.........It's crocodile tears for a man that you despise simply for the colour of his party ticket and will condemn no matter what he does, not a concern for unjust rolling of a leader by people who felt he had lost his way and needed to go. You and I both know it, let's not pretend otherwise...........
There were no tears, I couldn't care less if the entirity of Parliament burnt to the ground and incinerated every Politician there. I'd probably charter a flight to fly the rest of them in so they didn't get missed. It's about process, having a partyroom with enough Character that individuals can make a decision based on beliefs, not the whims of factional leaders that are leading a vendetta because he swore at them over printing allowances and which the public heavily supported him for doing. They knew what he was like when they voted him leader, it's a bit rich to claim change in under 3yrs. Look at the disbelief being displayed by world leaders at Rudd's demise, that is our international credibility being tarnished by some factional numbers men playing Kingmaker.
Also, don't play some bullshit social card here, I'll bet my arse you didn't jump in your car and drive down to Marysville or Kinglake when it was burning. I'm suspicious you're not the beret wearing social activist you wish you were, you put $5 in a tin like every one else, you give only what you think you can afford. You actually talk about your fellow man, I don't, when it comes to actually digging into your pocket or giving your time to actually contributing I'll bet I'm equal to you. I'm a conservative, that doesn't mean I like to see people in poverty and living in ghettos, if you made the effort to understand the right wing perspective you'd know that.
...............Astoundingly, you will find that often my comments are objective, sorry if I call a spade a spade sometimes. You may also note that in areas of state policy where I'm not affected or have no knowledge I STFU. ..............
No you don't. I had a long and involved debate with you about water and your policy was largely derived around average domestic water usage, of which which you didn't know; you simply based your theory on your own water meter. The actual water usage stats had no effect on your opinion, you argued on even though your entire basis was up in smoke, no rethink, no adjustment, you kept bashing away with a flawed concept based on made up data. Your personal policy has nothing to do with reality or your fellow man, it's merely your ideal regardless of what people want, you have no interest in doing any research beyond what falls into your outstretched fingers. I propose that you think that 'getting informed' is something other people do when they stand in a group and listen to you speak. Calling a spade a spade is admirable, but not when you're holding a rake. A great theory is a wonderful thing, unfortunately if you can't verify it through experiments or uncorrupted stats/modelling then it's wrong and you need a new theory. No matter how revolutionary and wonderful your theory is, it's still wrong.
........ I think you'll find that the only one I refer to in that way at all is Abbot and I only took to referring to Abbot as "budgie smuggler" after approx a year of continually seeing people refer to our previous Prime Minister as Krudd. I................ You may wish to argue that it's just an accidental loss of a space when typing, but as it happens all the time, I'd argue otherwise. It's juvenile name calling. Sorry for lowering myself to the standards of the conservatives here.............
Once again your inability to get off your arse has led you down the garden path for no purpose. There was no name calling from anyone except you, you lowered the standards, you had no knowledge and you weren't affected yet you didn't STFU and waded in anyway. People called him KRudd, so what, did you do anything beyond rage about why, like think perhaps? Instead you just leapt to defence of someone that didn't need defending and threw yourself in front of a bus.
He calls himself KRudd, it's how he signs his
Twitter account. The only childish name calling came straight from your keyboard. Everyone else just called him what he calls himself, which is strangely enough his first initial and his surname. The dishonour we have done Kevin Rudd by calling him K Rudd and omitting the space, as he also does, my my I feel so dirty. Anyone would think we should be scrubbing ourselves in the shower listening to "The Crying Game". I wonder if I referenced 'Arete' and called him 'Arete'; would you be so eager to defend him? I've merely used the name he's given himself, best you defend his honour.
Abbott is Howard without any balls, I didn't agree with what he stood for, but he stood for something. (Even if it was playing the race card to stay in) That's pretty much the only thing Howard had going for him. Abbott stands for nothing so far.
Opposition for opposition sake with nothing to offer = FAIL
So you didn't vote for Beazley or Latham then, they opposed for the sake of opposing, was it "= FAIL" then too? Rudd wasn't Opposition for Oppositions sake, but he was a policy free zone, I'm quite sure you voted for him. Your criteria for gauging the effectiveness of Parlimentary Opposition seems to smack of hypocrisy depending on the colour of the occupants, be they red or blue. Perhaps you'd like to inform us on the role of Opposition, given the title it would seem somewhat self explanitory. Many would say they assist in the running of the country by making sure that policy presented to Parliament is rounded, costed, accurate, and will not be to the detriment of the constituents they represent. If the policy is inadequate isn't that the cue for the Opposition? The BER and Insulation programs were hideous policy, yet the Labor party used their numbers to bulldoze it through the House, some Opposition here would have saved some money and some lives, perhaps you should send a note to the Government for being as pathetic as the Opposition. If Parlimentary scrutiny is the role of the Senate, what does the Oppposition provide? I would say the Opposition are currently so vocal because the Government is so inadequate, a few Senators more intent on 'keeping the Barstards honest' and less focused on party politics is just what we need, oh for the Democrats pre Lees and Kernot, Don Chipp was a politician with a conscience.
As for Howard, he oversaw some pretty major transitions in this country, you'd benefit from sidelining your allegiance and acknowledging it. I have no issues with crediting Hawke and Keating with many achievements, why do you begrudge Howard so much? He did the work that enabled KRudd to 'save us' from the GFC. Go anywhere, even Crikey, and note the GDP graphs at how far ahead of the other Developed nations Australia was before the GFC and you'll see the results of what Howard stood for. If that's a result of 'playing the race card' and 'the only thing he had going for him' I just don't know what to say to you. You claim to spew something other than vitriol, yet you're still yet to contribute anything else to the discussion.
Before you roll out the Mining boom realise it started building late in 2005, Howard didn't benefit much at all until FY06, he really benefited in FY07 and he was ousted 5 months later. It's weak to attribute an 11yr term on the last 2, especially when the Future fund and HE fund were estabilshed instead of building oversized garded sheds for a McMansion price. He turned a $10bil budget deficit in 1996 into surplus in about 2 years, I readily acknowledge that a lot of that credit has to go to Keating for laying a foundation to build from, but it was Howard actually did it, not Keating. You can credit Rudd with saving us from the GFC, but it wasn't his fiscal policy that allowed him to do it, they hadn't actually initiated any policy when the GFC occured.
Saying sorry and ratifying Kyoto didn't save help Australia, the legacy left by Howard did. Perhaps it was just Australia 'playing along to the race card', are you really so condescending to the rest of the population to actually believe that? Perhaps you're as discerning a voter as the 70% of Australians that are rusted to their parties and will never change their vote regardless of policy or political action/inaction, in which case we should thank the 30% of swinging voters that save us from ourselves. Or perhaps the Australian voter as a whole considers many other issues a priority over your pet issues, in which case get over it.
