if not for 350 word limit i could write another 20 posts on labour alone, but lets move on for the time being as im sure this will be revisited.

Once again you have tried to promote the importance of the upper house as though it is responcible for creating foreign policies. This im sure you know is not the case and an intenational attempt to discredit the importance of the lower based on your vote for labour. Who was your first pref in the upper house if it wasnt greens? It couldnt have been democrates as theyre current policy is keep the troops in iraq.

"Whilst we believe this war should never have been started, the fact that Australia was a key part in the waging of the war means we have a special obligation to assist in repairing the damage."

Family first is anti war? I didnt vote for them nor would I ever but lets look at there policy:

"Family First believes that all diplomatic avenues in Iraq had not been exhausted in fact a process was still in train. As such Family First is positionally opposed to the War in Iraq. However, now that Australia has committed to the rebuilding process in Iraq, Australia must meet its obligation both to protect other Australians working in Iraq and the Iraq people." there as anti war as the democrates...yawn.

http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/SenateStateGroupVotingTickets-12246-NSW.htm

Look familiar? thats right, this is your best attempt to manipulate the truth behind my senate vote. You probably thought my google couldnt find it? Lets look at this, group A..CDP preference 52/78...Democrates pref 41/78 (they're real supporters of CDP thats why there prefenece is 52/78! even after your beloved Democrates?).

You talk such utter nonesense. So before every election every australian should look at this and makes sure in there GVT that preference 60 for CDP is after preference 70 for Greens..."good one". In all independants GVT's democrates are well and truely before CDP? and CDP is at least 40/78 and beyond? So where are you going with this?

Group A independents may have put CDP at 52-56 in their preferences but they put Labour, Liberal and Greens even further behind. Not just Greens. You don't have to find out where anyone puts their preferences. You just have to vote below the line, then you can choose your own preferences. Simple, really isn't it? But I've already told you this--you just don't listen.

Here's a link showing the preference count: http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/results/sendNSW.htm

a quote from this link:
"At End of Count 295--11,754 Votes originally from Group A Independents distributed by preference 52 to NILE Fred (Christian Democratic Party)"

I realise it's terribly upsetting to know you voted pro-war but going into denial isn't going to help you.

"The Senate's law-making powers are equal to those of the House of Representatives except that it cannot introduce or amend proposed laws that authorise expenditure for the ordinary annual services of the government or that impose taxation. The Senate can, however, request that the House of Representatives make amendments to financial legislation and it can refuse to pass any bill." "All proposed laws (bills) must be passed by both houses." --Quote from: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/txtnov96.htm#The%20role,%20powers%20and%20composition%20of%20the%20Senate

Can't make laws, huh? Gee I guess you are just feeling so awful about voting CDP, you're hoping it won't matter.

Kish you have a real problem with "not reading the next line". The Democrat policy you quote then says:
"Economic and infrastructure assistance should be provided to the Iraqis to help them gain peaceful self-determination as soon as possible." You have a bad habit of zooming in on one sentence and then taking it out of context. Is it just laziness? I would suggest you go in to all the different parties and read their policies and their News sections too. You really need to get to know what is going on out there. You are so ill informed.

The Australian Democrats are pushing for legislation to prevent any Prime Minister from having the power to commit to war without the consent of parliament ever again. Not the Greens, not Labour and certainly not CDP if they got in. They are most positively antiwar of all the parties.

The Senate actually voted against Australia being involved in the 2003 Invasion. But John Howard had the power under the constitution to preempt the parliament and to override their decision. (Note it was the Senate).

I have no idea why you're talking about family firs--I didn't vote for them.

And Labour, now now. No government is going to reflect everything a person wants. Not possible. What's possible is to sit down, decide what you do want, then prioritise to put the most important issues first, chose the party that comes the closest then preference down the line until the party you want the least is at the end. The vote for the small party is important even if it doesn't get in--it will reflect your policy preference for all parties to see and take notice.
I didn't place my initial or my second preference with Labour, but they have consistently said they would never have invaded Iraq in the first place and have talked about withdrawing the troops from Iraq--making them better than Liberal.

Your point on Labour being pro-war in Afghanistan is obviously that Liberal being against the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan is therefore better than Labour?--pfft. You're a loon. Unable to compromise you wind up not voting for 3 alternatives that would have been everything from ones that would make very strong measures against war to anti at least the war in Iraq--instead you vote for CDP in the Senate and allow the Liberals to win in the House of Reps. What an idiot.

Labour pro Bush? more than Liberal? I remember Bush himself condemning Beasley and patting Howard on the back--just before the elections in 2004.

Afraid of any compromise you stick your head in the sand and don't even understand the consequences of your actions.

Your really running out of amunition here arent you. Group A put CDP at 52/78, they are NOT PRO CDP, in fact they put Democrates before that? Don't label me as having chosen to vote for CDP because Group A is PRO CDP, that is a complete lie. You obviosuly didn't look at these preferences prior to me pasting the link and your assuming CDP was high up on Group A's list based on the abc analysis. You were once again WRONG. They are FAR from choosing CDP? Don't argue merely for the sake of it when you have NO ARGUMENT. You just end up looking desperate or confused. It is sheer luck that CDP even got Group A's prefs.

Over 95% of australians voted above the line, let me guess they're all the "height of stupidity". My independant did a great job, all the big parties last, exaclty how I would of done it. You expect to me work out the order of 70+ candidates and know every policy of every party backwards? You dont seem to say much about group A choosing your beloved Democrates before CDP why is that?

Thanks for abc link. I know realise why you have refrained from producing this earlier. Because it clearly shows that:

"74,428 Votes originally from Australian Democrats distributed by preference 25 to NILE Fred (Christian Democratic Party)"

So your beloved democrates gave 72,000 votes to CDP..the main reason why they were even half a threat? your kidding me right? And your sitting here saying that my vote was PRO CDP. Imagine if I had chosen Democrates like you probably did.

and...

Australian Labor Party - 721,129 votes
Christian Democratic Party - 411,914 votes

Jee that was a close call we almost doubled there votes thanks to the Greens.

"as though it is responcible for creating foreign policies". When did I once state that the senate do not have equal law making powers. My point was simple, they are not RESPONCIBLE for making such legislation. Learn how politics works before you try you twist what I into something else.

The senate DEALS WITH THE STATE. They DO NOT CREATE FOREIGN POLICIES. The lower house IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT FOR NATIONAL LEGISLATION THAN THE UPPER HOUSE AS THAT IS THERE PUROPOSE. Stop trying to down play the importance of the lower house in regard to foreign policy, its weak and only demonstrates your ignorance in our political system .

How does that next line change the context of my quote about Democrats keeping troops in Iraq? "we have a special obligation to assist in repairing the damage". And the next line says something contrary to this? Very weak yet again Aziliz, is this what you call debating skills?

“You are so ill informed” childish insults yet again...yawn

“The Senate actually voted against“

Isn’t this my point, all they do is vote for or against and sometimes amend foreign policy, not create.

You need to watch politicians in action a little more you seem to be very ignorant into how labour / democrats / greens truly are. I keep referring you to question time, and you never seem to respond. You talk from ideals, not from what’s happening in the real world. Watch it and learn, before you chant rubbish based on websites / pr.

You condemned family first for being PRO War on more than one occasion, you were wrong yet again.

“And Labour, now now. No government is going to reflect everything a person wants”

This is the poorest cop out you’ve made yet Aziliz. Labour are and always have been PRO BUSH. You’re happy that your vote went to this PRO “WAR ON TERRORISM” party. All you’ve done is vote for a party that has just as flawed a foreign policy as liberal (bush kissing) but initially chose to fence sit when it came to the war on iraq. To make matters worse, they have 6 policies that are “blueprints” to run an entire country (including foreign policy). I didn’t hand my vote over to either of these pro “war on terror” (which you must know next to nothing about if you concede this as a compromise?) parties.

Your vote went to CDP.

It isn't important whether CDP was high up in the preferences or not. Anyone with half a brain knows some choices don't have a chance of getting in and others do. If you put all the ones that may get in at the bottom then that's where your vote counts.

"My independant did a great job, all the big parties last, exaclty how I would of done it." You're both proud of voting for CDP while loudly protesting you didn't do it on purpose--Weird.

The Senate's part of Federal--not State Parliament. The senate votes on all Federal legislation--Foreign Policy included. Educate yourself: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/txtnov96.htm

The real issue about legislation is the party who wins at the election has control of what legislation goes on the agenda. Their Cabinet and Ministry is made up of both members of the HouseofReps and Senators who decide on legislation--which can be introduced in either house.

Any member of parliament can introduce a private-member's-bill on any issue--but they are less likely to get the numbers required to pass.

Minor parties don't have the same power as major parties nor do oppositions have as much power as sitting goverments. But they do have some really appreciable power--a lot better than none. It's having the numbers and in the case of a split vote being able to tip the balance of power that counts.

I don't understand why you're so keen to minimise the importance of being able to block and ammend legislation--it so fundamentally changes outcomes.

Now Liberals have a clear majority in both Houses since 2004-the only modifying force has to come from within their own ranks. The breadth of radically rightwing legislation rammed through without modification because of this is mindboggling.

Who were your Group A/Independants? David and Ashley Etteridge. So why did you vote for One Nation? You have heard about Pauline Hanson and David Etteridge, cofounders of One Nation? David Etteridge went to prison with Pauline Hanson for electoral fraud (later released on appeal) because One Nation didn't have enough paid up members to call themselves a party.