View Full Version : Which of these moments broke your heart more?
Alex_au
15 Dec 2006, 10:39
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJMGx8a3uMU Australia vs Italy 06 soccer world cup
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWlz_943vzM Australia vs England 03 Rugby world cup
Where is the Oval 05?
Out of those two though bloody Wilkinson!
hawkaz1
15 Dec 2006, 13:17
I didn't really care about the soccer because we were lucky to get through the group stage and Italy are a far better team.
I can remember being alot more annoyed when we lost the rugby world cup even though I don't like rugby that much.
The biggest sporting heartbreak recently would have to be last years Ashes loss, but England will pay!
Hawkers
15 Dec 2006, 13:20
Every and any Hawthorn loss hurts more
Kanga20
15 Dec 2006, 13:33
Every and any Hawthorn loss hurts more
You must be really hurting mate.
I bet the 94' final loss at Waverley against the mighty Roos hurt the most. Carey kicked your arses.
Your right mate we never recovered.
Tool.
Alex_au
15 Dec 2006, 14:16
2001 Prelim vs Essendon hurt when Croad hit the post :(
Ah old wounds reopened :(
Skyfire15
15 Dec 2006, 15:14
2001 Prelim vs Essendon hurt when Croad hit the post :(
Oh the pain!! Barnards goal in the last that took a 90 degree turn was just as bad!
BUT Definitely the soccer... Hate to admit it but we were beaten fair and square in the rugby... unlike the azurri who cheated to get thru!! Worst free kick ever! Goldspink eat your heart out! :rolleyes:
Every and any Hawthorn loss hurts more
Agreed. Couldn't possibly care less about the thugby or puff-ball....
The futball world cup. devastating.
Mitchell Madness
17 Dec 2006, 06:57
soccer. We was robbed! damn ref's! couldn't handle a bunch of "amatures"(using that figuritivly) dishing it up with the best.
Not sport wise i would say Bindi Irwin interview and the carisma and courage she showed, she is a very articulat girl for her age (only 7 isn't she?) and i cannot wait to see what her future holds
philhawk
17 Dec 2006, 07:21
Storm losing the NRL trophy this year was a real let-down for me. :thumbsd:
Definately the soccer world cup for me - it all turned sour so quickly.
Hawk Dork
19 Dec 2006, 14:25
thread deleted due to fear of the lynch mob
Where is the Oval 05?
16 years Australia held onto the Ashes, the English only had it 15 months :eek:
16 years Australia held onto the Ashes, the English only had it 15 months :eek:
Not going to bring back my tears though :(
Lee should have uppercut Flintoff imo :D
Gary Shadforth
20 Dec 2006, 09:18
Republic Referendum Day, November 6, 1999.
When John Howard, by deviancy, successfully broke our nation's heart (as Malcolm Turnbull put it) in befuddling the issue on the republic to deny our peoples' complete independency from the United Kingdom and, therefore, continue to have a foreign monarch as our head of state rather than an Australian citizen.
kolchak
20 Dec 2006, 11:46
Republic Referendum Day, November 6, 1999.
When John Howard, by deviancy, successfully broke our nation's heart (as Malcolm Turnbull put it) in befuddling the issue on the republic to deny our peoples' complete independency from the United Kingdom and, therefore, continue to have a foreign monarch as our head of state rather than an Australian citizen.
It will come eventually....the so called Republicans who ruined the republic model broke the republican movement more deeply....
Hawk Dork
22 Dec 2006, 11:25
Republic Referendum Day, November 6, 1999.
When John Howard, by deviancy, successfully broke our nation's heart (as Malcolm Turnbull put it) in befuddling the issue on the republic to deny our peoples' complete independency from the United Kingdom and, therefore, continue to have a foreign monarch as our head of state rather than an Australian citizen.
Broke mine to
He is a master manipulator of the moronic masses.
It will come back on the agenda when Johhny goes.
The sooner the better
Fabulous
23 Dec 2006, 19:27
Broke mine to
He is a master manipulator of the moronic masses.
It will come back on the agenda when Johhny goes.
The sooner the better
The polls seem to be backing this view so far.
October 5th - I missed the 07:46 from Bentleigh to Flinders St. - Express Malvern to Sth Yarra.
Had to catch the 07:52 stopping all stations.
My life changed that day - I think it changed for all of us.
Hawk Dork
27 Dec 2006, 06:30
Very True Binxy I havent been the same since and now I know why
Republic Referendum Day, November 6, 1999.
When John Howard, by deviancy, successfully broke our nation's heart (as Malcolm Turnbull put it) in befuddling the issue on the republic to deny our peoples' complete independency from the United Kingdom and, therefore, continue to have a foreign monarch as our head of state rather than an Australian citizen.
No, this vote was lost because the Republicans were led by Eddie Maguire and various "celebrities". There was very little intelligent debate or argument, just an assumption that by parading television personalities around would automatically win you the vote.
How little credibility did they have?
Nil.
Davo23
Hawk Dork
30 Dec 2006, 13:41
The vote was not do you want a republic or not
Because the vast majority did
The vote was distorted into do you want to elect the president or not and if you do dont vote for this republic
Celebrety had nothing to do with it
Just Rat cunning of the little weasel
delirious1
30 Dec 2006, 13:55
Rugby 2003
losing in the world cup final>one of the elimination finals
also, i hate soccer
kolchak
31 Dec 2006, 12:53
No, this vote was lost because the Republicans were led by Eddie Maguire and various "celebrities". There was very little intelligent debate or argument, just an assumption that by parading television personalities around would automatically win you the vote.
How little credibility did they have?
Nil.
Davo23
In the form that the republican model was voted on, I'm glad it didn't get up. Rather wait for a real peoples system, then just simply changing the head of state, waste of time and money if that's all your after.
Howard was against so were many others, and the Monachists where very brutal on it, which wasn't very nice, unfortuately there are not enough politicans who are serious about a republic, lots of them were just trying to get their name heard. That's a lot worse IMO.
The vote was not do you want a republic or not
Because the vast majority did
The vote was distorted into do you want to elect the president or not and if you do dont vote for this republic
Celebrety had nothing to do with it
Just Rat cunning of the little weasel
The fact is it is crucially important what the form of Republic is - because depending how the president is appointed will have important ramifications to how much a republic will change Australia from the current system we have and whether the change is good or bad.
To think otherwise is simply naive.
I actually don't mind a republic but I would hate to have a president that was elected - you may have a different opinion.
But before voting we need to know.
Hawk Dork
1 Jan 2007, 08:28
If Johnny asked 2 Questions in the referrendum
1 Do you want a Republic Yes or No ?
2 Should the president be elected by the people Yes or No ?
He wasted our money and time and opportunity, by deliberately asking the wrong question, because politically it suited him.
If Johnny asked 2 Questions in the referrendum
1 Do you want a Republic Yes or No ?
2 Should the president be elected by the people Yes or No ?
He wasted our money and time and opportunity, by deliberately asking the wrong question, because politically it suited him.
I don't know HawkDork whether you remember what actually led to the referendum and the actual question that was put to the people. In February 1998 a Constitutional Convention was held to debate the issue of whether Australia should become a republic. The Convention was asked to consider whether Australia should become a republic and if so which republican model should be put to the people in the form of a referendum.
The Convention supported the notion that Australia should become a republic and recommended a model that called for a President appointed with bipartisan support of the Parliament. The Convention's preferred model became the basis of the 1999 referendum proposal even though the Government, and particularly the PM was not in favour of the change.
Therefore the question put was not decided by John Howard but by the Convention.
The questions you propose would never get up as you need to go with a republican model - as I said before nobody would vote for a president unless they know how they were to be appointed.
Further if you went with 2 models you would split the vote so neither one would have a chance of getting up - remember to change the constitution the change needs to be approved by a majority of voters overall and by a majority of voters in a majority of States.
Hawk Dork
1 Jan 2007, 16:15
Transcript
3/8/1999
Republic referendum question
KERRY O'BRIEN: But first, a late-breaking story from Canberra on the words we may be asked to vote on in the republic referendum in November.
The pro-republic campaign appears to have gone off the rails in recent weeks, with a number of setbacks.
The republican proponents have become increasingly concerned that the form of words chosen by the PM to put to the people would prompt many possible republic supporters to vote no.
Well, tonight, a joint parliamentary committee looking at the republic legislation has recommended a significant change in the wording that just might affect the outcome.
For more, political editor Barrie Cassidy joins me now from our Parliament House studio.
KERRY O'BRIEN: Barrie, what is the significance of the words ?
BARRIE CASSIDY: Well, the changes would certainly put the PM on the spot.
As it stands, the naming of the bill affects, by convention, the words that go to the people at the referendum.
As it stands -- "Do you support Australia becoming a republic with a president chosen by a two-thirds majority of the Parliament?"
Now, that's the contentious issue.
The all-party parliamentary committee, as I understand it, next Monday, when they table this recommendation to the Parliament, will suggest that it be changed -- "Do you support Australia becoming a republic, with the Queen and the Governor-General being replaced by an Australian president?"
Now, that's a concept, of course, that those doubters in the middle ground might more easily embrace.
So the net result, I think, would favour the republican cause, certainly maximise their vote, and that's been the initial reaction from the republican movement.
They say they're encouraged by it, because the words "the Queen", those words are mentioned, and they think that puts the emphasis o n a rather basic, simple proposal, rather than the more contentious issue, the model, which is running against the republican movement.
KERRY O'BRIEN: Now, how much weight politically does this committee carry with the Government?
BARRIE CASSIDY: The committee cannot be ignored, because for a start, it's an all-party parliamentary committee.
It's chaired by Bob Charles, a Liberal from Victoria who is a close colleague of John Howard's and somebody who has not yet indicated which way he intends to vote.
So for all we know, he may be a monarchist.
I think the make-up of the committee itself simply adds to the dilemma that John Howard now faces.
KERRY O'BRIEN: But his position, as of yesterday, seemed to be that he was quite content that the words that he had come up with, in fact, were an accurate reflection of what the Constitutional Convention had come up with early last year.
BARRIE CASSIDY: That's true, but now, I'm sure, an argument will be put that the new words equally reflects the view of the Convention, and that's what John Howard now faces.
I'm sure his political instincts would tell him to stick to his guns and stick with the original wording, because he wouldn't want to give his opponents -- in this sense, the republicans -- he wouldn't want to give them an even break.
But even so, he would have to do that in the face of what I understand to be a unanimous position by the all-party parliamentary committee, and it would seem, I would imagine, a rather transparent effort at running interference aga inst the republican cause -- something that he said he would not do.
KERRY O'BRIEN: Well, it's something he's consistently denied.
BARRIE CASSIDY: That's right, he has.
KERRY O'BRIEN: Barrie, thank you for that.
But the constitutional convention recomended the president be appointed by parliament.
That was the republican model that they recommended.
Shouldn't that be made explicit in the question that was put to the vote.
Definitely Australia v Italy :o
Hawk Dork
1 Jan 2007, 19:13
But the constitutional convention recomended the president be appointed by parliament.
That was the republican model that they recommended.
Shouldn't that be made explicit in the question that was put to the vote.
You and John Howard think so
Outcome wasted money opporyunity and no Republic
You and John Howard think so
Outcome wasted money opporyunity and no Republic
Gee Hawkdork I'm sorry if a few facts got in the way of your little anti-John Howard diatribe :rolleyes: .
Seems to me you really don't understand the possible ramifications that could occur if we change our system of government to something that has more potential problems than what we have at the moment.
I don't actually think John Howard has any particular regard for the Queen or monarchy - but he is smart enough to know that the current system of government has produced a country that is universally envied around the world for its freedom and democratic processes.
If we naively look to make fundamental changes to this as seems to be your wish we are then very likely to make changes that will alter the Australian way of life. Something that could do this is a president elected by the people that decides to go against a government (or parliament) that has also been elected by the people.
Perhaps you should look at the US & then decide if would like, for example, to have a president, & then how much power he/she should have.
All John Howard did was allow us to know what we were voting for.
Hawk Dork
2 Jan 2007, 06:10
Gee Hawkdork I'm sorry if a few facts got in the way of your little anti-John Howard diatribe :rolleyes: ..
Which few facts are they ? Show me your facts that show John Howard didnt deliberatly distort the process.Start flicking through Quadrant.Maybe quote his Minister Malcom Turnball.
The republican proponents have become increasingly concerned that the form of words chosen by the PM to put to the people would prompt many possible republic supporters to vote no.
{If I wanted to have a real go at Johnny I would have mentioned the Iraq War, Not Saying Sorry, AWB,GST,Unfair Dismisals,AWA ,Non signing of The Kyoto Protocol,Failure to recognise the effects of Global Warming, Wanting to fill Australia with Nuclear reactors and then the worlds nuclear waste,Training Ex Soldiers to take over the docks, Non Core Promises,Children Overboard...............} I am just talking about the Republic here.
Thats the facts:rolleyes:
Seems to me you really don't understand the possible ramifications that could occur if we change our system of government to something that has more potential problems than what we have at the moment.
Dont you remember John Kerr?
And its not only me but the majority of Australians who wanted a Rewpublic they where cheated out of it by the wording of the question.
I don't actually think John Howard has any particular regard for the Queen or monarchy - but he is smart enough to know that the current system of government has produced a country that is universally envied around the world for its freedom and democratic processes.
It wasnt his Job to decide weather he wanted to keep the status quo the reason behind the referendom was to decide if Australians wanted an Australian as there head of state.He deliberatley manipulated the process to get a political gain,not to fufill the wishes of the majority of Australians.Howard is on the record as being a Monarchist
If we naively look to make fundamental changes to this as seems to be your wish we are then very likely to make changes that will alter the Australian way of life. Something that could do this is a president elected by the people that decides to go against a government (or parliament) that has also been elected by the people.
Again refer to John Kerr
Perhaps you should look at the US & then decide if would like, for example, to have a president, & then how much power he/she should have.
The system proposed was in no way similar to the American Presidential system it was virtualy changeing the Governor General to the role of President.
All John Howard did was allow us to know what we were voting for.
All he did was waste taxpayers money, waste our time, and waste an opportunity to become a republic.
He can only delay the inevitable because when John Howard gets wheeled off into the obscurity that awaits, the dithering old fool, the world will move forward and we will become a Republic 100% guaranteed.
Hawk Dork I am not going to restate the facts as they are all in my previous posts - perhaps you should re-read them.
- I've explained that to have a referendum on this issue you need to define what republic model you are proposing
- I've explained what the actual process was that determined what the proposed model would be.
- I've also explained why the ARM (after considerable debate internally) and the 1998 Constitution Convention went for a model whereby the president would be appointed by parliament. That it was determined by Yes campainers that any other model was unworkable and would result in to much change to the current system.
They are the facts, if you don't like them or have trouble understanding them - bad luck.
Hawk Dork
2 Jan 2007, 12:11
Turnbull concluded his televised diatribe on referendum night with this gem:
"My friends, there is only one person who could have made the vital difference, who could have made November 6 a landmark in our history, and that, of course, is the Prime Minister. Whatever else he achieves., history will remember him for only one thing. He was the Prime Minister who broke a nation's heart".
Turnbull concluded his televised diatribe on referendum night with this gem:
"My friends, there is only one person who could have made the vital difference, who could have made November 6 a landmark in our history, and that, of course, is the Prime Minister. Whatever else he achieves., history will remember him for only one thing. He was the Prime Minister who broke a nation's heart".
Well he would say that wouldn't he - Sound like a bitter loser to me - interestingly he also said this when he launched the Yes campaign on 17/10/99:
source: http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/speeches&articles/spa_turnbull12.htm
This referendum is the culmination of a nine year campaign. The republic proposal for November 6 is the best republican model for Australia. It has brought together Australians from all walks of life and all sides of politics. Young and old, Labor and Liberal.
Now the monarchists may have walked away from the Queen. But we are not walking from our republic proposal which was developed at the Constitutional Convention.
and
Then Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and two thirds of Parliament will have to agree on the choice.
This guarantees our President will not be chosen in an expensive, abusive, American style popular contest where the candidate with the biggest bankroll wins.
Our president will be chosen on merit and because he or she will need the support of both sides of politics, our President will not be a politician.
and
A directly elected President will mean complex, radical changes to our system of Government. It would politicise an office that is designed to be non-political.
and
Our Australian President will have the same powers as the Governor General. Our stable system of Parliamentary government will be preserved and enhanced, not challenged.
Seems to support everything I have been saying really.
Hawk Dork
2 Jan 2007, 14:27
Still the fact remains the same we would have it now if not for The Dancing Frog
The World Today - Friday, August 20, 1999 12:22
Meanwhile the Prime Minister, who in the past has professed his preference for taking a back seat on the issue, is stepping out of the shadows. His opponents argue his statesman stance has been a farce all along, but now they'll be hearing a bit more from John Howard.
Its still going to happen
Which part broke your heart more MHDKA the fact that Johnny sabotaged our Republic vote or that when Johnny goes we will become a Republic ?
Still the fact remains the same we would have it now if not for The Dancing Frog
The World Today - Friday, August 20, 1999 12:22
Meanwhile the Prime Minister, who in the past has professed his preference for taking a back seat on the issue, is stepping out of the shadows. His opponents argue his statesman stance has been a farce all along, but now they'll be hearing a bit more from John Howard.
Its still going to happen
Which part broke your heart more MHDKA the fact that Johnny sabotaged our Republic vote or that when Johnny goes we will become a Republic ?
You seem to have a problem in comprehending things hawkdowk - obviously my posts have gone above your head. As a result your only form of debate seems to be puerile name calling (reminiscent of a Politics 101 debate) and innane questions.
What I actually posted in my first post relating to this debate (post #28) is as follows:
The fact is it is crucially important what the form of Republic is - because depending how the president is appointed will have important ramifications to how much a republic will change Australia from the current system we have and whether the change is good or bad.
To think otherwise is simply naive.
I actually don't mind a republic but I would hate to have a president that was elected - you may have a different opinion.
But before voting we need to know.
It maybe a good idea to re-read all posts and think about the issues involved because it is obvious you don't understand them.
Hawk Dork
2 Jan 2007, 15:44
It maybe a good idea to re-read all posts and think about the issues involved because it is obvious you don't understand them.
Here is what set you off
HD "The vote was distorted into do you want to elect the president or not and if you do dont vote for this republic
Celebrety had nothing to do with it
Just Rat cunning of the little weasel"
I stand by that statement and believe it to be true.
You are tieing yourself up over the type of the Republic.
I am simply(so you too can understand) stating that we didnt get "ANY" Republic because of interference of your beloved PM.
If Johnny hadent been involved we would be a Republic and when Johnny goes we will become a Republic but not under him as PM.
Or do you think John Howard would put the Republican debate on the table again??????????????????????
He will be gone soon and the sooner the better.
If we could get him tried as a war criminal that would just be iceing on the cake.
If we could get him tried as a war criminal that would just be iceing on the cake.
Your level of debate actually seems more Year 10 Politics that Politics 101.
Hawk Dork
3 Jan 2007, 05:12
John Howard cant say sorry
and MHDKA cant say yes
Accusations of Puerile arguments still dont keep him from floundering and flip flopping trying desperatley to avoid what the point of the thread was.
Look up ^
Which of these moments broke your heart more?
Turnbull concluded his televised diatribe on referendum night with this gem:
"My friends, there is only one person who could have made the vital difference, who could have made November 6 a landmark in our history, and that, of course, is the Prime Minister. Whatever else he achieves., history will remember him for only one thing. He was the Prime Minister who broke a nation's heart".
Hawk Dork
3 Jan 2007, 05:15
Your level of debate actually seems more Year 10 Politics that Politics 101.
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/200508_ta_prosecute_john_howard.php
To: International Criminal Court
We, the undersigned, called for the indictment and prosecution of John Winston Howard (currently Australian Prime Minister) for acts of terrorism and war crimes.
We believe that under Australia's Criminal Code Act 1995, and under the articles of the International Criminal Court, there is a prima facie case for the prosecution of Howard for complicity in illegal attacks upon and mass murder of civilian populations of Afghanistan and Iraq, between 2001 and 2005.
These prosecutions should include the following crimes, committed by the accused in their official capacities:
Complicity in the massacre of hundreds of civilians in Baghdad, Basra, Khormal, Babel, Nassariya, Najaf, Karbala and Anbar, in March 2003, through aerial bombardment, including cluster bombs, assisted by Australian 'imagery specialists'
Complicity in the S.A.S. backed murder of ten Sabri tribespeople (mostly teenagers) in Afghanistan, 16 May 2002
Complicity in the massacre of between one thousand and three thousand prisoners, after US operation 'Anaconda' operation at Shah-i-Kot, Afghanistan, March 2002
Complicity in the maintenance of an international network of torture, from Pakistan to Iraq to Egypt to Guantanamo Bay (US-occupied Cuba)
Complicity in the criminal two attacks on the civilian population of Falluja, in April and November 2004 - where between one thousand and two thousand people were murdered in attacks which included the use of napalm, and the blockading of Falluja Hospital
We reject utterly the claim that any of these crimes could be carried out under any 'democratic mandate' from Australian citizens.
We urge responsible prosecution authorities such as the Australian DPP, and the International Criminal Court to take immediate action.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/200508_ta_prosecute_john_howard.php
Gee reputable source for you material hawkdork - quoting the communist party of Australia!
John Howard cant say sorry
and MHDKA cant say yes
Accusations of Puerile arguments still dont keep him from floundering and flip flopping trying desperatley to avoid what the point of the thread was.
Look up ^
Which of these moments broke your heart more?
Turnbull concluded his televised diatribe on referendum night with this gem:
"My friends, there is only one person who could have made the vital difference, who could have made November 6 a landmark in our history, and that, of course, is the Prime Minister. Whatever else he achieves., history will remember him for only one thing. He was the Prime Minister who broke a nation's heart".
Repeating yourself again hawkdork :rolleyes: - this quote was in your post #38 which I have already addressed in my post #39.
Hawk Dork
3 Jan 2007, 05:54
More flip flop and floundering
Say YES
Its not hard
Hawk Dork
3 Jan 2007, 06:05
Gee reputable source for you material hawkdork - quoting the communist party of Australia!
How about this Source ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIEW PRECEDING COMMENT c127
Comment ID: c183
Posted: 19/07/04 9:17:45 AM
Title: Howard 'should be tried for war crimes'
Former Liberal Party federal president John Valder says Prime Minister John Howard should be tried and punished for war crimes over Australia's involvement in the Iraq conflict.
Mr Valder was speaking at a forum on the impact of the war in Iraq, held on Sunday at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS).
Mr Valder says there is no justification for invading Iraq simply to get rid of its leader.
"By any standard that is a massive crime and the people who perpetrated it - being President [George W] Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard - as such are guilty of extreme crime and they should be dealt with," he said.
Mr Valder admits he is not sure how it should be dealt with and is doubtful it will ever happen, but he says he has no doubt that their actions were criminal.
Are you are now trying to change the topic hawktalk - debating constitutional issues is obviously a bit heavy for you.
So when does the new school year start? :rolleyes:
Hawk Dork
3 Jan 2007, 06:36
Are you are now trying to change the topic hawktalk - debating constitutional issues is obviously a bit heavy for you.:
It was never a debate you keep trying to turn it into a debate in order not to answer to flip flop flounder and avoid the the the thread
Which of these moments broke your heart more?
So when does the new school year start? :rolleyes:
43 years old went to Uni and studied Law and Politics over 20 years ago
It was the days when Uni was free all you had to do was get the marks to get in.
Now days under Johnny Howard even the dumb rich can go to uni at the expense of the smart poor.
Let me roll my eyes too now:rolleyes:
Just one more time for Humour only
Do you think we will become a Republic only after John Howard loses the election Y/N ?
and has he ever broken your heart ?
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/200...ohn_howard.php
PS Dont forget to sign the petition
It was never a debate you keep trying to turn it into a debate in order not to answer to flip flop flounder and avoid the the the thread
Which of these moments broke your heart more?
43 years old went to Uni and studied Law and Politics over 20 years ago
It was the days when Uni was free all you had to do was get the marks to get in.
Now days under Johnny Howard even the dumb rich can go to uni at the expense of the smart poor.
Let me roll my eyes too now:rolleyes:
Just one more time for Humour only
Do you think we will become a Republic only after John Howard loses the election Y/N ?
and has he ever broken your heart ?
University education hasn't been free since a labor govt reintroduced fees back in the 80's -if that means more people get to go to higher education then so be it - and at least there is now an incentive to pass some relevant course nowadays rather than just spend a few years at uni bludging.
For some reason you seem to think I am a big John Howard supporter and against a republic. I have actually voted against Howard before and also support a republic, but I don't support a republic with a president elected by the public.
As far as your "humorous" question a republic will probably occur at some stage in the future whether Howard wins or loses the next election and has Howard ever broken my heart? - No.
The reason why is he is a politician and no politician has ever broken my heart.
Hawk Dork
3 Jan 2007, 07:19
For some reason you seem to think I am a big John Howard supporter and against a republic.
Never thought you where against a republic
I have actually voted against Howard before
What did you disagree with him on?
and also support a republic, but I don't support a republic with a president elected by the public.
Fair enough
As far as your "humorous" question a republic will probably occur at some stage in the future whether Howard wins or loses the next election
This is Bullshyte and you know it there will never be a Republic under Howard.
You where being honest up to this point
now you are reverting back to the idealogue.
and has Howard ever broken my heart? - No.
The reason why is he is a politician and no politician has ever broken my heart.
So the Non Core Promise is just the kind of Bullshyte you are willing to swallow.
...and because Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot,Idi Amin,Joseph Stalin,Slobodan Milosovich,Sadam Husien behave like politicians they dont break your heart either
PS Did you sign the petition?
This is Bullshyte and you know it there will never be a Republic under Howard.
You where being honest up to this point
now you are reverting back to the idealogue.
You really have a problem understanding simple statements don't you?
What part of this statement do you have a problem with:
a republic will probably occur at some stage in the future whether Howard wins or loses the next election
I did say it will probably happen in the future.
Further, do you think Howard will just keep winning elections - forever? - He is almost 70 now - or could you actually see the possibility he may win & then step down or then of course he may lose.
Any way, it may take another 10 years for debate on this issue to go to referendum - and a winnable proposal put to voters - it is not reliant on Howard to be around or not.
Hawk Dork
3 Jan 2007, 08:02
It wont happen under Howard
He doesnt want it because there is no political mileage in it for him.
and for no other reason
So a vote for John Howard is a garantee that the Republic will never be a reality.
and besides that you are also voting for a war criminal
Howard 'should be tried for war crimes'
Former Liberal Party federal president John Valder says Prime Minister John Howard should be tried and punished for war crimes over Australia's involvement in the Iraq conflict.
Does it break your heart when war criminals get away without being punished ?
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/200508_ta_prosecute_john_howard.php
You know what would have broken my heart hawkdork?
If mark latham was now PM!
Hawk Dork
3 Jan 2007, 15:50
Never voted for him
Voting for John Howard was voting for a War Criminal and the man who made us us a greater terrorist target cant be dismissed too littley either.
http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2003/03/03-03-11.shtml
John Hewson:
"I'm concerned about a number of things. And we've made ourselves a terrorist target. Like it or not, we are a terrorist target now. We are one of the top two or three in this thing - the US, the UK and us. And to make us a terrorist target in a region that is full of terrorism is dumb and unforgiveable."
Sign the petition put lets try and put him in Jail
This is just a stupid Johnny bashing thread.
Buddy Hero
3 Jan 2007, 18:22
The soccer world cup but maybe only because it is fresher in the mind :o
Hawk Dork
3 Jan 2007, 18:41
This is just a stupid Johnny bashing thread.
John Hewson described him as Dumb and unforgivable
but I will accept Stupid Johnny
Have you signed the petition?
John Hewson described him as Dumb and unforgivable
but I will accept Stupid Johnny
Have you signed the petition?
I'd actually describe you as dumb and unforgivable!
Hawk Dork
3 Jan 2007, 18:49
I'd actually describe you as dumb and unforgivable!
Why ?
Did I break your heart when I pointed out that you support a war criminal and a man who made you and your family a greater terrorist target
It would be dumb and unforgivable not to sign the petition and let a court decide
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/200...ohn_howard.php
I think hewson overrates Australia when he says we are the top two or three in this thing.
A fairer arguement would be petitioning against JH for supporting a war criminal...but it's pretty easy to throw stones.
Hawk Dork
4 Jan 2007, 07:06
I think hewson overrates Australia when he says we are the top two or three in this thing.
A fairer arguement would be petitioning against JH for supporting a war criminal...but it's pretty easy to throw stones.
You must of missed this quote earlier in the thread
Posted: 19/07/04 9:17:45 AM
Title: Howard 'should be tried for war crimes'
Former Liberal Party federal president John Valder says Prime Minister John Howard should be tried and punished for war crimes over Australia's involvement in the Iraq conflict.
Mr Valder was speaking at a forum on the impact of the war in Iraq, held on Sunday at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS).
Mr Valder says there is no justification for invading Iraq simply to get rid of its leader.
"By any standard that is a massive crime and the people who perpetrated it - being President [George W] Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard - as such are guilty of extreme crime and they should be dealt with," he said.
You must of missed this quote earlier in the thread
Posted: 19/07/04 9:17:45 AM
Title: Howard 'should be tried for war crimes'
Former Liberal Party federal president John Valder says Prime Minister John Howard should be tried and punished for war crimes over Australia's involvement in the Iraq conflict.
Mr Valder was speaking at a forum on the impact of the war in Iraq, held on Sunday at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS).
Mr Valder says there is no justification for invading Iraq simply to get rid of its leader.
"By any standard that is a massive crime and the people who perpetrated it - being President [George W] Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard - as such are guilty of extreme crime and they should be dealt with," he said.
You really are hilarious hawkdork.
To support your hate campaign against john howard you quote turnbull who was obviously bitter on the night the referendum was defeated - interestingly he is now a minister in the howard government.
You then quote Valder - a bitter man howard got rid of because he was useless in his job whose anti-howard campaign backfired at the last election & hasn't been heard of since and you quote hewson another bitter ex-leader who howard replaced after hewson lost the "unlosable" election because the electorate considered him useless in his job.
Next you will start quoting fraser.
You then ask on the basis of these people for us to sign a petition that seems to be sponsored by the communist party of australia.
Against all this it is interesting that at the last election whilst these people ran their little campaigns howard was returned with an increased majority.
Hawk Dork
4 Jan 2007, 07:53
Just because you get elected doesnt make you innocent
Sadam Husein was elcted and so was Adolf Hitler
I could also quote Our Presidents Jeff Kennetts description of him.
Interesting that the people who criticized him are Liberals and high profile Liberals, at that.
People that know him both personally and proffessinaly
People who have access to information from behind closed doors.
The petition is only to get the matter to court
Wether you believe it or not lets get it heard before a court and either clear his name or put him in jail.
Regardless of who set up the petition
If the case went ahead it wouldnt be some "Cole Inquiry AWB cover up" It would be a legitimate World Court
What are you afraid of MDHKA
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/200...ohn_howard.php
Just because you get elected doesnt make you innocent
Sadam Husein was elcted and so was Adolf Hitler
I could also quote Our Presidents Jeff Kennetts description of him.
Interesting that the people who criticized him are Liberals and high profile Liberals, at that.
People that know him both personally and proffessinaly
People who have access to information from behind closed doors.
The petition is only to get the matter to court
Wether you believe it or not lets get it heard before a court and either clear his name or put him in jail.
Regardless of who set up the petition
If the case went ahead it wouldnt be some "Cole Inquiry AWB cover up" It would be a legitimate World Court
What are you afraid of MDHKA
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/200...ohn_howard.php
I admire your passion mate, but this is rediculous :), your arguement isn't very tight...need to get back to the drawing board.
Hawk Dork
4 Jan 2007, 08:55
I dont think your individual assesment holds the same weight as an International Court.
Sign the petition and let them decide
Former Liberal Party federal president John Valder says Prime Minister John Howard should be tried and punished for war crimes over Australia's involvement in the Iraq conflict.
Mr Valder was speaking at a forum on the impact of the war in Iraq, held on Sunday at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS).
Mr Valder says there is no justification for invading Iraq simply to get rid of its leader.
"By any standard that is a massive crime and the people who perpetrated it - being President [George W] Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard - as such are guilty of extreme crime and they should be dealt with," he said.
Mr Valder admits he is not sure how it should be dealt with and is doubtful it will ever happen, but he says he has no doubt that their actions were criminal.
"It has certainly divided me far away from John Howard's policy of taking Australia into a war that was an act of absolute aggression," he said.
"There's no getting away from it, that's what it was.
"If people do that sort of thing on a grand international scale, they've got to expect to be punished."
To go to court he must be charged with something, an investigation into the war is the first step....I think that has allready been done? I'm not too sure...
BTW, gennerally speaking, invading another country would be considered an act of aggression...It's like pointing obvious points out as though they are some kind of insight.
Just so you know, I was never for this war and told people around me how Australia should not be invovled before it started...but Howard has done nothing criminal in allying with the US and England...Unfortunately Australia's invovlement was one of pure political and strategic gain IMO...
I guess if you give enough toss about the people of IRAQ to vote Howard out of government then do so.
We live in a democratic country, and our involvement was approved by the senate...not one person.
Hawk Dork
4 Jan 2007, 09:20
Under the International Criminal Court Statute it is a war crime to intentionally launch an attack “in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”.
If we forgive one war criminal why dont we forgive them all
Is that what you are suggesting.
Sign the petition if wont hurt
It might even make the world a better place
As I think hawkdork you have been misrepresenting what has been going in iraq along with your selective quotes I will bring some facts into the discussion.
You seem to be inferring that only the US, UK & Australia is involved in Iraq & that is why those leaders should be tried.
The facts are however that there has been up to 34 countries involved(Coalition, UNAMI & Nato) including:
Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Norway, Phillipines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, The Netherlands, Tonga, Ukaraine, and the United Kingdom & United States.
As of 23/8/06 there were still 22 countries contributing armed forces to the Coalition.
source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
In addition Australia's role in the conflict despite what you, hewson or valder or the communist party of australia say has been & is quite minor.
Looks like its going to be very crowed if there ever is a court case! (which is about as likely as me lining up on the fwd flank for the Hawks this year).
I think your maybe bending the international court statute to help your arguement...
Thus all wars would be criminal...
As I think hawkdork you have been misrepresenting what has been going in iraq along with your selective quotes I will bring some facts into the discussion.
You seem to be inferring that only the US, UK & Australia is involved in Iraq & that is why those leaders should be tried.
The facts are however that there has been up to 34 countries involved(Coalition, UNAMI & Nato) including:
Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Norway, Phillipines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, The Netherlands, Tonga, Ukaraine, and the United Kingdom & United States.
As of 23/8/06 there were still 22 countries contributing armed forces to the Coalition.
source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
In addition Australia's role in the conflict despite what you, hewson or valder or the communist party of australia say has been & is quite minor.
Looks like its going to be very crowed if there ever is a court case! (which is about as likely as me lining up on the fwd flank for the Hawks this year).
italy and spain were involved as well?
Hawk Dork
4 Jan 2007, 10:18
I think your maybe bending the international court statute to help your arguement...
Thus all wars would be criminal...
I dont think I distorted anything.
http://www.mapw.org.au/mapw-commentary/press-releases/joint/03-03-20icc.html
I dont think I distorted anything.
http://www.mapw.org.au/mapw-commentary/press-releases/joint/03-03-20icc.html
MAPW, seem to have a noble cause of preventing wars, but I would suggest that any journilsm is very bias, I don't subscribe to them and have only just heard of them, a bit like Foxnews. :)
That is absolute crap what they are saying.
Hawk Dork
4 Jan 2007, 11:06
MAPW, seem to have a noble cause of preventing wars, but I would suggest that any journilsm in very bias, I don't subscribe to them and have only just heard of them, a bit like Foxnews. :)
That is abosolute crap what they are saying.
Wow that sounds like a well thought out non biased response from you.
So Hewson is wrong
The MAPW is wrong
John Valder is wrong
Keep up the insights Kolchak ( I always thought he was a good detective)
or Just sign the petition and lets get a court to decide.
Wow that sounds like a well thought out non biased response from you.
So Hewson is wrong
The MAPW is wrong
John Valder is wrong
Keep up the insights Kolchak ( I always thought he was a good detective)
or Just sign the petition and lets get a court to decide.
:D :thumbsu:
Hawk Dork
4 Jan 2007, 11:26
:D :thumbsu:
sign away
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/200...ohn_howard.php
Greek lawyers to sue Blair as member of ICC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2933140.stm
Australia is a member too
http://www.dfat.gov.au/media/releases/foreign/1998/fa149_98.html
I dont think I distorted anything.
http://www.mapw.org.au/mapw-commentary/press-releases/joint/03-03-20icc.html
Interesting date on this media release:
MEDIA RELEASE: March 20 2003
- not really very current is it, 3 1/2 years old!
The whole issue really doesn't really seem to have any legs does it?
I wonder why not.
Hawk Dork
4 Jan 2007, 12:11
Justice is not a fast proceess
Glad to see your are giving the document a thorough reading.
I dont expect there have been many war crime cases before the war ends
What are you afraid off MDHKA
That you support a war criminal and through this support you have made every Australian a greater terrorist threat.
Or the fact that you cant morally justify your support?
It would break my heart if I held a position I couldnt morally support.
Justice is not a fast proceess
Glad to see your are giving the document a thorough reading.
I dont expect there have been many war crime cases before the war ends
What are you afraid off MDHKA
That you support a war criminal and through this support you have made every Australian a greater terrorist threat.
Or the fact that you cant morally justify your support?
It would break my heart if I held a position I couldnt morally support.
As you are happy re-posting your rhetoric I will keep re-posting facts.
As I think hawkdork you have been misrepresenting what has been going in iraq along with your selective quotes I will bring some facts into the discussion.
You seem to be inferring that only the US, UK & Australia is involved in Iraq & that is why those leaders should be tried.
The facts are however that there has been up to 34 countries involved(Coalition, UNAMI & Nato) including:
Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Norway, Phillipines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, The Netherlands, Tonga, Ukaraine, and the United Kingdom & United States.
As of 23/8/06 there were still 22 countries contributing armed forces to the Coalition.
source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita..._coalition.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm)
In addition Australia's role in the conflict despite what you, hewson or valder or the communist party of australia say has been & is quite minor.
Looks like its going to be very crowded if there ever is a court case! (which is about as likely as me lining up on the fwd flank for the Hawks this year).
Hawk Dork
4 Jan 2007, 13:36
Are you trying to justify your support for a war criminal and the man who increased our chances of being a terrorist target by saying other countrie did it too?
It must break your heart that you have to flip flop and flounder on the edge of moral bankruptcy.
Main Entry: moral bankruptcy
Part of Speech: n
Definition: the state of being devoid of morality and ethics, used esp. for business and political entities
Example: A complete lack of morals is moral bankruptcy.
It breaks my heart
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/200...ohn_howard.php
Go ahead sign it you know you should
Do it secretly and dont tell me about it if it makes you feel better
edited for spelling
flounder on the edge of moral bancrupcy.
Whats moral bancrupcy?
Scant regard for my train dilemma - thanks for the support, fellas. :(
Hawk Dork
4 Jan 2007, 15:14
Must break your heart when that happens Binx
sign away
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/200...ohn_howard.php
The link is broken...
Hawk Dork I don't generally agree with you on anything but you are correct when you say Australia's involvement is immorale. We are there because of selfish reasons...But our senate approved this, not one person...At worst he could be Whitlamed...Accusing him as a war criminal is going too far...
As for civilian deaths in IRAQ, if the truth could come out to who is responsible for most of these, then it would be the militants...This is a factor that must be taken into consideration before you engage in war...Those bastards would have murdered 1000's of innocent people. Like they did in Malaysia and Indonesia and just about any conflict involving dictarorships.
Hawk Dork
4 Jan 2007, 20:27
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/200508_ta_prosecute_john_howard.php
This thread should be renamed Hawk Dork vs Howard
Hawk Dork
5 Jan 2007, 05:40
This thread should be renamed Hawk Dork vs Howard
Looking at your post history You seem to be interested in the ICC
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=280966
There is another one as well its called the I C C
International Criminal Court - the recently created tribunal for cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
Have you signed the petiton hawkaz1 ?
I haven't signed the petition HD, but I don't really have any interest in politics. Call me crazy but I find it boring and I'm not old enough to vote so you'll have to find someone else to sign your petiton ;)
Hawk Dork
5 Jan 2007, 10:55
The apathy of the youth of today realy breaks my heart
Hawk Dork
5 Jan 2007, 11:13
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/generic/8753/zoom/
As Billy Bragg sings in The Great Leap Forward
"the revolution is only one T Shirt away"
This Tshirt would break his heart
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/billy+bragg/waiting+for+the+great+leap+forwards_20018223.html