A note for Philo. Your accusation of me promoting "typical emotive, atheistic, left wing, impressionist propaganda" is ridiculous and requires not further comment. More important though, we have all noticed that you do not address the more substantial issues of the dirty side of European colonisation of Australia and the inherent attitudes of racist supremacy that implies. Remember? we were actually discussing materialism and racism in Australia. (By the way, I recommend that you take a quick spelling course)

Racism, Backwater, Materialism?

It is our duty to our global capital masters and to their branch stacked, tunnel funnel Governments to be racist and materialistic. Why? Because it SELLS. And because it distracts us from seeing that overpopulation, the cornerstone of Greenspanian economic growth is the real enemy. Another 70,000 'pretty' units along Paramatta road, another million people in an ALP owned Sydney and a desal plant in sheep's clothing are what should be giving us nightmares? But we are taught by TV, media and gaming consoles to fight each other, SPEND up and be materialistic. If racism oils the wheels of this process so much the better. The more HECSY obstacles to our education, the better. The richer our elitist masters get the better. They can always use their overtaking lanes to SPEED around the traps they create.

I suspect that what is happening is, Governments realize they aren't going to reach the level of wealth needed to establish necessary vast infrastructure reforms before we are Rwanda-fied by crushing population growth.

Study some primary sources on what happened in Rwanda, and in Burundi next door -- much of it had to do with carrying capacity and brutal crowding. People were interviewed who testified that they killed members of THEIR OWN tribe, and even relatives, because they knew they would starve. And more important, they felt they were losing their IDENTITY.

Much of the world's population will not achieve the wealth to be able to develop necessary infrastructure before Greenspanian economics brings a global overpopulation meltdown. Until we bite the bullet and demand a control on population growth, at the very least a moratorium on immigration, we will be no different from any other developing nation in the world today. It does little good to reflect on how you will behave in a cattle car on the way to this modern Auchwitz. You WILL behave badly and anarchy will prevail. It's not, as they say, "rocket science". It's more a question of whether we heed our mother's bated warning --" Don't take money (or X city tunnels) from strangers!" .

For Kekenidika and Bella Donna sake whose maths is appalling. They feel if one doesn't gain 51% PRIMARY vote they're a fraud and not mandated government. They believe Mark Latham's the more worthy candidate that should've governed Australia with 37.7% of the primary vote. They're obviously formed in the same mould as Mark when it comes to numbers and "Hate".

There's no dictionary that defines the majority as 51% of the primary vote, [unless only two candidates] though it's obvious if one gained 51% it would be a majority. However if only two run and one gained 49% the other 48% and there's 3% informal then according to Bella and Keken neither would have a majority or mandate to govern. Obviously they have never shared a pie where they had to discard 3% as not consumerable and one got 1% more than the other. If they had children that would hear "he got more than me".

You're dishonest to assume 59.1% gave their primary or preferences to Mark Latham. We know you preferred Mark Latham over John Howard but that does not mean the 22% who did not give their primary vote to John Howard actually preffered Mark Latham. In reality it indicated the 22% preferred John Howard therefore he has the majority of preference.

If you have a case of John Howard committing Electoral fraud I suggest you take it to to appropiate body for examination.
_______________________________
Quote, "as you so grandly point out that the little fraud did actually gain 40.9% of the vote, there is still another 59.1% of the population that did not vote for him."

Now when I went to school, 59.1% was substantially somewhat more than 40.9%, and now that I am in my dotage, I really do know and understand that mathematics actually change over time, however I am just not able to get my head around how 40.9% is now a majority and has given him the "mandate" he so claims, - PLEASE EXPLAIN..?"
__________________________
Obviously this may take several lessons for the unskilled mind. However all maths lessons are now closed.

Appendix:
Since Bella Donna in her post quoted the preferences of Family First here are the facts.

Liberals 40.9% + Nationals 5.9% = 46.8%

Labor 37.7 % + Greens 7.2 % + Democrats 1.2% = 46.1%

Even if the One Nation 1.1 % and Other [including Family First] were spit evenly FF had no impact on the primary outcome as she claimed.
NOTE: 46.8% is and always will be greater than 46.1

Greg Barn’s obviously must hold shares in:”The plastic’s industry”; that produces buckets, I have filled a few after reading that. Fairdinkum.
And who still thinks there is not a mental health issue to be addressed?
It is conclusive. But there is a glimmer of hope in the commentary section.

It was people like Bella Donna who made it clear to this PROUD ALP member we would face nothing less than a landslide against us 3 months before Howards victory.
Very little is wrong with mainstream Australia, Barns and a few posters here should consider truth as an option to the rubbish posted here.
Multi culturism is doing very well here, sadly so is minority racism based sometimes on bigotry.
The ALP path to election victory must be in the middle of the road never the left lane, and never travelling against the flow.