Bush or Kerry? (2 Viewers)

[Xayma]

I don't like Kerry so I would vote Bush, anyway if he doesn't get in now he can keep campaigning if he gets in now he won't be able to

 

[McLake]

That's true, but im sure most people on this board would probably be voting Nader/Camejo instead of Kerry, if they knew there was such a thing as a Ralph Nader anyway .

I am fully aware of who Nader is, but that dosn't change my vote (which was Kerry). Thanks for the assumption though ...

 

[**freakstar87**]

I find it ironic that so many Howard Bashers would vote for a liberal if they were American.

Some people dont know what they are talking about :uhhuh:

actually in the american political system, Kerry's liberal/democratic party is kinda more like the labor party in australia whilst the Bush's republican party in america is like the liberal party aka Howard's government in australia. confusing eh? well it's true.

 

[berry580]

Looks like Bush has gotten quite infamous for his "saving the world from WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" campaign. LOL

 

[MoNNiE]

indeed he has!
i think Kerry will win this hands down, the bush administration have made such a mess of things, but then i guess they entered office at the worse time! eg 911 bombing!

 

[lengstar]

isn't is Kerry/Edwards? his using Edwards to increase his appeal because Kerry is apparently a bore and Edwards has sex appeal.

 

[um..]

I find it ironic that so many Howard Bashers would vote for a liberal if they were American.

Some people dont know what they are talking about :uhhuh:

i think you should learn some basics of political theory before you make such broad assumptions :uhhuh:

 

[neo o]

i think you should learn some basics of political theory before you make such broad assumptions

actually in the american political system, Kerry's liberal/democratic party is kinda more like the labor party in australia whilst the Bush's republican party in america is like the liberal party aka Howard's government in australia. confusing eh? well it's true.

actually, you're an idiot. Both political parties in America are further right than their Australian counterparts, so just because the Democrats are the more left party in comparison to the Republicans, it doesn't follow that Democrats = Labor and Republicans = Liberal

in fact if you look at the policy stances of the four parties, I think you'll find that the Democratic party lies somewhere in between the ALP and the Liberal party, probably leaning towards the Liberal party.

 

[neo o]

I think the point he was making was that the usual definition of the word liberal is someone that is tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. But that the liberal party in Australia is infact the more conservative of the two parties. In other countries the term liberal is used to describe parties associated with the previous definition.

actually, if that is his point, he's still wrong. Only really the American definition of liberal holds the liberal to be left wing - liberal itself is derived from liberalism which holds PERSONAL LIBERTY to be paramount

 

[neo o]

Economic Liberalisation = Defence of the free market with minimal government intervention.

Howard government has : Continued to deregulate industry, implemented the Workplace Relations Act in 1996, continued to sell off government assets, continued to reduce protection, the new tax system enacted in 2000 etc etc. While the Labour party has continually opposed economic rationalisation.

And therefore believe and act upon principals of economic liberalisation.

Social Liberalisation = Minimising the involvement of governments in people's day to day lives.

Howard government has : Continued to enforce the National Competition Policy, while Labour governments would prefer to 'protect society' from where they can buy their booze (which isn't entirely true, since Carr has continually flip-flopped on this but moving on...) and additionally enforced GM content on foods that have a high amount of GMO's.

And therefore believe and act upon principals of social liberalisation.

Also, which party was it again that wanted to ban junk food advertisements? The Australian Labour party no? Damn fascists, they are trying to tear down our civil liberties :uhhuh:

From the NSW ALP site :

Premier Bob Carr has outlined Labor’s plan to strengthen public education in NSW. For the first time in NSW, targets will be set to increase enrolments across the public education system. The plan includes primary schools working with local high schools to devise ways to keep students in the public system when they make the transition.

Because we all know people can't make informed decisions about what school-system they'd prefer. Let's keep kids in an already suffering public school system.

Premier Bob Carr has announced a range of further measures to tackle greenhouse emissions and reassert NSW's leadership on greenhouse policy.

The same party who claims on half their policies that they are 'minimising the red tape' just made alot more and are trying to do some damage economically while they're at it.

Premier Bob Carr has announced that the State Government will step up its efforts to combat crime through drug education and rehabilitation. The initiatives include greater support for families and young people at risk as well as providing better education for students.

Because we all know, people can't make informed choices on whether they want to use drugs or not.

In Summary

ALP : Society needs to be protected from itself.
Liberals : Society works fine by itself.

 

[neo o]

Basically, the entire point im trying to make is that :

Kerry is more right wing then alot of people on this forum seem to understand. In fact, Kerry while in favour of increasing protection (bastard) is in most cases in favour of liberal policy changes, which the AUSTRALIAN LIBERAL PARTY are obviously also in favour of.

Additionally, Kerry is in favour of liberal social policy as opposed to Bush's conservative views. LIKE THE AUSTRALIAN LIBERAL PARTY who are also in favour of social policy.

In fact, the conservative american party and the ALP even have similar policies. The Republicans in America want to protect you from titties on TV while the ALP want to protect you from junk food advertisements on TV.

So therefore, Ralph Nader's policies would probably be more inline with the beliefs of most people on this forum, who are complete ALP nuts, and just pick Kerry, because they 'think hes left as well'.

 

[crazyhomo]

So therefore, Ralph Nader's policies would probably be more inline with the beliefs of most people on this forum, who are complete ALP nuts, and just pick Kerry, because they 'think hes left as well'.

got nothing to comment, just it deserved repeating

 

[Vampire]

BUSH TO THE END!! YEAH!!....

NOT

anyone but...

 

[um..]

Economic Liberalisation = Defence of the free market with minimal government intervention.

Howard government has : Continued to deregulate industry, implemented the Workplace Relations Act in 1996, continued to sell off government assets, continued to reduce protection, the new tax system enacted in 2000 etc etc. While the Labour party has continually opposed economic rationalisation.

And therefore believe and act upon principals of economic liberalisation.

Social Liberalisation = Minimising the involvement of governments in people's day to day lives.

Howard government has : Continued to enforce the National Competition Policy, while Labour governments would prefer to 'protect society' from where they can buy their booze (which isn't entirely true, since Carr has continually flip-flopped on this but moving on...) and additionally enforced GM content on foods that have a high amount of GMO's.

And therefore believe and act upon principals of social liberalisation.

Also, which party was it again that wanted to ban junk food advertisements? The Australian Labour party no? Damn fascists, they are trying to tear down our civil liberties :uhhuh:

From the NSW ALP site :



Because we all know people can't make informed decisions about what school-system they'd prefer. Let's keep kids in an already suffering public school system.



The same party who claims on half their policies that they are 'minimising the red tape' just made alot more and are trying to do some damage economically while they're at it.



Because we all know, people can't make informed choices on whether they want to use drugs or not.

In Summary

ALP : Society needs to be protected from itself.
Liberals : Society works fine by itself.

much better

 

[neo o]

w00t HD

 

[McLake]

So therefore, Ralph Nader's policies would probably be more inline with the beliefs of most people on this forum, who are complete ALP nuts, and just pick Kerry, because they 'think hes left as well'.

I resent the fact that you don't beleive that some of us arm ourselves with the knowledge of other candidates before making an opinon, however.

 

[irene adler]

for the sake of this arguement, I'm going to take you seriously.

Additionally, Kerry is in favour of liberal social policy as opposed to Bush's conservative views. LIKE THE AUSTRALIAN LIBERAL PARTY who are also in favour of social policy.

social policy? well, the pledges he made in his nomination acceptance speech seem far more like the 'social policy' of the ALP:

Kerry: We believe in the family value of caring for our children and protecting the neighborhoods where they walk and they play.

ignoring the sentimentalism, which Australian party does that sound more like? which party, by your own reckoning, is fixated on providing 'protection'? ALP.

Kerry:You don't value families by denying real prescription-drug coverage to seniors so big drug companies can get another windfall profit.

which Australian party has been fighting to protect the PBS over here? which party has 'big business' always been at odds with for their social protection and bleeding-heart welfare policies? ALP.

Kerry: As president, I will not privatize Social Security. I will not cut benefits. And together we will make sure that senior citizens never have to cut their pills in half because they can't afford life-saving medicine.

again, Kerry seems to be engaging in those social conscience policies of protection that you accuse the ALP of following. ALP is bent on maintaining welfare services, just as Kerry is proposing to do should he be elected.

Kerry: You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service, if you deny veterans health care or if you tell middle-class families to wait for a tax cut so the wealthiest among us can get even more.

do I even need to start drawing parallels with this one? which Australian party brought out a budget which gave a tax cut to the rich? Liberal.

Kerry: So let me say straight out what I will do as president: I will cut middle-class taxes. I will reduce the tax burden on small business. And I will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals who make over $200,000 a year, so we can invest in health care, education and job creation.

sounds awfully like Labor's policies. I could go on quoting examples, but then you'd be left with no case at all. policy-wise, the correlation between Australia's Labor and America's Democrats is convincing.

In fact, the conservative american party and the ALP even have similar policies. The Republicans in America want to protect you from titties on TV while the ALP want to protect you from junk food advertisements on TV.

I'm sorry, but when the tits are Janet Jackson's, it's a human obligation to protect the public from them. seriously though, there's a large difference in those examples, as I'm sure you are well aware. protection from junk food adverts is part of the whole social protection thrust of ALP policies, and guess who's the one purporting social protectionist policies in America? Kerry and his merry band of Democrats.

So therefore, Ralph Nader's policies would probably be more inline with the beliefs of most people on this forum, who are complete ALP nuts, and just pick Kerry, because they 'think hes left as well'.

that, and he's not a freemason.

 

[Egg_666]

Neo; you seem to be confusing kerrys protectionist policies for right of the centre policy.

They are left. Bush and Howard seek to put Australia smack bang in the middle of the political spectrum, socially, economically... (Bush representing a group closer)

Kerry and Latham represent a group pushing towards socialist policies... in an attempt to protect the country

 

[neo o]

for the sake of this arguement, I'm going to take you seriously.

for the sake of this argument, I'm going to take you seriously

ignoring the sentimentalism, which Australian party does that sound more like? which party, by your own reckoning, is fixated on providing 'protection'? ALP.

I'm sure the liberal party, like the ALP party aren't particulary big on crime. Unfortunately you seem to have the wrong idea of what protection is. Protection = the removal of trade barriers.

which Australian party has been fighting to protect the PBS over here? which party has 'big business' always been at odds with for their social protection and bleeding-heart welfare policies? ALP.

http://www.budget.gov.au/2004-05/bp2/html/expense-12.htm

The Government will provide $8.5 million over four years to ensure that submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee for listing of medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), including submissions for new drugs, are evaluated in a timely manner. This measure will contribute to ensuring the community does not experience delays in access to new medicines.


The Government will provide funding of $8.5 million in 2004-05 and $2.8 million in 2005-06 to continue paying pharmacists to check patients’ Medicare cards.


PBS seems fine.

again, Kerry seems to be engaging in those social conscience policies of protection that you accuse the ALP of following. ALP is bent on maintaining welfare services, just as Kerry is proposing to do should he be elected.

You seem to be a little confused again on what protection is.

do I even need to start drawing parallels with this one? which Australian party brought out a budget which gave a tax cut to the rich? Liberal.

Kerry: So let me say straight out what I will do as president: I will cut middle-class taxes. I will reduce the tax burden on small business. And I will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals who make over $200,000 a year, so we can invest in health care, education and job creation.

sounds awfully like Labor's policies. I could go on quoting examples, but then you'd be left with no case at all. policy-wise, the correlation between Australia's Labor and America's Democrats is convincing.

1) The liberals have reduced tax on small business quite alot actually.

2) who make over $200,000 a year I believe the "high" income earners that had their tax brackets adjusted earnt between 50K-70K? ie : Tax cuts for the middle class. John Kerry thinks the middle class are >$200,000 USD a year though, woah

Besides, that was to account for bracket creep

seriously though, there's a large difference in those examples, as I'm sure you are well aware. protection from junk food adverts is part of the whole social protection thrust of ALP policies, and guess who's the one purporting social protectionist policies in America? Kerry and his merry band of Democrats.

Gay Marriage
Censorship
Sex Abstention

etc, etc. I wonder who's in favour of them?

Kerry does not support mind control. Sorry.

 

[neo o]

I resent the fact that you don't beleive that some of us arm ourselves with the knowledge of other candidates before making an opinon, however.

I assume some do and some don't. Seems fair