Australian Politics thread [merged]

[Smokey]

1965 do you actually stand for anything or do you only hold anti-Abbott views. You seem to fit the latter to me.

You'll be waiting a while for an answer on that one T101. 65 is all Egress.

Sorry been busy.

I can tell you one thing I stand for...

A solution that will stop people dying at sea.

 

We had one.  Shame on the morons who thought they knew better and dismantled it.  A thousand souls would probably beg to differ with their 'wisdom'.

[1965]

1965 do you actually stand for anything or do you only hold anti-Abbott views. You seem to fit the latter to me.

You'll be waiting a while for an answer on that one T101. 65 is all Egress.

Sorry been busy.

I can tell you one thing I stand for...

A solution that will stop people dying at sea.

 

We had one.  Shame on the morons who thought they knew better and dismantled it.  A thousand souls would probably beg to differ with their 'wisdom'.

You are a fool if you actually believe that crap.

[tiga]

1965 do you actually stand for anything or do you only hold anti-Abbott views. You seem to fit the latter to me.

You'll be waiting a while for an answer on that one T101. 65 is all Egress.

Sorry been busy.

I can tell you one thing I stand for...

A solution that will stop people dying at sea.

 

We had one.  Shame on the morons who thought they knew better and dismantled it.  A thousand souls would probably beg to differ with their 'wisdom'.

You are a fool if you actually believe that crap.

Why? It was in place and operating effectively. (now waiting for a diatribe on the Tampa)

[Smokey]

1965 do you actually stand for anything or do you only hold anti-Abbott views. You seem to fit the latter to me.

You'll be waiting a while for an answer on that one T101. 65 is all Egress.

Sorry been busy.

I can tell you one thing I stand for...

A solution that will stop people dying at sea.

 

We had one.  Shame on the morons who thought they knew better and dismantled it.  A thousand souls would probably beg to differ with their 'wisdom'.

You are a fool if you actually believe that crap.

Believe what?  That we had a solution that was working or that a thousand souls have been lost?

[WilliamPowell]

1965 do you actually stand for anything or do you only hold anti-Abbott views. You seem to fit the latter to me.

You'll be waiting a while for an answer on that one T101. 65 is all Egress.

Sorry been busy.

I can tell you one thing I stand for...

A solution that will stop people dying at sea.

 

We had one.  Shame on the morons who thought they knew better and dismantled it.  A thousand souls would probably beg to differ with their 'wisdom'.

You are a fool if you actually believe that crap.

Why? It was in place and operating effectively. (now waiting for a diatribe on the Tampa)

I don't think I'm a fool and I agree with Smokey & tiga, we had a policy that worked, Howard and his govt got it right. the ALP under Rudd got it wrong when they dismantled it

[1965]

Have a read and learn some facts.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3886792.html

[tiger101]

1965 do you actually stand for anything or do you only hold anti-Abbott views. You seem to fit the latter to me.

You'll be waiting a while for an answer on that one T101. 65 is all Egress.

Sorry been busy.

I can tell you one thing I stand for...

A solution that will stop people dying at sea.

 

We had one.  Shame on the morons who thought they knew better and dismantled it.  A thousand souls would probably beg to differ with their 'wisdom'.

You are a fool if you actually believe that crap.

Why? It was in place and operating effectively. (now waiting for a diatribe on the Tampa)

I don't think I'm a fool and I agree with Smokey & tiga, we had a policy that worked, Howard nad his govt got it right. the ALP under Rudd got it wrong when they dismantled it

If Rudd had his time over again even he wouldn't dismantle it only the truly rusted on such as 65 would argue over this.

[1965]

Have a read and learn some facts.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3886792.html

[Smokey]

Have a read and learn some facts.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3886792.html

Lol.  More facts from that bastion of objective and unbiased reporting - our ABC.   

[Penelope]

They are probably more objective than any commercial media, but what the article says is that under howards policy less asylum people arrived by boat and more by air. So the policy was successful at stopping people getting into leaky boats for a dangerous journey and therefore dying at sea, which is what 65 asked for.

[Smokey]

They are probably more objective than any commercial media,

We will have to agree to disagree with that one Al.  I believe they are nothing more than a mouthpiece for Leftist dogma - at least you will get some articles espousing both sides of politics in the private media, even if the particular organisation generally leans one way or the other.

but what the article says is that under howards policy less asylum people arrived by boat and more by air. So the policy was successful at stopping people getting into leaky boats for a dangerous journey and therefore dying at sea, which is what 65 asked for.

And yet '65 argues that Howard's policy didn't work.  Go figure.

Here's a fact that is relevant to me, regardless of which side of politics you support:

Almost every single refugee that arrives here does so after passing through other countries first.  As soon as a refugee transits through 1 or more countries before arriving at a final destination then they have ceased to become a refugee in my eyes and are nothing more than a queue-jumping country shopper, and are deserving of no preferential or priority treatment.  A genuine refugee fleeing political or religious persecution does not need to continue a journey through several countries who are UN member states and are signatories to the UNHCR Refugee Convention.  Why should we compromise our national security and increase the burden on our economy to assist people who choose to break the legal and moral barriers to live here?  I have no problem with admitting people from any country in the world and our country is certainly far richer for the multi-cultural influences we have but I refuse to accept that we must cut corners and lower standards for checking the bona-fides of any immigrant.  We owe this to ourselves and our children who will inherit this country after we have passed on.  We don't owe Indonesia, Malaysia, PNG, Nauru or any other neighbouring country a damned thing when it comes to looking after our self-interests first.

[WilliamPowell]

Here's a fact that is relevant to me, regardless of which side of politics you support:

Almost every single refugee that arrives here does so after passing through other countries first.  As soon as a refugee transits through 1 or more countries before arriving at a final destination then they have ceased to become a refugee in my eyes and are nothing more than a queue-jumping country shopper, and are deserving of no preferential or priority treatment.  A genuine refugee fleeing political or religious persecution does not need to continue a journey through several countries who are UN member states and are signatories to the UNHCR Refugee Convention.  Why should we compromise our national security and increase the burden on our economy to assist people who choose to break the legal and moral barriers to live here?  I have no problem with admitting people from any country in the world and our country is certainly far richer for the multi-cultural influences we have but I refuse to accept that we must cut corners and lower standards for checking the bona-fides of any immigrant.  We owe this to ourselves and our children who will inherit this country after we have passed on.  We don't owe Indonesia, Malaysia, PNG, Nauru or any other neighbouring country a damned thing when it comes to looking after our self-interests first.

 

Well said Smokey, well said

[tiga]

Brilliant Smokey 

I think you just schooled the schoolie! 

[Judge Roughneck]

Let them in

Sif we don't have enough room

Rudd wants votes nothing more

[1965]

Another interesting read

Right has twigged that Abbott may be on shaky ground

Date July 24, 2013 

Alan Stokes

Oh be still my bleeding heart!

As a compassionate person, I am not supposed to find joy in the misery of others. But I regret it has been satisfying to watch the compliant commentariat of the right squirm as they see the certainty of an Abbott government vanish before their eyes.

Besides the shock, a Kevin Rudd victory would force the Liberals to accept Malcolm Turnbull as leader and remake their party.

No wonder Rudd scares the wits out of the anti-Labor media lackeys and the business-funded think-tanks. It is not because Rudd will deliver government to the leftie bovver boys or the inner-city elites; it's because he will not.

Should Rudd fulfil his promises on asylum (that's possible), education (probable), the economy (yep) and crucially, party reform (good starts but needs to do more), he will have an impressive mandate.

The right knows Rudd plans to redefine what Labor represents, just as Tony Blair did with New Labour which denied the British conservatives power for almost a generation. Here, Rudd threatens to destroy the business model of the anti-Labor rhetoricians and their Coalition heroes.

If Rudd succeeds and Abbott loses the unloseable election, issues will have to be assessed on their merits, not through the distorted left-right, elite-egalitarian prism so popular in some circles.

Shifting discourse into the middle where most Australians reside would disenfranchise the vested interests and their cheer squads.

The right commentariat celebrations about Julia Gillard's demise had barely subsided when it dawned on them: Rudd poses a much greater threat.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/right-has-twigged-that-abbott-may-be-on-shaky-ground-20130723-2qhfc.html#ixzz2ZvXuUtAD

Edited: No need for the cheap shot (read snipe) 1965