Elective Durgery
So, PM John Howard has called the federal election for November 24. That's a good date actually; suits me fine, I have nothing else on.
Problem is working out who to vote for, because the next few months will be crazy. Promises will fly everywhere, as will accusations, facts and figures. When I say I wonder who to vote for, what I mean is who I will put second in my preferences. I always vote for Family First as number one, but if that candidate doesn't get in, I've got to decide whether my preferences will go to Liberal or Labour.
How does one decide? Sammy said today that she thinks Kevin Rudd is the best-looking out of the two; I thought that was funny. Needless to say, looks don't concern me at all! (Sammy was joking, of course). The big issues that concern me are abortion (stopping it, that is), the war in Iraq (stopping that too), health care, and freedom (being free to believe what I want, and being able to share that with others).
In any case, elections are fun. I love watching it live on TV as they count the votes and announce the winner. Get the chips out on November 24 folks, this'll be a good one! :)
Labels: election, John Howard, Kevin Rudd, politics, voting
posted by Rachel @ 3:26 pm
7 comments
7 Comments:
ha ha ha. You blogged it!
Yep, it's all based on whose the better looker!
And Nov 24. Well. I'll still be in the country. We should have an election party!
I love elections, i take them very seriously and am considering who to vote for. It seems i vote along similar lines to your good self.
I really want them to believe in what they promise, I want them to tell us what they think the country should be like instead of trying to promise us everything we ever wanted.
Bring on the ad's
religion has no place in politics
really...? why not?
after all, religion affects at least 5 of the 6 billion people on the planet...
anonymous your suggestion has been very poorly thought out.
A democratic country is shaped by the values of those who live in it, this is why we promote freedom of speech. To suggest those people with religious values should not express those values...is suggesting they ought to be excluded from free speech.
So in your world view people free of religion are able to express their values but not people with religious views. It's not a democratic way of thinking.
(Of course you dont have to believe in being democratic...but you cant be both democratic and exclude people with relgious views)
what i am suggestin is simple. politicians should not allow their own views to corrupt their sense of judgement and to consitantly back flip when a religious mass disagrees with their policy is wrong. All religions should have the opportunity to free speech but when was the last time the Australian censorship committee banned or re-classfied a christian work?
Hello anonymous person. If religion has no place in politics, William Wilberforce, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr and Oscar Romero would have all had pretty ordinary political careers. I would say that the idea that religion has no place in politics is actually a source of corruption. People end up thinking that religion is just something you do on Sunday, and don't think about what their tradition says about how we should treat workers, the poor, asylum seekers or God's creation.
(I won't be voting for Family First though. I think I'll be voting for the Greens.)
Post a Comment
<< Home