I was at my pal Brians' place last night having a quiet bourby and watching who wants to be a mullionaire when a question was asked regarding a new doll called Cindy Smart. Now, as my kids are getting a bit old for dolls, I hadn't heard of this one. Brian informed me that among other talents, this doll has two 16-bit microprocessors, voice-recognition software and a digital camera in her chest. The doll can do simple math, recognize basic shapes and colors, respond to 70 preprogrammed questions and read flash cards in English, German, Spanish, Italian and French.
My comment was along the lines of: "I wonder if it sucks?" to which Brian uttered these immortal words. "No, it doesn't suck but its little hands make your cock look so big"
Hmmmmmm. I worry about that man sometimes.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Back Flip Boy Part 6
I knew they wouldn't let me down.
"After more than two years of fierce opposition, the ALP yesterday decided to support the government's decision to increase co-payments under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by $1 from $3.60 to $4.60 for pensioners and by $6.20 from $22.40 to $28.60 for everyone else.
Opposition finance spokesman Bob McMullan said the backflip was needed to ensure badly needed funds flowed into the health sector."
"Cameron Thompson (LP, Qld) said the PBS needed to be managed in an affective manner and the government had been doing that.
"Eventually economic reality has got to catch up with everyone ever the Labor Party," he said.
"Economic management is the core of running a good economy like Australia. We have been doing very well and enjoying the benefits of that. Unless we face up to the need, not only across the board but in individual cases like the PBS, then there is no future. You have got to manage it effectively and the Labor Party is finally catching on."
Warren Entsch (LP, Qld) said there needed to be further scrutiny of Labor's planned spending to show where they were planning to get the money from.
"The first real policy he (Opposition Leader Mark Latham ) tried to develop was superannuation and I think there was only a hole of something like $8 billion," he said."
What ever happened to that superannuation policy anyway? It seems that MarkyMark's stuff ups disappear quite quickly from media scrutiny.
Peter(the Pine Nut) Garrett seems to have disappeared from sight too. I think that maybe his parachute opened a little too close to the ground and that he is now damaged goods.
"After more than two years of fierce opposition, the ALP yesterday decided to support the government's decision to increase co-payments under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by $1 from $3.60 to $4.60 for pensioners and by $6.20 from $22.40 to $28.60 for everyone else.
Opposition finance spokesman Bob McMullan said the backflip was needed to ensure badly needed funds flowed into the health sector."
"Cameron Thompson (LP, Qld) said the PBS needed to be managed in an affective manner and the government had been doing that.
"Eventually economic reality has got to catch up with everyone ever the Labor Party," he said.
"Economic management is the core of running a good economy like Australia. We have been doing very well and enjoying the benefits of that. Unless we face up to the need, not only across the board but in individual cases like the PBS, then there is no future. You have got to manage it effectively and the Labor Party is finally catching on."
Warren Entsch (LP, Qld) said there needed to be further scrutiny of Labor's planned spending to show where they were planning to get the money from.
"The first real policy he (Opposition Leader Mark Latham ) tried to develop was superannuation and I think there was only a hole of something like $8 billion," he said."
What ever happened to that superannuation policy anyway? It seems that MarkyMark's stuff ups disappear quite quickly from media scrutiny.
Peter(the Pine Nut) Garrett seems to have disappeared from sight too. I think that maybe his parachute opened a little too close to the ground and that he is now damaged goods.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Terrorism. A Definition.
(emphasis is mine)
"'Terrorism,' the professor had lectured, 'has a singular goal. What is it?'
'Killing innocent people?' a student ventured.
'Incorrect. Death is only a byproduct of terrorism.'
'A show of strength?'
'No. A weaker persuasion does not exist.'
'To cause terror?'
'Concisely put. Quite simply, the goal of terrorism is to create terror and fear. Fear undermines faith in the establishment. It weakens the enemy from within... causing unrest in the masses. Write this down. Terrorism is not an expression of rage. Terrorism is a political weapon. Remove a government's facade of infallibility, and you remove its people's faith'
Loss of faith...
Is that what all this is about?."
Dan Brown. Angels and Demons. pg201
"'Terrorism,' the professor had lectured, 'has a singular goal. What is it?'
'Killing innocent people?' a student ventured.
'Incorrect. Death is only a byproduct of terrorism.'
'A show of strength?'
'No. A weaker persuasion does not exist.'
'To cause terror?'
'Concisely put. Quite simply, the goal of terrorism is to create terror and fear. Fear undermines faith in the establishment. It weakens the enemy from within... causing unrest in the masses. Write this down. Terrorism is not an expression of rage. Terrorism is a political weapon. Remove a government's facade of infallibility, and you remove its people's faith'
Loss of faith...
Is that what all this is about?."
Dan Brown. Angels and Demons. pg201
Clueless? Hardly
This today over at USS Clueless.
Always good reading there.
"Capitalism is like that. It gives you the opportunity to be wealthy, but you can also be poor, and you actually have to compete and work hard and perform. There's plenty of opportunity, but there are no guarantees. If you're not used to doing that kind of thing, it's a shock. Some people don't really successfully make that transition.
I understand why some people and some groups fear it. I understand them, but I don't sympathize with them or excuse them for it. There's a price for everything; there's no free lunch in life. If they want the benefits, they have to pay the price.
If you want to be free, you have to pay a really big price, one which many think is much too high. If you want to be free, you have to put up with everyone else being free. If you want to be able to do things that your neighbors disapprove of, you have to put up with the fact that they will do things you disapprove of. If you want to be able to say things others despise, you have to put up with it when others say things you despise.
In other words, if you want to be free, you have to be tolerant. For some people, tolerance is very difficult. For others, it's heresy. And that's a problem, especially if their intolerance knows no borders or limits.
That's actually one of the big reasons why we're at war. The Islamic extremists consider tolerance to be heresy. They cannot accept us as we are, even though we're quite willing to accept them as they are. They demand that we conform to their view of how we should behave, and we won't do it.
So either they'll force us to conform, or they'll kill us all, or we'll force them to be tolerant, or we'll kill them all. Or maybe everybody will end up dead.
The first of those won't happen. My nation is not going to surrender, and they are not going to convert this nation into an Islamic Republic without exterminating the vast majority of us first. (If they try, they'll discover the true reason for our Second Amendment.) Each of the others is a distinct possibility, but the third one (us forcing them to be tolerant) is by far the least bloody of those outcomes. That's the basis of the US strategy in the war (though there's much more to it than that).
If it fails, the body count is going to get extremely high. Islamic extremists may eventually gain the means to slaughter large numbers of us, but they won't ever have the ability to wipe us out completely.
On the other hand, we have the ability to wipe them out now, if we're ruthless enough to kill 10,000 innocent civilians for every militant we kill. Burning down the house to kill the roaches is pretty extreme, but there's no doubt it actually would kill almost all the roaches.
If it comes to that, it would be nearly as much of a disaster for us to do that as it would be for them to have that done to them. But if we face the stark choice of surrendering or committing nuclear genocide, then the body count is going to become very large in a very short time.
I'm willing to do almost anything to avoid that. But I am not willing to surrender in order to avoid that."
Always good reading there.
"Capitalism is like that. It gives you the opportunity to be wealthy, but you can also be poor, and you actually have to compete and work hard and perform. There's plenty of opportunity, but there are no guarantees. If you're not used to doing that kind of thing, it's a shock. Some people don't really successfully make that transition.
I understand why some people and some groups fear it. I understand them, but I don't sympathize with them or excuse them for it. There's a price for everything; there's no free lunch in life. If they want the benefits, they have to pay the price.
If you want to be free, you have to pay a really big price, one which many think is much too high. If you want to be free, you have to put up with everyone else being free. If you want to be able to do things that your neighbors disapprove of, you have to put up with the fact that they will do things you disapprove of. If you want to be able to say things others despise, you have to put up with it when others say things you despise.
In other words, if you want to be free, you have to be tolerant. For some people, tolerance is very difficult. For others, it's heresy. And that's a problem, especially if their intolerance knows no borders or limits.
That's actually one of the big reasons why we're at war. The Islamic extremists consider tolerance to be heresy. They cannot accept us as we are, even though we're quite willing to accept them as they are. They demand that we conform to their view of how we should behave, and we won't do it.
So either they'll force us to conform, or they'll kill us all, or we'll force them to be tolerant, or we'll kill them all. Or maybe everybody will end up dead.
The first of those won't happen. My nation is not going to surrender, and they are not going to convert this nation into an Islamic Republic without exterminating the vast majority of us first. (If they try, they'll discover the true reason for our Second Amendment.) Each of the others is a distinct possibility, but the third one (us forcing them to be tolerant) is by far the least bloody of those outcomes. That's the basis of the US strategy in the war (though there's much more to it than that).
If it fails, the body count is going to get extremely high. Islamic extremists may eventually gain the means to slaughter large numbers of us, but they won't ever have the ability to wipe us out completely.
On the other hand, we have the ability to wipe them out now, if we're ruthless enough to kill 10,000 innocent civilians for every militant we kill. Burning down the house to kill the roaches is pretty extreme, but there's no doubt it actually would kill almost all the roaches.
If it comes to that, it would be nearly as much of a disaster for us to do that as it would be for them to have that done to them. But if we face the stark choice of surrendering or committing nuclear genocide, then the body count is going to become very large in a very short time.
I'm willing to do almost anything to avoid that. But I am not willing to surrender in order to avoid that."
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Preparation H
I found this today and just cacked!
"Preparation "H" Thursday, May 20, 2004
Not long ago I was at the doctor for a regular check up and he asks me if I have any problems I want to tell him about. So I tell the guy I think I need him to refer me to a butt doctor to get my 'roids checked out. Guess what? He wants to see for himself. Oh great. I wasn't expecting that. Now he's telling me to turn around and drop my pants. I'm thinking two things right away. First, "How well did I wipe my ass this morning"? Second, this guy seems awfully eager to get a look at my butthole. I mean, if I was a doctor I'd be thinking, Oh shit now I gotta look at some dude's hairy ass. Why didn't I listen to my mother when she told me to go to lawyer school? Now I'm bent over in the doctor's office and a man with a pen light in his mouth is grabbing my ass and flexing my cheeks apart.
He didn't even kiss me first, the bastard.
After I finished crying he tells me my 'roids aren't that bad and I should use hemorrhoid cream. Which brings me to the point of this story.
'Roid cream is BULLSHIT. First of all it ain't no cream. It's friggin' medicated vaseline. Second, every time you shit you have to apply this stuff by putting your finger in or on your asshole..........Let me repeat that.
EVERY TIME YOU SHIT YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR FINGER IN YOUR ASS.
Let that sink in for a minute, I'll wait.
As if that wasn't bad enough, it ain't no instant cure either. You gotta keep using this worthless bunghole lube for at least a week to get any results. Now I don't know about you fags, but walking around with a lubed up greasy butthole and having oil slicks in my underware for a week is not my idea of living. Frankly I'd rather have the 'roids. I have gotten so used to the idea of having my own "special" friends down there that I have decided to name them. Evelyn, Queen of the Burning Itch, and Betty. I gave them both girls names since everyone knows that women are a pain in the ass.
Who knew butt-blisters could be so entertaining?"
"Preparation "H" Thursday, May 20, 2004
Not long ago I was at the doctor for a regular check up and he asks me if I have any problems I want to tell him about. So I tell the guy I think I need him to refer me to a butt doctor to get my 'roids checked out. Guess what? He wants to see for himself. Oh great. I wasn't expecting that. Now he's telling me to turn around and drop my pants. I'm thinking two things right away. First, "How well did I wipe my ass this morning"? Second, this guy seems awfully eager to get a look at my butthole. I mean, if I was a doctor I'd be thinking, Oh shit now I gotta look at some dude's hairy ass. Why didn't I listen to my mother when she told me to go to lawyer school? Now I'm bent over in the doctor's office and a man with a pen light in his mouth is grabbing my ass and flexing my cheeks apart.
He didn't even kiss me first, the bastard.
After I finished crying he tells me my 'roids aren't that bad and I should use hemorrhoid cream. Which brings me to the point of this story.
'Roid cream is BULLSHIT. First of all it ain't no cream. It's friggin' medicated vaseline. Second, every time you shit you have to apply this stuff by putting your finger in or on your asshole..........Let me repeat that.
EVERY TIME YOU SHIT YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR FINGER IN YOUR ASS.
Let that sink in for a minute, I'll wait.
As if that wasn't bad enough, it ain't no instant cure either. You gotta keep using this worthless bunghole lube for at least a week to get any results. Now I don't know about you fags, but walking around with a lubed up greasy butthole and having oil slicks in my underware for a week is not my idea of living. Frankly I'd rather have the 'roids. I have gotten so used to the idea of having my own "special" friends down there that I have decided to name them. Evelyn, Queen of the Burning Itch, and Betty. I gave them both girls names since everyone knows that women are a pain in the ass.
Who knew butt-blisters could be so entertaining?"
A Backflip Of My Own
A backflip of sheer joy that is.
WE HAVE NOW WON TWO IN A ROW!!!!!
Go those mighty, mighty EELS.
Yeeehaaaah!
WE HAVE NOW WON TWO IN A ROW!!!!!
Go those mighty, mighty EELS.
Yeeehaaaah!
Friday, June 11, 2004
Good liars need a good memory
As my dear old Dad used to say... "if you are going to be a bullshit artist, then you better have a good memory"
Cop this, on his second day on the job.
"ALEXANDRA KIRK: On your voting record Peter Garrett, can you explain to us when you went on the silent roll and what your understanding was then, and what year did you go on the silent roll?
PETER GARRETT: I'm still digging out the details of this. What I do know, is that it was my understanding that I was on the silent roll, and I think from a period somewhere towards the late eighties, early nineties, and from that point on, I voted whenever I was able. I went into the polling booths, you know, I filled my voting form in, I lodged my vote.
I never received any communication from the Electoral Commission to the effect that I wasn't on the roll or that my vote hadn't been received.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: Well we've examined the electoral roll from 1990 on, and you may be surprised to learn that from 1990 to '94, you're actually on the roll and not as a silent voter, but your address in the Northern Beaches of Sydney was named there until '94. Can you explain that?
PETER GARRETT: Well I think what's happened is that the period when I've gone onto the silent roll or thought I had, probably comes from that '94 period on, when it looks like I've dropped off.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: So it wasn't the late eighties that you went on, it was the mid-nineties was it?
PETER GARRETT: I think it looks like it is the mid-nineties Catherine, that's right. And when I said yesterday at the press conference, I said look, we'll dig out the details of this. I had no more idea than anybody else, and I said from the best of my recollections I want to be completely upfront and honest about it, and as the material comes to light, I'm going to respond to it, but I think without any doubt now – and certainly I've seen the reports this morning, '94 seems to be the date when we disappear, and from '94 seems to be the date when I believed I was on that silent electoral roll.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: So did you when you moved away from that northern beaches area of Sydney, did you change your electoral enrolment, your address and those details?
PETER GARRETT: No, because at that point in time I thought I was on the roll.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: But when you moved home from that area of Sydney.
PETER GARRETT: That's correct.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: Sorry, when, when did you move from that area of Sydney?
PETER GARRETT: Well I don't know the exact date, as I said again, I'm starting to dig that information out, but it'll be in that sort of '94, '95 period.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: So you did, as far as you know, put in a change of address to the Electoral Commission at that time?
PETER GARRETT: Catherine, I don't have a complete recollection at this stage. I've got to tell you that in absolute honesty, what I'm saying is that my belief was that I was on the roll, that I was on the silent roll, on that basis I went to vote. When we moved, and we did move '94/'95, I continued to go in to vote, said I was on the silent roll…
ALEXANDRA KIRK: So did you vote, just clarifying, did you vote in '96 and '98 and 2001?
PETER GARRETT: 2001, definitely yes. '98, I'm pretty sure, and '96 I'm not certain yet, I'm checking.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: And what about the public referendum in 1999?
PETER GARRETT: Look, I voted whenever I was able Catherine, I'm going to dig these details out and present them to you when I can do it in an accurate fashion. I don't want to sort of give you answers on the run, I want to be able to do it in an honest and straightforward fashion."
The full article here
Short memory must have a?... I forget!
Cop this, on his second day on the job.
"ALEXANDRA KIRK: On your voting record Peter Garrett, can you explain to us when you went on the silent roll and what your understanding was then, and what year did you go on the silent roll?
PETER GARRETT: I'm still digging out the details of this. What I do know, is that it was my understanding that I was on the silent roll, and I think from a period somewhere towards the late eighties, early nineties, and from that point on, I voted whenever I was able. I went into the polling booths, you know, I filled my voting form in, I lodged my vote.
I never received any communication from the Electoral Commission to the effect that I wasn't on the roll or that my vote hadn't been received.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: Well we've examined the electoral roll from 1990 on, and you may be surprised to learn that from 1990 to '94, you're actually on the roll and not as a silent voter, but your address in the Northern Beaches of Sydney was named there until '94. Can you explain that?
PETER GARRETT: Well I think what's happened is that the period when I've gone onto the silent roll or thought I had, probably comes from that '94 period on, when it looks like I've dropped off.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: So it wasn't the late eighties that you went on, it was the mid-nineties was it?
PETER GARRETT: I think it looks like it is the mid-nineties Catherine, that's right. And when I said yesterday at the press conference, I said look, we'll dig out the details of this. I had no more idea than anybody else, and I said from the best of my recollections I want to be completely upfront and honest about it, and as the material comes to light, I'm going to respond to it, but I think without any doubt now – and certainly I've seen the reports this morning, '94 seems to be the date when we disappear, and from '94 seems to be the date when I believed I was on that silent electoral roll.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: So did you when you moved away from that northern beaches area of Sydney, did you change your electoral enrolment, your address and those details?
PETER GARRETT: No, because at that point in time I thought I was on the roll.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: But when you moved home from that area of Sydney.
PETER GARRETT: That's correct.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: Sorry, when, when did you move from that area of Sydney?
PETER GARRETT: Well I don't know the exact date, as I said again, I'm starting to dig that information out, but it'll be in that sort of '94, '95 period.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: So you did, as far as you know, put in a change of address to the Electoral Commission at that time?
PETER GARRETT: Catherine, I don't have a complete recollection at this stage. I've got to tell you that in absolute honesty, what I'm saying is that my belief was that I was on the roll, that I was on the silent roll, on that basis I went to vote. When we moved, and we did move '94/'95, I continued to go in to vote, said I was on the silent roll…
ALEXANDRA KIRK: So did you vote, just clarifying, did you vote in '96 and '98 and 2001?
PETER GARRETT: 2001, definitely yes. '98, I'm pretty sure, and '96 I'm not certain yet, I'm checking.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: And what about the public referendum in 1999?
PETER GARRETT: Look, I voted whenever I was able Catherine, I'm going to dig these details out and present them to you when I can do it in an accurate fashion. I don't want to sort of give you answers on the run, I want to be able to do it in an honest and straightforward fashion."
The full article here
Short memory must have a?... I forget!
Back Flip Boy part 5
Remember when back flip boy was going to bring the troops home by Christmas?
Well... that was then.
This is now.
"A Labor government would consider leaving troops in Iraq to protect diplomats, federal Opposition Leader Mark Latham said today.
Mr Latham has previously outlined a timetable for Australia's withdrawal from Iraq under a Labor government, saying he hopes to bring soldiers back by Christmas."
I think we can expect much more of this now that he has a "sidekick" who chipped in with his own demonstration of the back flip with pike
"PETER GARRETT: It is our intention to give 12 months notice of termination of the above agreement on the 19th day of October 1986."
Ahh... but that was then.
This is now.
"PETER GARRETT: I don’t believe that Pine Gap should be closed. I'm fully prepared to accept the position that Labor has taken. There is no doubt about it, that it is the threat of terrorism and the intelligence that we can gather from terrorism that is now one of the primary and most important things that Australia, in terms of our national security, needs to consider."
Like all good sidekicks, he needs a catchy(but subserviant) name. Pity that Cato is taken. I think it should contain inferences that he is actually Mark Lathams' missing testicle. Like "The Pine Nut" or similar.
All suggestions welcome.
Well... that was then.
This is now.
"A Labor government would consider leaving troops in Iraq to protect diplomats, federal Opposition Leader Mark Latham said today.
Mr Latham has previously outlined a timetable for Australia's withdrawal from Iraq under a Labor government, saying he hopes to bring soldiers back by Christmas."
I think we can expect much more of this now that he has a "sidekick" who chipped in with his own demonstration of the back flip with pike
"PETER GARRETT: It is our intention to give 12 months notice of termination of the above agreement on the 19th day of October 1986."
Ahh... but that was then.
This is now.
"PETER GARRETT: I don’t believe that Pine Gap should be closed. I'm fully prepared to accept the position that Labor has taken. There is no doubt about it, that it is the threat of terrorism and the intelligence that we can gather from terrorism that is now one of the primary and most important things that Australia, in terms of our national security, needs to consider."
Like all good sidekicks, he needs a catchy(but subserviant) name. Pity that Cato is taken. I think it should contain inferences that he is actually Mark Lathams' missing testicle. Like "The Pine Nut" or similar.
All suggestions welcome.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Back Flip Boy part 4
Our glorius opposition, Mr Flip-Flop, has struck again.
[I]"commit myself to this great national purpose: reinventing and revitalising our democracy, opening up greater public participation, cleaning out the excesses of the political system, governing for the people, not the powerful."
Well, that was before....
Now, he has decided that democracy isn't all that important and has "parachuted" Peter Garret into a safe labor seat.
Word is though.. the parachute may not open in time!
Update.
These gems from big Pete:
"it is essential to imbue democracy with the spirit of a robust civil society where the community, not only those capable of marshalling power or public opinion, plays an active role".
and...
"I don't have any inclination to get back out on the campaign trail. My perspective now is that politics doesn't really change that much."
and...
"I would [run again] but I would only want to do it if a lot of people wanted me to, because it's a dog's life surrounded by hypocrites and drunks. It's no way to spend the rest of your working life."
After the first two albums, it was all shite.
[I]"commit myself to this great national purpose: reinventing and revitalising our democracy, opening up greater public participation, cleaning out the excesses of the political system, governing for the people, not the powerful."
Well, that was before....
Now, he has decided that democracy isn't all that important and has "parachuted" Peter Garret into a safe labor seat.
Word is though.. the parachute may not open in time!
Update.
These gems from big Pete:
"it is essential to imbue democracy with the spirit of a robust civil society where the community, not only those capable of marshalling power or public opinion, plays an active role".
and...
"I don't have any inclination to get back out on the campaign trail. My perspective now is that politics doesn't really change that much."
and...
"I would [run again] but I would only want to do it if a lot of people wanted me to, because it's a dog's life surrounded by hypocrites and drunks. It's no way to spend the rest of your working life."
After the first two albums, it was all shite.
Monday, June 07, 2004
We Won One
Yeeeeeehahhhhh!!!
The world is alright today. The mighty EELS have won an unprecedented one in a row!
A "come from behind" win no-less.
Suicide postponed.
The world is alright today. The mighty EELS have won an unprecedented one in a row!
A "come from behind" win no-less.
Suicide postponed.
Having The Courage Of Your Convictions - Land Rights
The latest installment of Having the Courage of your Convictions is indigenous land rights.
Put simply, if you believe in this policy, then hand back your house & land immediately. If this turns out to be a positive step for you, let us all know & we might do the same.
Put simply, if you believe in this policy, then hand back your house & land immediately. If this turns out to be a positive step for you, let us all know & we might do the same.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Oh well, stiff shit!
This today from The Australian.
"Mr Howard's lead of 22 points is the biggest over the Opposition Leader since Mr Latham's first weekend in the post after succeeding Mr Crean as ALP leader.
Since March this year, when Mr Latham virtually equalled Mr Howard as preferred prime minister - 42 per cent against 43 per cent - Mr Latham's support has steadily declined by 10 points to 32 per cent.
Satisfaction with the way Mr Latham is doing his job as Opposition Leader has been erratic but also trending down since his record high of 66 per cent in March. Last weekend it slipped to 54 per cent, down from 57 per cent.
Mr Howard's satisfaction generally has been climbing incrementally since March and a rise of three points to 57per cent last weekend is his highest since Mr Latham became Labor leader."
When will Mr Latham learn that we want to see SOME COSTED POLICIES before anyone will believe his crap. Come on, don't be shy. Tell us how we will be better off with Gough MkII.
A bit more on the Knacker Lacker from Tex at Whacking Day. "While the government's budget was a mass of wasteful electoral bribes, Labor's budget response bordered on the insane. Latham is somehow going to A) cut taxes even deeper, B) spend more on everything, C) start a Coast Guard service, D) sign the Kyoto protocol, while still keeping the budget in surplus."
More froth and bubble from the ALP. Substance please, substance!
"Mr Howard's lead of 22 points is the biggest over the Opposition Leader since Mr Latham's first weekend in the post after succeeding Mr Crean as ALP leader.
Since March this year, when Mr Latham virtually equalled Mr Howard as preferred prime minister - 42 per cent against 43 per cent - Mr Latham's support has steadily declined by 10 points to 32 per cent.
Satisfaction with the way Mr Latham is doing his job as Opposition Leader has been erratic but also trending down since his record high of 66 per cent in March. Last weekend it slipped to 54 per cent, down from 57 per cent.
Mr Howard's satisfaction generally has been climbing incrementally since March and a rise of three points to 57per cent last weekend is his highest since Mr Latham became Labor leader."
When will Mr Latham learn that we want to see SOME COSTED POLICIES before anyone will believe his crap. Come on, don't be shy. Tell us how we will be better off with Gough MkII.
A bit more on the Knacker Lacker from Tex at Whacking Day. "While the government's budget was a mass of wasteful electoral bribes, Labor's budget response bordered on the insane. Latham is somehow going to A) cut taxes even deeper, B) spend more on everything, C) start a Coast Guard service, D) sign the Kyoto protocol, while still keeping the budget in surplus."
More froth and bubble from the ALP. Substance please, substance!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
