Johnny is calling the election

[FerretallicA]

Okay, I'm not politically savvy, but this is ridiculous to me. It says to me you would support a dictatorship.

I'm not saying I support a dictatorship any more than someone saying that all power should be in the hands of the people is supporting anarchy.

 

[Goreripper]

edit: We should all realise that I'm the worst for analogies, so here's another doozy from me:

John Howard believes that lowering the age of consent to appear in pornography to 12, because he believes it'll help industry growth and whatever else, I don't care - he just thinks it's best for the country. He doesn't tell anyone about it until he can't be refused its induction as a law and then says EVERYONE HAS TO DO THIS NOW, even though most people think it's a shit idea.

You'd sit back and go: "Well he's not giving into public pressure, right on!" ?

---

Okay, I've reached a new low for analogies.

Actually that's a pretty good analogy.

 

[phlogiston]

People, don't worry! It turns out that there *is* an economic answer to all of our concerns!

http://search.ebay.com.au/search/se...sid=m37&satitle=2007+election+vote&category0=

 

[Goreripper]

The main difference there is that the Vatican and Germans aren't getting raped by Jews and have nothing to lose from it. We already have an over-apologetic approach to Aborigines in Australia based on history. The number of exclusive things they're offered like housing, ABSTUDY, and tax concessions border on ridiculous. Some things, like Aborigine-exclusive health care and education programs, don't really affect anyone else. Things like reserving a certain number of places in uni programs specifically for people of Aboriginal descent, exclusive scholarships and even jobs are outrageous though. To use a similar comparison to the one from our previous (and thoroughly enjoyable ) argument over sexuality, if there were scholarships strictly for white males it would be a massive drama, just as it would if employers were advertising jobs for people of Anglo-Saxon descent.

Before you jump all over it, I'm not saying all Aboriginals are lazy sponging cunts or that some of them don't deserve special government support. It's the lack of objectiveness about it, as well as the distinct double standards, that shit me, as well as the general trend of moving towards a disadvantaged majority when it comes to social issues. From my admittedly limited experiences, most of the Aboriginals who rely on all these benefits have massive chips on their shoulders and not only lack any appreciation for what they're getting but also expect a lot more. As soon as a current government says "sorry" they're effectively admitting a measure of responsibility for the actions of the past, which in turn equates to liability. The only people who'd actually be appeased by an apology would be ignorant do-gooders who aren't even affected by any of it personally and simply want the government to apologise so they can feel good about themselves. If you, or your ancestors, were directly victimised by a previous government over your race, do you seriously think "sorry" would fix anything?

Howard has, on numerous occasions, expressed sorrow for what happened in the past. That's not good enough and he has to be personally sorry and make a public apology on behalf of every other Australian. How the fuck will that help anything?

He needs to apologise for the actions of previous Governments, not on behalf of the Australia people as most of us had no idea that Aborigines were being separated from their parents as toddlers and shipped off to special schools in remote locations by Methodist and Lutheran do-gooders, stripped of their language and culture and then thrown back onto reserves in the middle of the Outback where most of them weren't even originally from and expected to survive.

Even so, the standard Government approach from both sides of politics towards Aborigines is wrong. It's failed, so I agree with you to some extent. The hand-outs don't work to rehabilitate or educate these people. I don't know if you know what a cargo cult is, but making concessions to Aboriginal people to make up for our previous treatement of them is in many ways like that, and I do agree with you in part. You can't just hand these people money. Aboriginals need to be empowered to enable them to overcome their issues themselves. You can't just send the Army into a settlement, take away all the booze and porn and fuck off again thinking that will fix everything. Most of these people live in shacks made out of corrugated iron in villages with no streets or adequate plumbing, and it's not because they want to live there. They were given no choice and through decades of government neglect most of them no longer care. By saying sorry, the government, regardless of who's in charge, is acknowledging that it's their fault this has happened and that there's a problem. That's not really enough, but once you realise and admit there's a problem, you can start to repair it.

Unless you're Ben Cousins.

 

[Dän]

Call me a heathen but I think going to Iraq is the right decision, gay marriages should not be legalised and that we definitely shouldn't be saying "sorry". .

You, my friend, are a fucking champion

 

[Dän]

I highly doubt it's a matter of 'guts' in announcing something as an election issue so much as a matter of lacking confidence in the average Joe Sixpack's capacity to consider the big picture. When he believes something to be the right decision, even if it's an unpopular one, he usually backs it. I'd prefer that over someone who just gives in to propaganda, public pressure and media trends. If by 'spineless' you actually meant to say 'calculated', 'consistent' or 'smart politician' then yeah spot on.

Fuck, your're a champ.

Howard has had the guts to make the hard decisions that he knew would make him unpopular, but that are for the betterment of the country; that takes guts, slagging him over doing doesn't.

 

[Dän]

Okay, I'm not politically savvy, but this is ridiculous to me. It says to me you would support a dictatorship.

You're saying he SHOULDN'T give into public pressure? He should just act on what HE believes is best for the country and you admire that? Are you serious?

edit: We should all realise that I'm the worst for analogies, so here's another doozy from me:

John Howard believes that lowering the age of consent to appear in pornography to 12, because he believes it'll help industry growth and whatever else, I don't care - he just thinks it's best for the country. He doesn't tell anyone about it until he can't be refused its induction as a law and then says EVERYONE HAS TO DO THIS NOW, even though most people think it's a shit idea.

You'd sit back and go: "Well he's not giving into public pressure, right on!" ?

---

Okay, I've reached a new low for analogies.

Giving into public opinion is often the worse thing a leader can do, most people are dumb fucks, so if you listen to dumb fucks, you become one. Bill Clinton was dead scared of negative public opinion, so when he wasnt fucking fat chicks in the oval office, he, also, wasn't enacting foreign policy to deter terrorism in the US, and look what happened.

 

[Dän]

Actually that's a pretty good analogy.

No it's not, fuck's sake.

 

[Stonewall]

Mmm, I wasn't a big fan of that analogy either. Analogies are best used illustratively or to help explain something. It can be quite cheap (though certainly fun) to use them as a way of convincing someone of your point, as they often distract, oversimplify or distort a complex issue.

That being said, I guess there are similarities between AWAs and reducing the age of consent for porn, either way it is often the kids that are getting screwed.

 

[Mark]

Giving into public opinion is often the worse thing a leader can do, most people are dumb fucks, so if you listen to dumb fucks, you become one. Bill Clinton was dead scared of negative public opinion, so when he wasnt fucking fat chicks in the oval office, he, also, wasn't enacting foreign policy to deter terrorism in the US, and look what happened.

What the fuck are you talking about? Clinton did more in his last couple of years in office to target terrorism than the Bush administration has done in the last 6. If it wasn't for Bush cutting the budget of anti-terrorism departments, and completely ignoring warnings of Bin Laden planning to hit the US, then there wouldn't be the problems we're all stuck in now (or at least at the same level).

You are nothing but a illiterate sponge swallowing and regurgitating everything that Free Republic-esque "news" sources and commentators push your way; you're a fucking idiot, and an absolute waste of blood. Stick your right wing, neo-conservative dogma up your arse.

 

[Goreripper]

I was about to say more or less the same thing. Clinton was not responsible for the security lapses that allowed 9/11 to happen, regardless of how much the Neo-Cons want everyone to believe he was. In fact I seriously doubt that Clinton would have sat around in a classroom for ten minutes dithering over what to do.

 

[Dän]

BULLSHIT. There was an attemp by al-queada in 1993 to blow up the twin towers, that, along with numerous attacks on US bases by terrorists around the world was ignored by Clinton, who chose easy options with foreign policy. He ignored Terrorism and Al-Queada as threats, and ignored realists and conservatives who said that the biggest threat to US hegemony after the COld War wouldnt come from a state, but from rogue states, terrorism and WMD's. This ignorance lead directly to the attacks in 2001. Since then, no attacks on US soil, Why? Procative policy.

 

[Dän]

Mmm, I wasn't a big fan of that analogy either. Analogies are best used illustratively or to help explain something. It can be quite cheap (though certainly fun) to use them as a way of convincing someone of your point, as they often distract, oversimplify or distort a complex issue.

That being said, I guess there are similarities between AWAs and reducing the age of consent for porn, either way it is often the kids that are getting screwed.

hahaha, well my wages have gone up, so lick my nuts

 

[Goreripper]

Fuck, your're a champ.

Howard has had the guts to make the hard decisions that he knew would make him unpopular, but that are for the betterment of the country; that takes guts, slagging him over doing doesn't.

Once again, if Howard had introduced WorkChoices before he knew the Senate couldn't toss it out, then fought for it to be made legislation to the point of calling a double-dissolution election on the issue, then I'd say he had guts. But he waited until he had full control over both houses of Parliament and sprung in on the electorate with no warning or time for debate. That's a weak, dog coward act.

 

[Goreripper]

BULLSHIT. There was an attemp by al-queada in 1993 to blow up the twin towers, that, along with numerous attacks on US bases by terrorists around the world was ignored by Clinton, who chose easy options with foreign policy. He ignored Terrorism and Al-Queada as threats, and ignored realists and conservatives who said that the biggest threat to US hegemony after the COld War wouldnt come from a state, but from rogue states, terrorism and WMD's. This ignorance lead directly to the attacks in 2001. Since then, no attacks on US soil, Why? Procative policy.

Damn straight. Invade a country that didn't even have links to Al Quaeda, reduce it to the point of anarchy, and then let Al Quaeda establish a foothold there that they previously don't have. Brilliant.

 

[KoichCPA]

BULLSHIT. There was an attemp by al-queada in 1993 to blow up the twin towers, that, along with numerous attacks on US bases by terrorists around the world was ignored by Clinton, who chose easy options with foreign policy. He ignored Terrorism and Al-Queada as threats, and ignored realists and conservatives who said that the biggest threat to US hegemony after the COld War wouldnt come from a state, but from rogue states, terrorism and WMD's. This ignorance lead directly to the attacks in 2001. Since then, no attacks on US soil, Why? Procative policy.

So explan why jamal islamia haven't made any more attacks when indonesia hasn't been invaded or even sanctioned over it?

Proactive? Isn't that the acne shit that P'Diddy advertises late at night?

 

[KoichCPA]

Damn straight. Invade a country that didn't even have links to Al Quaeda, reduce it to the point of anarchy, and then let Al Quaeda establish a foothold there that they previously don't have. Brilliant.

We support anarchy though, we are pinkos.

 

[chrisvp]

we are lefties and hippies as well

Koich , this saturday night I'm going floundering , will let you know what the fishing is like mate , reports are its hot .

 

[Stonewall]

You are nothing but a illiterate sponge swallowing and regurgitating everything that Free Republic-esque "news" sources and commentators push your way; you're a fucking idiot, and an absolute waste of blood. Stick your right wing, neo-conservative dogma up your arse.

 

[Dän]

I really dont care what you guys think, Neocons were writing about the treat to the US as far back as 91, Utopians were wanting the US to move away from FP back into isolation, they got bombed becuase of how you guys think. Wise up you dumb fuck wits and look at the real world.