On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch@exemail.com.au> wrote:
On 26/09/2011 11:39 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell<m.mitch@exemail.com.au> wrote: Not a screw-up, just a politician lying.
I suspect the Admiral lied.
What, everyone around John Howard was lying and he was the lone beacon of truth? :-#
I would have thought they could still be treated humanely and processed overseas. Then those that meet the requirements could be found suitable places elsewhere to act as a deterrent. With all due respect to Malaysia I don't agree with the Gillard solution.
The problem is that the only reason for processing them overseas is to permit treating them worse than could be done in Australia.
The reason, as I said, is as a deterrent.
You are advocating illegal measures to deter people from seeking to have their human rights protected.
His election as VP after Black South Africans were allowed to vote indicates that the majority of the ZA population were happy with what he did. But that doesn't mean he had an electoral mandate.
On what planet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederik_Willem_de_Klerk No ZA politician would have been elected on a platform of ending Apartheid. de Klerk was elected as a "conservative" politician and then later became "enlightened" and after taking power after P.W. Botha resigned due to health reasons he took over as president. de Klerk didn't run a presidential election campaign for ANYTHING, so he didn't have an electoral mandate.
Having a representative Democracy and allowing politicians some freedom to vote with their conscience after elected has real benefits.
As a rule I would agree. I think most have values similar to the rest of us. With the exception of Julia's knowledge of economics. Which is surpassed by the average Second Form Economics student.
If politicians were to act on the basis of any sane economical analysis we would have a lot of renewable energy already and no uranium mines.
This only represents YOUR view of _sane_. This nation has higher levels of tolerance than that.
If you add up the costs of cleaning up after mining operations then almost no modern mining operations are profitable for the state. The tax revenues from mining don't come close to the clean-up costs. While conservatives are usually happy to leave pollution in the environment (often becuase they believe that Jesus will return before it becomes a problem) that attitude doesn't work well for uranium mines. Tolerance isn't something that matters to an economical analysis. It's just a matter of money. Mines are barely profitable for mining companies that don't have to clean up their mess. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/