Australian Federal Election 2010

[a_unique_person]

An explanation is required prior to an apology. You seem to have forgotten that it was you that said the carbon tax was more important, if youcan explain why I might be in a position to apologise, In the meantime I can anly assume that you - like many greens, and at least one here - care nought for the deaths at sea copared to a tax that does nothing.



There is no evidence there in spite of your claims. If there is, perhaps you could point it out a little more for me.



They were not "caused by TPVs". How does holding a TPV force people onto boats? If anything they should have made the people at home think about staying there. Or for the person holding the TPV to return to them - we would have flown them their safely. You have yet to provide actual evidence. All this shows is that some people who lost family were holding TPVs, nothing more.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...o-budge-on-nauru/story-fn59niix-1226134614843

He (Bowen) urged colleagues not to forget that four per cent of asylum seekers who got on boats drowned at sea, with last year's Christmas Island tragedy an argument for offshore processing.



Tragic if true. One wonders why they would take "cash payments" to return to Afghanastan when they were safe in Indonesia prior to coming to Australia.

Moreover, given your earlier comments that most refugees were accepted into Australia because they were "genuine refugees", could one infer that these may not have been genuine refugees? Can you show us that they were, or why they were sent back? I'm guessing not. Perhaps they were terrorists or criminals and that is why they were not accepted. If so, one should not be all that surprised that they met their demise.

Just saying.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Got it. As usual you've got nothing.

And you refuse to explain why you think the carbon tax more important than children being smashed on rocks.

 

[Wildy]

Got it. As usual you've got nothing.

And you refuse to explain why you think the carbon tax more important than children being smashed on rocks.

Says the man who makes claims that are devoid of evidence.

 

[a_unique_person]

Got it. As usual you've got nothing.

I provided evidence, you said they probably deserved to be killed by the Taliban.

And you refuse to explain why you think the carbon tax more important than children being smashed on rocks.

Apologise first, Alfie.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I provided evidence, you said they probably deserved to be killed by the Taliban.

How about some evidence that they were genuine asylum seekers.

Apologise first, Alfie.

I will be in a place to apologise when you explain that you meant something different. As it stands all I have to go on is that you think a tax that will do nothing is more important than the lives of innocent children.

 

[a_unique_person]

How about some evidence that they were genuine asylum seekers.

Guilty until proven innocent. Nice.

 

[a_unique_person]

Alfie, one minute you are broken up because an asylum seeker dies trying to get here by boat, the next minute you are accusing an asylum seeker who is killed by the Taliban of being a fraud who deserves to die.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Guilty until proven innocent. Nice.

If they were "innocent" as you say (i.e. genuine refugees) would they have been sent back?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The ticking gets louder.....

tick tick tick

JULIA Gillard's Cabinet is bitterly divided with a senior minister launching a rare public attack on colleagues over the leaking of sensitive political negotiations on asylum seekers.

Former Labor leader and Gillard loyalist Simon Crean went public with his disgust over the leaks, warning colleagues their behaviour was disgraceful.

and

The leaks also revealed Ms Gillard opted to back the Left wing of the party and support onshore processing - a snub to the Right-wing powerbrokers who installed her in the top job.

The betrayal undermines her already weakened leadership and intensifies tensions within the parliamentary party.

plus

Ominously for the PM, serious concerns have been raised by MPs from across the factional divide over her judgment in pursuing a tactical victory over Mr Abbott in Parliament despite the fact the legislation was doomed in the Senate.

The Prime Minister was now effectively on notice after the policy mess, with one appalled Labor MP warning: "She got what she wanted. We backed her. Now she can make it work."

Dead woman walking.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...s-cabinet-crisis/story-fn7x8me2-1226167569620

 

[Wildy]

Alfie, one minute you are broken up because an asylum seeker dies trying to get here by boat, the next minute you are accusing an asylum seeker who is killed by the Taliban of being a fraud who deserves to die.

He's just following the narrative presented by the Liberal party. And they're being led by a man who fears for their safety while wanting to re-introduce a policy that leads to more people getting on the boats.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

He's just following the narrative presented by the Liberal party. And they're being led by a man who fears for their safety while wanting to re-introduce a policy that leads to more people getting on the boats.

Wrong, wrong and.... oh! Wrong.

But I am pretty certain you know all that.

 

[Wildy]

Wrong, wrong and.... oh! Wrong.

But I am pretty certain you know all that.

Project much?

If I'm so wrong then you should be able to show me how I am wrong instead of just saying so.

 

[little grey rabbit]

The ticking gets louder.....

tick tick tick

JULIA Gillard's Cabinet is bitterly divided with a senior minister launching a rare public attack on colleagues over the leaking of sensitive political negotiations on asylum seekers.

Former Labor leader and Gillard loyalist Simon Crean went public with his disgust over the leaks, warning colleagues their behaviour was disgraceful.

and

The leaks also revealed Ms Gillard opted to back the Left wing of the party and support onshore processing - a snub to the Right-wing powerbrokers who installed her in the top job.

The betrayal undermines her already weakened leadership and intensifies tensions within the parliamentary party.

plus

Ominously for the PM, serious concerns have been raised by MPs from across the factional divide over her judgment in pursuing a tactical victory over Mr Abbott in Parliament despite the fact the legislation was doomed in the Senate.

The Prime Minister was now effectively on notice after the policy mess, with one appalled Labor MP warning: "She got what she wanted. We backed her. Now she can make it work."

Dead woman walking.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...s-cabinet-crisis/story-fn7x8me2-1226167569620

She may be a dead woman walking, but unless Tony Abbott can force an election before July 2012 then he is a dead opposition walking. Assuming he can't find a way to weasel out of his promise in blood.

In New Zealand Jim Bolger promises to repeal the GST, National loses the 1987 election. In Australia Kim Beazley promises to repeal the GST and loses the Tampa election. Neither party wins an election until they agree to the new tax.

These things cost to much to roll back once they are in, the powers that be won't allow the Coalition to win until they agree to some kind of carbon pricing.

The only chance is if Tony Abbott can create enough political pressure to force a change in Labor leadership and the new Labor leader decides to go for an early mandate. Which would be a mad strategy, since Labor has the 2013 election in the bag, regardless of leader, as long as Mr Abbott is tied to repealing the Great Big Tax.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

She may be a dead woman walking, but unless Tony Abbott can force an election before July 2012 then he is a dead opposition walking. Assuming he can't find a way to weasel out of his promise in blood.

Why do you say this? He clearly has both the support of the electorate and his own party.

The only chance is if Tony Abbott can create enough political pressure to force a change in Labor leadership and the new Labor leader decides to go for an early mandate.

There are plenty of other possibilities upon which we could all speculate. To think yours is the only one is patently ridiculous.

Which would be a mad strategy, since Labor has the 2013 election in the bag, regardless of leader, as long as Mr Abbott is tied to repealing the Great Big Tax.

Silly me; I thought you were being serious and here you are pulling our collective legs. Good one.

 

[a_unique_person]

If they were "innocent" as you say (i.e. genuine refugees) would they have been sent back?

Looks to me the reason they left Afghanistan is because they were correct in fearing for their lives.

Don't forget, the US and Australia had a chance to concentrate all their forces in Afghanistan and have a chance of pacifying it and removing the Taliban. Instead they screwed up by invading Iraq, and now many of the refugees taking the risk of crossing the ocean to Australia are coming from there. Abbott is threatening to turn around the boats of the very people he helped created.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Looks to me the reason they left Afghanistan is because they were correct in fearing for their lives.

Maybe, and looks can be deceiving, can't they.
But why were they sent back? Do you know if they were genuine refugees? How do we know they were not terrorists or criminals of some sort?

Should we have let them stay if they were?

 

[a_unique_person]

Maybe, and looks can be deceiving, can't they.
But why were they sent back? Do you know if they were genuine refugees? How do we know they were not terrorists or criminals of some sort?

Should we have let them stay if they were?

Do you know what makes you a criminal in Afghanistan in the eyes of the Taliban. Under the Taliban, women are not allowed to work. If they woman is widowed, or divoreced, there is no welfare system, so they have no means of supporting themselves, but have to rely on charity. Women were executed for just trying to stay alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women

 

[Hallo Alfie]

That sounds horrible. But we didn't send women back because of the laws over there. Or did we? Last time I checked, the Taliban's laws do not apply on Australian (or Nauru's) soil.

As you correctly point out, genuine refugees were ultimately settled in Australia.

One can only assume that those sent back were not genuine refugees. So the question remains outstanding, why were they sent back? Were they criminals or terrorists? Or is there another reason why weren't they allowed to stay?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

More on those leaks. This really does signal the end of Gillard in the loudest and most clear way possible.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-16/bowen-refuses-to-comment-on-nauru-leaks/3573734

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen says the Cabinet leaks about asylum seeker policy discussions which reported he attempted to persuade Cabinet to agree to sending asylum seekers to Nauru, should have stayed confidential.

Yesterday, Fairfax newspapers reported Mr Bowen was rolled in Cabinet in his bid to break the political deadlock by agreeing to send asylum seekers to Nauru.

It is widely speculated (and the only one I can think of) that the reason why Gillard didn't go to the lower house with the amendments - even when Mirabella was out - was because her own back bench wouldn't support her.

Tick, tick, tick.

 

[a_unique_person]

That sounds horrible. But we didn't send women back because of the laws over there. Or did we? Last time I checked, the Taliban's laws do not apply on Australian (or Nauru's) soil.

As you correctly point out, genuine refugees were ultimately settled in Australia.

One can only assume that those sent back were not genuine refugees. So the question remains outstanding, why were they sent back? Were they criminals or terrorists? Or is there another reason why weren't they allowed to stay?

The assesors made a mistake? They got so sick of being in prison they took the money that was offered to go back rather than go insane?

One can only assume they were correct in their attempts to flee a murduress regime, and it was the Australian who made the mistake.