Last edited by cospengle (2007-05-22 07:39:01)
Not only the "War".cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Aus really needs someone who is good, Howard has been kissing Bush's ass way too long. What I really want to see at least is that John Howard makes some changes about war and stuff and I'll be happy
Why in the world do you criticize him for rejecting the Kyoto Treaty while rejecting nuclear power? Besides, nuclear power would work well for Australia, especially since they don't really have any other local alternative besides solar power.Macca wrote:
Not only the "War".cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Aus really needs someone who is good, Howard has been kissing Bush's ass way too long. What I really want to see at least is that John Howard makes some changes about war and stuff and I'll be happy
If Rudd is elected, I woud love to see those pesky I.R. Laws go, I mean, my brother was unfairly dismissed from his job, and thanks to those I.R. Laws, theres nothing he can do except say "Thanks for the job". Mr.Howard seems to think that what the Australian public doesn't like, is best for the country. He'll oppose anything we say.
Nuclear Power plants. We say no, he says yes.
Uranium mining. We say no, he says yes.
Industrial Relations (I.R.) Laws. We say no, he says yes.
Iraq. We say no, he says yes.
And the Kyoto Protocol? He failed to raitfy it because he believed it will "cost Australian jobs". As far as I'm concerned, he doesn't give a sh*t about Australian jobs.
I'd like to give this guy a wallop in the face. He's been there long enough that he's far too blinded towards the plight of his people.
So I agree with you Cam, he definately has to go.
Nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuels and far less damaging to the environment - I don't think many people realise this....UGADawgs wrote:
Why in the world do you criticize him for rejecting the Kyoto Treaty while rejecting nuclear power? Besides, nuclear power would work well for Australia, especially since they don't really have any other local alternative besides solar power.
Oh, they do. The liberals here in California know that by blocking any new nuclear power plants, oil refineries or off shore drilling we will have to stay engaged in the ME.CameronPoe wrote:
Nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuels and far less damaging to the environment - I don't think many people realise this....UGADawgs wrote:
Why in the world do you criticize him for rejecting the Kyoto Treaty while rejecting nuclear power? Besides, nuclear power would work well for Australia, especially since they don't really have any other local alternative besides solar power.
That's why it's funny when the environmentalists can only argue against nuclear power on a cost basis.CameronPoe wrote:
Nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuels and far less damaging to the environment - I don't think many people realise this....UGADawgs wrote:
Why in the world do you criticize him for rejecting the Kyoto Treaty while rejecting nuclear power? Besides, nuclear power would work well for Australia, especially since they don't really have any other local alternative besides solar power.
It's not quite as clear cut as that. Nuclear power stations aren't as directly damaging to the environment as fossil fuel stations, but the by-products of nuclear stations (nuclear waste) is a serious issue, and if improperly stored (and it needs storing for a very, very long time) it could be far more damaging environmentally. Overall, I agree that yes, nuclear power is better for the environment, but we need to find a solution to the nuclear waste issue too; the ongoing, normal effect is less than fossil fuels, but when it does go wrong, it tends to do so quite horribly.CameronPoe wrote:
Nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuels and far less damaging to the environment - I don't think many people realise this....UGADawgs wrote:
Why in the world do you criticize him for rejecting the Kyoto Treaty while rejecting nuclear power? Besides, nuclear power would work well for Australia, especially since they don't really have any other local alternative besides solar power.
He is pretty much finished in this upcoming election.CameronPoe wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6680003.stm
This cretin makes my blood boil. Hopefully another one of the neo-con global network is about to bite the dust. Hurrah!
I think you've hit on a contradicting problem with people and that is they want the benefits of nuclear power/wind power etc just not in their town lowering the value of their land and being an eyesore. I'd say this applies to people from all sides of the political spectrum.ATG wrote:
Oh, they do. The liberals here in California know that by blocking any new nuclear power plants, oil refineries or off shore drilling we will have to stay engaged in the ME.CameronPoe wrote:
Nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuels and far less damaging to the environment - I don't think many people realise this....
Despite their rhetoric otherwise, they want this. Why else would they be so universally opposed to anything that would lessen our dependence on oil?
Firstly, the 4.5% UE rate is complete bollocks. As an ex-CES worker I know how they changed the criteria to reduce the PERCEPTION of unemployment, but there are far less permanent jobs available, and a large number of these are AWA (Australian Workplace Agreements) that allow the employer to remove previously protected conditions for "reasonable compensation". The Hospitality industry was recently disappointed that they could not claim that left-over food from functions were an employee "perk" and therefore they should be able to pay less. Others work 3 casual part-time jobs which are tenuous at best and subject to the whim of the boss, split shifts and no loadings or allowances.cospengle wrote:
Well, I've never really liked any of his policies, but at lease he had some. Labor just says "we oppose it" until it's clear that it's here to stay and then they say "vote us in and we'll role it back" until they realise that people don't really want that either, so they come up with some half baked scheme that gives them away for the morons they really are...
It's really fucking hard to vote in federal elections these days. You've got one lot trying their best to sell our souls to overseas interests, and the other lot back in the days of "the recession" (which was last time they were in government) trying to win votes by offering better job security when there's only a 4.5 % unemployment rate.
So it's shit policy or no policy. I just vote independent to add to the chorus of "Oh look at me, I'm a parliamentarian. I get to retire with a big fat pension".
Sorry Cameron, as much as I'd like to get rid of little Johny, the alternative is at least as bad. I mean, you can't tell me you'd be happy with Kevin Rudd as the leader of your government. At least Howard acts like a leader, even if he is misguided.
Edit: spelling
Yes the criteria are different, but there's less people who want a job but can't get one now. The downside is that you might not want the job you get. But what's better? low unemployment with less job security or high unemployment with good job security? I think I'd rather a crap job than no job. But I agree with your assertion that the current arrangement is inappropriate.Ratzinger wrote:
Firstly, the 4.5% UE rate is complete bollocks. As an ex-CES worker I know how they changed the criteria to reduce the PERCEPTION of unemployment, but there are far less permanent jobs available, and a large number of these are AWA (Australian Workplace Agreements) that allow the employer to remove previously protected conditions for "reasonable compensation". The Hospitality industry was recently disappointed that they could not claim that left-over food from functions were an employee "perk" and therefore they should be able to pay less. Others work 3 casual part-time jobs which are tenuous at best and subject to the whim of the boss, split shifts and no loadings or allowances..
And the alternative is a bunch of corrupt union puppets who are both poor leaders and poor politicians. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against unions (I'm a member of a union), but they were their own undoing.Ratzinger wrote:
Howard's not a leader, he's a very astute politician, which is different. You can guarantee that if there is no "event" to exploit such as a terrorist attack or industrial unrest, he will manufacture something.
There are other issues I don't agree with but I agree with nothing Rudd has put forward. I wont be voting for either party first but Liberal will get my preference vote long before labor ever will.Macca wrote:
Not only the "War".cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Aus really needs someone who is good, Howard has been kissing Bush's ass way too long. What I really want to see at least is that John Howard makes some changes about war and stuff and I'll be happy
If Rudd is elected, I woud love to see those pesky I.R. Laws go, I mean, my brother was unfairly dismissed from his job, and thanks to those I.R. Laws, theres nothing he can do except say "Thanks for the job". Mr.Howard seems to think that what the Australian public doesn't like, is best for the country. He'll oppose anything we say. This is also just media speculation. Its always the people who object to something that are the most vocal and what he media will represent. There is vast proportion of people who agree with Howard and don't say anything or go into stupid TV polls because they have nothing to complain about and are happy. Most people will only do anything if they wont something changed.
Nuclear Power plants. We say no, he says yes. Only an idiot would say No. It is by far the cleanest, cheapest and most efficient power source available. We also have the uranium sources in abundance and so much space to store the waste without it effecting the environment nearly as much as many other forms of power
Uranium mining. We say no, he says yes. As long as there are appropriate measures to insure sustainable environmental standards the mining of uranium is no worse then mining coal. Plus as I said above the uses are far more productive. Also as an export commodity you will make more.
Industrial Relations (I.R.) Laws. We say no, he says yes. Some things are unfair and need changes, but the old laws were too far in favor of workers who could essentially bludge on the job and if fired would cost the business too much or be taken to court for unfair dismissal. Give business the ability to fire/hire staff and they will be more willing to hire new people because they will have the ability to fire them easily if they are not suited to the job or do not work up to the standards required. The laws need fixing I'll agree, but as a total removal I strongly disagree
Iraq. We say no, he says yes. As an invasion I disagree, as a force to remove a genocidal dictator and restore order I strongly agree. As much as the lives of the soldiers lost is a tragedy the continued slaughter of a countries population can not go unchecked. As many people will disagree, it is Australia's and other 'free' countries around the world to step in and help countries in need. East Timor ring a bell?
And the Kyoto Protocol? He failed to raitfy it because he believed it will "cost Australian jobs". As far as I'm concerned, he doesn't give a sh*t about Australian jobs. Australia is well below the standards put in place if they signed. And taking into considerations Australia's 20 million population, the effects on global environmental issues are irrelevant as china (who has signed the protocol) increases their pollution output every 2 weeks equivalent to Australia's yearly pollution output. That's not produce that amount but increase by that amount every 2 weeks. We could half our pollution output and in less then a week china will have increased theres to cover our decrease. The same applies to India, 35.8% of the worlds population is allowed to increase pollution output by 50%, and people are concerned with Australia (0.3% world population). The whole Kyoto protocol is a joke, and does nothing for world pollution controls.
I'd like to give this guy a wallop in the face. He's been there long enough that he's far too blinded towards the plight of his people.
So I agree with you Cam, he definately has to go.
Last edited by DrunkFace (2007-05-22 22:25:29)
Last edited by Fenix14 (2007-05-23 00:53:52)
Oh,no,no,no...Spark wrote:
While I dislike WorkChoices, I’m rather alarmed at the alternative. Centralizing three industrial-relations agencies into one super-agency is NOT the way to reduce industrial disputes.