Time to move on

[daydream**believer]

Every election time sees the Lib and Lab supporter on here having a go at eachother, but never before, on CS or the past CW board, have i seen it carry on and on and on after the election is over.

Its ridiculous.

Its done. Its over.

Let it go until the next election.

[i-need-a-martini]

I like a good political discussion. And forums like this are appropriate for them.

But political discussion should be about relevent, timely issues.  As far as I can see all the Labow supporter threads are exactly. So no problem from me.

[izabsmiling]

I find it kind of weird that felt the need to add the bit about Governing for those who didn't vote for him too.

That really  shoud go without saying.I mean who did he think needed reminding of that (him,the Australian public,those who voted for him ?) ....or did he add it as something to make him look good ...like an 'extra' rather than just something which  is the done thing 

The OP has been asked ...I'll add this as a good thing  .

I suppose like everything the beauty may be the eye of the beholder ?

Tony Abbott has wound back code of conduct to let ministers keep shareholdings in public companies that were banned under previous Governments 

[***super_nova***]

---

@daydream**believer wrote:

Anyway, as i said, ive said my piece and that is all.

I only come on CS a couple of times a day now anyway.

Will leave you to it

---

You have 2 choices, it really is very simple; you either just ignore the topics that you are not interested in, or find yourself some "nice" forum where politics are not discussed. 

But how dare you to tell people what they should or should not be talking about? 

[just_me_karen]

And again, the lib lovies can't add a single thing except to criticise a previous government and the poster.

Icy I can easily list many achievements of the previous govt. Here are some:

- apology to the stolen generation
- successfully reduced the number of asylum seeker boats (although I dislike the policy)
- successfully managed our economy through very tough times
- took the risk on a stimulus policy which protected employment and our economy, whilst other countries took austerity measures and failed
- provided the world's best treasurer in Wayne Swan
- attained AAA credit rating whilst other comparative countries slumped in rankings
- improved indigenous literacy by 20%
- successfully managed carbon outputs
- provided our first female prime minister
- improved our relations with Asian neighbours
- made the biggest increases in aged pensions for decades
- Gonski
- disability care


And heaps more.

Libs? Zilch! roflmao 😄

Unless you'd care to correct me?

Also, why do lib supporters now demand no political threads, yet continue to start them? That seems like lib double standards to me.

[monman12]

JMK, I judge people by the accuracy of their posts, and their cyclopian views.  I then by extrapolation judge the whole post and subsequent ones. However, that is in this world not in your parallel one, so I will select just one of your listed many  chuckleworthy  "achievements":-

JMK: ".... I can easily list many achievements of the previous govt. Here are some:"

"- successfully reduced the number of asylum seeker boats (although I dislike the policy)"        Reduced??????

JMK:: "Unless you'd care to correct me? "       QED JMK:-

Chuckle.

 nɥºɾ

[grumpy*cat*rocks]

I've logged on this morning and lo and behold all of polocross's posts have disappeared.

Did his computer swallow him (and his posts) up?

[freddie*rooster]

[just_me_karen]

Oh no, I really liked that post ...the one in all caps lol. It was one of my all time favourite posts.

Mm when people chop off parts of graphs to suit their agenda, I instantly feel derision. Ditto for when people claim they're listing achievements but in actual fact live in the past and are blind to the present. And again, when people try to stifle discussion by criticising people who have opposing opinions. Do you feel the same?

[polksaladallie]

---

@my*favourite*poster wrote:

---

ya know what I think?

IF these Peace talks in Burma actually work, then we should see a decrease in those seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive. It will take a few years I reckon, but this new Burmese president seems pretty set on making things so that "his people" can return "home" and rebuild their communities and their lives.

I wish with every fibre of my being that this will happen. I know it will still be scary and rough for a while, but just maybe, maybe one day, they just might get their lives and "homes" back.

Maybe it will haoppen in time to help Mr Abbott's (audacious) plans, may be we won't see any real effects for a few more government changes, but whoever is leading us at the time, the victory will belong to the Burmese Government, not ours.

Once the Peace Agreements happen, then the real work will begion, and they will need a whole lot of support from the rest of the world  to rebuild their lives and communities.

---

Huh?

[monman12]

JMK: "Mm when people chop off parts of graphs to suit their agenda, I instantly feel derision. Ditto for when people claim they're listing achievements but in actual fact live in the past and are blind to the present. And again, when people try to stifle discussion by criticising people who have opposing opinions. Do you feel the same?"

So what part of the graph is chopped off JMK? prove your unfounded insinuation.  I will assist by providing the source:-

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp131...

JMK: "when people try to stifle discussion by criticising people who have opposing opinions. Do you feel the same?"

I  will always criticise  (take to task) those of any political colour who make statements that are demonstrably wrong as is yours JMK,   that is not stifling debate,  just indicating poor research and/or deliberate bias such as this nonsense one of yours JMK:

JMK: ".... I can easily list many achievements of the previous govt. Here are some:"
"- successfully reduced the number of asylum seeker boats (although I dislike the policy)"  

The graph is quick visual presentation of the actual historical flow of asylum seeker boats, however here are the actual figures from the same source (also unchopped)-

Year      Number of boats        Number of people
                                                     (excludes crew)

1996      19                                    660
1997      11                                    339   
1998      17                                   200           
1999      86                                   3721
2000      51                                   2939
2001      43                                   5516   
2002      1                                     1
2003      1                                     58
2004      1                                     15
2005      4                                     11
2006      6                                     60
2007      5                                    148
2008      7                                    161
2009      60                                  2726
2010      134                               6555
2011      69                                 4564   
2012      278                              17202
2013      196                              13108   
(to June)
     
JMK The above hardly underwrites  this nonsensical comment: "- successfully reduced the number of asylum seeker boats " but is an indication of post reliability, even allowing for bias.

However, the chuckle value  is appreciated.