by fulltimestudent 197 Replies latest social current
Jeffro"
The actual number of people who arrive by boat is actually relatively small compared to the number of refugees Australia takes each year,
MP:
Why do you change the topic, and repat lots of facts taht everybody knows ? Trying to divert attention for your other lies ?
I've had enough of your BS accusations and distortions. Feel free to go on swallowing News Limited tripe and misrepresenting other sources. I've got better things to do than put up with you calling me liar.
It's a shame Rudd didn't call the election immediately after resuming office. It looks like he going to lose narrowly now. If he suffers a very narrow defeat might his party keep him as leader? If recent Australian political history is anything to go by then I guess not. They are more likely to throw him in a cage with a crocodile and let them wrestle to the death.
jeffro:
I've got better things to do than put up with you calling me liar.
mP:
You did lie, therefore you are a liar. If im lying post a link showing the facts ive linked are wrong. You can hate news ltd but they you cant say the numbers are lies.
Other readers, note that mP resorts to attacks, claiming I 'lied' about numbers.
Actually, I didn't contradict any numbers he provided, but I clearly indicated that there are other factors quite apart from Liberal policies that affect asylum seeker numbers.
The 'lib policy' didn't 'stop the boats'. World conditions (for example in Sri Lanka in 2009) generate different waves of asylum seekers, compared to other periods where there are fewer asylum seekers. The 'libs' quite happily - and equally dishonestly - claim that 'their policy' 'stopped the boats', whereas there were actually other international factors, for which the policies of the 'libs' were entirely incidental. It is quite naive to believe that Howard's policies, in isolation from everything else, 'stopped the boats'.
It's interesting how "liberals" are progressives in the United States but reactionaries in Australia.
In the UK liberals are simply numpties of no particular conviction one way or the other who will be wiped out at the next election.
Interesting things about democracy
1. How divisive elections can be - voters can be a bit like English soccer fans (nice smile).
2. How election adverts are aimed at the lowest percentile of intelligence in the nation.
3. Funny thing, that Rupert Murdock has only one vote (well, maybe two votes, one in Australia and one in America) but through his newspapers has an opportunity to influence the not-so-bright, and therefore in practise he could have a million votes. Is that democracy?
Anyone else has an observation
fulltimestudent:
3. Funny thing, that Rupert Murdock has only one vote (well, maybe two votes, one in Australia and one in America) but through his newspapers has an opportunity to influence the not-so-bright, and therefore in practise he could have a million votes. Is that democracy?
Murdoch doesn't have a vote in Australian elections. He is not an Australian citizen.
A lot of people don't seem to realise that newspapers present opinions of the publishers, even in articles that are supposed to be purely news (as opposed to editorial). I think the right to vote (and ideally, also the right to reproduce) should be IQ tested.
jeffro:
Other readers, note that mP resorts to attacks, claiming I 'lied' about numbers.
Actually, I didn't contradict any numbers he provided, but I clearly indicated that there are other factors quite apart from Liberal policies that affect asylum seeker numbers.
mP:
You quite clearly said that the lib policy didnt stop the boats, and not your again giving us a basic overview of problem nations. We all know there are problems, that however does not change what you original said.
Im only repeating what you said, nothing more or less.
| Jeffro | posted a day ago (9/3/2013) |
|---|---|
 Post 3830 of 3838 Joined 5/21/2005 | mP: The lib policy which stopped the boats saves lives The 'lib policy' didn't 'stop the boats'. |
I also showed that less boats saves lives because as we know, these boats often sink with loss of life. You were however painting another picture. Its amazing how poorly you quote what i say and what you say, and how you conveniently skip portions that are inconvenient.
Murdoch doesn't have a vote in Australian elections. He is not an Australian citizen.
My response: My understanding is that Murdoch has dual US-Australian citizenship, and therefore has the right to vote in Australian and American elections. A close friend had a similar dual US-Australian citizenship and ran for State Parliament in his local area.
A lot of people don't seem to realise that newspapers present opinions of the publishers, even in articles that are supposed to be purely news (as opposed to editorial).
Response: Understood, but the Murdoch press has been extremely vitriolic in this election, and we should be questioning this "right and practise" particularly when much of what is said is not legitimate discussion. Maybe, the English will solve the problem by finding him guilty of something or the other, and gaoling him. (grin)
I think the right to vote (and ideally, also the right to reproduce) should be IQ tested.
Response: I'll vote for that, but I'm not sure how it will be done.
