Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Talking Politics

Six Pack said:
You could be like Family First, Livers, and release a Liverpool Impact Statement as each new policy is announced.

I see all the lefties are banding together... :hihi

http://abc.net.au/news/video/2007/10/28/2072416.htm

Six Pack said:
Livers, you are the only person I know who has drawn a link between water shortages and immigration levels. maybe this new announcement will help ease yr troubled mind:
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/28/2072504.htm?section=justin

It's not going to ease my mind at all.

Mr Rudd says as water supplies dwindle, a federal Labor government would help the states carry the burden

Your link has this line in it....which means we aren't gaining water....so my concern over more and more people coming into this country is still valid.
 
So what's the state of play in yr federal elctorate, Livers. Who is running, who is gonna win?
 
barty boy said:
I bet its the seat of bennelong....he he he

Nah, I'm not up there....but McKew will get in.
The whole ALP is either a union member or a 'celebrity' who doesn't know anything about politics.
People who don't know anything about politics, or don't care, will vote for the one they see on TV reading the news over some politician.... :hihi
 
the age of celebrity is upon us.eg peter garrett,maxine,Arnie in California,and of course Ronnie Reagan .As someone put it not so kindly"He was a B grade actor in an A grade job....This would apply for Arnie too i guess.
 
rosy23 said:
Well done nurses. :clap Now little Johnny scrap your workplace laws that resulted in their pay being docked 50% even though they worked full days. While you're at it reinburse them for the work they did yet had their money stolen :mad:
yeh well done to the nuses.but if you think the ir laws are going to change under a labor goverment rosy you might be in for a suprise.niel mitchell had gilliard on last week and after numerous questions about how differant the laws would be under labor,which she tried to keep ducking,she finally admitted that not much would be changed.
 
Liverpool said:
Azza,
I agree with you that people would like to see infrastructure improved...whether that be roads, buildings, health, education, etc....but at the end of the day, most people don't want to lose anything themselves, in favour of giving it to anyone/anything else.
Why do you think the focus on interest-rates is so high on the agenda at the moment?
That is because people will be paying more on their mortgage rather than using that money on the "material things it can get them".
Secondly, having tax-cuts allows people to have that freedom to do what they want with their money. If they want to go and give it to a charity, or donate it to the les fortunate, than that is their business and good on them.
But what you are advocating is that the Government forgo tax breaks, and therefore deny people the right to do what they want with their money (buy things, take family on holidays, pay more off mortgage, donate to superannuation, give to chosen charities, etc)....in favour of the Government deciding for us what do with the money, and spending where they see fit.

We all have to live with Governments spending where we don't want to. I don't want to fund Howards election advertising disguised as public announcements with my taxes. I didn't want to fund the Iraq war. You don't seem to mind your money spent on these things rather than being left for you to decide what to do with it. Does your argument not apply to the Liberal party?
 
Azza said:
Liverpool said:
Azza,
I agree with you that people would like to see infrastructure improved...whether that be roads, buildings, health, education, etc....but at the end of the day, most people don't want to lose anything themselves, in favour of giving it to anyone/anything else.
Why do you think the focus on interest-rates is so high on the agenda at the moment?
That is because people will be paying more on their mortgage rather than using that money on the "material things it can get them".
Secondly, having tax-cuts allows people to have that freedom to do what they want with their money. If they want to go and give it to a charity, or donate it to the les fortunate, than that is their business and good on them.
But what you are advocating is that the Government forgo tax breaks, and therefore deny people the right to do what they want with their money (buy things, take family on holidays, pay more off mortgage, donate to superannuation, give to chosen charities, etc)....in favour of the Government deciding for us what do with the money, and spending where they see fit.

We all have to live with Governments spending where we don't want to. I don't want to fund Howards election advertising disguised as public announcements with my taxes. I didn't want to fund the Iraq war. You don't seem to mind your money spent on these things rather than being left for you to decide what to do with it. Does your argument not apply to the Liberal party?


After batting tirelessly and with little help Liverpool in sight of his maiden ton received the unplayable delivery - and his middle stump went cartwheeling out of the ground. The crowd jumped to its feet as one dancing and playing tunes as this bastion of all things conservative left the arena - it was only in the last 5 metres of his slow walk off that the boisterous crowd applauded his defiant effort in acknowledgement that there goes a man who stands by what he believes........ ;)
 
RemoteTiger said:
Azza said:
Liverpool said:
Azza,
I agree with you that people would like to see infrastructure improved...whether that be roads, buildings, health, education, etc....but at the end of the day, most people don't want to lose anything themselves, in favour of giving it to anyone/anything else.
Why do you think the focus on interest-rates is so high on the agenda at the moment?
That is because people will be paying more on their mortgage rather than using that money on the "material things it can get them".
Secondly, having tax-cuts allows people to have that freedom to do what they want with their money. If they want to go and give it to a charity, or donate it to the les fortunate, than that is their business and good on them.
But what you are advocating is that the Government forgo tax breaks, and therefore deny people the right to do what they want with their money (buy things, take family on holidays, pay more off mortgage, donate to superannuation, give to chosen charities, etc)....in favour of the Government deciding for us what do with the money, and spending where they see fit.

We all have to live with Governments spending where we don't want to. I don't want to fund Howards election advertising disguised as public announcements with my taxes. I didn't want to fund the Iraq war. You don't seem to mind your money spent on these things rather than being left for you to decide what to do with it. Does your argument not apply to the Liberal party?


After batting tirelessly and with little help Liverpool in sight of his maiden ton received the unplayable delivery - and his middle stump went cartwheeling out of the ground. The crowd jumped to its feet as one dancing and playing tunes as this bastion of all things conservative left the arena - it was only in the last 5 metres of his slow walk off that the boisterous crowd applauded his defiant effort in acknowledgement that there goes a man who stands by what he believes........ ;)

and dies by his own sword.

Well played Azza.
 
t-rob said:
I'll be voting independent (probably Greens) in the forlorn hope that the major parties might get the idea we think they are both are pack of lying power hungry bastards.
Haha, too right, t-rob. I was thinking I'd do much the same for the same reasons. 8)
 
Liverpool said:
The nurses pay was docked due to the Federal laws.
But both the nurses and the State Government knew full well before any industrial action was taken what the federal laws were.....and you have to realise and understand that these laws were put in place to bring disputes to an end as quickly as possible.
In the past under the old system, and especially when the ALP were in power, strikes dragged on and on....and these newer IR laws are in place to stop this from happening.

Are you inferring the strike was called off due to the IR laws Livers or that the nurses called it off because their pay was getting docked? The strike was called off after the nurses got what they were asking for, and rightly so.

They shouldn't have had to take that action to get what they, and we the general public, deserve. I suspect the fact the paramedics got behing the nurses and the fact they were determined to continue their stance influenced the decision more than the IR laws. Good on the Nurses Union. A win for the good people.
 
rosy23 said:
Are you inferring the strike was called off due to the IR laws Livers or that the nurses called it off because their pay was getting docked? The strike was called off after the nurses got what they were asking for, and rightly so.

They shouldn't have had to take that action to get what they, and we the general public, deserve. I suspect the fact the paramedics got behing the nurses and the fact they were determined to continue their stance influenced the decision more than the IR laws. Good on the Nurses Union. A win for the good people.
i disagree rosy.the docking of pay had alot to do with the settlement.brumby stated pubicly that the minister for health would not get involved until an "apropriate" time,which by the way happened after the wages were docked.i find it funny that a state laboor goverment ,which has set up a fight the ir law hotline and has publicly denounced the laws stood back ,HELD BACK ON PAYING WHAT THE NURSES WANTED(AND DESERVE} and then used them to the full extent.HYPOCRISEY.
 
I'll bet your bottom dollar that Mr. Peter 'foot in mouth' Garrett will be "counselled" along the same lines as McClelland after admitting that the ALP will change their stance once in power.

LABOR frontbencher Peter Garrett has been rocked by his second embarrassing political gaffe in a week.
Mr Garrett told radio host Steve Price a Rudd Labor government would ditch its "me too" promises once it won power.
"Once we get in, we will just change it all," Mr Garrett told Price at Melbourne Airport yesterday.


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22693986-661,00.html

So the question remains....if Rudd IS going to stand by the 'me too' promises, why get rid of Howard considering it is the Libs coming up with the policies to begin with?
If the ALP are so great for this country, why don't they put forward their own policies and let the Australian people decide?
Secondly, if Rudd does change his stance once in power....isn't he going to break every promise he has made?
Thirdly, if all he is doing is copying Howard now....how is he and the ALP going to govern this country when they have no one to copy off?

Just a reminder of the fantastic ALP Government policies we have witnessed so far that Rudd has agreed with:

ME TOO 1
$31b tax cuts announced in 4 days after the Government's $34b tax package

ME TOO 2
$4.1b utilities payments for pensioners

ME TOO 3
$10b Murray-Darling Basin takeover saying "We have offered the PM on many occasions our bi-partisan support"

ME TOO 4
Green light for Gunn's pulp mill

ME TOO 5
$1.3b Aboriginal intervention in the Northern Territory

ME TOO 6
Capping the quota of Sudanese refugees

ME TOO 7
Post-Kyoto emissions deal

ME TOO 8
Death penalty. Switching policy to match Government's on refusing to plead for clemency on terrorists

ME TOO 9
Deportation of Dr. Haneef

ME TOO 10
Commonwealth land release

ME TOO 11
Tasmanian forestry agreement.
"What I did yesterday was absolutely underline our bipartisan commitment to that agreement" (Rudd, 24/07/07)

ME TOO 12
Queensland amalgamations plebiscite.
"The course of action which has been outlined by Mr.Howard, I'm prepared to support"
(16/08/07)

ME TOO 13
Uranium mining. Ditched its 'no new mine' policy to bring it into line with Government policy.

ME TOO 14
National Water Summit.
"I'm today offering the PM my full bi-partisan support for a national water summit." (21/1/07)

ME TOO 15
Phasing out incandescent light-bulbs.
"I think I'd like to express complete bipartisan support for what Mr Howard has put forward on this." (20/1/07)

ME TOO 16
Fiscal conservative.
"We also believe it's important we adhere to our basic budget discipline under a Labor government that tax would not increase as a proportion of GDP against the standard already set by the Howard Government." (2/2/07)

ME TOO 17
Funding for independent schools. Ditched their hit-list to follow government model.
"A Rudd government will support parental choice whether they are government, non-government, religious or secular, based on need and fairness." (19/3/07)

ME TOO 18
Royal Flying Doctor Service $250m upgrade.
"When good proposals are put forward to support critical services like the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which services so much of remote Australia, we lend that our bipartisan support." (4/4/07)

ME TOO 19
Seat belts for school buses.
"The (Government's) proposal strikes me as a sensible one." (19/9/07)

ME TOO 20
Ice epidemic package.
"We welcome Mr Howard's $150 million initiative on a bipartisan basis." (21/4/07)

ME TOO 21
Immigration levels.
"We support the Government's current migration flows." (17/4/07)

ME TOO 22
Private Health Insurance Rebate.
"There's a complete bipartisan commitment on that." (24/8/07)


And people wonder why I call him 'The Echo' on here.... :hihi
 
Agreed, I'm not a fan of Howard because of conservation issues but If I had to choose between him and Rudd it wouldn't be a hard choice.
 
I'm sure it's an oversight rather than political bias when you love to keep us informed with endless quotes and links Livers but you haven't mentioned Tony Abbott's day of hell. ;D

Also you haven't mentioned areas where Rudd differs to Howard's policy. Here are a few but I'm sure you could add several more.

1-Edit-Bringing soldiers home from Iraq.
2-Building a bridge attitude towards Indigenous Aussies.
3-Change IR laws
4-Water- A massive concern yet bugger all has been done to address the problem.
5-Environment