Yep his own Labor colleagues branded him a psycho, seems like they were right

Remember this by his own Labor Party?


ALP's Member for Bendigo: Kevin Rudd 'a psychopath with a giant ego'
20 February, 2012

Federal member for Bendigo Steve Gibbons has taken to Twitter over the weekend describing his former party leader Kevin Rudd as a 'psychopath with a giant ego'. He speaks with ABC mornings presenter Fiona Parker about why he said it, what's happening in Canberra and what might lay ahead for the Gillard Labor Government.
-------

Check out what this lunatic is doing with our relationship with Indonesia?
-

Rudd warns us - and Indonesia - that Abbott could mean war

Wow. A massive claim from Kevin Rudd - highly inflammatory, grossly irresponsible and damaging to the national interest:

KEVIN Rudd has claimed that electing Tony Abbott as prime minister could spark conflict with Indonesia that could escalate.

On the eve of scheduled bilateral talks in Jakarta with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, restored Prime Minister Mr Rudd said the opposition’s plan to turn back asylum-seeker boats risked “some sort of conflict with Indonesia”.

Mr Rudd said Australia needed “cool hands on the tiller” when dealing with Indonesian relations.

“What I am talking about is diplomatic conflict. But I am always wary about where diplomatic conflicts go,” he said, before referring to the 1962-66 Indonesia-Malaysia conflict.

“Konfrontasi with Indonesia evolved over a set of words, and turned into something else.’’

Pressed on the claim, Mr Rudd suggested the opposition’s boats policy could lead to a naval showdown.

Julie Bishop gives Rudd war:

Opposition immigration spokeswoman Julie Bishop immediately branded Mr Rudd’s statements as “outrageous”.

“It is not our policy to breach Indonesian territorial sovereignty,” Ms Bishop said.

“Nor is it our policy to trigger a conflict with Indonesia.

“It is an utterly, utterly outrageous statement for Kevin Rudd to make, and if this is the behaviour we can expect from the Prime Minister within 24 hours of him being sworn in as Prime Minister, then we are in for a very ugly period of Australian politics.’’

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

 

Indonesian observers have echoed a warning by Kevin Rudd, the newly appointed Australian prime minister, that an opposition proposal to turn back asylum-seeker boats heading to Australia would hurt ties between the two countries.

Hikmahanto Juwana, an international relations expert at the University of Indonesia, told the Jakarta Globe on Friday that Rudd was right in his admonishment of the measure suggested by Australian opposition leader Tony Abbott.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/experts-back-rudds-caveat-on-asylum-seeker-problem/

 

So let me get this rightt, now the psycho Rudd is back in power we are gunna go to war woth indonesia unless the indonesian people smugglers have their way? That is just nuts....a lot like Rudd.

OK TV tells us, when Howard was PM (I can't stand that weasel) there was hardly any boats at all coming into OZ because he stopped that people traffiking....what happened to the war with Indonesia then....did I miss it? Wanna fill me in and tell me who won?

 

We're not going to go to war with Indonesia over a few asylum seekers, Rudd didn't say that, just typical nonsense from Julie Bishop. But towing the boats back without Indonesia's cooperation could definitely create a diplomatic incident, think Tampa with naval frigates.

Howard didn't really get Indonesian cooperation for his towing the boats back policy, which is partly why they're so against it now. Abbott's plan to get Indonesian cooperation for towing the boats back, is a bit like his plan to get ALP and Greens support to abolish the carbon tax if he doesn't have the numbers in the senate, ain't never gonna happen. Anyway it's never "safe" to tow boats back, so there's his get out of jail free card, the asylum seekers will just throw themselves in the water and or sabotage their vessels like they did when Howard tried it.

The reason the boats stopped under Howard was that they just stuck people on Manus Island and Naru and didn't let them into the country, not because they towed a few boats back towards Indonesia. This was pretty much against international law, and it was unpopular, and heavily criticised at the time. But yep, stopped the boats.

I think Carr actually has the right idea, to review the applications process from our end instead of antagonising Indonesia.

Because sending people back without processing their applications (which is what Gillard was doing with her "pre screening" stuff), or "towing" boats to Indonesia, are both stupid gimmicky policies imo.

But it'd be kind of funny, Abbott has promised his first trip or call (I forget which) overseas as PM will be to Indonesia, and his policy relies on getting Indonesian cooperation, which appears pretty unlikely, so it'll probably be just a matter of days before he breaks his first election promise. Oh the irony!

 

Whether he used those exact words or not is not the point. He alluded to it, irresponsibly in my opinion. Carr went into damage control immediately. Now he is up into the NT to pay respects to Yothu. Give me a break, how come he couldn't do that when Yothu actually passed. Gillard was always right, the guy is an absolute tool with no substance.

I agree that we need to look at the processing end, but surely there has to be a line in the sand.

Ziggy I thought the very same thing when Abbott promised to turn back the boats. The safety issue is his safety blanket.

 

Even egocentric Rudd has to be aware that his idiotic comments will certainly impact negatively on the chance of diplomatic negotiations with Indonesia on this topic. Could this really be what Rudd was aiming at, to hinder the diplomatic dialogue on this issue, between Australia, and Indonesia? could anyone really stoop so low??

 

Ziggy, I think you wrapped the asylum seeker issue nicely! As for rudds comments, he stated clearly that the issue regarded conflict of diplomacy not war! The asylum seeker issue has changed dramatically from a couple of years ago and apparently indonesia are taking a much more hard line approach to what it took under Howard's "turn back the boat" rule!

Mario, Howard "stopping the boats" from reaching australia is one of those tricky political lines of rhetoric he used to convince australia that under him he had stopped the boats! The increase in asylum seeker numbers in the past few years is in correlation to international increases! We have to get out of our heads that these issues are isolated to australia! We will be one of the most hated countries on earth if we continue down this "poor old us", "it only happens to us" line!

Anyway, the recommendation is that we increase our refuge intake, which will in turn limit the necessity to take the risk of jumping on a leaky old boat significantly!

 

Apparently so, here we have the people discussing the very issue of perpetuating the Asylum-seeker issue for political gain. Rudd and Gillard got it wrong so scare the people... It is funny that so much can be done and nobody wishes to do it.

Increase the intake... Yeah that'll stop the boats. Or should we put out a vacancy sign and a landing jetty for the extra amount of boats?

How about we put more people into processing these people? Yeah, that'll stop them. Or maybe we just put a turnstile out there to speed up the entry process.

The very fact that nobody even considers stopping the boats by making it unnecessary to get on them. No? We think of ways to give us the pretence of morality and ignore the deaths caused by the allurement of getting to Australian shores. So the DO GOOD people with their pretence of morality will go to bat for them. Yes the answer has to be ignoring the boats and get on with processing.

Forget the true nature of the coalition and ALP policy and focus on one small point to, which is actually designed as deterrent not to give people the idea of a guarantee of acceptance or entry into Australia if you arrive by boat as these smugglers do.

Let us just join the political parties to perpetuate a dangerous criminal act that see many die, because that allows us to feel morally superior to everybody else… Funny about that is the truth is it really demonstrates how amoral Australians really are. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of Australians and their political party.

The fact that Rudd would now infer to diplomatic tension over one point on a policy, when he knows the truth of the actual policy is despicable at the least. The fact is Rudd and Gillard both realised they got it wrong and are both trying to emulate Howard’s previous policy, but with the ALP stamp and pretence of difference should show the fact none of these parties wish to address the issue for real.

 

He stated clearly that the conflict of diplomacy could escalate to war... Stop trying to marginalise his comments with your own BS.

LOL... any evidence that Howard's policy did not work??? Oh that is right the ALP's decision to attempt to return to previous policy and Gillard's admittance of getting it wrong was just... LOL

Please explain how increasing the intake will reduce the necessity to get on the boats please... LOL. Funny enough, As it seems that majority of people accepted arrive by boat and people who request asylum before getting on the boat still wait for answers... How will increasing the intake stop the activity? Don't you think it will give the criminal organisation more credibility to guarantee the acceptance of their arrival by boat? No, the government told you it won’t... LOL

 

Rudd`s failed border protection policies have been directly responsible for enough deaths at sea, have cost us money that should have been used in other areas, but there are some who still don`t get it. They never will.

 

Where did Rudd say it would lead to war? Is this another comprehension issue or simply one of those right wing nutjob speculations?

Again, you simply got no idea how the process works, obviously pretending again! If you understand the process you would understand why increasing the numbers is a strong consideration! Aren't you sick and tired of being raped by Abbott? Surely it feels uncomfortable, or do you like it?

 

Oh, so it is your comprehension problem... LOL should have read the article shouldn't you have?

So how about you explain it? I asked and you pretend to have the answer but are obviously unable to supply one. As stated how does increasing the intake numbers stop the incentive of getting on the boats? That is your claim, not mine. Instead of the pretence of knowing what you are on about, try and explain it.

The stupid part about it is, you have already explained your stance on this very subject, you don't care. Because all it is about it is either you accept asylum-seekers or not. Fact is you unable to understand that Australia accepts asylum-seekers, which makes you opposing stance redundant. The fact now that you pretend to have some kind of answer but you’re unable to explain it.... LOL talk about being mind raped... I guess you cannot be if you do not have any grey matter... LOL

So Mister Moral, explain how increasing the intake will reduce the incentive of getting on the boats??? LOL

 

Where did Rudd say it would lead to lead war? Happy to eat my words or spit em out ferociously!

 

So no answer to the question asked of you??

Typical, you heard that increasing the numbers will help with asylum-seekers and decided that fit because it came from the ALP side.

Unfortunately you demonstrate the very quality Gillard had, produce nothing, pretend to have an answer but don't say anything to elaborate on it in case people become aware you have no clue what you are talking about. What media would you like to blame for not getting your message out???

To your claim that Rudd said it could lead to war.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rm-plan-deadline/story-fn9qr68y-1226671379678

Learn your history to decide his comparison.

But to the point Rudd raises, perhaps he is telling porkies again,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-29/indonesia-wont-be-drawn-on-rudds-conflict-comment/4789162

But apparently you prefer the lies of your political leaders to support your view of morality... LOL

 

Again, clasping at straws....did Gillard say we need to increase refuge numbers to counteract increases in boat arrivals? I don't think she did, I thought her policies were in alignment with the former coalition government?

Rudd, still didnt say it would cause war! He said he was weary of where diplomatic conflict would lead on the open ocean! Indonesia have stated that they will not accept boats that are australias responsibility: the people aren't theirs on those boats! Rudd has pointed out how phony Abbott is simply playing silly little games about the real issue and opens up the realities about what a coalition governments options are: Turning back the boats is not an option and Abbott knows this, and would be highly unlikely to implement policy, realising that indonesia will not accept them or australia shirking its responsibilities! If Abbott chose to go down this line, of course their will be implications!!!!!

What is Abbott going to do and say now about this policy! Will he persist to continue down this line of turning back the boats! Absolutely no way, if he didnt want to risk being exposed even further! They certainly won't implement it as policy!

 

I think you are grasping here. No, Gillard did not say increasing numbers was an answer. I never claimed that, I said your SIDE. So, you have no answer to the question? You blindly throw about comments with little thought?


Gillard’s policy only changed once the failure of the ALP policy she supported was demonstrated to be the most dismal failure of a totally inept government. Once she realised the rest of world was looking to the Australian Labor government as useless. You know that message that never sunk in?

So you do not know history either... LOL

Actually that is not true either is it? Indonesia never stated this did it? So you want to corrupt the debate with lies?

The fact that Abbott wants to return to a policy that was working and Rudd wants to demonise that policy, demonstrates Abbott is playing games?

No, you seem to miss my original point of politicians keeping the misleading of a problem to perpetuate it for political gains. People such as yourself do yourself no favours when you clearly demonstrate the inhumanity of the party you support. Fact is, it is despicable to score political points over people's deaths to try to return to office. Howard did it, and you condemn it, but a hard line stopped a majority of deaths that the ALP ignored. Now you want to proclaim the moral high road. Rudd and yourself selectively cherry picked a policy to score points from, while you support that gutter politics people die. Nice to think you really have any idea about this issue.

LOL... You consider that one small part of a policy that did previously work, does not go the way you think it should be scrapped? LOL (not that you really understand the point of that part of the policy)

What I think you will find, the majority of people (who appear to be better informed than you and Rudd) will respond to his comments in the negative. What you do not seem to understand, majority of people do actually think about things, they don’t need to be told.

Yes, you got Abbott running on this... LOL

 

Garry, the issue with debating with you, "is", you don't even know what you mean! You're all over the place dude!

 

LOL... or is that you don't understand??? LOL

Answer the question of your claim,

HOW DOES INCREASING THE INTAKE STOP INCENTIVE OF THE BOATS?

It is obvious that you have further lied to the forum with more claims you cannot back, but you cannot even answer the simplest of questions about YOUR claims... LOL

You have squirmed about with nothing but BS. You wonder why Gillard lost support when she acted the same.

 

Are you asking because you would like to be informed and educated, obviously with no idea about how the asylum seeker process takes shape?

or

You are simply trying your best to be the defender of all things on the extreme right!

I'm guessing it is a bit of both! Go and have a look at what the experts say!

 

So you cannot answer it? You wish to make the entire issue to something you understand, pedantic. Unfortunately it is obvious over the past comments, that is grasping at straws as well.

So far you have tried to squirm out of answering this simple question, You have tried to say it is not a policy the ALP considered or even mentioned, you have tried to ignore your own folly of stating the policy. Is this simply because you don't know? Yes, it is.

I ask because while fools continue to think these politicians have some answer that might work, they actually only intend to fool them into perpetuating this issue. While you attempt to find a way to make your suggested policy work, more people die. While you sit on you strained grey matter thinking of ways to oppose anything that does not come from your side, people die. But do you care enough to find out? NO... you just don't care. All you care about is having the perfect picture of morality and assurance that it is from people you follow.

So come on answer, How will increasing numbers deter the boats? Fact is you continued demonstration only goes to show you actually have no idea why they get on the boats.

 

Garry seriously, you are full of speculative drivel! Increasing our refugee intake will have an impact on boat arrivals! Don't listen to Phony or that other fool Morrison, try and dig a bit deeper!

I'm not here to educate you, you should be able to argue this statement if you are the omniscient one! Get to it and find out from credible sources!

 

LOL... so no answer just your rhetoric. You are obviously lost on this, just as your great ALP… LOL


Yes it will have an impact on boat arrivals, they will increase... LOL further perpetuating the death toll from your governments obvious lack of care which reflects on you.

You could not educate anybody, you cannot answer the simplest of questions on your claims. Your obvious education was to lie and obfuscate everything.

You squirm about trying to pretend your moral superiority but no answer. Just as Gillard before you, lie and obfuscate but don't say anything in case it shows you don't know what you’re talking about...Unfortunately, this obvious lack of response demonstrates that you don’t… LOL And you wonder why support for Gillard disappeared...LOL

 

To risk of turning this monogamous relationship into a sordid love in. TV do you think that these people who arrive via boat are eligible for refugee status ? I mean they can garner ten thousand US dollars for their fare. Most refugees I have met didn't have a brass razoo to rub together. They were totally destitute and without much hope.

Perhaps part of the reason they are hopping on these clunkers risking the lives of their family is due to the fact that they do not qualify for refugee status. I am not trying to denigrate their situations, as there must be some sort of desperation involved for them to risk everything for a new life. The point I am trying to make is that there are millions of people who qualify for refugee staus in camps all over the world. These people have nothing, not a cent to buy food, let alone a fare. Surely by increasing our intake numbers it would only advantage these people, not the people who buy their passage. Therefore the numbers arriving by boat would stay static or as we are seeing, increase.

Just a thought.

 

Since most of their applications are successful, then yes obviously they are eligible for refugee status, in the current system anyway.

The Government already admitted their policy wasn't working, which is why they set up the Houston Panel, and one of the recommendations was to increase the intake quota for our humanitarian immigration. And they've already done this, from 13k to 20k, I believe it had bipartisan support. But no that won't stop the boats on its own.

 

Slippery, just to add to ziggy it is something like 4 out of 5 boat arrivals are found to be legitimate! Our plane arrivals are where our biggest concerns are and where we should have been focused! As of a couple of years ago most asylum seekers arrived by plane with only 2 in 5 being found legitimate or there abouts!

Reason why Howard is despised for making it such a hugely politicised issue! Labor were on the back peddle if you remember the circumstances surrounding Tampa, but also should be held responsible for issue getting out of hand! The greens have tried to expose the issue but are ridiculed for doing so, because at the end of the day the media have most people thinking they're a dishonest bunch of tree huggers!