n. pl. con·tem·po·rar·ies

1. One of the same time or age: Shelley and Keats were contemporaries.
2. A person of the present age.

Gaz, how about you copy & paste evidence of your claim? Wbb too. Crikey what’s on, a new batch of Ice on the streets or something?

You have made a statement, either back it up,
Or be like Adrian, & back down.

Keep in mind that several of his contemporaries were refused visas in the first place.

I think that little quote tells us all that we need to know about your level of intelligence, satp.
Judging from that, you’re the match in the box that resolutely refuses to light.

But keep on with the keystroking, I’m sure it’s pretty organismic for you.

Then copy & paste evidence to back up your claim that I am a “Howard Apologist”.

Somewhere along the line you may also like to get your hand off it.

with their last er.. keystroke.

and with their last er..LNP ‘organism’

Anyway! Good news is: this government just isn’t very competent on national security issues.

And there goes one of two thin threads still keeping those worthless shitstains in office.

Newsflash Komrades, the Haneef case was not about race; it was about ideology. Islam.

When, oh when, are the patriotic RWDBs of Australia going to start demanding from the supine Howard government passage of the Islam (Suppression) Act 2007?

Don’t they know it’s our only hope of preserving Civilisation?

the Muslim menace.

John G, you need to get out more, have some ‘organisms’ with four Muslim wives, perhaps visit the theatre:

http://www.wogproductions.com/reviews.htm

We know that for many on the right, going ‘wog’ busters is de rigueur, but hasn’t the recent episode been illustrative, of … something?

BTW, you also need to read Robert Pape “Dying to Win” –it’s ideological nationalism, not religion that drives ‘terrorist’ attacks in the vast majority of cases.

Which reminds me, I must email Michael Moore with the title of the next episode of Farenheit 9/11:

Sicko Wog Busters.

I’ll concern myself with his visa issues when he applies to have it reissued

.

Be very concerned then because the application is already before the court and set down for August the eighth.

Keep in mind that several of his contemporaries were refused visas in the first place.

His contemporaries? Oh I get it … some people borne around 1980 were refused visas so anyone around that age is suss.

If nothing else, this incident is demonstrating that rabid wingnuts have no intellectual self-respect whatsoever. They will come out with any idiocy to try to defend the indefensible.

I better calm down, I’m close to organisming.

BTW Andrews is a complete grub.

Keep in mind that several of his contemporaries were refused visas in the first place.

Andrews this morning:

This morning Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews refused to reinstate Dr Haneef’s work visa and said he still had “suspicions” about him.

Mr Andrews said Dr Haneef still failed the character test under which the visa was originally cancelled.

“The basis upon which Dr Haneef’s visa was cancelled remains vaild,” he told Channel Seven.

“His lawyers indicated to my department … that he wanted to get out of Australia as soon as possible. If anything that rather heightens, rather than lessens, my suspicions.”

Really, they’re quite lovely people.

No sensible soul begrudges police and politicians acting tough on potential terror threats.

All major parties supported beefing up laws allowing suspects to be summarily questioned and detained.

This reflects a broad public sentiment that accepts a potentially innocent individual’s rights may be temporarily suspended, if it helps protect others from being blown up going about their business.

There’s an uneasy balance here – hard-won civil liberties are the cornerstone of free societies. But counter-terrorism doesn’t fit neatly into democratic textbooks. Ultimately, we invest enormous trust in politicians, police and judges to get things right.

That trust has been seriously breached during the Haneef debacle.