• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Why NOT to vote Lib this year

Botrous- Yor preferences go to whoever you choose, unless you follow a 'How to vote' card, in which case the Greensa very rarely do preference deals with the libs 8)
 
*sunflower* said:
^^ yeah I will be voting green. Have never voted for the liberal party in my life but there's little difference between liberal and labour these days
Click to expand...

Can you explain this to me, as I am now confused. The Liberal party has starkly different policies to Labor on the issues that are currently the most important. Principally when it comes to these issues, they are poles apart.

Think:

-Iraq (going there, coming back)

-Government Accountability (Howard attempted to get rid of the Senates ability to pass legislation )

- Education (think recent HECS increases - which Latham has promised to get rid of if elected, not to mention their support for students while studying which Howard couldn't care less about)

- senior citizens working till they die, basically reducing our retirement by at least 10 years.

- Free Trade agreement with America

- Howards government has done nothing to curb the spending of MP's while the ALP has made a commitment to auditing all trips made by PM's. An example of his commitment to cut personal spending of tax payers money would be his outstanding imput and motivation for Howards decision to cut MP's Super (Latham started debate - Howard fell under public preasure to commit to the change)

- Same Sex Superannuation (which labor was for, liberal strongly against)


They are VERY different, with VERY different focus'. Please dont insult the Labor party by comparing them to the foulness that is the Liberal Liar's Brigade.
 
Last edited:
I did say that I agree with labour's traditional policies which, in line with the rest of my post, indicate that they are very different to the liberal party.

The point is, both parties will follow similar paths with certain policies, particularly if it comes to getting voted in again.

Australia is ultimately a conservative, middle-class society and Australian people vote accordingly.
 
Wait, let me get this straight ? Someone is saying that Australia doesn’t believe in Democracy? Are you insane?

Democracy is believed in by many many people in Australia. Just because a majority of people vote for John Howard - that doesn’t mean it’s because of a loss of faith in our system - it’s because people actually think he is a *good* person to vote for and many people believe in the policies that the Liberal party stands for. Democracy is alive and well in Australia, just because the outcomes of some democratic action don’t actually equate to logic (like how we vote) doesn’t mean that the system of Democracy is lost.

We vote - we have our say in referendums and we protest - just because change doesn’t always happen doesn’t mean that Australia has lost faith in these most important functions that are so inherent in Australian society and culture
 
Good lord. When did I say that? Read the rest of my post and kindly don't put words in my mouth.

I'm all for having a discussion but picking a fight isn't particularly intelligent or interesting.
 
*sunflower* said:
Good lord. When did I say that? Read the rest of my post and kindly don't put words in my mouth.

I'm all for having a discussion but picking a fight isn't particularly intelligent or interesting.
Click to expand...

Honey, that wasnt directed at you !!!

That was for Apollo and anyone else who doesnt believe that Australia who is a democratic society.=D


Sorry ! I should have been more direct
 
Last edited:
BREAKaBEAT, I suggest you re-read my post. At no point did I say Australia doesn't believe in democracy or isn't a democratic society! At no point did I mention John Howard and at no point did I talk about what the Liberal party stand for... I also never said that change not happening meant Australia had lost fath in democracy... There's no point in attacking me because it's the fashionable thing to do. I never talked about democracy being lost either. You say you're responding to my post... But what are you on about?

And keej,
Your response to Preacha implied that we're unjustified in enforcing democracy on Iraq because we don't believe in it ourselves.
That's true... It was directed at preacha, obviously because he believes Australian democracy is flawed. I wanted to know if he supported the war, which was apparently all for a cause which he doesn't believe in... That'd make for interesting talk I reakon.

I am saying that enforcing democracy in Iraq isn't unjustified because we don't believe in it ourselves - for the most part I think the population DOES believe in it as the ideal system for Australia.
You did not say that. I asked "How do we justify invading Iraq to deliver it? [democracy]". You quoted that, and replied
Because a slightly flawed democracy like what exists in Australia is a shitload better than a fascist dictatorship.
You didn't say anything about the Australian people believing in democracy, and for gods sake, if your reply didn't mean that you thought democracy in Iraq is the right answer, I don't know what would. Clearly you haven't explained yourself properly, so what I responded to was not what you meant. There's not much further we can take this; I can see our opinions on the matter are actually not that far apart. As for the personal remark... Yes, sexual frustration does turn the odd person green faced :)
 
Last edited:
my opinion:

1) i support the war wholeheartedly. however, i believe that united nations consent should have been granted before any invasion. now the UN are as useful to the world as the bingo group that plays at my local church.

2) i don't know much about politics, i'll admit it. all i see is one party that lies and one party that appears as though they have no idea what they really want. both are dangerous for those reasons.

3) install a dictatorship in iraq for the time being, but make sure it's a dictatorship that we have absolute control of. in other words, dictator = western civilisation's puppet. after everything calms down, THEN decide whether they need democracy. at the moment it just seems as though iraq is a little kid who just killed his goldfish and is being forced to choose which person is going to make him sit in the corner.

now back to your scheduled arguments, and can you kids stop using my name so much?
 
It was all semantics in the first place, keej. Reading too far into something is as much a crime as not explaining yourself properly and expecting others to know what you're talking about. Cute little attacks are especially cute if they hit a nerve like a dentists drill :)

preacha; I agree about the UN... The US are now the international mediator :\

As for installing a dictatorship, haven't we learned the lesson by installing Suddan Hussein himself?! Well, Reagan did die a few days ago, but I think the lesson was shared internationally. And what about Ngo Dinh Diem, installed in Vietnam specifically to be a "puppet" for the USA. Both serve as proof that dictatorship puppets are a consistent failure...
 
fair enough apollo, and yeah, i did know about all of the installed dictators (bowling for columbine was at least good for something despite the shitload of twisted truths and blatant lies in it).

here's some alternatives:

1) make iraq the 51st state of the united states of america (unless you consider australia to be the 51st state, then bump it up to the 52nd)

2) we may have to resort to putting a giant inpenetrable plastic dome over the top of iraq with a hole up the top to drop food and water. but that's a last resort.

seriously though, this is a lose/lose situation. my dad said we should just nuke the country and start over, but that may be a TAD too harsh.
 
BAHA!

Despite generally being left wing and humanitarian, I agree man. I reakon the damage in Iraq is already done. What we do from here is 99% likely to be inconsequential. The plastic dome is kinda cool :)
 
Re: Re: GOOOOO LITTLE JOHNNY

apollo said:
Ahh yes, damn those arguments that lack perspective 8)

What you're saying is that because all politicans lie, it doesn't matter that Howard did too? If you can't see the intrinsic flaws in that reasoning, you're a lost cause. Maybe you'll change your mind when one of the people Howard's lying has "pissed off" detonates a bomb in your capital city?
Click to expand...

does october 2002 come before or after march 2003? silly reasoning mate.

The jury is out on that one... But I'd like to know what you based that on? Have you got any idea what they've done with the economy? Do me a favour and give me some examples of this refined economic management you're attributing to the Liberals?
Click to expand...

ask and you shall receive the good lord once said just click on assessments and recommendations.

btw i got a PAYPAL account......so can i get me $50 bucks?
 
apollo said:
The Iraqi's were better off before we invaded. Hence they were better of under a fascist dictatorship. Not because a fascist dictatorship is better than democracy, we all know what's better there. But what it took to change from a dictatorship to a democracy has fucked any hope of democracy! That's the bit your little idealistic retort ignores, and the bit which flaws it. You've gotta look at the whole situation - history, opinions, requirements, consequences, etc... Not just the concepts/ideologies involved.

Now another question, how can we ever install a democracy there if they didn't get a choice in it? :)
Click to expand...

you're jumping the gun here.

and remember there are fewing iraqis dying NOW than under saddam.

also there is an undercurrent of change in iran.....one that sniffs of democracy.
 
Last edited:
^^ Uhuh... There are less Iraqi's being killed now than there were under OUR sanctions blockade, deaths that WE caused.
 
I'm not jumping the gun - I'm just asking the questions that need to be asked. How can you have a forced democracy? It doesn't make sense from the outset.

Are there fewer Iraqi's dying now than under Saddam? Now you really look like you don't know what you're talking about. There have been approximately 10k civillians killed in Iraq now (source). 10 000 in a little over a year is far worse than Saddam's track record per year, especially when you consider the part the USA played in it. Add to that the destroyed infrastructure - phone exchanges, malls, etc. I'm not trying to say that Saddam Hussein was a good man - he wasn't. But I don't understand how it was worth 10 000 civillians (and inevitably a higher mortality rate), the country's infrastructure and inevitably thousands more lives in what is, thanks to our invasion, destined to remain a 3rd world country for a very long time. And lets not forget - the worst atrocities Saddam committed, often used to justify removing Saddam were made possibly by US intelligence and chemical weapons. That's right they were done with US support. How can a country that put Saddam in place and actively supported his use of biological warfare be trusted to remove him without some kind of alterior agenda?

I also don't understand why, if the western world are suddenly so concerned with people suffering at the hands of dictators, the US has openly supported them, and at times put them in power? Dictators like Rios Mont, Soeharto, Duvalier, Marcos and Duarte all had blood on their hands and the USA supported them?

As for the OECD report on the Australian economy; that's about as good as the recent "strengthening medicare" brochures that've been flogged around. Greater efficiency in the labour force! Do you know what that means? It means people can be fired with fewer reasons, shifts can be cut/created closer to the starting date... Greater efficiency = greater ability of employers to fuck people around.

I can't see anything in there about problems like the CAD, our status as a net capital importer, our excessively high household debt and dangerously low savings. Frankly, if a report omits problems that the Liberals have failed to address, it's worth it's weight in shit for the sake of your argument.

:)
 
As a greeens voteer, I say Labour all the way. The libs/nats must be removed. But as much as it pains me to say it, despite Howard's conservate viewpoints on life he... is an excellent PM. He knows how to use the press and answer questions extremely well. But the lib's US arse sucking has got to stop. A strong message has got to be sent to the US that preemption is not the way to resolve conflict. They may say the UN is as useful as a 'church bingo group'. But at least when the UN is involved in such an operation, the any attack during occupation gets shared between the participating nations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top