-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
Alright, who voted for who?
- Thread starter anhedonia
- Start date
Haha, if I could vote, i'd vote for Howard's 5th term, or Costello's 2nd =d
At karate this morning, I asked some of my kohai's (underclassmen, haha, i love being superior) who they voted for (since i train with the adult class -_-) and the only guy who had voted said he voted for howard, since he hated latham AND howard, but would like costello in office -_-
At karate this morning, I asked some of my kohai's (underclassmen, haha, i love being superior) who they voted for (since i train with the adult class -_-) and the only guy who had voted said he voted for howard, since he hated latham AND howard, but would like costello in office -_-
Wow, 'wishy-washy wannabe hippy'. You've mastered the art of the ad hominem! That will get you really far.
And by standing for something, I can only assume you mean bigotry and a lack of compassion? The desire to trample the rights of minorities? The right to lie and get away with it?
And by standing for something, I can only assume you mean bigotry and a lack of compassion? The desire to trample the rights of minorities? The right to lie and get away with it?
It beats voting for something who says the exact opposite of what Howard says, he's just trying to collect the votes that Howard had lost or didn't have.
I'm not following any particular politician's career in particular, but I feel more confident in Howard leading the nation than someone who will just say the opposite of him. What happen's when Latham's in power? He won't have any one to contradict. If Howard lost, he would have most surely stepped down as Liberal leader and Latham would have to rethink his whole 'say the opposite of the opposition' plan because someone else mite just come up that may meet some of Latham's ideas at halfway - how would Latham collect the 'lost' votes if he couldn't say the opposite of his opponent.
What's wrong with ad hominem. It should me made obvious that Latham is wishy-washy.
Every time Howard says something, Latham will come back and reply to it, and follow that up with some sort of promise (soldiers back my xmas?)
Either way, I'm happy that Howard won.
I'm also happy the Greens will never get too far (in my lifetime hopefully).
In fact, I'm doing what a politician does right now. Repeating myself over and over again.
So I'll sum everything I said up with this one line...
Latham only contradicts Howard to collect the votes that Howard did not obtain with his own policies and other miscellaneous political jargon.
I will now part this thread, before being completely wrecked by those more intelligent than me, even though they're wrong anyway =d
I'm not following any particular politician's career in particular, but I feel more confident in Howard leading the nation than someone who will just say the opposite of him. What happen's when Latham's in power? He won't have any one to contradict. If Howard lost, he would have most surely stepped down as Liberal leader and Latham would have to rethink his whole 'say the opposite of the opposition' plan because someone else mite just come up that may meet some of Latham's ideas at halfway - how would Latham collect the 'lost' votes if he couldn't say the opposite of his opponent.
What's wrong with ad hominem. It should me made obvious that Latham is wishy-washy.
Every time Howard says something, Latham will come back and reply to it, and follow that up with some sort of promise (soldiers back my xmas?)
Either way, I'm happy that Howard won.
I'm also happy the Greens will never get too far (in my lifetime hopefully).
In fact, I'm doing what a politician does right now. Repeating myself over and over again.
So I'll sum everything I said up with this one line...
Latham only contradicts Howard to collect the votes that Howard did not obtain with his own policies and other miscellaneous political jargon.
I will now part this thread, before being completely wrecked by those more intelligent than me, even though they're wrong anyway =d
Latham isn't in any of the Tasmanian electorates 
I voted for Jim Davidson in the Solomon electorate. Even if I had planned on voting for Tolmer I would have changed my mind at the last minute due to receiving a recorded phonecall from John Howard asking that Tolmer be my choice. To make matters worse, it was an overseas call which means the libs outsourced their phone spam.
I voted for Jim Davidson in the Solomon electorate. Even if I had planned on voting for Tolmer I would have changed my mind at the last minute due to receiving a recorded phonecall from John Howard asking that Tolmer be my choice. To make matters worse, it was an overseas call which means the libs outsourced their phone spam.
I would have voted Howard... Only reason is that Latham said too many stupid things. The big one was...
Funding Private Schools issue... Public schools get way more money than Private Schools. That's why private schools charge! It's just that the Private Schools get it off the Commonwealth Government, and the Public ones get much more from State Government.
If only Pauline Hanson was back in... apperantly, according to many papers, they would have voted her in!
Funding Private Schools issue... Public schools get way more money than Private Schools. That's why private schools charge! It's just that the Private Schools get it off the Commonwealth Government, and the Public ones get much more from State Government.
If only Pauline Hanson was back in... apperantly, according to many papers, they would have voted her in!
Electromage
New Member
OH Please.........A Private school is by definition Private, therefore the people going to said school (or their parents) should have to pay the FULL cost, the government shouldn't have to pay a cent, on the other hand a Public school is open to the public & should be paid for by the Public/Government, if you cant afford to go to the Private school with out gov subsidies, DON'T, do what the rest of us did, go public!! :rolleyes2 I for one resent the fact that MY tax money gets wasted on Private schools instead of going where it's needed, like medicare!CraDanKa! said:
& I won't even comment on the racist cow at the end of your post!
Though I dislike Latham, I voted labor for the simple reason that the Libs are slowly destroying this country & I have no idea why the rest of the country cant see it!! :confused4
not true.
i don't support the money being handed out to private schools, but there is a method to their madness. the system is to encourage parents to send their children to private schools, the money given to them is 'reward' money, to simply improve what they have, and seem more attractive to send students to. and what people forget is, is that private schools aren't for rich snobs (although I can safely say that a bunch of teh ----ers are, but that's a whole separate matter =d) - those who attend these schools are from families that work EXTRA hard, and make sacrifices so the children are well off, and i think that the governement has taken that into account - would it be fair to penalize them for wanting their child to have a better chance at uni or landing a job? is it their fault they want a better education for their child (generally) (unless you go to melbourne high, mwahahahaha)?
by you saying 'if you can't afford it, don't go' doesn't help the problem at all. not only would that be a turn potential business away from the school, it segregates society - private vs public - why don't we let pauline hanson into government again while we're at it?
state schools (in australia at least, i'm pretty sure its the same in US, correct me if i'm wrong), but EVERYBODY pays for public schooling - by what you're saying, public school students should pay taxes (the appropriate ones) and those who attend private schools shouldn't, yes that's very fair - in reality, we all pay taxes, and those taxes also pay for money spent on schools, state and private.
by what you say is logical, those who spend more money in private business should be exempt of the appropriate taxes, and those who don't spend more money, should just pay taxes - where's the fairness? where's did the logic go?
with this kind of issue, there will never be fairness, and both parties (public and private) will have to compromise - which is exactly what happens, a lot of schools ask for parents to give 'donations' to help cover expenses, however, the problem in this is that it is a state school, and by the legislation, you are not required to pay for it
i'd go into what should be done, but i have to go to my state school tomorrow.
i don't support the money being handed out to private schools, but there is a method to their madness. the system is to encourage parents to send their children to private schools, the money given to them is 'reward' money, to simply improve what they have, and seem more attractive to send students to. and what people forget is, is that private schools aren't for rich snobs (although I can safely say that a bunch of teh ----ers are, but that's a whole separate matter =d) - those who attend these schools are from families that work EXTRA hard, and make sacrifices so the children are well off, and i think that the governement has taken that into account - would it be fair to penalize them for wanting their child to have a better chance at uni or landing a job? is it their fault they want a better education for their child (generally) (unless you go to melbourne high, mwahahahaha)?
by you saying 'if you can't afford it, don't go' doesn't help the problem at all. not only would that be a turn potential business away from the school, it segregates society - private vs public - why don't we let pauline hanson into government again while we're at it?
state schools (in australia at least, i'm pretty sure its the same in US, correct me if i'm wrong), but EVERYBODY pays for public schooling - by what you're saying, public school students should pay taxes (the appropriate ones) and those who attend private schools shouldn't, yes that's very fair - in reality, we all pay taxes, and those taxes also pay for money spent on schools, state and private.
by what you say is logical, those who spend more money in private business should be exempt of the appropriate taxes, and those who don't spend more money, should just pay taxes - where's the fairness? where's did the logic go?
with this kind of issue, there will never be fairness, and both parties (public and private) will have to compromise - which is exactly what happens, a lot of schools ask for parents to give 'donations' to help cover expenses, however, the problem in this is that it is a state school, and by the legislation, you are not required to pay for it
i'd go into what should be done, but i have to go to my state school tomorrow.
Electromage
New Member
WTF are you on about, as a tax payer I don't mind my money being spent on a gov run public school (where I went), I do mind it being spent on a private school!!tandoc said:
I never said school students should pay taxes, the parents that want their kids to go to a private school should pay ALL the cost involved, it's as simple as that!! Personally I think private schools are just ripping off the system & giving a hand full of people that have the money to spend a unfair position over those that could never afford to go to private school, they're more likely to get into uni & get a better job because of it, why should we tax payers be forced to give someone else's kids a better chance in life than we could ever afford for our own kids?!?! :rolleyes2
