Gillard finds more surplus Workchoices promotional material.

[chucccccccck]

THE GILLARD DOGGED BERKELEY HIGH

[ijoostin]

Lol....the Leader of the House reminds me of the roo-hunter in Crocodile Dundee (I can't remember his character name) ... He plays Santa at the Christmas Carols (I THINK Domain)

[allanallanson]

stupid bitch.. the anti workchoices promo crap that littered the streets is still up.. & they are still up cos you morons haven't got any better idea!

Thank god for karma.. fire crotch

[irai1984]

She speaks much better than the majority of the white, redneck males that pollute parliament

[Steven2690]

Are u racist?

[bennyboytalk]

she's a bitch

[ectomy1235]

I agree she is a bitch, the voice, the face, the hair, her approach, she is one nasty bitch, a horrible bitch, who could believe she is the deputy PM?

[Kephissos]

She's awesome. I'm a Lib but I have respect for Gillard. She has more balls than most of the men there. Just a shame she doesn't work for the Libs.

[ectomy1235]

really? you like her? i just find her so negative and vicious she never says anything positive or encouraging to anybody, maybe thats the way politics is, maybe she is a nice person outside of politics, i dont know she just seems a bitter person to me

[BigDeanoSyd]

How is she bitter?? She's mostly fairly even-tempered and she's as tough as they get, anytime the opposition attacks her it's like water off a ducks back...she's good value I reckon

[styx123456]

Indeed. I don't have much respect for most members of parliament we have, but I have a lot of respect for Gillard. People don't like her brutal honesty, but tough shit - She gets the job done. And if she can't dazzle them with brilliance, she can baffle them with bullshit just as well as any male politician.

Keep those brass balls shining, Julia.

[Progressive75]

And poking fun at the opposition is bitter?

WTF?

[Steven2690]

Why???

Im a Labor supporter

At first I didnt like her but now I do,

She puts a bit of fun into politics to make it not boring but she knows when things are serious too

[bennyboytalk]

the funny relaxed cool man is peter costello not the red nut bitch

[Steven2690]

He was funny sometimes but was arrogant just like Tony Abbot and that lar-di-dar snob Alexander Downer

[DigbyCat]

She was, is and will be nothing... She lead a red leftie group at Uni, and she thought she was the ants pants... except she's ugly as a hatful of arseholes...

[immortalass]

that is one weirdass accent

[waynekruse]

I think her accent is due to her being born in England then moving to Australia.

[immortalass]

ah didnt know that

she has the weirdest vowel sounds though

mr spayker, waige a war, mondai, we woi getting rid of...

[InTheDefenceOfTruth]

Wow your right she was not born in Australia

[Steven2690]

I think its an Adelaide accent

[lstrabt]

UR A DUDD-

[SCHWANZKUSS]

RUDD'S A DUDD

[DigbyCat]

She is as ugly as a hatful of arseholes...

[jpmclaughlan]

Why is it on the rare occasion that we have a female politician EVERYONE JUDGES THEM ON THEIR LOOKS?

She's a great politician and a great public speaker, she isn't in the deputy prime minister for her looks.

[irai1984]

here here!

[bennyboytalk]

umm it's hear hear u complete idiot

[irai1984]

well.. if i'm a complete idiot for that, so be it... Still, it's better than being a lonely loser who haunts opposition political threads looking for some attention by replying to posts that were written months ago...

'umm' indeed.

[bennyboytalk]

nerd

[irai1984]

yeeouch! Cut me deep there.

[bennyboytalk]

hahahah yeah hahahahah soz my bad oi do u have msn would love a chat?

[obaia]

Julia Gillard is the most patriotic politician that I have seen. She even has a hairdo that resembles an Emu which is one animal on the Australian Coat of arms. How more patriotic can one get.

[LaborOrLiberal]

Can't stand that thing! Well let's see now labor should have held onto those workchoices booklets and mousepads because that carrot top has done nothing at all to get rid of workchoices, minister ronald mcdonald get lost! minister for making the poor suffer more than the last government! get lost!

[djjiles]

Marry me Julia,

[blogger88]

Julia Gillard whines and whinges like a whore receiving genital herpes treatment.

[DCFGS3]

uhh, Workchoices were good laws, although labor went to it with a "Scare Campaign" unfortuantely backed by media at large. While they did make it easier to fire people, the fact was it was impossible to do that without a lawsuit before that, they modernised australian workplaces and, if anything, created more jobs. Its a shame labor has gotten rid of them

[Ikazi]

They were good at removing basic rights of workers, creating an economy of big business. Big business has always been Howards best friends. Sadly, big business can't be a reliable source for jobs, which is why there needs to be diversity between all types of business, small to big. To sum my point up, WorkChoices were an epic fail, because they put profits before people.

[DCFGS3]

Big and small business profited, before them small businesses wouldn't take on workers because they couldn't get rid of them without lawsuit. Even if a worker was inept at their job, and actually cost the business, they couldn't be sacked. We want businesses to make money, why the hell would they start laying off good workers for no reason? With Workchoices, both small and big business could expand and employ more people without the risk of lawsuit, and in turn, grow the Australian economy.

[Ikazi]

Workchoices removed basic working rights. That is fact. How do you expect people already living on minimal wage to lose overtime and holiday rates to be able to live in any part of Australia? John Howard has voted against every wage increase since the 1980s, you both must think the country will grow when people can't even afford to get to work, let alone have a bed to sleep in.

[DCFGS3]

You seem to be aligning workers rights with prosperity, the two are (for the most part) unrelated. Howard brought us the lowest unemployment rates in decades, an economic explosion and wealth across the board. Workchoices were not designed to protect your "minimum wage earners" they were designed to protect the economic future of Australia as a society. We are a capitalist society, we need to attract business, you can't do that if your laws unattractive to business interests.

[DCFGS3]

When business moves into a country from overseas, they employ local workers, but pay them with overseas money, the more business we can attract, the more overseas money is coming in, the more money in people's pockets, the more they spend. While some of that money will go back overseas, most will continue to circulate in local economies. The more attractive a country, the more businesses, the more money, the stronger economy.

[Ikazi]

Firstly, How do you think the country falls under the definition of prosperity, if people can't afford to pay rent or food? Now with Howard's unemployment rate, look closer than just at media figures. You'll find that through moving people from the "Dole" to "work for the dole" they are claimed employed and he dropped the requirement of employed hours down 1. So technically you're employed if you work for one hour. Economic Explosion = Mining boom, not him at all.

[DCFGS3]

18th century Industrial Revolution made Britain the strongest economy on the planet for its era and safeguarded economic power up to today. The Industrial Revolution was also marked by some of the worst working conditions in recent history. Britain became a powerful economy, which while those workers may not have had rights, it protected their children from economic hardship and created prosperity for THEM. I'm not saying that we should go 18th century on the workers, but less rights worked

[Ikazi]

I don't think you're aware of what the industrial revolution meant. From the revolution came Unions which gradually got more rights for British workers. With that said, what the British economy became a powerhouse through Imperialism and dominance of that particular century. Not because machines became available, that only increased industrial capacity and made a more consumerist nation.

[DCFGS3]

British imperialism could never sustain itself or a modern economy, while Britain's wealth from imperialism started the Industrial Revolution, it ceased contributing in any meaningful way Post-Revolution. As for Unions, their well and good as long as their manageable and not in power. Turning to Britain again, PM Harold Wilson's 1st term was marked by economic sliding. His attempts to control it were hampered by Unions, which ultimately brought the economy to crisis point.

[DCFGS3]

Thatcher then saved it by being harsher on Unions than Labour was. Union activity brings safety to workers, granted, but too much can also harm the economy and workers themselves at large.

[Ikazi]

Okay, firstly my advice to you is to research Pax Britannia and Industrial Revolution. Secondly, British Imperialism controlled the money makers called the trade routes. Because of their two power rule, they controlled the sea's and subsequently put a tariff on all trade. The British economy on the main island, was subsequently not a huge producer nor a major economical money maker. However due to it's dominance, all the money funneled to Britain at the expense of it's colonies and trade routes.

[Ikazi]

Thirdly, Unions made living in Britain affordable and allowed people to get out of slums and into decent housing. Fourthly, Wilson was only in for three years I believe. And his policies had no major impact, other than the devaluation of the pound, which was common globally at the time. Lastly, Thatcher has no links at all to Industrial Revolution. However as I think she was the best post-war Prime Minister of GB. She had reason to stop the coal mining no matter what. She didn't hate Unions.

[DCFGS3]

No denying British domination of trade routes was a big money maker, I'm saying the importance of such dominance waned during and after the Industrial Revolution, particularly when it spread to continental Europe and America. Better technology and use of that technology became the most important economic factor. Your point about economic production in Britain itself is insubstantial, Britain may have been small but with mass production it could produce much more than its rivials

[DCFGS3]

Harold Wilson was in fact in for two terms non consecutively. I brought in Thatcher to prove that facilitating industrial disputes and giving in to Unions demands actually hurt Britain economically, as you pointed out Unions came from the Industrial Revolution. We now have a Government which is Union friendly (to say the least) at a time when Unions are at there lowest membership and their most volatile (As proved by many 'Union Bosses' disrupting work across Australia during 2007 election).

[DCFGS3]

I should quickly mention that Edward Heath, the man who interrupted Wilson's terms in office, was useless at dealing with Unions and probably made the situation worse despite being leader of the Conservative Party. He was succeeded by Thatcher.

[Ikazi]

I don't disagree with your analysis of Britain, however the British Isles didn't make most of the Empires products, which was my point behind British power decline, when she started to lose her colonies and routes. On Union membership numbers, you'll find in Australia at least, they're the majority of the workforce. And I hardly agree with your conclusion that Union Bosses disrupted work across Australia during the 2007 election. There weren't many strikes that I can recall at all.

[DCFGS3]

Not strikes, but attempts to cause strikes. The only reason they were noticed was because of the heavy media attention on the subject. The election drew many hard line Unionists out of the woodwork, which caused embarrassment for the ALP. Taking away workers rights can be good, people aren't just fired willy nilly, that was the scare campaign by Unions. Removing some rights makes Australia more attractive for business, as is said before; More Business= More Jobs= More money

[Ikazi]

People aren't fired for willy nilly, that's true. If an employer was to encourage a sexual interaction between a employee and one was to refuse, what would be the consequence of that? Just one scenario behind WorkChoices. Another fact is that Australia does not need more jobs, it needs more skilled workers. Which the Howard government knowing there was a skill crisis, did nothing about. Only went on a spending spree before every election to stay in power and not really caring about Australia.

[DCFGS3]

Actually the Howard Government was well aware of the skills crisis, which why he tried to reestablish technical schools around Australia and promote apprenticeships. Spending sprees every election? Where talking about Liberal here, often made out to be money grubbers and hoarders. Labor has always been the ones who go on spending sprees. Liberals create and hoard money, Labor comes in and spends it all. As for Howard not changing anything...where the hell have you been living?

[Ikazi]

You're joking right? They outspent Labor last election by 15 billion, a significant sum of money. The Liberals often go on spending sprees before elections, and have done for decades now. For those technical schools, go find me the statistics of how many were promised and how many were made, you'll find something like 2500 being promised and only 10-20 being made. Not to mention the Liberal lies every election, GST is only one example.

[DCFGS3]

Your off by 2400, only 100 campuses were ever planned. Also you'll find the plan was announced in 2007, Labor scrapped the idea on election. And so what if they go on a splurge last election? They basically made all that money, why the hell not spend it? And I seem to recall Labor doing something a little like that...oh yea, Gough Whitlam, except that time, we didn't have the money to spend.

[Ikazi]

True, that was a grouse exaggeration. However tell me what you think is flawed about pledging to spend $2.1 billion over 10 years establishing 100 campuses across the country. Not only that Labors education revolution outspends it and will be completed faster than 10 years? Gough Whitlam was a great PM, without him say goodbye to Medicare and other reforms. At least Whitlam didn't have a cry about not being in power and block all money bills through the senate.

[DCFGS3]

Not saying his social reforms weren't great, but you can't save the world without money. He also tried to get loans from the middle east, manipulate the QLD election by sending a senator overseas to force a Bi-Election among other things. And the Education Revolution appears to be all talk, they're fairly vagues about everything apart from that Digital Revolution, uhh all these revolutions, almost sounding...Communist? And weren't you complaining before about overspending?

[Ikazi]

Lets be frank, everyone's branding revolution on their campaign. That and change are the most often words used in global campaigns at this time. The Education Revolution is working, slowly. From what I hear the computers and scholarships part of it will be introduced this year. And he had to borrow money because the Liberals refused to pass the money bills. The Liberals were denying hundreds of thousands of job payments to government employed citizens. He needed to borrow to pay them.

[DCFGS3]

Not saying I like the current Liberal Party, Maclcome Turnbull would be much better than Brendan Nelson. The point I'm making is this particular Labor Government, is crap. Rudd is a smug little man who's gunning for a UN job, Gillard is a good politicean, but a Union heavyweight, Swan doesn't actually have a clue,and why the hell is Garret in the party? Furthermore, if Unions say jump, Labor asks how high.

[Ikazi]

I have to disagree with you there. Ever since Bob Hawke, I feel it's been the Labor Party in control. Of course they have to look out for the interest of unions, but the Liberals have to look out for big business as well. People don't look on both sides of the field. We've got the Liberals who are on their hands and knees to mining and oil companies.

[DCFGS3]

The last election, every second ALP add was Union organised, not mention the absurd amount of funding to Labor. Julia Gillard's acceptance speech, which you'll find here on Youtube, was at a Union rally. Labor may have controlled Unions before, but Rudd doesn't have the backbone, and Gillard's actually part of them. As for Liberal at the mercy of mining companies, it was the Liberals who actually kept the mining boom in check, companies were lining up just to get a piece of our resources.

[Ikazi]

Gillard should be our Prime Minister. Anyway saying the Liberals kept anyone in check is false. Most of our tourism and resources are foreign owned thanks to them. It's like selling the crown jewels at a garage sale for a quick buck, that's the Liberal ideology. As for the Unions, I personally like them a lot. Unions have always stuck up for the little man and kept the fair go in Australian politics.

[DCFGS3]

Yes, they stick up for the little guy, but shouldn't be anywhere near power, easily susceptible to corruption, and generally anti-big business they've employed heavy handed tactics against employers, threatening industrial action when the average worker is happy with his job. Point being, Unions don't make money and often take it away in the form of lost production. As for foreign owned industry, that's happening all over the world, there's nothing the Government can do about the overall trend.

[Ikazi]

They threaten industrial action when the little guy is being treated like the insignificant ant he is in the colony. And a Union is not about profit, it's about defending to the last breath your fellow worker. Putting your neck on the line to ensure he can feed his family and keep a roof over their heads. To cure the big-business disease with wage cut is like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches. Big-Business will always step on the little guy in society, no matter the consequences.

[DCFGS3]

Big business is not the scum of the Earth, without big business, pioneered by Henry Ford, we wouldn't be in the modern age, big business is responsible for things such as cheap electronics and penicillin. Big Business is also not out to quash the little guy, it's out to make money, to quote Ford "The highest use of capital is not to make more money, but to make money do more for the betterment of life" Big Business brings the comforts of Western society, if you don't like it, move to China

[Ikazi]

Comparing big business to scum is giving scum a bad name. Big Business is like a cannibal, it eats weaker forms of itself until it is the only one left. That's when capitalism crumbles under it's own feat. It won't go out with a bang, but with a whimper. Not to mention Henry Fords company is not doing so well these days, with the continual cutbacks and subsidies from the governments around the world. He may of been a modern thinker 70 or so years ago, but these days definitely not.

[DCFGS3]

Until one of your "little guys" comes up with a bright idea, sells it, builds a company, overtakes competitors, they crumble, he rises, new company. Your right when you say they crumble when they get too big, but what happens to all their parts? Smaller companies pick them up, and the process repeats, all the time. With each new innovation comes a company, a product, a new and better lifestyle for everyone. The alternative is Communism, which was a complete FAILURE

[Ikazi]

When has communism failed? If you think the USSR was communist, you need to do a little research. Even so, the USSR went from a backwards country, to a super power in the width of 10-20 years.

[DCFGS3]

On the way killing millions of people, but hey, the workers rights were protected weren't they? Protected up until they were deported to labor camps for some tiny transgression. What about China? Millions died, famine and poverty, and now China has changed, it's more capitalist than ever, and what's happening? "The next Superpower". Cuba? Well instead of going the direct route and making everyone poor quickly, they've taken their time so no one notices. Do a little research, Comrade.

[Ikazi]

Communistic ideology was the foundation of the building of both those world powers, there is no denying that, Mr Fat Cat of Business.

More to the point, more have died because of Capitalism. The only example I need to give is this. We have the technology to put vitamin A in rice, and we've done so. It will solve many optical problems in Africa and other poor parts of the world. But because it cost a lot to develop, they won't give it to the poor nations. As a result, millions die.

[Ikazi]

Or hey, how about the vaccinations that are available for Malaria or Small Pox. Capitalism won't allow it to be given to the nations that need it, because capitalism doesn't put people before profits. It comes to a point where you need to put a price on a life, because it's economical to do so and that makes me sick. In all fact, as much as I admire Hitler. People like George Bush and John Howard are modern forms of him. Instead of genocide, they won't give people the help needed to save lives.

[DCFGS3]

There's quite a large difference between taking food away, to not putting vitamins in food your giving away. But hey, we could be complete bastards and not give them any food, but no, businesses around the world, big and small support underdeveloped countries in many ways. Granted, most corporations aren't Saints, but at least they aren't causing genocides.

[Ikazi]

Aren't causing genocides? So when the Krupp Corporation gave Hitler funds for advertisement. They weren't supporting discrimination and eventually genocide? Think twice before you look at the blood soaked hands of corporations. They go hand in hand with evil regimes like the Nazi's.

[DCFGS3]

What about Pfizer? The drug company that bought the rights to penicillin. It could have kept the product to itself, maintaining a monopoly on the market, but no, it sold the formula to its rivals so they could produce more for the allies. That drug, and its subsequent availability, saved countless lives. Oh, and as for Krupp, that was a German company anyway. I should also mention, Jewish industrialists also gave Hitler support and funds.

[Ikazi]

Care to name any of those Jewish Industrialists. Considering Hitler outlined his attitude to Jews in Mein Kampf, known as the Nazi manifesto. Also, congratulations on finding one company that would of been forced by the government to sell the penicillin formula. Would you like a cookie for your gallant efforts?

[DCFGS3]

Actually, because (Wait for it...) America is a CAPITALIST country, the government had very little control over private companies even during war time. And you might also find the names of the shipping companies and their sailors who offered their ships and services to pull the allies out of Dunkirk. We might as well mention Stalin's little love in with Hitler before the war and even during. Although didn't Hitler also outline his feelings toward Communists in Mein Kampf?

[Ikazi]

Firstly, you named no Jewish Industrialists. Secondly, just because America is capitalist, does not restrict it from forcing a company to hand over a formula for national safety reasons. And finally, Stalin was the only Soviet other than Foreign Minister Molotov to greet the Germans warmly. However in Stalin's defense, he only NAP'ed the Germans because the Brits and French wouldn't support the freedom of Czechslovakia. It's believed he later planned to invade.

[DCFGS3]

The reason I didn't name industrialists is because we don't know who actually did. Firstly, Hitler never wrote down any official documents of who supported his rise to power, he wanted unconditional support from his sponsors, no strings attached. Secondly, very little survived the war. The reason we do know he was supported by Jewish industrialists is because he was quite popular among them because of his anti-communist beliefs. If you were a businessman in pre WWII Germany, you backed Hitler

[DCFGS3]

You might also take into account, that Mein Kampf, while widely read after his rise to power, was virtually unread outside Nazi circles before that. Hitler was also thought to be a raving loon, and his anti-semitic preaching, while popular, was considered unachievable. And what about Krupp, I'm sure they were forced to provide support for the regime during wartime. The Americans didn't do that Pfizer, why? Because they didn't understand Penicillin or its possible effects.

[DCFGS3]

Penicillin and its distribution were handled solely by Pfizer, its rivals and the English inventors. Now you may have a point about Stalin's support, but remember, he was the only one who mattered. The point is, no one gave a dam about Hitler's manifesto until he was in power, by then it was too late. And the Genocide? The Jews still didn't know about when it began, many thought they were going to resettlement in the East.

[Ikazi]

Firstly, if you can't name any Jewish Industrialists then you're only presuming they supported the regime.

Secondly, Mein Kampf, specifically version 2 was read before his rise in power by a significant amount of Germans. Version 2 was known as his "manifesto" when he got into power as the president of the republic, something that didn't happen.

Lastly, although penicillin was important for the war, they had other medications that kept the health of soldiers at acceptable levels.

[Ikazi]

PS: Do some research on what the Jews traveled in to the camps. You'll find it was wooden carriages on the train, overpopulated and without water and food for days. I'm sure while sitting on the train, they knew there would be no green grass over the hill.

[DCFGS3]

Oh so the Jews who actually bought their own tickets for the train were just wanting to go and die were they? Silly me. Do your research, the Nazis didn't want A:Jews to find out what was going on, B:The rest of Germany to find out. Jews were carried in real passenger coaches within Germany and the Western Territories, once reaching the German border, they were then changed into cattle trucks. And besides, the Jews were used to being treated like this, so there wouldn't have been any difference.

[DCFGS3]

The Nazi Extermination program was flawless, the most Jews heard were crazy rumors, they had no idea until they actually smelt the burning bodies. Another reason they had no idea was because this at the time incomprehensible, it had never happened before in history, the idea hadn't even been dreamed up by fiction writers. The systematic killing of a race at the time was never even considered possible.

[DCFGS3]

Until a tiny scratch got infected, then they either lost limbs or died. Acceptable levels? I think not. You may not have realised, but penicillin is widely regarded as the most important medical breakthrough in the last century, saving millions of lives. And we can presume Jews supported Hitler's rise to power, because almost all industrialists did, and quite a few of those industrialists were Jewish.

[Ikazi]

Firstly, you have no idea about what happened to Jews in the holocaust. I'll do you a favour by telling you, Jews knew what was going on that's why many of them immigrated from Germany in mass numbers. Most notably Einstein and other German scientists that worked on the Manhattan project. With that said, the Nazi's openly persecuted the Jews. I would say Germany knew what was going on. And lastly, Passenger coaches to move Jews around was too expensive and a luxury of the time.

[Ikazi]

Now to teach you something, they used storage containers to transport the Jews, against their will. Not passenger coaches.

Nazi Extermination program didn't start until later in the war. And it was not flawless, hiding twelve thousand bodies a day is no easy feat. And no we can't just presume Jews supported Hitler, because they did not. And I doubt Hitler would even accept money from a Jew on principal. And no not all or even almost all industrialists support Hitler.

[Ikazi]

I don't doubt Penicillin as being important. But Penicillin saved only about 10% of the wounded during WW2, being it was expensive and hard to get. What I think is a more important medical invention of the time was Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroeth­ane. Which saved many more lives than Penicillin during the war years.

[DCFGS3]

Actually, many emigrated before 1935 because Hitler said get out. After the Nuremburg Laws of 1935, Jews lost citizenship, so no passports. Hitler then briefly allowed them to leave just before the outbreak of war. Unfortunately many only fled as far as Poland or France. They were then moved into concentration camps, and called a 'workforce', they continued to believe they were a workforce and wouldn't be murdered.

[DCFGS3]

The reason many academia such as Einstein left early was because they A:Wealthy and B:Could read the writing on the wall Now if the Nazis were worried about the cost of such procedures, they'd have kept the death camps close to main headquarters in Germany No? But they didn't. One or two camps including concentration were within German borders most were in the East The reason many Jews also didn't react was because they've suffered many massacres, called Pogroms, over the course of their history

[DCFGS3]

The difference between these Pogroms and the holocaust was the scale, most of the time, only a few thousand were killed and it was all over. This is where everyone underestimated the enormity of the Nazi plan. Why do you think they constructed showers for gassing rather than just gassing them? Why were mock stations built at some camps? To deceive the Jews. As for Germans, the Nazis didn't exactly parade the fact they murdering Jews. They were moved through the Fatherland by carriage. Fact.

[Ikazi]

Because of the mass amount of mistakes and errors in your argument, I'll use point form to correct you.

*Hitler did not say "get out", feel free to give me a url to a site that is reliable and says he did.

*Jews didn't lose citizenship, how can something not human lose citizenship?

*Contrary to your own belief, concentration camps were not in Germany because most Jews were in Eastern nations. Germany didn't have a significantly large Jewish population.

[DCFGS3]

Hitler made it perfectly clear he didn't want them early on, his early policies were anti-Jewish, I think they got the picture, as proved by your friend Einstein, among others. Early on Hitler never made an active attempt to violently suppress Jews, the earliest was Kristalnacht. He was too busy consolidating his power base and building German Nationalism. He wanted the Jews out of the way so he could take their land and money, but couldn't kill them without the cover of war.

[DCFGS3]

You'll find, although he may have regarded them as such, Jews were never referred to in official documents as non-human, rather sub-human. Hitler couldn't just suppress them without proper legal backing, which is why he drafted the Nuremburg Laws, these laws aligned Jews with foreign nationals, as only a person Aryan blood could be citizen. This removed their right to hold office (long gone anyway), their right to own a business, and to apply for official documents (Except Birth certificates)

[DCFGS3]

Moving Jews around is quite easy, any Jews in Germany could easily have been transported across the border into the East, where they would have been less noticeable. Jewish populations, while not as high in the East, were prevalent in the Western Territories, yet there are a smaller number of death camps there, this is because if such an operation was discovered by local separatist forces, it could be targeted. It was much easier to send them East

[DCFGS3]

So the location of a Jewish population doesn't matter, as I pointed out, the Nazis didn't want Germans to know about the Jewish extermination, that's why they were kept in the dark, granted; rumors abound. The camps in the East also made the proposed extermination of the Slavic race much easier, Russian troops were sent to such death camps and worked to death.

[DCFGS3]

New I'd find it, Who Financed Hitler, James and Suzanne Pool; "Germany's most important Jewish industrialist even gave to the Nazis - to make them dependent on his money in hopes of eventually disrupting them."

[Ikazi]

Okay you still don't get it. Let me give you some statistics off the top of my head. 200 Thousand Jews in Germany. 1.5million in Poland, 200k in Baltic states and 1million in Ukraine. Those are just the killed rates, disregarding populations. However to make a stab in the dark, I would say removing the German Jews would be a priority. It was not easier to transport Jews around, if you're forgetting there is a war on, and each train is needed for logistics.

[Ikazi]

With that said, most of what you just wrote was summaries of what I had wrote earlier. With an exception of you somehow thinking Germany had these significant amount of Jews, when in actual fact they did not.

Lastly, earlier you stated "almost all Jewish Industrialists funded Hitler" That view had changed to "Germany's most important Jewish industrialist" Still not giving any specific people. But I'm seeing a pattern of bullshit frankly. Go ahead and name for me some of those Jews.

[DCFGS3]

Not really, by the time they were killing jews (Final Solution)the Nazis had finished fighting in Western Europe and moved East, so the trains were going that way anyway. You'll also find Hitler placed a higher priority on killing Jews than the actual war, when he started losing, he demanded more jews be killed quicker, so as to wipe the population out before the allies arrived

[DCFGS3]

Anyway, the reason there are very little camps inside Germany is because Hitler didn't want the rest of Germany or the other Aryan countries finding out about the slaughter. He didn't care about the poles and Russians because they were an inferior race, what could they do? Hitler was all about propaganda, the Nazi campaign was one of the best in history. the German people might have heard rumors, but they didn't know for sure or have any information about the camps

[DCFGS3]

Now the reason industrialists supported Hitler, was cause he was a goddamn saviour, Germany was a mess, there were 9 major political parties, we have 2, Communists, Liberalists and all kinds of groups struggled for power. Industrialists were terrified of the very real communist threat, Hitler took a hard line on communism, and actively fought them in the streets. Hitler exerted both stability and supported the businesses

[DCFGS3]

The extermination was brilliantly planned and executed. The reason bodies were left in trenches was because the Nazis were retreating quickly and were forced to make quick shootings. If your referring to the earlier pits of the Nazis, these burial grounds were not part of the Final Solution, they made by the Eintzengruppen murdering Jews prior to the Wansee Conference. These pits were then excavated by the Nazis and the bodies burned, trying to destroy evidence

[peachwalls]

thank you so much. i cracked up so bad watching this during parliament question time on tv. :D

[yourgasm]

Julia Gillard is a stupid dumbass communist bitch. WIth her in power,our country would collapse into hell. Wouldn't surprise me if she gave her sympathy towards scumbag murderers like Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot. Afterall,she is an admirer of that fuckhead Karl Marx. Fuck Gillard, long live Malcolm Turnbull!

[yourgasm]

Julia Gillard is a stupid dumbass communist bitch. WIth her in power,our country would collapse into hell. Wouldn't surprise me if she gave her sympathy towards scumbag murderers like Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot. Afterall,she is an admirer of that fuckhead Karl Marx. Fuck Gillard, long live Malcolm Turnbull!

[hmasmelbourne]

Why does she thinck every one agrees with her on work choices, they were great laws.

[minervamcgonagall86]

omg i saw this when it aired...had me in hysterics! thanks sooo much for posting this, now i can share the laughter!!!

[danielsydney]

I love

julia Gillard. Shes the best one in the Parliament.

[101FrenchKisses]

Lol sarcastic bitch.. workchoices pamphlets could be made into some lovely toilet paper.. then again, it may be a bit harsh.

[kenji387]

shes such a sarcastic bitch i love it

[clintonmarkwell]

julia gillard is a communist

[aleadvogado]

And what´s the problem???

[clintonmarkwell]

julia gillard is a communist

[hudsonst]

Julia is the next Prime Minster. She is absolutely brilliant. I've started to watch Parliament again just to watch her in action. She demolishes them and there is nothing left of them when she finishes! Next she will find 20 million WorkChoices tooth brushes. Postcards, fridge magnets? What was the Howard government thinking? Its like a marketing manager threw up all over Canberra. Go Julia!!!

[MooingChoir]

She's the new Keating!

[jordansimages]

She is the new Keating... Gillard is brilliant in parliament!

[anglim33]

Brilliant!!! The obvious successor to Rudd!!!

[yourgasm]

Gillard the next Keating? Mate she is a stupid leftist slut whilst Keating was more to the right. Gillard is a marxist whore and should not be allowed to be PM

[Bozza83]

god she sounds like kath from kath and kim!! Imagine if beazley was prime minister i could just see her saying "kimmy, kimmy, look at me"

[jolozinger]

woo go julia

[DUNVEGANCASTLE]

What am I going to do with my WorkChoices toilet paper? Give'em heaps Julia!!

[tornado33au]

Yep, she is brilliant. Go Julia!

[thacosmicjester]

love it

[anglim33]

Haha Gillard at her best!! Plenty of good times ahead!!