[mikeb1958]

Originally Posted by Captain Eddie

I really appreciate what Prime Minister Howard had to say. It gripes me when people with different values and faith move into a country, such as Australia or England, and than demand that that country conform to their beliefs. If they do not like the culture of England or Australia, then why move there?

...OR THE UNITED STATES!

[DADoser]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

DADoser, are you in Uni or something? At least that was the last time time I heard academic Pollyanna stuff like that. Everybody takes off someone else, be it jobs, girlfriends or countries - that's just the way it is bubs.

And if enough bleeding heart fools bend over far enough the invaders, be they illegal or not, will be happy to take what they can. If some of you guys don't like that concept I suggest you get off your butts and do something rather than just talk about it, it's really happening Reg

Nice tactic - don't address ANY issue, then imply that I'm a "bleeding heart" and that somehow by working in a university that I'm some "crazy leftist" - nice


Just because an opinion/perspective isn't lock step with current neo-conservatism/Republicanism - doesn't mean its "liberal" by default. (I collect MILITARY diecast - M I L I T A R Y - not civilian. )

Most of the perspective I posted is pure free-market libertarianism. (If you read everything I posted). Also my concept of liberty/freedom can be traced straight back to the American founding fathers - their documents and perspectives. I guess if in the 21st century that is "pollyanna" stuff - maybe that shows a real problem.

"Everybody takes off someone else" - Maybe that is the way of the world - but as one who is trying to put into practice NT Christianity - that's not the way of the Kingdom of God (if you follow Jesus anyway.)

Look - if you want to get personal - I'm a Christian who attends Church every sunday; gun owner (combat shotgun); been married only once and am still married to the same woman of 17 years; I'm white (wife is African-American);don't drink - but don't judge those who choose to; 2 kids who have put on christ in baptism; first and only one in my family to go to college;worked since I was 16; owned 25% of a video business in the 80's; AND have spent my professional career in education - grades 7 through the University. (In 2004 I voted for divided government/gridlock which by default was a vote for Kerry. In 2000 I voted for Gore becasue I didn't think Bush had any demonstrated successful administative experience - I think I have been proven right on that vote as well. I am registerd Democrat - have filled out the paperwork to change my registation to Independent but have not mailed it yet - too lazy, keep forgetting about it.)

I'm for small, good, competent government. I'm for honest government officials who can actually govern (don't actually see too many of those lately). In a lot of ways, I come to my conclusions through the lense of true conservativism - Government should stay out of individuals private lives. Conservative on foreign policy - No liberal "crusades" - i.e. Wilson "making the world safe for democracy"; Johnson - that Vietnam thing; or Bush's "liberal" domino theory of Middle-East democracy. MY U.S. tax dollars should not be going to Iraq (or Halliburton) to re-build an infrastructure that Iraqis should be paying for. I don't want to foot the bill for government waste and incompetence.

I hardly have a "liberal" or "bleeding heart" perspective. I guess I'm just in the radical. practical middle - trying not to be blinded by the ideological rhetorical B.S. from both the right AND left. How about practical governments that serve the best interests of ALL people they were elected to govern? How about we jetison this age of political division.

I'll sum up American politics in an american football analogy:
First - the politicians are like college level players in a professionl level game.

Its 3rd and 22 from our own 15 yard line. We're down by 3 touchdowns (huge deficit/spending; Iraq losing or lost; loss of jobs/manufacturing base; emergence of China; etc.). And what we are fighting over who is going to be the quarterback (partison B.S.) and we are overly concerned about the condition of our uniforns (i.e. flag burning ammendments; Teri Schiavo; and gay marriage).

Maybe we should focus on winning the game for the fans (American people) instead of letting ourselves become emersed in a quarterback contraversy or silly P.R. campaign. Government - with all the seriousness of the issues the U.S./world is facing right now - is way too important to be reduced to silly public relations/dishonest games.

There is (or was) a healthy "doubt" or "skepticism" in conservatism - I'm all for that. I just wonder if/when it will ever return. I'm not one to deify Reagan - but I wonder how he would have handled the presidency in these current times????? I doubt he would have done it the way Bush/Blair have.

Be honest. Were John Kerry and George Bush THE 2 best people in ALL of the U.S. to lead this country? If these were the 2 best choices - we are in much more trouble that we acknowledge. I think its time for the American people to wake up and reject this 2 party system - obviously it does not yield the BEST or the BRIGHTEST.

Hope that isn't to "pollyanna."
(Maybe the Christian stuff is - but that's just Jesus' teachings - we really aren't supposed to take those too seriously are we? We can always go on sinning so Grace will abound.)

[Aircrafty]

DADoser I'm not being personal. You placed the bleeding heart fool label on yourself apparently because I was speaking in general terms. Remember when you said I was taking things to personal in the bombing of German cities discussion. I feel you are making the same mistake here.

Firstly, I should say that I view academic styles of discussion as rather pointless because few people ever change their minds. Imo most academic types don't care about the other persons viewpoint. They usually just treat the discussion as a debate with a winner and a looser. And when they look like loosing they play the race or religion card to score points that way. Again, I'm not having a go at you personally, that is just how most academics argue. At least that is my perception, but I could be wrong.

So lets discuss some issues.

Religion. This isn't a major issue with most Aussies because it doesn't play a big part in our daily lives. Statistics may show that most Australians are Christians but few attend church except perhaps at Christmas and Easter. It doesn't even play a significant part in Australian relationships. For example I'm 'officially' an Anglican, but I'm married to a Catholic woman - for 18 years. We have two teenage boys who are 'offically' Catholic but are happy to date girls of any religion, racial background etc. Most Australians are wary of people of any colour or creed that are overly or fanatically religious. For example we are likely to place a churchy American with an automatic shotgun in the same category as a Muslim etc with an AK 47.

Guns. I would say that more than 80% of Aussies under 30 have never handled a firearm, and I feel they are better off for it. Imo Americans are to hung up on their 'right to bear arms'. That may have been applicable in an era when battles and wild animals were a real issue. However in our modern and safer environment why should anyone have a need (or right) to have a weapon that can take the lives of say 20 people in less than a minute. You may suggest that your environment does not feel safe, which is why you have a combat style shotgun. But isn't that merely a result of the proliferation of firearms in American society together with the fear created by your media.

Homosexuals. Most Aussies are very tolerant of homosexuals. Variations in hormone levels at birth together with human genetics ensures that about 8% of any human population will be homosexual. To me they are just like left handed people in that they have to fit in with the majority. They can't help being like that, and why should we force our ideas upon them. I don't have a problem with homosexuals being married in a civil ceremony but I would not support the allowance of church based homosexual weddings.

Government. I feel most Australians are in favour of a strong Federal style of government which is in touch with state and local issues. But doesn't have the power for excessive actions that can often be based on power trips of the guy in charge.

Aboriginals. There are some trouble makers but most Aboriginals are good people. They have a high level of unemployment but with our generous social support the average 'unemployed' Aboriginal family receives about $50,000 per annum in government benefits and grants. They receive these funds no matter where they choose to live in Australia. However most tend to remain in their traditional area. Many of these areas are remote which means infrastructure, including medical support, has been a problem to supply. Consequently health is still a problem for these people, and this is not helped by their huge amount of leasure time which can lead to addiction problems resulting from petrol sniffing and alcolhol.

[stalag8611]

Originally Posted by Mark 1

I agree with everything there except this:

"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."

Our PM is christian and right wing and pushing it.
I was born here (AUS) of Anglo-Celtic parents and have no interest in any god. Apparently then, by this logic and on christian principles, I can enslave and remove anybody from their land who is darker than me.

Just goes to show we have rednecks everywhere

Zowie, wowie PC strikes again. Apparently you must a product to Australia's priviledged elite class. Diversity reigns and chaos is the name of the game, and watching twelve young girls burn to death because they aren't properly dressed is OK in your world, Mark, where anything goes. But I think most Aussies get it; become part of the greater Australian culture. be accepting of my beliefs and I of yours, and we'll all move ahead.
I know many Aussies: served with them when I was in Germany in the 50s and raced on Long Island Sound against them. Tough fighters/competitors-great friends. Here's to PM John Howard.

Merry Christmas and an Auld lang sygne.

[mikeb1958]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

DADoser I'm not being personal. You placed the bleeding heart fool label on yourself apparently because I was speaking in general terms. Remember when you said I was taking things to personal in the bombing of German cities discussion. I feel you are making the same mistake here.

Firstly, I should say that I view academic styles of discussion as rather pointless because few people ever change their minds. Imo most academic types don't care about the other persons viewpoint. They usually just treat the discussion as a debate with a winner and a looser. And when they look like loosing they play the race or religion card to score points that way. Again, I'm not having a go at you personally, that is just how most academics argue. At least that is my perception, but I could be wrong.

So lets discuss some issues.

Religion. This isn't a major issue with most Aussies because it doesn't play a big part in our daily lives. Statistics may show that most Australians are Christians but few attend church except perhaps at Christmas and Easter. It doesn't even play a significant part in Australian relationships. For example I'm 'officially' an Anglican, but I'm married to a Catholic woman - for 18 years. We have two teenage boys who are 'offically' Catholic but are happy to date girls of any religion, racial background etc. Most Australians are wary of people of any colour or creed that are overly or fanatically religious. For example we are likely to place a churchy American with an automatic shotgun in the same category as a Muslim etc with an AK 47.

Guns. I would say that more than 80% of Aussies under 30 have never handled a firearm, and I feel they are better off for it. Imo Americans are to hung up on their 'right to bear arms'. That may have been applicable in an era when battles and wild animals were a real issue. However in our modern and safer environment why should anyone have a need (or right) to have a weapon that can take the lives of say 20 people in less than a minute. You may suggest that your environment does not feel safe, which is why you have a combat style shotgun. But isn't that merely a result of the proliferation of firearms in American society together with the fear created by your media.

Homosexuals. Most Aussies are very tolerant of homosexuals. Variations in hormone levels at birth together with human genetics ensures that about 8% of any human population will be homosexual. To me they are just like left handed people in that they have to fit in with the majority. They can't help being like that, and why should we force our ideas upon them. I don't have a problem with homosexuals being married in a civil ceremony but I would not support the allowance of church based homosexual weddings.

Government. I feel most Australians are in favour of a strong Federal style of government which is in touch with state and local issues. But doesn't have the power for excessive actions that can often be based on power trips of the guy in charge.

Aboriginals. There are some trouble makers but most Aboriginals are good people. They have a high level of unemployment but with our generous social support the average 'unemployed' Aboriginal family receives about $50,000 per annum in government benefits and grants. They receive these funds no matter where they choose to live in Australia. However most tend to remain in their traditional area. Many of these areas are remote which means infrastructure, including medical support, has been a problem to supply. Consequently health is still a problem for these people, and this is not helped by their huge amount of leasure time which can lead to addiction problems resulting from petrol sniffing and alcolhol.

I would vote for you Aircrafty!

[DADoser]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

...So lets discuss some issues.

Religion. This isn't a major issue with most Aussies because it doesn't play a big part in our daily lives. Statistics may show that most Australians are Christians but few attend church except perhaps at Christmas and Easter. It doesn't even play a significant part in Australian relationships. For example I'm 'officially' an Anglican, but I'm married to a Catholic woman - for 18 years. We have two teenage boys who are 'offically' Catholic but are happy to date girls of any religion, racial background etc. Most Australians are wary of people of any colour or creed that are overly or fanatically religious. For example we are likely to place a churchy American with an automatic shotgun in the same category as a Muslim etc with an AK 47.

Guns. I would say that more than 80% of Aussies under 30 have never handled a firearm, and I feel they are better off for it. Imo Americans are to hung up on their 'right to bear arms'. That may have been applicable in an era when battles and wild animals were a real issue. However in our modern and safer environment why should anyone have a need (or right) to have a weapon that can take the lives of say 20 people in less than a minute. You may suggest that your environment does not feel safe, which is why you have a combat style shotgun. But isn't that merely a result of the proliferation of firearms in American society together with the fear created by your media.

Homosexuals. Most Aussies are very tolerant of homosexuals. Variations in hormone levels at birth together with human genetics ensures that about 8% of any human population will be homosexual. To me they are just like left handed people in that they have to fit in with the majority. They can't help being like that, and why should we force our ideas upon them. I don't have a problem with homosexuals being married in a civil ceremony but I would not support the allowance of church based homosexual weddings.

Government. I feel most Australians are in favour of a strong Federal style of government which is in touch with state and local issues. But doesn't have the power for excessive actions that can often be based on power trips of the guy in charge.

Aboriginals. There are some trouble makers but most Aboriginals are good people. They have a high level of unemployment but with our generous social support the average 'unemployed' Aboriginal family receives about $50,000 per annum in government benefits and grants. They receive these funds no matter where they choose to live in Australia. However most tend to remain in their traditional area. Many of these areas are remote which means infrastructure, including medical support, has been a problem to supply. Consequently health is still a problem for these people, and this is not helped by their huge amount of leasure time which can lead to addiction problems resulting from petrol sniffing and alcolhol.

So - back to the original posted story - no tangents or sidebars. Serious question -

Does Australia's Prime minister reflect (as in this story) the attitudes and values of the majority of Australians?

(From this - Aircrafty's post/perspective - relative to the U.S. - Australia seems to be much more liberal leaning and secular, as a nation/people.)

OK - one tangent. Was Australian a part of the original U.S. coalition in Iraq? (I know they were in Afghanistan.) If so, do they still have troops there? Just curious - not trying to make any political point or judgement.

[DADoser]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

DADoser I'm not being personal. You placed the bleeding heart fool label on yourself apparently because I was speaking in general terms. Remember when you said I was taking things to personal in the bombing of German cities discussion. I feel you are making the same mistake here.

Firstly, I should say that I view academic styles of discussion as rather pointless because few people ever change their minds. Imo most academic types don't care about the other persons viewpoint. They usually just treat the discussion as a debate with a winner and a looser. And when they look like loosing they play the race or religion card to score points that way. Again, I'm not having a go at you personally, that is just how most academics argue. At least that is my perception, but I could be wrong.

.

I guess I misread your post/intent. (and am big enough to admit that.)

To be honest I'm not sure what an "academic style of discussion" is. It sounds more like you are describing the current state of partisan politics in the U.S. (Its both funny and sad - because "we the people" pay for it.)

I'm also not sure how "academic" I am, personally - but I do work at a University (No PH D. nor am I a professor).

Some academics (the few that make the headlines and appear in the "sensationally biased" media. Of course the media is not going to put a normal academic on - they need the one that is "out there" for the ratings. I could go on about how BOTH political sides use the "out there" professors to further their own agendas...but what'sthe point?) may fit the box you have put them in - but to characterize all of academia that way is probably inaccurate/unfair. I'm not sure how academia is in Australia - nor can I comment on the whole of academia in the U.S. - only MY experience in it.

Somewhere there needs to be intelligent, educated, fact based, honest, unbiased evaluation and assessment of history/politics/public policy/real, practical solutions to forgeign and domestic issues. I'm just wondering where - if anywhere - that is taking place.

A university seems to be the best place for this to occur. If not at Universities, then where?

(My insertion of religion into my posts - is/was not a conscious attempt at playing any "religion" card. That came from a sincere perspective. The point was how politicians hold up "Christianity" in a dishonest/innaccurate way. I thought it was pretty clear that I was calling people out who use the "Christianity card" for personal political gain. Like U.S. politicians and, from the article - your Prime Minister.)

[admin]

I was just thinking to myself...

"surely nobody will make this debate personal"





Play nice. Understand that we are not clones of each other, but very different people who are united by one thing...

DIECAST

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by DADoser

I guess I misread your post/intent. (and am big enough to admit that.)

To be honest I'm not sure what an "academic style of discussion" is. It sounds more like you are describing the current state of partisan politics in the U.S. (Its both funny and sad - because "we the people" pay for it.)

I'm also not sure how "academic" I am, personally - but I do work at a University (No PH D. nor am I a professor).

Some academics (the few that make the headlines and appear in the "sensationally biased" media. Of course the media is not going to put a normal academic on - they need the one that is "out there" for the ratings. I could go on about how BOTH political sides use the "out there" professors to further their own agendas...but what'sthe point?) may fit the box you have put them in - but to characterize all of academia that way is probably inaccurate/unfair. I'm not sure how academia is in Australia - nor can I comment on the whole of academia in the U.S. - only MY experience in it.

Somewhere there needs to be intelligent, educated, fact based, honest, unbiased evaluation and assessment of history/politics/public policy/real, practical solutions to forgeign and domestic issues. I'm just wondering where - if anywhere - that is taking place.

A university seems to be the best place for this to occur. If not at Universities, then where?

(My insertion of religion into my posts - is/was not a conscious attempt at playing any "religion" card. That came from a sincere perspective. The point was how politicians hold up "Christianity" in a dishonest/innaccurate way. I thought it was pretty clear that I was calling people out who use the "Christianity card" for personal political gain. Like U.S. politicians and, from the article - your Prime Minister.)

My Academia definition. I was recently a mature age student for four years while studying for a Diploma and subsequently a Degree in Environmental Science. During this period I formed the opinion that most lecturers and students at Uni don't seem to have moved on from the idealised way of thinking of their High School years. The Uni scene appears to be a concentration of the minority groups of society that insist on inflicting their requirements out of all proportion to their numbers.

For example, my 'new student pamphlet' seemed to be 90% concerned with the emotional support of homosexual students and female students. There was no mention of support groups for hetero male students of any age despite them having the highest suicide rate. During discussions with my lecturers, fellow students (most aged 18 to early 20's), and University admin staff. I gained the opinion that only their viewpoint was acceptable and the more conservative views of the majority was irrelevant as they were often viewed as being the oppressors.

So in effect the educators and those being educated do not seem to represent the majority of the population. Therefore their views tend to be academic, or somewhat meaningless, in the big scheme of things. Clearly I have generalised the Uni scene, but you will find that most people not linked with education are likely to agree with me.

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by DADoser

So - back to the original posted story - no tangents or sidebars. Serious question -

Does Australia's Prime minister reflect (as in this story) the attitudes and values of the majority of Australians?

(From this - Aircrafty's post/perspective - relative to the U.S. - Australia seems to be much more liberal leaning and secular, as a nation/people.)

Australia's Prime Minister John Howard, aka Little Johnny, is considered to be 'right of centre' so in effect would not represent the majority of Australians. In fact his hold on power is rather slender and becoming less so, similar to your Mr Bush I suspect. However, Howard has proved to be in the main at least reliable. He is an experienced politician and versatile enough to alter his party's policies to reflect any changes in the opinions of the majority of Australians.

Originally Posted by DADoser

OK - one tangent. Was Australian a part of the original U.S. coalition in Iraq? (I know they were in Afghanistan.) If so, do they still have troops there? Just curious - not trying to make any political point or judgement.

Here's a list of current operations being carried out by the ADF (Australian Defence Force): http://www.defence.gov.au/globalops.cfm