- Nov 4, 2003
- 1,745
- 3
- Other Teams
- Essendon
Howard like every other liberal Pm places Growth and employment rates before a fair distrubtion of wealth and income he's wideing the game between rich and poor of a ridicoulsly high geared generation.
So why do people like John Howard
- Thread starter dreampolice
- Start date
- Tagged users None
i hate johnny, hes a lying sh1t talker, just like the rest of them.
i think its good that he has taken a stance on the boat people (now waiting for a bite from the 'pro boat people' on here)
but its not like he has any significant opposition. crean is a joke.
i think its good that he has taken a stance on the boat people (now waiting for a bite from the 'pro boat people' on here)
but its not like he has any significant opposition. crean is a joke.
- Nov 4, 2003
- 1,745
- 3
- Other Teams
- Essendon
No bite just some people have compassion you know. Foreigners and a tolerant society is what made this country great without it we're a bunch of convicts who slaughtered aboriginals
Re: Re: So why do people like John Howard
Asgardian
Bigfooty Jedi
magnetic personality?
tall strong bronzed Aussie appearance?
glib repartee in parliment?
like George Washington, he'll never tell a lie (at least a core one)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Ive got it by George
he looks like Kermit the bloody frog..........
tall strong bronzed Aussie appearance?
glib repartee in parliment?
like George Washington, he'll never tell a lie (at least a core one)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Ive got it by George
he looks like Kermit the bloody frog..........
Lesser of two evils, my friend.
Personally, I would rather vote for a hopelessly inept party than one that is highly effective in doing everything I don't want.
- Mar 19, 2002
- 7,867
- 275
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- The West Coast Eagles
Thats a fair point but surely it isnt the PM's job to remember every little person that should be invited. He'd have that much going on in his head that he probably didnt even remember her. Isnt that why Pollies have staffers? To remember and do what the PM forgets to do?
Neither was I, but, I have done reading on it and it was an ugly mix of double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment and quite high interest rates. (Not to mention one of the worst droughts we've ever had) Any wonder it so damn easy for Hawke to win in 1983
You forgot to add:
His rascist policies on refugees.
His corruption of the public service, appointing personnel in key positions to conveniently "withhold" information from him
Lying to the Australian public and using the public service as an excuse
A continuing lack of will to uphold his ministerial code of conduct when ministers have found to have acted in their personal interests
His "core" and "non core" election promises (just which are which, we never know until after the election)
Weapons of mass destruction
His constant toadying to the U.S.A.
If the Australian public has any sense, that he'll be gone after the next election.
but which is which ?
'never never' gst Note that changing policies is quite frequent for pollies. Keating was all for the GST with his "Preferred Option C", but then lambasted Hewson for trying to introduce it. Also, Howard promised not to introduce the GST before his first term and went to the election for his second term openly with a GST policy.
telstra What exactly is the problem with Telstra? If it is privatisation, that begun under the Hawke Labour Govt.
his determination to get rid of medicare and bulk billing Medicare and bulk billing both desperately need fixing. They are abused and are a massive funding drain. Of course we need a viable public health service and whether the Liberals can deliver it remains to be seen, but Medicare isn't it.
his refusal to honor his agreement with Costello to stand down No difference to Hawke or any other politician.
his continued running down of public schools This is actually a State Govt responsibility.
his refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement The KA is massively overrated for the benefit it will provide, which is not large at a huge cost. There are much better environmental approaches.
His rascist policies on refugees. Stopping illegal immigrants from simply landing on our shores is hardly "rascist"(sic) in itself.
His corruption of the public service, appointing personnel in key positions to conveniently "withhold" information from him
Lying to the Australian public and using the public service as an excuse
A continuing lack of will to uphold his ministerial code of conduct when ministers have found to have acted in their personal interests All these things are pretty ordinary, but hardly anything significantly different to what we expect from politicians.
His "core" and "non core" election promises (just which are which, we never know until after the election) Such as?
His constant toadying to the U.S.A. There are not major differences to Hawke's approach to the US.
I don't particularly like Howard and would actually like to see him leave. However, putting Crean in charge would be a catastrophe. I would much prefer to have seen Beazley remain leader. Nevertheless, neither of these two Labour leaders will ever be PM.
telstra What exactly is the problem with Telstra? If it is privatisation, that begun under the Hawke Labour Govt.
his determination to get rid of medicare and bulk billing Medicare and bulk billing both desperately need fixing. They are abused and are a massive funding drain. Of course we need a viable public health service and whether the Liberals can deliver it remains to be seen, but Medicare isn't it.
his refusal to honor his agreement with Costello to stand down No difference to Hawke or any other politician.
his continued running down of public schools This is actually a State Govt responsibility.
his refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement The KA is massively overrated for the benefit it will provide, which is not large at a huge cost. There are much better environmental approaches.
His rascist policies on refugees. Stopping illegal immigrants from simply landing on our shores is hardly "rascist"(sic) in itself.
His corruption of the public service, appointing personnel in key positions to conveniently "withhold" information from him
Lying to the Australian public and using the public service as an excuse
A continuing lack of will to uphold his ministerial code of conduct when ministers have found to have acted in their personal interests All these things are pretty ordinary, but hardly anything significantly different to what we expect from politicians.
His "core" and "non core" election promises (just which are which, we never know until after the election) Such as?
His constant toadying to the U.S.A. There are not major differences to Hawke's approach to the US.
I don't particularly like Howard and would actually like to see him leave. However, putting Crean in charge would be a catastrophe. I would much prefer to have seen Beazley remain leader. Nevertheless, neither of these two Labour leaders will ever be PM.
There is no such thing as an 'Illegal Immigrant'.
Myth 2 - Asylum Seekers are Illegal
Fact: This is untrue. Under Australian Law and International Law a person is entitled to make an application for refugee asylum in another country when they allege they are escaping persecution. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." People who arrive on our shores without prior authorisation from Australia, with no documents, or false documents are not illegal. They are asylum seekers - a legal status under International Law. Many Asylum Seekers are forced to leave their countries in haste and are unable to access appropriate documentation. In many cases oppressive authorities actively prevent normal migration processes from occurring. 'Illegals' are people who overstay their visas. The vast majority of these in Australia are from western countries, including 5,000 British tourists.
http://www.geocities.com/gutsy_grrls/asylum.html
Yep, you'd expect it from politicans, and Peter Reith knew about it all along. Why did he get away with it? Because the Government won the election and he was no longer in Parliament, so he wasn't, in effect, misleading parliament as he was no longer a member. Of course, the Government didn't pursue the matter. Rather they set up a $250 million fund with an international arm of the World Bank, which created one job. Guess who got that job?
On the other hand, the public service is there to act impartially in such matters, thats why its called a public service. Its not there to ensure that people placed in its employ by the leader of the country can enable the same leader to lie to the people in order to win an election.
It was known throughout the intelligence community, in smaller sectors of the public service and by Peter Reith that no children were thrown overboard by asylum seekers several weeks before the election. Somehow, John Howard wasn't told, or maybe he just didn't want to know.
Have a read here:
http://hotham.net/blog/archive/2003/07/14/
I have no problem with asylum seekers. However, someone simply wishing to come to our country to escape poverty in their country is not fleeing persecution, hence is not an asylum seeker, hence is attempting to become an immigrant without authorised entry, hence could become an illegal immigrant. THe purpose of detaining and reviewing boat people is to check their bona fides as to whether they are legitimate asylum seekers. This process could undoubtedly be done better or quicker, but it is still necessary.
As for "core" and "non-core" promises, this is typical of politicians and is simply a matter of wording. Remember Keating and his L-A-W LAW tax cuts?!?!
- Nov 17, 2000
- 12,447
- 23
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Post Count: 125,527
International law is bunkum, we are not subject to the UN, as Australians we have a right to rule as we wish.
Under Australian law assylum is granted at our embassies and consuls OUTSIDE of Australia. Without that piece of paper all who land here do so illegally.
If your 'myth' is a fact then why are there not court hearings against the government and why have the UN not sent in forces to uphold their laws?
Coming here to escape poverty? If thats their sole reason for coming here, then they're not a refugee and will be returned to their own country. A refugee is someone who cannot safely return to their country due to political or religeous persecution. If they do not fit this criteria, they're deported. Do you seriously think the current government would allow them to stay if they didn't have a legitimate claim for refugee status? If so many refugees were making false claims, don't you think the government would be splashing it all over the headlines to beat up popular support?
Again, from the above link;
97% of applicants from Iraq and 93% of applicants from Afghanistan seeking asylum without valid visas in Australia in 1999 were recognised as genuine refugees. Therefore, under Australian law they were found to be eligible to stay in Australia. Generally, 84% of all asylum seekers are found to be legitimate refugees and are able to stay in Australia.
If that many are accepted, you really cannot say they're here just to escape poverty.
Its a necessary process, but is it really necessary to lock them in a prison, in some cases for up to a year or more? For people who have already been traumatised, don't you think thats unneccesary? There certainly are better ways of doing it.
As for John Howard being rascist, will he apologise to the Aboriginals? No. Why? Money. It's an admission of guilt, therefore it strengthens the Aboriginals claims for landrights and for monetary compensation if they decide to pursue it through the courts. When boat people willingly and legally come to this country they're demonised, locked in prison camps and treated as if they're all terrorists. Yet, when President Mugabe had his "Army" of supporters clearing farmers off the land in Zimbabwe John Howard volunteered to take them if they wished. They hadn't asked to come to Australia, he volunteered.
The difference between the two groups? One are dark skinned, financially poor Muslims, the other are white skinned, financially well off Christians. Johnny a rascist? You betcha.
- Nov 17, 2000
- 12,447
- 23
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Post Count: 125,527
I think your post is a result of brainwashing and not rational thought. The ones in detention are there because they destroyed their papers and we don't know if they are rapists,paedophiles, murderers etc, . Should we just let anyone loose here? Proving you are a real assylum seekers is simple, there is a black market in foreign countries to provide proof.
Howard can't say sorry for something neither he or the people he represents did, anymore than you can say sorry on behalf of your ancestors. What's more there is not so much to say sorry for. The supposed 'stolen generation' was a tiny fraction of a generation and there are good arguments in most cases that the cchildren were given freely.
I don't expect the descendants of aboriginal canibal tribes to apoligise to Europeans for eating their forefathers either.
Howard is less racist than you are, judging by your post.
As I keep saying, just read the above link. Heres another tidbit from the website;
Fact: In Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no queues for people to jump. Australia has no diplomatic representation in these countries and supports the International coalition of nations who continue to oppose these regimes and support sanctions against them. Therefore, there is no standard refugee process where people wait in line to have their applications considered.. Few countries between the Middle East and Australia are signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and as such asylum seekers are forced to continue to travel to another country to find protection. People who are afraid for their lives are fleeing from the world's most brutal regimes including the Taliban in Afghanistan and Sadaam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq.
Because Australia has no diplomatic presence in pretty much all of the countries these refugees are coming from, it is impossible for them to get the necessary paperwork prior to them coming to Australia. Often they do not have any paperwork at all, as it often has been destroyed by the powers that be in the country they're fleeing to try to prevent such an occurrence, or they've had to leave in such a hurry that they never had a chance to get any.
Right, because the UN has such a large standing army that it will invade a peaceful country (let alone all the trouble spots around the world). The UN is a cooperative body, any forces it have are taken from the armies of soverign countries around the world. Do you think any other country would condone the UN invading another country over something like this? If they did, how would they know they wouldn't be next? Israel has been in contravention of a direct UN order over its settlements in Palestine for nearly 40 years, yet they still have a seat on the council. Put simply, the UN is a diplomatic body, not a military one. It doesn't work that way.
I think there are better ways to do it, but locking them up in some sort of detention centre is almost certainly necessary otherwise they can easily disappear.
To start with, not everyone agrees that the present generation should apologise for sins of past generations. That has nothing to do with racism. If it did have an impact on legal claims, which it probably doesn't, then it would also have nothing to do with racism. The funny thing about land claims is that many of them tend to be for valuable pieces of land, rather than barren ones, particularly when resources are found...
- Nov 17, 2000
- 12,447
- 23
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Post Count: 125,527
So you have to agree that creating laws that can't be enforced is a just a beaurocratic gesture with no significance other than job creation.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be checked. The situation for these people is the country they've come from is generally one at war, where the population is suppressed and they may not be able to attain documents. Do you seriously believe all those in detention because they deliberately destroyed their documents? You're saying that they all are guilty of being a paedophile, murderer, rapist until proven otherwise. You call that rational? I call it against the rule of law in our country.
Why not? The Pope finally apolgised for the Crusades, and that occurred over 400 years ago.
So if you were forcibly taken from your parents as a child, that would be okay for you? What percentage of the population does it needs to be before an apology should be issued?
Give me proof. I'd love to see it.
Right, I'm the rascist.
Again, check the website I posted above;
Myth 7 - There is no Alternative to Mandatory Detention
Fact: Asylum seekers claims need to be assessed for legitimacy. Australia is the only Western country that mandatorily detains asylum seekers whilst their claims are being heard. Asylum seekers are not criminals and detention should be minimal. At a cost of $104 a day per head the policy of detention is very expensive. Community based alternatives to mandatory detention can be found internationally and within the current Australian parole system. A select Committee of the NSW Parliament has costed alternatives to incarceration including home detention and transitional housing. The average cost of community based programs are (per person, per day): Parole: $5.39. Probation: $3.94. Home Detention: $58.83. These options are clearly more economically efficient, and much more humane. Sweden receives similar numbers of asylum seekers as Australia, despite having less than half the population. Detention is only used to establish a persons identity and to conduct criminal screening. Most detainees are released within a very short time, particularly if they have relatives or friends living in Sweden. Of the 17,000 asylum seekers currently in Sweden 10,000 reside outside the detention centres. Children are only detained for the minimum possible time (a maximum of 6 days).
So you assume that terrorists are going to come here by boat, slip away into the community and never be seen again until an attrocity occurs. Why would they bother when they would have the means to fly to Australia legitimately? Did you hear recently about the Muslim French national deported to France for having links to Al Quaeda? He flew into the country, overstayed his visa and was deported. Your mindset is they're guilty until proven innocent.
If its good enough for the Pope, then why not for our godfearing leader? You couldn't argue against his stance on "Illegal Immigrants" vs the Zimbabwean farmers. The simple fact is Australia committed genocide. Ever met a Tasmanian Aborigine? Then in the 50's and 60's we attempted cultural genocide by taking children away from their parents. The Aboriginal history is an oral one, handed down from generation to generation. You try to take a generation away, you break the line, the history is lost.
This is incorrect - a number of countries use detention centres. A lot of countries don't too, but then again those ones also don't accept refugees.
However not as secure. This option is only possible once the asylum seekers have been shown to be 'safe'. This is the part that takes most time (and should be sped up).
See, here is an example of country that uses detention. The fact that they process quicker is a different point (and the same one I've been making).
It's not just terrorists, but also normal criminals and also people are not entitled to asylum, such as those simply fleeing poverty.
Whatever the Pope says is irrelevant, or you think condoms are an affront to god?!!
I don't know all the details of that, but shipping in some farmers is hardly the same as accepting some unknowns off a boat. That he was possibly hypocritical in this case is hardly proof of your assertions.
Australia has not committed genocide. Atrocities were committed against Aborigines, however it has been shown that has been exaggerated. The "Stolen Generation" has been blown out of proportion like so many of these emotive issues. The report quite clearly said that only a portion of that generation were removed from their parents and in some cases it was necessary. That some were removed forcibly and wrongly is certainly the case and was wrong, despite any apparent good intentions, however it has been exploited and twisted to suit certain views.
That would be okay, if these detention centres didn't look like prison camps. The other solution is the communties of these people who are already here and as a surety, they check in with the nearest Immigration Office over their status, that way they can have a peaceful settlement.
An apology would be a great start. On the land claims, the aborigines are basically saying they have been denied, through history, a chance to maximise the greatest possible wealth of that land, which would probably mean they are fighting as much for sufficient compensation as gaining free access to something that was taken from them so long ago.
Yep, this is one thing that would help.
Oh puhlease - you are saying that the Aborigines have been denied the ability to mine the land and extract valuable resources?!? At what point were they suddenly going to discover the ability to utilise those resources?
Similar threads
