = zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

if politics is so boring, STAY AWAY FROM THIS THREAD PLS!

john howard sucks thats all and if you voted for him ,i have no time for you!

Howard got the family and grey hair vote.

He bribed the families and they grey hairs like fuddy duddy right wing politics.

I fit in neither of those categories and I voted Liberal.

And seriously bribing the grey hairs? *cough* Medicare Gold *cough* The oldies weren't stupid enough to be bribed.

heck they could(hypothetically speeking) just decide that they are going to ban other oplitical partys.

No, Australia is still officially ruled by the Queen of England, as such the Governer General could smash John Howard with a political trolly bar and force a re-election.

Not to mention the constitution doesn't give the policitical power to do so. Maybe in sand monkey lands that doesn't mean anything, where the governments have political power though military might, but in Australia it isn't as gay as you suggest.

hahah, sand monkey lands!

No, Australia is still officially ruled by the Queen of England, as such the Governer General could smash John Howard with a political trolly bar and force a re-election.

No we are not ruled by the Queen of England, we are ruled by the Queen of Australia who just happens to be the Queen of England as well.
But here is the trick, the PM can sack the GG at any time. The only reason the GG was ever able to sack the PM was becuase of a bizarre set of circumstances otherwise normally the PM would have just sacked the GG before the GG could have sacked him.

GG GG

thats because whitlam didn't even hold a majority in the lower house, it was a hung parliament. Fraser was an a****** and blocked everything, Whitlam had a double dissolution and still won but Fraser kept being an a****** so GG sacked Whitlam.

red neck my ass, i just don't want a party full of utopian fairies running my country.

they don't even have any industry or economic policies.

Is lying about other political parties' policies one of the first things one learns when working with the Liberal Party infinex?

Bob Brown is no more a "communist" than is John Howard, ie not one.

thats because whitlam didn't even hold a majority in the lower house, it was a hung parliament. Fraser was an a****** and blocked everything, Whitlam had a double dissolution and still won but Fraser kept being an a****** so GG sacked Whitlam.

Whitlam was also almost completely incompetent. Like Latham he lacked the maturity and tact to be a good prime minister.

yay for Social Policiy Reforms and Social Concience!

The greens are green in name only.

They were not even present in the senate when kyoto was being debated.

Yet all the environmentalists vote for them out of somekind of blind faith meanwhile their above the line vote gets filtered into some other left wing party who have done a deal.

Whitlam was also almost completely incompetent. Like Latham he lacked the maturity and tact to be a good prime minister.

Because you would know.

Because you would know.

Come on. He had 5 different personas depending on which area of the policy he was talking about and who was questioning him.

He broke a cab drivers arm over a fare.

When he was opposition treasurer he challenged the treasurer to a fist fight.

How can you support this guy?

it sounds like a Good Game

last edited by Paveway-3 at 17:48:26 29/Oct/04

i would rather a tough nut thug over an us ass kissing fool.

Whos given us the best economic situation in the last 25 years.

Are you out of your sycophantic little mind? You think this economic situation is merely a product of his actions? Something for him to give and take, as if he were the hand of God? Listen to yourself, what your saying is just astoundingly nieve.

last edited by clipto at 04:00:12 30/Oct/04

hahah you astound me with your stupidity clipto. The economy is a direct result of the policy of the government, are you really as daft as you make out? They may not be a product of his actions alone, but they are a product of the government he leads.

and while Whitlam was rather incompetent and destroyed our economy in the space of 1 month, his social policies were excellent and had an exceptional impact on today's society.

Im the first to acknowledge that our economy seems to have faired better under the liberals the last few years. Im also the first to wish we didnt have a sniveling little dweeb as our head of state :(

as opposed to Latham who has lived off public money his entire life and never EVER even had a job? Being PM isn't about charisma, it's about leadership.

I dont like either of them, but when I see jokes made about our PM, and the way he comes across to foreigners, just makes me cringe a bit. I like how people are either Liberal or Labour to the bone even down to liking one person and hating another even when its obvious Howard is a wank ;)

I don't think he's a wank and I'm more of a national supporter than Liberal.

I'd vote Labor if it was ever a viable option, and if I'd been around in the 70's I probably would have voted for Whitlam.

Personally, I think Anderson would make a fantastic PM, but Howard is doing a bloody good job as it is.

National Party = chuckleheads

the end

The economy is a direct result of the policy of the government, are you really as daft as you make out? They may not be a product of his actions alone, but they are a product of the government he leads.

The economy is an extremely complex issue, you can't give all the credit to the government, let alone to one man in the Government as he was. I see you agree with me on that, and I agree with you that the government plays an active role in this economy, perhaps it would of been more accurate to say "our" stupidity astounds you?

Being PM isn't about charisma, it's about leadership.

Both are important qualities for a PM.

Through either government action or non-action the economy will be affected. Howard as a liberal would therefore be in favour of letting the market control the economy, and thus the economy at the moment could very well be party due to his actions! (or in-actions)

But seriously....there is never going to be a perfect PM, some people will hate him some will not....its all about who the MOST amount of people like not whats best for the economy!

Both are important qualities for a PM.

why on earth is charisma an important quality in a PM?

why on earth is charisma an important quality in a PM?

People dont like him...he doesnt get elected. Most people dont like John Howard, but he got in because everyone wanted paul keating out!

They wanted keating out cause they "needed a change" after 13 years in office. They wanted change they got their change alright.

oh wait, so why did he win the following three elections?

also, Paul Keating certainly wasn't/isn't short on charisma. Humility is a far more important quality, something Howard has plenty of.

...and the others that have lived off public money their whole lives aren't worth the time of f***ing day

Does that mean you hate military personnel and war vets too? :P

If Howard is so good at eating humble pie, why won't he admit that what he said in the 'children overboard' incident was a bald-faced fib?

A humble man would admit the lie.

why on earth is charisma an important quality in a PM?

Are you serious? National prestige for one, not to mention a charismatic leader is more likely to establish strong relationships with other nations leaders, to the benefit of our country. Theres really just too many reasons to list...

They wanted keating out cause they "needed a change" after 13 years in office. They wanted change they got their change alright.

Are you aggreeing with me? or just adding supporting information? Basically a book i skim-read supports that ^

oh wait, so why did he win the following three elections?

Why f*** with a good thing? Howard proved himself. But then there are also the arguments about the Tampa incident and children overboard etc :) I was merely suggesting one of the reasons why his winning 1996 campaign was sucessful.

Does that mean you hate military personnel and war vets too? :P

are you a complete moron? Military personnel have jobs and war vets all had jobs too. Latham has never ever had a job.

They wanted keating out cause they "needed a change" after 13 years in office. They wanted change they got their change alright.

Keating was only PM for about 5 years dude.

not to mention a charismatic leader is more likely to establish strong relationships with other nations leaders, to the benefit of our country.

he seems to be doing quite well at this, and before you hippies start crying not just with Bush.

So your not going to bother trying to support your position that charisma isn't important for a PM?

i don't need to, our current PM isn't particulary charasmatic and he's one our best PM's ever and widely respected among world leaders.

The situation speaks for itself.

If your assertion was even correct, all it would prove is that a poor charisma is no guarantee of failure as long as you can make up for it in other areas. It certainly would not indicate that charisma is not important.

If your assertion was even correct, all it would prove is that a poor charisma is no guarantee of failure as long as you can make up for it in other areas. It certainly would not indicate that charisma is not important.

_you_ are the one that said it was important.

_YOU_ are the one that needs to justify and prove this statement, because the current situation in Australia is a senario where lack of charisma is shown not to be essential to become and stay (3 complete terms and the start of the 4th) PM.

John Howard doesn't need to be charismatic ... if you stare at his eyebrows long enough, you too will want to do his bidding.

_you_ are the one that said it was important.

And _spidz_ thinks it's not important, why are we pointing out the obvious?

_YOU_ are the one that needs to justify and prove this statement,

Done.

National prestige for one, not to mention a charismatic leader is more likely to establish strong relationships with other nations leaders, to the benefit of our country. Theres really just too many reasons to list...

No one has disputed this thus far.

And who said anything about charisma being an essential characteristic? Depending on the situation all you need is a heartbeat to be the PM.

HOWARD OWNS

If Howard is so good at eating humble pie, why won't he admit that what he said in the 'children overboard' incident was a bald-faced fib?

Cause nobody gives a s*** about that anymore.

National prestige for one

This is funny. You feel pride in your country due to weither or not your elected leader is charismatic?

not to mention a charismatic leader is more likely to establish strong relationships with other nations leaders, to the benefit of our country.

Gee, i wonder how Howard got a FTA with the US _AND_ a multibillion dollar LPG deal with China. (the 2 biggest economies in the world)

i wonder how he became the most well known australian leader ever?

i wonder how we have closer ties with england and the US then ever before?

it is called statesmanship.

could it be that charisma (that you assert that he is lacking) isn't that important after all.

This is funny. You feel pride in your country due to weither or not your elected leader is charismatic?

It matters not a whit to me, and that is not what national prestige is.

Gee, i wonder how Howard got a FTA with the US _AND_ a multibillion dollar LPG deal with China. (the 2 biggest economies in the world)

Well, do you think China's massive energy shortage, and America recieving our support would have anything to do with it? I guess you could call it statesmanship if you wanted...

i wonder how he became the most well known australian leader ever?

Because he is the current prime minister, in a time of unparrelled media exposure through tv, radio, and the internet. This in combination with the fact that his forebearers have never made a big enough impact on the world as a whole to trump any incumbent Australian PM's current exposure... Is your assertion even correct? I'll assume so because it certainly wouldn't be hard.

i wonder how we have closer ties with england and the US then ever before?

We used to be a direct colony of England, wouldn't you say our ties were closer with them then? Why do you even think this is even relevant to charisma being important?

could it be that charisma (that you assert that he is lacking) isn't that important after all.

I did not say he was lacking charisma, and I think the word you are looking for is essential, I never said charisma was essential, I said it was important, you still offer no argument to the contrary.

In fact, it sounds like your totally conceeding that what I have said is essentially correct. "Isn't THAT important"? So you agree it is important? You are not pushing the position that it isn't important? I must say I never gave any indication to just HOW important I thought charisma was, except to say that it wasn't essential.

last edited by clipto at 08:11:55 01/Nov/04

speak for yourself nF, not everybody in Australia has the attention span of a moth.

clipto, you're a very good dancer.

What I find interesting about the whole "we fixed the economy" thing is that they showed three seperate labour terms with deficits. What they didn't mention was the fact Paul Keating had turned around a big deficit and while it was still in the red it had improved drastically. Given another term there is little doubt it would have been back in the black. Howard was just fortunate that a lot of the groundwork had already been done.

I just wish we had a truly democratic political system where everyone's votes actually counted rather than winning seats. There may be only a tiny margin in each seat but they all fall one way. So they should be determining the number of reps in the senate by the percentage of the total vote not the number of seats won. eg: Allocate 100 seats, labour gets 40% of the vote so they get 40 seats, ditto labour, 7% of the vote was green so they get 7 seats, etc... That gives a better cross section of what people *really* think.

clipto, you're a very good dancer.

Any reasonable person would agree nobody has any hope of convincing anyone that Howard has a charismatic bone in his body. Clearly you realise this, but rather than conceed even the most pissant aspersion on Howard, you advocate the deluded view that charisma, is not imporant for a PM.

Your audacity is astounding.

heel and toe, heel and toe.

No doubt your chanting that at the top of your voice, hands firmly clasped over the section of the screen containing my post.

Unsurprisingly it's about your best contribution so far to this thread, maybe you could do it more often?

http://img72.exs.cx/img72/2341/clipto.gif

I really should thank maxe for giving you something worthwhile to post. Must get on to him about new material for you though.

imo charisma is only a useful quality in a national leader at specific times, specifically times that require the rallying of a nation, post disaster or a war time PM needs this quality. Otherwise its very very low on the agenda of qualities necessary for a good PM.

you advocate the deluded view that charisma, is not imporant for a PM.

as with almost ANY of your posts clipto, all you're doing is pointing out your OWN opinion, and any one who differs from it is crazy, wrong deluded etc etc.

To finalise, you're a wanker.

a PM needs charisma 24/7. the democratic voting system is popularity based. charisma is needed more so these days given the presidential style of elections in australia.

look how charismatic and popular beattie is. he f***s up the qld government completely and the voters just keep sending him back for another 3 years.

basically any contest which requires the personal support of voters will advantage a charismatic person. to draw an analogy look at the popular tv contests like big brother or idol.

the a******s get voted out early leaving all the "nice" bland people left.

as with almost ANY of your posts clipto, all you're doing is pointing out your OWN opinion, and any one who differs from it is crazy, wrong deluded etc etc.

Not a chance, in addition to others people's, I have listed specific reasons to support my opinion. You yourself mention reasons why charisma is NEEDED, I'm merely saying it's important. In light of this string of reasons to support my position, all this guy can do is sing a song, talk of dancing and insist he is correct? Sounds deluded to me...

clipto, you're a very good dancer.

heel and toe, heel and toe.

This is what this guys argument has degraded to, are you seriously telling me you don't think this is deluded?

last edited by clipto at 08:58:06 02/Nov/04

I said it wasn't important, and clearly stated why with my references to John Howard. You failed to address this points (as usual) so I reverted to dribbling s***, much like yourself.

I have directly replied to your references to Howard :

If your assertion was even correct, all it would prove is that a poor charisma is no guarantee of failure as long as you can make up for it in other areas. It certainly would not indicate that charisma is not important.

Military personnel have jobs and war vets all had jobs too. Latham has never ever had a job

But any full-time public servant is paid by public money. Including police, army, customs, etc. And you said

...and the others that have lived off public money their whole lives aren't worth the time of f***ing day

Nasty

they work for said public money.

You yourself mention reasons why charisma is NEEDED

not like you to swing things into your OWN context....

as stated its ONLY useful when u need to bring a country together, currently and for quite a while that hasn't been necessary, hence its currently not a necessary asset in a PM.

You were the first to say it was neccessary, I only said it was important. According to you, it is neccessary for him to have charisma, because thats a "needed" charicteristic (according to you) in war time, you do realise we have gone to war twice in the last several years right?

Oh please, not on the scale that I was implying. Think WW2 type PM/President......

I would hardly consider our involvement in either of the gulf wars (which I assume are the ones you're referring to as "last several years" - I'd consider 10 years more than several but hey it suits your argument more to say several I'm sure) as classifying Howard as a wartime PM.

I also said it was pretty unimportant outside the two scenarios listed, and as Australian PMs have been largely non post disaster or war time, I think my post suggests that on he whole carisma is not overly useful.

Would you like me to clarify it more for you?

CHARISMA IS NOT VERY IMPORTANT..

So what you are essentially saying, is that you don't contest anything I have said?

Wars in the last several years include Afghanistan, Iraq, perhaps even the "war on terror" if thats your thing.