http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/rudd-to-turn-back-boatpeople/story-e6frg8yx-1111114943944

KEVIN Rudd has taken a tough line on border security, warning that a Labor government will turn the boats back and deter asylum-seekers, using the threat of detention and the nation's close ties with Indonesia.

In an interview with The Australian, the Opposition Leader advocated a layered approach to border security based on "effective laws, effective detention arrangements, effective deterrent posture vis-a-vis vessels approaching Australian waters".

This would mean close co-operation with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the Indonesian Government.

Mr Rudd said Labor would take asylum-seekers who had been rescued from leaky boats to Christmas Island, would turn back seaworthy vessels containing such people on the high seas, and would not lift the current intake of African refugees.

"You'd turn them back," he said of boats approaching Australia, emphasising that Labor believed in an "orderly immigration system" enforced by deterrence.

"You cannot have anything that is orderly if you allow people who do not have a lawful visa in this country to roam free," he said. "That's why you need a detention system. I know that's politically contentious, but one follows from the other.

"Deterrence is effective through the detention system but also your preparedness to take appropriate action as the vessels approach Australian waters on the high seas."

Mr Howard said yesterday he believed Mr Rudd "would change the country" if elected.

"When there's been a change of government, there's been a profound change in the direction of the country," he said. "Now if the country were going in the wrong direction, it would be understandable that people would want change, but if it's going in the right direction, why would you change something that's going in the right direction?"

But in his interview with The Australian, Mr Rudd rejected or played down a series of social policies and issues that Labor and the Greens had pursued for years during the Coalition Government.

Rudd mistakenly did state this to the world in 2007, however Bob Brown was yet to give KRudd the actual policy he was to follow.
Bob did clear this up with KRudd.

any leftards who wants to defend Rudd's attack on Abbott - refer them back to this thread

Maqqa wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 9:51am:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/rudd-to-turn-back-boatpeople/story-e6frg8yx-1111114943944 Mr Howard said yesterday he believed Mr Rudd "would change the country" if elected. "When there's been a change of government, there's been a profound change in the direction of the country," he said. "Now if the country were going in the wrong direction, it would be understandable that people would want change, but if it's going in the right direction, why would you change something that's going in the right direction?"

So Howard finally admits that he was taking the country in the wrong direction in 2007.

John S wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 10:32am:

Maqqa wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 9:51am: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/rudd-to-turn-back-boatpeople/story-e6frg8yx-1111114943944 Mr Howard said yesterday he believed Mr Rudd "would change the country" if elected. "When there's been a change of government, there's been a profound change in the direction of the country," he said. "Now if the country were going in the wrong direction, it would be understandable that people would want change, but if it's going in the right direction, why would you change something that's going in the right direction?" So Howard finally admits that he was taking the country in the wrong direction in 2007.

Howard said this whilst in his 12th year as PM.
He knew the writing was on the wall, and people just wanted a change.
The direction Howard took this country was one of prosperity, and he had the will and skill to break the business model of the people smugglers.
Definitely not the wrong direction.

Maqqa wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 10:09am:

any leftards who wants to defend Rudd's attack on Abbott - refer them back to this thread

Why?

It's as pointless and meaningless as most of the other threads started by the rusted-on far right.

According to the polls we are in for another hung parliament unless Mr Rudd can grab another 1-2% and policies like being hard on illegals could just do that.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 10:39am:

Howard said this whilst in his 12th year as PM. He knew the writing was on the wall, and people just wanted a change. The direction Howard took this country was one of prosperity, and he had the will and skill to break the business model of the people smugglers. Definitely not the wrong direction.

Obviously his tactic was to spend every last cent the country had on middle class welfare and to increase our tax burden further by dramatically increasing legal middle eastern migration.

first of all kev would have to admit he did do something wrong.. he made a blunder he single handedly helped the people smugglers to get back into action..


can anyone see this person doing that????

not on your life..

arrogance doesnt go out of the door easily..

cods wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 11:11am:

first of all kev would have to admit he did do something wrong.. he made a blunder he single handedly helped the people smugglers to get back into action.. can anyone see this person doing that???? not on your life.. arrogance doesnt go out of the door easily..

Mr Kevin Rudd has already admitted to making mistakes in regard to the boat people issue as well as the rushed roll out of insulation installation.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

Rudd mistakenly did state this to the world in 2007, however Bob Brown was yet to give KRudd the actual policy he was to follow. Bob did clear this up with KRudd.

Or you could tell the truth that after the election he found that it was not safe, practical or legal under international law.

.

adelcrow wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 10:59am:

According to the polls we are in for another hung parliament unless Mr Rudd can grab another 1-2% and policies like being hard on illegals could just do that.

Another hung parliament means another Labor government, given the likes of Katter, Wilkie and the Greens would prefer Labor over phoney Tony. Maybe the indies could pull a black Jack Mcewan and demand Turnbull be leader of the Libs for their support, too funny. ;D :D ;D

skippy. wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 11:17am:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 10:59am: According to the polls we are in for another hung parliament unless Mr Rudd can grab another 1-2% and policies like being hard on illegals could just do that. Another hung parliament means another Labor government, given the likes of Katter, Wilkie and the Greens would prefer Labor over phoney Tony. Maybe the indies could pull a black Jack Mcquen and demand Turnbull be leader of the Libs for their support, too funny. ;D :D ;D

Im sure Mr Kevin Rudd will also be using the term illegals to make a point of how the mix of people has changed since he was dumped and now he is back he will "stop the boats"
Only 1-2% people and its goodbye Mr Tony Abbott MHR

Rudd is a brilliant tactician and enjoys a much higher level of personal support than Abbot. Labor will get that 2 percent, if not more. I personally would have voted Abbot over Gillard but now Rudds back will vote for the ALP, I know many swinging voters like me will now do the same.

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

Rudd is a brilliant tactician and enjoys a much higher level of personal support than Abbot. Labor will get that 2 percent, if not more. I personally would have voted Abbot over Gillard but now Rudds back will vote for the ALP, I know many swinging voters like me will now do the same.

It all depends on how Kevin and Tony play the public over the next few months but Kevin looks like he has come up with a game plan while he was sitting on the back bench...but can Kevin stick with it and will his plan stand the test of the election campaign

As if on cue. Rudd is taking full control of this issue. I think we will saee a substantial poll bounce for the ALP next week.


http://www.news.com.au/national-news/nsw-act/labor-unveils-hard-line-on-asylum-seekers-who-destroy-passports/story-fnii5s3x-1226675352379
Labor unveils hard line on asylum seekers who destroy passports

ASYLUM seekers who fly to Indonesia and dump their passports and identity papers before boarding people-smuggling boats to Australia will have their applications "sent to the back of the queue".
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will also unveil before the election a tougher test for refugee applications, and there are hopes of expanding the fly-home deportation policy for bogus asylum seekers that exists with Sri Lanka to new countries, including Indonesia.


Read more: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/national-news/nsw-act/labor-unveils-hard-line-on-asylum-seekers-who-destroy-passports/story-fnii5s3x-1226675352379#ixzz2YJqNaEK6

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

As if on cue. Rudd is taking full control of this issue. I think we will saee a substantial poll bounce for the ALP next week. http://www.news.com.au/national-news/nsw-act/labor-unveils-hard-line-on-asylum-seekers-who-destroy-passports/story-fnii5s3x-1226675352379 Labor unveils hard line on asylum seekers who destroy passports ASYLUM seekers who fly to Indonesia and dump their passports and identity papers before boarding people-smuggling boats to Australia will have their applications "sent to the back of the queue". Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will also unveil before the election a tougher test for refugee applications, and there are hopes of expanding the fly-home deportation policy for bogus asylum seekers that exists with Sri Lanka to new countries, including Indonesia. Read more: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/national-news/nsw-act/labor-unveils-hard-line-on-asylum-seekers-who-destroy-passports/story-fnii5s3x-1226675352379#ixzz2YJqNaEK6

Uh huh and we've seen what happens when he takes charge haven't we...  everything turns to shyte.  ;D

Your political commentary is sh!te.

why wont tony have the national ssecurity briefings rudd has offered?

Dnarever wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 10:04am: Rudd mistakenly did state this to the world in 2007, however Bob Brown was yet to give KRudd the actual policy he was to follow. Bob did clear this up with KRudd. Or you could tell the truth that after the election he found that it was not safe, practical or legal under international law.

except that it WAS safe (no injuries or deaths in doing so a dozen times previously). WAS practical (since it worked) and LEGAL since it was in international waters.

Rudd will say whatever he thinks people want him to say and promise everything people want to hear and when elected will do exactly what he wants to do - which is very little and then be replaced by Bill Shorten.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:12pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 11:16am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 10:04am: Rudd mistakenly did state this to the world in 2007, however Bob Brown was yet to give KRudd the actual policy he was to follow. Bob did clear this up with KRudd. Or you could tell the truth that after the election he found that it was not safe, practical or legal under international law. except that it WAS safe (no injuries or deaths in doing so a dozen times previously). WAS practical (since it worked) and LEGAL since it was in international waters.

are you a national security advisor? Do you know something we don't when it comes to nationa secuiryt? Why won't Tony take the security briefings Rudd has offered?

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

As if on cue. Rudd is taking full control of this issue. I think we will saee a substantial poll bounce for the ALP next week. http://www.news.com.au/national-news/nsw-act/labor-unveils-hard-line-on-asylum-seekers-who-destroy-passports/story-fnii5s3x-1226675352379 Labor unveils hard line on asylum seekers who destroy passports ASYLUM seekers who fly to Indonesia and dump their passports and identity papers before boarding people-smuggling boats to Australia will have their applications "sent to the back of the queue". Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will also unveil before the election a tougher test for refugee applications, and there are hopes of expanding the fly-home deportation policy for bogus asylum seekers that exists with Sri Lanka to new countries, including Indonesia. Read more: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/national-news/nsw-act/labor-unveils-hard-line-on-asylum-seekers-who-destroy-passports/story-fnii5s3x-1226675352379#ixzz2YJqNaEK6

Will certainly be interested to hear more details.........but as my great concern has mostly been the number of fraudulent asylum claims that circumvent the present assessment regime, so far Rudd gets my tick of approval.....or at least poised for my tick of approval 

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:13pm:

Rudd will say whatever he thinks people want him to say and promise everything people want to hear and when elected will do exactly what he wants to do - which is very little and then be replaced by Bill Shorten.

You're right..he does have that in common with Mr Abbott

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

why wont tony have the national ssecurity briefings rudd has offered?

Image.

Abbott knows that women vote according to their romantic fantasies.

Bob Hawke got in because women thought he was a good root. Same with Rudd.

Abbott knows that when it comes time for Australia's women to put down their Mills-and-Boon to attend the voting booths ~ it will be fantasies of an illicit affair with Kevin Rudd that will be uppermost in their minds.

Abbott knows that giving Rudd more time in front of the cameras would only work against him with the women of Australia.

8-)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 12:12pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 11:16am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 10:04am: Rudd mistakenly did state this to the world in 2007, however Bob Brown was yet to give KRudd the actual policy he was to follow. Bob did clear this up with KRudd. Or you could tell the truth that after the election he found that it was not safe, practical or legal under international law. except that it WAS safe (no injuries or deaths in doing so a dozen times previously). WAS practical (since it worked) and LEGAL since it was in international waters. are you a national security advisor? Do you know something we don't when it comes to nationa secuiryt? Why won't Tony take the security briefings Rudd has offered?

do you wish to dispute any of those facts?  no one was injured. it is obviously practical since it was done at least a dozen times and legality was supported by a Vice Admiral of the Navy - hardly a nobody.  plus, most sovereign nations will intercept vessels heading for their waters already. nothing new there.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 12:09pm: why wont tony have the national ssecurity briefings rudd has offered? Image. Abbott knows that women vote according to their romantic fantasies. Bob Hawke got in because women thought he was a good root. Same with Rudd. Abbott knows that when it comes time for Australia's women to put down their Mills-and-Boon to attend the voting booths ~ it will be fantasies of an illicit affair with Kevin Rudd that will be uppermost in their minds. Abbott knows that giving Rudd more time in front of the cameras would only work against him with the women of Australia. 8-)

Im hoping to see more of Mr Abbott in spandex bike gear and speedos as the election day draws closer.

You liblabs are not worth listening to until yous' stop killing wombats on country roads, counted 6 in one short drive from Oberon to Goulburn, another 4 on the Mudgee road, ain't yas' got eyes ? ya tear asses !

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:31pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 12:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 12:12pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 11:16am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 10:04am: Rudd mistakenly did state this to the world in 2007, however Bob Brown was yet to give KRudd the actual policy he was to follow. Bob did clear this up with KRudd. Or you could tell the truth that after the election he found that it was not safe, practical or legal under international law. except that it WAS safe (no injuries or deaths in doing so a dozen times previously). WAS practical (since it worked) and LEGAL since it was in international waters. are you a national security advisor? Do you know something we don't when it comes to nationa secuiryt? Why won't Tony take the security briefings Rudd has offered? do you wish to dispute any of those facts?  no one was injured. it is obviously practical since it was done at least a dozen times and legality was supported by a Vice Admiral of the Navy - hardly a nobody.  plus, most sovereign nations will intercept vessels heading for their waters already. nothing new there.

Again, did you receive the same national secutiry briefs rudd did?  Why won't Tony accept the offer to hear what they had to say?

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

Rudd is a brilliant tactician and enjoys a much higher level of personal support than Abbot. Labor will get that 2 percent, if not more. I personally would have voted Abbot over Gillard but now Rudds back will vote for the ALP, I know many swinging voters like me will now do the same.

So we'll have you and your ilk to blame for more of the same and our country ruined beyond repair.

adelcrow wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:32pm:

Im hoping to see more of Mr Abbott in spandex bike gear and speedos as the election day draws closer.

So is Sprintcyclist.  ;D ;D

Do you believe that: Rudd to turn back boats? Do you believe it when Rudd says that people who destroy passports or papers  or not have explanation will go to the back of the queue?

I don't believe that because every single thing that Rudd has attempted when acting as a Prime Minister has ended up as a Dog's Breakfast...and that is what this will be a Great Bloody Useless Dog's breakfast.

The one certainly you can take out of it is this. It will cost the Australian Taxpayer a bomb, and that money will be borrowed from China, just put it on the tab in true Rudd manner.

That bloke is as useless as tits on a tennis ball.

So where is the "queue" that Krudd is going to send them to the back of?

The facts are if they have no documents or identification and get to our shores and can't be identified through ethnic profiling, they will not be repatriated because no other country is going to take them if the cannot be identified as one of their citizens. What country would take them?

AU Immigration: Hello Iran? Mamoud here says he is one of yours. We think he's dodgy. Can you look out for him on the 7.30pm Emirates to Tehran?

Iran: برو فاک خودتان خوک دلار استرالیا. خداوند خواهید دید که شما را در جهنم بسوزاند Click

Dnarever wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 10:04am: Rudd mistakenly did state this to the world in 2007, however Bob Brown was yet to give KRudd the actual policy he was to follow. Bob did clear this up with KRudd. Or you could tell the truth that after the election he found that it was not safe, practical or legal under international law.

How was it not safe when Howard stopped the boats and none were on the high seas drowning?
How many drowned on the six boats returned to Indonesia waters when Howard was PM prior to the boats stopping?
How was it not legal under international law when Howard stopped the boats and only the left whined about it and practically no one else?
Why is it not practical when steps are taken that work to stop the boats and reduce costs and the incarceration of immigrants whom arrive via illegal means?
Why do other countries stop and turn back boats every day and it's legal for them. eg: US, Sri Lanka, Israel.
Why does the left think that it's the governments business to support criminal people smugglers?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

why wont tony have the national ssecurity briefings rudd has offered?

Rudd is not competent in giving national security briefings.
Rudd is not competent, he is a dunderclumper.
Period.
Given that the department of Immigration has allowed the release into the community of unidentified country shoppers under the watchful eye of Labor, Rudd is the last person on the planet to be conducting national security briefings.
Labor has done far more damage to our national security in five short years than what has occurred in the past seventy years.

bambu wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:

ian wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 11:23am: Rudd is a brilliant tactician and enjoys a much higher level of personal support than Abbot. Labor will get that 2 percent, if not more. I personally would have voted Abbot over Gillard but now Rudds back will vote for the ALP, I know many swinging voters like me will now do the same. So we'll have you and your ilk to blame for more of the same and our country ruined beyond repair.

Howard started the ruination.

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

bambu wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 12:43pm: ian wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 11:23am: Rudd is a brilliant tactician and enjoys a much higher level of personal support than Abbot. Labor will get that 2 percent, if not more. I personally would have voted Abbot over Gillard but now Rudds back will vote for the ALP, I know many swinging voters like me will now do the same. So we'll have you and your ilk to blame for more of the same and our country ruined beyond repair. Howard started the ruination.

Really Ian and I suppose you will have a logical reasoned argument to back that inanity up?
Or not  ;D ;D ;D

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 11:16am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 10:04am: Rudd mistakenly did state this to the world in 2007, however Bob Brown was yet to give KRudd the actual policy he was to follow. Bob did clear this up with KRudd. Or you could tell the truth that after the election he found that it was not safe, practical or legal under international law. How was it not safe when Howard stopped the boats and none were on the high seas drowning? How many drowned on the six boats returned to Indonesia waters when Howard was PM prior to the boats stopping? How was it not legal under international law when Howard stopped the boats and only the left whined about it and practically no one else? Why is it not practical when steps are taken that work to stop the boats and reduce costs and the incarceration of immigrants whom arrive via illegal means? Why do other countries stop and turn back boats every day and it's legal for them. eg: US, Sri Lanka, Israel. Why does the left think that it's the governments business to support criminal people smugglers?

How many drowned on the six boats returned to Indonesia waters when Howard was PM prior to the boats stopping?

A number drowned when the last boat turned back sunk a few hundred meters from shore, this is the reason that Howard stopped sending them back.


Quote:

How was it not safe when Howard stopped the boats and none were on the high seas drowning?

Boats arrived each and every year.

There is not ONE leftard here even acknowledged Rudd agreed with the turn the boats back policy

Not one leftard acknowledge that this was and is Rudd's policy

He has never revoked this position

Rudd supports turning back the boats

Dnarever wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 3:09pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 11:16am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 10:04am: Rudd mistakenly did state this to the world in 2007, however Bob Brown was yet to give KRudd the actual policy he was to follow. Bob did clear this up with KRudd. Or you could tell the truth that after the election he found that it was not safe, practical or legal under international law. How was it not safe when Howard stopped the boats and none were on the high seas drowning? How many drowned on the six boats returned to Indonesia waters when Howard was PM prior to the boats stopping? How was it not legal under international law when Howard stopped the boats and only the left whined about it and practically no one else? Why is it not practical when steps are taken that work to stop the boats and reduce costs and the incarceration of immigrants whom arrive via illegal means? Why do other countries stop and turn back boats every day and it's legal for them. eg: US, Sri Lanka, Israel. Why does the left think that it's the governments business to support criminal people smugglers? How many drowned on the six boats returned to Indonesia waters when Howard was PM prior to the boats stopping? A number drowned when the last boat turned back sunk a few hundred meters from shore, this is the reason that Howard stopped sending them back. Quote: How was it not safe when Howard stopped the boats and none were on the high seas drowning? Boats arrived each and every year.

Like one a year for three years, and none for another year.
Can't get much better than that really.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 3:09pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 11:16am: [quote author=chicken_lipsforme link=1373154694/1#1 date=1373155461]Rudd mistakenly did state this to the world in 2007, however Bob Brown was yet to give KRudd the actual policy he was to follow. Bob did clear this up with KRudd. Or you could tell the truth that after the election he found that it was not safe, practical or legal under international law. How was it not safe when Howard stopped the boats and none were on the high seas drowning? How many drowned on the six boats returned to Indonesia waters when Howard was PM prior to the boats stopping? How was it not legal under international law when Howard stopped the boats and only the left whined about it and practically no one else? Why is it not practical when steps are taken that work to stop the boats and reduce costs and the incarceration of immigrants whom arrive via illegal means? Why do other countries stop and turn back boats every day and it's legal for them. eg: US, Sri Lanka, Israel. Why does the left think that it's the governments business to support criminal people smugglers?

How many drowned on the six boats returned to Indonesia waters when Howard was PM prior to the boats stopping?

A number drowned when the last boat turned back sunk a few hundred meters from shore, this is the reason that Howard stopped sending them back.

[quote]

Wrong.
The turn back the boats policy was not about turning back sinking boats a few hundred meters off shore, and never was.
Howard was the last person to allow foreigners and criminals to dictate or to pressure our border protection policy.
Sewing of lips didn't work.
Starvation didn't work.
Burning detention centres didn't work.
And neither did sabotaging of the boats.
There has been more people lost at sea under Labor's watch than in the twelve years under John Howard.
The Coalitions policy is safer.

Abbott's Navy will simply point the Fraud-Boats in the direction of the Indonesian coast, and after locking the steering wheel to position the rudder to take the Fraud-People back from whence they came, Abbott's Navy will then retire to Christmas Island for a well earned rest.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 4:12pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 3:09pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 11:16am: [quote author=chicken_lipsforme link=1373154694/1#1 date=1373155461]Rudd mistakenly did state this to the world in 2007, however Bob Brown was yet to give KRudd the actual policy he was to follow. Bob did clear this up with KRudd. Or you could tell the truth that after the election he found that it was not safe, practical or legal under international law. How was it not safe when Howard stopped the boats and none were on the high seas drowning? How many drowned on the six boats returned to Indonesia waters when Howard was PM prior to the boats stopping? How was it not legal under international law when Howard stopped the boats and only the left whined about it and practically no one else? Why is it not practical when steps are taken that work to stop the boats and reduce costs and the incarceration of immigrants whom arrive via illegal means? Why do other countries stop and turn back boats every day and it's legal for them. eg: US, Sri Lanka, Israel. Why does the left think that it's the governments business to support criminal people smugglers? How many drowned on the six boats returned to Indonesia waters when Howard was PM prior to the boats stopping? A number drowned when the last boat turned back sunk a few hundred meters from shore, this is the reason that Howard stopped sending them back. [quote] Wrong. The turn back the boats policy was not about turning back sinking boats a few hundred meters off shore, and never was. Howard was the last person to allow foreigners and criminals to dictate or to pressure our border protection policy. Sewing of lips didn't work. Starvation didn't work. Burning detention centres didn't work. And neither did sabotaging of the boats. There has been more people lost at sea under Labor's watch than in the twelve years under John Howard. The Coalitions policy is safer.

Rudd supported turning back boats as well

If Rudd does it, it will be teh bestest policy evar and their will be silence from the leftards

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

Rudd is a brilliant tactician and enjoys a much higher level of personal support than Abbot. Labor will get that 2 percent, if not more. I personally would have voted Abbot over Gillard but now Rudds back will vote for the ALP, I know many swinging voters like me will now do the same.

the alp failed under rudd. the failed under gillard.
Why would you want them back under rudd again .

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

ian wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 11:23am: Rudd is a brilliant tactician and enjoys a much higher level of personal support than Abbot. Labor will get that 2 percent, if not more. I personally would have voted Abbot over Gillard but now Rudds back will vote for the ALP, I know many swinging voters like me will now do the same. the alp failed under rudd. the failed under gillard. Why would you want them back under rudd again .

The unwashed majority don't want Abbott the Thug.

The unwashed majority do not contribute to society .
the unwashed majority weaken our society.

How is it that after all this time Australia doesn't have a spy satellite positioned in geosynchronous orbit over the southern coast of Indonesia ready to detect Fraud-Boats heading our way?

And how is it we don't have Indonesians on the Australian payroll whose job it is to monitor the southern coast for Fraud-Boat preparation activity?

I can't stand a bar of Foreign Minister Bob Carr, but he DID surprise me the other day when he said, during a TV interview, that "100% of the current crop of asylum-seekers this year have been nothing more than economic migrants".

That raised my eye-brows. It drew howls of protest and condemnation from the Left. And it even brought out that dinosaur of the Far Left ~ Malcolm Fraser ~ to raise his ugly head to say Carr had been speaking 'nonsense'.

Bob Carr himself is a Lefty who once relied very heavily on the NSW Greens vote to keep him in office as NSW premier ~ a job he did with criminal incompetence. 

And now to hear him dismiss all these asylum-seekers as Mickey Mouse clubbers is quite a change of attitude in him.

Maybe he's finally saying what he knows to be true because Gillard is gone and Labor will be out on its arse for at least the next 3 elections.

But I think Rudd can still win it.

Just as Labor swapped Gillard for Rudd to win the next election ~~ so too should the Libs swap Abbott for Turnbull for the same reason.

If Abbott takes the Libs to the election, I won't be betting any of my money. It'll be a very close call.

Kevin is going to force Tony further to the right by stealing his policies..that should be worth at least an extra 2% of the vote to Kevin  :D

adelcrow wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

Kevin is going to force Tony further to the right by stealing his policies..that should be worth at least an extra 2% of the vote to Kevin  :D

I certainly hope he does

Maqqa wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 7:14pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 7:11pm: Kevin is going to force Tony further to the right by stealing his policies..that should be worth at least an extra 2% of the vote to Kevin  :D I certainly hope he does

You dont need to hope coz its already happening  ;D

Going to be interesting.  He would be across all sorts of surveys by now, that if he ignored before, he would be in no doubt about at all now, boat people are absolutely toxic electorally.  And not as the luvvies would expect, from rusted on red necks, biggest negative hits are from refugees and other first and second generation immigrants.

Seems to me, that the luvvies are arguing, demonising and accusing of racism the wrong people.  Or at best, a more palatable target, bit hard to berate a settled refugee by accusing them of racism.  ;D

Maqqa wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 7:14pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 7:11pm: Kevin is going to force Tony further to the right by stealing his policies..that should be worth at least an extra 2% of the vote to Kevin  :D I certainly hope he does

Maqqa, your interest in politics comes down to the spelling of two names: Labor and Liberal.

Anything else is far too.complicated.

Quote:

Bob Carr himself is a Lefty

Bob Carr could only be considered to be a genuine "lefty" on some sort of Bizarro World.

He hasn't changed his views at all. He's probably much closer in ideology to John Howard than Rudd or especially Gillard. Just because he was NSW Labor doesn't mean he was ever a "lefty" while NSW Premier.

Bob Carr has had homosexual affairs with the full knowledge of his Malaysian wife.
The last one was with a male US Author.

This man is suitable for Government?

adelcrow wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

Kevin is going to force Tony further to the right by stealing his policies..that should be worth at least an extra 2% of the vote to Kevin

No the strategy of using Abbott as leader is designed to nullify that possibility, A leader not capable of producing a policy is safe from policy theft. Maybe a few rather serious problems down the line but they can be sorted after the election.

Karnal wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 9:26pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 7:14pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 7:11pm: Kevin is going to force Tony further to the right by stealing his policies..that should be worth at least an extra 2% of the vote to Kevin  :D I certainly hope he does Maqqa, your interest in politics comes down to the spelling of two names: Labor and Liberal. Anything else is far too.complicated.

My interest comes down to oratory tactics - which is too high level for you to understand

Do you even understand the Labor tactic which is the underlining topic of this thread?

More than likely not

Maqqa: the loon's loon.

Life_goes_on wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 10:05pm:

Maqqa: the loon's loon.

takes on to know one

adelcrow wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 7:14pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 7:11pm: Kevin is going to force Tony further to the right by stealing his policies..that should be worth at least an extra 2% of the vote to Kevin  :D I certainly hope he does You dont need to hope coz its already happening  ;D

The ALP can't implement their own policies without fking them up. If you champion them pinching the LIbs ideas you should vote for the coalition, but then again we don't need dikheads infecting our side of politics with fked up lefty ideals

Dale Ftard wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 11:09pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 7:17pm: Maqqa wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 7:14pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 7:11pm: Kevin is going to force Tony further to the right by stealing his policies..that should be worth at least an extra 2% of the vote to Kevin  :D I certainly hope he does You dont need to hope coz its already happening  ;D The ALP can't implement their own policies without fking them up. If you champion them pinching the LIbs ideas you should vote for the coalition, but then again we don't need dikheads infecting our side of politics with fked up lefty ideals

And that is still on every ones mind.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 1:51pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 12:09pm: why wont tony have the national ssecurity briefings rudd has offered? Rudd is not competent in giving national security briefings. Rudd is not competent, he is a dunderclumper. Period. Given that the department of Immigration has allowed the release into the community of unidentified country shoppers under the watchful eye of Labor, Rudd is the last person on the planet to be conducting national security briefings. Labor has done far more damage to our national security in five short years than what has occurred in the past seventy years.

Rudd isn't giving the national security briefing.  He is offering for A national security briefing to be provided to Tony.  By people who are in charge of national security. You know, experts.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 1:51pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 12:09pm: why wont tony have the national ssecurity briefings rudd has offered? Rudd is not competent in giving national security briefings. Rudd is not competent, he is a dunderclumper. Period. Given that the department of Immigration has allowed the release into the community of unidentified country shoppers under the watchful eye of Labor, Rudd is the last person on the planet to be conducting national security briefings. Labor has done far more damage to our national security in five short years than what has occurred in the past seventy years. Rudd isn't giving the national security briefing.  He is offering for A national security briefing to be provided to Tony.  By people who are in charge of national security. You know, experts.

rudd made the problem.
he invited them over here agaisnt ALL advice.
any 'briefing' he offers will say exactly what he wants it to say.

it's his problem, I'ld refuse any hand in it either.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 1:51pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 12:09pm: why wont tony have the national ssecurity briefings rudd has offered? Rudd is not competent in giving national security briefings. Rudd is not competent, he is a dunderclumper. Period. Given that the department of Immigration has allowed the release into the community of unidentified country shoppers under the watchful eye of Labor, Rudd is the last person on the planet to be conducting national security briefings. Labor has done far more damage to our national security in five short years than what has occurred in the past seventy years. Rudd isn't giving the national security briefing.  He is offering for A national security briefing to be provided to Tony.  By people who are in charge of national security. You know, experts.

Tony doesn't require anything from KRudd, except firstly, to know the date of the election and secondly, For KRudd to keep doing what KRudd has always done best.
After the election though, Tony will have his national security brief daily.

Abbott doesn't want to work with facts - he prefers to make them up himself.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 7:59pm:

Abbott doesn't want to work with facts - he prefers to make them up himself.

Abbott doesn't need a security briefing to know the fact that a few hundred more country shoppers have arrived since last week on top of the 45,000 since Labor took office.
Abbott doesn't need a security briefing to know Labor has been grossly incompetent on this issue.

Asylum, human security and protection is a human right under Australian and international law.  Any person has the legal right to seek refuge from injustice wherever it may be found...Australia is a sanctuary for victims not their Prison...

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 7:59pm: Abbott doesn't want to work with facts - he prefers to make them up himself. Abbott doesn't need a security briefing to know the fact that a few hundred more country shoppers have arrived since last week on top of the 45,000 since Labor took office. Abbott doesn't need a security briefing to know Labor has been grossly incompetent on this issue.

so you know what is in the security briefing chickenlips? wow, I'm impressed ... and all this time I thought you just made 'facts' up to suit your argument.

Still no lefty is prepared to admit Rudd support turning back the boats

No courage from the left!!!

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 7:59pm: Abbott doesn't want to work with facts - he prefers to make them up himself. Abbott doesn't need a security briefing to know the fact that a few hundred more country shoppers have arrived since last week on top of the 45,000 since Labor took office. Abbott doesn't need a security briefing to know Labor has been grossly incompetent on this issue.

But maybe he does to stop making silly commitments that he can't keep.

Maqqa wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 11:02pm:

Still no lefty is prepared to admit Rudd support turning back the boats No courage from the left!!!

no lefty is prepared to admit Rudd support turning back the boats

With your comprehension skills how would you know?

Dnarever wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 11:07pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 11:02pm: Still no lefty is prepared to admit Rudd support turning back the boats No courage from the left!!! no lefty is prepared to admit Rudd support turning back the boats With your comprehension skills how would you know?

I know you are all cowards

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:31pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 12:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 12:12pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 11:16am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 10:04am: Rudd mistakenly did state this to the world in 2007, however Bob Brown was yet to give KRudd the actual policy he was to follow. Bob did clear this up with KRudd. Or you could tell the truth that after the election he found that it was not safe, practical or legal under international law. except that it WAS safe (no injuries or deaths in doing so a dozen times previously). WAS practical (since it worked) and LEGAL since it was in international waters. are you a national security advisor? Do you know something we don't when it comes to nationa secuiryt? Why won't Tony take the security briefings Rudd has offered? do you wish to dispute any of those facts?  no one was injured. it is obviously practical since it was done at least a dozen times and legality was supported by a Vice Admiral of the Navy - hardly a nobody.  plus, most sovereign nations will intercept vessels heading for their waters already. nothing new there.

no one was injured

People drowned.


LEGAL since it was in international waters


Quote:

But there have been questions in recent weeks about whether the Australian Navy should tow a boat through international waters. Former defence chief Chris Barrie said the approach “might become an act of piracy” and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees said it could breach international obligations.

in doing so a dozen times previously

It was done a lot less than a dozen times.

It looks like you got nothing right ???

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:13pm:

Rudd will say whatever he thinks people want him to say and promise everything people want to hear and when elected will do exactly what he wants to do - which is very little and then be replaced by Bill Shorten.

Rudd will say whatever he thinks people want him to say and promise everything people want to hear

He is going to me too Tony  ???

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 4:12pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 3:09pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 11:16am: [quote author=chicken_lipsforme link=1373154694/1#1 date=1373155461]Rudd mistakenly did state this to the world in 2007, however Bob Brown was yet to give KRudd the actual policy he was to follow. Bob did clear this up with KRudd. Or you could tell the truth that after the election he found that it was not safe, practical or legal under international law. How was it not safe when Howard stopped the boats and none were on the high seas drowning? How many drowned on the six boats returned to Indonesia waters when Howard was PM prior to the boats stopping? How was it not legal under international law when Howard stopped the boats and only the left whined about it and practically no one else? Why is it not practical when steps are taken that work to stop the boats and reduce costs and the incarceration of immigrants whom arrive via illegal means? Why do other countries stop and turn back boats every day and it's legal for them. eg: US, Sri Lanka, Israel. Why does the left think that it's the governments business to support criminal people smugglers? How many drowned on the six boats returned to Indonesia waters when Howard was PM prior to the boats stopping? A number drowned when the last boat turned back sunk a few hundred meters from shore, this is the reason that Howard stopped sending them back. [quote] Wrong. The turn back the boats policy was not about turning back sinking boats a few hundred meters off shore, and never was. Howard was the last person to allow foreigners and criminals to dictate or to pressure our border protection policy. Sewing of lips didn't work. Starvation didn't work. Burning detention centres didn't work. And neither did sabotaging of the boats. There has been more people lost at sea under Labor's watch than in the twelve years under John Howard. The Coalitions policy is safer.

Wrong.
The turn back the boats policy was not about turning back sinking boats a few hundred meters off shore, and never was.

Conservative comprehension is a real problem isn't it.

Maqqa wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 11:17pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 11:07pm: Maqqa wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 11:02pm: Still no lefty is prepared to admit Rudd support turning back the boats No courage from the left!!! no lefty is prepared to admit Rudd support turning back the boats With your comprehension skills how would you know? I know you are all cowards

Did you see one single person saying that he never said it ????