Australians, how many are there (of us)??

[Randy]

Haha aussies have forgotten the suicidal guy already, remember last year there was a guy runnin for pm or something and He said a racist comment at a party and got owned by the press and then tried to kill himself anyone remember? And kim beasely that stupid,fat,bastard doesnt come up with anything himself just sits there and says the complete opposite to johnny on Every subject.In conclusion johnny=bad,beasely=fat,dumb,uninspired and really bad.

I remember that now, didn't know that he was running for PM at that point though.
Opposite on Johhny with every subject? Well they are from opposing sides of the political spectrum, *apparently*.

 

[ferretsniper]

Haha good point but watch on the news tonight johnny will come on saying something about the road death toll this year and then theyll flash a picture of kim beasely saying something along the lines of "I disagree blah blah blah political crap" 

 

[Randy]

That's not excatly how it goes. John will say it's a tragic waste of life, Kim will say the same, to do any different is to appear insensitive and is thus politically damaging.
Now when John says, 'thats why we're upping the jail terms and fines for offenders' for example, Kim would say something like 'That doesn't strike at the heart of the problem and is just revenue raising.'

Agreeing with the political decision of a rival isn't generally a good idea, it strengthens your opponents leadership in the eyes of the public and makes your position appear derivative. The challenge is to offer a better solution.

 

[thesneakster]

Peter costello, who would replace John howard if he resigned, would, IMO, be worse than John howard.

 

[rejenorst]

That's not excatly how it goes. John will say it's a tragic waste of life, Kim will say the same, to do any different is to appear insensitive and is thus politically damaging.
Now when John says, 'thats why we're upping the jail terms and fines for offenders' for example, Kim would say something like 'That doesn't strike at the heart of the problem and is just revenue raising.'

Agreeing with the political decision of a rival isn't generally a good idea, it strengthens your opponents leadership in the eyes of the public and makes your position appear derivative. The challenge is to offer a better solution.

True but the labour party during question time at least hardly ever offers a solution. It seems they are the labour party and that is the solution hehe...

Anyone ever remmember the simpson episode where the aliens impersonated the president and opposition during the elections?

"Alright.... Abortions for some.... Miniture American flags for others..." YAAAAAAAAAY...

I remmember Kim Beasly's add for GST "Some people will pay GST and others wont have to."  YAAAAAAAAY....

^_^ haha sigh .... politics.. 

Personally im not happy with Johnny... He seems to be in the spot light for lying about boat people throwing kid overboard photo, iraq, Wheat trade bribe etc. Ive heard from someone who'se worked with him that he has pushed people to pull party line.

I think John Howard is getting to arrogant, yes he's ok for the economy but we can only sell our assets once but i dont particulary like how hes managed foreign affairs. Sometimes he even goes over both parties head. Im not certain but we were in Iraq and Afghanistan before the public even had a chance to say no. I hear they've invented microscopic surgey to finally remove John Howards nose from George Bushe's Bum.

 

[Randy]

It's true that the Labour party needs to take a much stronger position, their lack of policy is their biggest weakness.
The Tampa incident was a perfect chance for Beasly to take a position, the moral highground at that. But instead he nearly agreed with John Howard, made himself look baaad.

It's true what you say about only being able to sell assets once. Sell out Australia just before the election, show them all the money the government has made and you'll be re-elected. Where did that money come from? Who gives a ****, must be Howard's apt handling of the economy n stuff.

Now the government has no assets, little means to generate income, they'll need to raise taxes. The GST was supposed to lower them.
HECs fees are higher than ever, there was a time when education was near free, but the right wing in it's infinite wisdom said hey, it's hurting the economy.

So now we have taxes at some of their highest points, HECs fees for some courses approaching the million dollar mark, doctor shortage, teacher shortage, soaring fuel prices (which I might add, means the Government gets very healthy royalties), the second worst environmental track record for any nation on Earth, we are a target of terrorism like never before (Bali is off limits basically), civil liberities are erroded (you can be arrested for a number of things hidden on your hard-drive, even if they are there courtesy of a worm, virus or website popup) <- Courtesy of a bill passed by John Howard in 95'.

Oh yeah, and if you criticise the government, that's sedition and you can be arrested at the leisure of the authorities. Degrading the social fabric further are the IR laws, you can work near full time hours on part time conditions, if you refuse to work those hours due to other commitments you can be instantly fired for someone who will. No holiday pay, no sick leave pay.

To compound with these society degrading effects, social security is going down hill. More crime, more mental illness, with a system that is already under-funded and over stretched. All this is just off the top of my head.


Moving from strength to strength...

 

[thesneakster]

Ahhhh.... polititions. i hate them all.....

 

[rejenorst]

It's true that the Labour party needs to take a much stronger position, their lack of policy is their biggest weakness.
The Tampa incident was a perfect chance for Beasly to take a position, the moral highground at that. But instead he nearly agreed with John Howard, made himself look baaad.

It's true what you say about only being able to sell assets once. Sell out Australia just before the election, show them all the money the government has made and you'll be re-elected. Where did that money come from? Who gives a ****, must be Howard's apt handling of the economy n stuff.

Now the government has no assets, little means to generate income, they'll need to raise taxes. The GST was supposed to lower them.
HECs fees are higher than ever, there was a time when education was near free, but the right wing in it's infinite wisdom said hey, it's hurting the economy.

So now we have taxes at some of their highest points, HECs fees for some courses approaching the million dollar mark, doctor shortage, teacher shortage, soaring fuel prices (which I might add, means the Government gets very healthy royalties), the second worst environmental track record for any nation on Earth, we are a target of terrorism like never before (Bali is off limits basically), civil liberities are erroded (you can be arrested for a number of things hidden on your hard-drive, even if they are there courtesy of a worm, virus or website popup) <- Courtesy of a bill passed by John Howard in 95'.

Oh yeah, and if you criticise the government, that's sedition and you can be arrested at the leisure of the authorities. Degrading the social fabric further are the IR laws, you can work near full time hours on part time conditions, if you refuse to work those hours due to other commitments you can be instantly fired for someone who will. No holiday pay, no sick leave pay.

To compound with these society degrading effects, social security is going down hill. More crime, more mental illness, with a system that is already under-funded and over stretched. All this is just off the top of my head.


Moving from strength to strength...

Wow, you've really painted a full picture of my woes here. D:
Can you expand a little on the sedition laws? if possible, these intrigue me. Can we really be arrested for critizing the government? Sounds like facism.

 

[Randy]

The sedition laws worry me a lot, they are poorly defined and thus a person accused of these crimes has no defense, as the prosecution can take any angle.

Section 24B defined seditious words as words expressive of a seditious intention, and Section 24D(1) specified that [a]ny person who, with the intention of causing violence or creating public disorder or a public disturbance, writes, prints, utters or publishes any seditious words shall be guilty of an indictable offence punishable by mprisonment for 3 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law

And now one can never assume that the law protects them. Look at David Hick's case or any number of alledged terrorists, held for years without trial. These people aren't prosecuted promptly as required by law, because the authorities know that the suspects have a very strong case and that many are likely innocent of the accusations levelled against them.

Likewise, torture is not allowed on American soil, thank goodness for Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba and the various happy places in Egypt.

 

[thesneakster]

Yeah, they say that 'we can't say anything that will cause bad things to happen to the PM'

so basically, we can't say that we don't like him, you would think?

 

[Randy]

Yeah, they say that 'we can't say anything that will cause bad things to happen to the PM'

so basically, we can't say that we don't like him, you would think?

That's the beauty of sneaking laws under the notice of the Australian public, they can be as poorly defined and outrageously anti-liberal as they wish.

In regards to what actually consitutes seditious words, once again that is at the discretion of the authorities, they may wish to pick you up on something you said or they may not.
Now whether the words you say are actually seditious or not has to be decided in court, just how much in legal fees are you willing to pay.

This doesn't even take into account the inconvienience of being indefinitely on trial and the damage to reputation. I see this as most likely to happen to a political leader or prominent media personality.

For an interesting comparison, look up McCarthyism, when those of a politically dissenting viewpoint could be locked up for being communists. Thats what happened to poor old Charly Chaplin I believe. 

 

[rejenorst]

The sedition laws worry me a lot, they are poorly defined and thus a person accused of these crimes has no defense, as the prosecution can take any angle.

Section 24B defined seditious words as words expressive of a seditious intention, and Section 24D(1) specified that [a]ny person who, with the intention of causing violence or creating public disorder or a public disturbance, writes, prints, utters or publishes any seditious words shall be guilty of an indictable offence punishable by mprisonment for 3 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law

And now one can never assume that the law protects them. Look at David Hick's case or any number of alledged terrorists, held for years without trial. These people aren't prosecuted promptly as required by law, because the authorities know that the suspects have a very strong case and that many are likely innocent of the accusations levelled against them.

Likewise, torture is not allowed on American soil, thank goodness for Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba and the various happy places in Egypt.

Holy crap I never noticed this. I did company law and contract law and i know your entire case can hang on a word sometimes. This is a law that if you "intend". How the HELL DO YOU PROVE/DISPROVE INTENT?!?!

If i speak to someone who has this intent and im a friend of his with no knowledge of such intent i would have a hard time arguing otherwise.

Thanks for that Randy thats quite disturbing!

 

[thesneakster]

The sedition laws worry me a lot, they are poorly defined and thus a person accused of these crimes has no defense, as the prosecution can take any angle.

Section 24B defined seditious words as words expressive of a seditious intention, and Section 24D(1) specified that [a]ny person who, with the intention of causing violence or creating public disorder or a public disturbance, writes, prints, utters or publishes any seditious words shall be guilty of an indictable offence punishable by mprisonment for 3 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law

And now one can never assume that the law protects them. Look at David Hick's case or any number of alledged terrorists, held for years without trial. These people aren't prosecuted promptly as required by law, because the authorities know that the suspects have a very strong case and that many are likely innocent of the accusations levelled against them.

Likewise, torture is not allowed on American soil, thank goodness for Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba and the various happy places in Egypt.

Holy crap I never noticed this. I did company law and contract law and i know your entire case can hang on a word sometimes. This is a law that if you "intend". How the HELL DO YOU PROVE/DISPROVE INTENT?!?!

If i speak to someone who has this intent and im a friend of his with no knowledge of such intent i would have a hard time arguing otherwise.

Thanks for that Randy thats quite disturbing!

yeah, it's ****ed up. and the worst thing is that the governemnt had more money = better lawers = can 'prove' that you had intent (even if you didn't)

 

[ferretsniper]

that all sounds very bad, I think im in trouble hehe except the part about david hicks I say he is a terrorist remember the picture of him holding an rpg? most condeming evidence ive ever seen

 

[Randy]

that all sounds very bad, I think im in trouble hehe except the part about david hicks I say he is a terrorist remember the picture of him holding an rpg? most condeming evidence ive ever seen

Yes, the most condemning evidence possible: if you were accusing him of having held an RPG at some point in his life.

 

[thesneakster]

that all sounds very bad, I think im in trouble hehe except the part about david hicks I say he is a terrorist remember the picture of him holding an rpg? most condeming evidence ive ever seen

Yes, the most condemning evidence possible: if you were accusing him of having held an RPG at some point in his life.

What? i hope to at least hold, or even use one sometime during my life (not againt human's, mabye a target or something)

 

[Randy]

I resolved that I'm definitely going to go roo or pig shooting with a heavy machinegun at some point. Somehow...

 

[thesneakster]

I resolved that I'm definitely going to go roo or pig shooting with a heavy machinegun at some point. Somehow...

And, i'll go hunting for bush pigs with a .50 caliber.

 

[rejenorst]

that all sounds very bad, I think im in trouble hehe except the part about david hicks I say he is a terrorist remember the picture of him holding an rpg? most condeming evidence ive ever seen

I see alot of pictures of Americans holding weapons hell my sister has a few of herself holding mp5's Saw machine guns etc doesnt mean their terrorists...


David Hicks became a muslim and at the time of joining the Taliban camps we were not at war with the Taliban, in fact David Hicks was caught in a non combat engagement in the back of a truck.
Besides that most of the people captured in Afghanistan was thanks to the US government offering a few grand reward to any one that brings in a member of the taliban Weeeeeeell didnt that just help. Some of the people in there have nothing to do with the Taliban. So intent is narrowed down to location.

Personally I cant believe we didnt get David Hicks back and trial him in Australia.. the British had all their nationals transported from Guantanamo bay to England. In fact David Hicks has applied and is apparently recieving a british passport because the federal government has done nothing to bring him back even though it has been an issue on the table for some months/yrs. Another golden examples of John Howards nose up George Bushes bum hole.

 

[Randy]

The view that he is a traitor seems to have been fostered throughout Australia, as one of my friends demonstrated. What I pointed out to him, is much like what you said ^ he didn't actually fight against Australia at any point.
If he did now though, I can't say I'd blame him.