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

[johnnydepp]

It seems that most of us have all seen through the bs of the Labor government and miss the straightforward governing style of the Howard era, where the man didn't personally reach into our lives and try to control us.

So, people of BoS, do you wish the people of Australia had seen through Rudd's bullshit and kept the greatest PM of Australia, John Howard, in office?

If so, why?

If not, justify.

You bet your ass we did. Australia deserves a big "I TOLD YOU SO"

 

[mirakon]

LOL I just realised Lauchlan ignored me again once I reposted my argument. You replied to it m8, but you didn't actually argue against it. You just ranted about stuff that had nothing to do with it.

Very well then, I'll just have to refute some of the points in your most previous post.

Ok, so you raise the point of tony abbot's weak approach to the issue of health reform. But this argument is about Howard and Rudd, so this point is completely irrrelevant. Your logic that 'tony abbot had bad health reform ideas, therefore that supports my argument of Howard being a worse prime minister than Rudd' is ridiculous.

Also I raise the point that the holes in the health system are primarily the responsibility of state governments, which make note, have been Labor in NSW for the past many years. The ineptitude of the state government is to blame, not Howard. Even now there is tension between the NSW state government and the federal government on the new health reform, surely if it was a good plan, then both governments, espcially as they are of the same party, would agree?

Secondly, about education. One only has to see the many reports of hasty careless contracts for building new classrooms etc. to realise that although Rudd's intentions may have been good, the practical results were far from perfect. Such controversiers were not as widely evident in the Howard era.

Also, in regards to the curriculum, the contents of it are entirely irrelevant to the national government. The board of studies is solely responsible for it. The nationalisation of the curriculum itself was Rudd's idea and that's the extent to which he gets credit for it. Yet once again such decisions in regards to education are not without controversy.

For example, The MySchools website was imo a ridiculous decision. Taxpayer's money was completely wasted. Let's be honest, how many parents actually particularly care about the slight nuances of their children's primary school? This induces an unhealthy sense of competition into what should be the light and fun years of kid's life. Academic excellence should not be concentrated on so highly in such young ages, but rather the growth and nuturing of the child for the future. For high schools, if a parent is interested in results, they can simply ask the school for performance information, why is this information publicised to humiliate schools that may not rank as well? Furthermore, I'm guessing the parents who really care about it are thsoe that are incredibly competitive about their children and will only look at the top 100 or so schools, whereupon this information is already available here on BoS or in SMH archives.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

ok you make some good points, but i cant help but see contradictions.

@ EDUCATION - do you have proof that the work you speak of is a result of Howard's legislation. if your in a state that is labor it could have been the result of state government funding - as i remind you all the system is concurrent. i cant really believe such a claim when all your using to defend it is it happened during when he was in national office. but dont think i was saying that infrastructure wasnt being built by liberals - both labor and liberal have different approaches to this.
i will not even take two glances at the "don't fix what is not broken" excuse. i have time and time again on threads discussed the holes in education that could be addressed by state and federal govts - refer to metaphors used.

@ HEALTH i seem to recall tony abbott saying that the health system needs reform where 100% of funding is from the commonwealth. he agrees to this day we need a reform - what do you think of this? when (or if) he releases an alternate policy i would wonder what the liberal voters would think of it.

@ LAPTOPS - these are a result of state government choice of how to use the funding. every state got to choose how to provide 'a computer for every 9-12 student'. i think schools should updated their computers and got more... but again that was state not federal response.

@ CURRICULUM - i agree that NSW's curriculum is the best in australia, but it has its holes... like the absence of some subjects (psychology)... i think the government should have helped the states to update their syllabus's and provided guidelines for outcomes. this would bring the other states up but not affect nsw - seriously the board of studies weere planning to update many of their syllabus's around now... like maths, and legal studies was just implemented. oh well it wont affect me (luckily) but it is a shame - again i think the govt has the right intentions but the wrong variations of practice (that being said im not sure liberal would be better). welfare and ethics classes have been around long before this reform - that part is irrelevent.

@ RUDD - i dont think this term of his govt has held australia back - i think we needed a change from howard, despite how economically gifted you say he is. rudd has his plus sides.

what do you think eh?

education

u heavily implied nothing was being done for schools under the Howard years i was merely providing an example

lol what specific holes in education?

health

i was talking about the Howard government with health then you bring in Abbot and as i have said doesn't matter what ether of them bring to the table it will be fucking shit, there is nothing they can do to help the system just privatise it before it becomes worse

Laptops K Rudd said he would give laptops so it was a federal thing as part of his 'education revolution' laptops for students is seriously the most ridiculous idea ever period

lol i laugh at psychology, biggest waste of a teenagers time learning a pseudo science.

doesn't matter what the intentions of government are its the outcomes and at the moment the government is destroying the curriculum. and no wealthfare and ethics classes are very new and no kid will take them seriously biggest fucking waste of time ever. from what i hear there is going to be Asian language classes for primary school kids which is very fucking unAustralian and they are going to incorporate aboriginals into everything possible which is so lame.

Rudd

lol as i said your change to Rudd has brought nothing good to Australia you can argue that saying sorry to aboriginals was good when it was clearly not needed.

or that the abolition of work choices was good even though Australians are back to doing no work and getting paid tons for it.

and as i have said stimulus package worst idea ever.

the only plus side i can see was pulling out of Iraq which was just a waste of our time when Iran is the real problem other than that Rudd has no plus sides

 

[SnowFox]

AdInfinium Lite

 

[badquinton304]

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

[Lauchlan]

no its not trivial he provided examples of how Howard was awesome and u dismiss them as trivial when they are so clearly not

they are opinionated. it is an interpretation - not a factual account.

i can either agree or disagree. i have disagreed many times and agreed other times, and given reasons. if its not good enough for you thats your problem.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

they are opinionated. it is an interpretation - not a factual account.

i can either agree or disagree. i have disagreed many times and agreed other times, and given reasons. if its not good enough for you thats your problem.

maybe because your reasons might of been interpretative and opinionated and not based on facts or reason especially regarding the ludicrous amounts of economic fallacies you have committed

 

[Lauchlan]

LOL I just realised Lauchlan ignored me again once I reposted my argument. You replied to it m8, but you didn't actually argue against it. You just ranted about stuff that had nothing to do with it.

Very well then, I'll just have to refute some of the points in your most previous post.

Ok, so you raise the point of tony abbot's weak approach to the issue of health reform. But this argument is about Howard and Rudd, so this point is completely irrrelevant. Your logic that 'tony abbot had bad health reform ideas, therefore that supports my argument of Howard being a worse prime minister than Rudd' is ridiculous.

Also I raise the point that the holes in the health system are primarily the responsibility of state governments, which make note, have been Labor in NSW for the past many years. The ineptitude of the state government is to blame, not Howard. Even now there is tension between the NSW state government and the federal government on the new health reform, surely if it was a good plan, then both governments, espcially as they are of the same party, would agree?

Secondly, about education. One only has to see the many reports of hasty careless contracts for building new classrooms etc. to realise that although Rudd's intentions may have been good, the practical results were far from perfect. Such controversiers were not as widely evident in the Howard era.

Also, in regards to the curriculum, the contents of it are entirely irrelevant to the national government. The board of studies is solely responsible for it. The nationalisation of the curriculum itself was Rudd's idea and that's the extent to which he gets credit for it. Yet once again such decisions in regards to education are not without controversy.

For example, The MySchools website was imo a ridiculous decision. Taxpayer's money was completely wasted. Let's be honest, how many parents actually particularly care about the slight nuances of their children's primary school? This induces an unhealthy sense of competition into what should be the light and fun years of kid's life. Academic excellence should not be concentrated on so highly in such young ages, but rather the growth and nuturing of the child for the future. For high schools, if a parent is interested in results, they can simply ask the school for performance information, why is this information publicised to humiliate schools that may not rank as well? Furthermore, I'm guessing the parents who really care about it are thsoe that are incredibly competitive about their children and will only look at the top 100 or so schools, whereupon this information is already available here on BoS or in SMH archives.

My point is this - why are you not willing to discuss tony abbott? it wont kill you, it is relevant to the debate as he is the current leader - which is what people should be debating about - not about a dead politician. obviously you dont have many positives things to say about abbott which is why you are clinging on to what is now history.

im sick of you blaming state govt for howard - he maintains a portion (however small) of blame in this area - it is CONCURRENT for gods sake.

in education i very much so agree with you on many points. i agree that the issues could have been addressed better - i do not agree that they shouldnt be addressed at all.

the problem is that there is two options for the australian public to look at (that have been highlighted recently like abbott's fail to introduce his alternate policy on health)

Labor: Something
Liberal: Nothing

There is no comparison. There are systems in Australia that are regarded as 'broken' therefore they need to be fixed. Everyone you says 'if it aint broken dont fix it' is a pathetic conservatist.

 

[SnowFox]

they are opinionated. it is an interpretation - not a factual account.

i can either agree or disagree. i have disagreed many times and agreed other times, and given reasons. if its not good enough for you thats your problem.

You know, youd make one successful but fucked up politician.

 

[Lauchlan]

education

u heavily implied nothing was being done for schools under the Howard years i was merely providing an example

lol what specific holes in education?

health

i was talking about the Howard government with health then you bring in Abbot and as i have said doesn't matter what ether of them bring to the table it will be fucking shit, there is nothing they can do to help the system just privatise it before it becomes worse

Laptops K Rudd said he would give laptops so it was a federal thing as part of his 'education revolution' laptops for students is seriously the most ridiculous idea ever period

lol i laugh at psychology, biggest waste of a teenagers time learning a pseudo science.

doesn't matter what the intentions of government are its the outcomes and at the moment the government is destroying the curriculum. and no wealthfare and ethics classes are very new and no kid will take them seriously biggest fucking waste of time ever. from what i hear there is going to be Asian language classes for primary school kids which is very fucking unAustralian and they are going to incorporate aboriginals into everything possible which is so lame.

Rudd

lol as i said your change to Rudd has brought nothing good to Australia you can argue that saying sorry to aboriginals was good when it was clearly not needed.

or that the abolition of work choices was good even though Australians are back to doing no work and getting paid tons for it.

and as i have said stimulus package worst idea ever.

the only plus side i can see was pulling out of Iraq which was just a waste of our time when Iran is the real problem other than that Rudd has no plus sides

Health

Abbott is the liberal leader - what he puts to the table is the alternative.
There is no govt discussion for privatising anything - give up on that.
Again its obvious you are not so keen on your own leader. sad.

Education

the states played a role in satisfying the 'laptop for every 9-12 student' promise by 2013. not every state chose to have laptops - some i think just updated what they had and provided more/newer computers to meet needs. i agree with having better school computers - again at least rudd attempted to address the issue, i would have prefered action on school computers - but i dont trust the libs would do that.. this is also a CONCURRENT power in govts - federals plays a role in education (however small)

welfare is a subject at some schools - if you dont do it then dont assume every other story is the same.

aboriginals are already everywhere in the nsw curriculum - look at all the HSIE subjects... seriously, no change there.

General

apart from economic management (which should be directly the minister for finances domain, not the PM) what are howards positives? and what are tony abbotts prospects for being voted into office? why should we trust tony abbott when he has some very different policies to howard? answer these questions.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Health

Abbott is the liberal leader - what he puts to the table is the alternative.
There is no govt discussion for privatising anything - give up on that.
Again its obvious you are not so keen on your own leader. sad.

Education

the states played a role in satisfying the 'laptop for every 9-12 student' promise by 2013. not every state chose to have laptops - some i think just updated what they had and provided more/newer computers to meet needs. i agree with having better school computers - again at least rudd attempted to address the issue, i would have prefered action on school computers - but i dont trust the libs would do that.. this is also a CONCURRENT power in govts - federals plays a role in education (however small)

welfare is a subject at some schools - if you dont do it then dont assume every other story is the same.

aboriginals are already everywhere in the nsw curriculum - look at all the HSIE subjects... seriously, no change there.

wtf don't you get by anarcho-capitalist seriously out of all the things that is pissing me off the most

 

[Lauchlan]

maybe because your reasons might of been interpretative and opinionated and not based on facts or reason especially regarding the ludicrous amounts of economic fallacies you have committed

i have committed? your not talking to the labor party, fool.

economic management is important but what are the libs other strengths?
are you saying all the libs have to offer are lawyers and economists?

 

[Lauchlan]

You know, youd make one successful but fucked up politician.

then at least i would fit in.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

i have committed? your not talking to the labor party, fool.

economic management is important but what are the libs other strengths?
are you saying all the libs have to offer are lawyers and economists?

do you not understand what fallacy means

lol what other strengths does labour has because economic management trumps every other strength

 

[Lauchlan]

do you not understand what fallacy means

lol what other strengths does labour has because economic management trumps every other strength

stop neglecting my questions and responding with further questions.

i asked SPECIFICALLY what other areas do liberal succeed in despite economics.

if you cant answer that then i can only conclude that liberal are ONLY good at managing finance.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

stop neglecting my questions and responding with further questions.

i asked SPECIFICALLY what other areas do liberal succeed in despite economics.

if you cant answer that then i can only conclude that liberal are ONLY good at managing finance.

which is all they need to be good at it to get my and many other peoples votes

 

[Lauchlan]

which is all they need to be good at it to get my and many other peoples votes

you have revealed your only interest in liberal govt - money. and you're not alone, im sure many other people share that view.

but many would agree with me that there is much more for a govt to do then play around with money all day, and that is the difference.

if you want to respond and continue this debate then fine... but i think we have a reached a conclusion to agree to disagree.

 

[funkshen]

you have revealed your only interest in liberal govt - money. and you're not alone, im sure many other people share that view.

but many would agree with me that there is much more for a govt to do then play around with money all day, and that is the difference.

if you want to respond and continue this debate then fine... but i think we have a reached a conclusion to agree to disagree.

Historical materialism brah. Scuba steve is really a marxist subverter, deep inside.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Historical materialism brah. Scuba steve is really a marxist subverter, deep inside.

of course I'am

 

[scuba_steve2121]

you have revealed your only interest in liberal govt - money. and you're not alone, im sure many other people share that view.

but many would agree with me that there is much more for a govt to do then play around with money all day, and that is the difference.

if you want to respond and continue this debate then fine... but i think we have a reached a conclusion to agree to disagree.

money is everything

if socially a country appealed to you on every level means shit when its got the wealth of Sierra Leone

also wtf do u think the government does all day if its not 'playing around' with money. when federal or state decides to do something like idk a healthcare reform. wtf do you think one of the main things they are doing. its like one day on what we want to do then the rest of the time is seeing if its possiable with the amount of money we have.