rosy23 said:
Oh, that's my number one preference (sending boats back), without a doubt.....but if we are going down the track of paying immigrants taxpayers money, then they should at least work for it.
The same goes for long-term unemployed.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Prime Minister Poll
- Thread starter Rosy
- Start date
Oh, that's my number one preference (sending boats back), without a doubt.....but if we are going down the track of paying immigrants taxpayers money, then they should at least work for it.
The same goes for long-term unemployed.
Liverpool said:
Is it just poor brown and black immigrants you have a problem with getting a bit of welfare Livers? Hypothetically speaking, say a wealthy white south african industrialist buys her way into the land of OZ (which you CAN do). She has a baby and claims the un means tested (at least it was under Howard) $5,000. Should she have to serve as an a community wet nurse to little aussie babies in Cronulla to offset her tax burden?
willo said:
serious is my middle name willow. Tiger Serious GollyWog, but you can call me TSGW. Surely you have garnered from my posts that I never jest or use simplistic, colourful analogies to make my far left point? :
tigergollywog said:serious is my middle name willow. Tiger Serious GollyWog, but you can call me TSGW. Surely you have garnered from my posts that I never jest or use simplistic, colourful analogies to make my far left point? :
I think I'll make it Yahoo
No? that's why I asked
Liverpool said:
You're the one who harps on most about the slush fund and claims, albeit without providing evidence when asked, that Gillard pilfered $5000. Seeing you want balance how about this?
Abbott has his own slushy history
December 2, 2012
Michelle Grattan - Political editor of The Age
MANY readers will recall Margo Kingston, a deft hand at investigative reporting and a pioneer of interactive journalism through her Webdiary. Margo left the trade a while ago and is studying nursing, interested in specialising in palliative care.
But last week, watching from afar the AWU affair unfolding, she leapt back into the fray with an online article. She remembered what many of us, in the heat of this slush fund battle, had forgotten. Tony Abbott has had his own slush fund experience, not all of it happy.
Not that Abbott was keen on the term ''slush fund''. In 1998, he was collecting financial backing for his crusade to encourage legal action against Pauline Hanson. She was later jailed over a technical breach of the electoral law, something even many of her political enemies deplored.
Kingston - author of a book on Hanson, with whom she had a love-hate relationship - pursued Abbott like a terrier about the fund; she details the saga in Still Not Happy, John! (Penguin 2007). It's worth a read, as the debate drags on about Julia Gillard's role in helping set up the AWU Workplace Reform Association, which two corrupt union officials, one of them her then boyfriend, used to steal large amounts of money.
In 1998 Abbott gave a signed personal guarantee to Terry Sharples, who'd fallen out with One Nation, that he would not be out of pocket for legal action to stop One Nation receiving $500,000 in public funding.
Soon after, Abbott denied to the ABC that funds had been offered to Sharples.
Abbott, at the time a minister, then set up the Australians for Honest Politics Trust. He responded to the Australian Electoral Commission's request for disclosure by writing: ''I spoke with one of Australia's leading electoral lawyers who assured me that the trust would not be covered by disclosure provisions''. The commission accepted that.
But later Abbott told Kingston he had only sought the legal advice after being queried by the AEC. When the discrepancy was put to him, he said he had had more than one conversation with the lawyer.
Despite claiming he'd be happy to disclose donors if the AEC wanted him to do so, after the AEC took a new position in 2004, seeking the information, Abbott maintained he should not have to provide it after so long and did not give it over.
In a 2003 interview with Kerry O'Brien, Abbott was confronted with a 1998 untruth, when he had told Tony Jones that he had not promised Sharples any money. His rationalisation was Jesuit-ical. ''There is a difference between telling someone he won't be out of pocket and telling someone that you're going to have to pay him money''. In an earlier newspaper interview. Abbott had said: ''Misleading the ABC is not quite the same as misleading the Parliament.''.
Should we be surprised that Abbott calls on the PM to tell all, but was reticent himself? Not really. It's that old story of the boot being on the other foot.
Obviously, there were clear differences between Abbott's slush fund, which was aimed at a broad political purpose (the destruction of Hanson and One Nation) and the limited self-serving objectives of the AWA body, let alone the vehicle for illegal behaviour that it became. But the point is, Abbott does not bring an unblemished record to the argument.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/abbott-has-his-own-slushy-history-20121201-2anjy.html#ixzz2Dqu4NL4A
rosy23 said:
That's not balance...you're just posting another "anti Abbott" story :
"Balance" from you is when you post anti-Abbott AND anti-Gillard stories (or pro-Abbott / pro-Gillard)
You wouldn't know what 'balance' was if it hit you between the eyes
As for the story....meh...I'll just use your defence..and say prove it, its unsubstantiated, I don't know what you're talking about... etc, etc...:blah
Liverpool said:That's not balance...you're just posting another "anti Abbott" story :
"Balance" from you is when you post anti-Abbott AND anti-Gillard stories (or pro-Abbott / pro-Gillard)
You wouldn't know what 'balance' was if it hit you between the eyes
As for the story....meh...I'll just use your defence..and say prove it, its unsubstantiated, I don't know what you're talking about... etc, etc...:blah
What's sauce for the goose young man.... ;D
:hihi :hihiLiverpool said:That's not balance...you're just posting another "anti Abbott" story :
"Balance" from you is when you post anti-Abbott AND anti-Gillard stories (or pro-Abbott / pro-Gillard)
You wouldn't know what 'balance' was if it hit you between the eyes
As for the story....meh...I'll just use your defence..and say prove it, its unsubstantiated, I don't know what you're talking about... etc, etc...:blah
yep.
I'm reminded of a quote about the Iron Lady: Margaret Thatcher's idea of compassion is like a cannibal on a health kick eating only vegetarians. :hihiantman said:
antman said:
I'm not requiring "balance" from anyone, to be honest.
I just ask that people who persist in posting anti-[insert name of party I hate here] don't make out they are "balanced", thats all...when they are far from it.
Baloo said:
I'm anti-ALP, yes.
They have always left the country in a worse financial state than what they found it....this Government is no different.
Their policies have always been not tough enough in certain areas either (say immigration) while being very union/"communist" orientated in other areas.
The Libs are more aligned to the monarchy which is also a positive to me over the republican push the ALP seems to want to push.
I have always voted Liberal and don't see that changing this next election.
I don't know how much clearer I can make it.
Others on here claim they are more or less "swinging voters" yet their posts and articles they post are very skewed one way.
That makes their views more grey than my own, I think.
Liverpool said:
Cool, just confirming.
Well, you're still shuffling. The question was anti-ALP or Anti-Gillard regardless of their policies. Now you're quoting policy reasons. Stop wriggling.
Are you able to answer a question without always deflecting onto someone else or the other party ?
