tommytomlin

I voted against Prime Minister Howard in the Australian elections, but that was from a purely nationalist perspective (I didn't support Australian troops in Iraq without the U.N, and he was an opportunistic liar who had no respect for the electorate and ran on false economic credentials). But I can't bring myself to oppose Bush's foreign policy. I can't say that deposing Saddam was a bad thing, nor the invasion of Afghanistan (even though any President would have taken out the Taliban). There's massive downsides to what the U.S did in Iraq, but it was still the right thing for the U.S to do. I do think a lot more could be done in South Asia in the War on Terror though, something his government seems to be ignoring. I don't really agree with his domestic agenda, but my opposition isn't to his specific policies but the conservative viewpoint he espouses (specifically the privatisation of health care). I certainly don't agree with those who say he's a moron or a puppet though. To insult the intelligence of someone who holds the highest office in the land shows a lot of ignorance to the work and skill it takes to actually BE President. So yeah, I support the bigger picture ideas of Bush, but I don't think I'd vote for him. I wouldn't have voted for Kerry either, Clinton was really the only President or Presidential Candidate who I could say I supported.

It makes me angry to think that back in 2002 and 2003, the WWE had the capability to put on a series of dream matches but were too busy having Hulk feud with Vince McMahon than put him in an actual money match against Austin. As for my dream matches : Austin vs Hogan Austin vs Goldberg Goldberg vs Undertaker Lesnar vs Austin HBK vs Angle Angle vs Flair Rock vs Cena I've always wanted to see DDP vs Austin too, I think they could have an excellent match.

Isn't it Tamland?

Booker T = Big BUTT. Seriously, it's massive.

'Asia' doesn't send money to help with American wildfires, Australian bushfires or British whatevertheycallbushfiresinBritain because those countries can fend for themselves. I don't think the people of Phuket, with all their riches, are in a position to provide for themselves. I don't think the people of Aceh in Indonesia, who were halfway through a civil war before the tsunami killed about 30,000, have much in the way of home insurance. I don't know if you're aware of this Rant, but most of the world is fucked. A few million dollars in aid from countries that can easily afford it will go a long way to helping the victims of the Tsunami. But then again, those fuckers didn't send their left over rice and fishing baskets to California when the bushfires came, so screw em. Right?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Ric...3996552470.html I think Australia's donation totals about $40 million now too. I understand that Australia is in the region, and I understand countries like the U.S are waiting a while before giving aid, but what's wrong with Japan? ONE medical team? Or Britain? Or France, who has given a massive $1.7 million? How come a relatively small world power like Australia can donate double the U.S contribution, forty times Britain's and a few hundred times France's?

Don Lane

Dear god that's horrible.

I was at Dubbo Zoo outside Sydney when I was about thirteen, and we went and had lunch at this picnic table, and an EMU (like an ostrich) CHASED ME. That's about the extent of the story (it got bored after a few seconds), but when I returned to school, I was telling the story to some of my mates and something hit my leg underneath the table, and I swear to god I jumped back thinking it was the Emu back for revenge.

Now what will Greta talk about on her show?!

The main difference between our political system and the Yanks political system is that the President is elected seperately of the other houses of Parliament. In Australian and Canada and Britain and other Westminster styles of Government, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the majority in the lower house (our House of Reps). But in America, the President is elected directly by the people, seperate of Congress and the Senate. So you could have a Democratic Prez with a Republican Congress and a Democratic Senate, or any other combo. The 'opposition leader' in the U.S would be the leading Congressman or Senator (I think) of the party not in power at a Presidential level. Like Tom Daschle, before he lost his spot, would have been the 'opposition leader' to Bush. He's not the alternative President, he's just the guy who leads the Democrats in the Houses. And the Primaries are kind of like a mini-Presidential election, but only members of a certain party can vote. Each state sends a different amount of electors to the party's convention (depending on the size of the state), and the person with the majority of the electors gets the Presidential nomination. As for the inevitable 'whose is better' - I like America's better. I don't like how our Prime Minister can often be decided by completely local issues in a few electorates. Our foreign and economic policy can be decided by whether some people in South Australia don't like what the local Liberal MP said about boat people. Having said that though, the very nature of Australia's system means there's more focus on actual policies and their impacts on electorates rather than the character politics bullshit that pervades American politics.

World's Greatest Democracy, eh?

Flicking between Fox News, CNN, BBC World and NBC which is being relayed on one of our broadcast channels down here in Australia. I think NBC has the spiffiest coverage.

Less than one day till America decides who will lead Australia for the next four years!! I'M SO EXCITED~!

What time does the election coverage normally start and end?

I suspect that the angry reactions are just the ones that are borne from outsiders trying to interfere in an election. I still think one of the things that helped Howard in Australia was Kerry's sister's idiotic speech. People resent foreigners butting into their elections directly and publicly. -=Mike Considering how little publicity that got in Australia - no, it didn't.

Robin Williams, Brad Pitt, Denzel Washington, The Rock, Elisha Cuthbert One of them is for the breasts though. And it's not who you'd think.

I wonder if he let her have the last word.

Did the leader of the free world just say 'hoo'?

How do you determine which kids want to learn? Do we do an analysis of the school and say 'Well, you've got 16 kids who want to learn, so you'll get $100,000. Sorry about the rest.' If you're calling public school kids who (according to you) don't want to learn 'knuckledraggers', then I'm going to call you an elitist prick. You don't have to be rich to be an elitist prick. I'm aware there's thousands of families who struggle to send their kids to these elite schools. But I'm also aware that there's hundreds of other private (and public) schools these struggling parents can send their kids to for just the same standard of education, and for about $15,000 less a year. Its called living within your means. If you're working two jobs so you can send your kid to a school to get 'pastoral care' and so you can donate to give them a Sports Centre, then fine. But don't bitch when you get your funding cut to buy a struggling public school some fucking textbooks.

Why should I pay for roads I don't use? I never go on the F3 in Sydney, why should I my taxes pay for it? I've never been to Royal Prince Alfred hospital, so why should I pay for that? It's called tax, not communism. If you want a user pays society, move to America.

Wow, speeches from Andrew Bolt. Does Piers Akerman teach English too? Your argument is completely flawed. You want more funding to elite private schools, but you don't want your parents tax dollars going to public schools to teach 'knuckle draggers' (good to see you're not a privately schooled elitist prick by the way)? Which one is it? We should fund education based on how much a kid wants to learn? And yes, pastoral care programs and sports centres do not come cheap. But a school doesn't need a sports centre to give children an education. It needs a sports centre to teach a kid how to be good at rugby. Governments should not be funding prestige.

I went to a private school. I have mates who went to GPS schools, and none of them had a problem with Latham's policy. There are plenty of non-Government schools that don't have the need to charge $15,000 a semester for exactly the same education. Governments should be working to make public and smaller non-government schools better, and if it has to come at the expense of schools like Kings, then so be it. If the average middle class family can't afford the fee increases at Kings, there's a thousand or so other cheaper private schools that they can send their kids to, and receive exactly the same level of education. And just a question, when the Howard Government boosted funding to elite private schools, did their fees go down?

No, it's not wrong. There's 2700 non-government schools in Australia. Under Latham's plan, 67 would have gotten their funding reduced, and another 111 would have it frozen, for a saving of half a billion dollars, which would then be distributed amongt lower-fee non-gov schools. He's not taking funding off 'private' schools, he's taking funding off the private schools which receive excessive funding considering the resources presently available to them. There is a need for governments to fund private education. Mainly because it saves taxpayers money. But a line has to be drawn. Governments should not be delivering the same amount of funds to a school which charges $15,000 a year and has a system of old boys to provide it with funds for sports centres, polo fields and shooting ranges. The bulk of funding should be going to schools WITHOUT these resources, private schools which in some cases, are no better off than public schools. Tax's purpose is to redistribute funds for the good of the community, not to service the choice of the few.

Such a travesty for these schools to get reduced government funding. I mean, how else will they pay for their sports centres?!