If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Australian elections
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Looks like John Howard could be losing his seat.
And not a moment too soon
And not a moment too soon
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
I see that the P&D Lefties are already out in force, under the impression that Kevin Rudd is actually going to be different to Howard. They delude themselves. They denounce Howard's immigration policies as racist, for instance. (I still stand by my claim that Howard was right to refuse that boat full of immigrants into Australia a few years ago, incidentally) But when push comes to shove, Rudd won't change much about it. He only got into power after promising to be a less extreme version of Howard.
And as for I'm With Stupid's frankly laughable claim that "the Queen might be out on her arse", I hardly think that's the most pressing issue facing Australia today.
How is it laughable? The man's a republican, so a vote at least is probably inevitable.
Nice to see you still support a man who's "principles" involve refusing to take refugees from a country where he believes the situation merits invasion and regime change (bit of a contradiction there don't you think?). Or threatening to sink ships just because they have some asylum seekers on board, and refusing the save the 356 people who drowned as a result of a leaking boat. Or denying medical access from an independent humanitarian aid organisation, to the 433 people aboard the Norwegien ship MV Tampa (who saved them from a sinking ship). This isn't a hardline on immigration, this is a refusal to any proper legal right to apply for asylum (and this is before we get to the conditions they're kept in if they actually get to Australia). Funny that these hardliners are always keen to bomb the crap out of other countries as a "moral requirement," yet not so keen to pick up the pieces once they do.
But that's not why he's a racist cunt. He's a racist cunt because of the treatment of ethnic minorities in his own country. No other leader of a developed nation has actually suggested different laws for "black areas" like Howard has, and just shows the sort of racist scum this man is.
Incidentally, he wasn't kicked out of office because of his stance on immigration or the Iraq war, he was kicked out of office for continually eroding workers' rights. But I'm sure you knew that.
Oh and SG, I'd have thought the word "liberal" in his party's name would be enough to turn you off? Is he part of the infamous "Liberal Elite" too?
What relevence is your opinion on the matter? I simply said that this was the main reason that the Labor party won, not the Iraq war (though they also promise to pull the troops out). But just for the record, considering you have no issue with his government actively preventing an NGO giving medical assistance to asylum seekers on a Norwegian boat, it doesn't surprise me that you have no sympathy for the people that keep the country running.
I assume you're referring to the incident a couple of years ago. What obligation did Australia have to a bunch of asylum seekers on a boat? None whatsoever. They weren't Australian citizens, these were illegals. They shouldn't have been there in the first place. The Aussies owed them nothing. (and to anyone reading this, don't even think about trying to make laughable claims about me being a racist. My record across the entire board shows the total opposite, and you all know it.)
Ah, the usual "I'm alright Jack" conservative attitude. I seriously hope you have to go through some sort of hardship in your life SG, then you might realise why developed countries have obligations to asylum seekers. And that doesn't change the fact that the Aussie government actively prevented these people getting medical aid (on a Norwegian ship, from a non-Australian charity organisation).
Im afraid it doesnt show anything of the sort SG no matter how many times you bleat it.
That incident you say was so right, was that one in which lots and lots of people died directly because of that decision.
Those areas already had seperate laws and everyone seemed to miss the point that the federal government was temporarily taking them over so they could scream racism and cry like babies.
That doesnt make sense.
Well he made exceptions for the white people living in those areas, so im not sure what other justification he could make.
Yes there are child abuse problems in some communities, but you still cant make one law for people of one colour and another law for people of another - unless of course you are John Howard.
Exactly. The Aboriginal communities governed themselves, and Howard's government took federal control. Fair enough. Until he decided to impose a law which didn't exist in any other federally governed area of the country, cos those Aboriginals are a bunch of alcoholic paedophiles, aren't they?
Well this relies on the basic premise that humans have obligations towards ensuring the well-treatment of others as far as they can generally. Those in the position to assist people who are persecuted should do so. If they don't they're a twat. That's basic humanity, and if you want to get rid of that, then fair enough, at least admit that you would rather stick your head in the sand than help people who have made the effort to flee rape, murder, torture and every other horrific crime imaginable. But on another level if the person actively trys to stop others from helping those in need, as Howard did, then they're one step away from committing the atrocities themselves. Again, I'd like to point out that the atrocities that these people were fleeing were enough for Howard to forcably remove the regime responsible, so they should've been enough to at least allow these people to apply for asylum (the key word being "apply").
As for the point about allowing them to apply for asylum whilst on the boat, I'm not totally convinced. I can understand why they'd want to do that, but I think it would have sent out quite the wrong message. It is sad, however, that people feel the need to take such massive risks to escape persecution. I don't think any of us could deny that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7112773.stm