The Federal Election Thread

[DIEHARD]

I wonder how many will vote for him because of what he wants to do with broadband.

Me because I live in a metropolitan blackspot, which is a complete and utter disgrace.

I am forced to use dial up, which makes my life a misery and cripples my productivity at work and on other projects.

It is about time this country entered the 21st Century....

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

And that was after he claimed that Australia would never have GST

oh well better than the recession we had to have :duh:

[nflin3]

oh well better than the recession we had to have :duh:

I won't hide that I am a Liberal fellow but that was not the fault of the Labor government because it was a global recession

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

Yes, but it would not have hit so much with good economic management.

i was more trying to point out that labour governments will tell us whats good for us just as much as the liberals, ie. the gst, whilst everyone *****es, the australian economy couldn't have moved forward with out it.

ps. i'm liberal all the way.

Get it from dad, he hates the labour government after the hawke govt told the soldiers they woudln't be getting payed and that they had to work fro free because the govt had no money, then a few weeks later found the money to pay them. Doesn't trust a labour govt as far as he can throw is his favourite saying.

[Steelers]

the gst, whilst everyone *****es, the australian economy couldn't have moved forward with out it.

Maybe that's the case, but Johnny Howard should have at least had the guts to tell the Australian public what they were voting for, instead of lying to them in order to get into office.

[DIEHARD]

Johnny Howard should have at least had the guts to tell the Australian public what they were voting for, instead of lying to them in order to get into office.

Exactly, if that is what satisfies some people as Australian democracy, it is very worrying.

One of the most sweeping changes, this IR reform (Which is unAustralian to its very core.) and it was hidden from the electorate.

See you later Howard!

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

Maybe that's the case, but Johnny Howard should have at least had the guts to tell the Australian public what they were voting for, instead of lying to them in order to get into office.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i remember that election vividily because my parents got into an argument with a niece, because she voted for beazely because she didn't want gst and mum and dad were trying to explain how the gst was good, they knew this before the election that they were voting for gst and their average australians so i'm pretty sure people knew what they were voting for, he said we wouldn't have gst a couple years before the election and and then did a backflip come election.

Exactly, if that is what satisfies some people as Australian democracy, it is very worrying.

One of the most sweeping changes, this IR reform (Which is unAustralian to its very core.) and it was hidden from the electorate.

See you later Howard!

Make no mistake about it, the ir laws will still be in place under rudd, he will tweak them a little bit for small buissness, that i will admit is fairer but not much if the whole ir concept is unaustralian.

His policies are not much different from howards, like his pulling of iraq troops, if you read his statements closley, he will only be pulling 1/3rd of the troops out, training and reconstrution staff will stay in Iraq, its only sas and specific combat units he will withdraw, which will probably leave our other troops vunerable and our death rate will climb.

[DIEHARD]

Yea, his IR policies are so alike.

He will just be tearing up AWAs and phasing out signed ones entirely.

He will be reinstating unfair dismissal and penalties.

And you can not get much more different on Iraq policy, Howard will have us there forever, we will not leave until the USA does and Howard will probably tell the USA to not bother cleaning up after the party and deploy troops to clean up and turn off the lights.

Rudd will get our troops out as soon as possible. It will be a staged withdrawal.

Besides we went to war and invaded a nation on a lie, an absolute lie, I have a massive problem with that. Our soldiers deserve better when they are called to serve our country...

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

Yea, his IR policies are so alike.

He will just be tearing up AWAs and phasing out signed ones entirely.

He will be reinstating unfair dismissal and penalties

All i have heard Rudd is say he will amend small busisness practices in regards to these things.

In a workplace with over 300 employees, unfair dismassal and awards still stand. I know he's changing it for small busissness which involves al lthese great thingsthat u mention. But if the new IR laws are so unaustralian why doesn't rudd remove them completly for the whole country. Find me that political statement and i will change my vote.

Besides we went to war and invaded a nation on a lie, an absolute lie, I have a massive problem with that. Our soldiers deserve better when they are called to serve our country...

Beazely would have sent our troops to Iraq if he was leader, he would have jumped when america said so. The main difference between the two parties when it comes to the invasion of Iraq minus your oil,wmd arguments in a legal sense is this. Howards govt said we were justified regardless of wmds because Iraq has broken its UN sanctions and we legally can invade for these indiscretions. Labour said well we would like to check that out. (i remember reading a press statment 4 weeks later that beazely said Iraq had broken Un sanctions.

Which legally gives a complying UN country the right to invade to make sure compliance.

Either way with horward or rudd, our troops will be in Iraq for many years to come, a staged withdrawal could take 20-30 years. A staged withdrawal could be very dangerous in Iraq, i'm watchign closley the withdrawal of British troops from Basra to see what the city does under Iraqi control.

Our soldiers deserve better when they are called to serve our country

If they have a problem soldiers can refuse to serve in Iraq, noone is holding a gun against their head and forcing them over there, soldiers go for many reasons, the money, the thrill, the oppurtunity to assist the less privleged, fighting for the freedoms of others. Id say their serving the country pretty well and in fact are serving the ultimate right of every human to be free.

[Ryan]

........And you can not get much more different on Iraq policy, Howard will have us there forever, we will not leave until the USA does and Howard will probably tell the USA to not bother cleaning up after the party and deploy troops to clean up and turn off the lights.

Rudd will get our troops out as soon as possible. It will be a staged withdrawal....

It was Kevins recomendation in the first place to keep troops there. Now he's changing his tone to suit his election campaign.....again

A LEAKED letter from Kevin Rudd to Prime Minister John Howard shows the Opposition Leader backed Australia's involvement in Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion.

In the letter, obtained by The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Rudd told Mr Howard how to win in Iraq.

"Now that regime change has occurred in Baghdad, it is the Opposition's view that it is now the responsibility of all people of goodwill, both in this country and beyond, to put their shoulder to the wheel in an effort to build a new Iraq,'' Mr Rudd wrote in the letter........rest of article

[DIEHARD]

In a workplace with over 300 employees, unfair dismassal and awards still stand. I know he's changing it for small busissness which involves al lthese great thingsthat u mention. But if the new IR laws are so unaustralian why doesn't rudd remove them completly for the whole country. Find me that political statement and i will change my vote.

It's actually under 101 employees for starters. Rudd is changing it so there are no AWAS and people who earn over 100k, who are in the position to independantly negoiate can have an independant common law contract.

They all love to spruk about how many small businesses have started up and rah rah rah, but what is the statistic, 3 out of every 4 small businesses fail. So I guess it's good they can screw over their staff and drag them down in their death throes.

WorkNOChoices is the most comprehensive reform to I.R in over 100 years and it wasn't even voted on. He knew the Australian public would categotically reject it and all it stands for. That isn't how I want my democratically elected government to conduct their business.

But the voters will have their say in 2007 and those laws will be torn up!

They have also eradicated all unfair dismissal for all companies for operational reasons.

Which means....well anything you damn well want it to.

Yes it's great policy writing business a blank check. I'm sure we can trust them... I mean they always do what is right by people, they aren't the type who are after dollar.

Beazely would have sent our troops to Iraq if he was leader, he would have jumped when america said so. The main difference between the two parties when it comes to the invasion of Iraq minus your oil,wmd arguments in a legal sense is this. Howards govt said we were justified regardless of wmds because Iraq has broken its UN sanctions and we legally can invade for these indiscretions. Labour said well we would like to check that out. (i remember reading a press statment 4 weeks later that beazely said Iraq had broken Un sanctions.

Which legally gives a complying UN country the right to invade to make sure compliance.

The UN voted against invasion. I don't think it is right to defy the international community. What is our excuse if Russia or China want to invade any country in their region for some sham reason? None because we just set an international precident and devalued the UN.

The greatest world power with the greatest surveillance and espionage assets couldn't find any WMD in Iraq and they have occupied the country for years. They fabricated evidence. It really is pathetic reflecting on that period of history.

The UN Security Council wanted further inspections for weapons, but the trigger happy Yanks and Brits didn't want to wait, they wanted WAR!

"From our point of view and from the Charter point of view [the war] was illegal." United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Either way with horward or rudd, our troops will be in Iraq for many years to come, a staged withdrawal could take 20-30 years. A staged withdrawal could be very dangerous in Iraq, i'm watchign closley the withdrawal of British troops from Basra to see what the city does under Iraqi control.

Where do you get all this BS from? You'd be a great fiction writer.

That is really hilarious.

Australia has what 700 troops in Iraq. Italy, Ukraine, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Japan, Thailand as well as about a dozen other nations with deployments of 100-450 troops have all successfully withdrawn....and let me say it didn't take three decades to achieve!

And they all withdrew safely.

If Rudd gets in, our troops will be home as soon as practically possible. At least Labor has a policy on Iraq, unlike Howard who is on Bush's leash giving him the old golden handshake and the wink wink.

[C-Whiz]

It was Kevins recomendation in the first place to keep troops there. Now he's changing his tone to suit his election campaign.....again

Troops for rebuilding. It's something you do after you have destroyed something.

For me it's a simple question: is Iraq a better place, in a better state, are the people better off, since their "liberation"? If you can answer yes, then let's keep doing what we've been doing. if you answer no, then we need to find a better way!

And don't forget to ask yourself, "Is Australia a safer place for our involvement in Iraq?"

[Ryan]

Troops for rebuilding. It's something you do after you have destroyed something.

For me it's a simple question: is Iraq a better place, in a better state, are the people better off, since their "liberation"? If you can answer yes, then let's keep doing what we've been doing. if you answer no, then we need to find a better way!

And don't forget to ask yourself, "Is Australia a safer place for our involvement in Iraq?"

The rebuilding isn't done yet, thats why they have to stay.

"Now that regime change has occurred in Baghdad, it is the Opposition's view that it is now the responsibility of all people of goodwill, both in this country and beyond, to put their shoulder to the wheel in an effort to build a new Iraq,'' Mr Rudd wrote in the letter.

I believe Iraq will be a better place, in a better state, the people better off, when liberation is complete.

"Is Australia a safer place for our involvement in Iraq?" - Well Australian troops have been in East Timor alot longer, which pisses of these extremist's even more than Iraq because we alone are controlling Muslim land. But we are there for the benefit for the locals, potenial increase in backlash from terrorist doesn't come into it.
If Iraq is on Rudd's election campaign, then why isn't East Timor?

We have a military alliance with the US, thats why we have troops in the Middle East, thats why we leave when they leave.
"Is Australia a safer place for our involvement in Iraq?" - Yes, because our increased relations with the most powerful military in the world. If a country like Iran or Nth Korea was to invade Australia to take control of our uranium, who's gonna defend our country? Our pre -WW2 second hand tanks :duh:

[C-Whiz]

The rebuilding isn't done yet, thats why they have to stay.

If Iraq is on Rudd's election campaign, then why isn't East Timor?

We have a military alliance with the US, thats why we have troops in the Middle East, thats why we leave when they leave.
"Is Australia a safer place for our involvement in Iraq?" - Yes, because our increased relations with the most powerful military in the world. If a country like Iran or Nth Korea was to invade Australia to take control of our uranium, who's gonna defend our country? Our pre -WW2 second hand tanks :duh:

Mate, I agree with he first part, about leaving troops to rebuild, which is what I said. But they are not combat troops. BIG difference!!!

The rest of your post is waffle! But I might make up a "Welcome to Australia" banner in Korean, just in case........

[Ryan]

Mate, I agree with he first part, about leaving troops to rebuild, which is what I said. But they are not combat troops. BIG difference!!!

The rest of your post is waffle! But I might make up a "Welcome to Australia" banner in Korean, just in case........

'Rebuild' troops? - Are they equiped with hammers & nails instead of guns & ammo?
Who is going to fight off the insurgents and maintain security for this to happen?
Labour was planning a full immediate withdrawl before X-mas how long ago? The tunes keep changing........

Australia's defence force is piss weak by comparison to Nth Korea and Iran. I used those two as examples because they are rogue countries. I was getting to the point of 'what if' Australia wasn't under the umbrella of the US & UK alliance, and hadn't been for all these years? We would be more vulnerable and alot less secure.

25% of Indonesia's population could paddle across with spears and bow & arrows to captulate half of Australia. Up against a modern army like Iran and Korea, what chance would we have? Just a thought, not a possible I know.....