We made a mistake with Rudd, didn't we? (3 Viewers)

[murphyad]

they may not like him, but in comparison to kevin rudd tony abbot is a god send.
personally i think for someone to run a country they should be intelligent and knowledgeable. tony abbot did a double bachelor of law and economics from sydney uni, then was a rhodes scholar where he did a double degree in theology and politics from Oxford university. kevin rudd has a arts degree *cough*

Seriously, fuck off.

Are you saying that you are prepared to disregard the mass of political experience that Rudd has gained since he graduated from university (obviously Abbott has too but that is neither here nor there)?

Anyone who supports the two-faced demagogue that is Tony Abbott should be lobotomised.

 

[musicstudent]

Seriously, fuck off.

Are you saying that you are prepared to disregard the mass of political experience that Rudd has gained since he graduated from university (obviously Abbott has too but that is neither here nor there)?

Anyone who supports the two-faced demagogue that is Tony Abbott should be lobotomised.

so u r saying that all it takes to be able to run this country is to have political experience? political experience is just being able to talk well and make yourself look good. and honestly, neither do that phenomenally.

what it takes to be able to run this country is to know exactly what is happening and its causes. a big part in being a GOOD prime minister is to be able to make the hard decisions. Rudd will not make those hard decisions because all he is worried about is making himself look good.

howard made the hard decisions and we benifited because of it. he will go down as the second best or best PM in history. rudd will be a footnote.

abbott is less interested in how he comes across and will make those hard calls.

if u know anything about economics ud see how howard saved this country and then rudd ruined it again. with costello as treasurer our economy was booming. when rudd came in our banks dont even respect the decisions made.


what has rudd done in his term that is memorable??

 

[murphyad]

so u r saying that all it takes to be able to run this country is to have political experience? political experience is just being able to talk well and make yourself look good. and honestly, neither do that phenomenally.

Political experience makes a hell of a difference to, firstly, political fortunes and secondly politicians' efficacy in parliament.

what it takes to be able to run this country is to know exactly what is happening and its causes. a big part in being a GOOD prime minister is to be able to make the hard decisions. Rudd will not make those hard decisions because all he is worried about is making himself look good.


howard made the hard decisions and we benifited because of it. he will go down as the second best or best PM in history. rudd will be a footnote.

I really love it how Howard supporters continually refer back to shit like this. Typical responses include:

"Howard knew how to run a country"
"Howard could make the tough decisions"
"Howard had the right idea"

All these phrases are nothing but empty rhetoric.

I could rattle off a huge long list of Howard government failures (children overboard, Iraq war et al) but now is not the time to elaborate on them. Basically, anyone I talk to who spins this shit about political decision-making has absolutely squat to substantiate it with.

abbott is less interested in how he comes across and will make those hard calls.

And here's where you're interpretation of this term becomes readily apparent. Because what you really mean is that Howard and Abbott acted on their own beliefs a lot of the time. Let's face it. WorkChoices was part of a Howard vendetta against the Left. Remember RU486? And Abbott's despicable and ignorant belief that 'the poor make themselves poor'? 'Hard decisions', hey. Unfortunately they relied upon their own principles a little too much. Personally, I actually value (TO AN EXTENT) Rudd's willingness to be guided by polls above the ideological fervour of Howard and Abbott.

Furthermore, because Abbott is so disinterested in how he comes across, he makes his true personality readily apparent: he is a partisan thug.

if u know anything about economics ud see how howard saved this country and then rudd ruined it again. with costello as treasurer our economy was booming. when rudd came in our banks dont even respect the decisions made.

'If I knew anything about economics'? What are you, a Nobel laureate? How about you stop with the patronising crap and accept that correlation does not imply causality all the time. There was this peachy little thing called the 'mineral boom' which just happened to be in full swing throughout the Howard government's reign. But, oh, that has nothing to do with Australia's economic fortunes, it was just that Costello was such a good treasurer...

As an aside, its easy to cancel government debt and build up a huge surplus whilst at the same time bringing other sectors to a crashing standstill (public education, anyone?).

what has rudd done in his term that is memorable??

Aboriginal apology
Repeal of Howard IR legislation
ETS (TBC)
Stimulus (efficacy notwithstanding)
Internet filter (hopefully not)

These are the main things that Rudd has done.

 

[SylviaB]

If the government didn't the market would instead.

sigh....

 

[musicstudent]

I really love it how Howard supporters continually refer back to shit like this. Typical responses include:

"Howard knew how to run a country"
"Howard could make the tough decisions"
"Howard had the right idea"

we refer back to them because they are the truth. he did know how to run a country, he did make the tough calls, and overall had the right idea. none of the above can be said for rudd though

I could rattle off a huge long list of Howard government failures (children overboard, Iraq war et al) but now is not the time to elaborate on them. Basically, anyone I talk to who spins this shit about political decision-making has absolutely squat to substantiate it with.

come off it. iraq... we needed to do that because we needed to support america and englnad because its something called international relations. if we hadnt we'd be looking alot worse. see u blind supporters just look at one side and not the whole picture.
children overbored was a belive too far and howard recognises this, but at least he makes the calls, and showed that australia is tough on illegal immigreants, not like kevin rudd where his idea of deterring immigrants is by putting a welcome mat down, cook them a nice meal and give them a tap on the wrist


And here's where you're interpretation of this term becomes readily apparent. Because what you really mean is that Howard and Abbott acted on their own beliefs a lot of the time. Let's face it. WorkChoices was part of a Howard vendetta against the Left. Remember RU486? And Abbott's despicable and ignorant belief that 'the poor make themselves poor'? 'Hard decisions', hey. Unfortunately they relied upon their own principles a little too much. Personally, I actually value (TO AN EXTENT) Rudd's willingness to be guided by polls above the ideological fervour of Howard and Abbott.


do u really disagree with abbott there. GENERALLY the poor do make them selves poor. lack of saving, throwing away their money on gambling, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, creating credit debt. he is right there. abd the good thing is, which i find very refreshing, is that he said what he thought and called it as he sees it, instead of most politicians who are too concerned with what the media will do and just mumble and at the end of the day say nothing of real significance.


'If I knew anything about economics'? What are you, a Nobel laureate? How about you stop with the patronising crap and accept that correlation does not imply causality all the time. There was this peachy little thing called the 'mineral boom' which just happened to be in full swing throughout the Howard government's reign. But, oh, that has nothing to do with Australia's economic fortunes, it was just that Costello was such a good treasurer...

seriously, look throughout history. look at economic growth in relation to the governments. theres a trend.
abd thats wat all labor supporters say. well come on, the mineral boom is still here, asian markets are still demanding our minerals and resources at the same if not greater levels. now i know wat your going to say 'the GFC came about", seriously most economists believe that australia wouldnt have felt the effects of the GFC very greatly because of the high dmenad for our resources from asia. but then what does rudd do, throws away billions of dollars by giving everyone $900, and what the hell did that do. made people happy to win votes, and the $900 was mostly spent on goods which were made overseas, so our money was thrown away. nice move kevin

As an aside, its easy to cancel government debt and build up a huge surplus whilst at the same time bringing other sectors to a crashing standstill (public education, anyone?).
u want to talk about education? our education is crap at the moment, and do i hear health system???



Aboriginal apology
Repeal of Howard IR legislation
ETS (TBC)
Stimulus (efficacy notwithstanding)
Internet filter (hopefully not)

These are the main things that Rudd has done.

i personally respect howards respons to the aboriginals. it is the rresponsibility of the government of the time to apologise, not the government in power.

IR was a great idea for the econmy, in the long run it would have been great. u blind supporters cant see the long run

stimulus: i think i said enough above, but still CRAP

internet filter: u said hopefully not, great support. seriously if this gets past its a giant step towards communism, but hey i guess some of u strong labor supporters would be happy with that

 

[Lentern]

Christ if you're not spouting half-spun thoughts as if they're profundity.

Keep your aspergers to yourself.

Says the dogmatic prophet of Friedman.

 

[Lentern]

If you read anything I posted you'd know I think friedman was a trot

Oh I read it I just assumed you couldn't possible intend for people to interpret it literally.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

If you read anything I posted you'd know I think friedman was a trot

Milton Friedman was good except for his views on central banking and the great depression

btw don't listen to his son David D Friedman that guy is just weird

 

[0bs3n3]

Milton Friedman was good except for his views on central banking and the great depression

btw don't listen to his son David D Friedman that guy is just weird

Isn't his son ancap?

 

[Lentern]

Milton Friedman was good except for his views on central banking and the great depression

btw don't listen to his son David D Friedman that guy is just weird

He seems good because he was after Lord Keynes and as such avoided getting humiliated by Keynes like Robbins and Hayek, time after time, did.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Isn't his son ancap?

yes but his ancap to put it simply wouldn't work and is gay

He seems good because he was after Lord Keynes and as such avoided getting humiliated by Keynes like Robbins and Hayek, time after time, did.

no just no

 

[murphyad]

come off it. iraq... we needed to do that because we needed to support america and englnad because its something called international relations. if we hadnt we'd be looking alot worse. see u blind supporters just look at one side and not the whole picture.
children overbored was a belive too far and howard recognises this, but at least he makes the calls, and showed that australia is tough on illegal immigreants, not like kevin rudd where his idea of deterring immigrants is by putting a welcome mat down, cook them a nice meal and give them a tap on the wrist

'It's something called international relations'. Nice. Do you have ANY clue what you are on about? Seriously, I'm not interested in getting into a heated discussion on these issues. I'll just say that it was dumb of us to participate in an invasion that had NO legal pretext and was supported on the basis of a deliberate misleading of the populations of this country and of the US and UK as well.

do u really disagree with abbott there. GENERALLY the poor do make them selves poor. lack of saving, throwing away their money on gambling, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, creating credit debt. he is right there. abd the good thing is, which i find very refreshing, is that he said what he thought and called it as he sees it, instead of most politicians who are too concerned with what the media will do and just mumble and at the end of the day say nothing of real significance.

Of course I disagree with him. It's not the day to day actions that are as important as the overall mentality that is created by a life in poverty. A sense of helplessness that is felt almost every day contributes as does the desire to spend what little money you have on indulgences, a practice encouraged by advertising and so on. I also think the welfare system itself is partly to blame and creates a level of dependency. BUT - you cannot just say that the poor are poor because they don't know how to save money. To do so is to totally and utterly ignore the bigger picture.

Tony Abbott does call things as he sees them. This is moronic firstly because it puts opinion above policy (politicians should think with their head as opposed to their heart) and secondly because his opinions aren't worth a pinch of shit because the next day he will come out with something different. All that the Abbott opposition is interested in doing is trying to chip away at the edifice that is Rudd's approval rating. They have made NO attempt to present themselves as a viable alternative government. As long as this is the case, I am not interested in supporting them.

seriously, look throughout history. look at economic growth in relation to the governments. theres a trend.
abd thats wat all labor supporters say. well come on, the mineral boom is still here, asian markets are still demanding our minerals and resources at the same if not greater levels. now i know wat your going to say 'the GFC came about", seriously most economists believe that australia wouldnt have felt the effects of the GFC very greatly because of the high dmenad for our resources from asia. but then what does rudd do, throws away billions of dollars by giving everyone $900, and what the hell did that do. made people happy to win votes, and the $900 was mostly spent on goods which were made overseas, so our money was thrown away. nice move kevin

Why don't you do some fucking research? There is evidence from multiple quarters to suggest that the stimulus had a beneficial effect on the state of the economy. It is probably true that the GFC would not have been felt as badly in Australia anyway, but with the help of the stimulus and low interest rates it was felt even less. And herein lies another point of Liberal idiocy. In early 2009, Turnbull was going on about 'Rudd's recession' - that was, before we found out that we weren't actually going to have a recession. Suddenly, that particular campaign point was nowhere to be found. Consistency in policy? I think not!

The last thing I want to say is that you call me a 'blind supporter'. Unfortunately, it is you who is the blind supporter. From your attempts to justify what can clearly be judged as Howard failures (including your empty political jingles) to your inability to recall a single 'memorable' thing that the Rudd government has done (quoting you directly; you said 'memorable' things, not 'good' things) you demonstrate the hallmarks of a partisan Liberal hack.

Oh, and learn how to multi-quote for god's sake.

 

[musicstudent]

The last thing I want to say is that you call me a 'blind supporter'. Unfortunately, it is you who is the blind supporter. From your attempts to justify what can clearly be judged as Howard failures (including your empty political jingles) to your inability to recall a single 'memorable' thing that the Rudd government has done (quoting you directly; you said 'memorable' things, not 'good' things) you demonstrate the hallmarks of a partisan Liberal hack.

haha, you seriously think all of what u said previously. thats a tad funny. ok, lets think of a memorable thing whitlam did. in ur case the memorable thing would be that he stuffed our economy up terribly. the good things though are that he improved our education sysyem by leaps and bounds.

what u answered, none were meroable. they wont go down in history as land mark decisions (apart from the sorry, but meh i dont agree with that). he's going to be remembered as that guy who came in after howard. howard will be remembered.

im no blind supporter, i see that whitmlam did wonders for our country. i can see that throughout history there have been some wonderful labor prime ministers, but im sorry, rudd will not be one of them.

ben chifley with the snowy mountains scheme and his post war immigration scheme,
lol, bob hawke was ok, but one of his greatest achievemnts was getting the world speed record for drinking a pint of beer in 11seconds. go labor....


im sorry, but the two greatest prime ministers of all time will go down as menzies and howard. no two ways about them, they did what they had to do, thats why they where voted in time and time again.

u strike me as idiot who would probably believe some far fetched conspirousy story that the election was rigged. ur a twit


oh and here u go then, ill re-ask. name any 'good' things that rudd has done.



oh and im not saying that stimulus did nothing, it sure made people like rudd and gain some support, but a year later, what do we have to show from it.?? if he was wise, and educated, (like howard and abbott are), he would know that the money was wasted.
and wat ever positive effect it had on our economy was negliable. the GFC wasnt going to hit us hard, seeing as our big 4 banks are in the top 5 most stable banks in the world. seriously, go do some research, which isnt written by a labor supporter.... oh wait, then u might actually see the truth


grow up, u just like arguing, but u dont have any real basis for why u think rudd is a better pm then howard

 

[SnowFox]

^more like howard IMO.

 

[Slidey]

haha, you seriously think all of what u said previously. thats a tad funny. ok, lets think of a memorable thing whitlam did. in ur case the memorable thing would be that he stuffed our economy up terribly. the good things though are that he improved our education sysyem by leaps and bounds.

what u answered, none were meroable. they wont go down in history as land mark decisions (apart from the sorry, but meh i dont agree with that). he's going to be remembered as that guy who came in after howard. howard will be remembered.

im no blind supporter, i see that whitmlam did wonders for our country. i can see that throughout history there have been some wonderful labor prime ministers, but im sorry, rudd will not be one of them.

ben chifley with the snowy mountains scheme and his post war immigration scheme,
lol, bob hawke was ok, but one of his greatest achievemnts was getting the world speed record for drinking a pint of beer in 11seconds. go labor....


im sorry, but the two greatest prime ministers of all time will go down as menzies and howard. no two ways about them, they did what they had to do, thats why they where voted in time and time again.

u strike me as idiot who would probably believe some far fetched conspirousy story that the election was rigged. ur a twit


oh and here u go then, ill re-ask. name any 'good' things that rudd has done.



oh and im not saying that stimulus did nothing, it sure made people like rudd and gain some support, but a year later, what do we have to show from it.?? if he was wise, and educated, (like howard and abbott are), he would know that the money was wasted.
and wat ever positive effect it had on our economy was negliable. the GFC wasnt going to hit us hard, seeing as our big 4 banks are in the top 5 most stable banks in the world. seriously, go do some research, which isnt written by a labor supporter.... oh wait, then u might actually see the truth


grow up, u just like arguing, but u dont have any real basis for why u think rudd is a better pm then howard

It's a shame you're so blinded by partisanship, because you have some good points to make.

 

[murphyad]

what u answered, none were meroable. they wont go down in history as land mark decisions (apart from the sorry, but meh i dont agree with that). he's going to be remembered as that guy who came in after howard. howard will be remembered.

You have seriously gone full retard with this post. You keep pulling shit out about 'land mark (sic) decisions' and how they will be remembered.

EVERY Prime Minister makes landmark decisions. EVERY Prime Minister has at least one thing that defines their term in office. Using this criteria, EVERY Prime Minister will be 'remembered' at least because of the high office that they held. So on that literal basis, you are wrong.

Alternatively, we could assume that by 'remembered', you actually meant 'respected'. However, by the sole virtue of the fact that there ARE actually (I know this must be shocking for you) Rudd supporters out there (and a lot of them if polls are anything to go by), the initiatives that Rudd has introduced look as though they will be respected by a large number of the population for some time to come. See? Even if I analyse your position on a non-literal basis, it crumbles.

Also, do you realise you are comparing a Prime Minister who served for four terms with one who has not even served out one? Do you realise that that is inherently an unfair comparison? To make things fair, what did Howard do IN HIS FIRST TERM that was so memorable? What 'land mark decisions' did he make?

oh and here u go then, ill re-ask. name any 'good' things that rudd has done.

As far as I'm concerned, the apology, the stimulus, the school laptop thing and healthcare reform are the best initiatives the Rudd gvt has enacted (or is trying to) so far.

But that's not even really the point, because obviously people will disagree on an ideological level about the legitimacy of these policies as you and I do now. The problem begins when deluded hacks like you use irrelevant bullshit (like that crap about Rudd being dumb because he only had an arts degree) as well as generalised polemicist raving to mount an essentially unfalsifiable position that 'Howard was better'.

oh and im not saying that stimulus did nothing, it sure made people like rudd and gain some support, but a year later, what do we have to show from it.?? if he was wise, and educated, (like howard and abbott are), he would know that the money was wasted.
and wat ever positive effect it had on our economy was negliable. the GFC wasnt going to hit us hard, seeing as our big 4 banks are in the top 5 most stable banks in the world. seriously, go do some research, which isnt written by a labor supporter.... oh wait, then u might actually see the truth

Both the IMF and Ken Henry have conceded the effectiveness of Australia's stimulus measures. Are you more qualified?

grow up, u just like arguing, but u dont have any real basis for why u think rudd is a better pm then howard

What the fuck have you brought to the table apart from some arrogant economic claptrap and a general attitude of 'Menzies and Howard 4 lyf'? You have not supported your position AT ALL. Repeating over and over that Howard was a big shot does not count, I'm afraid. I didn't come to this discussion trying to objectively prove that Rudd was a 'better PM'. I was never even intending to take such a pro-Rudd stance. What I was doing was revealing your arguments as the unsupported bullshit that they are. Somehow you have taken this and turned me into a conspiracy theorist. It's not that I like arguing, it's just that you fail at it.

 

[Lentern]

no just no

You're quite right, Lord Keynes wasn't needed to make Friedman look a naive dickhead he managed that easily enough on his own.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

You're quite right, Lord Keynes wasn't needed to make Friedman look a naive dickhead he managed that easily enough on his own.

lol what did Friedman do that has got u wet in the pants

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Lentern's socially conservative and economically liberal.

I.E a Catholic idiot.

hes not sounding to eco liberal to me bagging out Milton?

 

[ongitsanjali]

yea @ john

your entire argument is based on the assumption that all companies are pure evil and that capitalism at every level doesn't work.

i know moll and i know for a fact he is a government intervention loving socialist hippie but at least he seems to have a basic understanding of capitalism unlike u.

capitalism works, even regulated capitalism is better then no capitalism at all

WRONG STEVE, WRONG!!!! capitalism doesn't work on most levels, in terms of social equity and well-being. the current model our economic system follows is totally unrealistic... not so relevant to the real world at all.

if you did my course you would know that... pretty well by now.