Kostya

Very well, then I must respond. May I also request that you do not patronise me. I didn't place an argument since I suspected you were simply joking, and had you been, me posting an argument would have been a waste of time, but since you aren't never mind.

So, despite that fact that your allegation that I have no argument holds no water, lets see how you measure up to your own objections:



Here is your initial statement. Unfortunately it is untrue.

We do have refugees, they are detained, and released upon being verfied as having genuine refugee status. So quite clearly Howard has a policy with regard to these refugees, which is to detain them until it is ascertained that they are in fact legitimate asylum seekers, at which point they are released, since it was perfectly legal for them to seek asylum in Australia. Asylum seekers are legal immigrants, so long as they are recognised as legitimate refugees. I am however baffled how you can make this unfounded and erroneous assertion about the complete absence of refugees in Australia, and then contradict yourself in your last post by saying:

In which you clearly recognise that refugees CAN and DO come to Australia LEGALLY, so long as they are refugees.

So not only have you failed to live up to your own expectations with regard to this initial statement, which you have not backed up with facts, something you expected me to do, despite the fact that I made no 'initial statement' in any argumenttive stance, and could offer no 'facts' to back up my observation that you were probably being saracastic, since only a confirmation or refutation by yourself could render the statement to be accurate or not. I must admit I was obviously mistaken, but given the inflammatory and seemingly nonsensical nature of your statement one could forgive me for making such a presumption.
Moreover, you are also guilty of your first accusation, since you are by your own admittance obviously mistaken.



You then failed to back it up with facts, instead offerring this unfounded assertion.


Then, instead of arguing a point, or even making sense, you insult my intelligence and patronise me with an accusation that I read 'left wing propaganda'.

You then go onto a giant tangent and make a blatantly racist remark. The only reason I can see for this is to irritate or anger me. Please refrain from using the word 'Kooris', or for that manner any other derogatory terms for Indigenous Australians.

You then go on to simplify the mind boggling complexities of the dialectical interplay of public consiousness and government structures into a single sentence which is moreover untrue. There are nations (such as Italy) which have democratic assemblies in which no two parties are dominant. I fail to see how having a three party system will corrupt the government, perhaps you could suggest where the connection is. Your statement about 51% of the power being concentrated in the hands of people representing 2% of the electorate must be something to do with balance of power. In some cases, a small insignificant party can hold the balance of power in a two party system, and exercise a good deal of control over the Parliament. If this can occur in a two party system, why are you suggesting it as a reason why we need a two party system, unless you meant something else.

In any case, I actually believe the two party system is the optimal political landscape one can hope for given the current institutions of governance, but that does not mean that I do not resent aspects of its existence.