Talk:John Howard

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

its kinda sad to think that some poor kid might take this seriously. But it does provide genuine food for thought the whol Liberal vs liberal thing

I don't have time to sift through every claim in the article to check for accuracy, so I've reduced it to a stub until someone with knowledge of the subject can restore it to a more sensible state. Tsumetai 07:22, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
It was total fiction. There is nothing to "restore". It tends to confirm my view that (many) Americans know so little about matters outside their own country that you (plural) didn't recognise this as clear vandalism. Philip J. Rayment 04:21, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
It's a very funny article, nonetheless! Karalius Nyder 22:22, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


As both a long-term voter for the Liberal Party of Australia, a Catholic, and a partial contributer to the entry on John Howard, I do not believe that there is too much in this particular entry which cannot be shown to be based on truth as an Australian would define truth. The concept of truth, be it in regard to one's belief in a God or, at the other end of the specturm, belief in mother Gaia is not always as easily defined as one might imagine. Australians will remember a recent rather unkind qote, from whom I cannot remember, which described John Howard thus:

"He may be a rodent, but he is OUR rodent!"

That is truth as much as John Howard being in the Labor Party is truth.

I would like John Howard to see this article so that he may confirm it's contents, for although he may be perceived by many as a rodent, Prime Minister Howard would, I am sure, not want to change a single line of this entry about him. Numbat 19:57, 20 March 2007 (WDT)

Good Work

This page would have to be one of the best on conservapedia so far. Keep up the good work.

I hate to spoil people's fun but...

This article is a load of nonsense.

Just thought you might like to know. --Horace 05:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you can keep your negative comments to yourself Horace, this isn't wikipedia!

The funniest thing ever

I found out about Conservapedia whilst reading through a Wikipedia user page [1]. The thing that drew my attention was the hilarious reference to John Howard on Conservapedia. It was the funniest thing I had read in a long time. Thank you for making my day so much brighter. Hannibal ad portas 12:36, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow, your comment was most enlightening. Is this the best a Wikipedia user can do???--Aschlafly 12:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

...Sadly, I think it might be.... --<<-David R->> 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow you guys move quickly. Do you hunt in packs? Hannibal ad portas 12:41, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The text on the Wikipedia's user page is of an old version of this article, which was the result of vandalism, combined with a lack of editors who knew anything about the subject. It has been corrected for some time. I editorialised on it my user page and commented about it near the top of this talk page also. Philip J. Rayment 20:08, 5 May 2007 (EDT)


Is it worth noting that he's a habitual liar? There are floods in Melbourne, which he's saying is under drought conditions... Sauce ASAP Kazumaru 10:34, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

LOL, droughts maybe not but there needs to be stuff added on the children overboard affair, GST backflip and his political relationship with Peter Costello EQ 10:43, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps we ought to say that Kazamaru is a liar?! There's been no floods in Melbourne lately, although there have been some in Gippsland. But given that Melbourne still has stage 3a water restrictions (and much of the state has worse), it's still effectively drought conditions despite recent rain, and it's too soon to say that the drought is definitely over.
EQ, the points you mention probably should go in the article, but it should be kept in mind that there are strong differences of opinions about each of those situations.
One problem with this article is that its skimming very close to the line (if it's not already over it) of thinking it's a newspaper article giving a running commentary. Some of the issues mentioned are most likely largely irrelevant in an overall look at the PM, and merely seem important because they are current and therefore prominent at the moment. At least the points EQ mentioned are clearly matters that are major incidents in the PM's career.
Philip J. Rayment 11:28, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
I think perhaps one needs to see that there is a difference between a flood and a drought being over. A drought is a prolonged period of time with less than average rainfall that leads to the general water availability to a particular area to be decreased significantly (definition made up on the spot) while a flood is a momentary sudden increase in water in an area due to heavy downpours. You can have a flood in the middle of a drought and the drought continues - what is needed is consistent rain over a prolonged period of time, not a heavy shower. PS Kazumaru, can I have a pie with that sauce ASAP? --Bilby 18:19, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
Feel free to call me a liar. The only areas of QLD that could possibly be classed as "drought conditions" would be the parts that are desert. And now, for that sauce you want. [2]It's an Aussie real-estate site. Look at the photos... Green grass, everywhere. Under water restrictions, what're the odds of seeing THAT consistently during a drought? Kazumaru 18:24, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
So a QLD real estate page proves that the floods in Melbourne have stopped the drought? Firstly have you considered that some real estate agents might actually misrepresent how something looks! (SHOCK!) Have you considered looking at the BOM page [3] to look at rainfall patterns or dam levels - Melbourne's dams are at less than 30% capacity at the moment - this time last year they were over 50%. Hobart is the only major city in Australia with dams at levels that are considered to be capable of maintaining the population for a prolonged period of time. I am in Melbourne, I can see the effects of drought every day, admittedly less in winter than they were five months ago but still there. Where are you?--Bilby 18:38, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
Agreed. I'm also wondering what the (alleged) situation in Queensland does to show that there's no drought here in Melbourne. It's got me stumped. Philip J. Rayment 19:53, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
In Sydney we have finally had some serious rain in past weeks that has returned our dams to 60% full when they were below 40% a few months back. But the major drought issue is inland, isn't it? It can rain for days in Sydney and they may get nothing on the other side of the Blue Mountains! Only problem is, State transport hasn't bothered keeping its buses waterproof over these past few years of drought so now I get wet on the way to work. :-( I agree with Philip's point that this article reads like a running commentary. Who remembers the Santoro scandal now?Ferret 08:18, 22 August 2007 (EDT)