What the flying ... does Hawkes' adultery or Keatings' possible adultery have to do with anything. Whether you like it or not, someone of your distinct Australian character would never have had the gaul to publicly question a politicians' credibility based on their sexual habits. Never, until Howard, who sanctions all things base.

While, I disagree, I accept your desire to concern yourself with only those things which directly effect you. But I deplore the conclusion to your last post, which resorts to the worst kind of sexual moralising.

Indeed, why would anyone bother discussing or arguing any point with someone who in a political forum thinks it appropriate to resort to sexual innuendo?

You my forlorn penpal have some carnal ISSUES, do us all a favour and try not to project them into your political opinions.

Col you made my day, best belly laugh I have had in ages.

"As a politician, John Howard, (the object of your angst) is far more ethical than any labor prime minister since WWII."

Ha Ha Har de Har Ha

"Pru Goward, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, has issued a statement rejecting claims that she had a sexual relationship with the Prime Minister, John Howard."

So given your "level of proof" John Howard is just as much an adulterer as Paul Keating. (rumour and inuendo)

Howard has NO ethics whatsoever.

“While, I disagree, I accept your desire to concern yourself with only those things which directly effect you. But I deplore the conclusion to your last post, which resorts to the worst kind of sexual moralising.”

It is not sexual moralising, it is criticism of an action which labels the perpetrator a liar by default.

No excuses, no “it was an honest mistake”.

If Hawke had divorced his wife and then pursued a relationship after formal separation / divorce, the situation would be entirely different. As it was, he did not. Nor did Evans / Kernot and Keatings conduct is similarly suspect.

Like I said, I happen to have been married twice and have known some people who have had affairs within a marriage. Those who did have “affairs” had one thing in common, a complete disregard for the vows which they took.

I have also known other people like me, despite being unhappy in a marriage, resisted the opportunity for either a casual or more recurring fling until we had resolved the expectations and obligations of marriage.

I also know those who have had affairs are crippled by the idea that what they did could happen to them, their anxiety is almost palpable.

It leaves people like me asking,

well if he / she could so readily disregard a solemn vow to a loved one, how seriously is he or she about what they say when they are sworn in to parliament?

As for “You my forlorn penpal have some carnal ISSUES, do us all a favour and try not to project them into your political opinions.”

We all have issues, the issue of honesty and ethics is one which is dear to me, I could not care less about "carnality" of others, merely the ethics which they discard in the process.

“Ethical conduct in public office” is an issue which should be important to anyone who votes and “adulterous conduct” demonstrates a fatal absence of the required ethics.

Col

I prefer my leaders to have made mistakes, many of them. I want them to admit their mistakes and suffer for them, and learn from them. People who don't make mistakes are best suited to be employed as traffic cops.

You condemn Hawke and Keating and defend yourself because you did'nt screw around on your ex-wife and waited until everything was sorted. Whatever that means. Have you for a moment considered that had you screwed around earlier, everything may have been sorted far sooner? You obviously consider your behaviour noble, when it could equally be seen as despicable. Perhaps, you merely wasted your and your ex-wifes time to protect a self image - your nobility. Were you protecting her dignity too - some people may consider this very patronising!

So Col babe, it ain't necessarily so. Our motivations are not always clear to ourselves. There is a world of folly in judging the personal lives of others.

It is clear thou, that you would impeach Clinton for Carnal Knowledge but stay the course with Bush. In your world, adultery is a greater crime than the war in Iraq; a greater tragedy than the 600,000 killed in that war. Its not? But where else do your opinions lead Col. While you stand thick with Death, you find comfort in your own nobility.

Your so Neitzsche!

Steve Madden “"Pru Goward, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, has issued a statement rejecting claims that she had a sexual relationship with the Prime Minister, John Howard."

A here trolling around for a crumb Steve? I described Keatings relationship as it was reported. All you have done is drawn the longest bow and tried to equalize the score. You have missed the target Steve.

YEBIGA “In your world, adultery is a greater crime than the war in Iraq”

You have no idea what is in “my world”.

I have no idea what important in your world and I could not care less either. As far as I am concerned, that we presumably share a common citizenship is an association which I will do my best to ignore.

In your innocence you seem to have missed the point, which is, an adulterer has proven they are dishonest and untrustworthy.
Therefore, why would anyone presume any truth in what a proven liar says, does or claims?

You can beat you chest and berate all you want, You can vote which ever way you choose, Liberal, Labor or the Great-big-hairy-monster party and when the ballot is finished, what everyone else has voted will count equal with you.

I thought this was an amusing thread to post “How to Beat Howard and Why” but rereading parts of your opening statement

“Howard has played Mephistopheles to our Faust and we purchased the bargain. In return, we have sacrificed Australia.”

And your anecdotal analogy to “Norm”, it really does show me that you just do not have a clue.

And the closing statement

“His is an ideoligical crusade: contemptuous of Australia's history, culture and constitution.

Norm of "life be in it" would have Howard, Ruddock and Vanstone arrested, charged and incarcerated.”

Howard is an Australian, that his Australia does not conform to your childish demand is too bad. Get up and challenge him if you want. That is why I support him, because he, more than the swill humping manipulators of socialism, Howard will defend my right to vote.

“Charged and Incarcerated”
Go, play with the pixies

YEBIGA “Your so Neitzsche!”

Oh I think you meant “Nietzche”, how Freudian of you.

Well I did come across something “Nietzche” which might be appropriate here

How about

“At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.”

I can relate to that

Or better

“Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”

But best and what I do sincerely believe

“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”

That is why I will always vote against the socialist swill humpers.

Oh and as a postscript “For men are not equal: thus speaks justice.”

Have a nice day