"The Costello Memoirs," is a very interesting read.
In a political career spanning eighteen years,
Peter Costello, Australia's longest serving Treasurer,
answers many questions and charts the victories and
defeats in one man's very public life.
Anyone interested in politics and what goes on behind
the scenes will find this a very good read - especially
because Peter Costello has never been a predictable
politician. He went into politics to make a difference -
as Peter Coleman tells us in the Preface of the book.

In discussing history - as I've stated in the past -
a historian can establish acts that took place at certain
times, but this, by historical standards constitutes
only chronology. The moment a historian begins to look
critically at motivation, circumstances, context, or any
other such considerations, the product becomes unacceptable
for one or another camp of readers.

Par for the course as far as historical facts are concerned.
As any reputable historian knows and has learned.

otb,

Kindly show where I am trying to re-write history.
I have given references to authors and historians
from whom I have obtained the facts. If you don't
agree with what they say please provide us with
evidence of your claims. Also I have quoted from
Peter Costello's book. This does not equate with
his siding with me or vice-versa. It's simply
quoting his opinion.

If you are unable to provide your references as to
why you object one can only assume that you are
merely stirring and baiting which deserves to be
ignored. It has
no relevance to the discussion.

Fox,

All of that quoting from Costello is a red herring. You did the same quoting John Howard. Obvious manipulative ploys, Fox.

Trying to turn it back on anyone who challenges the obvious fallacies in your rhetoric is another rather predictable ploy of yours, as is playing victim.

Do the decent thing and go back and answer posts like this one that was in reply to you but of course you ducked as always,

<You quote John Howard implying that he somehow supports your opinions. However you are not comfortable at all with assimilation are you? Your idealism expressed broken record, ad nauseum, brooks no less than endless diversity to wipe out any vestige of the 'white' culture you and other culturally-cringing, elitist leftists despise and sledge.

It is the migrants themselves who benefit from immigration, with the population of the host/receiving country paying for them, both through ramped up taxes for infrastructure, health, housing and welfare and indirectly through loss of culture and quality of life. That is especially so with the extreme MC that you support, which puts such a premium on the maintenance of foreign cultures, even where there is obvious conflict with our own.

The political correctness of multiculturalism allows no independent scrutiny, no comprehensive audit and accounting for the direct and indirect costs of the over-enthusiastic immigration that has been so strongly criticised even by Labor Premiers, examples being Anna Bligh and Bob Carr.

There are many Australians including many earlier migrants themselves, who are demanding that the federal government:

- roll back the immigration numbers;

- be more discriminating in judgement to manage risks and give preference to the most suitable, skilled migrants who can and want to assimilate; and

- do more for the young Australian couples who have been paying for the welfare and infrastructure for migrants and their families and are taxed so high to do that, that they cannot afford to have children themselves...>
[onthebeach, Friday, 29 May 2015 3:32:49 PM]

otb,

Quoting authors from their works and giving the
sources of the quotes is a perfectly legitimate
part of any debate or discussion - be it Peter
Costello, John Howard, or any one else. I listed
all the sources that I used in my posts.
I presented all the evidence - and you can provide
your own sources to disclaim what the authors are saying.

Making personal assumptions about me and
Calling me names is not an effective or acceptable
way to argue. It would be totally unacceptable for
me to call you a dick. You may well be one but,
what does that have to do with the logic of the discussion.
Name calling is not a legitimate argument to present.

Also, when a debater presents a quote it does not necessarily
mean that they agree with the quote - the quote
has to be taken in the context it is given. The John Howard
quote was a good example. It is one whose
context you totally misunderstood and all I can suggest
is you go back and re-read it.

otb,

If you persist in stirring and baiting.
You shall be ignored.

Fox,

Again you stoop to your well-worn tactic of poisoning the well against anyone who challenges your opinions.

There is no commonality, none, nada, between what Costello or Howard have ever said and meant and (to take an example) your 'take' on the criminal gangs smuggling people and the economic migrants who pay so handsomely for their services. They would never accept Open Door immigration and people smugglers and their apologists dictating to the Australian government and people.

Likewise neither would ever share your dream of an endlessly 'diversified' Australia where Australian culture, traditions and lifestyle have been lost.

Above all, they do not share but resolutely oppose, your leftist cultural-cringing elitism that refuses to acknowledge and despises the fundamental contributions and good of the inheritance from the settlers (your hated 'whites') whose creativity, hard work and sacrifice and that of their descendants developed Australia and were responsible for the freedom-loving democracy and egalitarian welfare State that Australia is today.

What you agree with is the infantile, undergraduate Seventies leftist BS of your oft-quoted, cultural-cringing elitist gurus like Phillip Adams, here pithily mocked and rightly so,

"Phillip Adams on how to be a moral bullsh…er"
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/phillip_adams_on_how_to_be_a_moral_bullsher/

It is 2015 and that 1960s and 1970s student newspaper stuff, culturally cringing leftist BS, was dismissed as superficial and entirely without basis back then.

On immigration policy, it is time that both sides of politics properly informed, consulted directly with and listened to, the whole of Australia and not just some select taxpayer-funded(!) ethnic lobbyists, that most other migrants don't agree with anyway, promising a few percent of votes in marginal seats in the West of Sydney and elsewhere.