Money taken from the Australian taxpayer and money denied to Age Pensioners and other vulnerable categories should NOT be spent on fools' errands setting up Australia as the nagging moral policeman and rescuer (whether those other sovereign countries seek it or not, but likely NOT!) locally and especially not in far flung regions of the World.

What is happening here is very plain to see. It is the political 'Progressives' who have hijacked Labor endeavoring to prove that they have superior values to all comers. They choose such subjects as 'asylum seekers' and gay marriage. However they are NOT interested in resolving the problems of 'Struggle Street'. Apart from allocating the blame to 'Class' and 'gender', they would have no nothing to say anyway. It is all Marxist-inspired rhetoric, 'dissing' everyone who is trying to be constructive, and stirring.

They have NO policies and NO practical solutions to the problems confronting their home country, Australia, but there they are posing and strutting their assumed higher moral 'values'(sic) proposing the impossible and ludicrous, unaware and not caring about the negative consequences of their superior 'humanitarianism'. At the same time their totalitarian international socialism is the very opposite of freedom, humanism and self-determination.

tbc..

contd..

'Progressivism' is also the hidden editorial policy behind the leftist ABC and the social commentators it prefers and gives a podium, many who have been so long with the ABC, since well back in the previous Millenium, for their 'contracting' to be regarded by some as sinecures instead. The ABC needs new blood.

Previous Labor leader Mark Latham got it right when he recently observed,

"FORMER Labor leader Mark Latham has slammed his party’s “obsession” with gay marriage [and I would add 'asylum seekers'] saying it should focus on the nation’s “Struggle Streets” instead.
He told 3AW radio Bill Shorten’s private members bill to push for changes to the marriage act to allow same-sex couples to tie the knot, to be introduced into parliament on Monday, was nothing more than a symbolic gesture.
He said the biggest social issue facing Australia was unemployment, drug use and homelessness in suburbs such as Mt Druitt which was the focus of the SBS documentary, Struggle Street."
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/former-labor-leader-mark-latham-slams-labor-over-gay-marriage/story-fnizhakg-1227371979220

The 'Progressives' are always full of rhetoric and it is always someone else who has to pay. Fix your own backyard first, Progressives.
Charity starts at home, with commonsense, practical solutions.

"Rabble rousers" being those who don't share your particular bigotries, Craig?

Which "bigotries" do you think I have, ttbn? I'd be fascinated to find out.

And to save you the trouble of asking someone to look it up for you, I thought I'd give you the Webster definition of a rabble-rouser.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rabble-rouser
"a person who makes a group of people angry, excited, or violent (such as by giving speeches) especially in order to achieve a political or social goal"

alternatively

"one that stirs up (as to hatred or violence) the masses of the people".

Here's another one:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gutless+wonder

"A totally insipid and spineless person"

For example, a rabble-rouser that hides behind anonymity might be described as a gutless wonder.

Hi Lego,

OK so you aren't going to touch the question of what do we do about the spread of Wahhabism. You want to paint all Muslims as fundamentalists in sheep's clothing.

I think you have come up with your own definition of what a "real" Muslim believes. And I'm not sure anything I say will change that.

There are obviously many thousands of moderate Muslims who have chosen to live in Australia and are happy to live by our laws and live amongst us in peace. Otherwise our prisons would be filled with Muslims who have broken our laws. Muslims have been in Australia since the settler days - the Afghan cameleers were instrumental in opening up the interior. Many prominent Australians are Muslim, even a Federal member of Parliament, Ed Husic is Muslim. Moderate Muslims have been instrumental in alerting ASIO to radicalised Muslims. I don't know what else they have to do to prove to you they are law abiding citizens who deserve to live in peace.

There are no doubt Muslims who want to change our laws, but there are also fundamentalist Christians who want to change our laws.

At the moment we have a Prime Minister and some members of his government who want to turn their backs on 800 years of the Magna Carta (the 800th anniversary is on 15 June) which enshrined some principles of law that were considered to be foundational only a few years ago, such as: the presumption of innocence, the right to know of charges laid against you, due process, equality under the law, and habeus corpus. Since the war on terror, these are no longer absolute values in our legal system.

Magna Carta: 800 years on
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/23/magna-carta-new-peoples-charter

Here are some examples of Muslim leaders denouncing terrorism and violence
http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/02/24/an-informative-but-incomplete-reminder-of-muslim-leaders-speaking-up-clearly/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

Here is a Muslim lawyer answering a question about whether Muslims should follow laws in Australia
http://tgb.com.au/blog/can-muslims-live-australian-laws

Craig,

Some of your definitions look suss, but in these days of language bastardisation, and so many 'experts' taking the liberty of doing what they will, it is possible to find definitions of any word to suit your purpose. Me - I'm and old traditionist. My Collins Concise Australian says: "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race".

Now, I have no stand on anyone's religion, politics or race - I have no religion of my own (except that I had a childhood introduction to the Christian creed); I think people are entitled to their own political beliefs, and race is what it is - people can't change that, it's the how they were born, and I would never discriminate against anyone because of their race.

Now, in case we have forgotten, we are talking about illegal arrivals. I am against them. No exceptions. So I don't think I could be called a bigot when it comes illegal immigration. I also have no problem at all with your opposite opinion as to illegal immigration. I think you are wrong, uninformed, whatever, but of course, I recognise your right to hold any opinion you wish.

You are the one who used the word 'bigot' initially, old son. I just tossed it back to you. You can't expect to call people nasty names without a reaction, and you gave the impression that anyone who didn't agree with you is a bigot.