View Full Version : god help us
magpie_joffa
10 Nov 2001, 23:20
When i go to bed tonight i will say a simple prayer and it will go along the lines as this,
God help the refugees
and the working class
and the poor
and the needy, and our sick
and the unfortunate
God help us all.
We had our chance and we blew it, we had a chance to install a caring government to govern for all classes of people and not just the rich...we blew it and let me give you all a tip, an uncaring society is like cancer it will get worse before it gets better.
What have we all become ?
god help us.
I presume the "we" you refer to is the minority "we".
The majority "we" see things differently. That's democracy.
nit-picker
11 Nov 2001, 05:10
joffa should be used to the losin feelin.
we probably means all the losers......... magpie supporters
Chilli Afterglow
11 Nov 2001, 08:35
Originally posted by magpie_joffa
<snip>
We had our chance and we blew it, we had a chance to install a caring government to govern for all classes of people and not just the rich
<snip>
Do you really think that Labor would care for all classes? I personally don't think so!
I think they would have perpetuated their eat the rich line in favour of the little working class battler. It is just that their idea of rich is misguided. When Labor think "rich", they are not just referring to your average Toorak/Brighton type elite. Their idea of rich also happens to include the bulk of middle Australia as well.
Take the previous election for example. Labor's offering to ease the tax plight was to screw the rich and cut some slack to the poor. By there scheme, someone on $35,000 per year would get the best breaks while someone on $70,000 would get basically nothing.
Thing is that middle Australia are either the ones on $70,000 pa or the ones who are aspiring to get to that point. The majority of people who have come out of University and are working professionally would fit into this group.
Middle Australia does cover a significant portion of the Australian population but is one group that Labor has failed to win over, mainly because it has been lumped in with the rich with Beazley's thoughless mantra.
Ironic really, that by his own definition, Beazely is rich and the very embodiement of what he is arguing against. Do you think if he was PM that he would downgrade his salary to $35,000? Methinks not!
Originally posted by magpie_joffa
When i go to bed tonight i will say a simple prayer and it will go along the lines as this,
God help the refugees [who should apply to migrate to Australia like everone else]
and the working class [ who may have to get a job or do a fair days work for a fair days pay, unlike what the ACTU stands for]
and the poor [define poor. Like in India maybe...we haven't got any poor]
and the needy, and our sick [needy and greedy. More has been spent on health by Liberals than ever by Labour]
and the unfortunate[ ie YOU. Such irrationality, blind faith and closed ears is rarely seen]
God help me. I lost. But then again I'm a Pies supporter. I'm used to it.
We had our chance and we took it, we had a chance to ikeep a caring government to govern for all classes of people and not just the rich...we took it and let me give you all a tip, a socialist society is like cancer it will get worse and worse and worse until like USSR it breaks free of the curse. Rich become poor and the poor poorer. The nation crumbles as ideology becomes more important than food or life.
What have we all become ? Rational Humans who voted for the best party. The party who has made Australia strong and not the party of Lies, poll-pushing, negativity and hate.
god help me. Without hate what am I?
Originally posted by Chilli Afterglow
Take the previous election for example. Labor's offering to ease the tax plight was to screw the rich and cut some slack to the poor. By there scheme, someone on $35,000 per year would get the best breaks while someone on $70,000 would get basically nothing.
Thing is that middle Australia are either the ones on $70,000 pa or the ones who are aspiring to get to that point. The majority of people who have come out of University and are working professionally would fit into this group.
Oh yes by all means, let's look after those poor bastards on $70,000 a year, screw the poor buggers on $25,00 to $35,000 a year, after all they are only the meaningless workers, who didn't have the opportunities to go to Private Schools & Universities, someones got to serve these "middleAustralians" their meals in Restaurants, wash their dishes & clean their toilets, so why not make them pay even more so the "middle classes" can dine out more, buy better cars & build holiday homes. :mad:
Chilli Afterglow
11 Nov 2001, 11:15
You know what Mantis, even middle Australia get a vote too. And this vote is possibly more crucial than either the upper or working classes.
Why?
Your Doctor living in Brighton will always be likely to vote Liberal while your Factory Worker in Altona will always vote Labor, regardless of how much each of the parties **** up.
However it is the folk in the middle who are the ones most likely to swing and the ones most likely to force the change of government.
If Beazley didn't know this - which apparently he doesn't - then he really is way out of touch and not deserving to be PM.
Oh, and consider the 70 / 35 K scenario even further with the Labor's tax scheme in the 98 election.
Who would be better off:
A childless couple each earning $35K pa or a 3 child family on a single income of $70K pa. (This was highlighted to me at the time by a friend who fit into this scenario)
The math on this scenario is pretty easy - the rich is actually poorer than the poor.
Dippers Donuts
11 Nov 2001, 11:45
The simple fact is the govt. won because they pandered to the inherent bigotry (and borderline racism) in the Australian populace.
Why did the west produce such a swing to the coalition? Simple, all those pommy migrants who live there (frodo?); realise they have never had it so good, like the sunshine and the fresh air and think "good heavens - these boat people are right on our doorstep! We don't want these type of people in our country!"
Where did the collapsed one nation vote go? Thats right, to the coalition; because the coalitions policy on immigration/boat people is identical to paulines. Hey they thought, the coalition are like one nation now, we can vote for them again.
Embarassing Australia, embarassing.
The other thing about hard core Labour supporters........bloody bad losers.....sooky, sooky.
But at least there are female Labour voters that have intelligence and wouldn't post the rubbish shown above, so all is not yet lost for Labour:rolleyes:
FRODO
Its LABOR not LABOUR :D :D
Dippers Donuts
11 Nov 2001, 13:16
Originally posted by JUBJUB
FRODO
Its LABOR not LABOUR :D :D
But that's the way the english spell it:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
But that's the way the english spell it:rolleyes:
This isn't England ;)
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
The simple fact is the govt. won because they 'pandered to the inherent bigotry (and borderline racism) in the Australian populace.
Why did the west produce such a swing to the coalition? Simple, all those pommy migrants who live there. We don't want these type of people in our country!"
One supposes that a person who mentions 'pommy migrants' and also says that Liberals won due to them 'pandering to the inherent bigotry (and borderline racism) in the Australian populace' must clearly by their own words have voted Liberal:rolleyes:
Oh the tangled web we weave
Dippers Donuts
11 Nov 2001, 13:43
Originally posted by JUBJUB
This isn't England ;)
quick! better tell frodo:D
Dippers Donuts
11 Nov 2001, 13:45
Originally posted by Frodo
One supposes that a person who mentions 'pommy migrants' and also says that Liberals won due to them 'pandering to the inherent bigotry (and borderline racism) in the Australian populace' must clearly by their own words have voted Liberal:rolleyes:
Oh the tangled web we weave
Che?
I think you are tripping over your tongue there pal.
Not yet used to the west aussie sunshine perhaps...?;)
Chilli Afterglow
11 Nov 2001, 15:15
Please correct me if I am wrong, but did I once read that Frodo was part Aboriginal?
And Dipper, Frodo was merely pointing out that you were both lambasting the Liberal voting public for being borderline racists while in the same breath slagging of the the English migrants.
English migrants tend to be of the Anglo-Saxon race and your comments in singling them out entirely on this basis is nothing else but racist.
Methinks you are too smart for your own good!
I was waiting to see what Joffa had to say. I remember this time last year and in the early parts of this year he was bragging how the Coalition were going to be years in the opposition. Well how sweet it is to say once again that YOU ARE WRONG.
Actually I must Joffa you were quite reserved about the result whick I acknowledge.
Originally posted by JUBJUB
FRODO
Its LABOR not LABOUR :D :D
Dear Jubjub and my racist friend Dipper.
The Oxford concise dictionary spells it Labour.
The American dictionary spells it Labor.
The Australian main dictionary, Macquarie,
has the following listing for Labor :-
You have searched for labor.
Sorry, no results were returned for your search. Please try again (don't forget to check your spelling).
try http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/
If our socialist party had followed an American one it would be called the Democrats. In fact it followed and was aligned with the British Labour party. The decision by some radical to mis-spell a common word need not be repeated by others here in Australia. If we truly want a knowledge nation a good start would be to spell your own name properly!
ps I am an Australian citizen and have as many rights as the next Australian despite the racist bigotry in this thread.
London Dave
11 Nov 2001, 16:39
Spelling spelling spelling..
I recall asking a english prof about this many years ago, (might have been when the ALP changed the spelling) He said it didnt matter which spelling you used, as long as you were CONSISTENT with it.
Makes sense to moi!
Originally posted by London Dave
Spelling spelling spelling..
I recall asking a english prof about this many years ago, (might have been when the ALP changed the spelling) He said it didnt matter which spelling you used, as long as you were CONSISTENT with it.
Makes sense to moi!
Fair enough Landon Dive, okay if I spell your name that way CONSISTANTLY ? :D
Originally posted by Chilli Afterglow
Your Doctor living in Brighton will always be likely to vote Liberal while your Factory Worker in Altona will always vote Labor, regardless of how much each of the parties **** up.
Not this western suburbs factory worker!
Having had many bad experiences with unions in my blue-collar jobs, I will never vote for a political party that supports these same unions (PTWU, NUW, CFMEU), and has unions carry out advertising on their behalf.
London Dave
11 Nov 2001, 17:22
serached for consistently
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=consistently
http://www.macnet.mq.edu.au:8008/anonymous164576999+1/-/macsummarize
searched for consistantly
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=consistantly
http://www.macnet.mq.edu.au:8008/anonymous148537797+1/-/macsummarize
your turn, Frodo!!!!
Shinboners
11 Nov 2001, 17:44
Originally posted by mantis
Oh yes by all means, let's look after those poor bastards on $70,000 a year, screw the poor buggers on $25,00 to $35,000 a year, after all they are only the meaningless workers, who didn't have the opportunities to go to Private Schools & Universities, someones got to serve these "middleAustralians" their meals in Restaurants, wash their dishes & clean their toilets, so why not make them pay even more so the "middle classes" can dine out more, buy better cars & build holiday homes. :mad:
Um.....just like those middle class families with BOTH parents working so they can send their kids to private schools....y'know, private schools that employ teachers.....and not forgetting those cars which need to be made in Australian factories (oh yeah, there are workers there) and build holiday homes (yep, more employment there too). You can't have it both ways....first by supporting S11 and jobs going "overseas" and then in the next breath, slag of middle class Australia who do the spending that results in jobs for other Australians.
Any fair country depends on a large and vibrant middle class. The Australian middle class is shrinking. If we had it your way, we'd have everyone being equally poor. But at least by helping to create the opportunities to help people become "middle class", then maybe we'd have the chance to create the egalatarian society that we all crave.
$70,000 (2 parents on $35,000 each) doesn't go far if you've got a mortgage, a car to run, and kids to feed and send to school.
Oh, and as someone else has said, everyone gets a vote, and who can blame them if they vote for their own interests. I thought that was the essence of democracy.
Originally posted by London Dave
serached for consistently
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=consistently
http://www.macnet.mq.edu.au:8008/anonymous164576999+1/-/macsummarize
searched for consistantly
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=consistantly
http://www.macnet.mq.edu.au:8008/anonymous148537797+1/-/macsummarize
your turn, Frodo!!!!
I'm making your point Dive, as long as I keep spelling it that way it's okay isn't it ? :D
as long as you were CONSISTENT with ityou said....and I am being consistant :D
Well, its less than 24 hours after the election and Howard on the news stated that they won it because of their economic record. Well, blow me down with a feather. All I seem to recall on their advertising over the past week and in the papers on Friday and Saturday was "We will decide who comes to Australia". Its great to see the spin doctors are alive and kicking.
I was obviously on another planet. Still good luck to them, I fear the force will not be with them.
Blues_Brat
11 Nov 2001, 20:20
It is 'Labor', not 'Labour'.
http://www.alp.org.au/
'Labor' is the name of the party and being a name it can be spelled which ever way they choose, the australian version of toil is spelt 'labour'.
The names are a furphy anyway. The Liberal Party could hardly be described as 'liberal'. ;)
Originally posted by Blues_Brat
It is 'Labor', not 'Labour'.
http://www.alp.org.au/
'Labor' is the name of the party and being a name it can be spelled which ever way they choose, the australian version of toil is spelt 'labour'.
The names are a furphy anyway. The Liberal Party could hardly be described as 'liberal'. ;)
Good point on the spelling of Labor. The Liberal Party is so called because when it was founded, it signified the encouragement of the liberal concept of free trade.
Originally posted by Shinboners
$70,000 (2 parents on $35,000 each) doesn't go far if you've got a mortgage, a car to run, and kids to feed and send to school.
Shinners
You have turned it around to two people with kids getting $70,000 between them, I was responding to someone saying a single person getting $70,000 deserved more breaks than someone earning $35,000. go back & read the post I was responding too, they said because they went to private schools & spent a lot of time at Uni, they deserved more. :mad:
Originally posted by Chilli Afterglow
Do you really think that Labor would care for all classes? I personally don't think so!
I think they would have perpetuated their eat the rich line in favour of the little working class battler. It is just that their idea of rich is misguided. When Labor think "rich", they are not just referring to your average Toorak/Brighton type elite. Their idea of rich also happens to include the bulk of middle Australia as well.
Take the previous election for example. Labor's offering to ease the tax plight was to screw the rich and cut some slack to the poor. By there scheme, someone on $35,000 per year would get the best breaks while someone on $70,000 would get basically nothing.
Thing is that middle Australia are either the ones on $70,000 pa or the ones who are aspiring to get to that point. The majority of people who have come out of University and are working professionally would fit into this group.
Middle Australia does cover a significant portion of the Australian population but is one group that Labor has failed to win over, mainly because it has been lumped in with the rich with Beazley's thoughless mantra.
Just to clarify Shinners, this was the post I was repsonding too, no mention of the person being married with kids, just one person earning that money.
Chilli Afterglow
11 Nov 2001, 21:11
Originally posted by mantis
Just to clarify Shinners, this was the post I was repsonding too, no mention of the person being married with kids, just one person earning that money.
Just to clarify even further Mantis, I did in a later post amend that to a single income family with an income of $70,000. I do apoligise for the ambiguity in the first post.
Dippers Donuts
11 Nov 2001, 21:44
Originally posted by Chilli Afterglow
Please correct me if I am wrong, but did I once read that Frodo was part Aboriginal?
And Dipper, Frodo was merely pointing out that you were both lambasting the Liberal voting public for being borderline racists while in the same breath slagging of the the English migrants.
English migrants tend to be of the Anglo-Saxon race and your comments in singling them out entirely on this basis is nothing else but racist.
Methinks you are too smart for your own good!
Oh hello, frodo has a foot maiden...
I did not slag off the pom...er english migrants - I stated something which numerous political commentators agree with, namely, WA with its high proportion of English migrants, produced a strong swing back to the coalition. Particularly in seats with a strong english population mix (ie Canning). This swing, according to many pundits (and I agree) had a lot to do with the english migrant population being particularly taken by howards xenophobic call to arms.
Highly ironic wouldn't you think?:)
What part aboriginal are you frodo:D
Originally posted by Chilli Afterglow
Just to clarify even further Mantis, I did in a later post amend that to a single income family with an income of $70,000. I do apoligise for the ambiguity in the first post.
Yes I noticed the sudden switch you made when I attacked you for your comments saying people on $70,000 should get more benefits than someone on $30,000, suddenly you brought in a wife and kids, that wasn't in your original post, you were talking about single people going to Uni as opposed to those that didn't, so people who don't have money or an opportunity of an education, deserve to live in poverty. :mad:
Originally posted by Shinboners
Um.....just like those middle class families with BOTH parents working so they can send their kids to private schools....y'know, private schools that employ teachers.....and not forgetting those cars which need to be made in Australian factories (oh yeah, there are workers there) and build holiday homes (yep, more employment there too). You can't have it both ways....first by supporting S11 and jobs going "overseas" and then in the next breath, slag of middle class Australia who do the spending that results in jobs for other Australians.
Any fair country depends on a large and vibrant middle class. The Australian middle class is shrinking. If we had it your way, we'd have everyone being equally poor. But at least by helping to create the opportunities to help people become "middle class", then maybe we'd have the chance to create the egalatarian society that we all crave.
Shinners I hope you never have to try & survive on $25,000 a year, electricity, gas, phone, food, clothes, all with GST. good luck would you like to swap with me for a month.
TheMase
12 Nov 2001, 07:35
Originally posted by JUBJUB
This isn't England ;)
It seems Howard would like it to be .. :rolleyes:
Yassar Arafat
12 Nov 2001, 08:27
Thank God the Kim Beazley and his socialists cronies were cast into the dustbin of failures where they can look at their other comrades who have sufferedthe same fate.
WHy would people vote for a party which in reality adopted the same policies as the Liberals when the Liberals were already there doing a good job of implementing their policies?
And why did the Greens get so many votes? Is it because the abandoned Labor's racist "immigration" policy? It is the same poilcy as the LIbs and the Labor people have called that racist, so ipsi facto, the Labor policy is racist too!
Please make Crean the sniggerer leader for the next election. His snigger will be enough to give a swing to the LIbs of 5% alone!
Three more years in the wilderness for our comrades....of course they are very used to it by now!:D
Sooky Sooky La La!!!!!!
Pessimistic
12 Nov 2001, 08:56
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
Thank God the Kim Beazley and his socialists cronies were cast into the dustbin of failures where they can look at their other comrades who have sufferedthe same fate.
WHy would people vote for a party which in reality adopted the same policies as the Liberals when the Liberals were already there doing a good job of implementing their policies?
And why did the Greens get so many votes? Is it because the abandoned Labor's racist "immigration" policy? It is the same poilcy as the LIbs and the Labor people have called that racist, so ipsi facto, the Labor policy is racist too!
Please make Crean the sniggerer leader for the next election. His snigger will be enough to give a swing to the LIbs of 5% alone!
Three more years in the wilderness for our comrades....of course they are very used to it by now!:D
Sooky Sooky La La!!!!!!
I actually think Crean will wear howard down bit by bit. The 'new' liberal ministers being quoted in the papare don't exactly fill yoiu with pride.
Khoward would do well to pass over a few (Hill, Downer, Bishop etc) and get some new blood. otherwise it could be a cleanout lie John Major in Britain, a government seen to have done one term too long...
Congratulations to Howard, although I did enjoy seeing him squirm on thursday night.
BrisGirl
12 Nov 2001, 10:45
Not everyone who sends their children to Private Schools are 'rich'.
I know a couple of people who work very hard to be able to send their child to a Private School. They see it as an achievement and are proud of the fact that they can do it for their child as they see it as their way of making a better life for their child.
If you work, you all pay taxes. Some of your tax goes to schools regardless if you have children or not. You can not begrudge people who want the best or their perception of it, for their children and work hard to make it happen.
With the home mortgage rates down, gives poeple the opportunity to send their children private Schools, and that opportunity is given to everyone. (Private Schools fees can vary from $1500 to $7000 a year, depending on the School)
You could spend up to $1500 a year on cigarettes, it just depends on your priorities.
And please do not forget, it is all working men and women that contribute to Social welfare. If it comforts you, the higher wage you earn the higher rate you are taxed. Once you work hard enough to earn the money you strived to achieve, you are taxed half of it.......48% of it goes to the Government. Makes you wonder if it is worth trying to achieve the high wage.
Yassar Arafat
12 Nov 2001, 10:54
Originally posted by Pessimistic
I actually think Crean will wear howard down bit by bit. The 'new' liberal ministers being quoted in the papare don't exactly fill yoiu with pride.
Khoward would do well to pass over a few (Hill, Downer, Bishop etc) and get some new blood. otherwise it could be a cleanout lie John Major in Britain, a government seen to have done one term too long...
Congratulations to Howard, although I did enjoy seeing him squirm on thursday night.
...but not half as much as I enjoyed watching Beasley and his cronies squirm on saturday night.
Crean is just another ACTU president who thinks it is his god given right to be leader of the Australian Socialists.
Let's hope as the son of a former discredited Labor politician he has more ticker in him than the last son of a former Labor politician who led the party.
I must say the best part of Saturday night was watching Kernot tryin to be gracious but still coming across as the vindictive bithc that she is.....no Austrlians like traitors.
And that twerp Michael Lee looks like losing his seat........what a prick he is. Now all you need to get rid of in the Labor party arte the following twerps:- Falkiner, Bolkus, Ferguson, Lawrence, McMullan, Macklin......I'll stop now I am getting tired typing them all in!!!!!!!!!
See ya later Labor Party suckers/losers!
powerboi
12 Nov 2001, 10:56
Originally posted by Pessimistic
I actually think Crean will wear howard down bit by bit. The 'new' liberal ministers being quoted in the papare don't exactly fill yoiu with pride.
Khoward would do well to pass over a few (Hill, Downer, Bishop etc) and get some new blood. otherwise it could be a cleanout lie John Major in Britain, a government seen to have done one term too long...
You know what we need in Parliament ... a trading period :)
Jars458
12 Nov 2001, 11:24
Originally posted by Frodo
[ ie YOU. Such irrationality, blind faith and closed ears is rarely seen]
Well yes it is
we see it in you the other way
You are a right wing clone Frodo
Get some thoughts of your own
It is you that is full of hate for the Union movement.
You are a hypocrite.
Jars458
12 Nov 2001, 11:29
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
...but not half as much as I enjoyed watching Beasley and his cronies squirm on saturday night.
Crean is just another ACTU president who thinks it is his god given right to be leader of the Australian Socialists.
Let's hope as the son of a former discredited Labor politician he has more ticker in him than the last son of a former Labor politician who led the party.
I must say the best part of Saturday night was watching Kernot tryin to be gracious but still coming across as the vindictive bithc that she is.....no Austrlians like traitors.
And that twerp Michael Lee looks like losing his seat........what a prick he is. Now all you need to get rid of in the Labor party arte the following twerps:- Falkiner, Bolkus, Ferguson, Lawrence, McMullan, Macklin......I'll stop now I am getting tired typing them all in!!!!!!!!!
See ya later Labor Party suckers/losers!
Once again you show your complete lack of maturity
Are you realted to Peter Costello???
If you are happy with being shackled with racist scaremongerers then good for you.
Fat Red
12 Nov 2001, 11:44
why do we all seem to barrack for parties as though they were footy teams?
Originally posted by Jars458
Once again you show your complete lack of maturity
Are you realted to Peter Costello???
If you are happy with being shackled with racist scaremongerers then good for you.
And to think with the LIbs in power anyone with a name like Yassar Arafat has NO chance of getting in;)
LIBERALS LOVE COLOUR....KHAKI AND RACE!!
Originally posted by Fat Red
why do we all seem to barrack for parties as though they were footy teams?
Because there is no footy on at the moment and we are having withdrawal symptons!:D If this election was held in September instead, this topics would hardly get a look in!
Yassar Arafat
12 Nov 2001, 12:15
Originally posted by Jars458
Once again you show your complete lack of maturity
Are you realted to Peter Costello???
If you are happy with being shackled with racist scaremongerers then good for you.
Racist Scremongers? Isnt it showing your immaturity by spitting the dummy and criticising the Labor/Liberal policy on immigration?
Tut tut Mr Black Pot.
Yassar Arafat
12 Nov 2001, 12:17
Originally posted by 1AD
And to think with the LIbs in power anyone with a name like Yassar Arafat has NO chance of getting in;)
LIBERALS LOVE COLOUR....KHAKI AND RACE!!
Hey idiot....what about Costello, is than an anglo name?
Bigot.
Jars458
12 Nov 2001, 12:33
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
Racist Scremongers? Isnt it showing your immaturity by spitting the dummy and criticising the Labor/Liberal policy on immigration?
Tut tut Mr Black Pot.
How is it immature to criticise a racist policy
and yes I do criticise both major parties
neither of which I voted for
So there is no black pot!
Yassar Arafat
12 Nov 2001, 12:44
It is not a racist policy.
These people are not true refugees.
If htey were they would abandon Afghanistan and head for Pakistan the closest Islamic country where there are many Afghans at the moment.
But no, they figure they can get in anywhere they want so they stop off at a number of countries and then head for Australia. Forget the poor bastards who go throught he right processes, we have money and we can do what we want and you should od wnat we wnat as well.
My parents went through the proper process when they eventually came here on a refugee passport after being in a refugee camp for two years in Greece.
Let them apply off shore, if they qualify let them in regardless of race creed or culture
How is that racist? It is easy to tar somone with the "racist brush" but it really is a load of crap.
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
Hey idiot....what about Costello, is than an anglo name?
Bigot.
Costello?...doesn't sound Anglo
Bigot....sorry no,
:rolleyes: = sarcasm ******* ;)
Jars458
12 Nov 2001, 12:50
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
It is not a racist policy.
These people are not true refugees.
If htey were they would abandon Afghanistan and head for Pakistan the closest Islamic country where there are many Afghans at the moment.
But no, they figure they can get in anywhere they want so they stop off at a number of countries and then head for Australia. Forget the poor bastards who go throught he right processes, we have money and we can do what we want and you should od wnat we wnat as well.
My parents went through the proper process when they eventually came here on a refugee passport after being in a refugee camp for two years in Greece.
Let them apply off shore, if they qualify let them in regardless of race creed or culture
How is that racist? It is easy to tar somone with the "racist brush" but it really is a load of crap.
Well you are wrong
Many of the people on the boat that sank (the first one) were actually refeguees who had been approved by the UN to be repatriated.
However no country would take them
Their kids are not allowed to go to school in Indonesia
What sort of future is that?
If these people were white or great atheletes they wold be allowed in
In mv view - it is racism. Obviously I can't prove that as no one will admit to it, however I am entitled to that view.
Given the situation of your parents I would have thought you would have more compassion for such people.
Chilli Afterglow
12 Nov 2001, 12:51
Originally posted by mantis
Yes I noticed the sudden switch you made when I attacked you for your comments saying people on $70,000 should get more benefits than someone on $30,000, suddenly you brought in a wife and kids, that wasn't in your original post, you were talking about single people going to Uni as opposed to those that didn't, so people who don't have money or an opportunity of an education, deserve to live in poverty. :mad:
Take the previous election for example. Labor's offering to ease the tax plight was to screw the rich and cut some slack to the poor. By there scheme, someone on $35,000 per year would get the best breaks while someone on $70,000 would get basically nothing.
Thing is that middle Australia are either the ones on $70,000 pa or the ones who are aspiring to get to that point. The majority of people who have come out of University and are working professionally would fit into this group.
Middle Australia does cover a significant portion of the Australian population but is one group that Labor has failed to win over, mainly because it has been lumped in with the rich with Beazley's thoughless mantra.
On reflection, I withdraw my apology. I reread my intial post and it seems to make perfect sense.
My initial post actually was to the point that Beazely didn't win over middle Australia, Got nothing really to do with single or married folk or whatever. Just is to the point that middle Australia also get a vote and that Beazley ignored it.
Too bad for him.
Shinboners
12 Nov 2001, 13:25
Originally posted by mantis
Shinners I hope you never have to try & survive on $25,000 a year, electricity, gas, phone, food, clothes, all with GST. good luck would you like to swap with me for a month.
Thanks for your concern, but you haven't answered my question. It is this. How do you reconcile your pro-S11 view of globalisation that leads to jobs (mainly unskilled labour) being sucked out of Australia and into Asia with your view that the middle classes (or at least those singles on $70,000 per annum) are getting greedy despite the spending of the middle classes leads to spending that results in jobs (like those skilled labour jobs in car factories) being created in Australia? After all, it is the middle class that has the spending power in the country to keep people in work.
I'm not trying to prove that one view is right or wrong, I just want to know how you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory views.
Originally posted by Shinboners
Thanks for your concern, but you haven't answered my question. It is this. How do you reconcile your pro-S11 view of globalisation that leads to jobs (mainly unskilled labour) being sucked out of Australia and into Asia with your view that the middle classes (or at least those singles on $70,000 per annum) are getting greedy despite the spending of the middle classes leads to spending that results in jobs (like those skilled labour jobs in car factories) being created in Australia? After all, it is the middle class that has the spending power in the country to keep people in work.
I'm not trying to prove that one view is right or wrong, I just want to know how you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory views.
If I earn't $70,000 per year and single I want a BMW!!!!:)
Shinboners
12 Nov 2001, 13:30
Originally posted by 1AD
If I earn't $70,000 per year and single I want a BMW!!!!:)
Me too!
Which one would you get? I kinda like that Z3 myself....hmmm...which leads me to think, maybe forget the BMW and get a MG..... :)
Originally posted by Jars458
Well you are wrong
Many of the people on the boat that sank (the first one) were actually refeguees who had been approved by the UN to be repatriated.
Of course that statement relies on your perception of the authority and fairness of the UN.
Like the USA on Kyoto, who said that they were big enough to make their own decisions on emmissions so do I believe that the authority to decide the status of refugees wanting to come to Australia rests with the Australian people and not the UN.
You have to consider the reality that the UN is a funded beaurocracy and that beaurocracies tend to be infested with greenies, left wing socialists, dissidents and hangers on. The chances of getting a fair and reasonable policy coming out of that institute is very remote indeed.
We are big enough to decide who we want in our country. The UN can get stuffed.
Jars458
12 Nov 2001, 15:17
Originally posted by Frodo
Of course that statement relies on your perception of the authority and fairness of the UN.
Like the USA on Kyoto, who said that they were big enough to make their own decisions on emmissions so do I believe that the authority to decide the status of refugees wanting to come to Australia rests with the Australian people and not the UN.
You have to consider the reality that the UN is a funded beaurocracy and that beaurocracies tend to be infested with greenies, left wing socialists, dissidents and hangers on. The chances of getting a fair and reasonable policy coming out of that institute is very remote indeed.
We are big enough to decide who we want in our country. The UN can get stuffed.
You really are an angry right wing troglodyte.
never mind havng a neutral umpire.
Why would beauracricies be full of left wing people?
oh wait - people who want to make a difference to the world in a postion of service.
you are a joke
Originally posted by Jars458
You really are an angry right wing troglodyte.
never mind havng a neutral umpire.
Why would beauracricies be full of left wing people?
oh wait - people who want to make a difference to the world in a postion of service.
you are a joke
If the only way you can handle debate is to resort to personal insult you are better keeping your mouth SHUT
eastaugh36
12 Nov 2001, 18:35
Originally posted by magpie_joffa
When i go to bed tonight i will say a simple prayer and it will go along the lines as this,
God help the refugees
and the working class
and the poor
and the needy, and our sick
and the unfortunate
God help us all.
We had our chance and we blew it, we had a chance to install a caring government to govern for all classes of people and not just the rich...we blew it and let me give you all a tip, an uncaring society is like cancer it will get worse before it gets better.
What have we all become ?
god help us.
well the majority of aussies voted liberal and the majority of aussies are working class, so that is just your perception that liberal dont do anything for the working class. I am very happy because the australians voted for a party with stability and one that has handled issues such as the boat people and the terrorist attacks in the right way. The majority of aussies think howard handled it in the right way ! You are in a minority, we cant just let any bloody one in our country, especially the ones who cheat the system ! Good onya john ! Also you are forgetting how hawke and keating totally stuffed up the country when they last had a chance to lead australia !
Santos L Helper
12 Nov 2001, 20:43
Originally posted by Frodo
Of course that statement relies on your perception of the authority and fairness of the UN.
Like the USA on Kyoto, who said that they were big enough to make their own decisions on emmissions so do I believe that the authority to decide the status of refugees wanting to come to Australia rests with the Australian people and not the UN.
You have to consider the reality that the UN is a funded beaurocracy and that beaurocracies tend to be infested with greenies, left wing socialists, dissidents and hangers on. The chances of getting a fair and reasonable policy coming out of that institute is very remote indeed.
We are big enough to decide who we want in our country. The UN can get stuffed.
These greenies and left-wing socialists must be the ones you hate for trying to implement policies that will protect our environment. I forgot that because the USA thinks it won't sign the kyoto protocol, then we have to follow suit. Bugger the planet, we'll pump more emissions into the atmosphere and screw up more ecosystems because the USA says the protocol can't work.
Yeah the chances of getting fair and reasonable policy are remote because countries like ours like to hide behind the bigger bullies. Just where Johnnie likes it................with his head planted firmly up the USA's arse.
London Dave
12 Nov 2001, 22:11
Afraid not, Frodo.
The consistent use of an accepted spelling is not the same as spelling incorrectly. If you want to make the point, make the point. You may disagree it's an accepted spelling, fair enough, use the version you are comfortable with. Plenty of other people feel comfortable with the US version, so let em use it. Personally, I don't give a fig which you use, as long as you are consistent. It's neither right or wrong to use color or colour, just adopt a consistent use of whichever. In the US, use the US, in UK, use the UK, in Australia, both have been acceptable for a long time in my experience.
Sorry I didnt pick up on your sense of humour Frodo, must be the first time you've had any sense at all in your posts!!!!!
Jars458
13 Nov 2001, 07:36
Originally posted by Frodo
If the only way you can handle debate is to resort to personal insult you are better keeping your mouth SHUT
Oh the personal insult line
well sorry - in relation to people I have no respect for, I find it hard other than to tell the truth as I see it
YOU were the one calling me a communist and saying I was full of hate etc etc so don't come the moral high ground
I have nothing more to say to you.
Have a nice life.
Originally posted by London Dave
Afraid not, Frodo.
The consistent use of an accepted spelling is not the same as spelling incorrectly. If you want to make the point, make the point. You may disagree it's an accepted spelling, fair enough, use the version you are comfortable with. Plenty of other people feel comfortable with the US version, so let em use it. Personally, I don't give a fig which you use, as long as you are consistent. It's neither right or wrong to use color or colour, just adopt a consistent use of whichever. In the US, use the US, in UK, use the UK, in Australia, both have been acceptable for a long time in my experience.
Fair enough. This issue was raised as an attack on my spelling of Labour. I have defended that usage. I don't mind how others spell or mis-spell it as long as I understand which party they are referring too. Many words are spelled differing ways nowdays (color/colour for one) and whulst I find that undesireable it doesn't worry me at all.
In fact the correct and common spelling for the Labour party is probably SCUMBAGS :D
Dippers Donuts
13 Nov 2001, 11:07
Originally posted by Frodo
Fair enough. This issue was raised as an attack on my spelling of Labour. I have defended that usage. I don't mind how others spell or mis-spell it as long as I understand which party they are referring too. Many words are spelled differing ways nowdays (color/colour for one) and whulst I find that undesireable it doesn't worry me at all.
In fact the correct and common spelling for the Labour party is probably SCUMBAGS :D
Well if it isn't my part aboriginal friend frodo!!:D
Only an uninformed person like yourself wouldn't realise that when referring to Labor one is referring to the Australian Labor Party.
And going by your childish logic we can now start referring to the liberal party as CLOWNS can we?:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
And going by your childish logic we can now start referring to the liberal party as CLOWNS can we?:rolleyes:
Come on!! Any Government that spends $300,000,000 to keep 3400 refugees out(since August) when it would cost half that in Australia. Also $3,000,000 per day to keep three frigates, two orions and a support ship when one phone call from Christmas island to tell us a ship has arrived. $20,000,00 to PNG to keep 1000 refugees at bay,. $?? to all the other tinpot island nations.
CLOWNS is too soft a word...Fuking Clowns is more apt.
Betcha a boatload of white Zimbabwan farmers would get straight in though;)
magpie_joffa
13 Nov 2001, 22:11
Originally posted by eastaugh36
well the majority of aussies voted liberal and the majority of aussies are working class, so that is just your perception that liberal dont do anything for the working class. I am very happy because the australians voted for a party with stability and one that has handled issues such as the boat people and the terrorist attacks in the right way. The majority of aussies think howard handled it in the right way ! You are in a minority, we cant just let any bloody one in our country, especially the ones who cheat the system ! Good onya john ! Also you are forgetting how hawke and keating totally stuffed up the country when they last had a chance to lead australia !
Good i give thanks to god that i was a part of that minority !!!
BUBBALOUIS
14 Nov 2001, 06:56
Originally posted by magpie_joffa
Good i give thanks to god that i was a part of that minority !!!
Dont despair Joff, 49% of Australians didnt vote with the redkneck oops i mean Coalition parties, that still is a hell of a lot of Australians ......... It might take a year or two but Australians will realise what a racist , fear campaign was run by the coalition, the last ads on TV werent about the economy/education/jobs, but a quote from Howard 'we will decide who we let into the country' ...... this on top of a suggestion on the last day that boat people delibarately set fire to their boat, which since the election hasnt been confirmed? Yes we are a democracy and have the right to vote whoever we please into office ...... doesnt make them right, doesnt mean we should be proud of the way they were elected...... 3AW (a very right wing radio station) let it slip that some coalition backbenchers were secretly embarrassed by the way the election was fought. ...... unfortunately elections arent won by good guys with high morals, but guys with deep pockets who run the best scare campaigns
eastaugh36
14 Nov 2001, 07:21
Originally posted by BUBBALOUIS
Dont despair Joff, 49% of Australians didnt vote with the redkneck oops i mean Coalition parties, that still is a hell of a lot of Australians ......... It might take a year or two but Australians will realise what a racist , fear campaign was run by the coalition, the last ads on TV werent about the economy/education/jobs, but a quote from Howard 'we will decide who we let into the country' ...... this on top of a suggestion on the last day that boat people delibarately set fire to their boat, which since the election hasnt been confirmed? Yes we are a democracy and have the right to vote whoever we please into office ...... doesnt make them right, doesnt mean we should be proud of the way they were elected...... 3AW (a very right wing radio station) let it slip that some coalition backbenchers were secretly embarrassed by the way the election was fought. ...... unfortunately elections arent won by good guys with high morals, but guys with deep pockets who run the best scare campaigns
racist ??? Yeah sure, just because we dont let people who shouldnt be here in the country doesnt mean we are racist, face the facts that the good guys did win !
BUBBALOUIS
14 Nov 2001, 07:37
Originally posted by eastaugh36
racist ??? Yeah sure, just because we dont let people who shouldnt be here in the country doesnt mean we are racist, face the facts that the good guys did win !
Yes the good guys easty, i can now sleep easy because we spent 20 million sending 200 people to Nauru to be processed instead of Christmas Island ...... mind you im in trouble if i send my kids to public schools, or expect good public hospitals, or my grandparents are looking for aged care beds ... lol ,..... but yes we did stop those pesky boat people .........
magpie_joffa
14 Nov 2001, 12:38
Originally posted by eastaugh36
racist ??? Yeah sure, just because we dont let people who shouldnt be here in the country doesnt mean we are racist, face the facts that the good guys did win !
I dont believe your a cold uncaring p.r.i.c.k as you claim to be if you are its a waste of time replying to you, but i will leave you some words that u hope you might find inspiring, its from a song and i have changed the word america to Australia.
Far we been travellin far
Without a home
but not without a star
Free only wanna be free
We huddle close
hang on to a dream
On the boats and on the planes
there comming to Australia
Never looking back again
there comming to Australia
Home but it seems so far away
but we are travelling light today
in the eye of a storm...in the eye of a storm
Home to a new and a shining place
make our bed and we'll say our grace
Freedom's like burning warm
Every where around the world
there comming to Australia
every time that flag's unfurled
there comming to Australia
Got a dream to take them there
there comming to Australia
Got a dream they come to share
there comming to Australia
There comming to Austarlia today.
TigerTank
14 Nov 2001, 15:30
Originally posted by BUBBALOUIS
... 3AW (a very right wing radio station) ...
You're JOKING aren't you???
Do the names Steve Price and Paul Barber ring any bells?
And Neil Mitchell is the absolute pin-up boy for the "ban all fire-arms even though we know nothing about them" fraternity.
Bubba, 3AW is about as right wing as you are.
Both Labor and Liberal are a bunch of ********s anyway. They will both just end up doing the same ****e. How immaure are Beazley and Howard, its like too little school boys arguing. They both take pleasure in waiting for the other to slip up and say something the wrong way so they can then go on to make it sound worse than it actually was in the original context.
Hey Frodo did you say that 'we' dont have any poor people?
"and the poor [define poor. Like in India maybe...we haven't got any poor]"
Just correct be if I'm wrong, but are you actually saying that we dont have any poor people in Australia? Surely your not are you? Because that would just be the comment of someone totally ignorant. We have people in Australia living in third world conditions. Perhaps I just read your comment the wrong way because surely noone would say that Australia does not have any poor people.
I have to agree with Brisgal.......Not all people who send their children to private schools are rich. I agree it is all about priorities. Alot of kids at private schools dont even pay fees. There is a difference between the elite and the average religous based private schools.
I also have to say that not all private schools are rich. Some private schools have more money than some public schools, some public schools have more money than some private schools.
Also, Mantis, these days you dont have to be rich to go to uni. Noone that I know of actualy pays their uni fees upfront, and noone I know of has their parents pay their uni fees. Most people these days just pay through HECS. That is that once they start working, a part of their pay goes to paying off the uni. If you never get a job that pays over a certain amount then you never have to repay the uni fees, if you move overseas you never have to repay the uni fees.
Maybe it was different in past years. But I know people who have come from poor families (poor as in they would get an orange for their christmas present and they would think it was the best thing eva) and have gone on to a tertiary education, and this is going years back.
Also their is nothing wrong with being rich, I mean anyone given the opportunity except perhaps Mother Teresa would accept a $100 000 a year salary. Some people have got money some people dont, personally I dont think its that big of a deal as long as you've got enough food on your table, you have somewhere to live that is hygenic and aslong as you have enough to stay healthy, then who cares. Of course I realise that not everyone is lucky enough to have all this, but I reakon it would be a pretty fair bet to say everyone who posts on bigfooty is lucky enough to have all those things. If you dont, then I suggest that you take your computer to Cashies and go buy yourself some pukka tucker.
I probably got off the subject there. Just sometimes people bag rich people. If you had the opportunity to be rich you would take it. Many rich people have worked very hard to earn their money. Many people work very hard just to earn enough to feed their kids. Nothing is going to be able to change that. I mean money isnt everything, although i know some people here think it is.
But I do think that its pretty stupid to be complaining that you arent getting any benefits when you are on $70 000 a year, I mean comme on...you dont need benefits! You r already benefited! Just give the money to the people who arent coping financially, is it that hard to understand?
I would just like to ask you guys, when you vote....do you vote for the party who is going to be the best for you or do you vote for the party who is going to be the best overall.
BJ
BUBBALOUIS
15 Nov 2001, 07:19
Originally posted by TigerTank
You're JOKING aren't you???
Do the names Steve Price and Paul Barber ring any bells?
And Neil Mitchell is the absolute pin-up boy for the "ban all fire-arms even though we know nothing about them" fraternity.
Bubba, 3AW is about as right wing as you are.
ok TT, depends on which bias is tuned in when listening, Paul Barber no longer works at 3AW, but yes he was left of centre no doubt, Steve Price apart from his stance on boat people is very much right of centre IMHO, and Neil Mitchell stand on fire arms is left of centre, but on most issues he does discriminate to the right, thats why Peter Costello loves appearing on 3AW, he knows hes going to get some half volley questions ..... Anyway i reckon we could both listen to a programme from 3AW, and i would swear it was anti Labor, you woud swear it was anti coalition .... lol ..... Lets agree to disagree on 3AW political leanings ... oh and have you heard of a fella called Andrew Bolt? who comes on in the mornings :D
Pessimistic
15 Nov 2001, 07:56
I heard from a good source that A Bolt has a 'lot' of help writing his column.
Pessimistic
15 Nov 2001, 07:58
Originally posted by BJ
Both Labor and Liberal are a bunch of ********s anyway. They will both just end up doing the same ****e. How immaure are Beazley and Howard, its like too little school boys arguing. They both take pleasure in waiting for the other to slip up and say something the wrong way so they can then go on to make it sound worse than it actually was in the original context.
Hey Frodo did you say that 'we' dont have any poor people?
"and the poor [define poor. Like in India maybe...we haven't got any poor]"
Just correct be if I'm wrong, but are you actually saying that we dont have any poor people in Australia? Surely your not are you? Because that would just be the comment of someone totally ignorant. We have people in Australia living in third world conditions. Perhaps I just read your comment the wrong way because surely noone would say that Australia does not have any poor people.
I have to agree with Brisgal.......Not all people who send their children to private schools are rich. I agree it is all about priorities. Alot of kids at private schools dont even pay fees. There is a difference between the elite and the average religous based private schools.
I also have to say that not all private schools are rich. Some private schools have more money than some public schools, some public schools have more money than some private schools.
Also, Mantis, these days you dont have to be rich to go to uni. Noone that I know of actualy pays their uni fees upfront, and noone I know of has their parents pay their uni fees. Most people these days just pay through HECS. That is that once they start working, a part of their pay goes to paying off the uni. If you never get a job that pays over a certain amount then you never have to repay the uni fees, if you move overseas you never have to repay the uni fees.
Maybe it was different in past years. But I know people who have come from poor families (poor as in they would get an orange for their christmas present and they would think it was the best thing eva) and have gone on to a tertiary education, and this is going years back.
Also their is nothing wrong with being rich, I mean anyone given the opportunity except perhaps Mother Teresa would accept a $100 000 a year salary. Some people have got money some people dont, personally I dont think its that big of a deal as long as you've got enough food on your table, you have somewhere to live that is hygenic and aslong as you have enough to stay healthy, then who cares. Of course I realise that not everyone is lucky enough to have all this, but I reakon it would be a pretty fair bet to say everyone who posts on bigfooty is lucky enough to have all those things. If you dont, then I suggest that you take your computer to Cashies and go buy yourself some pukka tucker.
I probably got off the subject there. Just sometimes people bag rich people. If you had the opportunity to be rich you would take it. Many rich people have worked very hard to earn their money. Many people work very hard just to earn enough to feed their kids. Nothing is going to be able to change that. I mean money isnt everything, although i know some people here think it is.
But I do think that its pretty stupid to be complaining that you arent getting any benefits when you are on $70 000 a year, I mean comme on...you dont need benefits! You r already benefited! Just give the money to the people who arent coping financially, is it that hard to understand?
I would just like to ask you guys, when you vote....do you vote for the party who is going to be the best for you or do you vote for the party who is going to be the best overall.
BJ
Some of these independent schools are crying the poor tale but building new sports halls etc all the time. One near where I live has bought a aged care facility as an annex. Do they really need the help ?
eastaugh36
15 Nov 2001, 09:35
oh god can we please get off this topic ! Liberal won and thats that !
LibsWin
15 Nov 2001, 13:24
Originally posted by eastaugh36
oh god can we please get off this topic ! Liberal won and thats that !
I agree!!!!! :D
Democracy..... ya gotta love it! :p
Yeah true to some independent schools but not true to all.
Just because the independent school up the road from u is building all this stuff doesnt mean that the local catholic school in derby doesnt need some cash.
Jars458
16 Nov 2001, 10:02
Originally posted by BJ
Yeah true to some independent schools but not true to all.
Just because the independent school up the road from u is building all this stuff doesnt mean that the local catholic school in derby doesnt need some cash.
Well that's exactly right - it needs to be on a needs baiss
I was at Scotch Collge in Adelaide recently and they had a building appeal which was close to raising $4 million
This is giong to give them even better facilities than they have now
THey should not be getting Government funding
Its unfair that public shcool kids have to compete with students who have much better facilities
I went to a private school myself but never saw a computer never mind use one and our psyichs experiments consisted of rolling a trolley down a desk!!!!
That's what cost me straight A's in year 12 I am sure!! :D
That will teach me for living in the country.
Let me get this right. You are saying that if a group of parents gets together (p+c committee perhaps) and raises funds so that facilities are improved at their school then the school should have government funding reduced :rolleyes:
And in doing so that means that schools who do no fundraising get more money:rolleyes:
Don't you think that you would kill off fundraising completely?
This is exactly what happened in Communist Russia and the quality of education was reduced to the lowest common denominator in all schools apart from the elite ones where children went after an assessment of high intellect as five year olds.
Originally posted by Frodo
Let me get this right. You are saying that if a group of parents gets together (p+c committee perhaps) and raises funds so that facilities are improved at their school then the school should have government funding reduced
If they don't NEED it, yes. Money should be spent where it's needed.
And in doing so that means that schools who do no fundraising get more money
Do no fundraising or are unable to raise funds? There's a world of difference. Quality education should be available to all regardless of their financial situation.
Don't you think that you would kill off fundraising completely?
It didn't prior to the current scheme being introduced so why would it now?
This is exactly what happened in Communist Russia and the quality of education was reduced to the lowest common denominator in all schools apart from the elite ones where children went after an assessment of high intellect as five year olds.
I'll bet who their parents were had nothing to do with it either. I'm sure Joe Stalins kid went to "fu cknuckle elementary"! In Russia the kids of the Elite went to the best schools and the hio poloi ate **** and died.
The example you've given is exactly the problem we'll end up with in Australia. Rich kids will go to great schools because their parents fund them whilst poor kids will get a crap education because their parents are struggling just to make ends meet, let alone raise 4 mill for a "building fund". That sounds like the Australian fair go for all to me. Not.
Jars458
16 Nov 2001, 12:16
Originally posted by Frodo
Let me get this right. You are saying that if a group of parents gets together (p+c committee perhaps) and raises funds so that facilities are improved at their school then the school should have government funding reduced :rolleyes:
And in doing so that means that schools who do no fundraising get more money:rolleyes:
Don't you think that you would kill off fundraising completely?
This is exactly what happened in Communist Russia and the quality of education was reduced to the lowest common denominator in all schools apart from the elite ones where children went after an assessment of high intellect as five year olds.
Taking over from Dan as king of the rolleyes???
I agree with Dave
Schools such as the one I refer to have a majority of parents who are more affluent and can afford to give money
Parents at MANY state schools can't
The bottom line is kids should be able to get an even chance that doesn't depend on how rich you are
Sorry I forgot according to you there is an even playing field.
Trying to compare funding of Australian schools wiht communism is very silly. You seem to be obsessed with communism.
Originally posted by Jars458
You seem to be obsessed with communism.
Frodo McCarthy?
(joke joyce;))
The idea of everyone getting an equal education sounds great but I doubt it is really possible.
Like Frodo said, if the government only gives money too the schools that cant afford to fund raise then no schools will bother fundraising. It also sounds sort of unfair that some schools should have to work hard through fundraising to earn their money whereas other schools just get it off the government.
Also, fundraising doesnt always consist of the parents handing out cash, it could mean going around to houses asking people to buy freddo frogs or malteasers. You can do this wether you are rich or poor.
BJ
Originally posted by BJ
Like Frodo said, if the government only gives money too the schools that cant afford to fund raise then no schools will bother fundraising.
Crap. The school I went to 20 years ago did not receive the sort of funding that the current government is handing out and it did bother to fundraise. And did it quite well because the parents of most of the kids that went there were pretty well off.
It also sounds sort of unfair that some schools should have to work hard through fundraising to earn their money whereas other schools just get it off the government.
Open your eyes and read what's being posted. It's not a matter of effort, it's a matter that some parents are unable to raise the sort of funds that others are because they spend ALL of their money just surviving.
Also, fundraising doesnt always consist of the parents handing out cash, it could mean going around to houses asking people to buy freddo frogs or malteasers. You can do this wether you are rich or poor.
When was the last time someone raised 4 million dollars selling freddo frogs?
Pessimistic
19 Nov 2001, 15:18
Originally posted by BJ
The idea of everyone getting an equal education sounds great but I doubt it is really possible.
Like Frodo said, if the government only gives money too the schools that cant afford to fund raise then no schools will bother fundraising. It also sounds sort of unfair that some schools should have to work hard through fundraising to earn their money whereas other schools just get it off the government.
Also, fundraising doesnt always consist of the parents handing out cash, it could mean going around to houses asking people to buy freddo frogs or malteasers. You can do this wether you are rich or poor.
BJ
And imagine the outcry when a kid gets molested while going round selling freddo frogs
Both my boys went around selling chocolate bars for school, cricket club and footy club. No molesting problems.
We also arranged sausage sizzles and quiz nights for school amenities.
There were single parent mothers and parents working long hours to get their kids thru private school. They took no holidays in Bali etc and preferred giving an education to their kids to smoking and drinking.
I'll agree to a certain extent with the communist input ( and I believe in calling a spade a spade), those who inherit money or win lotto etc, are plain lucky and don't really deserve to give their kids a top schooling.
However, excluding them we come to those who studied hard, worked hard and made money that is theirs to do as they wish.
Now I know a heap of parents with kids in low standard schools that smoke $60 a week and drink $100 + a week in booze, go out regularly and have graeat holidays. Now they choose how to spend that money so I have no disagreement with them, but don't castigate the people who work their butts off and sacrifice a lot to give their kids a decent education. And if a bit of fund raising helps get extra facilities then good on them.
Now I do realise that there are some that are so unfortunate that they cannot afford to send their kids to a decent school and I do think we need to be benevolent in real cases but here's the rub :-
Why can't the school system be improved so all can get a good education? You see the margin between the top private schools and bottom public schools is far too big. Why?
Well you're all going to guess what I'm going to say aren't you!!!
Socialism and trade unionism...hand in hand.
It's all about standards. Getting rid of weak teachers. Instilling discipline, dress standards and an ethos about caring for each other. Now the unions will not allow disciplining of teachers and our socialist society will not allow disciplining of children. Golf courses are full of teachers at 3:30pm.....not from private schools though. If you want to raise the bar of school standards then taking the lead weights of trade unionism and socialism from each end will help.
Think about it. The trade unions and socialist party are the supporters of the poorer paid and disadvantaged. If you send your child to a school where socialism and trade unionism is the ethos then where in society do you expect your child to end up?
Or at least the vast majority of then!
And many people realise exactly that and work their butts off to drag their children up a notch and away from that environment, can you blame them?
So if you really do care about a more level playing field and raising the bar of excellence of education then it is imperative that trade unionism and socialism is irradicated from the teaching fraternity.
Pessimistic
19 Nov 2001, 20:37
Originally posted by Frodo
Both my boys went around selling chocolate bars for school, cricket club and footy club. No molesting problems.
We also arranged sausage sizzles and quiz nights for school amenities.
There were single parent mothers and parents working long hours to get their kids thru private school. They took no holidays in Bali etc and preferred giving an education to their kids to smoking and drinking.
I'll agree to a certain extent with the communist input ( and I believe in calling a spade a spade), those who inherit money or win lotto etc, are plain lucky and don't really deserve to give their kids a top schooling.
However, excluding them we come to those who studied hard, worked hard and made money that is theirs to do as they wish.
Now I know a heap of parents with kids in low standard schools that smoke $60 a week and drink $100 + a week in booze, go out regularly and have graeat holidays. Now they choose how to spend that money so I have no disagreement with them, but don't castigate the people who work their butts off and sacrifice a lot to give their kids a decent education. And if a bit of fund raising helps get extra facilities then good on them.
Now I do realise that there are some that are so unfortunate that they cannot afford to send their kids to a decent school and I do think we need to be benevolent in real cases but here's the rub :-
Why can't the school system be improved so all can get a good education? You see the margin between the top private schools and bottom public schools is far too big. Why?
Well you're all going to guess what I'm going to say aren't you!!!
Socialism and trade unionism...hand in hand.
It's all about standards. Getting rid of weak teachers. Instilling discipline, dress standards and an ethos about caring for each other. Now the unions will not allow disciplining of teachers and our socialist society will not allow disciplining of children. Golf courses are full of teachers at 3:30pm.....not from private schools though. If you want to raise the bar of school standards then taking the lead weights of trade unionism and socialism from each end will help.
Think about it. The trade unions and socialist party are the supporters of the poorer paid and disadvantaged. If you send your child to a school where socialism and trade unionism is the ethos then where in society do you expect your child to end up?
Or at least the vast majority of then!
And many people realise exactly that and work their butts off to drag their children up a notch and away from that environment, can you blame them?
So if you really do care about a more level playing field and raising the bar of excellence of education then it is imperative that trade unionism and socialism is irradicated from the teaching fraternity.
Socialism and Comunism to blame ? Then it would be the same in health wouldn't it ?
Perhaps not
Doctors and nurses in public hospitals working their arses off for godawful long hours while their counterparts mostly sit on their arses in private hospitals full of emplty beds. Meanwhile our government just gives private health handouts without requiring them to fill thir hospitals, actually train their own doctors or treat people for real ilnesses which aren't quite so profitable.
I don'r know much about education (yet) but I'm sure when I do I will see it through different eyes than you.
Regards
Originally posted by Pessimistic
I don'r know much about education (yet) but I'm sure when I do I will see it through different eyes than you.
You can't argue with ideolgues Pess, they are not capable of seeing that other pov's have any merit.
Is there any real evidence that government funding actually lowers the fees private schools charge? Surely as with any commodity they would keep the fees as large as can be commensurate with filling their classes. Funding serves as a handy top up to buy more goodies - that's my bet.
I've said elsewhere that if they find the enrolment rate dropping they won't close; they'll reduce fees and cut back on all their fringe benefiits - sports stadiums, massive halls, oveseas trips, etc.
The pro argument seems to be largely about keeping education affordable in private schools. Nice ideal, but I think the reality is about giving as much money to them as the electorate allows.
Perhaps if funding to private schools is linked with some kind of agreement that said funding needs to be demonstably linked to lower fees and/or scholarships - and give them numbers to work with - I'd be much more inclined to accept it.
Merely saying that funding for private schools keeps fees lower is pie-in-the-sky stuff.
Pessimistic
21 Nov 2001, 15:47
Originally posted by Dave
You can't argue with ideolgues Pess, they are not capable of seeing that other pov's have any merit.
So its ideological to think there's something wrong when a private docter says 'how are you' oneco or twice while in hospital then sends you a bill for several hundred dollars.
The US is the most privatised health system in the world and its also the least efficient.
In britain the left wing ideologs nationalised everything in the 50s and the right wing privatised everything in the 80's. Here in Oz its abit more pragmatic but the current mob are throwoing taxpayers money in private health rebates for questionable outcomes.
Chilli Afterglow
21 Nov 2001, 16:50
Originally posted by Pessimistic
<snip>
Here in Oz its abit more pragmatic but the current mob are throwoing taxpayers money in private health rebates for questionable outcomes.
Not sure the objective is questionable. What they are clearly trying to do is turn the health system back to the way it was during the 80's and early 90's, when the whole thing seemed to work fairly well. The numbers in private insurance were solid, which meant that neither system to too stretched.
As a fall out from the lean economic times, people generally were no longer able to afford the insurance and dropped out. As these numbers increased, so to did the premiums rise (as the insurance companies were trying to maintain their bottom lines).
This had the effect of spiralling with increasingly more being forced out due to the increase. The more that dropped out, the greater the load on the public system, which it wasn't really able to handle.
Costello's bribes are quite blatantly an attempt to lift the numbers in private coverage back up, ultimately easing the burden on the taxpayer and the public hospitals system.
Originally posted by Pessimistic
So its ideological to think there's something wrong when a private docter says 'how are you' oneco or twice while in hospital then sends you a bill for several hundred dollars.
No, it's ideological to blame the problems in our schools on our "socilist" society and trade unions. That's what I was referring to, not you ;)
Originally posted by Dave
No, it's ideological to blame the problems in our schools on our "socilist" society and trade unions. That's what I was referring to, not you ;)
ie it's ideological to blame the problems in our shools on the ideologists of socialism and union power :rolleyes:
That's the whole problem,ame as communism. The idea is sound but in practice it is pie in the sky ideology and until the left wing loonies get their heads out of the clouds and do/say something that has practical significance they will remain an envcumbrance upon not only schooling but society as a whole.
ps.....Average wage at Ansett was $97,000 a year. Well done unions :rolleyes: and we wonder why they went bankrupt!
BUBBALOUIS
22 Nov 2001, 19:01
Originally posted by Frodo
ps.....Average wage at Ansett was $97,000 a year. Well done unions :rolleyes: and we wonder why they went bankrupt!
I dont wonder at all Frodo, first your magical coalition government allowed an under capitalised Air New Zealand to buy Ansett, then your wonderful coalition Government lobbied to stop Singapore Airlines buying Ansett ....... 2 MAJOR reasons Aansett collapsed ..... but its easier to union bash isnt it?.lol
Pessimistic
23 Nov 2001, 06:37
Originally posted by Chilli Afterglow
Not sure the objective is questionable. What they are clearly trying to do is turn the health system back to the way it was during the 80's and early 90's, when the whole thing seemed to work fairly well. The numbers in private insurance were solid, which meant that neither system to too stretched.
As a fall out from the lean economic times, people generally were no longer able to afford the insurance and dropped out. As these numbers increased, so to did the premiums rise (as the insurance companies were trying to maintain their bottom lines).
This had the effect of spiralling with increasingly more being forced out due to the increase. The more that dropped out, the greater the load on the public system, which it wasn't really able to handle.
Costello's bribes are quite blatantly an attempt to lift the numbers in private coverage back up, ultimately easing the burden on the taxpayer and the public hospitals system.
Perhaps peple were leving private health because the industry needed a big shake up. Now they are being propped up and probably becoming more inefficient by the day.
I get sick of left wing being seen as too ideologiacal. The right wing is equally as loony. They are protecting their own. When public health first came in (and we all now agree it's a good thing)
Yet doctors fought it tooth and nail.
Why was it bad for the average wage at ansett to be $97,000 ? The average would be high due to the amount pilots get paid. Uninin bashers never seem to discuss the cosy arrangements doctors, Lawyers etc get because they have a 'closed shop'
Originally posted by BUBBALOUIS
I dont wonder at all Frodo, first your magical coalition government allowed an under capitalised Air New Zealand to buy Ansett, then your wonderful coalition Government lobbied to stop Singapore Airlines buying Ansett ....... 2 MAJOR reasons Aansett collapsed ..... but its easier to union bash isnt it?.lol
Excuse me but what on earth has the government got to do with the buying and selling of businesses (apart from monopoly control). Air NZ had legal rights to buy Ansett if they wanted to. It was not a matter for government at all, at least as long as we don't have a politbureau as a government!!!!!!!!!!!!
And get your facts right about Singapore airlines. They wanted 49% of Air New Zealand, not Ansett. And Singapore Airlines, Ansett and Air NZ were all foreign owned. What the government lobbied for was what was best for Qantas, our national airline. Now I would have thought that doing your best for our national interests is good government.
So the FACT is that the government was NOT amajor reason Ansett collapsed.
Ansett was a foreign owned company with bad management who were controlled by trade unions that had pushed costs up so high that without protection they were uncompetitive. That is why Ansett collapsed and if you want further proof just look at the key factor in rescue plans..........new agreements at vastly reduced wages and increased flexibility.
Now look at the new labour leader, Simon Crean. His first press conference and he said that for Labour to become a force again they must wrest control of the party away from the unions.
Now if you don't want to listen to me about the unions or open your eyes to the damage they are doing then listen to your bloody leader!
Jars458
23 Nov 2001, 13:51
Originally posted by Frodo
ps.....Average wage at Ansett was $97,000 a year. Well done unions :rolleyes: and we wonder why they went bankrupt!
I don't suppose the executives contribtued to that with their stock options etc etc
It still seems very high to me, not saying its wrong as I don't know but where did you get that figure?
Originally posted by Darky
Not this western suburbs factory worker!
Having had many bad experiences with unions in my blue-collar jobs, I will never vote for a political party that supports these same unions (PTWU, NUW, CFMEU), and has unions carry out advertising on their behalf.
Hehe this rings a bell, I'm a former CFMEU member.Whilst I was in Sydney I worked in construction & I had no problem with having to pay Union fees as I felt that it was a fair point that I was receiving the benefits that had been hard won over many years from my 'fellow' workers in the Australian construction industry.
What I did object to was hearing CFMEU organisers standing up & making speeches about how they don't want Pommie backpackers working in Sydney taking jobs from Australians but at the same time they were happy to take my Union fees.So basically I was (forced to be) a memeber of a Union that openly racially discriminated against me & didn't value my rights as highly as other members & yet they took my money.
So I agree with ya Darky f*ck the c*nts!
BTW Dipper's Donuts its funny that you blame the 'racist' swing in voting in Australia on pommie migrants when as my experience shows there is a racist attitude to us in Australia whilst no one in England ever grumbles about the large numbers of Aussies working here of 'taking English jobs'.
Secondly your 'liberal blinkers' seem to have blinded you to the fact that it is just as possible to be predujiced against Anglo Saxon pommies as it is towards anybody else.That you can sit there making sweeping generalisations about English people & using generally derogatory language whilst at the same cosidering yourself a champion of fair minded liberalism beggars belief.
In my experience those people that shout about how liberal they are & criticise others for their right wing leanings are usaully in their own way as guilty of intolerance as anyone.
Originally posted by Frodo
ie it's ideological to blame the problems in our shools on the ideologists of socialism and union power
Yes, the same as it would be if someone were to blame "right wing facist capitalist running dog lackeys". And take your rolleyes and shove 'em where the sun doesn't shine boy.
That's the whole problem,ame as communism. The idea is sound but in practice it is pie in the sky ideology and until the left wing loonies get their heads out of the clouds and do/say something that has practical significance they will remain an envcumbrance upon not only schooling but society as a whole.
Educational parity is pie in the sky is it? Socialism is not the same as communism. There are countries that run quite smoothly that consider (and are considered) themselves "socialist".
ps.....Average wage at Ansett was $97,000 a year.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the other one plays "Jingle Bells". 97K, LMAO!!!!!!!!!
Well done unions :rolleyes: and we wonder why they went bankrupt!
Oh yes, it was all those evil unions fault. It had nothing to do with successive company management teams bleeding it dry for profit and not re-investing any capital did it? After all as we all know, management can do no wrong can they? It's only those slack arsed working scumbags.
Keep trotting out the dogma Frodo, I guess for some it's an acceptable alternative to thought.