so apparently the opposition had a massive fail moment today.
Originally Posted by Peter Mooresforever 63*
He wasn't just a criminal, he was treasonous. Even if he never fired a shot at an Australian, his intent was certainly to do so.
Every second that he's alive is one that he should be grateful for, regardless of his location.
Mate, what he did was bad. Awful in fact. Nonetheless when you commit a crime, be it shoplifting or treason, you should be charged. Not a foreign concept, in fact it's the cornerstone of any democratic legal system.
"I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."
Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.
Not really. **** him.
GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010Originally Posted by Irfan
Is Cam White, Is Good.
I agree. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be an entertaining tag team match.
Backing Keating to produce a knife while Graeme Richardson distracts the ref.
Backing Keating to yell at the crowd to get a job as he enters the ring with his entrance music being scenes from Keating: The Musical.
Man would Keating cut an awesome promo!
- Winner of the 2011 and 2012 CricketWeb AFL tipping competition
- Winner of the 2011, 2012 and 2013 CricketWeb NRL tipping competition
It's true. It allows for stereotyping, but what ya gonna do?
Don't worry, many have noticed.Hicks asked Howard whether he believed the treatment in Guantanamo had been humane. He was subsequently questioned by an audience member as to why the rule of law violations in Guantanamo were OK for Australians but not OK for British or French nationals, who were repatriated by their governments. Howard deflected by noting that the sort of democratic exchange facilitated by Q&A would not be possible in many countries. But he would not recognise that the doctrine of habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial, and the repudiation of torture were also important democratic principles which had been denied to Hicks.
Howard also gave a strong indication that he was doubtful of the extent to which the stolen generation was damaging to the families involved. He gave this response in answer to the question of whether he regretted not delivering the apology. It illuminated not only Howard's adamant refusal to apologise for an action he did not literally commit, but that he was sceptical about the very existence of that wrongdoing.
These were significant words offering a retrospective insight into 11 years of governance. But they will not be given the critical inspection they deserve because of the lunacy of one individual and his shoes.
Last edited by Jono; 27-10-2010 at 07:33 AM.
It struck me the other night on Q and A that you can get away with a lot of unpopular positions if the economy is running well and you don't have any absolute disasters like pink batts. I mean, Howard was really on the defensive the other night to the point where it made you realise that apart from the economy and his approach on border protection, there was not much the Australian people liked.
I think in a way that could be a lesson for Gillard. As long as the economy is going well and she doesn't have any absolute calamities like pink batts, she should feel free to do what she really believes is right (introduce a carbon tax, act humanely to refugess, implement the Murray Darling plan regardless of how many farmers you piss off).
Much better to go to the next election saying you acted on climate change, were humane to refugees, acted to save the Murray Darling. Because, even if there are losers out of a carbon tax and the Murray Darling plan, you've still got the roaring economy as your safety net.
But it appears that she's already running in fright from the Murray Darling reforms. I don't think those farmers are ever going to vote for her anyway. Whereas, she will get enormous credit in the wider electorate if she acts and helps to preserve Australia's food bowl.
Last edited by howardj; 27-10-2010 at 04:43 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)