Politics in 2004

[preacha]

^^ realistic?

i'll admit, i was kidding about SOME of the above (i'll let you think about which statements are true and false).

but let's put it this way. if you can't afford to support something, you dont pursue it.

if you can afford a $1000-a-day cocaine habit, good for you. pursue it to your heart's desire.

if you have a fetish for buying extremely rare fabrege eggs, hell, if you can't afford it.......don't do it

it's common fucking sense. yes, the 'fucking' in the middle emphasises this.

but if you have to rely on the government to support your child just because you didn't have the good sense to "abort when you can't support", well then fuck you!

i live in the area that was found to have the highest percentage of underage new mothers per year, so 'maybe' my idea on welfare is a LOT different from yours. i still think my mindset is correct.

 

[Naughtiest_Maximus]

but if you have to rely on the government to support your child just because you didn't have the good sense to "abort when you can't support", well then fuck you!

i live in the area that was found to have the highest percentage of underage new mothers per year, so 'maybe' my idea on welfare is a LOT different from yours. i still think my mindset is correct.

Dude i think your mindset is totally fucked in this case. Not everone who has a child is out there to get money off the goverment. So you might live in an area that has high underage new mothers....deal with it. Abortion is not the only answer.....education is, and who would be funding such education....the goverment. It's not like abortion is a fucking walk in the park.

I'd rather we support mothers and their children in the hope that have every oppurtunity availble to them rather than force them to make decision that suits you because you feel it's our welfare dollar spent unwisely.

With single mothers there's gotta be dick on the other end, so the single part isn't always gonna be there fault now is it?

 

[preacha]

^^ i never implied that people have kids in order to get money from the government. what i implied is that people should give birth if they are financially and emotionally capable to support their offspring.

but hey, THANKS for not actually reading my post, so i could waste my time at 1:30am trying to 'clear it up' for you.

 

[Naughtiest_Maximus]

but if you have to rely on the government to support your child just because you didn't have the good sense to "abort when you can't support", well then fuck you!

^^^I actually did read your post and as i see it what you implied was that if you need goverment support then abort. I'm not sure what emotional support the goverment gives out so i can only assume you are talking about one off payments by the goverment and benifets.

but let's put it this way. if you can't afford to support something, you dont pursue it.

if you can afford a $1000-a-day cocaine habit, good for you. pursue it to your heart's desire.

if you have a fetish for buying extremely rare fabrege eggs, hell, if you can't afford it.......don't do it

The idea of comparing a cocaine habit or the buying of exspenive art as opposed to bringing a child into the world is just fucking stupid imho. Can i afford this 8 ball?..........i have a child inside of me.

I have a friend who decided to have a child at 17 and was on a single mothers pension. It's 11 years on, she is now in 100k a year job after putting herself through Uni, and has a beautiful son.

I guess what i am trying to say is that yeah at the time people might not be able to support a child financially, but it's not the only consideration to be taken into account.

 

[preacha]

^^ 'sadly' enough, it IS the only consideration. this isn't a perfect world where we get free food, clothing and education.

and thanks for your giving us the example about your friend, it sounds like a "overcoming enormous triumph" type story, correct?

wrong.

while your friend got knocked up, some petrol station attendant got taxed out of his already meagre wage to pay your friend to have her kid with no support from the father and put herself through university.

clap fucking clap.

the above examples were just to point out that if you have the money, pursue it. see past the visuals and look for the similarities.

but back to politics. what i am 'trying' to say is for all this useless bullshit like welfare etc etc etc to be sorted out so we can redirect the money into improving the quality of life for all australians, not just the selfish ones who scream "hey, i fucked up my life, gimme cash so i can get on my feet!" at the expense of others.

 

[Naughtiest_Maximus]

^^^Your petrol staions attendants taxes have just helped someone to be in a position where they will end up contributing more than they ever will. Not a story of triumph over adversity, just an example of the welfare system working in this instance.

*steps out of this thread and hopes someone can get it back on topic*

 

[doofqueen]

I'm really quite offended at the sluts comment as i am a single parent on government support myself. My son was concieved with my first love and we were together for six years and at the time it was the ONLY person i had sleapt with. We were planning on getting married , buying a house and all the rest of it but it didn't eventuate. I'm trying to get a degree so i don't have to be another statistic in the system. I never asked to be a single parent. I can't NOT be offended to what you said preacha. Then again your a man right? if you got someone pregnant you'd be the one to leave someone a single parent going by the comments you have been making seeing as all you care about is your fast internet access.

 

[nickthecheese]

preacha, for those of us who missed it, what is labor doing for us 'blazing fast internet users' ?

 

[apollo]

preacha, you're tripping over your own feet. You reakon all young mothers who can't quite afford to provide for their children are "sluts" who deserve no help, yet you're condemning one who put herself through university to support herself & her children? What options have they got? Sorry, but you've fallen on your arse.

not just the selfish ones who scream "hey, i fucked up my life, gimme cash so i can get on my feet!" at the expense of others.

How can you say that? You don't know a thing about the circumstance of the marginalised. Been around Australia interviewing them have ya? I don't know much about them either, but then I'm not pretending to. I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are genuinely disenfranchished. Yes, there are always some scammers, but do you want to live in a society hostile enough to spend money and time trying to catch them out and persecute them? There will always be liars, but we can't let them ruin it for the genuinely disabled or otherwise financially handicapped.

As for people on Centerlink being selfish, what about Kerry Packer? He earns over $2000 a minute, and pays 0 tax. Is he selfish, or are people who are asking for $300 a fortnight to buy food/pay rent selfish? He's costing your servo attendant far more than people on welfare. And that's only one chap. How about we get on to Harry Triguboff? Frank Lowy? Rupert Murdoch?

what i am 'trying' to say is for all this useless bullshit like welfare etc etc etc to be sorted out so we can redirect the money into improving the quality of life for all australians

What's the etc? Hrmm?

And how, may I ask, do you intend to spend money from "bullshit" welfare in a way that would improve our quality of life? Do you realise the best way to improve our quality of life is by using our taxes for healthcare, education and welfare for the marginalised? What the fuck else can be done with it to improve our quality of life? Border protection? Paying off private debt? Buying cruisle missles? Maybe we could organise some kind of "final solution" for all those damn minority groups you don't care about?

Do you realise it's attitudes like yours that caused the French Revolution? People like you had their heads cut off :D

Anyway, I can't believe this chap is voting labor. If you want to piss Australia down a sink, vote Howard. He'll do it a lot quicker than Latham.

 

[onetwothreefour]

well said, apollo

 

[UnSquare]

Just Go Die Will You Or Something

2UE is a pacifier
for old Liberals to suck on.

 

[MoeBro]

 

[Charlie Brown]

Liberals got my vote....I dont know much abt politics abt Howard is a face I can "trust more than Latham" who seems like a loose canon...The liberal party has been doing a good job on the economy in the last 4 years.

Labour policies are just a grab for votes...also to implement all those policies money has to come from somewhere and right now supposely there is a 700 million blackhole......cant implement them without funding

 

[apollo]

You've got the impression Latham is a lose cannon... Yet unless you've been living under a rock, you know Howard is a liar.

There's a $700m "black hole" in the economy, yet the Liberal party has done a good job with the economy the last 4 years? That doesn't quite add up, sorry...

 

[Charlie Brown]

It means in order to implement those policies an additional 700m will have to be found...so unless they are gonna get the funding from somewhere else its phantom money.......
who would end up paying....the tax payers of course.
Labors track record with the economy has always seen it slide..liberals have done much better.
Fuck Latham and Beasley they talk too much off a good thing but when its time too deliver they cant......thats why they WONT win this election.
I dont see why everyone also hates Howard for supporting George Bush....I see it as a given, US stands for democracy and when someone attacks them...just cos we live in another country doesnt mean we dont help out....thats just looking out for each other

 

[apollo]

^^ Iraq attacked America?

Anyway, I understand on the $700m thing now. I've got to ask though, would you believe what Labor say about the Liberal's policies? I know I don't, and accordingly I don't believe what the Liberals say about Labor's policies either.

The issue with Howard isn't domestic or economic. It's international, it's humanitarian and it's national security. He has failed us on all three, putting us in an awful position relative to where we were previous to his time as PM. Also, the way he used terrorism to teach us a great lesson on problem solving; to solve a problem, you must first create it 8(

Latham is no panacea; he's bound to be frought with problems of his own, but Howard is a one in one hundred fuck up, so just not john is all that matters.

 

[Void]

John howard is a bad PM but he knows how to work public opinion. Dont believe what he says. Dont vote for him. Its rather simple.

 

[preacha]

disregard anything i said above

the most important issue at the moment is Peak Oil

please, read it about it, it is so close at hand it's depressed the absolute shit out of me

 

[Insane Platypus]

who would end up paying....the tax payers of course.
Labors track record with the economy has always seen it slide..liberals have done much better.

Who set up the foundations for the current economic boom? No, not Johnny.

US stands for democracy and when someone attacks them...just cos we live in another country doesnt mean we dont help out....thats just looking out for each other

Democracy? Florida 2000 says it all. And who exactly attacked the US? Iraq?

My lower house vote has no meaning, being in a safe Liberal seat. For the Senate, I'll vote for neither of the major parties.

 

[-Thoth]

the most important issue at the moment is Peak Oil

Not to disregard it, but most of the literature circulating about peak oil is somewhat unscientific scaremongering.