The Children Overboard issue develops

[^ Pando]

Most people would say yes and want to examine the evidence and the circumstances - you merely dismiss it out of hand.

So when Howard says he didn't lie, you don't dismiss it out of hand? Do you know for a fact that he lied?

 

[JK]

For the 500th time (nothing like a generalisation) that is not the point. You said you know what the point is - good, show it.

What point is that you think that I'm not getting? Politicians lying for political gain is a given. Happens all the time.
And?

And...

They then use the powers of their office to cover up the lies and hide it from the electorate who should have the information to judge their performance.

Lies should not be tolerated so I reject your laissez faire attitude towards it. When Labor lies it merely make me more determined to change some of the people representing the Party. I am not a Carr fan, I am not a Latham fan - I don't need to act like a member of a fan club and not recognise their failings and act accordingly. I wish some coalition supporters could have the same approach.

 

[King of the Hill]

I'm not dismissing it
I'm just saying I believe John Howard

And the self rightous Howard haters cant believe anyone would have that opinion!

 

[N.Hindmarsh_Fan]

Anyone else see the irony in this post?

I apologise for getting out of hand, sorry ShireShark. I get worked up because I know of people who have suffered because of our policies towards the middleeast.

I will take a deep breath and calm down, once again I am sorry.

 

[JK]

Most people would say yes and want to examine the evidence and the circumstances - you merely dismiss it out of hand.

So when Howard says he didn't lie, you don't dismiss it out of hand? Do you know for a fact that he lied?

I am looking for further information. I believe the kids overboard case was used for political advantage but I am not 100% convinced that it was a huge cover-up just yet. I am definitely leaning heavily that way though as the evidence at the inquiry and this new statement all point towards it.

I jumped into this thread with people dismissing it outright and calling it old news, or, as you were, bringing up immigration policy which is at best tangental to the alleged cover-up.

Let the investigation, by media and others, uncover something either way and make it soon!

 

[Anonymous]

The article speaks of a Mr Scrafton, not Labor.

Is Labor trying to get political leverage through this, or not?

I don't know. Do have a link that we read?
Do you think Labor are behind this?

When there was a smear campaign going on about Latham's private life, did you think the Libs were behind that?

 

[JK]

I'm not dismissing it
I'm just saying I believe John Howard

And the self rightous Howard haters cant believe anyone would have that opinion!

I just wonder how it can't even make you stop and think for a second! :?

Anyway - goodnight all. :sleeper:

 

[^ Pando]

For the 500th time (nothing like a generalisation) that is not the point. You said you know what the point is - good, show it.

What point is that you think that I'm not getting? Politicians lying for political gain is a given. Happens all the time.
And?

And...

They then use the powers of their office to cover up the lies and hide it from the electorate who should have the information to judge their performance.

Lies should not be tolerated so I reject your laissez faire attitude towards it. When Labor lies it merely make me more determined to change some of the people representing the Party. I am not a Carr fan, I am not a Latham fan - I don't need to act like a member of a fan club and not recognise their failings and act accordingly. I wish some coalition supporters could have the same approach.

Just because I vote Liberal, doesn't mean that I agree with everything they do or say. Hell, if I was that partisan I would have voted against the Republic in the referendum, but I didn't.

This issue has been blown out of all proportion. Surely there is something more important to the electorate than this.

We elect people to act in the interests of Australia. Petty bickering over whether kids were chucked off a boat does nothing to further this country one little bit.

 

[N.Hindmarsh_Fan]

You remind me of racist pigs who would sit in front of their houses and call me a little Mediterranean Descendant when I was a kid.


christ..

where did you live?

Next door to Shire Shark. ;-)

 

[^ Pando]

The article speaks of a Mr Scrafton, not Labor.

Is Labor trying to get political leverage through this, or not?

I don't know. Do have a link that we read?
Do you think Labor are behind this?

When there was a smear campaign going on about Latham's private life, did you think the Libs were behind that?

Of course I think they were behind it, either that or a disgruntled ex-wife.

Ex-wife - political foe. I don't know which I'd hate worse. :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, that is my recollection, Andrew. The spin by Reith and then Howard was to paint these people in as poor a light as possible. To pain them as villians, BAD people who shouldn't be allowed in Australia.

They were attempting to enter Australia illegally, and they put their children at risk in doing so.
That is beyond dispute.
Of course they shouldn't be allowed into Australia if that is the way they choose to do it.
Like it or not, we are allowed to have immigration laws and we are allowed to enforce them.

I'll think you'll find that it's not that clear cut.
If they are claiming refugee status, they are not 'illegals' in the manner you have described.

 

[^ Pando]

I'll think you'll find that it's not that clear cut.
If they are claiming refugee status, they are not 'illegals' in the manner you have described.

They all claim refugee status.
Do you think that people should be able to get onto Qantas jets anywhere in the world without a visa or passport so that they can claim refugee status? Or is that only for sea going travellers?

 

[wittyfan]

The passing of time and whether it is old news does not negate this.

But in a election, it does. Labor should be out releasing policies rather than getting stuck in the past. People are way over the children overboard affair.

Living in the Past. Costello and Howard are still blaming Keating for everything. Abbot is dragging up things about Latham that are over a decade old. Come on, the Libs are just as bad about living in the past.

Keating was to blame though for the economic mess of the early 1990's. The fall-out from Latham's time as Liverpool Mayor is still being felt there.

 

[^ Pando]

I'll think you'll find that it's not that clear cut.
If they are claiming refugee status, they are not 'illegals' in the manner you have described.

Willow. In another thread you ragged on and on at me about the "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

If you enter this country illegally, you are guilty until proven innocent.

A fact of life and a fact of law.

 

[Anonymous]

I'll think you'll find that it's not that clear cut.
If they are claiming refugee status, they are not 'illegals' in the manner you have described.

They all claim refugee status.
Do you think that people should be able to get onto Qantas jets anywhere in the world without a visa or passport so that they can claim refugee status? Or is that only for sea going travellers?

It works in all ways. The method of arrival isnt the issue.
Strictly speaking, it is not illegal to claim refugee status.

 

[^ Pando]

It works in all ways. The method of arrival isnt the issue.
Strictly speaking, it is not illegal to claim refugee status.

But it is illegal to come here ILLEGALLY. Strictly speaking, you are entitled to ask for refugee status when you have come here by legal means and you won't be locked up while your application is being processed.

Jump on a leaky boat and you take your chances, and you are ILLEGAL until you prove your case.

 

[Anonymous]

I'll think you'll find that it's not that clear cut.
If they are claiming refugee status, they are not 'illegals' in the manner you have described.

Willow. In another thread you ragged on and on at me about the "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

If you enter this country illegally, you are guilty until proven innocent.

A fact of life and a fact of law.

Was that the thread where I made you sick? :lol:
Sorry to disappoint, but I still believe in the innocent until proven guilty thing. It's an old habit of mine.

And I keep pointing out, strictly speaking, there is nothing illegal about being a refugee.
But Immigration laws dictate that the person does have to be detained while their case is being accessed.
I think most people understand this.
The method and length of detention seems to be a major debate point.

 

[^ Pando]

The method and length of detention seems to be a major debate point.

Most people who have lengthy detention stays have had their applications rejected and are detained while their appeals are processed. Everyone knows that the court system is less than quick.

What method would you have as a method for detention of illegal immigrants?

Give them a court date and hope they'll show up?

 

[Anonymous]

What a great idea. Have you told Amanda Vanstone about this? :lol:

 

[King of the Hill]

Amanda Twenty-Stone?