mozzaok wrote on Jun 16
th, 2011 at 2:22pm:
You are missing the point Soren.
Well, mebbe so, if the point takes 6 paragraphs every time....
Quote:I have issue with large companies using huge amounts of money to steer public debate in ways that sees them able to have government policy changed, for their personal benefit.
The convergent interests of the opposition, and these parties, in promoting strong anti-Labor sentiment, in the community
Mozz, this is the heart of your point and this is why it is complete drivel.
You can't have the electorate getting it splendidly right in 2007 when it threw out Howard but be susceptible to harmful suggestions when it is not buying what your guys are selling.
ANyway, you'd have by now a functioning, 4 year old cap and trade if you had voted for Howard... Just thought it's worth mentioning, if only to illustrate the difference between competence and incompetence.
Quote:I also fear that a sense of special association may develop
You mean like the one between the ACTU and the ALP?
Quote:In an attempt to be fair in my analysis of this issue, I have to also comment that if the Labor government had not been so spineless,
What?!? Are you saying they duped you??? Are you saying you fell for their promotion of strong anti-Howard semntiment?
Quote:I believe that Abbott has quite a few debts to pay to these powerful people, and as such, any policy he puts forward, may be tainted before it ever sees the light of day.
The mining industry showed by spending 200 million, they could save themselves many billions, and the opposition, and the media companies helped to let that dangerous genie out of the bottle, and it will take a much better man than Abbott, or a better woman than Gillard, to ever get it back in.
Abbott will not be elected by the top 2% of the population.
The myth that you want to hang onto because it gives you comfort is that Labor is
only in a bad light, but not really bad. Snap out of it. They are bad.
No amount of positive advertising could help Labor. You know this.