Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PkrSilvia

Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott?

Recommended Posts

Um? Baahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaa.

Under Howard, the Liberals have basically managed one massive infrastructure deficit... Spending on infrastructure was extremely minimal. To say that Labor has ignored infrastructure, and that the liberals think long term with it is complete crap. Neither party thinks long term. Both parties are completely scared of debt - which reasonable debt for the purposes of intrastrcuture is good. The irrational fear of debt is how we get stuck into the stupid idea of Private Public Partnerships - which just cost us significantly more money in the long run.

 

I just read something on the internet that made sense and wasn't retarded............................................................. Is it the Armageddon tomorrow or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly IMO it doesn't get much better than the Liberal Democratic Party. You don't need the vast majority of the smaller parties that are 'Freedom' and 'Rights' orientated like the Motoring party or Sex party.

 

http://ldp.org.au/policies

 

- Low Taxation

- Small Government

- Competitive Schools

- Balanced Traffic laws

- Accountable Police with strict policing of the police

- Legalisation of Marijuana

- Gay Marrage

- Cutting of Foreign aid and focusing on spending tax payers money at home

- Oh did I mention low taxation

- Low welfare

- Allowing the free market to decide.

- Anti Nanny State.

 

 

And there preferences go to the Liberal Party so even if you member doesn't get in your vote then goes to the Liberal party.

Edited by Shakey Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a lack of infrastructure in general (roads, public services, transport). Labor typically ignores infrastructure, and focuses on individuals and what they might want.

The Liberals however, think long term with infrastructure and ALWAYS spend money on it when they are in power (Excluding the NBN, which is an anomaly and why i'm pissed off at them. It would be interesting however if Liberal would've had a different tactic if the NBN was started under their leadership, and not as an opposition).

 

 

Um? Baahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaa.

Under Howard, the Liberals have basically managed one massive infrastructure deficit... Spending on infrastructure was extremely minimal. To say that Labor has ignored infrastructure, and that the liberals think long term with it is complete crap. Neither party thinks long term. Both parties are completely scared of debt - which reasonable debt for the purposes of intrastrcuture is good. The irrational fear of debt is how we get stuck into the stupid idea of Private Public Partnerships - which just cost us significantly more money in the long run.

 

Yeah i didn't word that very well, i'll give you that. I still believe that we have a lack of infrastructure in general.

Labor focuses on individuals which is usually reactive policies. Liberals focus on economic growth which does require forward planning.

 

In actual fact, the spending by the Liberals on infrastructure was only marginally less than what Labor has done. It's hardly even worth comparing, unless you add some other context.

 

Here's the data

budget comparisons.png

 

 

In the context of over spending, Labor woops arse. The main reason for this is that they try and please individual needs. Fair enough, but it destroys our economy.

I real world example is manufacturing. Labor and the Unions drive up wages, but due to the increasing costs Australian manufacturing becomes uncompetitive to the world market, factories close down and naturally relocate to a country which can provide the greatest profit, and Australians lose jobs. Higher unemployment leads to reduced spending and increased tax payer funded welfare.

We may have established a higher minimum wage, which definitely has it's long term benefits, however it's not sustainable when the country is in debt.

 

The point i was making was that without the surplus's (savings) that Liberals obtained when they were in power, Labor wouldn't have been able to spend the money that they needed. In Labor's first year in '07, there was a $60 billion turnaround. That's $60billion more extra that Labor spent in an ever increasing revenue receiving economy.

 

14tl-austbud-small.gif?accessed=2013-09-03-21-04-29

 

 

Further more, over the last 7 years Labor's financial management has been proven to be flawed. Just look at the difference between what the private experts forecast to what the Government has been telling people this year.

 

Budget forecast comparison.png

 

 

The alternate realities of budget balance forecasts..

budget-forecasts-versus-reality-chart-data.png

 

So in 2007 when Labor first came to power, the previous Liberal Government forecast was spot on to the actual result. Labor then did ok for 2 years, then consistently fell short of the mark.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I truly believe that we constantly need a change in direction in government. (keeping it general as possible and brief)

We need Liberals to obtain the money, plan, grow/invest Australian businesses, and save.

We need the Labor party to spend money on individuals, drive up living conditions, improve social structure, and to make us all happy.

 

Liberal set us up well leading up to 2007, but we went too long ignoring the individual.

Labor rightly came into power, but we have now gone too long 'living' off borrowed money... and a lot of it.

 

 

So it's time for a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, this is awesome regardless of who you support... lol

 

The many hands of PM Kevin Rudd in gif form

 

Updated Fri 30 Aug 2013, 1:43pm AEST

 

MAP: Australia

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is always keen to use gestures to emphasise a point.

Inspired by these gifs by The Guardian's Mary Hamilton and Annabel Crabb's longstanding analysis of Mr Rudd's hand gestures, we've decided to take a crack and make our own.

In one election campaign press conference on Thursday to unveil navy shipbuilding plans, Mr Rudd showed he was the master of the hand, using at least 16 different gestures.

Take some time out of the election campaign to see if you can recognise the many hands of Rudd. We have named them below for easy identification:

Cut & Zip

 

rudd-gesture---cut-and-zip-data.gif

Locomotion

 

rudd-gesture---locomotion-data.gif

Cat Paw Double Swipe

 

rudd-gesture---cat-paw-double-swipe-data.gif

Fling

 

rudd-gesture---fling-data.gif

AFL Goal

 

rudd-gesture---afl-goal-data.gif

Cut, Cut, Cut

 

rudd-gesture---chop-data.gif

Blessing

 

rudd-gesture---blessing-data.gif

Big Fish

 

rudd-gesture---big-fish-data.gif

Boom, Boom, Boom

 

rudd-gesture---boomboomboom-data.gif

Bommyknocker

 

rudd-gesture---bommyknocker-data.gif

Casual Darts Throw

 

rudd-gesture---casual-dart-throw-data.gif

Destroy The Evidence

 

rudd-gesture---destroy-the-evidence-data.gif

Double Dead Spider

 

rudd-gesture---double-dead-spider-data.gif

Jazz Hands

 

rudd-gesture---jazz-hands-data.gif

Pinch

 

rudd-gesture---pinch-data.gif

Prices Are Down

 

rudd-gesture---prices-are-down-data.gif

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-30/the-many-hands-of-rudd-gifs/4924468

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those gifs are gold....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those gifs are gold....

 

lol I lost my shit at "prices are down" hahahhahahha laugh.png

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

 

 

Yep, the down-down one literally had me laughing out loud lol

 

 

You've got to love that sort of publicity. It just shows why Rudd is such a character and why he's such a good public speaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont get what is so funny about that site, most of what it is saying is complete rubbish.

Labor is saving the planet? Really???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing suss about hiding your censorship agenda in an 'online safety policy' released 2 days before the election

 

 

 

 

http://www.zdnet.com...ult-7000020270/

 

A Liberal National government in Australia would adopt the opt-out UK approach to filtering the internet for all Australians.

The policy comes less than 41 hours before polls open for voting in the federal election where the Coalition is currently expected to win. It is also almost a year after the Labor governmentabandoned its plans for mandatory internet filtering, and three years after the Coalition announced that it would not support a policy for mandatory internet filtering.

The announcement, buried in an AU$10 million online safety policy published online today (PDF)announces that under a Tony Abbott government, Australians would have "adult content" filters installed on their phone services and fixed internet services unless they opt out.

"We will work with mobile phone companies (such as Telstra, Optus, Vodafone, and their resellers) to develop online safety standards for smartphones and other devices with mobile network connectivity such as tablets, applicable to their use by children in two age groups: Children up to the age of 12 years and teenagers," the policy states.

"As has recently been achieved in the UK, we expect these standards will involve mobile phone operators installing adult content filters on phones which will be switched on as the default unless the customer proves he or she is at least 18 years of age.

"The Coalition will work with internet service providers (which provide fixed-line broadband services to the home) to develop online safety standards for those services, recognising that they are very often accessed by children.

"As has recently been achieved in the UK, we expect these standards will involve the major internet service providers providing home network filters for all new home broadband services, which will be switched on as the default unless the customer specifies otherwise."

Pre-empting the expected criticism of the Coalition's backflip on internet filtering, the party has said that the filtering proposal is about empowering parents.

"This is a very different approach to the discredited compulsory filter proposal championed by the Rudd-Gillard government, which was abandoned as unworkable," the policy states.

"The Coalition's approach aims to empower parents — by giving them the choice of whether or not to operate a filter at home, [and] by establishing the default setting as one which provides maximum protection."

The Coalition has not indicated whether it yet has the support of any of the major ISPs, unlike UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who had secured the support of the UK internet providers before making the announcement.

As expected, the Coalition has indicated that it will introduce a Children's E-Safety Commissioner to seek to remove harmful material from social media platforms.

The Coalition also announced that cyberbullying could potentially become a criminal offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about to go to bed, I'll type something up tomorrow the crux of which will be Labor > Liberal at economic management...

 

I voted today, put a couple of the smaller parties first followed by labor, then the independents then the greens then clive then katter and finally liberals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing suss about hiding your censorship agenda in an 'online safety policy' released 2 days before the election

 

 

 

 

http://www.zdnet.com...ult-7000020270/

 

A Liberal National government in Australia would adopt the opt-out UK approach to filtering the internet for all Australians.

The policy comes less than 41 hours before polls open for voting in the federal election where the Coalition is currently expected to win. It is also almost a year after the Labor governmentabandoned its plans for mandatory internet filtering, and three years after the Coalition announced that it would not support a policy for mandatory internet filtering.

The announcement, buried in an AU$10 million online safety policy published online today (PDF)announces that under a Tony Abbott government, Australians would have "adult content" filters installed on their phone services and fixed internet services unless they opt out.

"We will work with mobile phone companies (such as Telstra, Optus, Vodafone, and their resellers) to develop online safety standards for smartphones and other devices with mobile network connectivity such as tablets, applicable to their use by children in two age groups: Children up to the age of 12 years and teenagers," the policy states.

"As has recently been achieved in the UK, we expect these standards will involve mobile phone operators installing adult content filters on phones which will be switched on as the default unless the customer proves he or she is at least 18 years of age.

"The Coalition will work with internet service providers (which provide fixed-line broadband services to the home) to develop online safety standards for those services, recognising that they are very often accessed by children.

"As has recently been achieved in the UK, we expect these standards will involve the major internet service providers providing home network filters for all new home broadband services, which will be switched on as the default unless the customer specifies otherwise."

Pre-empting the expected criticism of the Coalition's backflip on internet filtering, the party has said that the filtering proposal is about empowering parents.

"This is a very different approach to the discredited compulsory filter proposal championed by the Rudd-Gillard government, which was abandoned as unworkable," the policy states.

"The Coalition's approach aims to empower parents — by giving them the choice of whether or not to operate a filter at home, [and] by establishing the default setting as one which provides maximum protection."

The Coalition has not indicated whether it yet has the support of any of the major ISPs, unlike UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who had secured the support of the UK internet providers before making the announcement.

As expected, the Coalition has indicated that it will introduce a Children's E-Safety Commissioner to seek to remove harmful material from social media platforms.

The Coalition also announced that cyberbullying could potentially become a criminal offence.

 

 

Abbott has stated in interviews today that he misread the filtering policy before approving it, and the way it was published was a mistake.

The Liberals do not support ISP based filtering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Abbott has stated in interviews today that he misread the filtering policy before approving it, and the way it was published was a mistake.

The Liberals do not support ISP based filtering.

 

Yeah I was following that last night.

Given the fact that Turnbull was on the radio yesterday afternoon defending the policy in detail, and another Lib MP, Paul Fletcher, confirmed the policy to ZDNet before Abbot and Turnbull backflipped on it, I just can't believe that it's a simple mistake the way they are claiming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abbott has stated in interviews today that he misread the filtering policy before approving it, and the way it was published was a mistake.

The Liberals do not support ISP based filtering.

 

Yeah I was following that last night.

Given the fact that Turnbull was on the radio yesterday afternoon defending the policy in detail, and another Lib MP, Paul Fletcher, confirmed the policy to ZDNet before Abbot and Turnbull backflipped on it, I just can't believe that it's a simple mistake the way they are claiming.

 

I would be interested to see a transcript of that interview.

It is possible for people to think he is defending the ISP based policy when he was actually defending the policy of providing a PC or handset based filter to people who want it.

 

It is also possible that they are talking out their asses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows. After all, lies are the cornerstone of maintaining political popularity; do what you like and if you get caught with your pants down, lie through your teeth and deny, deny, deny. As long as they don't go ahead with it, it's mission accomplished imo. As an IT professional, I do not favour Internet censorship. There are many options already available for parents to implement filtration restrictions should they so wish, just most cbf to learn enough about their Operating System to actually make it happen and keep it secure. No good comes from censorship, which always proves too narrow or too broad.

Edited by pmod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On ABC breakfast this morning they went through the transcripts of the Turnbull and Fletcher interviews. There were no 'badly worded sentences'. They clearly stated it was an opt-out policy. Abbott did an interview last night at 8pm specificially to denounce the policy.

 

Yes it's good they cleared it up saying they don't support internet censorship. But that's simply at the moment as anyone can see they are considering it. It is very likely they will backflip again once the election is over and they are in power.

Edited by steveP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On ABC breakfast this morning they went through the transcripts of the Turnbull and Fletcher interviews. There were no 'badly worded sentences'. They clearly stated it was an opt-out policy. Abbott did an interview last night at 8pm specificially to denounce the policy.

 

Yes it's good they cleared it up saying they don't support internet censorship. But that's simply at the moment as anyone can see they are considering it. It is very likely they will backflip again once the election is over and they are in power.

 

Even if that is true, we are still better off than Labor's unapolagetic insistence on blocking the entire country off from 'child porn'.

Under Howard the Liberals had a software package they provided to parents for free who wanted to control what their kids could see. Krudd dismantled the program completely.

 

There is more historical data to support the possibility of the Liberals seeking a return to that policy. And the policy that they announced then retracted was exactly that but at an ISP level instead. They have advocated from the start that they oppose mandatory filtering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope whoever people vote for, they take the time to vote below the line and control there preferences.

 

 

IF YOU don't vote below the line you may accidentally elect a senator who is completely opposed to everything you believe in.

The Senate ballot paper is huge so it's no wonder an overwhelming majority of Australians don't bother voting below the line.

In the 2007 election 96.78 per cent of voters who took one look at the massive Senate ballot paper, thought "Nuh", and voted above the line.

Electoral politics expert Haydon Manning said "sneaky" preference deals could see colourful candidates elected this Saturday.

"It pays to check that you're happy where your preferences are going," Prof Manning from Flinders University said.

"The danger of course is if you go above the line, particularly if you go for a minor party, you may have no idea how they've allocated their preferences. A party with a snappy slogan might not actually be fair dinkum. Voters need to be alert but not alarmed.

"If you really don't like, say, Family First or the Greens, if you go above the line you could end up electing a Green or a Family First."

How do senators get elected?

Each state elects six senators (territories elect two), but the vote isn't decided based on which candidates get the most votes.

A candidate needs one quota - about 14 per cent of the vote - to become a senator.

"Liberal and Labor, generally speaking, are going to get 30-38 per cent of the Senate vote. They will immediately swallow up two quotas," Prof Manning said.

"After that you eliminate the candidate with the least votes and distribute their preferences. This will go on, simply distributing out preferences by eliminating the minor parties and the individuals and distributing the preferences until you find the candidate who has a bundle of votes to fill a quota."

"Some candidates with 2-5 per cent of the vote have a chance if they have done beneficial preference deals with other parties."

If you want to vote above the line, you can check the party you plan to vote for and their preferences on the Australian Electoral Commission.

If you want to vote below the line but feel overwhelmed by the prospect, Prof Manning suggests you use ballot paper tools such as senate.io or belowtheline.org.au.

These allow you to sort your preferences before you go to the polling station, print them out or save them to your phone, and then quickly number all the candidates once you're in the polling booth.

Do you know who you're voting for?

ONE NATION (NSW)

Flame-haired candidate Pauline Hanson stands quite likely to pick up a Senate seat in NSW, analysts say.

If she wins just over 2 per cent of the vote she is a contender because several minor parties are driving their preferences towards fellow minor parties including One Nation instead of the major organisations.

These parties include Katter's Australian Party, the Smoker's Rights Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, the Animal Justice Party and Family First.

BOB KATTER'S AUSTRALIAN PARTY (QUEENSLAND)

You thought were voting for Labor. But you may also be voting for the party of the half-man, half-akubra from North Queensland.

Labor is directing its Senate preferences in the sunshine state towards Katter's ticket. Country musician James Blundell may enter Parliament as a result.

WIKILEAKS (WA)

After their Coalition partners, Nationals senators will direct their preferences to Julian Assange's Wikileaks Party in WA.

FAMILY FIRST (TAS)

Remember Stephen Fielding?

The Family First senator, firmly opposed to the concept of evolution, was a big obstacle for Kevin Rudd's administration in its earliest incarnation.

Mr Fielding's long gone but Family First is in for a chance for a seat in Tasmania. If you vote Liberal or for Palmer's United Party the ultraconservative party may be preferenced with your vote.

COALITION AND LABOR (SA)

Nick Xenophon, the extraordinarily successful independent senator from South Australia, tends to lean to the left side of the spectrum.

But because of a stoush with the Greens, his valuable preferences will now be distributed equally between the Liberal Party and and the Labor Party.

(A previous version of this story which said his preferences would just be directed to the Liberal Party was incorrect.)

 

anyways AMEP or Sex Party ftw...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vote below the line!! please!

 

f**king hate preference deals... it means that if you vote sex party you're also voting a bunch of other fkwits who really don't have anything in common with sex party other than blatant libertarianism ~_~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It took f**king forever, but i voted below the line.

 

Screw letting parties decide were my preferences go to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah.

 

73 was a bit nuts, had to slide the paper back and forth to do shit.

 

I think left to right should be in order of fundamental batshitism rather than alphabetical order.... would've saved me time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ +1

 

Took ages to get through the 110 on the nsw ballot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I voted below the line, way I se it is federal election is only every few years so A) I want to get the most out of it. B ) I like to make things difficult for the vote counters by putting the numbers willy nilly - make them earn their pay ;p. Also because I hate the Greens so very very much, I wanted to make sure that Sarah Hansen-Young got my absolute lowest preference at 73.

Edited by Wannabe S14/15 owner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I was getting my paper, the guy infront was asked

"do you know how to vote"

"nah, I'll just make it up as I go along"

 

and after voting these old people were talking at the exit,

"Oh, it's much too hard to remember who's who and what's what below the line so I just voted above"

 

Like god damnit, why even have a vote if you're too ignorant or senile to use it.

 

@ Wannabe, Rise Up is 10000x worse than anyone else, mob of nutters that were os nutterish they got booted out of family first....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I was getting my paper, the guy infront was asked

"do you know how to vote"

"nah, I'll just make it up as I go along"

 

and after voting these old people were talking at the exit,

"Oh, it's much too hard to remember who's who and what's what below the line so I just voted above"

 

Like god damnit, why even have a vote if you're too ignorant or senile to use it.

 

@ Wannabe, Rise Up is 10000x worse than anyone else, mob of nutters that were os nutterish they got booted out of family first....

Yeah I put them a long way down too. Don't really know anything about them but to me the name sounded like some kind of commie anarchist BS so I thought, "No Rise Up, f*** you, you're going in Greens territory".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×