Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 7:20am:


Refugees can't have iPhones?

You can also analyse things in logic way beyond irrational rhetoric.
There are only three reasons for a leader to act against own people and country.

- Ignorance
- Madness
- Corruption

Angela Merkel was a research scientist with Phd in physical chemist and so far hasn't show signs of some mental illness so ignorance and madness are imidiatle dismissed reasons for her actions.
Only reason that can explain her destructive anti German policy is heavy corruption.
The most probably she was supported by powerful Wall Street Oligarchs to come in power and personally got wast amount of money to act against the interests of German and European people.
The biggest fear of the current  world No 1 power is political and economical alliance Berlin - Moscow - Beijing.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 7:25am:



Don't you have a skate-board to fix or something?

Some of us are tired of your 'attitude' and your crap.

athos wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 7:37am:



You may be on the money.
Wall St is the home of the alphas and they understand that

"all the good that you create , will be detroyed,
unless you protect it"

so the destruction of the middle east, and now of another rival herd(the eurpeans), would be in keeping with the laws of the natural order of things.

Smart,  very smart of the americans  ,  ...... 
quite surprising of the europeans to be so submissive though, 

Vlad and Donald can carve up the pasture , some time down the track

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 8:02am:


As I told you earlier, alevine would like to shut this thread down. There are some topics he will stuff full of his trolling in the hope they will go away.
I think it's a psychological issue in that he needs to shut out hearing about some things in case they disturb the balance of his beliefs. Many, not all, of the people who have the global progressive perspective, are afflicted with the same problem.

But he's one of the worst. He's like that pesky mosquito in the night. There's always one of them and trying to get rid of it is often so difficult you give up.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 12:47pm:


MORTEIN is the answer. I used Mortein on gregg, and he hardly ever bothers me now.

The thing NOT to do is take them up on their offer to play a game of tit-for-tat with them. DON'T give them oxygen by entering into a dialogue with them.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 8:44am:


But THERE'S the irony!

Merkel invites over a million genocidal Jew-haters to come take up residence where even in my own life-time the Nazis were railroading Jews to the gas chambers.

You couldn't sell the story to Hollywood as a script for a movie because it's so insanely unbelievable.

They should put Merkel in a padded cell and throw away the key.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 6:29am:


See all my previous posts, Bogie - even ones in this thread.

You get rid of invaders by putting up some razor wire or throwing cauldrons of boiling oil over them. That usually works.

You get rid of rapists by putting them in jail. That usually works too.

Europe is in a bind. It can't send Syrians and Libyans back to war zones - ethically or legally. Alas, Europe is stuck with its rule of law.

By logical extension, please see all my previous posts on our obligations under the refugee convention and our obligations to the Australian constitution.

You may well be right. Who knows? There may come a time when Australia chooses to discriminate against those of a particular racial or religious group, but it will be forced to do so legally - either by changes to particular legislation, or changes to the constitution itself.

As we all know, that time is not now. It would be impossible to exclude all Muslims from entering Australia. Apart from Australia's obligations under the UNHCR, the only refugees coming in now are those who arrive by plane as tourists and seek asylum. If rejected, such people are free to take their case all the way to the High Court if they choose. The courts work under the constitution, which includes, of all things, religious freedom.

I'm not sure how any government who wanted to reject people on the basis of religion could legally do this. One thing is certain: a referendum to change the constitution over this issue would never pass the party rooms of the major parties, never mind the parliament - and never mind the electorate. 

As you can see, your idea is doomed from the start, never mind the ethical quagmire associated with it. You'd do best getting used to Muslims, but my guess is you don't know any.

Come to Western Sydney, Bogie, we have plenty. I even have a Muslim prayer hall on my street, and touch wood, I've never been raped.

As someone who lives and works with Muslims, I can't see how your logical extension applies - at all. All I'm reading here is a lot of disconnected hysteria. If my experience changes, I'll let you know.