Methusala

Scrub my post? What a lot of children!

Short memory oooh, must have a short memory I don't feel like googling all the old stuff because...guess what? You neanderthals never listen. eg. You KNOW that Rudd's perfectly appropriate Keynesian response to the GFC saved Australia from going down the s--t tubes the way GB, USA and the others went. That's right! You don't want to acknowledge the praise of the IMF and OECD. Pffft! is your response. The reason that I spoke about the thugs and other slime is because, in their totally self centred way, they don't see how anything they choose to do could adversly affect anyone else. It's a disease. Now its climate denial. Well we don't want to burn this earth before our sons and daughters and their grandsons and daughters have a say. End of message.

What are sheep doing drinking precious potable water? I think that you believe the 'trickle down' drivel that post Keynsian 'economists' have tried to get us people who can think to swallow for years. You know the story, "Privatised (everything ) is cheaper, better managed and good for all of us " CRAP! Bit like believing Lieberal propaganda really. I did secondary school economics from Samuelson and have yet to see ANYTHING in supply side economics that is more than sucker bait. (That a wild cow?WTF)

I don't see why this image has caused any controversy at all. I imagine that it was posted in a fairly low attempt to "stir the pot" in a thread that some have observed has run its natural course (many by the act of no longer commenting). Australians respond to Australia Day in diverse ways, showing the flag is one such way. Please think before responding to basic provocation.

Who writes your lines Turbs? Time to sack your script writer (not funny, invariably boring, monotonous, lacking in substance...could it be Cretin ah.. Credlin)?

TP, earlier in this thread you asked FT to provide references documenting his information. What is the point of your last post? Is it an opinion? Obviously this minister was either being ingenuous or was misled by his advisers. The real point made by Marty_d was Where is the evidence that these people don't make good citizens? At least try to lead good , factual evidence to support your case . Don

So, let's get this straight. 1.People who think that human rights apply to all= red ragger 2. People who support a govt which got us through the GFC in better shape than virtually any other country in the known world = red ragger 3. People who don't like politicians claiming that we misheard them in the election campaign = red ragger 4. People who think that calling a prime minister a ranger (short for orangutan) is an affront = red ragger 5. People who call the present mob (quite correctly) tossers and lairs = red ragger on..& on...ad infinitum yeah well you made your point

Stick & Stones...

The medium is the message!

I see that the definition of human rights abuse = different things depending on who does it or who actually sees it (If a tree falls in a forest and nobody sees it did it happen?) It is the "ALP supporting a criminal activity" on the part of the labor govt but it is "a minor setback the government has in stopping these bastards", if done by phoney Tony. Yeah right! I get it (not). Definately NOT a princess, Don

I strongly object to language that implies that people who hold contrary views to some posters on this thread are somehow not Australian. Keep the language clean and rely on force of argument and not slimy, tainted insults if you wish to be regarded as an equal. Don

Teckair, I am sorry for the post. Only those involved have the right to pass judgement. Don

Whose child was it?

G'day Planedriver, welcome to this thread that has attracted such interest - already in excess of 620 posts. Obviously no lack of enthusiasm here. I would like to give my input to points that you have raised. Firstly I say that nominating yourself as belonging to the majority does not give any moral authority to your beliefs nor can you simply claim a monopoly over common sense. You have to put a little more intellectual effort into making a case. There is NO evidence that people in this debate don't genuinely care about the issues raised in the asylum seeker debate (note this is NOT the "illegal immigrant" debate). Humanity have always been nomadic in nature. This is not a criminal flaw but a sign that being adaptive we have successfully colonised the earth. Additionally I reject the assumption that you make that some of us welcome an open door policy on informal migration, I'm sure that we don't and I reject this implication. In the past well intentioned attempts have been made to form a regional solution with the cooperation of neighbors like Malaysia. These efforts have been dismissed by the LNP gaggle for simple political advantage. (Another example of this extreme game of political musical chairs has been the question of carbon marketing, once embraced by the coalition then dumped for the worst of reasons.) Finally I have to state that it is not simply a case of orderly migration. Many of the worst trouble spots simply have no mechanism where requests can be made to some Australian consulate for permission to come to Oz. This is simply another ruse concocted to make the topic seem cut and dried. Another convenient lie I would call it. There is no simple answer to this problem but me and the others argue that the treatment of those unfortunate men, women and kids who have arrived on our patch should not be abused, neglected and terrified by incarceration in hell holes like a disused quarry in sun baked Nauru (do some reading and check it out). Don

M61A1 Please take note:- I think that a good layman's description of a concentration camp would be an enclosure where people are detained, not for breaking a law or awaiting trial, but because of who they are. Concentration camp BECAUSE THE DETAINEES ARE DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHTS OF THE GREATER POPULATION FOR NO GOOD LEGAL REASON. Definition :"The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which people are detained or confined, usually under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional democracy." Holocaust Encyclopaedia.

Again we hear from the "cloth ears", who never listen to the salient and accurate points led by their opponents in this debate. This "trade in people" represents the ONLY way that desperate families, fleeing for their lives, have of escaping the unspeakable depredations of their political enemies. These same people have never thought about accessing the multiple sources on the internet which detail in horrifying terms the suffering from which they seek escape. So they recite the lines supplied by the VIEWSPAPERS (thanks Facthunter***) that "the ALP are cold blooded Killers" and similar rubbish. Great argument boys! (Try harder next time if you seek to change our views.)

I think that owning your home gives you an un-accounted for stream of income in that you don't have rent to pay. It would be appropriate to assess this rent figure, adjusted for expenses eg. rates, maintenance etc as part of a person's income. It is a mistake to assess wealth on the basis of the value of the house you occupy. I was able to buy a good block of land when young and then build my house on it. I reckon that the total outlay, adjusted to today's income, was about $90- 100k. Try to do that now! Don

G'day Turbo. My point is simply that market researchers like Morgans have a vested interest in accurately reflecting the views of the population. And they get it right on most occasions. The number of people sampled may seem small to an outsider but they know their business. If you believe that they are inaccurate then you should explain why in technical terms and not use an unverified method such as, "...2,527 out of millions of voters is not serious polling...". Unfortunately for you, the Abbott govt is doing really badly in historical terms for the section of electoral cycle we're in now. I hope their luck continues up to polling day 2016 but it is a long time off and the Australian polity have been fooled more than once. Regards, Don

The question is in 2 parts. Do you let them in?...and - once here, how do we treat them. I know there are a lot of people who can't understand the sort of issues raised in stories such as "Ship of the Damned". How can people be that callous? we ask ourselves and then the self realisation that is how we are treating these unfortunates. Silly, eh?

I see at RAAus gatherings a sea of grey and bald heads. I can't see anyone on this site who would be against us oldies who helped build the nation, Teckair. Regards, Don

horsefeathers!

Don't see you giving footnotes to your opinions TP.

You can see here the world view of crypto-fascist, extreme capitalist types who blythely disregard any/all real facts on the political economy because it serves their creed (hint: I'm alright Jack!)

Ian McCawley often writes very informative stuff.

And how is that a good thing? An acquaintance told me of a visit to a US work place where there was a 90 year old African American sweeping the floor. When asked he said that this kept him in room and board as there was no pension for him. Question is what about similar people with no "understanding employer"? I'm no watermelon but...?