Col Rouge please note the following:

1. A criticism of John Howard is not a personal attack on you.

2. Difference of opinion is not a personal attack on you.

3. If you personally insult other posters you will receive insults in return.

Check the chronology of this thread – if it is possible for you to do some self reflection you will understand why I made the above points. Given the vitriolic nature of your responses to myself and others I would recommend you have your blood pressure checked, after all a man of your years should take more care of his health.

And BTW I was a Fairy in the Brownies when I was a young girl – thank you for reminding me of some fond memories.

Back to the thread:

Daniel states: “the strategy is to maintain the existing fear. Howard and his cabinet do this by stoking the fire with words cloaked in sympathy. Instead of talking of potential danger, current government ministers discuss the potential loss of life. This enables them to appear concerned, rather than inciting alarm.”

We see Howard at work again with his recent comments to Australian injured in London where he effectively implied concern and both minimised the potential of Australia as a terrorism target while at the same time stating it could happen. I believe this is called an ‘each way’ bet. If we are attacked he’s not wrong but he has evaded the fact that we are more at risk than ever before by the actions of his government.

Of course Australia was always a target – we have simply moved up the list a fair way since becoming a part of the coalition of the willing. Invading Iraq is not protecting us – but Howard knows that there are many people gullible enough to believe this fantasy.

While Labor continues to flounder the electorate will play it safe and re-elect ‘the devil we know’.

I want a nation that’s on it’s knees.
Where freedom disappears in the breeze…

I want a country where the rich get more.
Where the food can’t be seen on the table of the poor…

I want a leader who I can trust.
To tell me the lies to hide the real thrust…

I want a community that struggles to survive.
While the powers that be flaunt the toys they drive…

Sorry Xena and Johnny. I’m no poet. But I do know that the term ‘employed’ as defined by our government is anyone who works more than 2 x 4hrs part time shifts a week. Can anyone tell me how this is ‘employed’ and how a family can survive – even if both parents work 2 x 4 (i.e. 16hrs per week?).

I had a discussion with a friend the other night. We were talking about the Aus relationship with the US. My friend said we have to support our ally, who will be there if things go bad. I asked him, do you support a friend if they lie to you and others or disobey the law? Do you also do as they do, if it benefits them, to your detriment? I’m curious what people think comes first – loyalty or integrity?

Pollies will say and do what ever they need to in order to get your vote. They argue with each other but they think the same way and are most likely cheap facsimiles of the same person. Why do you latch onto the patently unachieveable romance of political ideology and dogma? Why are folks still so bogged down in the confidence trick that is the left/right wing poltical spectrum. They say people get the government they deserve. In view of the patent denial and delusion which underpins ideological dogma is it any wounder that denial and delusion characterizes the nature of governance?

For example, taxation is about the redistribution of wealth. Redistribution is a fundamental socialist concept. How then does a free market capitalist arrive at a logical rationalisation of taxation that is in accord with their political ideology? Simple answer is that they dont. They deny it and defer to the practicalities of running a country.

Ditto socialists. They believe in the fundamental self righteous sanctimoney of a 'higher morality' and that somehow a group of people will do a 'better and fairer' job of it because they are not influenced by the profit motive. Maybe so, but they are not without susceptibility to influence. How do they reconcile the fact that they too are mere mortals with self interested agenda which tends to distort outcomes? Simple, they deny it their human flaws and delude themselves that they answer to and promote a 'higher set of values'.

Its all a load of bunk.

Trade215

“How then does a free market capitalist arrive at a logical rationalisation of taxation that is in accord with their political ideology? “

Taxation works at 2 levels,
1 to finance the necessary work of government.
2 to redistribute wealth.

Financing the “necessary work of government” would be acceptable to any “free market capitalist” / non-socialist, recognising that he benefits from an environment of law and order in which to pursue his free-trade.
However the debate is eternal; and will always evolve around where “1” ends and “2” begins.

Obviously for socialists, “nationalised industries” were a “necessary work of government”. However, that view is no longer widely held, even among socialists except, of course, for the “luddites”.

“They (socialists) believe in the fundamental self righteous sanctimony of a 'higher morality' and that somehow a group of people will do a 'better and fairer' job of it because they are not influenced by the profit motive.” –

One reason for supporting the liberal/right is – they are (more likely) only interested in “profit”.

The socialists are obsessed in telling me how I will collect every thought and attend to every bodily function throughout the course of my life. Typically, socialists are in politics for the “control and power” – as well as the money.

Give me a government who are less interested in managing my life and leaving me to make my own mistakes any day. When government stuff with my life, I have found the problems they leave me with are far more costly than the little ones I may make.

To quote, appropriately and as I have done before, Dear Margaret Thatcher

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Trinity Whatever, Whatever, read my response as an overwhelming sense of disinterest in all you are babbling about.

Totally agree Col Rouge.The weak left cannot exist without the sacrifices of the courageous and hard working right.My children are from the socialist left.It is all my fault since my wife and I have cultivated it.

There must come a time however in which children must go it alone.This is the reality which many from the left have failed to grasp.They don't want to leave the bosom of their comfort zones.

This is why you will find many of the lefist philosophy in Education or Public Service.It is an extention of family to school and the more school mentality.The nipple of security is very enticing.