We made a mistake with Rudd, didn't we? (2 Viewers)

[Lauchlan]

so you have gone from I'm ignorant to its my choice and opinion?

perhaps a bit of both? lol... nah despite the fact someone (including me, you, others) always goes too far in these discussions... i still enjoy them. XD

 

[tommykins]

in a way i agree with you, but on other levels i disagree.

completely ignoring the points? check
not providing reasons as to why you disagree with some points? check
ignoring every other response in the thread? check

now something for you to do

realise that you're actually an idiot and should shut up if you've got no idea about the topic at hand?

 

[Lauchlan]

You mean to say a thread titled "We made a mistake with Rudd, didn't we?" ever had potential?

LOL - good point

 

[Lentern]

The alternative was "Are Labour the economy's rapists now that the police of the Howard government have been fired?"

How about "Blastus' parents make a mistake with him, didn't they?"

 

[Lauchlan]

You honestly think I'll be fucked to post the thing again just to have it ignored again just because you're too much of a sissy to reply? I mean threads later it is somewhat out of cotnext. Nevertheless I don't mind rubbing it in so I will re-post it just so you can make more of an embarrassment of yourself

I reply - stop stallling and do it, then you can make judgements based on whats happened... i dont remember half of what was said previously.. most of it was argument babble. of course it is out of context - thats why i said retype it (in context) and i can reply to it (in context)... Try all you will to "rub it in", my focus is on getting good responses to my comments. Im not embarrassed - and you still havent posted it - perhaps you are.

NOTE: i assume you wrote 'context' where you wrote 'cotnext'... good work

 

[Lauchlan]

No, we didn't make a mistake.

Howard didn't do much to advance Australia, but held us back.

End of story.

THANKYOU!!!! i agree with you to an extent here. Good on you for posting this side of the argument that has been well neglected by others.

a man with the bushiest eye brows ever was reelected 4 times for 'holding us back'

just because he was reelected doesnt mean he was so great. perhaps in comparison to the current labor leaders before mr. rudd he was preferable to a majority of australians... thats all you can deduce from that - theres no evidence to suggest that every politician who stays in office for that long is really doing their job perfectly. i think howard had strong political arguments and beliefs (ideologies) - keeping him alive in australian politics... but in doing so howard addressed some issue, and didnt address others - thats why i would somewhat agree that he held australia back in a sense.

 

[SnowFox]

THANKYOU!!!! i agree with you to an extent here. Good on you for posting this side of the argument that has been well neglected by others.



just because he was reelected doesnt mean he was so great. perhaps in comparison to the current labor leaders before mr. rudd he was preferable to a majority of australians... thats all you can deduce from that - theres no evidence to suggest that every politician who stays in office for that long is really doing their job perfectly. i think howard had strong political arguments and beliefs (ideologies) - keeping him alive in australian politics... but in doing so howard addressed some issue, and didnt address others - thats why i would somewhat agree that he held australia back in a sense.

Your opinions are null and void because you are a ignoramus.

 

[Lauchlan]

completely ignoring the points? check
not providing reasons as to why you disagree with some points? check
ignoring every other response in the thread? check

now something for you to do

realise that you're actually an idiot and should shut up if you've got no idea about the topic at hand?

1. im not ignoring the points - im putting them into context of my answer, if you have a specific question by all means ask - but generic questions give me space to answer in my own structure.
2. im making a general statement. of course im not always going to agree with everyone - that does not mean i have to provide reasons... but if you want reasons for a specific issue ask me a question about it and i will be more than happy to answer.
3. because i have played a rather "semi-main role" (ie. i have made a lot of comments and replies) in this thread... i would only answer questions directed to me, but i take into account other peoples comments - it would just take forever to quote every single one in this thread... nobody does that anyway.
4. i do have an idea about the topic at hand - if you have specific criticism then quote me, ask a question ect. because pathetic insults like that dont go very far with me.

 

[Lauchlan]

How about "Blastus' parents make a mistake with him, didn't they?"

i dont think that would be as lengthy as this argument ie. we would come to the conclusion straight away

 

[Lauchlan]

Your opinions are null and void because you are a ignoramus.

i consider that an invalid comment. you can either
1. come up with another one, or
2. SPECIFY what your opinion is and it conflicts with comments i have presented.

your choice. but number 1 is a popular choice for you libs.

 

[SnowFox]

i consider that an invalid comment. you can either
1. come up with another one, or
2. SPECIFY what your opinion is and it conflicts with comments i have presented.

your choice. but number 1 is a popular choice for you libs.

My opinion of you is a ignoramus, which was pretty self evident in my previous post and the shit you dribble out in other threads.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

THANKYOU!!!! i agree with you to an extent here. Good on you for posting this side of the argument that has been well neglected by others.



just because he was reelected doesnt mean he was so great. perhaps in comparison to the current labor leaders before mr. rudd he was preferable to a majority of australians... thats all you can deduce from that - theres no evidence to suggest that every politician who stays in office for that long is really doing their job perfectly. i think howard had strong political arguments and beliefs (ideologies) - keeping him alive in australian politics... but in doing so howard addressed some issue, and didnt address others - thats why i would somewhat agree that he held australia back in a sense.

specifically how did he hold Australia back and how has Rudd addressed this?

 

[scuba_steve2121]

i consider that an invalid comment. you can either
1. come up with another one, or
2. SPECIFY what your opinion is and it conflicts with comments i have presented.

your choice. but number 1 is a popular choice for you libs.

my opinion is that Rudd is shit because he is left leaning economically

my conflict is that you appear to support this

 

[Fish Tank]

just because he was reelected doesnt mean he was so great. perhaps in comparison to the current labor leaders before mr. rudd he was preferable to a majority of australians... thats all you can deduce from that - theres no evidence to suggest that every politician who stays in office for that long is really doing their job perfectly. i think howard had strong political arguments and beliefs (ideologies) - keeping him alive in australian politics... but in doing so howard addressed some issue, and didnt address others - thats why i would somewhat agree that he held australia back in a sense.

You're either a really shit troll or an absolute fuckstick. I'm thinking a bit of both.

Howard kept relations with the US strong, one of our major trading partners, a military ally and one of the world's richest nations. Rudd's siding with a communist regime that makes cheap plastic toys and can't even do communism right.

Rudd's censoring the interweb, what should be a free medium for people to post their opinions and share open information. And porn. What would stop him from censoring any sites that belittle the Labor party or Chairman Rudd once this ISP-level fliter is set up? There's no safeguards ensuring freedom of speech is unaffected, and morality already is a subjective issue (as proven so many times on this forum, let alone on the web and in the real world). So who is to say what is right and wrong? I wouldn't trust a politician with that power.

The Libs under Howard managed to accumulate a surplus, which was returned in part to the taxpayers so they could spend on things that benefit them personally. Labor likes to rip money out of people, spend it on stuff that benefits a minority and then announce the debt was because of the previous Liberal government. I'd rather have sound fiscal policies than allowing indiscriminate spending on multi-million dollar libraries the size of a $200 000 house.

Howard did not 'hold Australia back', the only reason Australia survived the GFC was not because of Ruddkip paying dead people and overseas citizens money, but because Australia was already in a good position financially thanks to Howard and the Libs.

my opinion is that Rudd is shit because he is left leaning economically

my conflict is that you appear to support this

My opinion is the same, my conflict is the same.

 

[funkshen]

What would stop him from censoring any sites that belittle the Labor party or Chairman Rudd once this ISP-level fliter is set up? There's no safeguards ensuring freedom of speech is unaffected, and morality already is a subjective issue (as proven so many times on this forum, let alone on the web and in the real world). So who is to say what is right and wrong? I wouldn't trust a politician with that power.

You know the governor general can dissolve the House of Representatives, right? If the people see such an obviously gross abuse of power they will not continue to vote for him. Electoral swings are marginal enough in this country that I find your situation to be highly implausible, whether it was a Labor or Liberal Prime Minister is irrelevant.

Labor likes to rip money out of people, spend it on stuff that benefits a minority and then announce the debt was because of the previous Liberal government. I'd rather have sound fiscal policies

'cause Labor governments never run a budget surplus and never institute sound economic policy and Liberal governments never run a budget deficit and always institute sound economic policy, right?

Fucking hell. Here's some advice. Vote for who has the best policies, not for a party. And don't let gross generalizations and misinterpretations of either party sway your decisions.

Edit: oh yeah and why people think they know all about public finance confuses the fuck out of me
Editedit: also rofl at people saying Rudd is left leaning economically. But I suppose centre-right is left of right.

 

[Lauchlan]

My opinion of you is a ignoramus, which was pretty self evident in my previous post and the shit you dribble out in other threads.

that isnt accepted as a justification in the real world. if u were asked by a court of law to explain why my statements are false you would need evidence, not opinions.

i respect your right to an opinion, but thats all it really is.

 

[SnowFox]

that isnt accepted as a justification in the real world. if u were asked by a court of law to explain why my statements are false you would need evidence, not opinions.

i respect your right to an opinion, but thats all it really is.

You wouldnt make to a court of law, the judge would take one look at you and automatically tell you're a pre birth fuck up.

 

[Lauchlan]

specifically how did he hold Australia back and how has Rudd addressed this?

it can be INTERPRETED that Howard held Australia back in the areas of health and education, by not moving in any direction. in a sense he just sat on the fence and looking towards "privatising" the health system as previously mentioned.
by this was not completed in the time of over a decade in office.

Rudd has only been in office for a few years and he already has introduced policy to work towards a direction for australias future specific to these services. the original policy of health reform may not be 100% perfect and effective..... yet - there will be compromise with the states, particularly victoria.

In education Howard did not move towards improving Australian education standards, as in the funding, the curriculum, the services schools need ect. Rudd has started to address these of which Howard didnt.

Im not saying Rudd's policy is 100% perfect and effective, but its over 50% in my point of view - which is 50% more than Howard ever did.

If you can RESPOND TO WHAT I JUST SAID then do so. but do not bring up further issues until you have responded to the 'holding back' question which, i did not start btw - i am only saying that if i were to comment - i would agree 75% labor, 25% liberal.... if that.

 

[Lauchlan]

my opinion is that Rudd is shit because he is left leaning economically

my conflict is that you appear to support this

i appear to support part, and part of that (not specifting what 'that' is)
and im not saying any more on my split agreement - im not obliged to justify my own opinion. neither are you. but if you state an eliged fact, then you need to provide proofs.

 

[Lauchlan]

You're either a really shit troll or an absolute fuckstick. I'm thinking a bit of both.

Howard kept relations with the US strong, one of our major trading partners, a military ally and one of the world's richest nations. Rudd's siding with a communist regime that makes cheap plastic toys and can't even do communism right.

Rudd's censoring the interweb, what should be a free medium for people to post their opinions and share open information. And porn. What would stop him from censoring any sites that belittle the Labor party or Chairman Rudd once this ISP-level fliter is set up? There's no safeguards ensuring freedom of speech is unaffected, and morality already is a subjective issue (as proven so many times on this forum, let alone on the web and in the real world). So who is to say what is right and wrong? I wouldn't trust a politician with that power.

The Libs under Howard managed to accumulate a surplus, which was returned in part to the taxpayers so they could spend on things that benefit them personally. Labor likes to rip money out of people, spend it on stuff that benefits a minority and then announce the debt was because of the previous Liberal government. I'd rather have sound fiscal policies than allowing indiscriminate spending on multi-million dollar libraries the size of a $200 000 house.

Howard did not 'hold Australia back', the only reason Australia survived the GFC was not because of Ruddkip paying dead people and overseas citizens money, but because Australia was already in a good position financially thanks to Howard and the Libs.



My opinion is the same, my conflict is the same.

its ALL TRIVIAL - but as i have said before, i seem to touching a nerve when i suggest that your queen Howard isnt perfect.