Jump to content

Talk:Liberal Party of Australia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 59: Line 59:




== In response to Xtra...again ==
You assume to know what gays want? If you even looked at public opinion, gays do indeed want gay marriage. Secondly, you act as if every gay person should be ''thankful'' that homosexuality isn't illegal anymore. Gays should be greatful their not imprisoned anymore an shouldn't ask for equal rights? Now ''that'' would be conservative, small minded "''Liberal''" thinking.


You assume to know what gays want? If you even looked at public opinion, you'd realise that gays do indeed want gay marriage... it's called equal rights. Secondly, you act as if every gay person should be ''thankful'' that homosexuality isn't illegal anymore. You think homosexuals should be ''greatful'' their not imprisoned anymore and shouldn't ask for equal rights? Now ''that'' would be conservative, small minded "''Liberal''" thinking.


Oh, and bringing up Scoresby is weak. How does a small toll on an ''optional'' freeway compare to a compulsory 10% tax on everything that can never be removed?
Oh, and bringing up Scoresby is weak. How does a small toll on an ''optional'' freeway compare to a compulsory 10% tax on everything that can never be removed?

Revision as of 10:17, 7 February 2005

I dispute the statement that:

Neither the present Liberal party, nor a previous Liberal party, the Commonwealth Liberal Party, has been "liberal" in the sense in which the word is generally used in most other countries

The Liberal party may not be liberal in the US sense, but it is in the sense used in most other countries. See liberal and the discussion there. - 207.218.87.162, 19:48, 11 Jul 2004

incidentally, do we need that smh article about "liberal's being anything but"?? As mentioned above, Liberal is consistent with traditional liberalism, as opposed to U.S. liberalism. Even though i know this country is americanising, do we have to even use the american meaning of political and ideological words?? Xtra 00:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article actually refers to the movement from the Menzies era into the Howard era of the liberal party. It's balance for the Liberal website (which obviously supports Liberal POV). - Aaron Hill 03:48, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

The Liberal party is in no way Liberal in the US sense, but extremely conservative in nature, typically from a Christian view.

luckily, the liberal party is not a US party. Xtra 03:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I object to the complete fabrication that the Liberal party governs with "neo-liberalism." Their policies speak for themselves, and in any sense of the word, they are conservative. All of their policies, from reducing immigration, detention, abortion, and countless other issues clearly favour a conservative view point. How can a party that opposes abortion, stops immigration, and bans gay rights be any but conservative?

Perhaps because you are confused about what neoliberalism is: I suggest you take a look. Lacrimosus 10:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i think you miss the point. and i think you are making unwarranted assumptione and false accusations. the liberals have in fact increased immigration, contrary to your misguided belief. the liberals have no policy to reduce abortion, there are factions within the liberals who believe abortion is too prevelant, but there is no push within the liberals to change party policy on that. detention was started by labor, not the liberals. there are an abundance of gay rights in australia under the liberal government. sure there is a large conservative group within the liberals. there is also a neo-liberal group, just as large. i dont know where you are coming from, but you certainly dont know where the liberals are coming from. Xtra 01:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Wow. an insult from an encylopedia. Now we know your loyalties lay a little to the right. You're missing the point: the liberal government imprisons any person with an accent and a suspect passport for 10 months without help or consideration. Keep up with current events much?

Plenty of gay rights? That's why they created a man-woman marriage clause? And Howard banned gay marriage citing that he "didn't wan't the species to die out." Wow, so much progress...given this was the excuse to make homosexuality illegal in the first place in Europe.

Howard wants to open a discussion about abortion. Why would you need to an open discussion, or to make abortions less secretive, if you weren't planning on changing the laws? There is a difference between what they say, and what they actually do. Howard himself also said the GST was a dead Tax, then imposed it one term later. Just goes to a pattern of his habitual lying is all.

Finally, Howard gave his farewell message before Christmas for people to "be proud of their Christianity." Is that something a neo-liberal government would do?

Wiki is now akin to pravda and fox news channel.

Well thank you for that critique of our article. It's always refreshing to see there are still people out there who think their opinion is the only correct and fair one. I assure you this and other Australian politics-related articles have been scrutinised and edited by both experts in the field as well as a large number of ordinary Australian users, a majority of whom, from my experience, appear to lean more towards Labor ideologies. The aim of Wikipedia is to present a neutral point of view, not to place any "loyalties". - Mark 02:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
to the anonnomous user, i admit on my userpage that i support the liberals. furthermore, you appear to be misrepresenting the issues and are making false accusations. why dont you tell us where you source your rediculous claims and partial truths, taken out of context, from. i doubt you could find anywhere in my 4.5 months of editting here, a single example of me editing to push a liberal POV without regard for other's views. Xtra 02:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Is Xtra dening that Howard ever said that he banned gay marriage to stop the species dying out? How can you honestly say that Gays have plenty of righs under a labor government? He says the marriage is an institution to have children, to esire the species survives. Here is an ABC transcript of Howard/Costello (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s917985.htm) where he clearly states that a marriage must involve having children (which ignores any infertile or sterile couples too, but they're still allowed to marry), and shows more political hypocrisy. Why can infertile couples be married but gays can't if marriage = children?


or that he denied wanting to use the GST, then decided to use it? Those are facts.

"He issued a four-sentence statement saying, “Suggestions I have left open the possibility of a GST are completely wrong. A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia.” Later that day, confronted by a clamouring press pack, he compounded the lie. Asked if he’d “left the door open for a GST”, Howard said: “No. There’s no way a GST will ever be part of our policy.”

“Never ever?”

Howard: “Never ever. It’s dead. It was killed by voters at the last election.” " It's linked everywhere, but for legitimacy, http://www.alp.org.au/features/lies.php. Even the ALP snagged this one. If you don't trust the ALP try a google.

To reiterate, the Liberals are clearly right-wing, conservative and not "neo-liberal," in any sense of the word.

in response to the annonomous user (again)

marriage has never been high on the "gay agenda". gays have many rights in australia. homosexuality is no longer illegal. the law specifically prohibits discrimination against homosexuals. has howard tried to remove any of this protection? no.

with reference to the GST. you must understand and accept, that the GST was only introduced after the liberal's went to an election on it. there was no deception of any sort. they said "a vote for us is a vote for the GST" and they were re-elected. on that point - ask steve bracks (labor premier of victoria) if he said that he would toll the scorsbey freway when he went into an election. there are many lies in politics. the GST was not one of them.

in conclusion, when you wish to stippulate what a word means, buy a dictionary first. Xtra 09:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


In response to Xtra...again

You assume to know what gays want? If you even looked at public opinion, you'd realise that gays do indeed want gay marriage... it's called equal rights. Secondly, you act as if every gay person should be thankful that homosexuality isn't illegal anymore. You think homosexuals should be greatful their not imprisoned anymore and shouldn't ask for equal rights? Now that would be conservative, small minded "Liberal" thinking.

Oh, and bringing up Scoresby is weak. How does a small toll on an optional freeway compare to a compulsory 10% tax on everything that can never be removed?