Slashdot Mirror
Australia Gets Its First Female Prime Minister
An anonymous reader writes "Julia Gillard has been elected unopposed to the Labor leadership, seizing power in a bloodless Parliament House coup after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd decided not to contest this morning's leadership ballot. Ms. Gillard will now be sworn in as Australia's first female prime minister. Emerging from this morning's meeting, she said she felt 'very honored' and said she would be making a statement shortly. Treasurer Wayne Swan now steps up as deputy prime minister. He was also elected unopposed."
The news value here being a Prime Minister's gender is condescending to Julia Gillard as a politician.
The news value should be "Aus PM changes: Will she drop Conroy?"
I for one, welcome our new ginger overlord
Does this mean they're done trying to cut the cable to the Internet in Australia, or is that still on?
Canada's first and, so far, only female Prime Minister also took office by becoming party leader and with no general election in between.
Someone tell me if i should hate her or not, the internet has failed me so far
Really this is just the labour party hoping that by dumping their figure head moron Rudd that people will forget Gillard is just as responsible as Rudd for the recent policy disasters. If anything Gillard is even more extreme than Rudd, lets hope the voting public can see past this sleight of hand.
Labour need to go before it's too late. Censorship and economic mismanagement are things that simply can't be tolerated any longer.
Unfortunately time and again, women politicians have proven themselves to be just as incompetent and corrupt (especially with their favouritism towards big business and their contributions) as male politicians.
As a women, I have yet to notice any women president or prime-minister leading a western country that has put any additional emphasis over their male counterparts in the same political party on women's only issues: gender discrimination, reproductive rights, healthcare inequalities, etc. So seeing a women as head of state no longer inspires me.
No she didn't, Australians can spell.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Politics would be a lot more tolerable if politicians called each other out in meaningful ways more often. This is the best display of nose-to-the-grindstone politics since Honduras last year.
This argument makes me want to kill myself.
Who cares that she was unelected? You voted for a party, not an individual, you moron. The policies of the party are unlikely to change significantly under Julia. The party leader can and is elected or negotiated) by the party, not the public.
I mean are people really this fucking stupid? I'll give you a hint - yes they are.
While I'm ranting, there's another thing I hate. I hate this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf3KovsW1Zo Actually I love the ad, it's friggin' hilarious. What I hate is the fact that this is the quality of election campaigning which political advisors think is worth engaging in. I hate this because this indicates that this is the sort of thing people are persuaded by when they decide who to vote for. People are persuaded more by a cute, idiotic cartoon, than actual political records, history and peformance. Those people are fucking stupid.
I mean think about it - Kevin was replaced mostly because he was unpopular with voters, and Julia gives Labor a better chance at the next election. This in itself proves the point - despite things not being significantly different under Julia, this change of leader will sway people's votes. WHY SHOULD IT?! It shouldn't, but it does.
Basically I hate the way democratic politics works, it's crap. And I hate stupid people. Stupid people shouldn't have this much influence.
-Brendan
Unlike the USA where all of the most senior government decision makers, with the sole exception of the President, are appointed? Do Americans get to vote for the foreign minister, attorney general, treasurer et al? No. No they don't. They are appointed.
How democratic is it when the most powerful positions in the land are filled by the unelected?
A dream is good. A plan is better.
Julia Gillard has been elected unopposed to the Labor leadership, seizing power in a bloodless Parliament House coup after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd decided not to contest this morning's leadership ballot.
Oh come on. Did you really need to tell us that the parliamentary "coup" in Australia was bloodless?
"As a women" - Are you a hive mind?
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
I see you paid attention at school when learning about Australian politics.
.
I'm sorry; I couldn't let this pass without response.
Women's only issues? Seriously? I'm going to assume you're just using short-hand for a more nuanced idea, but still the underlying ideology warrants consideration. Last time I checked the fact that I have a penis didn't make reproductive rights any less of a personal, moral, political, and societal concern. Ignoring the fact that I have a mother, grandmother, sisters, female friends, colleagues, fellow citizens, potential future daughters et al, the fact is that there are underlying issues of fairness, law, and justice that make this relevant to me and mine. I'm not Black but I care about, and am directly affected, by racial equality. I'm not a sportsman but Title IX effects me. I'm not a pirate but IP laws effect me. I’m not a Fox viewer but their freedom of speech effects me. I’m not on death row but their experience effects me. All these things effect my life as a citizen and member of society, they speak to my values, my morals, my interests, and my obligations.
Discrimination affects us all and strikes at the basic fundamental underpinnings of democratic society. Sexism is just as much about relegating women as it is about controlling men and the way they live their lives, it affects the effeminate man, the homosexual man, the artistic and the socially awkward.
A woman shouldn't be placing any additional emphasis on these issues, that's interest politics at their worst. Male politicians often care deeply about said issues, their female counterparts are under no heightened obligation to aggressively pursue an agenda because of their testicular inadequacies.
The did have a say - they had their say in 2007, and will have another say in only a couple of months.
Australians vote for their local members, and the party (or coalition) with the most members forms government.
The party then elects their leader, who becomes prime minister.
Labor elected Rudd initially, and now they decided to elect Gillard instead.
Also, she was deputy Prime Minister, and went as such into the election, so it's not like people were voting for Labor without the knowledge that she would have some power - and that she'd be filling in as PM from time to time anyway.
Advanced users are users too!
Emphasis on those issues? Or expressed an opinion similar to your own on those issues?
I have no issue whatsoever with women in positions of power. But when special interests start to cloud judgment, incompetence is shown. It mirrors my sentiment toward my own president. And hes a man.
The game.
The Aussies (and Aussie worshippers) have taken over.
That's not a story.... THIS is a story.
Now, go put the kettle on...
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Senator Kate Lundy is a contender and she opposes the filter.
Whoever gets the post has to deal with the Telstra monopoly (bastard child of government and private enterprise with the worst aspects of both and none of the good aspects), so it might go to somebody the PM hates but needs to give an important job to keep a faction happy.
Politics is often quite disgusting if you look at it too closely
Lindsay Tanner announced his retirement right after the new PM got in. That tells me the election will be sooner rather than later. Internet filtering is the main issue of interest to /. so I propose we get organized and attack Stephen Conroy.
Lets all put Conroy last. Copy my sig. Spread the word. Send a message to Gillard on this subject.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
That's because the USA isn't a democracy, either. It's a republic at both the state and federal level, something guaranteed in the Constitution. Voters elect people who are delegated the powers to act on their behalf, including the appointment of cabinet members and judges and impeachment and trial of same.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
They do. Westminster system. We do not elect the prime minister, we elect the parliament. The parliament elects the prime minister. If a political party holds more than 50% of the parliament, then this will be the (party-)elected leader of that party. The only non-members of parliament who voted for Kevin Rudd are the labour voters in his local electorate in QLD. Might wanna read up on how our democracy works sometime...
Does she have some sort of pouch in which to store her young?
Monstar L
So which reproductive rights were you hoping that your penis is granted?
Not sleeping on the couch would be right up there
Parliament elected Kevin Rudd to be PM. The people only had an indirect say. And the GG gets a veto anyway.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I don't believe she has any "young"
I am certain that she can kick like a Kangaroo though.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
That's a terrible attitude, you've basically said, "I'm uninspired by female politicians because they don't descriminate for women" I mean the point should be male and female politicians acting and being treated exactly the same.
I'm going to assume the parent is American and thus doesn't realise what the office of Prime Minister actually represents. If the parent is Australian, then, I don't know what to say :P
The Prime Minister is the almost-exact equivalent of the House Majority Leader in the US. The leader of the political party currently holding the most seats in the lower house/chamber.
In the US, the House Majority Leader is not directly elected. Similarly, neither is the Prime Minister in the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, or any other Westminster system country. This does not mean those countries are not democracies.
I can walk right into the electorate office of my local member of parliament and tell them what I think of their Government. This is a person who deals directly with the Prime Minister when parliament is sitting. The US president does not deal directly with members of congress in the same way.
My contention is that the Australian system gives people more direct involvement in government.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
... we could give Big Bad Bazza a spare ounce of Julia's self-control and acceptance of responsibility.
Though I'm still gonna put Conroy last.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
Slashdot is just working its way through the alphabet of centric foci:
America
Apple
Australia
In October, we'll be expecting a slurry of submissions from Bavaria, followed subsequently by the BBC, Belgium and some guy called Bill.
A nematode would be an upgrade from Pauline Hanson. Julia Gillard is not from an extremely racist part of Queensland. Her seat may be in the western suburbs of Melbourne, and as someone who used to live there, they're not high up on the social scale, but they aren't filled with extremely racist people, either.
Never has anything more inappropriate been said by accident.
(Julia has been attacked by a notorious opposition ratbag for being childless by choice.)
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
She was elected by the voters in Altona...
You should sign up with put Conroy last.
Mind you with 98%+ voting above the line, that will be quite a struggle.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
She is more likely to be of the arachnid Australian variety and hence I would suspect if she had any young she will have already eaten them.
So, you only want to see women elected to high office who are heavily biased and predisposed towards a single special interest? I find that pretty sad actually.
not elected by the people
How do you think she got into Parliament?
When you vote (assuming you're old enough to vote) do you tick a box on your ballot that says "Yes I want x as Prime Minister"? Or do you just vote for your local candidate. I suspect the latter, because that's how our system works. Of course the fact that you can vote for the Greens and that helps Labour (or the Liberals - whatever the greens fancy at the time) get into power doesn't figure in your analysis of the political landscape does it?
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
Now we have a prime minister in power who was not elected by the people. Hurray for democracy!
She was as much elected as was Rudd. When you vote, you vote for your local party representative (not directly for the PM). The party with the majority of parliamentary seats decides who is their PM.
Julia Gillard won the vote in her local electorate, so she is a valid minister (and was the nominated Deputy Prime Minister at the time of the last election). In fact, when Rudd was away or otherwise indisposed, she was the acting Prime Minister.
So yes, hurray for democracy; or more specifically, parliamentary democracy.
Explain again what "voting for a party" means exactly? The labor party is made of several factions that have very different ideas of policies. When we go to the polls, we are voting for a set of these policies and the team that champions them. We also vote with the chief in mind. Look at the difference between the abbott and turnbull factions on the other-side. Would you have wanted to vote for Turnbull only to have it changed to Abbott half way through? Who the prime minister is matters you ignorant arse.
Explain again what "voting for a party" means exactly?
I didn't know, so I googled it, and thought this summed it up pretty well:
"When we go to the polls, we are voting for a set of these policies and the team that champions them."
Anyway,
We also vote with the chief in mind. Look at the difference between the abbott and turnbull factions on the other-side. Would you have wanted to vote for Turnbull only to have it changed to Abbott half way through? Who the prime minister is matters you ignorant arse.
Of course it matters, you (umm....) son of a motherless goat fucker, but the truth remains that the unelected status of Julia is about as relevant to the future of Australian politics as your average slashdot thread. In fact she was elected, indirectly, by the strong support of her party, the party which received more votes (basically) at the last federal election.
I said "Basically I hate the way democratic politics works, it's crap" and this came across as hating everything about democracy.
Actually I think democracy is probably the best known political system around, currently.
I do, however, hate the way it leads to populist politics, how it gives influence to people who wield it irresponsibly (members of the public), how political communication in the media is generally in the form of a barrage of universal abuse, and how election campaign degenerate into the kind of mindless rubbish in the ad I linked to.
So I utterly reject the fascism reference, but I concede my last comment could have been interpreted in that way.
We had the same thing happen in the UK with our previous government, and it turned out to be a great boon to the economy.
Oh, wait...
Just in time for Oktoberfest wrap up stories from Munich/Bavaria excellent.
after the alarming showing on poles for the Labor government.
Are you talking about pole-dancing politicians? I hope the Labor government don't start doing that. That would be alarming.
Brown got a lot of media hatred, but he didn't actually do a particularly bad job. Certainly no worse than Tony, but Tony had a nice smile while Brown looked dour and grumpy, so the press was behind Tony for a long time.
To Australia, I hope your first female PM works out a lot better than ours did...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yes we are a constitutional Monarchy.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Given that Australia follows the Westminster system, and our government is a representative one (i.e. we all vote to choose our own electorate's representatives), then no Prime Minister is 'voted in' directly by us (well, unless you live in his electorate). The party with superior numbers in the Legislative Assembly has a leader it elects, and that party is invited by the Governor-General to form government. If the party elects a new leader, then they by definition are the elected Prime Minister.
And if you're suggesting that K. Rudd was any less beholden to the 'big, bad Unions' than J.Gillard, and secured his leadership solely with the aid of non-union aligned factions and a bit of magic pixie dust...
It's like complaining a vote for Liberal is a really vote for Corporate Swill-meisters: the power bases of the major political parties have been pretty much as is for all eternity.
I didn't vote for K. Rudd either, but all the best to Ms Gillard. Just please Julia, dump that dead arse Conroy and whatever wheelbarrow he pushes, tell Fielding to stick his poison apple support, and get on with the job.
"Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
You must not know how the Borg work. Outsider! *Points at you and screams*
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Are you talking about pole-dancing politicians? I hope the Labor government don't start doing that. That would be alarming.
Indeed, one only needs to look at Rudd's fevered research into these matters, holding a very insightful day with some real pro's in New York.
I managed to save one of the minutes taken by his staff at the time. Fascinating stuff.
ALP-Right is the main backer for Julia. Those are the guys who rather purposefully don't want anything done about Climate Change (because it's too "controversial") and have been backing the Federal ALP's general move towards conservatism.
So those issues that caused the Australian public to generally move away from the ALP will continue to be issues for the ALP and voters will continue to desert them for favour of, particularly, the Greens. Look forward, also, to the Super Profits Tax being scaled back, as much as moving away from fixed price royalties to an actual percent-of-profit based tax system is the right way to go (and is supported by most of the public).
Julia wasn't exactly innocent in the ALP's shift to conservatism, either. She was the one pushing the MySchool website which props up private schools and other schools who focus more on achievement tests than they do on actually educating their children. She was also the one who tried to foment a war between parents and teachers over "poor" school results. It's your fault, Julia, because you are the one underfunding education.
The election coming up, the ALP will probably lose seats to the Greens in the Upper House and maybe even in the Lower House. They may even lose the election, and Julia won't do a damn thing about it.
As has been said many many times in this thread already, if you voted for your MP, and by extension his/her party, on the basis of who the party leader was then you don't understand how your own political system works. You gave your MP a mandate to represent you. Because enough people did likewise for members of the same party, you collectively gave the party a mandate to govern you. You didn't have this leader "forced" on you any more than you did the last one.
In short, if you thought that at the last election you were voting for the prime minister then you are, as per the meme, doin it rong.
The economic problems Brown inherited didn't occur overnight - they'd been building up for some time. So I'd say it was the fault of the previous chancellor. It was the same guy that brought in IR35. Remind me again, what was his name?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I think she was elected by her party not by all of Australia. The next elections are going to be interesting. For those interested in a similar situation google Kim Campbell Canada Prime Minister.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
I don't agree. It is not directly democratic to hopejr, and all other Australians.
When I read through Australian news forums, there are a lot of regular people that feel that when they elected the government, they elected it as it was, with Kevin Rudd as it's leader.
At the end of the day, a government is one person, and to change that person, is to change the government. The only people with the right to change the government are the public citizens of Australia.
I'm an Australian, and I know how our system works, yet I entirely agree. Not democratic, and a truly unjust and deceitful way of manipulating the will of the people.
Doesn't Australia use the same Parliamentary system as the UK and Canada? If so, then you've never voted directly for a PM anyway, since you vote in your local member of a party and then the leader of the party who gets the majority of the seats is the new Prime Minister.
This is exactly how Canada got our first female PM, Kim Campbell. When Mulroney stepped down the party voted her in as their new leader. Since they had a majority in Parliament at the time, she became the new Prime Minister.
I don't even think it's required that Gillard call an election but it's usually what happens given that most people in the country generally don't understand how Parliament works and start saying things like "What? I didn't vote for her!"
There's nothing wrong with what's happened here. This is how it works in a "real" election too, except usually you know who the party leader is before you vote.
So who really runs the country?
The encrustation of paper-pushers that exists just below the elected officials and out of sight of the public. They have all the real power, close to zero accountability, and total job security.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Ah I miss the 80's. We had Prime Ministers Thatcher and Ghandi teaming to refute any claim from women that world peace remains elusive simply because of men. Oh well, nothing left to do than hope that the Right Honourable Ms Gillard is more like the former than the latter.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
It was spelled that way in TFA. Ergo, TFS was wrong, you plastic yank.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I believe that IP laws affect. Unless you are a lawsuit, that is.
Please vote Green, but preference Labor ahead of the Coalition. Abbott is on record as saying he doesn't believe in climate change. I could give you many other reasons not to vote for the Liberals, but I suspect that will be enough for you.
Conservation of angular momentum makes the world go round.
How 'bout the right not to have sterilization forced upon it? But no government would ever have a forced sterilization program, right? Certainly no feminists have ever suggested such a thing I'm sure.
It's OK; the USA is run by the unions and we're doing just fine!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I never voted for K.Rudd in the first place, and I'm quite delighted that he's out especially regarding the mining tax. But what I have real issue with, is that from one day to the next, we have a new Prime Minister that was "voted in". Not by us, but essentially by the unions.
You didn't vote for Rudd (at least not as Prime Minister) just the same way you didn't vote for Gillard. Read up on how the Australian political system works.
Perhaps she could take some advice from The Right Honourable Kim Campbell on how best to survive the experience.
AFAIK, it's the same crudely. The only difference that comes to mind is that the AUS senate is elected, unlike the Canadian senate and the British House of Lords, which are appointed by the PM by way of the Monarch/GG.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTP7zzUobnA
" Because, as they say, if females were in leadership positions, there would be only peace in the world."
I don't know whether you were being sarcastic or not, but I've heard this crap parroted enough elsewhere (Sally Field at the Academy Awards: "If women ran the world there wouldn't be any damn wars!") that it desperately needs to be refuted.
What does this list have in common?
Golda Meir
Margaret Thatcher
Queen Mary I
Queen Elizabeth I
Queen Victoria
Indira Ghandi
Besides having ovaries, they all led their nations through wars, and some of them started brutal wars of conquest. And they're not historical anachronisms, either. Cristina Kirchner in Argentina is rattling her sabre at Britain again.
I'll be the first to argue that there are very real differences between men and women. I'm also a deep believer in "hell hath no fury". Women would bring in an era of peace and harmony? Are you kidding? Do you honestly think that Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin would usher in an age of pacifism?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Nope, they call it a Constitutional Monarchy.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
"...seizing power in a bloodless Parliament House coup..."
Well, that's a boring coup.
Your post would only make sense if women's issues had gotten fair treatment up to now. Seeing as they haven't, it seems understandable that a woman might look to another woman to set things right.
Play Command HQ online
Labor is throwing Rudd under the bus in an emergency measure to avoid getting wiped in upcoming elections. Since this is a parliamentary system with preferential voting, large swings can happen (see 2008, where PM Howard not only lost his PM status, but his rather safe seat as well)... large swings just like what happened in Penrith (26% swing = landslide).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
It's funny, our current PM's party had "Reform the Senate" as one of the planks in their platform in both of our last two elections. It hasn't gone anywhere though, and PM Harper has appointed 32 Conservative Senators since 2008! One interesting twist is that he got them all to agree to step down after a set term (I think it's 8 years but can't find a reference) before he gave them the appointments.
Of course, nobody's terribly impressed considering how loud he talks about reforming the Senate and how little has actually been done about it to date.
...just as incompetent and corrupt (especially with their favouritism towards big business and their contributions) as male politicians.
Of course. Were you unclear on the definition of politician?
Well, being as he's never attained a majority in the house and the other 3 parties appear to be against it, what do you expect him to have done?
Also, I'm reasonably sure that making the senate subject to election would require a real amendment to the constitution, meaning he either needs a 7/50 or a national referendum.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
So being biased, sexist, and only interested in supporting a special interest is OK - because they "haven't gotten fair treatment"? That makes it OK that males don't get fair treatment and get ignored by the politicians they elect?
You don't seem to actually understand how democracy works.
You think a handful of women in government who might care a little more about womens issues are going to make men underrepresented?
You remind me of when Elena Kagan was nominated and people were complaining that no man had been nominated to the court in awhile. There've been a total of 3 women nominated in the entire history of the court. There's no danger of women taking over and men losing power.
Play Command HQ online
No, she must have felt "very honoured", not "very honored". She's an Aussie damn it! And apparently born in Wales, so let's please spell it the way the speaker spells it (if we're quoting), otherwise make it plain that the quote is a translation.
do you really have no idea how the parliament works in australia?
we, the people, have NEVER elected the prime minister. they have always been selected by their party using internal party processes. they are PM because they are the leader of the party that gained the most seats during the most recent election, NOT because the people voted them in to that position.
we don't have US-style presidential campaigns, and that's a good thing (it's the only reason i'm against the idea of australia becoming a republic if the change includes a president directly elected by the population)
But ours LOOKS like a woman...
To be quite honest I'm certain almost all people of every country are completely oblivious to the inner workings of their government (let alone the "basics"). To say that I "don't understand how your own political system works" would be an understatement.
Like the multitude of companies that get sued for "false advertising", the government should be educating the masses to explain these situation with a LOT less ambiguity.
When it comes to an election, they present "the person" rather than the party, so for the masses, we are electing a person, rather than a party. Knowing how the system works is all well and good but my original point still remains, being unable to control who leads the party is still like being told to take it like a bitch and don't complain.
To be frank, I don't believe the masses know any better, so to expect otherwise is a very unreasonable demand that you're hopeless in pursuing.
http://www.gibby.net.au
and yet John Howard said he had a mandate... not his party, just himself! Nothing got Johnny aroused more than hearing the words "mandate mandate mandate".
First up, why bother with all the elctoral "Kevin 07" paraphenalia if I'm not voting for the guy?
Second, Julia will pursue different policies to Kevin (if she doesn't we're toast).
I can appreciate how some people might be put out when the PM is replaced by a) Someone else and b) They proceed to change the promises.
Counter to that: a) She was the deputy at least (somewhat by chance) and b) The new deal is likely to be closer to what Kevin promised anyhow
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
At the end of the day, the responsibility to be educated and informed is the voter's. The government can take steps to help, like school curriculum and what not, but at the end of the day if you choose to go out and cast your vote then it's your job to make sure you can do so competently. I agree that the government should take steps to resolve confusion about the Westminster system. In the same way, if you and I are doing some electrical work and you're about to cut some wires, I should make sure the power's switched off for you. But it's your own ass on the line, so you'd damn well better make sure yourself. When something like this happens and you don't like it, ignorance is not a defence.
More importantly, I don't think you're giving your fellow Australians enough credit. Essentially, you're saying that, on the whole, none of you can be fucked to skim a Wikipedia article before heading to the polls. I'm sorry you feel that your country can only handle what the nice, caring overlords decide to spoon-feed them. Seriously, give me a break.
Maybe instead of bitching about the government failing to inform you that this was a perfectly legal possibility, you could take this opportunity to try, in your own way, to help educate other people. Phone your local schools and ask about the civics curriculum. Tell them you think this is a problem and make suggestions to fix it. Take ownership instead of saying, "No one did my job for me, how unfair."
Paid for trolling? No ma'am, I just do it for the sheer joy of being right.
ResidntGeek
Your opinion is duely noted, though certainly not the opinion of the people that I know. Ignorance may not be a defense, but it does happen to the best of us, yourself included, or are you telling me that you are not ignorant about any subject you speak about before you speak about it?
Your attitude of "how stupid you are" certainly does not give much sway to your opinion though. Perhaps you could be a little less insulting and a little more helpful. Someone shooting themselves in the foot is the last person you need to be explaining the values of gun safey to!
http://www.gibby.net.au
Exactly, that whole "he's not been elected!" thing pissed me off too. We don *not* elect our prime minister. We elect a party, the party selects the prime minister. Usually (though not always) this is the leader at the time. If that person leaves, dies, is arrested and jailed, etc, the party selects another. The voters have no further say on the matter.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
At what point did I call you stupid, or even suggest it? And what exactly did you find insulting? The middle paragraph was a sarcastic response to you suggesting that few Australians understand their political system and that they shouldn't be expected to. You need to learn to separate a debate from a personal attack- me being highly critical of your attitude isn't something you should take as being ad hominem. I'm genuinely sorry if you interpreted anything I said as calling you stupid, because you seem like an intelligent person. Just one that, as you said, spoke before becoming informed. And certainly I sometimes speak without properly thinking things through, everyone does. In what way does that validate your position? When I do that, I hope someone gives me hell for it, same as I'm giving you.