Julia Gillard - a dictator - she just wont listen!

Well if Rudd didn't listen what can you say about Julia who has wax in her ears and blinkers on her eyes.

After the high court ruled that asylum seekers should be processed here in oz, now she is looking to pass laws to overturn the decision.

If thats not being out of touch i dont know what is.

I suppose she thinks she's above the consitution as well.

Dear Julia you weren't elected to save the world from Co2 pollution and sell us out to the UN and wall street, your carbon tax is very unpopular thats why your doing badly in the polls but again you wont listen.

I suppose you (Julia) think you're above the constitution as well, kind of reminds me of someone, yeah you guessed it George W Bush jnr now there's an ex-dictator of the free civilised world and your not far behind.

Please PM you weren't elected to do anything so do Australia a favour and just be the caretaker government you are suppose to be and stop trying to change our lives without a mandate.

But then again lies and deception are the stuff your made of what more can we expect.

 

No - the High Court did not rule that asylum seekers should be processed here in oz. And no - she is not looking to pass laws to overturn the decision.

I agree her asylum seeker policy is just as stupid as the Liberal party's - but you seem to be completely clueless about what the High Court actually ruled.

The ruling was essentially that under the current legislation (that passed during Howard's governmemt), the Minister may not make a declaration about an overseas location without good reason.

I would say making stupid comments about a case you don't understand is a good example of being out of touch

Why do you say that?

She was elected because her party's policy was to place a price on carbon. Something that the Liberal party did not promise - even though they agree on exactly the same emission reduction targets.

...wow. Rants really don't come any more ignorant than this.

 

Hi Bugs

Oh yes they did, by not allowing asylum seekers to be deported to another nation that's what infact they have done.

Julia has lost it, if they sacked Rudd for not listening they should linch her for being so out of touch thats her bugs not me.

If she is willing to pass legislation to overturn a high court ruling then hell lets just scrap the constitution altogether, if governments pay no attention to it why have it, just for show! Oh yeah we're a democracy here is our constitution that says so but it doesn't really mean anything we can change it at will.

Its Julia thats outta touch here, she will condem the Labor party to many years in opposition because she thinks she's on a mission or something to prove that even though she's a woman she has intestinal fortitude to make the hard decisions, what a wanker she's outta touch and on the road to personal glory.

Are you for real bugs, didn't she stand in front of a camera and pledge not to introduce a carbon tax, why are the polls against her, take the party blinkers of dude they can really blind you.

Well bugs if you believe that acouple of arab shepperds with light aircraft lessons and a stanly knife can fly a jetliner into the WTC, if you believe that a jet liner hit the pentagon even though no trace of a jetliner was found, if you believe that a jetliner went down in pensilvania again without any trace of an aircraft not even the engines, or that the twin towers weren't demolished, then who's ignorant? oops make that arrogant!

 

High Court's decision leaves asylum deal in tatters


Chief Justice Robert French said the court ordered Mr Bowen and his department be restrained from sending asylum seekers to Malaysia.

"The declaration made was made without power and is invalid," Justice French said.

In a written summary of its judgment today, the High Court said it found the asylum deal could not proceed.

"Today the High Court held invalid the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship's declaration of Malaysia as a country to which asylum seekers who entered Australia at Christmas Island can be taken for processing of their asylum claims," it said.

"After an expedited hearing before the Full Bench, the Court by majority made permanent the injunctions that had been granted earlier and restrained the Minister from taking to Malaysia two asylum seekers who arrived at Christmas Island, as part of a larger group, less than four weeks ago.

"The Court also decided that an unaccompanied asylum seeker who is under 18 years of age may not lawfully be taken from Australia without the Minister's written consent under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 (Cth)."

The High Court heard the case after Victorian human rights lawyer David Manne sought an injunction on behalf of asylum seekers who were to be deported to Malaysia.

Lawyers for the asylum seekers had argued that under the Migration Act, Australia had to ensure countries met the same human rights obligations that apply to asylum seekers processed here.

They argued that the Immigration Minister did not have the power to send asylum seekers to a country that has no legal obligations to protect them.

They also argued that sending unaccompanied minors to Malaysia would breach the minister's duty of care as their legal guardian to act in their best interests.

But Commonwealth Solicitor-General Stephen Gageler had argued the Government could lawfully declare Malaysia a safe third country even though it had no domestic or international legal obligations to protect asylum seekers.

The Government had wanted to send 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia in exchange for 4000 already processed refugees.

In killing off the Malaysian solution, the court found the Minister could not have declared Malaysia as a country to which asylum seekers could be taken for processing unless it met critical human rights standards.

The ruling came down in a 5-2 decision to uphold the current injunction on the Malaysia deal.

An international law expert, speaking outside the High Court today, said while no further appeals were possible, the Government could still potentially make the scheme work.

Professor Donald Rothwell said the Government could change migration and immigration laws.

"It is always within the scope of Commonwealth powers to amend legislation in the Parliament," Prof Rothwell said.

Meantime 330 asylum seekers slated to leave Christmas Island for Malaysia will now stay at the detention centre.

Refugee advocate Ian Rintoul told Sky News today he was surprised by the decision.

"It's a welcome result, but it doesn't rule out further attempts to process refugees in third countries," he said.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...sent-to-malaysia/story-fn7x8me2-1226126516885

 

Huh!? Havent you seen the footage of all crash sites which wreckage everywhere. I've seen a lot of it. The only way to crash and aircraft is to crash an aircraft. The WTC did not fall perfectly, its just so wide the lateral displacement was not as obvious as it would be for something like a smoke stack. In fact to make the WTC topple sideways would have required an extraordinary force so its collapse pattern is completely sensible. My wife knew someone who had a friend die there..... so I think conspiracy theories are just a form of sarcastic humor to highlite the people who have agendas and laugh at them.

Again she wasnt who people voted for. In fact no-one won the election. She formed government after the election because Wilkie wanted pokie reform and the other 2 wanted HiSpeed internet. Thats it. Everything else is a on her.

 

No - the ruling was relating to Ministerial powers under the act.

The ruling said nothing about what may be done with asylum seekers generally - it was about the Ministers powers of making a declaration

She is not "willing to pass legislation to overturn a high court ruling". She is seeking to amend legislation. That is the role of the Parliament, as defined in the Constitution. The High Court does not make law - it interprets it

You really need to try to understand a subject before attempting to comment on it

I disagree with the amendments - but there is nothing "unconstitutional" about it.

 

You might want to read your own links:

 

She was the who the people voted for in the electorate of Lalor.

And she was able to form government because the independants agreed with the Labor policies of placing a price on carbon and building the NBN.

The Liberals would have no price on carbon and no NBN. That is why they lost.

 

That would be when she said her government would place a price on carbon:

JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.

In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983

This is what she is delivering - commencing with a two year fixed price period added to the original policy after negotiations with the Greens.

Why do you want her to reneg on her party's policy to introduce a price on carbon? That is what the Government was elected to deliver.

 

LOL Yes it's not rocket science is it.

Even if I didn't know which side was right, you can easily tell. Those that are wrong resort to mud slinging, childish name calling, ridiculous examples obscuring not only truth but reality.

Those that are right can usually state their case in a few succinct statements.

 

Sorry champ on the internet you may find some wierd and wonderful attempt to show debris at these two sites, i.e. the pentagon and pensilvania now ten years on.

But when they actually happened and were plastered all over the tv screens there was not a fuselage or a wing or tail or even an engine in site.

The evidence that a few arab shepperds from aphganistan armed with acouple of hours of light air craft training and box cutters couldn't have done it is too overwhelming.

One more thing i wouldn't use a tradegy such as this just to ridicule some clown on here.

 

Hey bugs you really love mincing words, but no matter how it reads the bottom line is that until Ju-liar passes legislation to override the high court decision asylum seekers will be processed here full stop.

 

The electrate of Lalor is not the whole of Australia.

Are you for real they agreed on carbon tax policy thats the biggest malarkey i've ever heard and i would say that you're starting to spin your own little web here with comments like that one.

Ever thought of writting books looks like you have a natural talent for it, try fantasy and adventure i recon they would suit you.

She met each and everyones demands otherwise they would have dropped her like a hot potatoe.

They agreed with her carbon policy what a joker..........................

BTW if Ju-liar had of said that she would indeed introduce a carbon tax do you think labors primary vote would have been what it was???

The libs lost because they didn't have a carbon tax policy...........

I got no time for this malarkey................get real willya

 

Way to go bugs...get into em.....

 

Hey bugs are we on the same page here, i recall the video when she clearly stated that her government would not intoduce or pass a carbon tax, too knackered to go searching for it.

And you're telling me this is when she announced her carbon tax policy, one of us is on drugs.

Why is she hurrying it through, kind of reminds me of Howard and his work choices.

All bad policy seems to be rushed through these days before anyone has a chance to analyse it.

Its such an important issue why the rush???? let people digest it sleep on it and in the morning make some decision.

WTF are you talking about???!!!

View victory from whommmmmmmm?????!!!!!!!

Labor and the greens are in bed together ofcourse its going to be a victory.

If she really wants to know whether her carbon tax is a victory why doesn't she ask the Australian people?????

Most people i have spoken to hate her and her carbon tax policy kind of reflects the polls.

2 and a half outta ten are in favour the rest DONT WANT IT.

If we had an election today she would be tossed out because the people hate her she's a liar and a deciever and she just wont listen to the people of Australia.

What victory are you talking about.................................

 

One more thing bugs...............

She is passing the new legislation to override the high court decision, otherwise she wouldn't be passing any new laws at all.

Now if thats not overriding the constitution i dont know what is.

The high court judges analysed the law and stated their interpretation, the constitution says that this is the procedure and we have followed it.

But Ju-liar wont because she is above the constitution in her mind, she just has to get her way and to hell with everything else.

A DICTATOR in the making.

 

Take a deep breath and try to understand how our nation works.

The Parliament cannot override a High Court decision.
The High Court cannot make or amend legislation.

The Government is not trying to override a High Court decision, it wants to amend Legislation. It is putting this amendment to Parliament, because that is what Parliament's job is.

I do not agree with the proposed amendment.

 

No - the Parliament cannot override a High Court decision,

Correct. You don't know what is.

Otherwise you would tell us which section of the Constitution is being overridden.

Did you even read YOUR OWN LINK on the first page?

"Professor Donald Rothwell said the Government could change migration and immigration laws.

"It is always within the scope of Commonwealth powers to amend legislation in the Parliament," Prof Rothwell said."

The High Court does not make legislation

 

It is right here:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983
"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax."

And now her government has introduced legislation to Parliament for a "Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," - with an initial fixed price period.

Just as the Rudd government was elected to deliver a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme with an initial fixed price period, and just as Howard, Nelson and Turnbull all had as Liberal policy - before Abbott and the faceless men knifed Turnbull.

 

LOL, best laugh I have had today bugalugs

TOUCHÉ

 

Plenty of people saw it happen, and I watched it live on TV at the same time - looked pretty real to me, aircraft and all.

 

Yes i watched the planes hit the twin towers as well, not denying that.

What i didn't see is evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon, or evidence that a plane went down in pensilvania.

Footage from cctv is available for the pentagon but will not be released ever ask yourself why, if a plane hit the pentagon where are its parts???????

We have all seen plane wrecks that have fallen out of the sky, even though the plane disintigrates you can still recognise parts of it especially the engines.

Also the fact that the twin towers coming down looked like a demolition and building no.7 never took a direct hit but it too came down and looked like a demolition.

There have been numerous skyscrapers that have caught on fire and burned for up to 36 hours none of them came down not one and the twin towers came down in 1-1/2 hours.

have a look at some of these.

http://www.politicalforum.com/australia/200898-bankers-dream-coming-life.html

 

I saw video about a week on TV showing a big friggin aircraft wheel outside a burning Pentagon and injured people getting dragged out, and they also had CCTV of it hitting;

[ame="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1a3ky_9-11-pentagon-cctv-footage-cam-2_webcam"]Dailymotion - 9/11 Pentagon CCTV Footage cam 2 - a Webcam & Vlogs video[/ame]

 

More like a cruise missle than a jetliner.

 

You gotta stop watching Zeitgeist. It's messin' with yo head!