Because the Labor party are clearly not governing as they are too busy trying to sort out their problems, but that's probably in my imagination too, or I am watching the media.........OMG I shouldn't watch TV or read a newspaper now should I because at the end of the day that could be mind altering.

You don't think that the border issue is not costing the Government, you, me and all taxpayers any money......really?

I pose a question to you...........How much of your personal income are you prepared to fore go in extra taxation?

The Gillard and Rudd speeches for tonight's "peaceful" transfer of power do not seem, AFAIK, to have mention the boat people issue. Problem solved!

I have no opinion of the state of the world with and without, my post was about my friend's testimony of her experiences, I have had no such experience and hold no opinion.

So you would have us leave those poor Iraqi (or whatever) people not aligned to Saddam's (or whomever's) wishes as lambs to the slaughter? Or perhaps we should be just mobilising whole communities and hundreds of thousands of people to flee? Are you aware that some of the Kurdish people it is known Saddam chemically attacked were on the way out of the country? Sometimes the end does have to justify the means, and after my long conversations with Nura about life in Iraq under Saddam I thoroughly agree that this was one of those cases. Even she thinks the actions taken were right, and she and her family had to flee the conflict zone.

Another thing I forgot, whilst they literally fled with only what they could wear and carry, Nura had no passport, she had no need for one, and probably wouldn't have been issued one anyway. Yet the family still made sure they were carrying birth certificates and other documentary items proving their identities and guess what? Being legit, NOT ONCE did they consider not having the documents with them.

Aaron was drawing an analogy using the then Prime Minister as an analogue for his friend. Both expressed opinions and he was posing the argument that, just because he was repeating that opinion didn't mean that it's necessarily his opinion. He's not saying that either of you really met Prime Minister Gillard.

Although I'm explaining the analogy, I disagree agree with it in that I thought that Aaron was agreeing with and held the opinion that Iraq (in its entirety) was safer subsequent to Saddam Hussein's overthrow than during his reign.

Q2: Why didn't the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd gumint supply the detainees with spray cans?

A2: Matches are cheaper than spraycans !

More likely cigarette lighters, probably has more to do with us not being allowed to deny them their 'right' to smoke than cost of spray paint...

People are denied the right to smoke all the time now days - for example, involuntary mental patients in NSW are not permitted to smoke at all anywhere, even outdoors.  Even as a non-smoker I think that's our moralistic nanny state being unbelievably cruel to the most vulnerable; if you are having a psychotic episode then a slow lingering tobacco death is the least of your worries.

Whatever the reason for implementing this policy, smokers are addicted to a very powerful drug and yet if they become sectioned they're told no smoking under any circumstances - anywhere - indoors or outdoors.  Just because someone is psychotic is no reason to further punish them by also making them go cold turkey from nicotine, even if it is 'for their own good'.  It simply compounds their suffering.

Regarding the arson attack on the facilities at Nauru, which cost $60m damage:

Q1: Why did the 500 rioters (out of 550) burn the place down, instead of spraying grafitti?

A1: The rioters had no spray cans!

Q2: Why didn't the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd gumint supply the detainees with spray cans?

A2: Matches are cheaper than spraycans !

Q3: 50 of the detainees did not riot & arsonate. What if you cannot tell the difference between the 500 rioters and 50 non-rioters?

A4: It is better to let 500 guilty go free, than to falsely find guilty one innocent person.

Q4: Where to next?

A4: The 500 have, albeit bad, character and have therefore passed the character test and are eligible to come to Oz.

The Austrian Chancellor invited the Germans in, there was no invasion there, and the Sudetenland of Czechoslavakia was GIVEN to the Hitler's Germans in the Munich Agreement which I recall was signed by France, the Italians (for what that was worth) and none other than Neville Chamberlain on behalf of Britain. Hitler moved to occupy accordingly, to say Hitler invaded the Sudetenland is to draw a misdirected bow.

Some of this history is dubious:

* Austria was invaded to forestall a referendum on the unification issue.
* The germanic Sudetenland was occupied with the agreement of UK and France; Mussolini was more of a witness.
* This was "last territorial ambition" of Germany.
* The rest of non-germanic Czechoslovakia was taken over without any agreement from FR or UK.
* So much for "last territorial ambitions". Only lasted 6 months.
* FR and UK offer guarantee to Poland.
* Germany invades Poland on 1 September 1939, and rest is history.

Another refugee from Bangladeshi has been caught molesting Australian women on trains, including a blind woman, whom he molested twice.

Remember the assault case in the Macquarie Uni student's accommodation.

Bangladeshi (and other South Asian) molest their women all the time, and cannot see why they should not be able to molest women when they come here.

Bangladeshi law re the "right to molest" continues to apply here, though such refugees have the right to choose softer punishments according to Australian law.

See: http://www.skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=892457

White Australians males do it in pubs every weekend.

And two wrongs don't make a right.  Going by this logic, why should we add to the home grown variety when there is no need to?  It sounds like you are more or less condoning this type of behaviour by that statement?

Or do you not like white Australian males?

And two wrongs don't make a right.  Going by this logic, why should we add to the home grown variety when there is no need to?  It sounds like you are more or less condoning this type of behaviour by that statement?

Or do you not like white Australian males?

No, it is simpler than that, he is a pom, he does not like rednecks period.

Edited for accuracy.

Just indirectly querying why someone would want to highlight one race over another when it comes to anti-social behaviour?

You don't seem to have a problem with it, so that speaks volumes.

I would say the poster was highlighting the perils of having an open borders policy, with self selected country shopping to the highest bidder, without referring to specific cases which may be before the courts.

It is quite obvious that the present Government has lost control of the immigration system and subsequently has compromised national security.

A Bangladeshi molests a woman and all of a sudden national security is compromised

It is quite obvious our borders were compromised a long, long time ago by the drug dealers that provide you with your daily hit.

That's just ridiculous.