So if, as you are suggesting, that most muslim nations are populated by more benign regimes that are not oppressive to women(well they must be, there are billions of them - well 1.5 billion to be somewhat more precise), why can't she go to one of these places.

It's a very long way between Iran and north coast Australia.

There is even the world's most populated muslim nation just to our north.

P.S. I believe in the Bible - and what it teaches including the teaching on homosexuality.

It has given the Western world a fantastic foundation making it the prosperous safe place it is.

That other systems are not reflective of Christianity and not being such wholesome places to live, just reinforces my argument.

Easy, because she knew that as a refugee in Australia, she would be given the standard issue Point Piper mansion, jet ski, stock options, $10000/month in welfare, cosmetic surgery to improve her appearance, and a new mosque built in any town of her choice. That's why she went to all the effort of getting a Year 12 certificate despite speaking hardly any English :ugh:


Lol. The self-awareness meter is barely wiggling I expect.

I'm sure the devout Muslims in Saudi think their country is very wholesome indeed. They're probably horrified to learn that in other countries, women are allowed to vote and drive and reveal their faces in public.

Just like you think the "good old fashioned" (aka "wholesome" :yuk:) days where only men went to work, wives were seen not heard, negroes helped around the house, people went to church every Sunday, sodomy was a criminal offence and nobody had sex until they were married before a priest were the way things should have stayed.

Who are you to say their book is wrong and yours is right?
Unless you're gay (Westboro Baptist Church) or believe in the wrong type of Christianity (North v South Ireland), or have the wrong skin colour (KKK). Or your ethnicity is wrong (Balkans).

The key word is believe. Anyone can believe anything, literally. It requires no facts or evidence. The bible states that the universe revolves around us, it does not. It states as you say, homosexuality is wrong and is a sin, it is not.

But no matter how many facts and how much evidence is trotted out to believers it doesn't matter, because when you believe something, all the logic goes away. Look what the Catholics did to Galileo for stating what he saw through his telescope. By the way, the word christian was a word used many decades ago to fight abortion. referring to individual sects under that banner is much more accurate. The word Christian also has a habit of making everything "ok"

All I had to do was mention the word "Bible", and all the specious arguments start flying.

After they were married my mother still worked whilst WW2 was still going, but stopped when my father returned from service and not again(part time) till the last child, me, was well into primary school.

She observed the advice of her parish priest that "a mother's first duty is to her children".

We never had any home help from ANYONE(or my grandparents or great grandparents), even though my father's war caused illnesses(led to his very early death at 57 yrs. leaving my mother a widow for longer than she was married) would have justified my mother receiving some.

I don't find the fact that a new arrival - all of them - get taxpayer funded benefits whilst there are a class of war widows who are denied ALL centrelink benefits because they own too many assets- very uplifting.

But these war widow's husbands were in the front line - my father included - defending the country.

My parents didn't piss up the money at the RSL club, or do it on the pokies.

They saved it instead- or payed for my Catholic school education which took the pressure off the taxpayer.

But the new arrivals get taxpayer funding.

Care packages- new electrical appliances, free housing, etc.

Chuboy, if you want to encourage immigration from societies that are avowed to hate our way of life, please accommodate/ feed/ educate/ clothe these people at your own expense.

Don't ask that these costs be born by those that would like to see dependants of those that defended our country get adequate or at least equitable = meaning equal care, compared with those that have not put in DOLLAR ONE to contributing to the well being of this country.

I'm not, but the Creator is.

Find out who is right on Judgement Day.

Channel Ten/ Waleed Aly have been trying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmKpm_9BtHc

Ok here is proof..the UN don't listen to politicians....the elected representatives of countries. They think they are a law to themselves.


Government set to focus Syrian refugee program on Christians in wake of Paris attacks: Scott Morrison - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Aus politics or 'personal rant thread'?

good to see the feds investigating the Ashby saga, I think Brough, Roy and everyone's favourite Pyne will be extremely concerned at the moment, what's the chances of three front benchers getting the old heave ho..
Back to your religious rants now !

Hey, Pynes a 'fixer' didn't you know? He 'fixes' things!!!

I sort of thought the UN trying to dictate to us, Hempy, who we are allowed to ,et into the country was relavent.

I'm sorry if I missed the headline that said.. UN now runs the world and can ignore elected governments because they do not fit it's agenda.

Yeah, I mean if you're in advanced age, sitting on land in Sydney that's now worth well north of a million bucks, you deserve money from the government. After all, you were married to a man who died serving the country.

Don't give the Muzzers any ideas though. Next thing we'll have them signing up for duty then faking their deaths in the field so that their multiple wives all get war widow benefits :rolleyes:

Off topic of course but your Catholic school still got money from the taxpayer. Deflate that high horse a little bit.
What a joke. I mean these people arrive in Australia with nothing at all. The right thing to do would be to hand them their visa papers and wish them well. Nowhere to sleep, no money for food? Eh, I'm sure they'll work it out. It's character-building :rolleyes:

Talking of specious arguments...

a) Why would we be accepting refugees from a country whose way of life was very much like our own? What kind of person would try and seek refuge in a country exactly like the one they are fleeing from...
b) There is no refugee sponsorship program in Australia. So even if I wanted to accommodate "those people" at my expense I'm not allowed to. Do you think it would be a good idea to implement a system whereby anyone can adopt a refugee or refugee family so long as they are clothed and housed at personal expense? Would that really make you feel better about the whole thing?

We can argue about whether the partners of servicemen and women are actually dependents, but ultimately it's irrelevant. You still wouldn't want refugees in the country even if every person who was ever related to a serviceman killed in action was compensated with a house and pension for life.

In the meantime, we all have lives to live. You're free to believe whatever you want but don't force your personal rules on anyone else, that goes whether you're a devout Muslim or a devout Catholic.

Chuboy; I know several Ladies who are Widows of former WWII Veterans and none of them are 'sitting on land.......worth well north of a million bucks...'

$180k tops. One would be maybe $140k. You want to tell them that they can't have a War Widows Pension?:hmm:

I find your comments reprehensible.:*

And the views you are forever putting forward are not your personal views???

They are my views, not restrictions on others' personal freedom.

I'm not surprised they struck a nerve. There seems to be a tendency with the uber right wing types to deify our veterans and their widows.

But the income support supplement (aka WWP) you get is means tested on your income and assets, without including the value of the principal family home and land. Seems fair to me. Unless we have people who want to have their cake and eat it?

And there is now a tendency for the cossetted left to denigrate the efforts and beliefs of those who created the society that feeds their self-indulgent lifestyles. :mad:

I'm not denigrating. But unless you were conscripted joining the defence force was a choice for you, I don't buy into the worshipping of our armies and police and fire service like it is some sort of great personal sacrifice. (Of course if you were conscripted it is a different matter.)

But as for the idea that veterans and widow/ers should walk amongst us like gods amongst men, well sorry that I disagree but it just doesn't get me off.

Perhaps it's inappropriate to say but I don't believe the veterans who made the sacrifices they did (by choice or not) feel entitled to, or even comfortable with, the kowtowing that goes on in some circles either.

A modest stipend to widows with nothing left except a memory is fine. Open slather welfare to people with plenty of income and assets? Not on, and I'm surprised anyone here is ok with it.

Will someone else please try to educate chuboy. I just don't have the strength.


What's that quote again? "Forgive them father for they know not what they do."

Chuboy;As far as I'm aware, no-one here said that they did agree with the premise of those with plenty of money and assets getting any such benefits!:=

The examples I gave of the Widows of those veterans have their modest houses and that's about it! Plenty of money?? Hardly!:rolleyes:

One of the Men worked as a storeman at a local fruit packing company. Another I believe worked for the Water Supply organisation. And your comment about walking amongst us etc etc is a cheap shot!:* They went because their Country called them, as did my late Father. And my late Mother did thankfully get a War widows pension. When she died three years ago, the whole estate was less than $40,000.:hmm:

Oh BTW, what is your view on ex politicians and their Parliamentary pensions?

Chuboy:

I really thought recently that you were becoming objective & quite readable in your posts, but today's efforts have undone all that.

The name calling & politics of envy are back:

If you reflect on the times in question - generally WW2 - fit men were expected to join up, to serve their country. They certainly didn't do it for the financial reward, and many of those that did return physically unscathed were financially disadvantaged compared to those who remained at home.

The behaviour of the left wing and some unions during that time (ref Colebatch's Secret War) also reinforces the concept of the sacrifice made by those who volunteered, set against the featherbedding of the left-leaning - who now appear to be having a second shot at those disadvantaged few.

Yep let's all sit around, and sip our lattes, and knock the people who allowed us the freedoms to sip our lattes, while saying what we think.:mad::mad: