Seeing plenty of bagging of Rudd and negative / postive  critiques of his performance so far..

But more to the point for all you right wing moaners..

Why did Howard lose.???

If he was so great why is he not STILL in office.

To the person who says the left are "blinkered' all I have to say to that is the public took 12 years to open their eyes to Howard and finally say "enough".

Instead on focussing on the performance of Rudd lets focus on the WHY HOWARD LOST!


Thoughts.?


http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200709/r175611_667508.jpg

Howard's leadership led to election defeat, academic says
Posted Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:23pm AEDT
Updated Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:38pm AEDT


Academic Judith Brett says former PM John Howard had a style of leadership that relied on dividing issues in terms of 'for me or against me'. (File photo) (News Limited: Michael Jones)
As the Liberal Party continues its own soul searching on why it lost last month's federal election, Australia's leading academic authority on the party has just released the first in-depth analysis of the election loss.

A Professor of politics at La Trobe University, Judith Brett, blames John Howard and his authoritarian style of leadership but says she has been surprised at the extent to which the federal party has fallen apart since the defeat.

Professor Brett has just released her Quarterly Essay, called 'Exit Right: the Unravelling of John Howard'.

She has based the essay around the theme of leadership and she says that when a leader's grip on political power starts to slip, observers can see most clearly the inner workings of that leadership.

She says former prime minister John Howard had a style of leadership that relied on clearly dividing issues in terms of 'for me or against me'. She says this approach had been very successful for a few elections but then it stopped working.

"I think it stopped working partly because people ... had seen it all before; partly because we weren't in a year where there was a lot of foreign policy issues that were really new and demanding; and I think most importantly because Kevin Rudd had had a while to study John Howard," she said.


'Aggressive' leadership

Professor Brett said Mr Howard would relentlessly attack his opponent and by refusing to oppose Mr Howard's policies, then-opposition leader Kevin Rudd confounded the prime minister.

"[Mr Rudd] shaped his leadership I think to prevent John Howard being able to do the things that he most likes to do, which is turn the attention from himself onto the opponent," she said.

"One theory I have is that 'me-tooism' of Rudd's was a very carefully crafted political strategy to stop there being sufficient distance between him and Howard for Howard to swing a punch, and that seemed to me was evidence that Rudd had really thought about Howard."

Professor Brett says there was a definite contrast between Mr Howard's campaign against Mr Rudd and his campaign in his own seat of Bennelong against Labor candidate Maxine McKew.

She said because Ms McKew was a woman, Mr Howard could not use his usual tactics against her.

"I think the style of strong leadership that Howard uses works against men because it's all about this aggressive, 'if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen' sort of stuff," she said.

"[But] if you do that against a woman, you start to look like a bully, you look rude. It's very hard to get away with.

"I think it's interesting that Howard didn't even mention Maxine McKew's name in the campaign against [her in] Bennelong. So where normally he goes for his opponent, here the only strategy available to him was to completely ignore her."


The future

Professor Brett says she did not predict the extent to which the Liberal Party would fall apart after its defeat.

"Power is a glue that holds ambitious men together and when that glue melts, they all fall back into their individual selves, and I think that's what we've seen," she said.

"I've found it pretty extraordinary. I didn't predict Peter Costello leaving."

She says Mr Howard's leadership has masked problems within the Liberal Party.

"It's certainly masked the mess that a lot of the state branches are in," she said.

"I don't really understand why the federal party didn't pay more attention to the states, because it'll be from the states that the next generation will be getting some experience."

Professor Brett says the Liberal Party may now choose to head in a different direction from their past policies.

"I think what we'll see, which we in a way already saw in the leadership struggle, is attention over the extent to which they stay true to Howard's legacy and the extent to which a much less socially conservative Liberalism starts to become dominant in the party," she said.

But she says she does not believe the party will vanish altogether.

"Because of the way our system works, we rely on there being two parties," she said.

"Ambitious people of the rising generation will go into the Liberal Party as the only option to Labor, so I think it will revive just because of the particular position it holds in our two-party system."

oceanz wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 12:06pm:

Seeing plenty of bagging of Rudd and negative / postive  critiques of his performance so far.. But more to the point for all you right wing moaners.. Why did Howard lose.??? If he was so great why is he not STILL in office. To the person who says the left are "blinkered' all I have to say to that is the public took 12 years to open their eyes to Howard and finally say "enough". Instead on focussing on the performance of Rudd lets focus on the WHY HOWARD LOST! Thoughts.? http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200709/r175611_667508.jpg

I voted for Johnny so I have no idea why anyone wouldn't.  Could those who hate prosperity please explain?

Poseidon, the rodent got the flick for many reasons
Ilegal war
workchoices
arogance
lies
But most of all most aussies wanted to brought into the 21st century, whilst Howard was still living in the 1950s.He had totally lost any connection he ever had with the electorate, stopped listening to his own senior ministers who had on numourous occasions told him it was time to go, and he became alianated by his own party becouse the only people he would take advice from was hyacinth a his kids. Hence he not only lost the election , but suffers the indignity of being only the second PM in history to lose his seat in parliment.

Atheist..

Dont the righturds love to run around with their hands over they're ears...


"la la la la la can't hear you" lol.

Still crying for their beloved failed dictator.

Bwhahahaha- Who is trying to focus the attention off their beloved leader because Kruddy is fast being recognised as a lame duck

Howard has gone unfortunately- it is now time to focus on what Kruddy is doing...oh thats right, he is failing


LOLOLOLOLOLOL

wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 1:38pm:

Poseidon, the rodent got the flick for many reasons Ilegal war workchoices arogance lies But most of all most aussies wanted to brought into the 21st century, whilst Howard was still living in the 1950s.He had totally lost any connection he ever had with the electorate, stopped listening to his own senior ministers who had on numourous occasions told him it was time to go, and he became alianated by his own party becouse the only people he would take advice from was hyacinth a his kids. Hence he not only lost the election , but suffers the indignity of being only the second PM in history to lose his seat in parliment.

Have you heard of the word 'evidence' athiest?

Could you provide some for your maniacal claims?

oceanz wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 3:30pm:

Atheist.. Dont the righturds love to run around with their hands over they're ears... "la la la la la can't hear you" lol. Still crying for their beloved failed dictator.

I can hear perfectly well - but no one is saying anything.  Why did John Howard lose the election Oceans?

I can't answer it because I can't understand why anyone is opposed to a fair go, open government, increased opportunity and prosperity.

In my view he lost the election because of:

1) His refusal to ratify kyoto and dragging his heals on climate change. He missed the change in public mood on the issue by at least 5 years.

2) Workchoices - his mandate on this was questionable and he ended up watering it down so much that it was just as bad as the previous system.

3) Iraq

I think the previous election would have also been a lot closer if there had been a decent opposition leader.

"My old spearing club used to meat in a church hall....."

I had to resist the urge to comment on the image this conjured up when you posted it in the spirtuality thread.

Its spelt MEET FD..



"1) His refusal to ratify kyoto and dragging his heals on climate change. "

That would be heels FD.

But apart from that I agree with you..but there was more to it than that..

Thanks for having a crack..

Noone so far has bothered.

Quote:

I can hear perfectly well - but no one is saying anything.  Why did John Howard lose the election Oceans?

Thats what I want you to attempt to explain to yourself or me Deepthought..until you know where he went wrong..how are you going to know what will bring them back to power in 2- 3 terms or however long it takes..

You are  deep in denial and havent even started to work on why they lost....

Anyone who blames an election outcome they didn't want on mass stupidity is in denial about something.

But you can blame it on people being too comfortable and the longevity of the previous govt rather than any feel-good undeliverable promises by the untested incoming.

It is those that believed the feel-good undeliverable promises that are stupid

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 7:18pm:

Anyone who blames an election outcome they didn't want on mass stupidity is in denial about something.

I expect anyone who blames it on . . . .



Quote:

1) His refusal to ratify kyoto and dragging his heals on climate change. He missed the change in public mood on the issue by at least 5 years. 2) Workchoices - his mandate on this was questionable and he ended up watering it down so much that it was just as bad as the previous system. 3) Iraq

. . .  is stating he lost it according to mass stupidity.

If a government was voted out on the basis of these three things then I agree with you - a kind of mass stupor must have come over the country.

Let's look at each one in turn.

Kyoto.

Kyoto was an old concept, in fact Kyoto has been around for over a decade.  It was pretty old science which formulated it and it was agreed while everyone present was either stoned, drunk, both, insane or suffering from group wankery.

It was never going to be effective and this was proven before very long despite the group madness which saw the sheeple sign up to it.

The UKs carbon emissions have risen by 2%.

Japan stated "it can't reduce emissions by the expected amount"

Norway's carbon emissions increased by almost 8%.

Germany's government announced it would exempt its coal industry from requirements under the EU internal emission trading system.

France switched to nuclear energy and has reduced emissions.

China and India are exempt.  China builds a new coal fired plant a week.

What kind of idiot even takes it seriously?

Well not our PM until Little Kevvy came along so I guess that's the answer to what kind of idiot..

So why would Australians want Australia to sign up to a meaningless and outdated agreement no one was bothering to keep?  I can only think it was mass stupidity.

I think Johnny lost because Aussies have had it too good for too long.
We got lazy and unrealistic.
With every decision John has made during the years there is always some people that will dislike the answer.
Be it "right" or "wrong".
Eventually those % of people grow and grow.
media finds Johnny to be an easy target.
New boy comes along, all promises of saving the world, lowering petrol and grocery prices, making houses cheaper.
Media laps him up.

John is voted out

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 7:46pm:

I think Johnny lost because Aussies have had it too good for too long. We got lazy and unrealistic. With every decision John has made during the years there is always some people that will dislike the answer. Be it "right" or "wrong". Eventually those % of people grow and grow. media finds Johnny to be an easy target. New boy comes along, all promises of saving the world, lowering petrol and grocery prices, making houses cheaper. Media laps him up. John is voted out

:'(

Let's look at 'climate change'.  This whole concept is flawed science.  The earth has undergone 'climate change' all by itself for eons - with or without humans.

Any duffer who believes humans are responsible deserves to have mortgage stress, high unemployment, carers begging on the streets and pretend computers for kids.

What are we up to?  Workchoices?

The army of casuals created by Cheating turned into full time employees.  

The explosion of new jobs saw unemployment fall to levels not seen for forty plus years.

The mining industry saw mass take up of AWAs to better reflect the flexibility they wanted in the work place.

For the first time in decades both parties got to decide what contract worked for them.

The unions were sidelined and industrial disputation fell to levels not seen since 100 years before.



Who hates employment freedom that they chose to vote against it?

The mining workers wouldn't be able to enjoy the 8 days on/ 6 days off that they do now under a Labor quagmire- they'd be stuck negotiating 4/6 weeks on/ 1-2 weeks off while making their union mates get fatter.

Now workerd can spend more time with their families- less marriage breakups, more social cohesion, more accomodating.

Some thing Labor has no idea of

I guess the mass stupor also caused people to want to be evicted.





Quote:

Mortgage stress to hit 300,000: report An alarming 300,000 Australian households will be under severe mortgage stress by mid-2008 and at significant risk of losing their homes, as interest rates and living costs rise, a new report shows. The worrying finding raises questions about banking sector profitability, which is already under downward pressure due to the global credit crunch and rising funding costs, report authors JPMorgan and Fujitsu Consulting said. "The banks have passed on nowhere near their increased cost of funding," JPMorgan lead banking analyst Brian Johnson told reporters. "When you speak to them behind the scenes, they'll tell you that probably they'll have to move another 15 basis points." The JPMorgan/Fujitsu Australian Mortgage Industry Report for March follows decisions by the major banks to increase their standard variable home loan rates by more than the 25 basis point increase engineered by the central bank on March 4. ANZ Banking Group Ltd, St George Bank Ltd and Commonwealth Bank of Australia have all raised their rates by 35 basis points. Westpac has approved a 30 basis point increase and National Australia Bank Ltd a 29 basis points rise. The report, based on the results of telephone interviews with 26,000 Australian households, estimates more than 700,000 households will be experiencing some form of mortgage stress by June this year, a four-fold increase on last year. Oh Johnny, which looney voted for this horror?

deepthought wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 9:16pm:

I guess the mass stupor also caused people to want to be evicted. Quote: Mortgage stress to hit 300,000: report An alarming 300,000 Australian households will be under severe mortgage stress by mid-2008 and at significant risk of losing their homes, as interest rates and living costs rise, a new report shows. The worrying finding raises questions about banking sector profitability, which is already under downward pressure due to the global credit crunch and rising funding costs, report authors JPMorgan and Fujitsu Consulting said. "The banks have passed on nowhere near their increased cost of funding," JPMorgan lead banking analyst Brian Johnson told reporters. "When you speak to them behind the scenes, they'll tell you that probably they'll have to move another 15 basis points." The JPMorgan/Fujitsu Australian Mortgage Industry Report for March follows decisions by the major banks to increase their standard variable home loan rates by more than the 25 basis point increase engineered by the central bank on March 4. ANZ Banking Group Ltd, St George Bank Ltd and Commonwealth Bank of Australia have all raised their rates by 35 basis points. Westpac has approved a 30 basis point increase and National Australia Bank Ltd a 29 basis points rise. The report, based on the results of telephone interviews with 26,000 Australian households, estimates more than 700,000 households will be experiencing some form of mortgage stress by June this year, a four-fold increase on last year. Oh Johnny, which looney voted for this horror?

All becouse of Howards missmanagment, now that the rodent and his facsist mates have been moved on all this bad managment he presided over is comming to light, I supose the only good thing  is that it will be a cold day in hell before another bunch of right whinge extremists hold government in our great country.

deepthought wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 12:15pm:

oceanz wrote on Mar 30th, 2008 at 12:06pm: Seeing plenty of bagging of Rudd and negative / postive  critiques of his performance so far.. But more to the point for all you right wing moaners.. Why did Howard lose.??? If he was so great why is he not STILL in office. To the person who says the left are "blinkered' all I have to say to that is the public took 12 years to open their eyes to Howard and finally say "enough". Instead on focussing on the performance of Rudd lets focus on the WHY HOWARD LOST! Thoughts.? http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200709/r175611_667508.jpg I voted for Johnny so I have no idea why anyone wouldn't.  Could those who hate prosperity please explain?

Prosperity for who?

The rich can't eat money.

Is it actually true that some degrees actually cost $100, 000 now???

If so, how does a party rid itself of such a tag?!?

wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 1:38pm:

Poseidon, the rodent got the flick for many reasons Ilegal war workchoices arogance lies But most of all most aussies wanted to brought into the 21st century, whilst Howard was still living in the 1950s.He had totally lost any connection he ever had with the electorate, stopped listening to his own senior ministers who had on numourous occasions told him it was time to go, and he became alianated by his own party becouse the only people he would take advice from was hyacinth a his kids. Hence he not only lost the election , but suffers the indignity of being only the second PM in history to lose his seat in parliment.

Houses skyrocketed out of the reach of many a bluecollared worker and so Howard lost.

Serfchoices was designed to take the heat for an inevitable election loss.

They knew they were gone but just needed something to blame that could be easily tossed away.

deepthought wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 6:11pm:

oceanz wrote on Mar 30th, 2008 at 3:30pm: Atheist.. Dont the righturds love to run around with their hands over they're ears... "la la la la la can't hear you" lol. Still crying for their beloved failed dictator. I can hear perfectly well - but no one is saying anything.  Why did John Howard lose the election Oceans? I can't answer it because I can't understand why anyone is opposed to a fair go, open government, increased opportunity and prosperity.

What opportunity do the coming generations have to buy a house?

IQSRLOW wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 7:29pm:

But you can blame it on people being too comfortable and the longevity of the previous govt rather than any feel-good undeliverable promises by the untested incoming. It is those that believed the feel-good undeliverable promises that are stupid

Not everyone is too comfortable i.e. New Home Buyers!

 :-/

deepthought wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 8:21pm:

Let's look at 'climate change'.  This whole concept is flawed science.  The earth has undergone 'climate change' all by itself for eons - with or without humans. Any duffer who believes humans are responsible deserves to have mortgage stress, high unemployment, carers begging on the streets and pretend computers for kids.

You haven't been reading your annual subscription to National Geographic, have you? (we can all tell!)

Evidence of flawed science, please.....

 :D ;D ;)

IQSRLOW wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 8:39pm:

The mining workers wouldn't be able to enjoy the 8 days on/ 6 days off that they do now under a Labor quagmire- they'd be stuck negotiating 4/6 weeks on/ 1-2 weeks off while making their union mates get fatter. Now workerd can spend more time with their families- less marriage breakups, more social cohesion, more accomodating. Some thing Labor has no idea of

They're all complete c#$$s so you'll never win votes complaining about the poor miners.

deepthought wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 9:16pm:

I guess the mass stupor also caused people to want to be evicted. Quote: Mortgage stress to hit 300,000: report An alarming 300,000 Australian households will be under severe mortgage stress by mid-2008 and at significant risk of losing their homes, as interest rates and living costs rise, a new report shows. The worrying finding raises questions about banking sector profitability, which is already under downward pressure due to the global credit crunch and rising funding costs, report authors JPMorgan and Fujitsu Consulting said. "The banks have passed on nowhere near their increased cost of funding," JPMorgan lead banking analyst Brian Johnson told reporters. "When you speak to them behind the scenes, they'll tell you that probably they'll have to move another 15 basis points." The JPMorgan/Fujitsu Australian Mortgage Industry Report for March follows decisions by the major banks to increase their standard variable home loan rates by more than the 25 basis point increase engineered by the central bank on March 4. ANZ Banking Group Ltd, St George Bank Ltd and Commonwealth Bank of Australia have all raised their rates by 35 basis points. Westpac has approved a 30 basis point increase and National Australia Bank Ltd a 29 basis points rise. The report, based on the results of telephone interviews with 26,000 Australian households, estimates more than 700,000 households will be experiencing some form of mortgage stress by June this year, a four-fold increase on last year. Oh Johnny, which looney voted for this horror?

Why is this K-doggs fault?!?  :o :o :D :D

wrote on Mar 31^st, 2008 at 12:15pm:

All becouse of Howards missmanagment, now that the rodent and his facsist mates have been moved on all this bad managment he presided over is comming to light, I supose the only good thing  is that it will be a cold day in hell before another bunch of right whinge extremists hold government in our great country.

You give John Howard credit for miracles my friend.  How could he arrange to have the solid economy (and Little Kevvy acknowledges its former stability) do weird things like go nuts exactly as Little Kevvy stepped up to the plate after keeping it running beautifully for 11 plus years?

How could Johnny have such impeccable timing?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 31^st, 2008 at 4:59pm:

Prosperity for who? The rich can't eat money. Is it actually true that some degrees actually cost $100, 000 now??? If so, how does a party rid itself of such a tag?!?

Not commonwealth supported ones no.  A couple of full fee paying ones did so those who have the resources could have got a degree if they were willing to pay for it.

That is they used to be able to.  Little Kevvy cut those places so fewer young Australians can go to uni.





BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 31^st, 2008 at 5:04pm:

Houses skyrocketed out of the reach of many a bluecollared worker and so Howard lost. Serfchoices was designed to take the heat for an inevitable election loss. They knew they were gone but just needed something to blame that could be easily tossed away.

Now as house prices fall interest rates skyrocket.  Tell me this death, what would you rather be paying for?  Equity?  Or the bank's costs?



BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 31^st, 2008 at 5:08pm:

What opportunity do the coming generations have to buy a house?

Very little as interest rates make money too expensive to borrow.


BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 31^st, 2008 at 5:23pm:

Why is this K-doggs fault?!?  :o :o :D :D

I thought he was the PM?  He's not any more?

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 7:01pm:

In my view he lost the election because of: 1) His refusal to ratify kyoto and dragging his heals on climate change. He missed the change in public mood on the issue by at least 5 years. 2) Workchoices - his mandate on this was questionable and he ended up watering it down so much that it was just as bad as the previous system. 3) Iraq

This is an interesting article from the Green Left Weekly which debunks the myth that Little Kevvy's Iraq policy is any different from Johnny's.  Little Kevvy's policy differs only in the rhetoric.  He actually has no intention of withdrawing troops from Iraq at all.  No wonder GWB greeted him so amicably - Little Kevvy gave him the nod and the wink and asked him to pretend all was hunky dory - because it was.



Quote:

Rudd to keep 900 troops in Iraq On February 19, Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston told a Senate committee hearing that planning was underway for a mid-year withdrawal of the ADF’s 550 soldiers based in Iraq’s southern Dhi Qar province, as well as 65 army trainers. However, their withdrawal will leave in place 60% of the ADF personnel assigned to the Iraq war. Houston’s announcement was presented by much of the corporate media as the Rudd government’s implementation of Labor’s pre-election pledge for a “phased withdrawal of our troops” from Iraq by June 2008. Reuters news agency, for example, reported that Kevin Rudd “promised to bring home frontline troops amid polls showing 80 percent of Australians oppose Iraq [war] involvement”. However, the Rudd government is just as committed as the previous Liberal-National Coalition government to supporting Washington’s war in Iraq. This was made clear by Houston’s Senate committee testimony. He said that the planned troop withdrawal from Iraq would have been carried out this year even if there hadn’t been a change of government. Kevvy lied

actually rudd is going to icrease troop numbers in afganistan.

Nato is holding a meeting to talk on teh conflict, and the new "middle power" australia is going to sit in. the meeting is expected to recommend troop increases, and due to us sitting in we will be obligated to increase troops...

nice one kevy, u sly dog.

Classic Liberal wrote on Apr 1^st, 2008 at 10:45pm:

actually rudd is going to icrease troop numbers in afganistan. Nato is holding a meeting to talk on teh conflict, and the new "middle power" australia is going to sit in. the meeting is expected to recommend troop increases, and due to us sitting in we will be obligated to increase troops... nice one kevy, u sly dog.

Particularly interesting because we are not even a member of the alliance.  What's Little Kevvy think he's up to getting his ever lengthening hooter and poking it in there?

He's kind of like the new world busybody.

Rudd wouldn't have to even worry about troops in Iraq if Howard hadn't put them there in the first place.

RecFisher wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2008 at 7:23pm:

Rudd wouldn't have to even worry about troops in Iraq if Howard hadn't put them there in the first place.

Cardboard Kev is free to change that.  But he hasn't.  According to freediver one of the reasons Johnny lost the election was Iraq.

Don't you think, if freediver is correct, that the mushrooms expected a different position?

What they got was the same with a bit of bottom burping thrown in by Pig Iron Kevvy.

deepthought wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2008 at 8:10pm:

RecFisher wrote on Apr 2nd, 2008 at 7:23pm: Rudd wouldn't have to even worry about troops in Iraq if Howard hadn't put them there in the first place. Cardboard Kev is free to change that.  But he hasn't.

Come on Deepthought..even you with your zealous one eyed veiw of Liberal pathos ideology and already distorted veiw of Howards legacy, cannot reconcile that ridiculous statement with any kind of actual reality when faced with the FACTS that Rudd has been in but 4 months.

So many hours in a day/week/month etc.

He will do more in 6 months than Howard did in 12 yrs . Believe it..wether you like his decisions tho' is up to you.

But you cannot accuse him of slacking off in any way shape or form.

rudd has certainly not slacked off.

Wether we agree with what he has done or not, is another matter.
That's what democracy is about though.

oceanz wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 9:16am:

deepthought wrote on Apr 2nd, 2008 at 8:10pm: RecFisher wrote on Apr 2nd, 2008 at 7:23pm: Rudd wouldn't have to even worry about troops in Iraq if Howard hadn't put them there in the first place. Cardboard Kev is free to change that.  But he hasn't.   Come on Deepthought..even you with your zealous one eyed veiw of Liberal pathos ideology and already distorted veiw of Howards legacy, cannot reconcile that ridiculous statement with any kind of actual reality when faced with the FACTS that Rudd has been in but 4 months. So many hours in a day/week/month etc. He will do more in 6 months than Howard did in 12 yrs . Believe it..wether you like his decisions tho' is up to you. But you cannot accuse him of slacking off in any way shape or form.

So his policy on Iraq is only temporary and when he says he's in it for the long haul he's lying?  Once he has been in office for a bit longer he will pull out the troops after his commitment to keep them there for 'the long haul'?

Incidentally what has Pig Iron Kevvy done apart from let the Chinese buy huge chunks of our mining companies?  He has pranced around the world, had a New Years fireworks party at Kirribilli, signed Kyoto then forgotten all about it, said he's sorry then not bothered to keep his commitment to go visit the communities, done nothing about the computers for kids, canned the broadband contract, threatened to roger the carers and root the seniors, axed thousands of jobs, initiated interest rate rise after interest rate rise  . . . . .

I guess you are right he certainly has done  quite a bit to damage the country.

Anything positive?

Even if you disagree with getting involved in the war in the first place, pulling out on our allies and leaving the Iraqis with another power vacuum is not necessarily the best option. Correcting Howard's mistake could involve restoring order to Iraq, to the extent we are capable of fixing past mistakes. We owe it to them to remain there while our presence is still of benefit to them.

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 12:49pm:

Even if you disagree with getting involved in the war in the first place, pulling out on our allies and leaving the Iraqis with another power vacuum is not necessarily the best option. Correcting Howard's mistake could involve restoring order to Iraq, to the extent we are capable of fixing past mistakes. We owe it to them to remain there while our presence is still of benefit to them.

So Pig Iron Kev lied?




Quote:

Rudd calls for Iraq exit strategy Federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd says it is time Prime Minister John Howard adopted a different approach to the war in Iraq. Mr Rudd says Mr Howard should start listening to professionals in the defence field who are saying the Government's strategy on Iraq has failed. The Opposition Leader says they are also urging Australia to consider a staged withdrawal. Mr Rudd says the Prime Minister refuses to acknowledge Iraq is in the middle of a civil war. "Mr Howard's responsibility is this: one, admit to the Australian people you've got it wrong; two, explain to the Australian people detail of the new strategy," he said. "And three, get on with the business of ensuring that our men and women in uniform in Iraq have a decent exit strategy for the future." The long haul is the exit strategy Cardboard Kev?

on a psychological level - he had run out of the two precious commodities, honesty and sincerity.
on political level he had lost his charm.
on a policy level he was devoid of any vision - he had achieved what he set out to do.
at the election, nobody liked what he'd achieved so we ousted him
the king has no clothes on :)

Dooley wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 6:00pm:

at the election, nobody liked what he'd achieved so we ousted him

Then freediver is right - a mass stupor overtook the country.

If low unemployment, low taxes, increased wealth for everyone and a low interest environment are disagreeable then something awful was afoot last November.

I trust the new rising interest rates and inflation are more to your liking dooley?

deepthought wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 6:41pm:

Dooley wrote on Apr 3rd, 2008 at 6:00pm: at the election, nobody liked what he'd achieved so we ousted him Then freediver is right - a mass stupor overtook the country. If low unemployment, low taxes, increased wealth for everyone and a low interest environment are disagreeable then something awful was afoot last November. I trust the new rising interest rates and inflation are more to your liking dooley?

You sound like a broken record.  Build a bridge...

deepthought wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 6:41pm:

Dooley wrote on Apr 3rd, 2008 at 6:00pm: at the election, nobody liked what he'd achieved so we ousted him If low unemployment, low taxes, increased wealth for everyone and a low interest environment are disagreeable then something awful was afoot last November.

Something awful being what I wonder DT? A drug in the local water supply to each and every town.. a rigged election?..The mind boggles, what do you have in mind?

RecFisher wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 6:48pm:

deepthought wrote on Apr 3rd, 2008 at 6:41pm: Dooley wrote on Apr 3rd, 2008 at 6:00pm: at the election, nobody liked what he'd achieved so we ousted him Then freediver is right - a mass stupor overtook the country. If low unemployment, low taxes, increased wealth for everyone and a low interest environment are disagreeable then something awful was afoot last November. I trust the new rising interest rates and inflation are more to your liking dooley? You sound like a broken record.  Build a bridge...

I smell a troll in the thread . . . . . .

Nothing to say about the topic old fruit?

oceanz wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 7:04pm:

deepthought wrote on Apr 3rd, 2008 at 6:41pm: Dooley wrote on Apr 3rd, 2008 at 6:00pm: at the election, nobody liked what he'd achieved so we ousted him If low unemployment, low taxes, increased wealth for everyone and a low interest environment are disagreeable then something awful was afoot last November. Something awful being what I wonder DT? A drug in the local water supply to each and every town.. a rigged election?..The mind boggles, what do you have in mind?

deepthought wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 12:15pm:

I voted for Johnny so I have no idea why anyone wouldn't.  Could those who hate prosperity please explain?

deepthought wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 7:05pm:

oceanz wrote on Apr 3rd, 2008 at 7:04pm: deepthought wrote on Apr 3rd, 2008 at 6:41pm: Dooley wrote on Apr 3rd, 2008 at 6:00pm: at the election, nobody liked what he'd achieved so we ousted him If low unemployment, low taxes, increased wealth for everyone and a low interest environment are disagreeable then something awful was afoot last November. Something awful being what I wonder DT? A drug in the local water supply to each and every town.. a rigged election?..The mind boggles, what do you have in mind? deepthought wrote on Mar 30th, 2008 at 12:15pm: I voted for Johnny so I have no idea why anyone wouldn't.  Could those who hate prosperity please explain?

oh well that explains it then                   ::)

Then freediver is right - a mass stupor overtook the country.


there are five steps to grieving dt

your going through the disbelief stage.

i promise you this is not going to be any easy process, but you will be stronger because of it  ;D

deepthought wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 7:04pm:

I smell a troll in the thread . . . . . . Nothing to say about the topic old fruit?

No, what you smell is the same stale old arguments, regurgitated again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.  It's got a bit of "sour grapes" smell about it as well...

Personally, I think Howard lost his own seat because he was outcharmed by a media-savvy woman.  He couldn't take his usual "play the man and not the ball" tactics, because he would have been labelled a sexist bully and he couldn't think of another way to play the game.  Imagine how humiliating that must have been for Mr Howard, "Australia's Best Prime Minister Ever" LOL.  I also get the feeling he had lost touch with his electorate and his voters saw McKew as someone who might care for them a bit more.

I think the Liberal Party lost the election because people were simply tired of the same old Government and wanted a change.  Rudd's "me too" policies worked a treat too, because Howard ran out of things to attack him on in the end, plus he was perceived as simply being something different to an 11 year old Government.  That and the thought of Costello or, worse still, Downer in the drivers seat probably scared a few off as well.

Ok, I've said my bit (once).  In the end, who knows and who cares.  Some of us are just getting on with life and making the most of what we have in front of us...

For the record, I voted LABOR, so anything you want to blame me for, go right ahead.

Dooley wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 7:29pm:

Then freediver is right - a mass stupor overtook the country. there are five steps to grieving dt your going through the disbelief stage. i promise you this is not going to be any easy process, but you will be stronger because of it  ;D

I have the strength of ten men dooley.  When it comes to righting wrongs I am indefatigable.   I won't have to wait long though.  I'd say a couple of years of the hell Pig Iron Kev has unleashed and we'll be back with a caring government again.

RecFisher wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 7:47pm:

deepthought wrote on Apr 3rd, 2008 at 7:04pm: I smell a troll in the thread . . . . . . Nothing to say about the topic old fruit? No, what you smell is the same stale old arguments, regurgitated again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.  It's got a bit of "sour grapes" smell about it as well... Personally, I think Howard lost his own seat because he was outcharmed by a media-savvy woman.  He couldn't take his usual "play the man and not the ball" tactics, because he would have been labelled a sexist bully and he couldn't think of another way to play the game.  Imagine how humiliating that must have been for Mr Howard, "Australia's Best Prime Minister Ever" LOL.  I also get the feeling he had lost touch with his electorate and his voters saw McKew as someone who might care for them a bit more. I think the Liberal Party lost the election because people were simply tired of the same old Government and wanted a change.  Rudd's "me too" policies worked a treat too, because Howard ran out of things to attack him on in the end, plus he was perceived as simply being something different to an 11 year old Government.  That and the thought of Costello or, worse still, Downer in the drivers seat probably scared a few off as well. Ok, I've said my bit (once).  In the end, who knows and who cares.  Some of us are just getting on with life and making the most of what we have in front of us... For the record, I voted LABOR, so anything you want to blame me for, go right ahead.

They ain't so stale - the news I post is current news.  It may seem stale because you have heard it before - but that ended in 1996.

But do you have your own opinion?  The one you copied and pasted with a couple of changes sounds remarkably like  . . . . .




Quote:

Professor Brett said Mr Howard would relentlessly attack his opponent and by refusing to oppose Mr Howard's policies, then-opposition leader Kevin Rudd confounded the prime minister. "[Mr Rudd] shaped his leadership I think to prevent John Howard being able to do the things that he most likes to do, which is turn the attention from himself onto the opponent," she said. "One theory I have is that 'me-tooism' of Rudd's was a very carefully crafted political strategy to stop there being sufficient distance between him and Howard for Howard to swing a punch, and that seemed to me was evidence that Rudd had really thought about Howard." Professor Brett says there was a definite contrast between Mr Howard's campaign against Mr Rudd and his campaign in his own seat of Bennelong against Labor candidate Maxine McKew. She said because Ms McKew was a woman, Mr Howard could not use his usual tactics against her. "I think the style of strong leadership that Howard uses works against men because it's all about this aggressive, 'if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen' sort of stuff," she said. "[But] if you do that against a woman, you start to look like a bully, you look rude. It's very hard to get away with. Plagiarism is not particularly clever

Incidentally have you apologised to the carers, the seniors and the other disadvantaged who have been given hell by your choice of government?

I'd say a couple of years of the hell Pig Iron Kev has unleashed and we'll be back with a caring government again.

the caring you've recieved over the last decade will have to last you perhaps a few more years than that dt.

most delusions (thankfully) take some time to break through the veil of sentimentality.

i'm sure the corporations and businesses that jh has entrusted to us all will keep us to it's bosom until the blues come marching in again...........ghua

deepthought wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 8:30pm:

But do you have your own opinion?  The one you copied and pasted with a couple of changes sounds remarkably like  . . . . .

So I can't agree with someone else?  A Liberal supporter should understand the "sheeple" concept above anyone.


deepthought wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 8:30pm:

Incidentally have you apologised to the carers, the seniors and the other disadvantaged who have been given hell by your choice of government?

I'm sure I've read that already.  It was the choice of Government of the MAJORITY of Australians.  That makes you, guess what, the MINORITY.  You are doing a great job at showing the COMPLEX that goes with that.

I'm done with this argument.  Carry on the Labor bashing if it makes you feel good.  You might even be an expert at it in 3, 6 or maybe even 9 years you get to practice  :-* :'(

RecFisher wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 8:42pm:

deepthought wrote on Apr 3rd, 2008 at 8:30pm: But do you have your own opinion?  The one you copied and pasted with a couple of changes sounds remarkably like  . . . . . So I can't agree with someone else?  A Liberal supporter should understand the "sheeple" concept above anyone. deepthought wrote on Apr 3rd, 2008 at 8:30pm: Incidentally have you apologised to the carers, the seniors and the other disadvantaged who have been given hell by your choice of government? I'm sure I've read that already.  It was the choice of Government of the MAJORITY of Australians.  That makes you, guess what, the MINORITY.  You are doing a great job at showing the COMPLEX that goes with that. I'm done with this argument.  Carry on the Labor bashing if it makes you feel good.  You might even be an expert at it in 3, 6 or maybe even 9 years you get to practice  :-* :'(

You said you wanted to accept the blame for voting Liebor though.  Why are you suddenly scurrying for the safety of the mob?  Bleating that it wasn't just you, everyone was doing it sounds remarkably like the excuse you hear from kids.  It doesn't show a lot of willingness to wear the blame you said you wanted.

And if in fact, I am in the minority (and you said I am) then don't you mean you are a member of the sheeple herd?  Not only have you followed the herd you are now hiding amongst them saying they did it too while meanwhile regurgitating the opinions you glean from newspaper articles.

Yep, I'm a proud Labor voter, one of many who have been brainwashed by the King Liar, Kevin Rudd.  You got me deepthroat, you win, you are right, I am wrong, I am a sheep, your opinions are the only thing that matters, the country is going to sh*t and it's all my fault and everyone who voted Labor, we will all be sorry until the glorious day when God (in whatever form the Liberal Party choose to present him) regains his rightful place at the steerring wheel of Australia to rescue it from the Labor-induced coma it will be in by then.  I apologise for having an opinion that differs to yours and is similar to anyone else, please forgive my sins, o great one.

I give up, I just can't out bullsh*t you DT :D

RecFisher wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 11:48pm:

Yep, I'm a proud Labor voter, one of many who have been brainwashed by the King Liar, Kevin Rudd.  You got me deepthroat, you win, you are right, I am wrong, I am a sheep, your opinions are the only thing that matters, the country is going to sh*t and it's all my fault and everyone who voted Labor, we will all be sorry until the glorious day when God (in whatever form the Liberal Party choose to present him) regains his rightful place at the steerring wheel of Australia to rescue it from the Labor-induced coma it will be in by then.  I apologise for having an opinion that differs to yours and is similar to anyone else, please forgive my sins, o great one. I give up, I just can't out bullsh*t you DT :D

You're welcome.

Oh, if you think anything I have said is bullsh!t please feel free to refute it.  I enjoy the scurrying sounds I hear when I ask someone to back their slurs.

RecFisher wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 7:47pm:

For the record, I voted LABOR, so anything you want to blame me for, go right ahead.

Could you explain why to the poor and the disadvantaged who will bear the brunt of this please?





Quote:

Rents to rise by 50 per cent: report There are more predictions of skyrocketing rents across Australia, with 50 per cent rises predicted by a property monitoring group. The latest quarterly report on rents from Australian Property Monitors says median asking rents in the major cities have already risen at double-digit rates over the past 12 months. It expects a further 50 per cent increase in most capitals over the next four years. It says strong migration levels are outpacing residential construction, while renters are being discouraged from moving into home ownership by rising mortgage interest rates. Who wants to help out the poor now the Liebor government are helping the rich?

DT wrote..


Quote:

Could you explain why to the poor and the disadvantaged who will bear the brunt of this please?

So explain to me why the poor and disadvantaged voted Labor then DT.?

Could it be they werent feeling the compassionate hand of Howard and if they were in fact getting such a great deal why they would jepoardise their great lifestyle for the  empty hollow promises of Rudd?

You know its ONLY YOU WHO THINKS THE MAJORITY OF AUSSIES [ over 60% voted Libs out] ARE SO STUPID THEY DONT KNOW THEY'RE OWN MINDS..you and LOWIQ  that is.

Arrogant "hand over the ears mentality" if ever I saw it.

How can the greater share of Aussies all have voted in a state of blissful ignorance as you keep saying? Be realistic! what are the chances?


Maybe you should have voted Liberal more than once.

That way maybe you could have saved Johnnys  sad a rse all on your own. If you really cared, you would have ;D

oceanz wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 10:51am:

DT wrote.. Quote: Could you explain why to the poor and the disadvantaged who will bear the brunt of this please? So explain to me why the poor and disadvantaged voted Labor then DT.? Could it be they werent feeling the compassionate hand of Howard and if they were in fact getting such a great deal why they would jepoardise their great lifestyle for the  empty hollow promises of Rudd? You know its ONLY YOU WHO THINKS THE MAJORITY OF AUSSIES [ over 60% voted Libs out] ARE SO STUPID THEY DONT KNOW THEY'RE OWN MINDS..you and LOWIQ  that is. Arrogant "hand over the ears mentality" if ever I saw it. How can the greater share of Aussies all have voted in a state of blissful ignorance as you keep saying? Be realistic! what are the chances? Maybe you should have voted Liberal more than once. That way maybe you could have saved Johnnys  sad a rse all on your own. If you really cared, you would have ;D

deepthought wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 12:15pm:

I voted for Johnny so I have no idea why anyone wouldn't.  Could those who hate prosperity please explain?

deepthought wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 6:35pm:

oceanz wrote on Apr 4th, 2008 at 10:51am: DT wrote.. Quote: Could you explain why to the poor and the disadvantaged who will bear the brunt of this please? So explain to me why the poor and disadvantaged voted Labor then DT.? Could it be they werent feeling the compassionate hand of Howard and if they were in fact getting such a great deal why they would jepoardise their great lifestyle for the  empty hollow promises of Rudd? You know its ONLY YOU WHO THINKS THE MAJORITY OF AUSSIES [ over 60% voted Libs out] ARE SO STUPID THEY DONT KNOW THEY'RE OWN MINDS..you and LOWIQ  that is. Arrogant "hand over the ears mentality" if ever I saw it. How can the greater share of Aussies all have voted in a state of blissful ignorance as you keep saying? Be realistic! what are the chances? Maybe you should have voted Liberal more than once. That way maybe you could have saved Johnnys  sad a rse all on your own. If you really cared, you would have ;D deepthought wrote on Mar 30th, 2008 at 12:15pm: I voted for Johnny so I have no idea why anyone wouldn't.  Could those who hate prosperity please explain?

---

deepthought wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 6:35pm:

oceanz wrote on Apr 4th, 2008 at 10:51am: DT wrote.. Quote: Could you explain why to the poor and the disadvantaged who will bear the brunt of this please? So explain to me why the poor and disadvantaged voted Labor then DT.? Could it be they werent feeling the compassionate hand of Howard and if they were in fact getting such a great deal why they would jepoardise their great lifestyle for the  empty hollow promises of Rudd? You know its ONLY YOU WHO THINKS THE MAJORITY OF AUSSIES [ over 60% voted Libs out] ARE SO STUPID THEY DONT KNOW THEY'RE OWN MINDS..you and LOWIQ  that is. Arrogant "hand over the ears mentality" if ever I saw it. How can the greater share of Aussies all have voted in a state of blissful ignorance as you keep saying? Be realistic! what are the chances? Maybe you should have voted Liberal more than once. That way maybe you could have saved Johnnys  sad a rse all on your own. If you really cared, you would have ;D deepthought wrote on Mar 30th, 2008 at 12:15pm: I voted for Johnny so I have no idea why anyone wouldn't.  Could those who hate prosperity please explain?

Would you care to define "prosperity"?!?

 :P

A good many Australians only thought they were prosperous and the ones who are suffering the most now are those who borrowed on a dream spruiked by the former government.

In 1995 Australians were in debt to the tune of 25% of their income. Today it's 125% and as a consequence of excessive unconditional lending by the banks flooding the market with too much cash to purchase cheap imported rubbish and houses, which were doubling or tripling their value, many households can no longer cope.  

If Australians were so prosperous under Howard - why now just 8 months after an election are so many unable to afford even the basics?  Charities can no longer keep up, the homeless figures are getting worse and businesses are going under.

The previous government saw this coming and probably breathed a sigh of relief when they lost at the last election.

Did those who overcommitted themselves even stop to think how they would manage if there was a downturn in the economy or if they lost their job or interest rates rose?  If you borrow something - you have to pay it back and if you don't - all the rest of us suffer paying the financial institutions back for you.

Thats a good post Mantra, I hope you dont mind, but I copied some and posted it on pol animal 2, some posters there need to learn the truth.

Thanks atheist and that's fine, but I doubt it will do any good.  The RW's on PA don't like the truth and prefer to dream on instead about Lord Howard making a comeback or if Costello does makes leader - will he get a photoshoot with the Queen?

It's not all about borrowing too much money only atheist - there are huge losses in our superannuation, companies are going out of business and people are losing their investments and those who were cautious in their borrowing now have to manage with higher interest rates - so consequently have to accept a lower standard of living.

Those who were careful will get by with their modest mortgages, but in the meantime they cop higher interest rates so the banks can recoup their "sub-prime" losses and maintain their record profits.  

Despite constantly talking up his economic credentials, Howard's Australia was the biggest welfare state this country has ever seen. He created the 'tax time bomb' that is going to be hard to defuse.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24374072-601,00.html

THE number of families receiving more in handouts than they pay in income tax has jumped by 276,000 over the past four years to a record 4.113 million.

The income-tax-free club now covers 42.2 per cent of the nation's 9.754 million families.

"(They) all supported the welfare state as a form of social insurance and an institutional corrective against market fundamentalism," Mr Rudd said. "John Howard, though, has always wanted to overturn the Harvester Judgment."

But the hard numbers show the Howard government operated the largest welfare state in history, and Labor has, so far, done little to turn it back.

Wayne Swan responded to the data yesterday by claiming credit for the reduced tax burden at the bottom end of the scales. "I've fought for many years for tax relief which provides incentive and reward for effort to low- and middle-income earners in particular," the Treasurer said.

"So we're proud to have delivered on that front in the budget, with all the workforce-participation benefits this carries with it."

He would not comment, however, on the case studies of bracket creep or churn.

This week's rise of Malcolm Turnbull to Opposition Leader is likely to escalate the tax debate. As Opposition Treasury spokesman, Mr Turnbull had already commissioned his own independent review to counter the Government's Treasury-backed review of the tax and handout system.

Mr Swan said yesterday that Labor's goal was to create "a simpler, fairer, more efficient tax system that rewards effort and enterprise".

The Weekend Australian's research highlights the difficulties both sides will face in lowering the tax burden without increasing middle-class welfare.

The tables confirm a tax time bomb. There is an increasing number of families involved in churn - where some or all of the income taxes they pay come back as benefits. This, in turn, has seen the welfare net extended beyond any previous experience, towards the middle rung of the national income ladder.

mantra wrote on Aug 6^th, 2008 at 7:54am:

A good many Australians only thought they were prosperous and the ones who are suffering the most now are those who borrowed on a dream spruiked by the former government. In 1995 Australians were in debt to the tune of 25% of their income. Today it's 125% and as a consequence of excessive unconditional lending by the banks flooding the market with too much cash to purchase cheap imported rubbish and houses, which were doubling or tripling their value, many households can no longer cope.   If Australians were so prosperous under Howard - why now just 8 months after an election are so many unable to afford even the basics?  Charities can no longer keep up, the homeless figures are getting worse and businesses are going under. The previous government saw this coming and probably breathed a sigh of relief when they lost at the last election. Did those who overcommitted themselves even stop to think how they would manage if there was a downturn in the economy or if they lost their job or interest rates rose?  If you borrow something - you have to pay it back and if you don't - all the rest of us suffer paying the financial institutions back for you.

hi,
i'll repeat what i stated before.
australians are being played for suckers by their gov'ts.
the debt traps that Howard set up were to control the ppl here.
another term with them would have resulted in job slavery, with the banks as overlords, backed by Howard.
when aussies started to see the cracks, and Howard became unpopular, Rudd was enlisted to put a friendlier face on this con trick.
the same ppl still run this country, and it has never been either of these gov'ts.
DR9.

You know I like you, but you have to expand on what you think. You can't just turn up and say something like that without validating it.

More detail and depth, even if you have no hard evidence, would be nice.

Quote:

THE number of families receiving more in handouts than they pay in income tax has jumped by 276,000 over the past four years to a record 4.113 million. The income-tax-free club now covers 42.2 per cent of the nation's 9.754 million families.

This is ridiculous.  How will Rudd ever manage to claw this welfare  back, especially as those receiving the handouts are getting deeper into debt and rely heavily on family payments.  A recent report shows that families - 3 times the national average - are losing or have lost their homes and generally high inflation is keeping much of the population broke.

Who's paying the taxes to keep this country going?  Single people and a few families with high incomes who are honest.  The very wealthy are almost exempt from tax through clever schemes devised by the coalition - while huge corporations - eg. the Packer empire - don't pay any tax at all but receive refunds through loopholes.

Foreigners are exempt from most taxes and even many large international corporations have had their royalties waived - so where's this bottomless money pit coming from?

This is not sustainable and Rudd has to make some hard decisions SOON - that is after he's given the US $10 billion to throw into their black hole called Wall Street.

easel wrote on Sep 25^th, 2008 at 11:08pm:

You know I like you, but you have to expand on what you think. You can't just turn up and say something like that without validating it. More detail and depth, even if you have no hard evidence, would be nice.

thanks for liking me............?

anyway, i don't know who runs this board or who you blokes are, so it's be unwise to mention sources.

and who suckered on to these easy loans?

not white aussies, i'll bet.
too smart.

it'd be the chinese and lebonese i would think.
just realise that these ppl no matter how nice they are, are contributing a great deal to our troubles. they do not integrate or relate well to whites.
DR9.

djrbfm wrote on Oct 4^th, 2008 at 12:27am:

anyway, i don't know who runs this board or who you blokes are, so it's be unwise to mention sources.

Oh no, not another one of those secret sources (a la Sprint). What is wrong with your source that you cannot reveal it? Sprint's source turned out to be a right wing christian evangelical Islam bashing website. Where does yours come from - the Protocols of the Elders of Sion?

;)


djrbfm wrote on Oct 4^th, 2008 at 12:27am:

and who suckered on to these easy loans? not white aussies, i'll bet. too smart. it'd be the chinese and lebonese i would think. just realise that these ppl no matter how nice they are, are contributing a great deal to our troubles. they do not integrate or relate well to whites.

How did you come by this assertion, or are you plucking facts from the back of your head?