 |
| |
|
|
Sprayber
|
 |
Dixie
Oct 2000
time: 23:21
|
|
OR Bullshit of the week award
quote:
US blamed for Dems problems
26jul02
THE Bush administration could be trying to destabilise the Australian Democrats and "agent provocateurs" may be watching the party, a senior Democrats leader has claimed.
In a new take on the internal row engulfing the party, the leader of the Australian Democrats in South Australia, Mike Elliott, today pointed the finger of blame at the Americans.
"There are a range of policy areas where the Democrats and the Bush administration would be at great odds and they wouldn't be sad to see us disappear," he told ABC Radio.
"The American government would love to see the Democrats fail.
"All I would say is I wouldn't be surprised if there are agent provocateurs at work. Who has put them there I don't know."
He said the Americans had monitored the Democrats' performance in both the federal and state elections.
"In fact, I had two visits from American consuls who were taking very close notice of several seats in the lower house we thought we had a chance of winning," he said.
Mr Elliott said they knew the candidates of all parties and how things were travelling.
He said that was an amazing level of interest from the American government in Australia's second-smallest state.
Mr Elliott said a range of groups - including other political parties, business and media groups, and overseas governments - had a vested interest in destabilising the Democrats.
The party is in the grip of a blazing row over Natasha Stott Despoja's leadership.
Former leader Meg Lees and Senator Andrew Murray, who are reportedly considering quitting the party.
|
Was it our fault that the Australians had to kill thousands of their roos. Maybe they can blaim Kylie Minogue on us too.  Or maybe Steve Irwin?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
WHo the hell are the Democrats? I thought you guys just had Labor and Conservatives. |
OK.
1. The Liberals. (Conservative Right).
Not to be confused with what the US calls "Liberals". More closely aligned in political thought with the British "Tories" or the US "GOP" (Just what in the heck does GOP stand for anyway?).
Currently in office.
Political stance: Places People before all other things, expects people to be self reliant and not waited on hand and foot by the Government.
2. The Labour Party. (Conservative Left).
Closely allied to the Labour Unions - in fact the Unions controll 60% of the voting power in the party by constitutional mandate.
Currently out of office.
Political stance: Places people before all other things, desires to make people dependant on the party to ensure that they remain in office. You don't dare vote us out, because then you lose your entitlements. (What Richard Nixon succinctly put as "When you have them by the Balls, their hearts and minds will follow").
3, The Democrats. (Supposed middle).
Allied to no one. Founded by Don Chip with the premise that the party would "Keep the bastards honest". By this he meant that the Democrats would control the senate and ensure that the Government lived up to it's election promises. In recent years has done more to ensure that both sides of politics, when in government, do not get their election promises into legislation by blocking it in the senate.
Political stance: Doesn't know were or whether to place people before or after other things. Most people would agree with the assertion that the Democrats have moved to the left of center in their policies.
4. The Greens. (irrational Left).
Allied to all things green and little furry things that go squash in the night when road trains run over them. Opposed to everything and everyone on general principles and would love to see us all swinging from the trees again.
Political stance: Puts ALL things before people.
People are mean sadistic fools that should not inherit the Earth, so the Greens are going to place as many obstacles, to the general population's search for happiness and well being, as they can hoodwink the people into accepting.
Only the Liberals and the Labour Party have any realistic possibility of forming a government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by orange
GOP - Grand Ol'(d) Party |
Which is funny because they aren't the old party. They are newer than the Democrats. Typical politcal propaganda.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Nonsense Fez. It was just the truth. The Replicans ARE younger than the Democrats. Even when I was Republican I thought it was a bit much to call them the GOP when they clearly were the younger party.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Verto
|
|
quote:
As a party it did not exist before 1834, but its nucleus was formed in 1824 when the adherents of John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay joined forces against Andrew Jackson. |
quote:
The Republican party has been a major political force in the United States since it first appeared on the presidential ballot in 1856. Following the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Whig party disintegrated, and mass meetings in the upper midwestern states led to the formation of a new party opposed to the spread of slavery into the western territories. |
quote:
After the war, the Republicans continued the Whig tradition of promoting industrial development through high tariffs, while their popular base lay among the freedmen and the white, Protestant population of the northern states (the party began to be referred to as the "Grand Old Party," or GOP during this period). |
quote:
This group of Anti-Federalists, who called themselves Republicans or Democratic Republicans (the name was not fixed as Democratic until 1828. |
The Republican party has been around since 1856, the Whig party before it since 1834(or 1824, depending on your POV) and the Democrat party since 1828.
Just the historical facts. Now, I believe "Grand Ol' Party" is like saying you are having a "grand ol' time".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Besides the democrats are a lost cause. |
That is what the Republicans thought before Clinton. His victory showed how wrong they were. That is the real reason they hated him so much. They had planned to get controll of the Supreme Court and do some serious damage to human rights in this country. That is why I can't stand them anymore. They are pro states rights in opposition to human rights.
What happened to their claims of less government? Instead they want to intrude on peoples private lives. They are quite willing to let Robber Barons alone of course. When they said they wanted the goverment to be less restrictive they really meant.
Get the Government out of the boardrooms and into the bedrooms.
Well they haven't succeeded in the latter because they didn't get the Supreme Court they wanted but they sure did succeed in the former and now companies are going down from the lack of regulation that previously protected us from thieves in high places. Just like when the Savings and Loan went down when they were deregulated under Reagan and with George Bush in charge of the deregation. Even one of his sons cost the US taxpayers over one billion with the S&L he mismanaged into bankrupcy. If that had come out before the election George Bush would not have been President after Reagan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Verto
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
That is what the Republicans thought before Clinton. His victory showed how wrong they were. That is the real reason they hated him so much. They had planned to get controll of the Supreme Court and do some serious damage to human rights in this country. That is why I can't stand them anymore. They are pro states rights in opposition to human rights. |
Sorry, I was opposed to Clinton mainly because he was anti-military, wanted bigger government, and later because of the disgrace he brought to the Presidency. And, of course, there were all those secrets he gave to China. There's a word for that, too: treason.
quote:
What happened to their claims of less government? Instead they want to intrude on peoples private lives. They are quite willing to let Robber Barons alone of course. When they said they wanted the goverment to be less restrictive they really meant. |
If, by intruding on people's private lives, you are referring to recent security measures, then the Republicans are not alone, and I oppose anything beyond improved border patrols. I wish America would drop this post 9/11 frenzy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verto
Sorry, I was opposed to Clinton mainly because he was anti-military, wanted bigger government, and later because of the disgrace he brought to the Presidency. And, of course, there were all those secrets he gave to China. There's a word for that, too: treason. |
He wasn't anti-military. He just wanted to cut its budget. Just as Bush did. Reagan had jacked up the military budget to level that could not be sustained.
He didn't make bigger government wether he wanted it or not. However Reagan DID make a bigger government even though he said it was too big to start with.
The Republicans went searching for dirt. Found some of their own as well by accident. Do let me know when the Clinton Administration has as many convictions as the Reagan adminstration did. Right now its 29 for Reagan and one for Clinton. Reagans admin did a lot that was ilegal.
As for treason, thats an assumption. There is no reason to think Clinton gave military secrets to the Chinese intentionaly. Except of course the usual Republican desire to smear him. I do think he screwed up there but I don't see treason in it. Might as well accuse Reagan of treason based on that 2 million dollar gift the Japanese gave him after he got out of office apparently for not insisting that the Japanes open their markets as we were doing. That hurt us a lot.
quote:
If, by intruding on people's private lives, you are referring to recent security measures, then the Republicans are not alone, and I oppose anything beyond improved border patrols. I wish America would drop this post 9/11 frenzy. |
I was not, although some of those have looked un-Constitutional as well. I was thinking about Ed Meese's attempt to censor, which involved his Meese commision just plain lying about the resuts of the Meese study and of course the desire to stop abortions without bothering with a constitional amendment since the Republican knew they could not get one.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Why, my position of course. Just pretending its invalid does not make it so.
You have no credibility on this. Not yet anyway since you have only shown an unwillingness to discuss it rather than produce anything that remotely resembled a coherent arguement.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-07-2002 17:32
or 
. 
I think Bush is on the look out for any party called the "democrats".
And it is credibility. 
|