Quote:

Last June, Australia celebrated its 21st. No, not a birthday or coming of age, but the completion of its 21st consecutive year of economic growth. Yup, you heard right, 21 years. Of growth. 21. While the rest of the world lurches from crisis to economic crisis, the land of Oz is powering ahead, enjoying an Aussie dollar at a record high, unemployment at near-record lows (5.4%) and basking in more sunshine than the rest of us can dream up. So what does its Labor government do? Attempt suicide. Yesterday's move to oust Australia's Labor prime minister, Julia Gillard, represents the third attempt by Kevin Rudd (and/or his supporters) to return him to the leadership – a man Gillard beat for the prime ministership in 2010. In the past 10 years, the Australian Labor party has installed and dispatched five national leaders while its nemesis, the Liberal party, has tried four different leaders in just six years. Viewed from Europe, where national governments are planning to bail out their banks by raiding the savings accounts not just of Russian oligarchs but pensioners too, news of yet another political attack against Australia's leader smacks of a particular strain of antipodean madness. For decades, it is the British who have worn the "whingeing Poms" label. Now, it's time for Australians to accept the malcontents' mantle, because it is they who appear incapable of seeing just how lucky they are. Complaint has become the national default position, seen in a political class – and a mainstream media – who spend more time slinging mud or knifing each other than debating and analysing national policy. No other advanced economy can come close to Australia's 21 years of growth. That period, a full generation, saw governments of both political flavours at the helm in Canberra, and is even more impressive when you remember that it spanned the dotcom boom (and bust), the crisis of 1997-1998 (remember that one?) and the global catastrophe that was the Lehman Brothers crash in 2008. Every single time, opposition parties (again of both persuasions) channelled Chicken Little, warning the sky would fall down in Australia. It didn't. It still hasn't. Things are so damned good that the Reserve Bank is worried the strength of the national currency is harming national export markets. Aussie voters happily travel with more money in their pockets than ever before, and still they grouch about wavering national confidence, or rail against the couple of hundred sad souls who land on their shores seeking asylum. The world over, economists talk about "the Australian model". I've sat through enough press conferences in Europe to know that there are many learned bean counters who see this continent as a great example of just how to exploit and thrive in a tumultuous global environment where economic might is turning its eyes toward Asia. There's a chorus of voices that argue that Australia's success is a role model not only for resource-rich emerging markets like Chile and Brazil but also for many other already developed nations navigating low growth and burgeoning unemployment. Nobody would quibble with the reality that Australia has also been lucky, riding the back of a massive boom in global commodity markets – thank you China and your seemingly insatiable appetite for iron ore. Without doubt, Australia's bubble could burst if the Chinese market and global commodity prices were to crash. But the fact is, Australia has shown resilience in the past – and this is largely due to good economic policy. Aussie banks have been managed conservatively; none have failed, no taxpayer bail-outs have been needed. There has been no Euro-style printing of money, no pushing of interest rates down to the historic lows we have seen in the UK. The Australian government, despite public brouhaha, has held its nerve, continuing to invest and stimulating the economy to keep it aloft. At 5.40%, the unemployment rate – one of the lowest in the industrialised world – is half that of Europe, never mind the horrendous 20% seen in Greece, Spain or Italy. And all the while, Australia's government debt has been chipped at: surpluses have been delivered and real money squirrelled away to tide the nation through bad times. Surely, this should deliver government on its own. But not in Oz. Instead, Labor allowed itself to be spooked by another bad opinion poll for Gillard, the epidemic of political dread fanned by a plethora of male radio shock jocks, and a largely hostile parliamentary commentariat. And once again, it turned to sharpening the knives. There is, of course, one thing that's going badly in Oz. But at least the Australian cricket team is standing by their captain. • This article was amended on 22 March 2013. It previously referred to asylum seekers arriving "illegally" – that word has been removed. It also moved an incorrect reference to a 2% budget surplus. A sentence which implied that yesterday's attempt to remove Gillard was instigated by Kevin Rudd has been amended to clarify that it is the third attempt by either himself or his supporters to do so.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/21/australians-julia-gillard

1. The Guardian is left wing. I have never bought a copy of it once. It couldn't even support David Cameron when everyone had deserted Labour.

2. Technical point. Gillard did not beat Rudd in 2010, he didn't stand. She went around his back and shored up votes without telling him.

The Guardian has never been one for checking facts though.
Left wing rag that it is.

A weak dysfunctional Labor Party and a constantly negative Opposition..thats the real problem.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 4:39pm:

1. The Guardian is left wing. I have never bought a copy of it once. It couldn't even support David Cameron when everyone had deserted Labour. 2. Technical point. Gillard did not beat Rudd in 2010, he didn't stand. She went around his back and shored up votes without telling him. The Guardian has never been one for checking facts though. Left wing rag that it is.

I'd me more interested in hearing your opinion on the topics raised within the opinion piece, less your opinion of the newspaper that published it.

Its quite simple..with Gillard and Abbott we are scraping the bottom of the barrel so its no wonder everyone is fed up.

I am pointing out to you a little background on the publisher.

The Guardian hates market capitalism, believes in nationalisation and high socialist benefits.
Hence the bias and attack on the austerity measures and cuts on welfare we are doing in Europe that you see in your article.

When The Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph start to write such pieces then I know you have a point.

I don't agree with the article. It paints Australia in a much better light than it is (a too high dollar by the way is not good for you) and the UK public wouldn't know how incorrect it is.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 4:41pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:39pm: 1. The Guardian is left wing. I have never bought a copy of it once. It couldn't even support David Cameron when everyone had deserted Labour. 2. Technical point. Gillard did not beat Rudd in 2010, he didn't stand. She went around his back and shored up votes without telling him. The Guardian has never been one for checking facts though. Left wing rag that it is. I'd me more interested in hearing your opinion on the topics raised within the opinion piece, less your opinion of the newspaper that published it.

It's accurate enough....and it also highlights how badly Gillard has retailed our true comparative position.  Mind you, she does try, and I suppose it will always be hard if the Media do not want to share the joy, and instead, become part of the whingers.

Aussie wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 4:48pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:41pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:39pm: 1. The Guardian is left wing. I have never bought a copy of it once. It couldn't even support David Cameron when everyone had deserted Labour. 2. Technical point. Gillard did not beat Rudd in 2010, he didn't stand. She went around his back and shored up votes without telling him. The Guardian has never been one for checking facts though. Left wing rag that it is. I'd me more interested in hearing your opinion on the topics raised within the opinion piece, less your opinion of the newspaper that published it. It's accurate enough....and it also highlights how badly Gillard has retailed our true comparative position.  Mind you, she does try, and I suppose it will always be hard if the Media do not want to share the joy, and instead, become part of the whingers.

It's interesting though as to who's to blame here.  Is it really just our media completely beside themselves with angst to install an Abbott government, or Gillard trying to sell the message of a prosperous country, but failing miserably? There are trues to both, but I'd be saying if she was really capable of ever putting forward a believable message relating to her government's policies and the state of Australia's economy, she wouldn't go down to the same level that Tony's playing at. 

Quote:

Surely, this should deliver government on its own. But not in Oz. Instead, Labor allowed itself to be spooked by another bad opinion poll for Gillard, the epidemic of political dread fanned by a plethora of male radio shock jocks, and a largely hostile parliamentary commentariat. And once again, it turned to sharpening the knives.

That comment is relevant to your question.

Lets see - 21 years last last June which takes us back to 1991

1991-1995 ==>> Labor (4 years)
1995-2007 ==>> LIBs (12 years)
2007-2012 ==>> Labor (5 years)


So Labor buggered us up at the beginning with 18% interest rates. And Labor f#cks us up at the end with crippling debt and record deficits

Thanks Labor

And Labor could not deliver just one budget surplus in all that time...... >:(

Swagman wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 5:57pm:

And Labor could not deliver just one budget surplus in all that time...... >:(

.....and what criticisms do you have of the Article under discussion?

adelcrow wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 4:40pm:

A weak dysfunctional Labor Party and a constantly negative Opposition..thats the real problem.

I don't think Abbott is constantly negative. Quite the opposite. He is apparently quite positive he will beat Gillard to be our next PM!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 5:01pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:48pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:41pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:39pm: 1. The Guardian is left wing. I have never bought a copy of it once. It couldn't even support David Cameron when everyone had deserted Labour. 2. Technical point. Gillard did not beat Rudd in 2010, he didn't stand. She went around his back and shored up votes without telling him. The Guardian has never been one for checking facts though. Left wing rag that it is. I'd me more interested in hearing your opinion on the topics raised within the opinion piece, less your opinion of the newspaper that published it. It's accurate enough....and it also highlights how badly Gillard has retailed our true comparative position.  Mind you, she does try, and I suppose it will always be hard if the Media do not want to share the joy, and instead, become part of the whingers. It's interesting though as to who's to blame here.  Is it really just our media completely beside themselves with angst to install an Abbott government, or Gillard trying to sell the message of a prosperous country, but failing miserably? There are trues to both, but I'd be saying if she was really capable of ever putting forward a believable message relating to her government's policies and the state of Australia's economy, she wouldn't go down to the same level that Tony's playing at.

True - Gillard is at a level far lower than that of Abbott or anyone else short of a dictator. She's subterranean! No one can go as low as Gillard.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 4:39pm:

1. The Guardian is left wing. I have never bought a copy of it once. It couldn't even support David Cameron when everyone had deserted Labour. 2. Technical point. Gillard did not beat Rudd in 2010, he didn't stand. She went around his back and shored up votes without telling him. The Guardian has never been one for checking facts though. Left wing rag that it is.

Rudd also challenged her ONCE not 3 times and even then it was gillard who called te challenge, not him. the guardians facts are pretty dodgy to say the least.

so laborites, explain for us the reason for Howard being dumped in 2007? the economy was in vaslty better shape by virtually every measure. Only inflation was a problem and THAT was only because inflation is always a problem in a booming economy. We have low inflation now because we have no boom.

so if it is a country of whingers now then it must have been a far worse mob of whingers in 2007 that got rid of a govt when we were in far better shape. correct?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 7:07pm:

so laborites, explain for us the reason for Howard being dumped in 2007? the economy was in vaslty better shape by virtually every measure. Only inflation was a problem and THAT was only because inflation is always a problem in a booming economy. We have low inflation now because we have no boom. so if it is a country of whingers now then it must have been a far worse mob of whingers in 2007 that got rid of a govt when we were in far better shape. correct?

In an expression......children overboard, workchoices, asylum seekers, arrogance....and Kevin Rudd.  We will never know how Hayseed would have handled the GFC.

;)

Oh this thread sounds like the lefties are upset that they have the other side doing what they have done from day dot. Guess the righties have finally had enough of you whining and are getting in the game.

Aussie wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 7:24pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 7:07pm: so laborites, explain for us the reason for Howard being dumped in 2007? the economy was in vaslty better shape by virtually every measure. Only inflation was a problem and THAT was only because inflation is always a problem in a booming economy. We have low inflation now because we have no boom. so if it is a country of whingers now then it must have been a far worse mob of whingers in 2007 that got rid of a govt when we were in far better shape. correct? In an expression......children overboard, workchoices, asylum seekers, arrogance....and Kevin Rudd.  We will never know how Hayseed would have handled the GFC. ;)

And for those reasons - you believe it was worth the $300B debt and 5 record deficits

stupid is as stupid does and you guys did it in 2007

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 4:39pm:

1. The Guardian is left wing. I have never bought a copy of it once. It couldn't even support David Cameron when everyone had deserted Labour. 2. Technical point. Gillard did not beat Rudd in 2010, he didn't stand. She went around his back and shored up votes without telling him. The Guardian has never been one for checking facts though. Left wing rag that it is.

If you have never bought a copy of it ever how the heck would you know it was "left wing"?

SOB

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 4:46pm:

I am pointing out to you a little background on the publisher. The Guardian hates market capitalism, believes in nationalisation and high socialist benefits. Hence the bias and attack on the austerity measures and cuts on welfare we are doing in Europe that you see in your article. When The Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph start to write such pieces then I know you have a point. I don't agree with the article. It paints Australia in a much better light than it is (a too high dollar by the way is not good for you) and the UK public wouldn't know how incorrect it is.

That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument.

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 7:07pm:

so laborites, explain for us the reason for Howard being dumped in 2007? the economy was in vaslty better shape by virtually every measure. Only inflation was a problem and THAT was only because inflation is always a problem in a booming economy. We have low inflation now because we have no boom. so if it is a country of whingers now then it must have been a far worse mob of whingers in 2007 that got rid of a govt when we were in far better shape. correct?

Uhh it was propped up by credit and before the meltdown? Duh.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 5:52am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:46pm: I am pointing out to you a little background on the publisher. The Guardian hates market capitalism, believes in nationalisation and high socialist benefits. Hence the bias and attack on the austerity measures and cuts on welfare we are doing in Europe that you see in your article. When The Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph start to write such pieces then I know you have a point. I don't agree with the article. It paints Australia in a much better light than it is (a too high dollar by the way is not good for you) and the UK public wouldn't know how incorrect it is. That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB

ad hominem is attacking a PERSON you uneducated twit, not an object

Longweekend is guilty of Ad hominem attacks every day on Ozpolitics.

he is forgiven

namaste

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 6:35am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:52am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:46pm: I am pointing out to you a little background on the publisher. The Guardian hates market capitalism, believes in nationalisation and high socialist benefits. Hence the bias and attack on the austerity measures and cuts on welfare we are doing in Europe that you see in your article. When The Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph start to write such pieces then I know you have a point. I don't agree with the article. It paints Australia in a much better light than it is (a too high dollar by the way is not good for you) and the UK public wouldn't know how incorrect it is. That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB ad hominem is attacking a PERSON you uneducated twit, not an object

The source not an object. The source is the guardian.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 7:32am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 6:35am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:52am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:46pm: I am pointing out to you a little background on the publisher. The Guardian hates market capitalism, believes in nationalisation and high socialist benefits. Hence the bias and attack on the austerity measures and cuts on welfare we are doing in Europe that you see in your article. When The Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph start to write such pieces then I know you have a point. I don't agree with the article. It paints Australia in a much better light than it is (a too high dollar by the way is not good for you) and the UK public wouldn't know how incorrect it is. That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB ad hominem is attacking a PERSON you uneducated twit, not an object The source not an object. The source is the guardian. SOB

???? are you honestly that stupid ????
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 7:34am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 7:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 6:35am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:52am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:46pm: I am pointing out to you a little background on the publisher. The Guardian hates market capitalism, believes in nationalisation and high socialist benefits. Hence the bias and attack on the austerity measures and cuts on welfare we are doing in Europe that you see in your article. When The Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph start to write such pieces then I know you have a point. I don't agree with the article. It paints Australia in a much better light than it is (a too high dollar by the way is not good for you) and the UK public wouldn't know how incorrect it is. That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB ad hominem is attacking a PERSON you uneducated twit, not an object The source not an object. The source is the guardian. SOB ???? are you honestly that stupid ???? :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

More so, actually.

Scientists are developing a new stupidity testing meter as Miss Borg took the needle of the current model off the scale.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 4:39pm:

1. The Guardian is left wing. I have never bought a copy of it once. It couldn't even support David Cameron when everyone had deserted Labour. 2. Technical point. Gillard did not beat Rudd in 2010, he didn't stand. She went around his back and shored up votes without telling him. The Guardian has never been one for checking facts though. Left wing rag that it is.

Andrei if the only fault you can find in the article is a picky technical one, then the G has done pretty well.

Reading a leftwing paper would do you good, it might broaden your mind.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 7:32am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 6:35am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:52am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:46pm: I am pointing out to you a little background on the publisher. The Guardian hates market capitalism, believes in nationalisation and high socialist benefits. Hence the bias and attack on the austerity measures and cuts on welfare we are doing in Europe that you see in your article. When The Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph start to write such pieces then I know you have a point. I don't agree with the article. It paints Australia in a much better light than it is (a too high dollar by the way is not good for you) and the UK public wouldn't know how incorrect it is. That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB ad hominem is attacking a PERSON you uneducated twit, not an object The source not an object. The source is the guardian. SOB

Someone didn't do Latin at school.
Ad hominem is formed from the accusative tense of "homo" meaning man in Latin.
Argumentum ad hominem is "to the man or person" and cannot be applied to an object.

Had I specifically attacked the author or columnist then you can apply it.
However my comment related to The Guardian which has no gender and is not a man.

British private school educations.
Load of rubbish eh?  ;)

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 8:04am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:39pm: 1. The Guardian is left wing. I have never bought a copy of it once. It couldn't even support David Cameron when everyone had deserted Labour. 2. Technical point. Gillard did not beat Rudd in 2010, he didn't stand. She went around his back and shored up votes without telling him. The Guardian has never been one for checking facts though. Left wing rag that it is. Andrei if the only fault you can find in the article is a picky technical one, then the G has done pretty well. Reading a leftwing paper would do you good, it might broaden your mind.

Peter I have read works by Bevan, Chomsky, Foot, Benn etc at university.
I am not without understanding of the Left movement.

If however I am going to be handing over 60p in the morning at a stand The Guardian and its attacks on everything in which I believe, is not getting it.

It's lazy journalism half the time too. Panders to angry Champagne Socialists.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 9:48am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 7:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 6:35am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:52am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:46pm: I am pointing out to you a little background on the publisher. The Guardian hates market capitalism, believes in nationalisation and high socialist benefits. Hence the bias and attack on the austerity measures and cuts on welfare we are doing in Europe that you see in your article. When The Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph start to write such pieces then I know you have a point. I don't agree with the article. It paints Australia in a much better light than it is (a too high dollar by the way is not good for you) and the UK public wouldn't know how incorrect it is. That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB ad hominem is attacking a PERSON you uneducated twit, not an object The source not an object. The source is the guardian. SOB Someone didn't do Latin at school. Ad hominem is formed from the accusative tense of "homo" meaning man in Latin. Argumentum ad hominem is "to the man or person" and cannot be applied to an object. Had I specifically attacked the author or columnist then you can apply it. However my comment related to The Guardian which has no gender and is not a man. British private school educations. Load of rubbish eh?  ;)

What? Who cares. Why would i do latin?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 10:48am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 9:48am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 7:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 6:35am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:52am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:46pm: I am pointing out to you a little background on the publisher. The Guardian hates market capitalism, believes in nationalisation and high socialist benefits. Hence the bias and attack on the austerity measures and cuts on welfare we are doing in Europe that you see in your article. When The Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph start to write such pieces then I know you have a point. I don't agree with the article. It paints Australia in a much better light than it is (a too high dollar by the way is not good for you) and the UK public wouldn't know how incorrect it is. That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB ad hominem is attacking a PERSON you uneducated twit, not an object The source not an object. The source is the guardian. SOB Someone didn't do Latin at school. Ad hominem is formed from the accusative tense of "homo" meaning man in Latin. Argumentum ad hominem is "to the man or person" and cannot be applied to an object. Had I specifically attacked the author or columnist then you can apply it. However my comment related to The Guardian which has no gender and is not a man. British private school educations. Load of rubbish eh?  ;) What? Who cares. Why would i do latin? SOB

To prevent making an arse of yourself when you try and use it?

Whilst browsing a large, international forum last night, the topic of 'things are going great', arose.  It pertained, in that instance, to the US

Majority commenters noted the claim of 'everything's going great' is pushed in the US on the cusp of collapse

Reminded me of Australia, particularly the past few years and thousand media headlines

Sure, things are going great, right? 

We believe Swan's falling unemployment/unemployment at approx. 5%, right ?

We need unskilled, non-English speaking 3rd worlders to fill Australia's supposed 'skills shortage' -- right ?

Aussies don't want to work -- right ?

We're on the cusp of a property-boom -- right ?

The mining-boom injects billions into our economy ...
We've never before enjoyed this level of disposable income ...
Rudd, Gillard & Swan guided us successfully through the Global Financial Collapse ...
We're a Lucky Country ...
We're a Rich Country ...

right ?


Gee, those of you who don't share the joy are 'whingers' ...

right ?


Or maybe those characterised as 'whingers' are immune to blatant bull-crap & can see clearly, can utilise the brains God gave them

Right !

PZ547 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 11:57am:

Whilst browsing a large, international forum last night, the topic of 'things are going great', arose.  It pertained, in that instance, to the US Majority commenters noted the claim of 'everything's going great' is pushed in the US on the cusp of collapse Reminded me of Australia, particularly the past few years and thousand media headlines Sure, things are going great, right?  We believe Swan's falling unemployment/unemployment at approx. 5%, right ? We need unskilled, non-English speaking 3rd worlders to fill Australia's supposed 'skills shortage' -- right ? Aussies don't want to work -- right ? We're on the cusp of a property-boom -- right ? The mining-boom injects billions into our economy ... We've never before enjoyed this level of disposable income ... Rudd, Gillard & Swan guided us successfully through the Global Financial Collapse ... We're a Lucky Country ... We're a Rich Country ... right ? Gee, those of you who don't share the joy are 'whingers' ... right ? Or maybe those characterised as 'whingers' are immune to blatant bull-crap & can see clearly, can utilise the brains God gave them Right !

This would be valid if the issues discussed by mainstream media and our politicians were about skill shortage and property prices, and so on. Instead, we are discussing a $10 carbon tax which has been subsidised and asylum seekers who have come to take our land away from us.  That is what defines those who actually think this is significant, in the scope of the global issues right now, as whingers.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 7:07pm:

so laborites, explain for us the reason for Howard being dumped in 2007? the economy was in vaslty better shape by virtually every measure. Only inflation was a problem and THAT was only because inflation is always a problem in a booming economy. We have low inflation now because we have no boom. so if it is a country of whingers now then it must have been a far worse mob of whingers in 2007 that got rid of a govt when we were in far better shape. correct?

Unfortunately one can't predict what may have happened if Howard was leading us through the GFC. I can't write up what didn't happen for you. BUt what I can say is you're trying to put together a history comparing the state of the economy during completely different times. The point we are talking is about, based on the state of global problems, which Australia has weathered incredibly well in comparison to others, why are we whining about such issues as a $10 carbon tax, which we've been subsidised for, and asylum seekers? It's completely deluded. 

Howard and Rudd had a well fought competition. Howard lost because he became overly arrogant. But at the time no one was arguing that "look at how bad we've got it." He was removed because it was time and people asked for a change. The conditions right now are COMPLETELY different where we've actually got people whining about the situation of the economy? WHEN ALL OF EUROPE IS F***KED? WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS? ARE WE FOR FU**EN REAL????????  Point is, the current climate in Australia is not as bad as what is made out, and if we truly believe we are on the cusp of the likes of Greece then we need a big cold shower.  And if we truly believe that 34,000 people, in a scope of 42 million +, are coming to take over our lives, then we don't only need a cold shower but a dive in an ice bath.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 9:54am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 8:04am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:39pm: 1. The Guardian is left wing. I have never bought a copy of it once. It couldn't even support David Cameron when everyone had deserted Labour. 2. Technical point. Gillard did not beat Rudd in 2010, he didn't stand. She went around his back and shored up votes without telling him. The Guardian has never been one for checking facts though. Left wing rag that it is. Andrei if the only fault you can find in the article is a picky technical one, then the G has done pretty well. Reading a leftwing paper would do you good, it might broaden your mind. Peter I have read works by Bevan, Chomsky, Foot, Benn etc at university. I am not without understanding of the Left movement. If however I am going to be handing over 60p in the morning at a stand The Guardian and its attacks on everything in which I believe, is not getting it. It's lazy journalism half the time too. Panders to angry Champagne Socialists.

Fair enough, that's your call.

I buy the Australian firstly because it is the only serious newspaper available, and secondly because I am interested in the rightwing views it espouses.

There are days when I find the only accurate report in the Oz is the date, but there are others when it does a good job.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 2:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 7:07pm: so laborites, explain for us the reason for Howard being dumped in 2007? the economy was in vaslty better shape by virtually every measure. Only inflation was a problem and THAT was only because inflation is always a problem in a booming economy. We have low inflation now because we have no boom. so if it is a country of whingers now then it must have been a far worse mob of whingers in 2007 that got rid of a govt when we were in far better shape. correct? Unfortunately one can't predict what may have happened if Howard was leading us through the GFC. I can't write up what didn't happen for you. BUt what I can say is you're trying to put together a history comparing the state of the economy during completely different times. The point we are talking is about, based on the state of global problems, which Australia has weathered incredibly well in comparison to others, why are we whining about such issues as a $10 carbon tax, which we've been subsidised for, and asylum seekers? It's completely deluded.  Howard and Rudd had a well fought competition. Howard lost because he became overly arrogant. But at the time no one was arguing that "look at how bad we've got it." He was removed because it was time and people asked for a change. The conditions right now are COMPLETELY different where we've actually got people whining about the situation of the economy? WHEN ALL OF EUROPE IS F***KED? WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS? ARE WE FOR FU**EN REAL????????  Point is, the current climate in Australia is not as bad as what is made out, and if we truly believe we are on the cusp of the likes of Greece then we need a big cold shower.  And if we truly believe that 34,000 people, in a scope of 42 million +, are coming to take over our lives, then we don't only need a cold shower but a dive in an ice bath.

maybe we dont like being lied to, cheated and stolen from. and it doesnt matter if you are a billionaire or down to your last dollar - no one likes being cheated and gillard and co have done exactly that.

adelcrow wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 4:46pm:

Its quite simple..with Gillard and Abbott we are scraping the bottom of the barrel so its no wonder everyone is fed up.

We can't be "scraping the bottom of the barrel" (so to speak) if we were left unscathed by the global financial crisis. I don't think it's a matter of having the worst politicians leading the two major parties, but more a case of it being difficult to judge their competency when our country is doing much better than many other developed ones.

The main problem with both Gillard and Abbott is they keep telling us we need reform when what they are both proposing don't improve anything. Abbott nitpicks everything and Gillard doesn't know how to keep a good reputation. She keeps foolishly making promises she can't keep.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 11:48am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 10:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 9:48am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 7:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 6:35am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:52am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:46pm: I am pointing out to you a little background on the publisher. The Guardian hates market capitalism, believes in nationalisation and high socialist benefits. Hence the bias and attack on the austerity measures and cuts on welfare we are doing in Europe that you see in your article. When The Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph start to write such pieces then I know you have a point. I don't agree with the article. It paints Australia in a much better light than it is (a too high dollar by the way is not good for you) and the UK public wouldn't know how incorrect it is. That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB ad hominem is attacking a PERSON you uneducated twit, not an object The source not an object. The source is the guardian. SOB Someone didn't do Latin at school. Ad hominem is formed from the accusative tense of "homo" meaning man in Latin. Argumentum ad hominem is "to the man or person" and cannot be applied to an object. Had I specifically attacked the author or columnist then you can apply it. However my comment related to The Guardian which has no gender and is not a man. British private school educations. Load of rubbish eh?  ;) What? Who cares. Why would i do latin? SOB To prevent making an arse of yourself when you try and use it?

I speak english not latin. Go to a latin forum to blah on.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 6:08am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 11:48am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 10:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 9:48am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 7:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 6:35am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:52am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:46pm: I am pointing out to you a little background on the publisher. The Guardian hates market capitalism, believes in nationalisation and high socialist benefits. Hence the bias and attack on the austerity measures and cuts on welfare we are doing in Europe that you see in your article. When The Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph start to write such pieces then I know you have a point. I don't agree with the article. It paints Australia in a much better light than it is (a too high dollar by the way is not good for you) and the UK public wouldn't know how incorrect it is. That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB ad hominem is attacking a PERSON you uneducated twit, not an object The source not an object. The source is the guardian. SOB Someone didn't do Latin at school. Ad hominem is formed from the accusative tense of "homo" meaning man in Latin. Argumentum ad hominem is "to the man or person" and cannot be applied to an object. Had I specifically attacked the author or columnist then you can apply it. However my comment related to The Guardian which has no gender and is not a man. British private school educations. Load of rubbish eh?  ;) What? Who cares. Why would i do latin? SOB To prevent making an arse of yourself when you try and use it? I speak english not latin. Go to a latin forum to blah on. SOB

But Miss Borg you used Latin.


Quote:

That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 6:57am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 6:08am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 11:48am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 10:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 9:48am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 7:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 6:35am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:52am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:46pm: I am pointing out to you a little background on the publisher. The Guardian hates market capitalism, believes in nationalisation and high socialist benefits. Hence the bias and attack on the austerity measures and cuts on welfare we are doing in Europe that you see in your article. When The Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph start to write such pieces then I know you have a point. I don't agree with the article. It paints Australia in a much better light than it is (a too high dollar by the way is not good for you) and the UK public wouldn't know how incorrect it is. That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB ad hominem is attacking a PERSON you uneducated twit, not an object The source not an object. The source is the guardian. SOB Someone didn't do Latin at school. Ad hominem is formed from the accusative tense of "homo" meaning man in Latin. Argumentum ad hominem is "to the man or person" and cannot be applied to an object. Had I specifically attacked the author or columnist then you can apply it. However my comment related to The Guardian which has no gender and is not a man. British private school educations. Load of rubbish eh?  ;) What? Who cares. Why would i do latin? SOB To prevent making an arse of yourself when you try and use it? I speak english not latin. Go to a latin forum to blah on. SOB But Miss Borg you used Latin. Quote: That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB

So what? English as adopted that (and many other) word.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 7:04am:

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 6:57am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 6:08am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 11:48am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 10:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 9:48am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 7:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 6:35am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:52am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:46pm: I am pointing out to you a little background on the publisher. The Guardian hates market capitalism, believes in nationalisation and high socialist benefits. Hence the bias and attack on the austerity measures and cuts on welfare we are doing in Europe that you see in your article. When The Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph start to write such pieces then I know you have a point. I don't agree with the article. It paints Australia in a much better light than it is (a too high dollar by the way is not good for you) and the UK public wouldn't know how incorrect it is. That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB ad hominem is attacking a PERSON you uneducated twit, not an object The source not an object. The source is the guardian. SOB Someone didn't do Latin at school. Ad hominem is formed from the accusative tense of "homo" meaning man in Latin. Argumentum ad hominem is "to the man or person" and cannot be applied to an object. Had I specifically attacked the author or columnist then you can apply it. However my comment related to The Guardian which has no gender and is not a man. British private school educations. Load of rubbish eh?  ;) What? Who cares. Why would i do latin? SOB To prevent making an arse of yourself when you try and use it? I speak english not latin. Go to a latin forum to blah on. SOB But Miss Borg you used Latin. Quote: That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB So what? English as adopted that (and many other) word. SOB

It is still friggen Latin idiot.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 6:08am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 11:48am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 10:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 9:48am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 7:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 6:35am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:52am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:46pm: I am pointing out to you a little background on the publisher. The Guardian hates market capitalism, believes in nationalisation and high socialist benefits. Hence the bias and attack on the austerity measures and cuts on welfare we are doing in Europe that you see in your article. When The Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph start to write such pieces then I know you have a point. I don't agree with the article. It paints Australia in a much better light than it is (a too high dollar by the way is not good for you) and the UK public wouldn't know how incorrect it is. That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB ad hominem is attacking a PERSON you uneducated twit, not an object The source not an object. The source is the guardian. SOB Someone didn't do Latin at school. Ad hominem is formed from the accusative tense of "homo" meaning man in Latin. Argumentum ad hominem is "to the man or person" and cannot be applied to an object. Had I specifically attacked the author or columnist then you can apply it. However my comment related to The Guardian which has no gender and is not a man. British private school educations. Load of rubbish eh?  ;) What? Who cares. Why would i do latin? SOB To prevent making an arse of yourself when you try and use it? I speak english not latin. Go to a latin forum to blah on. SOB

then dont use it since you dont understand it. That is the point of explaining to you your misuse of a LATIN TERM.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 5:26pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 2:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 7:07pm: so laborites, explain for us the reason for Howard being dumped in 2007? the economy was in vaslty better shape by virtually every measure. Only inflation was a problem and THAT was only because inflation is always a problem in a booming economy. We have low inflation now because we have no boom. so if it is a country of whingers now then it must have been a far worse mob of whingers in 2007 that got rid of a govt when we were in far better shape. correct? Unfortunately one can't predict what may have happened if Howard was leading us through the GFC. I can't write up what didn't happen for you. BUt what I can say is you're trying to put together a history comparing the state of the economy during completely different times. The point we are talking is about, based on the state of global problems, which Australia has weathered incredibly well in comparison to others, why are we whining about such issues as a $10 carbon tax, which we've been subsidised for, and asylum seekers? It's completely deluded.  Howard and Rudd had a well fought competition. Howard lost because he became overly arrogant. But at the time no one was arguing that "look at how bad we've got it." He was removed because it was time and people asked for a change. The conditions right now are COMPLETELY different where we've actually got people whining about the situation of the economy? WHEN ALL OF EUROPE IS F***KED? WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS? ARE WE FOR FU**EN REAL????????  Point is, the current climate in Australia is not as bad as what is made out, and if we truly believe we are on the cusp of the likes of Greece then we need a big cold shower.  And if we truly believe that 34,000 people, in a scope of 42 million +, are coming to take over our lives, then we don't only need a cold shower but a dive in an ice bath. maybe we dont like being lied to, cheated and stolen from. and it doesnt matter if you are a billionaire or down to your last dollar - no one likes being cheated and gillard and co have done exactly that.

Who cheated you out of what? $10? You got the tax break, so get over it. You're basically proving the opinion right.

As for lying, these types of standards you try to represent would be admirable, if you ACTUALLY held to them.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 6:08am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 11:48am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 10:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 9:48am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 7:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 6:35am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:52am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:46pm: I am pointing out to you a little background on the publisher. The Guardian hates market capitalism, believes in nationalisation and high socialist benefits. Hence the bias and attack on the austerity measures and cuts on welfare we are doing in Europe that you see in your article. When The Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph start to write such pieces then I know you have a point. I don't agree with the article. It paints Australia in a much better light than it is (a too high dollar by the way is not good for you) and the UK public wouldn't know how incorrect it is. That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB ad hominem is attacking a PERSON you uneducated twit, not an object The source not an object. The source is the guardian. SOB Someone didn't do Latin at school. Ad hominem is formed from the accusative tense of "homo" meaning man in Latin. Argumentum ad hominem is "to the man or person" and cannot be applied to an object. Had I specifically attacked the author or columnist then you can apply it. However my comment related to The Guardian which has no gender and is not a man. British private school educations. Load of rubbish eh?  ;) What? Who cares. Why would i do latin? SOB To prevent making an arse of yourself when you try and use it? I speak english not latin. Go to a latin forum to blah on. SOB then dont use it since you dont understand it. That is the point of explaining to you your misuse of a LATIN TERM.

I didnt misuse it - its your favourite thing to do in this forum.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 8:28am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 8:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 6:08am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 11:48am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 10:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 9:48am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 7:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 6:35am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:52am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:46pm: I am pointing out to you a little background on the publisher. The Guardian hates market capitalism, believes in nationalisation and high socialist benefits. Hence the bias and attack on the austerity measures and cuts on welfare we are doing in Europe that you see in your article. When The Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph start to write such pieces then I know you have a point. I don't agree with the article. It paints Australia in a much better light than it is (a too high dollar by the way is not good for you) and the UK public wouldn't know how incorrect it is. That is called ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the actual argument. SOB ad hominem is attacking a PERSON you uneducated twit, not an object The source not an object. The source is the guardian. SOB Someone didn't do Latin at school. Ad hominem is formed from the accusative tense of "homo" meaning man in Latin. Argumentum ad hominem is "to the man or person" and cannot be applied to an object. Had I specifically attacked the author or columnist then you can apply it. However my comment related to The Guardian which has no gender and is not a man. British private school educations. Load of rubbish eh?  ;) What? Who cares. Why would i do latin? SOB To prevent making an arse of yourself when you try and use it? I speak english not latin. Go to a latin forum to blah on. SOB then dont use it since you dont understand it. That is the point of explaining to you your misuse of a LATIN TERM. I didnt misuse it - its your favourite thing to do in this forum. SOB

You did you idiot.
If you didn't study Latin and have no idea how it used - then the best bet is not to use it.

It was completely and totally mis-used - but given you don't understand what you write this is not surprising.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 8:13am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:26pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 2:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 7:07pm: so laborites, explain for us the reason for Howard being dumped in 2007? the economy was in vaslty better shape by virtually every measure. Only inflation was a problem and THAT was only because inflation is always a problem in a booming economy. We have low inflation now because we have no boom. so if it is a country of whingers now then it must have been a far worse mob of whingers in 2007 that got rid of a govt when we were in far better shape. correct? Unfortunately one can't predict what may have happened if Howard was leading us through the GFC. I can't write up what didn't happen for you. BUt what I can say is you're trying to put together a history comparing the state of the economy during completely different times. The point we are talking is about, based on the state of global problems, which Australia has weathered incredibly well in comparison to others, why are we whining about such issues as a $10 carbon tax, which we've been subsidised for, and asylum seekers? It's completely deluded.  Howard and Rudd had a well fought competition. Howard lost because he became overly arrogant. But at the time no one was arguing that "look at how bad we've got it." He was removed because it was time and people asked for a change. The conditions right now are COMPLETELY different where we've actually got people whining about the situation of the economy? WHEN ALL OF EUROPE IS F***KED? WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS? ARE WE FOR FU**EN REAL????????  Point is, the current climate in Australia is not as bad as what is made out, and if we truly believe we are on the cusp of the likes of Greece then we need a big cold shower.  And if we truly believe that 34,000 people, in a scope of 42 million +, are coming to take over our lives, then we don't only need a cold shower but a dive in an ice bath. maybe we dont like being lied to, cheated and stolen from. and it doesnt matter if you are a billionaire or down to your last dollar - no one likes being cheated and gillard and co have done exactly that. Who cheated you out of what? $10? You got the tax break, so get over it. You're basically proving the opinion right. As for lying, these types of standards you try to represent would be admirable, if you ACTUALLY held to them.

the carbon tax CHEATS people. if not from money it cheats them of respect. The ugliest thing by far about the carbon tax is not whether or not it exists but the illegitimacy of the process to implement one. what annoys people more than anything is the fact that THEY CHOSE not to have a carbon tax and without any consultation, without any apology one was implemented anyhow. People do not like cheats and liars anc Gillard comes across as one.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 10:58am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 8:13am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:26pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 2:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 7:07pm: so laborites, explain for us the reason for Howard being dumped in 2007? the economy was in vaslty better shape by virtually every measure. Only inflation was a problem and THAT was only because inflation is always a problem in a booming economy. We have low inflation now because we have no boom. so if it is a country of whingers now then it must have been a far worse mob of whingers in 2007 that got rid of a govt when we were in far better shape. correct? Unfortunately one can't predict what may have happened if Howard was leading us through the GFC. I can't write up what didn't happen for you. BUt what I can say is you're trying to put together a history comparing the state of the economy during completely different times. The point we are talking is about, based on the state of global problems, which Australia has weathered incredibly well in comparison to others, why are we whining about such issues as a $10 carbon tax, which we've been subsidised for, and asylum seekers? It's completely deluded.  Howard and Rudd had a well fought competition. Howard lost because he became overly arrogant. But at the time no one was arguing that "look at how bad we've got it." He was removed because it was time and people asked for a change. The conditions right now are COMPLETELY different where we've actually got people whining about the situation of the economy? WHEN ALL OF EUROPE IS F***KED? WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS? ARE WE FOR FU**EN REAL????????  Point is, the current climate in Australia is not as bad as what is made out, and if we truly believe we are on the cusp of the likes of Greece then we need a big cold shower.  And if we truly believe that 34,000 people, in a scope of 42 million +, are coming to take over our lives, then we don't only need a cold shower but a dive in an ice bath. maybe we dont like being lied to, cheated and stolen from. and it doesnt matter if you are a billionaire or down to your last dollar - no one likes being cheated and gillard and co have done exactly that. Who cheated you out of what? $10? You got the tax break, so get over it. You're basically proving the opinion right. As for lying, these types of standards you try to represent would be admirable, if you ACTUALLY held to them. the carbon tax CHEATS people. if not from money it cheats them of respect. The ugliest thing by far about the carbon tax is not whether or not it exists but the illegitimacy of the process to implement one. what annoys people more than anything is the fact that THEY CHOSE not to have a carbon tax and without any consultation, without any apology one was implemented anyhow. People do not like cheats and liars anc Gillard comes across as one.

They chose not to have a carbon tax? And yet they chose to have a price on carbon, twice.  So again, thanks for proving the original post and for showing that your hatred for "cheats and liars" only stems as far as the Labor Party, but when Tony cheats the people out of a carbon price that passed the "mandate" TWICE, that's okay.

It's nothing more than a whine for the sake of a whine.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 10:58am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 8:13am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:26pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 2:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 7:07pm: so laborites, explain for us the reason for Howard being dumped in 2007? the economy was in vaslty better shape by virtually every measure. Only inflation was a problem and THAT was only because inflation is always a problem in a booming economy. We have low inflation now because we have no boom. so if it is a country of whingers now then it must have been a far worse mob of whingers in 2007 that got rid of a govt when we were in far better shape. correct? Unfortunately one can't predict what may have happened if Howard was leading us through the GFC. I can't write up what didn't happen for you. BUt what I can say is you're trying to put together a history comparing the state of the economy during completely different times. The point we are talking is about, based on the state of global problems, which Australia has weathered incredibly well in comparison to others, why are we whining about such issues as a $10 carbon tax, which we've been subsidised for, and asylum seekers? It's completely deluded.  Howard and Rudd had a well fought competition. Howard lost because he became overly arrogant. But at the time no one was arguing that "look at how bad we've got it." He was removed because it was time and people asked for a change. The conditions right now are COMPLETELY different where we've actually got people whining about the situation of the economy? WHEN ALL OF EUROPE IS F***KED? WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS? ARE WE FOR FU**EN REAL????????  Point is, the current climate in Australia is not as bad as what is made out, and if we truly believe we are on the cusp of the likes of Greece then we need a big cold shower.  And if we truly believe that 34,000 people, in a scope of 42 million +, are coming to take over our lives, then we don't only need a cold shower but a dive in an ice bath. maybe we dont like being lied to, cheated and stolen from. and it doesnt matter if you are a billionaire or down to your last dollar - no one likes being cheated and gillard and co have done exactly that. Who cheated you out of what? $10? You got the tax break, so get over it. You're basically proving the opinion right. As for lying, these types of standards you try to represent would be admirable, if you ACTUALLY held to them. the carbon tax CHEATS people. if not from money it cheats them of respect. The ugliest thing by far about the carbon tax is not whether or not it exists but the illegitimacy of the process to implement one. what annoys people more than anything is the fact that THEY CHOSE not to have a carbon tax and without any consultation, without any apology one was implemented anyhow. People do not like cheats and liars anc Gillard comes across as one. They chose not to have a carbon tax? And yet they chose to have a price on carbon, twice.  So again, thanks for proving the original post and for showing that your hatred for "cheats and liars" only stems as far as the Labor Party, but when Tony cheats the people out of a carbon price that passed the "mandate" TWICE, that's okay. It's nothing more than a whine for the sake of a whine.

im a bit confused about where you think the ALP had TWO mandates for a carbon tax? 2007? arguable but 2010???? and election where they got less votes and didnt even score a majority? you can argue many things but there was no mandate for anything in 2010.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 4:03pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 1:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 10:58am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 8:13am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:26pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 2:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 7:07pm: so laborites, explain for us the reason for Howard being dumped in 2007? the economy was in vaslty better shape by virtually every measure. Only inflation was a problem and THAT was only because inflation is always a problem in a booming economy. We have low inflation now because we have no boom. so if it is a country of whingers now then it must have been a far worse mob of whingers in 2007 that got rid of a govt when we were in far better shape. correct? Unfortunately one can't predict what may have happened if Howard was leading us through the GFC. I can't write up what didn't happen for you. BUt what I can say is you're trying to put together a history comparing the state of the economy during completely different times. The point we are talking is about, based on the state of global problems, which Australia has weathered incredibly well in comparison to others, why are we whining about such issues as a $10 carbon tax, which we've been subsidised for, and asylum seekers? It's completely deluded.  Howard and Rudd had a well fought competition. Howard lost because he became overly arrogant. But at the time no one was arguing that "look at how bad we've got it." He was removed because it was time and people asked for a change. The conditions right now are COMPLETELY different where we've actually got people whining about the situation of the economy? WHEN ALL OF EUROPE IS F***KED? WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS? ARE WE FOR FU**EN REAL????????  Point is, the current climate in Australia is not as bad as what is made out, and if we truly believe we are on the cusp of the likes of Greece then we need a big cold shower.  And if we truly believe that 34,000 people, in a scope of 42 million +, are coming to take over our lives, then we don't only need a cold shower but a dive in an ice bath. maybe we dont like being lied to, cheated and stolen from. and it doesnt matter if you are a billionaire or down to your last dollar - no one likes being cheated and gillard and co have done exactly that. Who cheated you out of what? $10? You got the tax break, so get over it. You're basically proving the opinion right. As for lying, these types of standards you try to represent would be admirable, if you ACTUALLY held to them. the carbon tax CHEATS people. if not from money it cheats them of respect. The ugliest thing by far about the carbon tax is not whether or not it exists but the illegitimacy of the process to implement one. what annoys people more than anything is the fact that THEY CHOSE not to have a carbon tax and without any consultation, without any apology one was implemented anyhow. People do not like cheats and liars anc Gillard comes across as one. They chose not to have a carbon tax? And yet they chose to have a price on carbon, twice.  So again, thanks for proving the original post and for showing that your hatred for "cheats and liars" only stems as far as the Labor Party, but when Tony cheats the people out of a carbon price that passed the "mandate" TWICE, that's okay. It's nothing more than a whine for the sake of a whine. im a bit confused about where you think the ALP had TWO mandates for a carbon tax? 2007? arguable but 2010???? and election where they got less votes and didnt even score a majority? you can argue many things but there was no mandate for anything in 2010.

The usual lie.  Let's not rehash old ground that has been argued to death.  Point remains that it appears you will argue anything that suits your view, which is exactly spoken about within the opinion piece, and you're demonstrating it over and over.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 4:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 1:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 10:58am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 8:13am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 5:26pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 2:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 7:07pm: so laborites, explain for us the reason for Howard being dumped in 2007? the economy was in vaslty better shape by virtually every measure. Only inflation was a problem and THAT was only because inflation is always a problem in a booming economy. We have low inflation now because we have no boom. so if it is a country of whingers now then it must have been a far worse mob of whingers in 2007 that got rid of a govt when we were in far better shape. correct? Unfortunately one can't predict what may have happened if Howard was leading us through the GFC. I can't write up what didn't happen for you. BUt what I can say is you're trying to put together a history comparing the state of the economy during completely different times. The point we are talking is about, based on the state of global problems, which Australia has weathered incredibly well in comparison to others, why are we whining about such issues as a $10 carbon tax, which we've been subsidised for, and asylum seekers? It's completely deluded.  Howard and Rudd had a well fought competition. Howard lost because he became overly arrogant. But at the time no one was arguing that "look at how bad we've got it." He was removed because it was time and people asked for a change. The conditions right now are COMPLETELY different where we've actually got people whining about the situation of the economy? WHEN ALL OF EUROPE IS F***KED? WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS? ARE WE FOR FU**EN REAL????????  Point is, the current climate in Australia is not as bad as what is made out, and if we truly believe we are on the cusp of the likes of Greece then we need a big cold shower.  And if we truly believe that 34,000 people, in a scope of 42 million +, are coming to take over our lives, then we don't only need a cold shower but a dive in an ice bath. maybe we dont like being lied to, cheated and stolen from. and it doesnt matter if you are a billionaire or down to your last dollar - no one likes being cheated and gillard and co have done exactly that. Who cheated you out of what? $10? You got the tax break, so get over it. You're basically proving the opinion right. As for lying, these types of standards you try to represent would be admirable, if you ACTUALLY held to them. the carbon tax CHEATS people. if not from money it cheats them of respect. The ugliest thing by far about the carbon tax is not whether or not it exists but the illegitimacy of the process to implement one. what annoys people more than anything is the fact that THEY CHOSE not to have a carbon tax and without any consultation, without any apology one was implemented anyhow. People do not like cheats and liars anc Gillard comes across as one. They chose not to have a carbon tax? And yet they chose to have a price on carbon, twice.  So again, thanks for proving the original post and for showing that your hatred for "cheats and liars" only stems as far as the Labor Party, but when Tony cheats the people out of a carbon price that passed the "mandate" TWICE, that's okay. It's nothing more than a whine for the sake of a whine. im a bit confused about where you think the ALP had TWO mandates for a carbon tax? 2007? arguable but 2010???? and election where they got less votes and didnt even score a majority? you can argue many things but there was no mandate for anything in 2010. The usual lie.  Let's not rehash old ground that has been argued to death.  Point remains that it appears you will argue anything that suits your view, which is exactly spoken about within the opinion piece, and you're demonstrating it over and over.

thats just a backpedal. do i assume you claim ONE mandate for an ETS and 'two' was a typo or so I ask you to explain how the 2010 election was a mandate for anything?

your choice...

Check out some examples of Longy's stunning hypocrisy on the concept of mandates:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365047005

Prior to jumping on the carbon tax mandate bandwagon, Longy was arguing against the concept of majority rule in democracy, insisting that in order to be fair to political parties we must grant them full power without requiring majority support. He has also argued that political parties should impose unpopular changes on the voting public against the wishes of the majority.

We shouldn't HAVE 'mandates'.

For anything important (GST, Carbon 'tax', sale of Govt assets etc.) there MUST be a referendum.

And to Hell with the supposed 'cost'.

No referendum, no smacking mandate.

Simple as.

Kat what do you think of the idea of voting by delegable proxy?

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:58pm:

Kat what do you think of the idea of voting by delegable proxy?

Isn't that what I do when I tick the box on my AGM form allowing the Chairman to cast my vote for me in he manner he sees fit?

If so, I want the delegable proxy of the clowns who write to the Editor saying that the country is going broke.

;)

Meanwhile.....

Whinging used to be a 'disease' that only affected Pommies.
Seems like it has become really contagious.

;)

Mandates are a crap. Mandate are given to the party elected to lead this nation.  Simple as that. IF you don't like how they lead, you have a say every 3 years. Simple as that.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 9:11pm:

Mandates are a crap. Mandate are given to the party elected to lead this nation.  Simple as that. IF you don't like how they lead, you have a say every 3 years. Simple as that.

Of course mandates are crap.

A party can receive a massive majority in the HOR and still be stymied by a hostile Senate.

If we must persist with the stupidity of half-Senate elections, then change the rules so only the most recently elected Senators get to vote on newly introduced legislation.

This would have the added positive of making Double Dissolutions unnecessary.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 9:11pm:

Mandates are a crap. Mandate are given to the party elected to lead this nation.  Simple as that. IF you don't like how they lead, you have a say every 3 years. Simple as that.

So to hell with all pre-election commitments, promises and all?

Most Atheists have a problem with submission to Authority and therefore are unsuitable in Parliament.