It's also bloody annoying when conservatives go on about being concerned about people drowning when the real reason they want to "stop the boats" has nothing to do with that at all - it really is pathetic



In other words, you've got nothing wombleoz - other than some nonsense barbs aimed at conservatives.............now THAT'S pathetic.

You final sentence in that above post I find as a human being, extroidinarily disturbing wombleoz - you willing to sacrifice the innocent in order to extract revenge.

Truly sick. 

Your well aligned and in good company in the far dark rims of the Greens.

as you'd say Jez - FFS, I agave you a detailed response on how to deal with boat people earlier and you just came back with "we're full" and Liberal party spin - typical

how many would we get wrong after they've gone completely through the courts system and only for the most serious crimes?  1 in 100? 1 in 1000?? who's to say, i think that's a fair price to pay + although many downplay the deterrent argument, i think it would be in play and potentially stop someone acting and save a few lives

i doubt you'd find find many Greens that support me on this one though Jez, they are all bleeding hearts like you [;)]

Detailed response: deal with people smuggling by ignoring it and increasing the number of refugee's we bring in?

Your a genuis wombleoz.........[smiley:crazy]

Read this sentence again from previous post and have a long hard think about it: we only have a certain capacity to absorb refugees and we cannot go beyond that without placing our services and infrastructure under intolerable strain.

And whats that rot about "we're full"?  The previous Howard government increased the number of refugee's.........so your claims are ludicrous, I never said anything of the sort......

Your sounding desperate pal

I was at Parliament House when legislation was passed to ensure the death penalty is not restored in our great country - I give Labor a big pat on the back for that legislation.

Julia's strange performances abroad
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor
From: The Australian November 13, 2010

SO here's a first. The Prime Minister now travels overseas to tell international business audiences what a bunch of bastards the Australian banks are.

Julia Gillard needs very quickly to rethink her approach to international prime ministerial travel.

She should understand that when she travels overseas, she is doing so to talk to foreigners about foreign affairs issues that bear on national interests. She is not going overseas to continue prosecuting domestic politics to another audience.

We have had, so far, some really strange performances abroad by Gillard, so strange they are almost inexplicable. They testify both to a dreadful tin ear for the area on the Prime Minister's part, and truly appalling staff work that leaves her with poorly designed messages that she is unprepared even to explain or defend properly.

First, we got the declaration that she had no real interest in foreign affairs. Foreign affairs are an absolutely core part of the job. If you're not interested in it, you shouldn't be prime minister.

Then we had a truly baleful tour of Southeast Asia, which established that the Prime Minister's main agenda for Southeast Asia was her regional asylum-seeker centre in East Timor - a centre that has no corporeal existence, no regional support, no prospect of doing what was claimed for it and indeed almost no prospect of ever coming into being.

Prime ministers overseas need more than their domestic talking points, no matter how great the prime ministerial desire to prosecute them domestically.

Now Gillard has delivered a speech, and off-the-cuff remarks, bagging Australia's banks because they charge interest rates not approved by the government. At the same time, Gillard is espousing the benefits of free trade and private enterprise.

It all feeds into the image of a desperately provincial prime minister who simply cannot master a message for an overseas encounter that goes anywhere beyond the scripted lines, and even the scripted lines are half the time rubbish.

Surely an Australian prime minister can do better than this.

and jez, the Australian what a rag of a newspaper

Kerry Kennedy, daughter of the slain Senator Robert Kennedy, has written.............

"I was eight years old when my father was murdered. It is almost impossible to describe the pain of losing a parent to a senseless murder.... But even as a child one thing was clear to me: I didn't want the killer, in turn, to be killed. I remember lying in bed and praying, 'Please, God. Please don't take his life, too.' I saw nothing that could be accomplished in the loss of one life being answered with the loss of another. And I knew, far too vividly, the anguish that would spread through another family -- another set of parents, children, brothers, and sisters thrown into grief."

And by the by, I have kids too - its a typical fkn argument thrusted out there by those who bay for the blood of those who commit heinous crimes, like as if it will solve the problem or stop another person doing similar, because it won't and doesn't.

Its not about being soft on child rapist or for that matter child abuse offenders - I do not believe under any circumstances that as "punishment" we execute someone.

Look judge.

I think its fair to fkn say that killing someone, child sex offenders, rapists.......are all serious crimes.

If you want to break it all down and go deep into each particular offence, go for your life, not my argument...

I argue against the death penalty.  I know the gravity of these crimes and of course I despise the pieces of sh1t that commit these crimes, but the answer is not execution.

Love it how you pull out the whole ideology piece....and the political correctness, nothing to fkn do with it.

Your answer is not execution Jez, don't say THE answer is not execution, there is a chasm of difference.

Tricky, aren't you? 

The strange thing here is, you support the murder of innocents in the name of war, but not the execution of a child murderer, that 1 has me bamboozled

Wow....your going for gold.

Another topic thrown into the mix, this time, war.

And the assumptions are everywhere.......

Who would I be compassionate to in court? 

Its got nothing to do with euthanasia or domestic violence.

I don't believe in the death penalty as punishment.

But to suggest or somehow draw lines between my opinion on that, and having more compassion for child killers based on your little hypothetical court cases, I mean, come on....

think i have stayed right on topic, if anyone strayed at all, its you, you brought child abusers into it, i brought war into it, as theres killing that happens in wars, yet you are all for killing in wars, just trying to come to grips with your contradictions is all, but could you please point out 1 outlandish assumption i have made?

Judge, c'mon.

I bought child abusers into it?  Child abuse is the physical, sexual or emotional mistreatment of a child.  Nothing new, you raised it with your hypotheticals.......

War and judicial capital punishment

Two seperate topics.

Anyway, draw all the lines or count how many ever contradictions you like.........

Two separate issues are war and the death penalty.

The two wars I believed Australia was/is right to support, I believe are for the common good and not just for our self interest - plenty will disagree with that - but thats my view.

Sometimes situations present where there is no alternative to war - and burying your head in the sand will lead to bad outcomes all round - I mean imagine if conflicts where we fought for our freedom had not been wagered - where would we be today?

In comparison to judicial capital punishment.  There is an alternative to the death penalty - it is life imprisonment - and again, I believe we are far to soft in our sentencing.

If you think its hypocracy, so be it - I have no doubt I won't be able to convince you otherwise. 

Night.

Not sure how I managed to double that first post......tiredness or the new Betfair forum.

Hmmmmm maybe its something more.....a conspiracy perhaps

Sometimes things really are as they seem.

Ciao

It's a miracle, I agree AFL.

Your obviously very passionately against my views.  The government of Australia shares the view that we oppose the death penalty, but support the two conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan on their merit.

Again, the two wars I believed Australia was/is right to support, I believe are for the common good and not just for our self interest - plenty will disagree with that - but thats my view.

Sometimes situations present where there is no alternative to war - and burying your head in the sand will lead to bad outcomes all round - I mean imagine if conflicts where we fought for our freedom had not been wagered - where would we be today?

If I'm a hypocrite, then I'm in good company.  But you've moved the debate from the death penalty, to child abuse hypotheticals, then the goal posts moved even more to morality of TWO specific conflicts to which I have expressed support on the forum.

I think I was justified in originally pointing out your assumptions and outlandish claims ie. your comment, " i think you better have a serious re think, sounds like a very warped ideology you have".

Again, on another point out to you your stray in topic and you suggested that I brought child abuse into this? 

Mate, twas you who originally brough up your little emotion-charged court scenarios relating to the physical, sexual or mistreatment of children.

Your now on this tangent, you know, apparently I made the MOST outlandish claims compared to you, blah blah blah.

I mean what's that nonsense?

It's very simple Judge.  VERY simple.

You disagree with me....You can push your squarmish cases of child rape, murder and torture all you like - my opinion remains the same, I don't agree with judicial capital punishment.

And if you want to stake some sort of moral high ground by drawing faint lines between two recent conflicts and judicial capital punishment - go for your life.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Child abuse and murder.

If a child is RAPED and TORTURED it is abuse.......if he/she is killed its also murder.

Bottom line, you raised it.

Nothing to do with my IQ, or me apparently be young and naive or being "deluded"................ffs

Judge, your wrong.  I raised the death penalty.

And you raised a child being RAPED, TORTURED and MURDERED.

Look up the definition of child abuse, and see what you find.
I didn't bring it up, I was merely responding to your post about a child being raped, tortured and murdered.

nice to see everyone getting on

i do think it's a little weird that people can draw different conclusions to the morality of killing depending on circumstance, myself included

i am pro death penalty, pro euthanasia, and anti war except when there is no alternative

you sick of watching loggy

Good to see Julia ripping into Tony about his 3 word slogans yesterday in parliament, yes I know 3 words are all coalition voters are capable of understanding - about time we get some focus on what a dud alternative he really is

Where as the genuine alternative steps up to the plate with the Greens getting some attention - although I don't agree with the move to cap interest rate rises, populist rubbish - let the market deal with it - good on them for getting the same sex marriage debate going and bringing the Labor party back to the left by dividing them on it