One of the few good things to come out of yesterday's mini-budget was the decision to slightly trim the baby-bonus, a proven ineffective and wasteful welfare policy. So it was disappointing that the Coaltion decided to engage in political point-scoring by deciding to oppose it.
But what is more than disappointing - and is, quite frankly, outrageous, is that Joe Hockey came out today to compare this with China's one child policy. Because apparently in Joe Hockey's universe reducing welfare is identical to forced abortions:
SHADOW treasurer Joe Hockey has likened the government's decision to slash the baby bonus for second and subsequent children to China's one child policy.
The policy that has restricted urban Chinese families to a single child since the 1970s has been attributed with leading to a gender imbalance in that country, with male children often seen as more desirable.
The Labor government announced in its budget update it would cut the baby bonus to $3000, from $5000, for second and subsequent children, as it looks to save money to prop up its budget surplus.
This is what Joe Hockey is drawing a comparison with:
Feng Jianmei says she was manhandled by seven people, some of them local family planning officials, some of whom she didn’t know.
Feng, 22 years old and seven months pregnant, was dragged out of her relative’s home, carried and shoved into a van that headed straight to a hospital on June 2, she told NBC News in phone interview.
She was blindfolded, thrown on a bed, and forced to sign a document that she couldn’t read with the blindfold still on her eyes. Then two shots were injected into her belly. Thirty hours later, on the morning June 4, she gave birth to a dead baby girl.
Feng is one of the many Chinese women who have been forced to have abortions under China’s strict one-child-only policy started in late 1970s to contain the country’s fast growing population, which has now topped 1.3 billion people.
Not only is it as our former Managing Editor John Humphreys noted, that "on a day Labor chooses to increase tax by $1.8 billion and increase spending by $0.4 billion, the Liberals come out and complain... because they want *more* spending!"
Rather, Joe Hockey has decided to go with the emotional pro-welfare hyperbole mixed with abject stupidity you normally expect from the far-left.
Sigh.
TVA
TVA, the views expressed in this article are surprisingly short sighted and I believe that you read into the comments of the Coalition things that are not there.
At a time when Australia is labouring under the weight of an aging population the thing that should be foremost in any government's mind is a marked increase in childbirth rates for all Austraian families for what I would have thought to be some very obvious reasons. If there is an increase in welfare required to achieve a higher birthrate of Australians as opposed to that of other influences that are growing in Australia then so be it.
If a child bonus encourages the increase in childbirth then that is a good thing for the country and its reduction or removal will have a detrimental effect on that goal. Joe Hockey's reference to China is not the best example he could have used but instead of criticising him there should be some effort put into understanding what he is saying.
What I believe he is saying is exactly what I have said above and that is, in terms of Australia birth rates, our nose is being cut off to spite our face.
Your former Managing Editor John Humphreys comments are misleading and wrong. They don't want more spending, they just don't want middle and low wage earners to become the final victims of Swan's obsession with an unnecessary budget surplus at any cost.
I don't believe you final comment is either fair or necessary. Instead of kneejerk reactions that create headlines, how about we have some considered thought and a look at all of the angles.
Posted by: Allan | October 23, 2012 at 06:50 PM
Wow. I'm impressed. An intelligent article on Beastly Bernardi's blog. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Deeded | October 23, 2012 at 07:45 PM
Actually I find the comments on Bernardi's blog on the whole far more intelligent and thoughtful than the majority posted here, perhaps his is really the 'leading online community for etc. etc. etc.
Posted by: Tee | October 23, 2012 at 08:14 PM
The Libs have really stuffed this one up.
I think Hockey looked good when he came out and said "You may be surprised but we support the government" regarding reviewing foreign investment in Australian farming land. I think generally the Australian population sees that as productive and it wasn't a bad thing for the Libs to do.
Similarly, I think the Libs should have come out and said "Y'know what, we completely support this government in cutting spending. We admire their commitment to make the difficult decisions and we want to help them get it right". The Libs could have then used the 'tinkering around the edges argument' in exactly the same way as they have been to say the cuts being made are sub-optimal and we could do it better. The whole 'attacking families' schtick is stupid.
Posted by: John Mc | October 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM
A question John. Why would they want to come out in support the unnecessary impositions introduced by some of these cuts and changes?
For instance the changing of the rules in regard to business taxes will only result in increased business costs that will inevitably be passed on to those that can least afford it.
The lowering of the bar on unclaimed super and bank accounts is a disgraceful grab for other peoples money that Swan regards as revenue. It is not revenue, it is a misappropriation that is being perpetrated in order to achieve a budget surplus at any cost.
It is not to say that some cuts aren't necessary but those that ultimately suffer as a result of poorly conceived cuts and changes, or just plain and simple grabs for cash, are those that are already doing it harder than they should. Indiscriminate axe wielding rarely achieves anything but grief so I'm not sure that the whole 'attacking families' schtick is all that stupid.
Posted by: Allan | October 24, 2012 at 09:07 AM
Do you actually have the ability to add value to the debate or are your skill set limited to deriding conservatives and defending the immoral?
How about sharing with us some original views on the article posted?
Your continuous and incessant whining about contributors to this blog begs the question ... can you add value to the debate or not?
Posted by: Abraham | October 24, 2012 at 10:02 AM
only about ignoramuses and extreme right wing xenophobes as yourself Abey. If that be called whining, so be it.
What I recently found on said Bernardi blog was a diversity of opinions. Gainsayers were not ridiculed and denigrated by the intolerant likes of yourself instead they were debated intelligently by what I saw as thoughtful libertarians, something you are not, and many of your ra ra brigade are not.
That said if you are not a libertarian and stand smug in intolerance of all but extremist views what does that make you? Yep, a right wing extremist troll posing as a libertarian. Whine away yourself you are nothing but a nasty bleating projectionist whinger Im afraid.
Posted by: Tee | October 24, 2012 at 10:44 AM
I, like most Australians, think Joe Hockey is a good bloke. He works the shrek angle well.
I am just not sure that he is a future treasurer of Australia. He's about as consistent as a roulette wheel and it takes away from much of the momentum that abot manages to create on various issues.
His conflicting and sometimes non-sensical statements are noticed by the electorate and it is hurting the coalitions standing on matters economic.
Andrew Robb should be treasurer.
Posted by: Paul Coffey | October 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM
I rest my case ... :-)
Posted by: Abraham | October 24, 2012 at 11:01 AM
indeed you do. it is nothing. empty. zilch. extremist right wing trash, thats all, and clearly evident to any one with a degree of nouse and common sense. bleat on.
Posted by: Tee | October 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM
If a child bonus encourages the increase in childbirth then that is a good thing for the country and its reduction or removal will have a detrimental effect on that goal.
The simple solution is to increase the number of young refugees from camps around the world, say between the ages of 10-21yo. Why do we have to breed to change the population mix? Young refugees would in turn increase childbirth rates in time.
Posted by: Oldman | October 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM
Paul, you are breaking mold. It is forboden by commandant Abe that you make sensible comments.
Posted by: Tee | October 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM
[Removed - violation of comments policy: personal abuse]
Posted by: Paul Coffey | October 24, 2012 at 12:09 PM
Wouldn't it be a novel idea if we bred some children of our own instead of getting refugees from who knows where to do it?
You are right about one thing, that refugees would in turn increase chilbirth and that is a problem in itself that we need to guard against.
Not all immigrants are going to increase our birth rate for the right reasons. Another for instance; Abdul Benbrika was in this country for 19 years, had a wife and I believe 7 children. They all lived permanently on the dole and cost the taxpayer over one million dollars in welfare payments. Then he decided to blow up the MCG on grand final day. All the while his children were being indoctrinated into the ways of Jihad and that I believe is a good reason to guard against that happening on a much wider scale by increasing the birth rate of our home grown mothers.
Posted by: Allan | October 24, 2012 at 12:25 PM
Ah, I get it. You would rather it was reclasified as a "White" Baby Bonus. How novel of you!
Posted by: Oldman | October 24, 2012 at 03:16 PM
Is that what I said? There are more home grown Australians than just white ones. Please don't make a fool of yourself my trying to verbal me.
Your ability to read into my words things that are not there is amazing. Your inability to fathom things for yourself is even more amazing.
Your ability to take an uncalled for offensive stance is really no surprise and is most assuredly not amazing.
If you thought before you mouthed off, or even used a reasonable tone, then that would be truly amazing.
Posted by: Allan | October 24, 2012 at 06:18 PM
Is that what I said?
Yes, even if you are not smart enough to realise that is what you said.
I suggested that there is little reason to encourage breeding and adding to the world population when we could offer very young and young refugees (10-21yo) a permanent home away from the dreadful camps of Thailand, Ethiopia, Pakistan, etc. The first thing that comes to your mind is bigotry, you can't help yourself can you, in your mind that 10yo refugee will eventually have 6 children and live on the dole and encourage his kids to become suicide bombers?
How many refugees & immigrants have we as a nation accepted onto our shores in the last 60years, of those how many of those have turned out to be terrorists or welfare cheats? Again, of the tens of thousands of welfare cheats in the last 50-60 years, how many have been Muslim, Black or foreigners and how many White Australian? I ask because there must be some basis to your bigotry. Oh I forget, Nick Bolkas overturned a deportation order against some bloke who overstayed his visitors visa and was later jailed for having extremist views. It could happen again and we just can't afford to take that chance again, can we?
What I hear from you is the same shit that came from the mouths of bigots when the Italians and Greeks (Wogs, remember them?), first started arriving in numbers and again with the Vietnamese and Chinese in the 70's and 80's. A favourite line racists in the 80's was, 'They've only been here for a couple of years, and already they drive new cars and live in large homes? The implication was that the money was earned illegally rather than hard work and POOLING/SHARING the family resources, a concept foreign to Australians then.
Like leopards, racists and bigots don't lose their spots, Arab's and Muslims are the new Vietnamese.
Posted by: Oldman | October 24, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Oldman, be careful!
If you put too much egg on their faces, they will start doing this to you;
[Removed - violation of comments policy: personal abuse]
I'm now off to create another alias...
Posted by: Paul Coffey | October 24, 2012 at 11:45 PM
Allan,
I see you are now our newly crowned bigot? Ha ha ha
The Three Stooges have this incredible gift of discovering bigotry in the deepest, darkest crevasses of their fellow citizens.
Continue with fact and reasoned logic and you'll witness their spectacular transformation from so called vitrtuous social progressives to putrid antagonists.
Posted by: Abraham | October 25, 2012 at 05:57 AM
One question ...
Why are Australians obligated to accept illegal immigrants?
Posted by: Abraham | October 25, 2012 at 06:03 AM
Our new arrivals are gorging themselves on our dime ...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/end-the-boatpeople-centrelink-cycle/story-fnbkvnk7-1226476061727
Posted by: Abraham | October 25, 2012 at 06:05 AM
It is indeed disappointing when a "conservative" government betrays their roots and starts behaving like a "socialist" government.
It's really simple, the government has 4 roles. 1)Defend the country from invasion, 2)protect property rights, 3) protect the sovereign rights of the individual, and 4) get the hell out of my life.
Posted by: DaveB | October 25, 2012 at 09:44 AM
Abraham, Pure gold comedy, isn't it?
I just can't be bothered arguing the toss with them. It is counter productive to reasoned debate and it is much more productive to ignore them and their undisciplined logic.
I don't mind debating reasoned responses, but you can see how quickly they can turn it into vitriolic waffle.
Posted by: Allan | October 25, 2012 at 10:18 AM
If it's pure gold comedy explain your decision to use the out-of-the-ordinary example you did.
"Reasoned debate"? You have no idea how to take part in "reasoned debate".
Posted by: Oldman | October 25, 2012 at 06:40 PM
Abraham 20. Looks like there is no answer to that very difficult question you have posed.
Beside it is more important to spew out bile, insult and venom than it is to answer intelligent questions and indulge in debate in a reasonable tone.
Posted by: Linne | October 25, 2012 at 08:29 PM
I've come to understand the pretentious nature of those on the Left. Pretentious morality, pretentious virtue, pretentious charity, pretentious indignation, pretentious intelligence, pretentious beliefs ... the list goes on.
My question at 20 is insurmountable to the mind of those who find vitriol more palatable than virtue. A standard response from them would be branding you a racist or bigot since their inability to reason the facts is nonexistent.
It's disappointing but thoroughly entertaining to watch them squirm their way through their own bilious words.
Posted by: Abraham | October 26, 2012 at 04:54 AM
Why are Australians obligated to accept illegal immigrants?
Who are these "illegal" immigrants, where & how is anyone suggesting that we are obligated and should be accepting 'illegal immigrants"?
Posted by: Oldman | October 26, 2012 at 08:30 AM
Why are Australians obligated to accept illegal immigrants?
Because of a signed UN convention.
But should the refugee intake be raised, it would help more people get in the legal way.
But of course, no one in government or in the opposition really believe in a big Australia because catering to that greater population will cost too much in infrastructure.
Posted by: Greg | October 26, 2012 at 08:45 AM
A signed UN convention, eh. Well, thanks for that Greg. Now I understand why 5 illegal immigrants who were convicted of riots and I believe $5m damage to the Christmas Island facility were just given a free ticket to reside in Australia.
Posted by: Linne | October 26, 2012 at 10:34 AM
Linne, if you would like to state your case and prosecute those people within the eyes of Australian law, you're more than welcome to get a law degree and work for the DPP.
If you care so much, you're fully capable of doing something about it.
Posted by: Greg | October 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM
Thanks Greg, I understand the question now, it was totally unrelated to the discussion and more to do with the misconception that refugees & asylum seekers = illegal immigrants.
Posted by: Oldman | October 26, 2012 at 01:05 PM
Greg, why didn't you just say that you don't have any real answer? It would have been much easier than giving the impression that you support lawlessness in illegal immigrants.
I think that anyone who doesn't care about such things is letting their country down big time and are the reason that governments can get away with the things they do.
Posted by: Linne | October 26, 2012 at 01:09 PM
Oldman and Greg ... where do I start?
The fact that illegal immigrants are not referred to as illegal immigrants is merely because the Press Council deemed it inappropriate. Hence the total embargo on using the term 'illegal immigrant'.
http://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/asylum-seekers/?LocatorGroupID=662&LocatorFormID=677&FromSearch=1
However recently the word misogynist was redefined by the 'progressives' to serve an ideological purpose so I'm sure the word illegal immigrant too can be changed to basically mean anything. Misogynist these days apparently is any man who calls the Prime Minister incompetent and a liar. So perhaps Oldman, you ought to contact the editor of Macquarie Dictionary. They may oblige you and change the definition of illegal immigrant to best suit your ideology.
http://www.afr.com/p/national macquarie_has_last_word_on_misogyny_NzrQFdWcPJG6G8qLRRiZtK
I think most Australians prefer their Government to be in absolute control of national borders. I know, I know, allowing the illiterate, the uneducated and the unemployable illegal immigrants into Australia, Labor and the Greens can develop a new voter base but goat herding and opium growing is not in vogue in contemporary Australia. In all honesty, you have to be illiterate and uneducated to vote for them. As for unemployable, well I rest my case.
Illegal immigrants remain on welfare for years. This fact is well documented. So Australian taxpayers are subsidising the lifestyles of illegal immigrants who have no intention to learn English that will enable them to attend TAFE or any other institution so as to become employable. Personally I do not care where you come from but if you have no intention of eventually contributing to the prosperity of Australia, I'd prefer it if you go scrape out an existence somewhere else.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/end-the-boatpeople-centrelink-cycle/story-fnbkvnk7-1226476061727
As for the UN Convention for Refugees, Australia ought to step back from it and take control of its borders without the interference of such a morally corrupt bunch of carpetbaggers. Dear lord if the UN is the yardstick against which we measure our humanity we are swimming in the sewer.
Australia has one obligation and that is to its citizens. Australia owes nobody nothing. Our prosperity was created through hard work and dedicated commitment to productivity. Sadly, our current Government has p***** a mining boom against the walls of their socialist utopia and as a result Australians are suffering. Thanks Wayne you imbecile.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/inept-policy-is-not-worth-much/story-e6frg75f-1226503437931
If these illegal immigrants couldn't create prosperous societies from which they are now fleeing, what society are they willing to create here? I'll tell you what kind. The same they fled from.
Illegal immigrants flee countries where work ethics are nonexistent and has been for centuries. Yet they demand a share of the spoils created by someone else? Guess what, work or starve. Don't like it, go back.
As for apologists and bleeding hearts such as yourself, you are the typical NIMBY. So long these inbreds (and anyone prepared to marry a cousin is one in my opinion) flow across the water and dumped in someone else's backyard you and your ilk will welcome them with open arms. Not forgetting spending someone else's money on subsidising their decrepit existence.
So please astound me with the rational behind our pandering to the UN and why we have an obligation to these illegal immigrants?
So take which one am I this time round? Racist? Bigoted? Sexist? Misogynist? Redneck? Moron? How about be imaginative for a change?
Posted by: Abraham | October 26, 2012 at 03:49 PM
Abraham, don't you just love the Press Council/UN definition. They are "unlawful arrivals"!!! If an 'unlawful arrival' isn't an illegal immigrant then what is. How devoid of any common sense is that?
The government definitions are priceless in their idiotic, politically correct hypocrisy. "Unauthorised Boat Arrivals" (illegal immigrants) or "Irregular Maritime Arrivals" (illegal immigrants). I wonder why Macquarie hasn't dashed to amend the school-grade dictionary to accommodate this Labor government double-speak.
Posted by: Linne | October 26, 2012 at 04:31 PM
Correction: "Unlawful Non-Citizens".
Posted by: Linne | October 26, 2012 at 04:36 PM
Are you for real?
Under Australian Immigration law an an asylum seeker or refugee who arrives in Australia without documentation or even false documents and who is seeking protection, are just that, "Asylum Seekers"; a legal status both under Australian and International law which Australia is a signatory to. An illegal immigrant is someone who arrives from another State without any legal claim, such as a visa or a claim for asylum. There is a huge difference between in meaning between the two terms
The press Council deems the term "Illegal Immigrants" for asylum inappropriate simple because it is inappropriate under Australian law.
If you believe that migrants, refugees or asylum seekers who flee their homelands and arrive on Oz shores are not able to contribute to Oz society, tell us why you fled Zimbabwe rather than attempting to work with the indigenous people to make it a prosperous country after those fat arses sitting in the House of Lords in England fleeced the country of all it's sovereign wealth for the better part of 200 years?
Posted by: Oldman | October 26, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Define fled?
Who says I'm Zimbabwian?
I'm as real as they get. When Ian Smith warned the British that Mugabe will f*** Rhodesia up he was branded a racist. What did Mugabe do? He f**** it up.
Mate, you can have all the 'asylum seekers' your bleeding heart yearns for. Just don't bring them within a 100 miles of me unless of course he can speak English, pays his taxes
Posted by: Abraham | October 26, 2012 at 11:10 PM
Do you sell those white pillow cases or just wear them?
Posted by: Oldman | October 27, 2012 at 01:19 AM
Oldman,
I know the truth sits uncomfortable with those who doggedly believe illegal immigrants are in actual fact real asylum seekers. Evidence debunks that idealistic notion.
I deplore the actions and behaviour of individuals, not the individual. Sadly, 'concerned' citizens such as yourself are incapable and unwilling to acknowledge there exists a distinct difference between judging behaviour and judging the person.
Why don't you attempt at answering any of the questions I posed? Could it be 1.) your are unable to and calling me a racist provides you with a get-out-of-jail-free card? or 2.) you are unwilling since it would demand you change your perspective on the issue adn calling me a racist provides you with a get-out-of-jail-free-card?
You see Mate, labelling is the lazy way of argumentation. It shuts down debate. If you disagree with any of the 'racist' points I made, refute them with your own evidence. For you to humiliate me is simple.
Posted by: Abraham | October 27, 2012 at 06:38 AM
All that is required to humiliate me is for you to provide solid evidence for your position. Failure to provide any evidence makes you a troll. An incoherent, unreasonable, and simple-minded troll.
So please, why don't you substantiate you argument with facts and evidence?
PS: The sheet thing was extremely imaginative. 10/10 for that.
Posted by: Abraham | October 27, 2012 at 06:42 AM
Joe Hockey made a major stumble trying to match Abbott for hyperbole. It doesn't come naturally to Joe to be an asshat so in the attempt to sound like the rest of coalition frontbench he overreached badly.
Comparing cuts to the much derided baby bonus to China's one child policy was absurd.
$3000 will still go a long way, buying at least one more flat screen TV for the household.
Posted by: SignedIn | October 27, 2012 at 09:01 AM
Why do you have to be so objectionsble? Is it because you believe that shouting a mouthful of expletives and personal abuse accompanied by a string of derogatory terms such as 'Bigot' 'Racist' etc, etc, is the most effective way to bully your opponent into submission? Well let me tell you old fella it doesn't work.
You attempted to brow beat me with references to the immigration of the 50's and 60's. It was only the loud-mouthed bullies that carried on in the way that you portray as the norm and that is grossly incorrect. In most communities such as the one I grew up in they integrated into the community, they worked hard and brought up their children with discipline and respect. Some brought their style of religion with them but they didn't try to ram an ideology down your throat.
In comparison to those immigrants, who became exceptional Australians, we have the so-called Islamic 'asylum seekers' who belong to a political/religious ideology that is in no way compatible with Australian culture. They don't try to earn respect, they demand it. They demand special arrangements for 'Islamics Only', instead of organising it themselves they demand that we prepare food in accordance with the ideology, our kids are no longer allowed to sing the National Anthem at some schools, raising the Australian flag offends them and so it doesn't happen in many schools either, Christmas and Easter offend them so our kids can't sing Christmas carols or have nativity scenes and Christmas decorations in shopping centres offend them, all-in-all they demand we change Australia to suit them.
Then we get to the point of welfare. You tried to sidestep the issue with me by throwing the pathetic 'what about the white welfare'. Do I really see an apologist at work here?
It is well documented that there are extremely large numbers of Islamic immigrants who have been in Australia in excess of 5 years and have never been employed. What do they live on? Welfare of course - silly me. Remember Benbrika? Here 19 years, seven kids, cost Australian taxpayers in excess of $1m.
We are supporting on welfare large Islamic families where the husband doesn't work, the wife doesn't work, they don't learn the language, they don't educate themselves so that they become employable, they don't integrate with the Australian community because their ideology doesn't allow it. They live in closed communities where extremist ideological leaders preach hatred of the Kafir.
Then we get to the extremist groups that are growing within our society. Again, remember Benbrika and his charming little group of terrorists who plotted to kill thousands at a football match. You must remember him, he is the one you inferred was a 'one off' that was inconsequential.
You asked if I thought that refugee kids would become extremists. Only a fool would think that there wasn't a good chance that children brought up in that ideology would absorb some of the 'hate the Kafir' mentality. Have a look at the young unemployed Islamic men, many of whom were born and bred in Australia, who become involved in extremism. The Sydney riot perhaps would be a good place to look.
Then we have the Al Qa'Ida sympathisers who were identified as being part of the riots in Sydney, the Sixth Pillar extremist group that is active in Sydney, terrorists recruiting in Somalia to become active in Australia and of course we can't forget the Sydney 5 who were sprung in another bomb plot, then there was another charming little group that planned a terrorist attack on Holworthy Army Barracks to capture weapons and kill as many Australian soldiers as they could and to top off this rather abbreviated list of hundreds, there was Joseph T. Thomas "Jihad Jack" - another charmer. Recently we have criminals being given a free ride to residency in Australia and another load of criminals on the water somewhere between Australia and Sri Lanka who have warrants out on them for attempted murder and a string of other charges.
We have the government tipping in $1m to combat the threat of transitional terrorism perpetrated in the name of their extremist Muslim ideology in Australia. But, according to you all this is of no consequence. Islamic activity in Australia is alive and well thanks to our gutless government and apologists such as yourself.
However, in an act of gross hypocrisy and stupidity the Australian government let into this country a Muslim extremist to address a Muslim group and told them that Australian soldiers should be killed and that it was OK to do that. But they delayed the visit by Gheert Wilders for six weeks until they were sure that he would have to cancel his trip. Why did they do that? Because they were frightened that it would offend the Muslims.
You completely dismiss what is happening in the greater part of Europe and in the UK where multiculturalism has failed miserably because Muslims refuse to integrate and comment from the former Singaporean Prime Minister stated that the only group that couldn't be integrated in Singapore were Islamics
So in light of all of that I don't believe that your bullying, expletives and name calling is getting very far at all.
Posted by: Allan | October 27, 2012 at 09:23 AM
Have a look at this charmer. This is what you want to bring into Australia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XP6Q2CXB-w
Posted by: Allan | October 27, 2012 at 09:37 AM
Allan, is Today Tonight a parody of A Current Affair, or is it the other way around ?
Posted by: zaphod | October 27, 2012 at 05:35 PM
The point being?
Posted by: Linne | October 27, 2012 at 06:06 PM
zaphod, I'm not in the mood for games so get to the point or forget about it.
Posted by: Allan | October 27, 2012 at 06:14 PM
Why do you have to be so objectionsble?
Pardon? You vilify, malign and disparage a whole race and creed of people based on the actions of a few and you have the hide to cry crocodile tears because you feel I was been objectionable towards you? Get real! Your comments are some of the more despicable I have read on the internet including on Stormfront and David Duke’s site and moreover, you want to pretend that you are not a bigot and a racist.
Vilifying a whole creed on the actions of a few is bigotry.
Vilifying a whole race or nationality on the actions of a few is racism.
The statement, “Jews have long noses” IS NOTHING BUT BIGOTRY AND RACISM.
The statement, “Africans are lazy”, IS NOTHING BUT BIGOTRY AND RACISM.
Statements that whole groups of people within a creed or nationality are, “criminal”, “terrorists”, “dole-bludgers”, not able to raise their children as “WE” do, responsible for the delay in granting a visa delay for the racist & bigot Gheert Wilders, “demanding”… of others when no such demands have been made, IS NOTHING BUT BIGOTRY AND RACISM.
Geddit?
Crawl back under your rock and cry your crocodile tears there, idiot!
Posted by: Oldman | October 27, 2012 at 10:18 PM
Define fled?
Chicken Run
Who says I'm Zimbabwian?
Someone in the comments section of one of the thread mentions in a reply to you that you were Rhodesian. I didn't see a denial and thought it must be true. Was it Tee? (Not sure).
What did Mugabe do?
He got rid of the fat arsed colonialists and their servants and they are still gone and he is still there so they tried to punish him with vilification and sanctions causing untold suffering to ordinary Zimbabwians. Since then he's adopted the USdollar as the national currency, dared the yanks to undermne their own currency, discovered vast deposits of diamonds, started getting agriculture together and don't be surprised if in 20 - 30 years it becomes a powehouse of the economic world.
Mate, you can have all the 'asylum seekers' your bleeding heart yearns for. Just don't bring them within a 100 miles of me unless of course he can speak English, pays his taxes
I am not your mate, I am never mates with worms who are racists and bigots.
Posted by: Oldman | October 27, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Rhodesians are not the same as Zimbabweans.
Mugabe is there because he has the guns, not because he has support
Zimbabwe adopted the US$ because nobody, even Zimbabwean citizens would accept the local currency (did you know notes were issued with an expiry date?)
The diamonds were discovered before Mugabe was born, but he maaged to kill off any prospect of mining them
While Rhodesia fed all its people (black and white) and exported food, Zimbabwe, on the same land, cannot even feed its own people.
Every year thousands of Zimbabweans flee your imaginary paradise to South Africa and elsewhere.
Why don't you google the word "facts" when you have a free moment?
Posted by: Anton | October 27, 2012 at 11:03 PM
My point is proved. You do believe that the way to win an argument is to shout, swear, insult, abuse and vilify.
You think that it makes you look tough and intelligent but in reality it makes you look stupid and cowardly because like all on-line bullies you shout nonsense and abuse from behind the shelter of a pseudonym. Man-up!!!
Posted by: Allan | October 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM
I have rarely seen anyone that has the propensity to ignore fact and history and rewrite it to suit what germinates in their own minds as you do.
Your comments on Zimbabwe are utter nonsense that defy written history and reality. You label people bigots, racists, idiots and worms as you flag your support for a murdering money grabbing despot.
Please point out to me where Allan has said anything about "Jews have long noses", Or "Africans are lazy" or just where in the writings Abraham introduced Zimbabwe? He didn't, you did in an attempt to denigrate him.
What did either of them write that was wrong in fact. If you think they are not writing factually then set them right with verifiable fact or leads to peer reviewed evidence as opposed to ranting offensive abuse based on BS.
You spend a lot of time abusing and denigrating other contributors but you never put up verifiable facts because your version of fact and history are figments of your own imagination.
Posted by: Linne | October 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM
“Chicken Run?”
Isn’t that something you keep chickens in?
“Someone in the comments section of one of the thread mentions in a reply to you that you were Rhodesian. I didn't see a denial and thought it must be true. Was it Tee? (Not sure).”
Jip it was good ol’ misguided, intolerant, Tee. However, she made the assumption, which you leeched onto. Monkey sees; monkey does. Yet neither of you two ever bothered with checking facts. I have never stated publicly whether Rhodesia is my country of origin. It was assume based on two things…
1.) my skin colour (racist)
2.) my opinions regarding Africa.
So you both exemplify the Leftard mentality. Judgment based on assumption. And no fact checking.
But let me quickly expose YOUR innate racism and bigotry.
1.) You and I both are from two unique racial groups. Unless your ancestors have the same exact blood as my ancestors, then we are racially as different as Germans are from Italians; as Italians are from Greeks. I’m a worm according to you. Thus your implicit superiority over me (and my race) makes you RACIST.
2.) You have exhibited total intolerance towards my opinions and beliefs. According to Oxford English Dictionary it’s BIGOTRY.
Your own words, posted on this blog from all to read, condemn you as a racist and bigot. You are fair dinkum hypocrite. Condemning in others what you liberally indulge in yourself.
“Since then he's adopted the US dollar as the national currency…”
So they adopted the ‘evil’ colonialists’ money to save them from absolute extinction? Astounding. Why don’t they rather adopt the ‘evil’ colonialists’ free market economics? Mmmmm. Colonial economics bad but colonial currency good? Typical Africa.
“… don't be surprised if in 20 - 30 years it becomes a powerhouse of the economic world.”
With unemployment at approximately 90% > Zimbabwe will never be a powerhouse. Ha ha ha ha ha ha … Unless of course Macquarie Dictionary redefines “powerhouse” as AIDS infected nation of 90% unemployed Africans ruled by a 700 year old tyrant.
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/afpro/harare/download/znyec/nango_speech.pdf
“I am not your mate …”
Everybody in Australia is a ‘mate’, Mate. ☺
Posted by: Abraham | October 28, 2012 at 04:43 PM
Joe Hockey quote -"All government-funded pensions and other such payments must be means-tested so that people who do not need them do not get them".
Make your mind up Joe.
Posted by: zaphod | October 28, 2012 at 07:46 PM
Abe do mates denigrate others who do not agree with their opinions? Who are your mates?
Posted by: james hughes | October 29, 2012 at 03:41 PM
Definition of DENIGRATE
1: to attack the reputation of : defame
2: to deny the importance or validity of : belittle
I believe I have neither attacked nor belittled any opinion held by oldskool. If having a difference of opinion is considered 'denigrating' the guilty as charged. However, I merely defended my personal opinion (with facts) and posed questions in return.
Oldskool and his cohorts habitually ignore debate, refuse to substantiate with fact and engage in name calling and labelling whilst accusing others of racism or bigotry or sexism or which ever other bee the find in their bonnets.
So, instead of crying foul, why don't you lot man up and defend your positions. Stop squealing like pigs every time you get asked valid questions. And make an effort in substantiating your own opinions.
Posted by: Abraham | October 29, 2012 at 06:29 PM
Okay Abraham, I'll address what you've said.
Your first point is a non-issue, tomatoes tomatoes, the public still know what you're referring to, I assume that this change is just to make sure that any legal processes that may be undertaken can be completed without any bias from the media but still a non-issue.
There is a difference between immigration and seeking asylum. You may or may not know the difference but you can look it up in your own time.
Now, to suggest that all of these people who are refugees who arrive will not adapt and will not get an education or bludge off the dole is entertaining indeed.
So 100% of people who come to Australia on leaky boats that have a sizable risk of failure come here to bludge? Not because of the car bombs every day in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not because their village was razed in Sri Lanka? Show me the media report where a majority, not 100% because I want to make this easy for you, but a majority, over 50%, are unemployed and unenrolled in an education program. I'd like to see those figures.
Australia has one obligation and that is to its citizens.
I like that thinking. It should have been around in WWII when Germany invaded Poland and the British should have taken it onboard. Would have stopped a lot of people dying and may have fixed the Eurozone crisis.
For all intents and purposes, should anything happen in Australia that displaces a large number of people such as a dirty bomb attack in Sydney, wouldn't you expect that some other countries help us find a new home? Or should they all just care for their citizens and stuff the rest?
If these illegal immigrants couldn't create prosperous societies from which they are now fleeing, what society are they willing to create here? I'll tell you what kind. The same they fled from.
Yes, because the centuries of Shiite v Sunni has absolutely no recourse with Protestant v Catholic, the only difference is that they've had the help of the Ottoman Empire and then the French, English and Germany invaded, split it up, allowed Israel to be created then completely wash their hands of everything. Responsible foreign policy right there.
Illegal immigrants flee countries where work ethics are nonexistent and has been for centuries. Yet they demand a share of the spoils created by someone else? Guess what, work or starve. Don't like it, go back.
Now I'd love to see where you got this information from. Do you have a source for this?
Hmm, I wouldn't call what you've said any of those things.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if I were to say something it would be that your comment is largely uncited and needs further research.
Posted by: Greg | October 30, 2012 at 11:18 AM