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


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

Why NOT to vote Lib this year

apollo said:

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.
:)

errr that is debatable but the figures i have show that saddam was approximately responsible for 1 - 3.4 million deaths over the duration of his regime (1979-2003 = 24 years or 288 months). that's just under 50k/yr! (in the iran-iraq war there were conservatively a minimum of 300k deaths).

oh and the US played a major part in it........what about france.....britain.....russia and china and a few others like poland? are they irrelevant? do you know who was saddams biggest supplier of arms?

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.

yeah right. if an OECD report has no credibility then what has.....something outta the Socialist News?

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.

LOL....yes australia is a net capital importer because ......we are a NEW country.

yes we have a high household debt and low savings but we are one of the highest 'home ownership countries in the world!

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.

what about if someone willfully ignores the obvious......is it worth it's weight in shit just for the sake of your argument?
 
killarava2day said:
^^ Uhuh... There are less Iraqi's being killed now than there were under OUR sanctions blockade, deaths that WE caused.

why were there sanctions killa, because saddam was a good boy or because he invaded kuwait without offering a plebiscite?

were these sanctions UN endorsed?
 
howards far from great as is the deal with any polly, but mark lathem????????????
not a fucking chance.......
 
Why does everbody hate latham? Not that i'm defending the man, your all entitled to your decisions, but I'm curious to know why he is so hated. He always seemed quite reasonable to me, prove me wrong you latham haters...? list your reasons of latham hating....
 
Let me guess banga; you read those figures in the midst of some puerile pro-war hype? 8)

I think that the Saddam issue is a matter of opinion. I doubt either of us have correct figures, and we'll have to agree to disagree.

As for the rest of the debate at hand;

It goes without saying that France, Britain, Russia and China are implicated in this. But you're dragging it out of context; we're talking about Australia. The most relevant party to discuss in combination with Australia is the US. Our relationship with China, France and Russia on the matter of Iraq is rather minimal, especially relative to our relationship with the USA on the matter...

LOL....yes australia is a net capital importer because ......we are a NEW country.
Explain to me why other "new" countries aren't net capital importers? Err, nearest one - New Zealand? You should stop trying to talk about economics. Relying on foreign capital is exceedingly risky... For the love of god, take Indonesia for example! You don't know your arse from your face when it comes to economics, it would seem.

yes we have a high household debt and low savings but we are one of the highest 'home ownership countries in the world!
That's true, but you're neglecting that fact that Liberal economic management is changing that, fast. Punch ''home ownership rates in australia' into google and you'll find page after page confirming that drop. If you're so proud home ownership, why not vote for someone who aims to keep it that way?

what about if someone willfully ignores the obvious......is it worth it's weight in shit just for the sake of your argument?
I'm not wilfully ignoring the obivous - the liberals have done good things for some sectors of our economy. But they've also done fuck all when it comes to issues like the CAD, foreign debt, our status as a net capital importer and our domestic savings rate, and there's no point in looking at half of the picture when considering who you're going to vote for.

I'm not a Labour person, by the way. I don't vote. So why am I bothering? I just think you need to open your eyes to a few things.

:)

[edit - buggered up quotes]
 
Yes why do people hate Latham so much..... is it because he looks like a pig?

Needle dick John Howard looks like a needle dick crossed with a brushy eye-browed chimp that sticks it's finger in it's bum and then sniffs it

Also to those who believe economics to be a sound actuarial discipline- it's not, much more of an ideology posing behind the veneer of science- meaning it's so called dogma is subjective and represents a certain perspective rather than what truly is.
 
OUR DEMOCRACY IS AT STAKE !!!

On April Fools Day 2004 the Howard Government introduced an electoral bill into Parliament that could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of electors who might not vote for the Coalition at the 2004 federal election (Electoral and Referendum (Enrolment Integrity and Other Matters) Bill).

Conventional wisdom on the hard right has it that left-leaning voters can be found not only in the ranks of the so-called latte-sipping "elites", but also amongst the young and the socially disadvantaged, the poor, the homeless, prisoners, and aboriginals. And they know who you are. MPs and political parties are provided with the electoral roll in electronic format, including all your personal details, and they match this data with any other database they can lay their hands on. They have you demographically mapped, and have a fair idea from polling booth records how you are likely to vote, especially if you are interesting enough to be enrolled in a marginal electorate.

The right wing ascendancy in this country is intent on fixing the federal electoral system to its advantage by amending the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to remove as many politically incorrect voters from the roll as it can. Its easier to win an election when you can bias the electoral rolls in your favour. Just ask our PM’s mate, George W Bush, who profited greatly in Florida from rigged rolls that excluded many blacks and prisoners, not to mention a clapped out voting system, brow-beaten electoral officials, and a stacked supreme court. Voters better be very alert when Parliament resumes or we can kiss our world-class electoral system goodbye…

When this bill is debated in the next few weeks, you can expect such liberal luminaries as Eric Abetz, Nick Minchin, Jeannie Ferris and Christopher Pyne to spread alarm and confusion with their terrifying tales of electoral fraud. You will hear that "it is easier to enrol to vote than to hire a video at the local store", that the rolls are stacked with cats, dogs and other imaginary voters, that hackers have invaded the computers and that electoral staff are biased and incompetent. The sky is falling in, we must not cut and run, we must "tighten up" the electoral system (and sacrifice more of our hard-won rights), in order to prevent electoral terrorism from the usual suspects.

You will be told that the only way to avoid this impending electoral disaster is by making it more difficult for young people to enroll for the first time, by closing down the rolls for new enrolments at the issue of the writs, instead of the usual seven days after, by requiring provisional voters, including itinerants and aboriginals, to prove their identity at the polling booth, by making assisted voting more difficult for the disabled and those who cannot read and write, and by winding back the franchise for prisoners. In all the sound and fury about rampant electoral fraud which will accompany debate on this bill, and which will be echoed abroad by a lazy and compliant media, you will hear very little about the internationally recognised merits and strengths of our electoral system (Canada and the UK have recently reformed their electoral systems to mirror many significant aspects of Australian electoral law).


For nearly two decades a group of cranky old right-wing reactionaries from the leafy suburbs of Sydney, such as Dr Amy McGrath of the H S Chapman Society, and cheered on by Alan Jones, Christopher Pearson, Paul Sheehan, and Professor David Flint, have been leading the assault on the integrity of our electoral system, with a relentless avalanche of electoral fraud allegations after every election (none of which has ever been proved) and loopy suggestions for "reform" that would take the franchise back to the dark ages. This small but useful constituency has been carefully nurtured by the Howard Government and rewarded with sympathetic publicity through ministerial press releases and parliamentary committee hearings.

The H S Chapman Society is still apparently unable to cope with the bipartisan electoral reforms made in 1983 which included the creation of an independent statutory authority to administer elections and referendums, reduced political interference in boundary redistributions and campaign financing, and improved the franchise through various technical amendments, such as the introduction of division-wide and provisional voting. Dr McGrath and her friends want to roll back the electoral reforms of 20 years ago, which they argue, against history, has benefited one side of politics over the other. McGrath insists that the secret ballot must be watered down with the introduction of "limited vote tracing" to deter electoral fraud (which it wouldn’t), and that there should be a return to an "English village" model of enrolment and roll maintenance, where everyone knows everyone else on the electoral roll for their suburban area. That way no-one can have their vote counted until the lace curtain brigade gives the nod. So much for the voting rights of the great unwashed in this wide brown land.

Allegations of electoral fraud are made by Dr McGrath and her friends in voluminous submissions to every post-election inquiry by the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM). The Australian Electoral Commission has responded to each and every one of these allegations in minute detail, and its submissions are published on the AEC website, but the same old discredited allegations are repeated year after year and recycled without question through the media, predictably undermining public confidence in the electoral system. The Howard Government now sees its chance, having softened up the electorate during the 2001 JSCEM inquiry into electoral fraud, chaired by a very hungry Christopher Pyne, and is set to make major "reforms" to the electoral law that could seriously erode the franchise. Your franchise. And heaven help the various electoral authorities who will have to establish and administer the new law in such an irresponsibly short time frame before the 2004 federal election.

Fortunately, there are a few political heavy-weights in parliament who are awake to the pending Howard Government electoral fix, including ALP Senators Faulkner and Ray, and Democrat Senators Murray and Bartlett, who sit on the JSCEM from time to time, and we can probably expect some senior journalists, who can read a parliamentary submission, not to be snowed by what is about to hit the fan. For readers who might be interested in finding out how their electoral system is about to be comprehensively whacked by the Howard Government, the 2004 electoral bill is available on the Parliament House website, and relevant AEC submissions to the JSCEM can be found on the clunky AEC website under "parliamentary submissions" (see below)….

Taken From...
http://www.crikey.com.au/whistleblower/2004/06/11-0004.html

This is the most fucked thing I have ever read... I am going to find out if there is anything that I can actively do to protest against such changes. It would be devastating for our country, our democracy and our freedom.
 
^^ contact the independent and Minor party senators. You can find their email addresses here.

The bill will pass the House of Reps, but looks unlikely in the senate. Labor isnt supporting it. Though if you want to make sure it fails, email the democrats, greens and independents and let them know they shouldnt support it either.

The AEC has actually argued against these roll changes, so this is entirely being advocated by the government not those charged with maintaining our electrol system.

Consistently over the last few electiosn betwen 70-80'000 young people sign up to the roll after the election is called. They wont get to vote if this goes through.
And up to 300'000 people fix up their enrollments or get back on the roll after hearing an election is to be held.

But what else should we expect from this government.
 
nickthecheese said:
Why does everbody hate latham? Not that i'm defending the man, your all entitled to your decisions, but I'm curious to know why he is so hated. He always seemed quite reasonable to me, prove me wrong you latham haters...? list your reasons of latham hating....

he is not hated.....just lacks obvious credibility.
 
banga said:
he is not hated.....just lacks obvious credibility.


Talking of creditability:-

How can John Howard have any?

The man who takes no responsibility for what he says and does wrong eg's: "If I became Prime Minister I'll introduce higher codes of conduct into parliment - Didn't happen", "NEVER EVER GST" , "Children Overboard lie", "The Iraq invasion based on a lie of 'WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION' "CORE AND NON -CORE PRMOISES,etc,etc,etc,etc......................

John Howard passing the buck is the norm.A decent,good and admirable leader takes responsability for his actions and the actions of the people below them.When is John Howard going to take responsability?
 
Latham is an uber-economic-rationalist... In some ways more right wing than the government, I have little faith in him but I have less faith in Howard and his cronies. His social policies have some frightening implications, such as punishing the parents of truants and such. But, as I said earlier, a Labor PM is at least beholden to caucaus which keeps his power somewhat in check.
 
apollo said:
Let me guess banga; you read those figures in the midst of some puerile pro-war hype? 8)

good to see you attack the source and not the info supplied.....:)

Explain to me why other "new" countries aren't net capital importers? Err, nearest one - New Zealand? You should stop trying to talk about economics. Relying on foreign capital is exceedingly risky... For the love of god, take Indonesia for example! You don't know your arse from your face when it comes to economics, it would seem

LOL New Zealand and Indonesia (fucking Indonesia!) aren't Australia and vice versa. what else is there to say......'clutching at straws?

but you're neglecting that fact that Liberal economic management is changing that (home ownership), fast. Punch ''home ownership rates in australia' into google and you'll find page after page confirming that drop. If you're so proud home ownership, why not vote for someone who aims to keep it that way?

who and what are there policies. governments have no say in house prices....it's a dynamic thing. the libs.....first homeowner grant anyone?


I'm not wilfully ignoring the obivous - the liberals have done good things for some sectors of our economy. But they've also done fuck all when it comes to issues like the CAD, foreign debt, our status as a net capital importer and our domestic savings rate, and there's no point in looking at half of the picture when considering who you're going to vote for.

good to see you acknowledge the libs good deeds after all. i knew there was light at the end of the tunnel....;) i have already anwsered this one.

foreign debt what about it? if we can service it there is no problems. but you and i know that the howard government has ACTUALLY lowered government debt (read my fucking OECD link again)

I'm not a Labor person, by the way. I don't vote. So why am I bothering? I just think you need to open your eyes to a few things

good too see a classic example of apathy. why not go and bury your head in the fucking sand....... instead of debating this shit with me.
 
Wacky said:
Talking of creditability:-

How can John Howard have any?

The man who takes no responsibility for what he says and does wrong eg's: "If I became Prime Minister I'll introduce higher codes of conduct into parliment - Didn't happen", "NEVER EVER GST" , "Children Overboard lie", "The Iraq invasion based on a lie of 'WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION' "CORE AND NON -CORE PRMOISES,etc,etc,etc,etc......................

John Howard passing the buck is the norm.A decent,good and admirable leader takes responsability for his actions and the actions of the people below them.When is John Howard going to take responsability?

at least howard didn't assault a cabbie when he was pissed!

learn the facts before you want to debate this shit with me......:)
 
killarava2day said:
Latham is an uber-economic-rationalist... In some ways more right wing than the government, I have little faith in him but I have less faith in Howard and his cronies. His social policies have some frightening implications, such as punishing the parents of truants and such. But, as I said earlier, a Labor PM is at least beholden to caucaus which keeps his power somewhat in check.


killarava2day that is exactly how I feel ;) .If Mark Latham becomes prime minister, thankfully he should be kept in check by caucaus.

I think John Howard is a shockingly bad prime minister.If you also look at the other 'Liberal ministers',then you know this country is in trouble if the 'Liberals' win again .
 
banga said:
at least howard didn't assault a cabbie when he was pissed!

learn the facts before you want to debate this shit with me......:)

banga you should take your own advise :p.

How about the facts I put up in my previous post? Ignoring facts are we,he,he,he................. :p .

I NEVER said Mark Latham was great.In fact i dislike both John Howard and Mark Latham.

I just feel John Howard has far less creditability than Mark Latham.



Howard instead just sends our troopers to invade another country based on a lie and other examples I gave in my post.There are also,many more................. Promising beer & petrol prices would NOT raise about a certain % if the GST came in. A shame it rose above that % ,etc,etc,etc...............
 
Last edited:
banga said:
good too see a classic example of apathy. why not go and bury your head in the fucking sand....... instead of debating this shit with me.

Because unlike you; a seemingly uneducated (or just damn stupid), shortsighted and selfish person, there are a lot of decent people out there :) You're entitled to your opinion; what gives me the shits is the specious and flawed reasoning you're basing it on. Your arguments are archetypal conservative rebuttals - you never quite address the point.

I give up; I think it was the first and last time I'll ever post more than 5 times in an Aus Social thread.
 
Top