Federal Labor Party discussion

[bellenuit]

Yep, I'm quite prepared to admit to some concern that the Ruddster could pull the wool over everyone's eyes once again.

Yes, my fear too.

I see he has given control over Australia's borders to a consensus agreement between Australia, Iran, Afghanistan and Indonesia. Australia deciding unilaterally what is best for us is apparently not desirable.

 

[Calliope]

By the amount of interest shown by the ASF right in this thread lately..one could come to the conclusion that you guys are getting a little worried. :dunno:

Yes, I am worried, Not that common sense will prevail, but that this narcissistic idiot will do irreparable damage to this country before he calls an election.

 

[MrBurns]

Yes, I am worried, Not that common sense will prevail, but that this narcissistic idiot will do irreparable damage to this country before he calls an election.

Agree 100%

 

[noco]

Yep, I'm quite prepared to admit to some concern that the Ruddster could pull the wool over everyone's eyes once again.

Julia, Rudd may pull pull the wool over your eyes but he certainly not over mine along with 65% of the Australian voters.

He is an expert psycho who knows how play on the minds of the naive.

 

[sptrawler]

I see Kev is desperate for a debate, asking Abbott questions is the only way he can get any policy ideas.

We've seen the result of Labor policies over the last six years, bring on the election.

 

[explod]

Yes, my fear too.

I see he has given control over Australia's borders to a consensus agreement between Australia, Iran, Afghanistan and Indonesia. Australia deciding unilaterally what is best for us is apparently not desirable.

What for goodness sake is wrong with doing the best we can in consultation. Against the teeming millions just steping stones away the notion of going alone on things is well past the useby date.

Most of you here are living in a past dreamland.

Coming soon, ALP 55%, Lib/Nat 45%

 

[sptrawler]

Coming soon, ALP 55%, Lib/Nat 45%

Closely followed by $500b deficit and 100,000 asylum seekers with a coresponding increase in homeless ,as the refugees are put into all available public housing . lol

 

[Julia]

Julia, Rudd may pull pull the wool over your eyes

Hardly!
Fairly obviously I was referring to his astonishing public popularity.

 

[noco]

Hardly!
Fairly obviously I was referring to his astonishing public popularity.

I am sorry if I misunderstood your statement but you did say Rudd was pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.

 

[noco]

Andrew Bolt firming sums up Kevin Rudds 2007 statements to his latest rhetoric of 2013.

Lies, spin and back flips.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt

 

[Calliope]

I see Kev is desperate for a debate, asking Abbott questions is the only way he can get any policy ideas.

We've seen the result of Labor policies over the last six years, bring on the election.

Yes, Bolt is right. Rudd is acting like he is in Opposition It is usually the Opposition Leader who is calling for a debate. It is very strange that he wants to debate Abbott's policies. He is obviously just grandstanding because so far he doesn't have any policies to debate.

 

[Some Dude]

It is very strange that he wants to debate Abbott's policies.

I would hope that we all think it would be a good thing for both of them to be debating each others policies often, and not just before the election.

 

[Calliope]

I would hope that we all think it would be a good thing for both of them to be debating each others policies often, and not just before the election.

I guess the Phoenix needs all the publicity he can get. However I am more inclined to agree with Christine Fuller;

"I'd like for him to disappear" and return to his ashes.

 

[Some Dude]

"I'd like for him to disappear" and return to his ashes.

That maybe but why adopt an attitude analogous to the picture of those monkeys you posted recently with regard to making all parties discuss and debate their intended policies?

 

[Julia]

I am sorry if I misunderstood your statement but you did say Rudd was pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.

So I did. I'll have to be more careful about how I express myself if I don't want all the vociferous criticism I've expressed about Mr Rudd to be assumed non-existent.

 

[Calliope]

That maybe but why adopt an attitude analogous to the picture of those monkeys you posted recently with regard to making all parties discuss and debate their intended policies?

I guess you look at Rudd through rose-coloured glasses, whereas i see him as evil. Perhaps Rudd should debate this issue with Latham.

KEVIN Rudd says he won't be responding to criticism by former Labor leader Mark Latham.
Mr Latham told the ABC's Q&A program on Monday that Mr Rudd was engaged in a ``jihad of revenge'' against Julia Gillard, who ousted him in June 2010.
``You're getting into the realm of evil here with Rudd . . . with someone who has gone well beyond normal practices in politics,'' Mr Latham said.

 

[bellenuit]

What for goodness sake is wrong with doing the best we can in consultation. Against the teeming millions just steping stones away the notion of going alone on things is well past the useby date.

It's not the consultation that is the issue, but the commitment to not take any unilateral action. Do Indonesia or Iran, for instance, make border security decisions unilaterally, without getting the OK from us? Of course they do. It's border security. Did Indonesia consult with us and await the OK from us when it decided to let these immigrants in to their country when they knew that their ultimate destination was Australia? Absolutely not. You get as much cooperation as you can, but ultimately you must do what's best for Australia. Indonesia could stop the flow of illegal migrants through its country at the drop of a hat, if it so wished, so this agreement is nothing more than them looking for ways to screw more money from Australia to get them to do what they should already be doing if they were good neighbours. They saw what ridiculous agreements Labor were willing to sign with Malaysia and decided that they may be able to strike a similar lucrative deal as they know Labor has its back to the wall.

 

[Some Dude]

I guess you look at Rudd through rose-coloured glasses, whereas i see him as evil. Perhaps Rudd should debate this issue with Latham.

An alternative perspective would be to say that I don't view either in the context of good and evil and that they are both valid recipients of criticism and encouragement as our philosophical inclinations inform us.

 

[Calliope]

It's not the consultation that is the issue, but the commitment to not take any unilateral action. Do Indonesia or Iran, for instance, make border security decisions unilaterally, without getting the OK from us? Of course they do. It's border security. Did Indonesia consult with us and await the OK from us when it decided to let these immigrants in to their country when they knew that their ultimate destination was Australia? Absolutely not. You get as much cooperation as you can, but ultimately you must do what's best for Australia. Indonesia could stop the flow of illegal migrants through its country at the drop of a hat, if it so wished, so this agreement is nothing more than them looking for ways to screw more money from Australia to get them to do what they should already be doing if they were good neighbours. They saw what ridiculous agreements Labor were willing to sign with Malaysia and decided that they may be able to strike a similar lucrative deal as they know Labor has its back to the wall.

+1 I agree with your argument whole-heartedly, but I'm afraid it is wasted on Mr Plod who after all is a Greenie, and they want no restrictions on illegal entry at all.

 

[Julia]

It's not the consultation that is the issue, but the commitment to not take any unilateral action. Do Indonesia or Iran, for instance, make border security decisions unilaterally, without getting the OK from us? Of course they do. It's border security. Did Indonesia consult with us and await the OK from us when it decided to let these immigrants in to their country when they knew that their ultimate destination was Australia? Absolutely not. You get as much cooperation as you can, but ultimately you must do what's best for Australia. Indonesia could stop the flow of illegal migrants through its country at the drop of a hat, if it so wished, so this agreement is nothing more than them looking for ways to screw more money from Australia to get them to do what they should already be doing if they were good neighbours. They saw what ridiculous agreements Labor were willing to sign with Malaysia and decided that they may be able to strike a similar lucrative deal as they know Labor has its back to the wall.

+2.
It's about time some Australian government ceased treating Indonesia as some sort of royalty of the realm.