Political Crossfire Forums

DBG · Joined: 27 Aug 2004 Posts: 1836 Location: Phoenix, AZ

Can you give us the lowdown on how Howard is doing in his re-election fight? I know he's taken a lot of heat from the citizens becuase they don't agree with his support of the 'w' regime's war-for-profit.
Tony Blair will be tossed out for his support - is Howard going to be ousted also, or is it looking like the people will forgive him?

Golddave · Joined: 09 Sep 2004 Posts: 1557 Location: Australia

I am an Australian, I believe that Howard is ahead in the opinion polls, in my opinion Mark Latham is not a good replacement, not that I believe Howard needs to be replaced. He has balls and we need a leader with balls. I do not think he or us as a nation have done anything wrong with regards to Iraq. I think I am better qualified then most to comment on this as I was there last year with the ADF (Australian defence force).
If you need any other clarification or have any other questions, please pm me. Cheers.

Kindred · Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 4:34 am Post subject:

Howard is using the same mechanisms he always does, scare tactics, fear mongering and lieing. He was exposed recently for lieing about the 'children overboard' affair, he waged a war against popular opinion, he is a disgrace of the highest order and he is BEHIND on every poll. He will be removed and I will be happy.

Kindred · Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 4:36 am Post subject: Re: Any Aussies or Kiwis Here?

DBG wrote: Can you give us the lowdown on how Howard is doing in his re-election fight? I know he's taken a lot of heat from the citizens becuase they don't agree with his support of the 'w' regime's war-for-profit.
Tony Blair will be tossed out for his support - is Howard going to be ousted also, or is it looking like the people will forgive him?

He won't get back in, but I kinda hope that Blair does remain in power only because of the alternative; the ultra right.

thundertaker · Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 4:38 am Post subject:

I'm not sure Tony Blair will be tossed out at the polls becuase the only alternative is the useless Tory party...

Nevertheless, if Ozzy prime-minister John Howard did retain power, and Michael Howard became Prime minister of GB.......... I'm not quite sure how to finish that sentence......

Golddave · Joined: 09 Sep 2004 Posts: 1557 Location: Australia

Culture jammer, bloody hell, where to begin?
Howard is a realist not a fear monger, you sound just like a ganja smoking hippy who is all save the enviroment and let australia fall to whoever wants it. Howard cares about the country and we are doing great. We haven't had a recession like under the ALP, we can hold our heads high and god forbid, patriotism is making a come back.

thundertaker · Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 8:46 am Post subject:

What do you feel about the way he stitched-up that referendum on the monarchy and made the alternative republic so unacceptable to the australian public it stood a much better chance of being rejected at the polls?

Golddave · Joined: 09 Sep 2004 Posts: 1557 Location: Australia

Well mate, Howard did not "stitch the referendum", the republicans couldn't agree on what model they were going to run with which is why things went the way they did. I must say the wording was dubious but I do not think that there was any cruel intent in it. There will be another time when this is addressed, I do not see what the hurry is. What are you concerned about anyway, your english, you should be happy to have the greatest nation on Earth as part of your empire.

God save the queen because nothing is going to save the govenor general.

thundertaker · Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 2:39 pm Post subject:

A lot of British republicans are frustrated that the dominions aren't ditiching the monarchy, because it would be virtually impossible to ditch it here until all the other countries have, becuase of the implications for international relations with those countries.
Not me though, I'm a constitutional monarchist, because generally speaking, there isn't a more suitable alternative for Britain.

Do the members of the police and armed forces still have to swear an oath of loyalty to the queen over there as they do over here then?

Kindred · Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 9:44 pm Post subject:

Golddave wrote: Culture jammer, bloody hell, where to begin?
Howard is a realist not a fear monger, you sound just like a ganja smoking hippy who is all save the enviroment and let australia fall to whoever wants it. Howard cares about the country and we are doing great. We haven't had a recession like under the ALP, we can hold our heads high and god forbid, patriotism is making a come back.

Well, the environment certainly does need more attention in Australia, a public utility being decimated for a few wealthy pundits, however truth in politics is also of paramount importance. The fact that we know John Howard lied about the kids overboard scandal is enough for him to forfeit my vote, I don't vote for people in positions of power who abuse that power.

Remember we employ this guy, he is suppose to serve us, and the way things are going Aus is following the direction of the U.S in state plutocracy.

As for the return of patriotism, I think we can do without that thankyou very much.

BTW what state are you in? I've been here for months and you're the first Aussie I've interacted with.

Golddave · Joined: 09 Sep 2004 Posts: 1557 Location: Australia

When I joined the army, I did have to swear an oath to the queen, that was a few years ago. The queen really doesn't interact to much with our politics, probably the most famous occurance was in 1975 when the prime minister, (Menzies who I didn't like anyway) was sacked. As for Culture Jammers comments on the children overboard affair, Howard only presented the information that he had from senior defence officals of that time. I believe that that incident cost Angus Houstan the job of CDF even though Cosgrove was the favoutite to win that one anyway. Also, I think that Australia's tall poppy syndrome attitude costs us a lot in the long run, we should be all we can be and maybe then we would be more of a force to reckon with. I also believe that patriotism is something that we need in our society, we seem to only come together when we are going through tough times. Why you do not want a patriotic society is beyond me, we have the greatest democracy in the world, if someone doesn't like it they can leave instead of staying here whinging and not contributing to the greatness of this nation. I currently live in QLD, though I have lived overseas, in NT, NSW and Vic and been to a lot of rural Australia.

thundertaker · Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 4:00 am Post subject:

I'm not sure, but did the Queen actually instruct Sir John Kerr to actually sack the Prime-Minister, or was he acting on his own initiative? Over here, the queen still has theoretical constitutional power. In Australia she is just a figurehead.
Is Australian monarchism something to do with pride in Australia's British roots or a fear of change or what?

maxtsu · Joined: 03 Mar 2004 Posts: 1851 Location: European Union

The highest court in Australia is the High Court in London.
No matter what a court says in Australia, London can over-rule it.
New Zealand changed that last year, their highest court is in Wellington.

I call it a bit too much attachment with the motherland.

Golddave · Joined: 09 Sep 2004 Posts: 1557 Location: Australia

maxtsu wrote: The highest court in Australia is the High Court in London.
No matter what a court says in Australia, London can over-rule it.
New Zealand changed that last year, their highest court is in Wellington.

I call it a bit too much attachment with the motherland.

Oh and what do you call the EU?

maxtsu · Joined: 03 Mar 2004 Posts: 1851 Location: European Union

Golddave wrote: maxtsu wrote: The highest court in Australia is the High Court in London.
No matter what a court says in Australia, London can over-rule it.
New Zealand changed that last year, their highest court is in Wellington.

I call it a bit too much attachment with the motherland.

Oh and what do you call the EU?
EU = European Union
Why?

Golddave · Joined: 09 Sep 2004 Posts: 1557 Location: Australia

maxtsu wrote: Golddave wrote: maxtsu wrote: The highest court in Australia is the High Court in London.
No matter what a court says in Australia, London can over-rule it.
New Zealand changed that last year, their highest court is in Wellington.

I call it a bit too much attachment with the motherland.

Oh and what do you call the EU?
EU = European Union
Why?

I call it a bunch of nations made up of some pu**y nations trying to band together to establish supremecy on other regions of the world. It is not going to work, it is doomed from the start. Your not french are you?

thundertaker · Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 3:41 am Post subject:

I don't know what the attitude is in Germany and France, but most Britons view membership of the EU as an economic necessity, nothing to do with dominating the world. We would much rather the EU played a smaller part in our lives for the most part, and that means no commmon foreign policy.......

maxtsu · Joined: 03 Mar 2004 Posts: 1851 Location: European Union

Golddave wrote: maxtsu wrote: Golddave wrote: maxtsu wrote: The highest court in Australia is the High Court in London.
No matter what a court says in Australia, London can over-rule it.
New Zealand changed that last year, their highest court is in Wellington.

I call it a bit too much attachment with the motherland.

Oh and what do you call the EU?
EU = European Union
Why?

I call it a bunch of nations made up of some pu**y nations trying to band together to establish supremecy on other regions of the world. It is not going to work, it is doomed from the start. Your not french are you?
EU is a banding together of nations to help bring about prosperity for member states in all different aspects.
Establishing supremacy of the world is not one of the goals.
Why, is it Australia's goal with the US?

Usage of the word "pu**y" defines the type of debater straight away.
Quote: Your not french are you?
The answer to that question I would not give to you. Going by your choice of words, you obviously are a debater that needs to do personal insults, or insults of the nationality, of whoever you are debating with.
Therefore distracting yourself from the subject of the debate.

Do I need to have a nationality, so you can direct name calling to?

Anyways.. the main reason for my post is to examplive the point that a lot of Australians feel/want to be more english then the english themselves. In aspects like the monarchy, attitudes towards the french, etc.

Golddave · Joined: 09 Sep 2004 Posts: 1557 Location: Australia

maxtsu wrote: Golddave wrote: maxtsu wrote: Golddave wrote: maxtsu wrote: The highest court in Australia is the High Court in London.
No matter what a court says in Australia, London can over-rule it.
New Zealand changed that last year, their highest court is in Wellington.

I call it a bit too much attachment with the motherland.

Oh and what do you call the EU?
EU = European Union
Why?

I call it a bunch of nations made up of some pu**y nations trying to band together to establish supremecy on other regions of the world. It is not going to work, it is doomed from the start. Your not french are you?
EU is a banding together of nations to help bring about prosperity for member states in all different aspects.
Establishing supremacy of the world is not one of the goals.
Why, is it Australia's goal with the US?

Usage of the word "pu**y" defines the type of debater straight away.
Quote: Your not french are you?
The answer to that question I would not give to you. Going by your choice of words, you obviously are a debater that needs to do personal insults, or insults of the nationality, of whoever you are debating with.
Therefore distracting yourself from the subject of the debate.

Do I need to have a nationality, so you can direct name calling to?

Anyways.. the main reason for my post is to examplive the point that a lot of Australians feel/want to be more english then the english themselves. In aspects like the monarchy, attitudes towards the french, etc.

Well I do not know how you drew the conclusion that Australian's are more english then the english or want to be. It is not India during the 1800's. We have established our own cultrual identity and whilst their are many reasons why we chose to stay in the Monarch (for a while at least), being "english" as you so quaintly put it certainly is not one. Why would we not band with the U.S? I find the formation of the EU, unfair, discriminatory and arrogant. It is you that is drawing conclusions, english do not like the french because they are seen as arrogant and they have battled them many times even though in the last century the french did not display warriors of a high standard and were quite "soft". I do like them because I see them as mostly arrogant and because of murarowa where the arrogant wankas blew up nuclear bombs in a pacific ocean atoll not far from Australia. I find it insulting that you incinerate that I want to be "english", whilst I like them, I am Australian and damn proud to be one and to have been deployed on military operations for my country. The U.S. does not want to be ruler of the world, that is just ludicrist.

Dr Strangelove · Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 57 Location: Australia

maxtsu wrote: The highest court in Australia is the High Court in London.
No matter what a court says in Australia, London can over-rule it.
New Zealand changed that last year, their highest court is in Wellington.

I call it a bit too much attachment with the motherland.

G'day maxtsu,

I hate to disappoint you but the highest court in Australia is the High Court of Australia in Canberra.

The right to appeal to the Privy Council in London was done away with in the 1980s.

So in fact it is the Kiwis who were hanging onto the UK's coat tails for too long.

Appeals to the Privy Council from decisions of the High Court were effectively ended by the combined effects of the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 and the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975. However, a right of appeal to the Privy Council remained from State courts, in matters governed by State law, until the passage of the Australia Acts, both State and Federal, in the 1980s.

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about_02.html