At what cost: the loss of integrity? : Melbourne Indymedia

It's either Rudd or Howard those are your choices no matter?

It doesn't matter how you describe either of them they rule? You don't?

Scum slaves should do as you're told, earn what you're told, and work until you drop and with no complaints? That's what you're here for?

They project to 90 percent of the population hence they decide who your ruler is.

The worst is Howard.

But the sheeple have been and are being indoctrinated as we type....

And like the rest of us if you don't vote or vote informal then you have no other choice in reality but to vote for Kevin Rudd no matter what other party you choose. Because all roads lead to Lib/Lab!

There are many other failings by Kevin Rudd not just the traditional Australian working values or the abandoning the ideological platform of his party:

For instance:
Where is the opposition to WAR?
Where is the opposition to WAR Crimes?
Where is the opposition to Military Spending?
Where is the opposition to Draconian Laws?
Where is the opposition to Refugee Detainment?
Where is the opposition to David Hicks 5 year detention?
Where is the opposition to the AWB scandal?
Where is the opposition to Islamophobia?
Where is the opposition to Political Scapegoating?
Where is the opposition to Political Fearmongering?
Where is the opposition to Neo-Colonialism?
Where is the opposition to False Flag Operations by the CIA?
Where is the opposition to the FTA 'Investors Rights Agreement'?
Where is the opposition to HIV Discrimination?
Where is the opposition to the Privatisation of Health?
Where is the opposition to Desecrating and Ignoring Aboriginal Affairs?
Where is the opposition to Subordinating Scientific and Medical Research?
Where is the opposition to Uranium Mining?
Where is the opposition to No WorkChoices?
Where is the opposition to Not Enough Public Housing?
Where is the opposition to Not Enough Public Education Funding?
Where is the opposition to Social Services Reform?
Where is the opposition to Desperate and Disabled to Work?
Where is the opposition to 6 weeks Social Security Payments Cut Off's?
Where is the opposition to Work for the Dole instead of Getting Better Education and Skills for Better Employment Opportunities?
Where is the opposition to Rorting the Social Security System by Corporate Greed?

As well as filling their pockets with money M.O.N.E.Y. enjoyed by both Lib/and/Lab.

But in order for them both to get away with it they must each, Lib/Lab, turn a blind eye to each other's misdeeds but it's not for anyone of them or for the country, they do it for these organisations:

(PNAC) Project for the New American Century, (WTO) World Trade Organisation, (AMIC) American Military Industrial Complex, (IMF) International Monetary Fund, (AIPAC) The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, NATO, World Bank and the CIA economic hit-men and jackles who are all part of the problem.

So the best thing we can do is boycott the election!

It's not a true democracy it fails the working class and it's not fair at all. They run the big end of town and their ultimate projection is, that we will always live in a two party preferred system of voting. And those two parties are Lib/Lab. Always was and always will be unless we change what we do then nothing is going to change it.

This is the result nothing more certain. Also include gov't ad's to all of that.

You forgot the most important question:

Where is the opposition to repetitive cliches?

Like the repetitive ads on TV you mean? No they don't repeat do they? You goose! At least these ads are the real deal. Not the pretend deal. Or the deal you have when there is no real deal.

Speak the truth in humility only then can you become a true person and free of your chains.

And calling a person you disagree with a goose is the epitomy of speaking the truth with 'humility'?

And you thought you had a choice

Are labour campaign speeches confused with liberal intentions?
Be careful who you vote for, you may just get a different suit.
Did celebrity win elections for George or Arnold? Will it win votes for Labour?
Familiarity should breed contempt.

Like I said speak the truth in humility you're a goose because your expectations about what you see are way too high. Or too low! What is repeat? You came here and made the stupid comment for the sake of being goose to put the comment down. What do I call a person who does that? A goose!

goose n : 4 somebody who is silly
1. a large waterfowl with a long neck and webbed feet, noted for its seasonal migrations and distinctive honking sound. Subfamily: Anserinae
2. a female goose.
See also gander
3. the flesh of the goose, cooked and eaten as food
4. somebody who is silly
5. an iron with a long curved handle, used by tailors for pressing and smoothing cloth
6. a poke between or pinch on the buttocks (slang)

vt (slang)
1. to poke or pinch somebody on the buttocks
2. to spur somebody on to action

Uniting Food, Farm and Hotel Workers World-Wide

Posted to the IUF website 29-May-2007

In November 2004, the Swedish building workers' union Byggnads picketed construction work at a school in Vaxholm, near Stockholm. A subsidiary of the Latvian company Laval had won the contract from the local authority and seconded Latvian workers who, while union members, were being paid a fraction of the standard wage negotiated by Byggnads for the sector. Supported by the Swedish labour movement as a whole, the union blockade eventually forced the company to throw in the sponge, and the contract was awarded to a company adhering to wage levels established in the collective agreement.

The dispute moved from the picket line to the political arena when the Latvian government claimed that Sweden was violating EU rules on the free movement of services and the company sued the union in the Swedish Labour Court. EU Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevey escalated the conflict by denouncing the Swedish action as an intolerable assault on the single market. McCreevey's intervention effectively split the European Commission into two camps, reflecting the opposition of European (including the Swedish and Latvian) employers, on the one hand, insisting on the primacy of the single market over national collective agreements, and the European trade union movement, on the other, defending the compatibility of national wage bargaining with the EU-wide mobility of capital, labour and services.

The Labour Court, reversing its earlier ruling in favour of the union, referred the case to the European Court of Justice. The Court's Advocate General has now issued his recommendation to the Court, whose decisions generally follow the Advocate's recommendations (the final European Court decision is not expected until the end of 2007 at the earliest, at which time the Labour Court is also expected to issue its final decision). According to the recommendation, Byggnads's industrial action was in conformity with EU law: unions can take action to impose a collective agreement on temporary workers from another member state "if the collective action is motivated by public-interest objectives, such as the protection of workers and the fight against social dumping."

The union victory, however, is not unqualified. There is a potential poison pill in the recommendation, which stated that action must not be "disproportionate" to the objective. The Swedish employers and their European allies will no doubt seek to argue that that the Byggnads action was in fact "disproportionate" - the employers association in Sweden has been campaigning hard against "disproportionate" industrial action, including secondary (solidarity) action, in their efforts to roll back strong national agreements.

The struggle concerns more than Swedish or Latvian workers. The unprecedented mobility of capital globally and in the European Union - symbolized by the forward march of private equity and hedge funds which collectively dwarf the national economies of many EU member states - has been a sledgehammer force undermining the protection of workers and the global public interest.

Firmly anchoring in EU law the right of trade unions to take industrial action, including solidarity action by workers not directly involved in a collective bargaining dispute, would give judicial force to an essential act of social self-defense.

The Vaxholm case should be the signal to move to the top of the European and global trade union agenda a campaign to legalize solidarity action within and across national frontiers.