by Sky Pilot » Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:03 pm
by southee » Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:04 pm
Darth Vader wrote:Keating was a recognised failure, Hawke was an unfaithful shallow short man with an insufferable arrogance that even surpassed Howards later years. Whitlam was just out of his league although I voted for him. Rudd the dud no argument. Gillard is a screetching witch and an embarrasment to all of us except those who love Bob Brown and his map of Tasmania.
We are doomed.
by GWW » Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:15 am
Darth Vader wrote:Keating was a recognised failure, Hawke was an unfaithful shallow short man with an insufferable arrogance that even surpassed Howards later years. Whitlam was just out of his league although I voted for him. Rudd the dud no argument. Gillard is a screetching witch and an embarrasment to all of us except those who love Bob Brown and his map of Tasmania.
We are doomed.
by redandblack » Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:10 am
Darth Vader wrote:Keating was a recognised failure, Hawke was an unfaithful shallow short man with an insufferable arrogance that even surpassed Howards later years. Whitlam was just out of his league although I voted for him. Rudd the dud no argument. Gillard is a screetching witch and an embarrasment to all of us except those who love Bob Brown and his map of Tasmania.
We are doomed.
by Media Park » Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:52 am
Wedgie wrote:I wear skin tight arseless leather pants, wtf do you wear?
by Hellboy » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:55 am
redandblack wrote:Darth Vader wrote:Keating was a recognised failure, Hawke was an unfaithful shallow short man with an insufferable arrogance that even surpassed Howards later years. Whitlam was just out of his league although I voted for him. Rudd the dud no argument. Gillard is a screetching witch and an embarrasment to all of us except those who love Bob Brown and his map of Tasmania.
We are doomed.
This is about who is the worst PM, so I'll try to stick to facts as opposed to just our partisan opinions. Worst PM would indicate a PM who either achieved nothing, or was bad for the country, or was widely regarded as being not up to the job.
I would contend that several PM's fit some of those categories, but not all. Malcolm Fraser was regarded as a failure by many Liberal MP's. I think John Howard was a proven liar and introduced fear of other cultures as a political tactic. Paul Keating was arrogant, Kevin Rudd didn't follow through on important issues and Gough Whitlam led in difficult times and couldn't control his troops.
Each of these, however, regardless of one's bias, achieved different things. I'm not sure what Fraser achieved, but he wasn’t the worst PM ever. Whitlam stopped conscription, recognized China and led an exciting transformation of the country after 23 years of Liberal government. Howard had his GST and Liberal supporters can say what else. Keating and Hawke transformed our economy, which even John Howard recognized as a great achievement and Kevin Rudd, in his short time, gave one of the greatest speeches in the history of Australia and made a giant step forward with his apology to the stolen generations, as well as getting Australia through the GFC better than any country in the world.
Julia Gillard has been PM for less than a year. She has already achieved some health reform, has started, at last, to tackle climate change, whether you agree or not and leads a government that has consistently achieved low interest rates, low unemployment, low inflation and good growth. They are facts, not opinion.
To just wipe every Labor or Liberal PM because you don’t like them is fine, but it doesn’t prove anything except our bias. My bias is that Howard was a poor PM, but that won’t be accepted as correct.
To those who didn’t know Billy McMahon as PM, I can assure you, as many on here have said, that he did nothing, stuffed up what he tried to do, wasn’t up to the job, was bad for the country and even most Liberal MP’s sighed with relief, along with most of the country when he was comfortably rolled at the election.
by Psyber » Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:11 am
by redandblack » Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:37 am
by southee » Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:11 pm
redandblack wrote:Well, hellboy, I'm happy to back my statements as more factual than yours.
I said she has achieved some health reform. That's a fact. You might not like what she's doing, but she's struck an agreement with the States. Fact.
I said she's started on climate change action. You might not like what she's doing, but it's a fact.
I said she leads a government that has presided over low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment and good growth. Again, you might not like it, but it's a FACT.
Look at what you say.
'They have achieved nothing' Obviously opinion and not factual.
'Have very shallow policies.' Again, opinion, not fact.
'Have no vision at all". Again, opinion, not fact.
I'm criticised for my opinions, fair enough, so I'm trying to support that with facts. Perhaps you can point out where my facts are wrong, with factual rebiuttal, not just 'they're hopeless" type arguments.
Perhaps you could also let me know the policies and vision that Tony Abbott is putting forward, as I must have missed them somewhere.
by redandblack » Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:23 pm
by Psyber » Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:06 pm
by Hellboy » Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:12 pm
redandblack wrote:Well, hellboy, I'm happy to back my statements as more factual than yours.
I said she has achieved some health reform. That's a fact. You might not like what she's doing, but she's struck an agreement with the States. Fact.
I said she's started on climate change action. You might not like what she's doing, but it's a fact.
I said she leads a government that has presided over low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment and good growth. Again, you might not like it, but it's a FACT.
Look at what you say.
'They have achieved nothing' Obviously opinion and not factual.
'Have very shallow policies.' Again, opinion, not fact.
'Have no vision at all". Again, opinion, not fact.
I'm criticised for my opinions, fair enough, so I'm trying to support that with facts. Perhaps you can point out where my facts are wrong, with factual rebiuttal, not just 'they're hopeless" type arguments.
Perhaps you could also let me know the policies and vision that Tony Abbott is putting forward, as I must have missed them somewhere.
by redandblack » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:02 pm
by dedja » Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:55 pm
redandblack wrote:Darth Vader wrote:Keating was a recognised failure, Hawke was an unfaithful shallow short man with an insufferable arrogance that even surpassed Howards later years. Whitlam was just out of his league although I voted for him. Rudd the dud no argument. Gillard is a screetching witch and an embarrasment to all of us except those who love Bob Brown and his map of Tasmania.
We are doomed.
This is about who is the worst PM, so I'll try to stick to facts as opposed to just our partisan opinions. Worst PM would indicate a PM who either achieved nothing, or was bad for the country, or was widely regarded as being not up to the job.
I would contend that several PM's fit some of those categories, but not all. Malcolm Fraser was regarded as a failure by many Liberal MP's. I think John Howard was a proven liar and introduced fear of other cultures as a political tactic. Paul Keating was arrogant, Kevin Rudd didn't follow through on important issues and Gough Whitlam led in difficult times and couldn't control his troops.
Each of these, however, regardless of one's bias, achieved different things.
by dedja » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:03 pm
Darth Vader wrote:Keating was a recognised failure
by mick » Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:41 am
by Gozu » Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:29 pm
by Sky Pilot » Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:52 pm
by dedja » Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:55 pm
by cripple » Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:58 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |