Light holiday reading:
• “Carlton’s lone classical liberal”, Andrew Norton, weighs in on Liberal hyperbole over third party political campaigns. New Mayo MP Jamie Briggs reckons these to be a “cancer in our democracy” due to the efforts of GetUp! and the ACTU at the last election. Briggs argues that “Australians are entitled to know who is behind the campaigns, how much is being spent and where the money is coming from”, evidently having failed to notice that such groups are indeed required to provide annual disclosure of receipts, expenditure and debts. However, in an interesting discussion at Larvatus Prodeo, Norton also argues that lowering the donation disclosure threshold from $10,000 to $1000 (as proposed by a bill currently before a Senate committee due to report on June 30) could theoretically catch independent political blogs in a “massive compliance net” thanks to a loose definition of “persons or organisations expressing views by any means on candidates or election issues”. Elsewhere, The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen tugs at the heart strings by complaining the disclosure amendments are designed to cut donations to the Liberal Party (from which you can readily infer why the Howard government used its Senate majority to jack the threshold up from $1500 to $10,000 in the first place). More substantially, she argues that “the nature of third-party campaigns in Australia is such that if we ban or cap donations (except by individuals) and allow third-party campaigns by unions to continue unabated, the political field is skewed against one side: the conservatives” – particularly in light of government plans to scrap tax deductibility of party donations while maintaining it for union dues and levies.
• “Dotcom millionaire” Evan Thornley has made himself popular in Labor circles by pulling the plug on his political career on the eve of his anticipated promotion to the Victorian state cabinet. The talk around Thornley was that he viewed his state political career as a stepping stone to federal politics via Simon Crean’s seat of Hotham, beyond which his ambitions were apparently without limit. His entirely unheralded decision to “pursue opportunities outside of political life” has inevitably fuelled all manner of speculation, most of it involving his financial wellbeing. It has also created a vacancy for his upper house seat for the Southern Metropolitan region. The Age reports that the new upper house system instituted at the last election “has created an anomaly for Labor, as party rules do not specify how preselection for an upper house vacancy should be conducted”:
Party sources said the anomoly was expected to be tackled by rule makers in May 2009 before preselections began in earnest for the 2010 election. But Mr Thornley’s shock departure – which sources from both major factions of Victorian Labor described as the most bizarre incident they had ever witnessed in politics – could force the anomaly to be dealt with sooner. While some within Labor believe the rules offer no guidance over preselection, others say the spirit of preselection processes in the lower house should also be adopted for the upper house. Under that scenario, Mr Thornley’s replacement in the Southern Metropolitan electorate would be decided 50:50 by a ballot of ALP branch members and a central selection panel. Many expect Labor’s national executive to ultimately choose his replacement but all agreed it was too early to speculate on the names of likely candidates.
A commenter at Andrew Landeryou’s VexNews writes:
The Left were promised Thornley’s spot but they agreed not to insist as Thornley was then non aligned. Thornley then joined Labor Unity. They left will claim they are entitled to fill Thornley’s vacancy. Labor Unity will most likely want it and there will be an internal facional brawl like Kororoit. Then Mr Dearricott’s non-aligned group will claim their right to the vacancy. A strong tip tonight is that (former Brimbank mayor) Natalie Suleyman is a favourite for the position.
Another hopeful is said to be Dick Gross, former Municipal Association of Victoria president and Port Phillip councillor defeated in recent elections in a “resident revolt over his support for the St Kilda triangle development”. There is also the question of the political future of Theo Theophanous, charged on Christmas Eve with rape. An end to Theophanous’s political career would create another upper house vacancy in Northern Metropolitan. In lieu of Evan Thornley, Theophanous’s position as Industry and Trade Minister has been filled by Martin Pakula, previously best known for his failed preselection bid against Simon Crean in Hotham ahead of the last federal election.
• Michelle Grattan of The Age reports that the Victorian Liberals are “set to reluctantly give the Nationals the number two spot on a joint Senate ticket for the 2010 election”. This would continue an agreement initiated after the 1987 double dissolution election giving the Nationals the unwinnable fourth and safe second seats at alternating elections. The party’s seat in the Senate has been held since 1993 by Julian McGauran, who quit the party for the Liberals in January 2006. One possible explanation for the move was that he did not expect the Liberals would continue with the existing joint ticket arrangement, which as Grattan explains is widely opposed within the party. It had long been thought that the Nationals had been able to negotiate the joint ticket partly because the McGauran family helped delivered it preferences from the Democratic Labor Party, whom they had assisted in legal action to prevent its deregistration. The Nationals’ apparent success in keeping the arrangement going might suggest otherwise. However, another possibility is that McGauran thought his prospects of winning Liberal preselection less unlikely than those of keeping his place with the Nationals. McGauran had an uncomfortably narrow preselection win ahead of the 2004 election over Darren Chester, now the member for Gippsland, and his family’s clout might have been further weakened since by brother Peter’s departure from politics.
• Labor’s Mark Dreyfus, chairman of the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, says he hopes the government will “soon” announce a non-binding plebiscite to test opinion on a republic before the federal election.
• Robert Taylor of The West Australian has an interesting overview of the new entrants to the WA state parliament.
UPDATE (3/1/09): Malcolm Mackerras reviews the Queensland state redistribution and offers his prediction for the election to be held some time this year, namely an 11 seat Labor majority from an even split on two-party preferred.
619 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 » Show All
Adam , that is nonsense there ar no 1967 borders What th hell do you think UN resolution 242 says …quote:
“Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (1967 War)”
UN Resolution 242 does NOT “call for Israel to withdraw” from anything. It calls for “the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East,” which it says should “include the application of BOTH (my emphasis) the following principles:
“Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”, AND “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency” AND “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” The Resolution recognises that the two elements of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East must go together. One cannot happen without the other. So far, the Palestinians and the majority of Arab states have NOT “Terminated of all claims or states of belligerency”, and have NOT “acknowledged the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence” of Israel. Until they do so, Israel is under no obligation to withdraw from anything – although it has in fact withdrawn from Gaza, with results we now see.
I just told you what it says, correcting your previous misrepresentation. It makes no mention of borders.
Haha, even William has managed to be sucked in to debating Gaza.
Yes, as I said at the time, I should have known better. Out again now.
We should all know better, but none of us do. I wasn’t going to, but blatant rewriting of history always gets me going.
You hav falsely added an “AND” to resloution 242 right through your post as if Israeli withdrawal was conditional on th invadees first having to stop trying to forse th invador out
to demonstrate you’ve added these ‘ands’ I’ll requote from #130 resolution 242
” 1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”
there ar no “ands’ …and no pre conditions for Israel to withdraw at all in point (i) , other wise Israel would hav had an excuse to remain …an excuse you and it falsely use
Israel had to withdraw ..fullstop in point (i)
Other Parties (Palestiniens) had to separately fulfull point (ii) AND if they did not then UN later sanctions resolutions would hav been implemnted with full UN suport
Israel had an obligation under point (i) which ISRAEL has ignored
We will NEVEr know if th other parties (Palestiniens etc) would hav complied with point (ii) because Israel BY remaining and NOT withdrawing simply guaranteed other Parites (Palestiniens etc) wuld continue to resist by force to get Israel out !
You ar running a circular arguement of chickens and eggs …where there could be never an end …thats why there isn’t one after 42 years
Niow simply Israel withdraws from non Israeli …then lets see if there is still conflict , because conflict will continue whilst they ar there …a point in both 242 and invadee relations you’ve overlooked
True! but this debate shows why after 60 years a resolution is an far off as ever for it is an emotive issue!
Ron, do you really think I am that dumb? I carefully placed the word AND outside quotation marks to show that it was not part of the resolution. The key word in the resolution is “BOTH”. The resolution is quite specifically and deliberately non-sequential. It does NOT say “Israel must withdraw and THEN the Arabs must do all the other stuff.” It says they must both happen together. So, when the Palestinians and Arab states, and particularly Syria, are ready to renounce belligerency against Israel and recognise its territorial integrity, etc, they can say so. THEN, and only then, Israel will withdraw.
Although I expect in the current context any such statement would have to include Iran as well, which wasn’t a factor in 1967 but has now chosen to make itself one.
Adam this conflict in Gaza is sure as hell hotting up the Israeli General Elections coming up that’s for sure…
Brilliant, Glen! The Israeli elections! Let’s talk about those.
Well done Ron. You may not know how to write, but you do have a brain in your head.
Would it be right to claim that Israel require beligerent action from the Palestinians to contiue to occupy or further invade their land?
Glen, no government can expect to get re-elected if it allows its cities to be attacked with missiles and makes no response. Hamas knows that, which is why it pulled this provocative escalation in its attacks as the election campaign begins. Then it knows that all the usual idiots in Europe and the UN etc (and at Pollbludger) will moan and wail about the evil Israelis and the Hamas death cult will tighten its grip on the long-suffering and deluded Palestinian masses. It’s all very predictable, and Israel knows this game very well. But the duty of any government is to respond to aggression, and not to worry about what they say in Le Monde.
I just quoted UN Resolution 242 for you. Read it for yourself. The West Bank and Gaza are not part of any recognised state, they are terra nullius. Israel occupied them as part of a war of self-defence in 1967. Ever since then the PLO and the majority of Arab states have continued to wage war against Israel. When Israel did withdraw from Gaza, Hamas took it over and used it as a base for further attacks. What do you expect Israel to do in these circumstances? Anyone who knows the history of the Jewish people in the 20th century can figure out the answer to that question.
If WW2 had of stopped after Hitler captured France , with th requirement German troops had to withdraw to German borders , th agreemetn would not specify th Germans could remain as occupiers of France if th French resistanse kept firing at th German invadors ….otherwise th Germans could & would remain because obviously French resistanse would still keep fighting to forse th Germans from there Country
No , th agreement would be for German troops to hav to withdraw to Germen borders ..fullstop
.
AND that other Countrys incl France don’t attack Germany or its soil
This premises of th Occupier & invador calling th shots that he won’t withdraw until th occupied stops shooting at th Occupier invador logicaly can never happen …and hasn’t and never will Rather its a convenient but lame excuse to illegaly occupy Why th hell would Palestiniens renounce attacking he who has invaded and is still in occupation
What you’ve mised is point (ii) of th resolution regarding th Palestiniens is a SEPARATE condition & can only occur AFTER th invador has left …at which point th Palestiniens ar barred (rightly) from beligerence against sovereign Israel and vice versa And don’t bring Syria in as an excuse for occupation of West Bank .. thats an issue only between Syria and Isreal over th Golan Geights area
I suspect Bibi will do well from this as will the Israeli Labor Party considering the former PM Barrak is Defence Minister…
Kadima still may be a partner with Bibi and Likud should they win enough MKs…
That’s not what 242 says. If that was the intention, it would say so.
The resolution that you have quoted is crystal clear to me. I stand by my post @ 163.
I’d be very surprised if Livni and Barak were willing to go into coalition with Netanyahu, unless there is an actual war going on. There is a lot of bad blood over the Sharon departure from Likud. Before the Gaza outbreak, Netanyahu was odds-on to win. IF Gaza turns out well, Livni and Barak will do better. If it turns out badly, Netanyahu will romp home. And then there will be no peace process at all.
gee with livni/barak/ orthodox centre right you get war
with bibi / israel orthodox hard right even more war
Obviously the only hope is a miracle of biblical proportions where the result shows a huge boost for meretz type parties.
What a mess. As usual.
Because Israeli governments need large coalitions wouldnt Kadima support a Likud Government? They must have more chance of forming up with them then Labor…
Ehud is doing well in the polls but he doesnt have enough support…
It is between Livni and Bibi…the trouble for Bibi is that he hasnt got any control over events and as such cannot take any credit for success based on hard line policies that he advocates…
“That’s not what 242 says”
your wrong interpretation of 2 separate clauses that also included Egypt and syria th 1967 aggressors) and trying to make point one 9required Israeli withdrawal) as a condition of point two RELATING TO th Palestiniens solely is totaly wrong because clearly it does not say that
What you’ve done is allow Israel to illegaly invade and continue to do so , not realizing that point (ii) at th time also needed to include Egypt and Syria who were parties to 1967 War with Israel an THEY concurrently needed to dessist from beligerence To twist point (ii) to ALSO include those (th palestiniens) who were th victims (th occcupied) from resisting th invadors would hav made point (i) and point (ii) incap[able of fruiton …..and th israelis and you by doing so hav proved my point …still 42 years and with your interpretion never a chanse of th Palestiniens fromm desisting from resisiting A self fullfilling occupation excuse suggest you look at point (ii) directly at Egypt and Syria from day one (as inrended) and at point (ii) directly at th Palestiniens AFTER th invadors hav left 9as clearly and logicaly intended)
Ron, you might want to try writing that one again.
The games :-
http://www.kadaitcha.com/2009/01/03/israel-bombs-civilians-in-street-market-in-gaza/comment-page-1/#comment-6460
OK William
The resolution doesn’t say “Egypt and Syria”, it says “all claims or states of belligerency.” But even if you are right, has Syria lifted its state of belligerency against Israel and recognised its right to exist? No.
Anyway, I’m off. It’s dinner time in this part of the world.
Zombie Mao, don’t forget: ????????
????????
huh ?
The Rainmaker, Turnbull, is at it again: warning Rudd not to take Gitmo inmates, when it seems Rudd never had any intention of doing so in the first place.
Malcolm, we need you to protect us against the waffable Rudd.
Been away , just back
First of all I’d like to quote Centre #163
“Would it be right to claim that Israel require beligerent action from the Palestinians to contiue to occupy or further invade their land?”
IF th Palestiniens ceased ALL resistance ‘beligerence’ against th Invador Israel then under Adams wrong inteprettation of UN Resolution 242 , Israel wuld hav to withdraw from non israeli land WITHOUT any pre conditions at all
I am suggesting that such an event of non beligerense to an invador Israel defies human nature Of course th palestiniens will continue to resist as any occupied invaded peoples will
Israel and Adam THEN use that natural for any invaded peoples nature to resist (being this time th th Palestiniens resistance trying to forse th invador israel to withdraw) as an excuse IN ITSELF for th invador Israel to remain as an occupier invador I can not understend how anyone could logicaly expect any other outcome other than th invador Israel therefore remaining using that lame excuse …and it has for 42 years
Now if we look at UN resolution 242 I fully quoted in #157 it needed to address TWO separate issues because mainly Syria Jordan and Egypt in 1967 had attacked Israel and israel repelled th attack and seized Gaza strip and West Bank AND Golen Heights (from syria)
Th issues needing addressing were for israel to go back to its 1967 borders
obviousley because UN were not going to allow an war winner toi keep non Israeli land AND further to hav peace between them all…all 4
Resulution 242 point (i) unconditionaly required israel’s withdrawal to its pre 1967 war borders…fullstop (Israel after 42 years has breached this requirement)
Resulution 242 point (ii) concurentley required th Parties to stop belligerence ….ie to stop having wars with each other ..specificaly Israel , Egypt Jordan and Syria were obviousley what ppoint (ii) was talking about seeing mainly those 4 had just fought th 1967 War AND THEY under point (ii) needed to stop war-ing & respect each’s borders
Blind Freddie should see th Palestiniens th now occupied Party (in Gaza and West Bank) were not going to stop beligerense trying to forse Israel to leave Gaza and West Bank , BUT would be SUBSEQUENTLEY after Israeli withdrawal be obligated to thereafter not be beligerent to Israel aND vice versa
Now Egpyt & Jordan hav signed Pease Treaties with Israel…which complies with Resolution 242 point (ii)…meaning th Gaza and West Bank can no longer be used by Israel as an excuse under Resulution 242 point (i) to remain as th Wes Bank Gaza occupier/invador
Th Palestiniens obligation to non beligeranse (IF ANY !) under point (ii) would only logicaly commense AFTER Israel th invador withdraws from th Gaza and West Bank…and whilst Israel remains as occupier obviousley th Plestineins will forcably resist
Now i’m saying under Resulution 242 point (i) Israel should hav withdrawn in 1967 BECAUSE there was NO reqwuirement in point (ii) for Egypt or Jordan to sign a peace deel , just Egypt , Jordan and Israel each to be non belligerent …th resulution is clear But in any event , since there ar now peace deels with those Parties to that War Egypt , Jordan and Israel , th excuse for non withdrawal becomes even more shallow
Separateley th Golen Heights (formerley part of Syria) remains in dispute, and there is no peace deel between Syria and Israel …BUT that has nothing to do with th West Bank or Gaza because neither were Syrian land pre 1967
Why there is Palestinien and Israeli conflict is simply because Israel occupies land that in 1967 th UN said Israel must withdraw from….and has not done so Excpecting th Palstiniens to desist from armed (but reely token in context) resistance defies histary of what any invaded people will do , resist So th Israeli excuse is false…th further lame excuse of what th Palestiniens may do after withdrawal is in clear defianse of 242 to withdraw
th fact Israel has built settlemetns in non Israeli land and Israeli suburbs in part of Arab East Jerulesm (which they ar supposed to also withdraw from under 242) makes there excuses blantantly obviuos what hetere reel object is …to illegaly annex Arab lands that UN resolution 242 makes clear they hav no right to under UN Law
finaly , th ultimate insult…this invador drops one ton bombs on th innocent civilian occupied population…and then ’spins’ oh we dropped warning leaflets beforehand…no bombs should hav been droped in first place because Israel should hav withdrawn from non israeli land per 242
.
ps/ not only ar Adams defenses of israel so completely flawed , but whereever he is on holiday he hasn’t got courtesy to tell where it is , so none of us go there as it miust be a dud holiday place
I will retract my ps/ on holiday places ….it may get interpretated other than jest
Socates
thanks for those finacial charts earlier today…looked at thems & not alot of joy
For your info I’ve had this chart of what I call th leaning Tower of Pizza…of US Fed reserve assets…for any others looking its not Fed Reserve liabilities but assets and its got an unhealthy look …and possible future Fed Reserve just “printing of money” and future hypo inflaton perhaps
http://www.smartmoney.com/Investing/Economy/Fed-s-Balance-Sheet-Is-Ballooning-Fast/
Hmm Ron @ 182
Very ugly indeed. Looks like the folk who worked within the system to generate CC, and who have worked within the system to do nothing about it, may find that the internal dynamics of the same system might lead to such a profound economic depression that the problem is solved in the worst way possible.
Congratulations, William, you did not break your own rules.
I am not sure I would be relying on the UN to come up with what I would call ‘just’ resolutions.
Any organisation that would have Libya chairing its Human Rights Committee would have to be a bit suss on the justice side. That, plus who gets to veto stuff, for example, Russia – run by a twice – risen KGB souffle.
Therefore I wouldn’t put a lot of energy into arguing the ins and outs of the wording of the UN resolutions. They may form a framework for making debating points. In practice, they have not made a skerrick of difference to date and are unlikely to do so in the future. In fact, you could argue that they are designed to ensure that nothing gets done.
Normally, I would be with Adam on the importance of the history bit. But, with the main players continually creating current ‘facts’, ‘history’ might also be a bit irrelevant here.
The real questions appear to be:
(1) ‘Is might right?’
(2) Will a sufficient body of Palestinians and engaged muslims more broadly ever give up?
(3) Will Israel ever be able to cut a deal with all the Palestinians?
(4) Or will the impasse last indefinitely, or until the Palestinians get the upper hand militarily, whichever comes first?
If we look at these questions then the real questions start about the rocket killing of random Israelis, the bombing of Gaza, the killing of Hamas leaders and followers, the associated killings of civilians and the deliberate destruction of a physical infrastructure.
Bludgers, if you haven’t already done so, have a look at the Townsend link posted by William in the intro. There is some interesting stuff on the thought processes of some of the recently successful folk.
IMHO we will be getting more of the same following the next NSW state elections.
Furthermore, all these written words are just blah, blah, blah and blah as there WILL NEVER be peace in that land because their Gods are angry. Yahweh, God and Allah are angry. Yes, the birth place of these religious that were to bring peace, love and harmony to the World.
The Gods are angry because their name and teaching have been abused by their own “chosen” people, especially for their worldly political ends. Their Gods have condemned and cursed them until their chosen people repent and reconcile their wayward ways. I say let them blow each other into smitherin, they deserve each other.
A good Sunday to all. It was very painful to watch Haydo’s painful batting. Put him into rest.
Some good economic news for some. QLD is expected to power ahead next year with a growth rate about twice that of NSW and VIC… “ABOUT 1000 new jobs will be created in Queensland every week this year as growth in “the lucky state” continues to power ahead despite the economic downturn”…
It is still possible I think that Mr Rudd will be able to gain seats in QLD at the next federal election, to offset any that may be lost in NSW.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24870554-952,00.html
Re Centre @ 139…
Thanks for your enquiry about my ancestry.
My ancestry is roughly 75% English and 25% Orange. Presumably the later comes from Scots who moved to Northern Ireland at some stage in the past.
I must say I do admire your creative take on being unbiased…
“I would contribute money to supply Palestine with the same quantity of weapons” (#69) and “I’m starting to think Mel Gibson was right.” (# 243 from previous string)
I see also that at #243 (last string) you indicated that you agreed with Vera (#241) who said “If the arabs blast them off the face of the earth they won’t get too much sympathy from me” and then went on to excuse suicide bombing on the basis that its “their only possible form of attack” (apart from the missiles I suppose).
I strongly doubt that Iran having nuclear weapons would be a great help… “If Iran developed nukes, you may end up with peace in the middle east” (#246).
While you are there Fargo 61, why don’t you repeat all my posts on the conflict, instead of a few chosen lines in isolation which misrepresent my point.
Fact 1. I did say that I would contribute money to provide Palestine with the SAME amount of weapons. Note: same amount, not more, not less, the same amount. I would like to see peace in the Middle East. That would be one way of ensuring so, in my view.
Fact 2. You have implied that I would be willing to contribute money to a terrorist organisation. I find that GROSSLY offensive and outrageous. Feel free to APOLOGISE. NOTE: Everybody can read for themselves exactly what has been said.
Also, I do not like conceding that we (the West) appear to be wrong on this entire debacle. Israel is letting us down.
Article from the Austrailan on recent polling in Israel…
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24866269-15084,00.html
Centre,
I did not imply anything. I quoted you directly, and those quotes cast doubt in my mind on your claim to be ‘unbiased’. I have not changed my opinion.
I make no claim to be ‘unbiased’, for as Winston Churchill said (although I can’t just now remember about precisely what he was referring to) “I am not impartial as between the fire and the fire brigade”.
I infer from your posts that you do not regard Hamas as a terrorist organisation, whereas I do. I believe that any organisation that facilitates suicide bombing is a terrorist organisation.
Article from the Australian… Israel ground troops move into Gaza…
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24871330-601,00.html
Adam,
Re your “IF Gaza turns out well, Livni and Barak will do better If it turns out badly, Netanyahu will romp home.”
Can you please give a rough indication of what you think would be perceived as turning out well?
Presumably low troop casualties and a fairly quick withdrawl would be needed, but what about continued missile attacks from Hamas? I presume that it is practically impossible for Israel to stop such attacks entirely, but what could be regarded as a success in political terms with an election due soon?
Fargot 61. Yes, you did. My post @ 189, Fact 2. Stands.
And yes, I am unbiased over the situation in the Middle East. If you think that I lean towards one side over the other, then maybe the Israeli’s should take a good look at their behaviour.
As you ARE obviously biased, according to your 126 post, I am not interested in any further discussion with you.
AUSTRALIA will not take any former inmates of the US’ Guantanamo Bay detention centre, acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard says.
(Thank goodness that Malcom Turnbull was available to give his sage advice).
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24868838-601,00.html
Centre, if you’re going to play in the Middle East sandpit, which I don’t recommend, you need to toughen up a bit. Nobody owes you an apology. I also don’t know what you think you’re achieving by repeatedly proclaiming yourself to be “unbiased”, other than making yourself look foolish.
My thoughts precisley
I find it astonishing that if someone who looks at a situation with an open mind and then concludes that one side has crossed the line – they are considered biased.
I have never said that I support Hamas or that I would consider contributing to a terrorist organisation – that is ABSURD.
The point that I am making, is that if both sides were on a level playing field, then you may have a shot at peace. Surely intelligent people can see that.
On Guantanamo Bay
MalcolmTturnbull, just how incompetent is this bloke? He’s read the papers and listened to the news and then opened his mouth without getting his facts straight. He thought Obama had made the request for us to take prisoners when it was the Libs lord and master Bush!
I notice they didn’t say a word when earier in 2008 Bush asked us to take prisioners. That would be because whatever Bush told Howard to do he jumped to attention and the Libs obeyed. Had they still been in power Howard wouldn’t have had the guts to say no to Bush. Hell he would have accepted the whole prision full and set them up somewhere like Woollongong ( a strong ALP electorate)
But when Malcolm thought it was Obama asking suddenly it is an outrage and their reaction was completly opposite. What a pack of hypocrites.
Julia isn’t letting Turnbull get away with it either , good on her.
Link
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/03/2458564.htm?section=australia
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 » Show All