Search results

so Gillard it is i wonder for how long

that was example of libs selling national assets

like... Telstra ? :D

just another reason to vote socialistic government in ;)

almost any country has that and that's not why Sweden is social democracy i think the way you understand socialism is the theoretical model of extreme socialism bordering communism. there are many flavors of socialism apart from that, and socialism doesn't mean no election even communism has...

then go check again do you actually know what socialism is? and what's a difference between socialism and communism?

yeah how dare i silly me.... :D

i'm confused what's one got to do with the other? countries like Sweden, Denmark have socialism, and the quality of life is much better than in Australia, let alone the freedoms they enjoy

did someone manage to have a survey of those represented by independents ?

http://www.australiamatters.com/media/never_never_gst_howard.flv ;)

i don't care if they give it to treasury or not make the publish it in a news paper so we can all see for all we know Tony might be thinking of introducing another tax (like the GST that Libs promised we'll never have) to fund his ideas

WW see my previous post. it's disturbing to see Libs making promises they aren't willing to back up

how can i be not telling the whole story if i'm giving a link to it? :confused: Effectively, Tony is saying: "i'll make your life better, maybe, but i'm not gonna tell you how and where the money is going to come from. you just need to trust me and you'll be fine"

looks like libs are trying to con us into something: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/26/2993775.htm can't believe that people seriously think libs can govern this country properly :rolleyes:

a bank can control millions of dollars electronically from outsiders. there is nothing stopping a programmer or a DBA in the bank to add extra zero to a few fields or chuck an extra transaction in. now i'd be a bit worried about giving such opportunity to any government. i'd be less...

that's what i was saying a while ago in this thread, it doesn't matter who's in power - nothing's going to change

it didn't if people have put greens and then LNP how's that enhancing labour's chances? now if people prefer to vote labour to liberals, you cannot claim that a vote for greens is a vote for labour. people ARE voting for labour if they put them second. so yeah, anyone claiming that...

aren't you counting your chickens before they hatched? :p

i'd agree there but it's not the senate that forms the government

i disagree if you want to vote for greens it doesn't mean that you have to follow their 'how to vote' card and put ALP second so while hardcore green supporters would've followed the card, people who don't like labour but would've voted for greens were made to believe that their vote will...