Australian Politics Forum - Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26524
Australia

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #270 - Jul 18^th, 2012 at 6:17am

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 10:41pm:

There are many people who pretend to be refugees and are not refugees at all.

The purpose of the policy that Australia must have is to keep this people out.

Stop boats from coming to your country and stop allowing them to come in and make fun of your system.

To do that you must be strong.

That is the policy. Thats why they go into detention.

They are hardly going to tell us their process though are they - since then the pretenders would know it .

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #271 - Jul 18^th, 2012 at 11:57am

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 9:09pm:

I didn't pose the solution, you did.
I am merely asking how you would '[r]esettle them before they get to the point that they're willing to risk everything they have including their lives in boats' in a practical manner. How would your solution operate in a well thought out plan where workable objectives can be achieved. If you're serious about this problem, then you should be beyond vague platitudes. You are serious about 'boat people,' are you not?

No, you DID pose the solution only you're incapable of admitting it or more likely of recognising it. YOUR solution was option 1 in my list - that is, to stick your head up your arse and pretend it's not happening.

Same answer for Soren The Simple.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Reply #272 - Jul 18^th, 2012 at 12:03pm Emma wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 12:35am: I speak for myself, alone.... and for those who cannot speaK FOR THEMSELVES.! If they cannot speak for themselves, how the hell did they ask you to speak for them, you self-serving goose.
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #273 - Jul 18^th, 2012 at 12:08pm

Gist wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 11:57am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 9:09pm:

I didn't pose the solution, you did.
I am merely asking how you would '[r]esettle them before they get to the point that they're willing to risk everything they have including their lives in boats' in a practical manner. How would your solution operate in a well thought out plan where workable objectives can be achieved. If you're serious about this problem, then you should be beyond vague platitudes. You are serious about 'boat people,' are you not?

No, you DID pose the solution only you're incapable of admitting it or more likely of recognising it. YOUR solution was option 1 in my list - that is, to stick your head up your arse and pretend it's not happening.

Same answer for Soren The Simple.

Yeah, my solution is to stop the boats coming to Australia. In your words, "1.take away any hope of resettlement should they arrive on a boat. That's the libbo mantra. Except that it doesn't really stop them getting into boats, it only stops them getting into boats bound for Australia." If other countries are happy to get boats, that's their business, not AUstralia's.

Your solution is to resettle them before they even get near a port: " "Resettle them before they get to the point that they're willing to risk everything they have including their lives in boats."

SO the question, Mr Furtive, is: how many would you resettle and how would you deal with the ones who don't want to wait for you to select them but will take to the boats and self-select by sailing to Australia?

You can't answer that very simple question because even you now realise how utterly stupid your suggestion really is.

Now you are just slippin' and slidin' and tapdancing, pretending that to be a self-evident answer. It isn't.

Back to top

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #274 - Jul 18^th, 2012 at 12:22pm

Soren wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 12:08pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 11:57am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 9:09pm:

I didn't pose the solution, you did.
I am merely asking how you would '[r]esettle them before they get to the point that they're willing to risk everything they have including their lives in boats' in a practical manner. How would your solution operate in a well thought out plan where workable objectives can be achieved. If you're serious about this problem, then you should be beyond vague platitudes. You are serious about 'boat people,' are you not?

No, you DID pose the solution only you're incapable of admitting it or more likely of recognising it. YOUR solution was option 1 in my list - that is, to stick your head up your arse and pretend it's not happening.

Same answer for Soren The Simple.

Yeah, my solution is to stop the boats.

Your solution is to resettle them before they even get near a port: " "Resettle them before they get to the point that they're willing to risk everything they have including their lives in boats."

SO the question, Mr Furtive, is: how many would you resettle and how would you deal with the ones who don't want to wait for you to select them but will take to the boats and self-select by sailing to Australia?

You can't answer that very simple question because even you now realise how utterly stupid your suggestion really is.

Now you are just slippin' and slidin' and tapdancing, pretending that to be a self-evident answer. It isn't.

Of course it isn't self evident Simple Soren. The numbers depend on the current circumstances in the world. How many we might take today would be very different to how many we might have taken in the 80s. If longloser's messiah should waft down from his heavenly throne tomorrow and bring peace unto the world then there'd be no point having a target of a zillion would there?

But lets examine your solution. "STOP THE BOATS". As if. Tongue

Why? Do you care if they drown? I don't think so. So why do you give a rats? Why the argument?

Face it Simple Soren, your hypocrisy is writ large. You can't quite bring yourself to come out of the closet and admit that you just want the Navy to machine gun the bastards in their boats can you?

But it is self evident, really.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #275 - Jul 18^th, 2012 at 12:32pm

Gist wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 12:22pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 12:08pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 11:57am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 9:09pm:

I didn't pose the solution, you did.
I am merely asking how you would '[r]esettle them before they get to the point that they're willing to risk everything they have including their lives in boats' in a practical manner. How would your solution operate in a well thought out plan where workable objectives can be achieved. If you're serious about this problem, then you should be beyond vague platitudes. You are serious about 'boat people,' are you not?

No, you DID pose the solution only you're incapable of admitting it or more likely of recognising it. YOUR solution was option 1 in my list - that is, to stick your head up your arse and pretend it's not happening.

Same answer for Soren The Simple.

Yeah, my solution is to stop the boats.

Your solution is to resettle them before they even get near a port: " "Resettle them before they get to the point that they're willing to risk everything they have including their lives in boats."

SO the question, Mr Furtive, is: how many would you resettle and how would you deal with the ones who don't want to wait for you to select them but will take to the boats and self-select by sailing to Australia?

You can't answer that very simple question because even you now realise how utterly stupid your suggestion really is.

Now you are just slippin' and slidin' and tapdancing, pretending that to be a self-evident answer. It isn't.

Of course it isn't self evident Simple Soren. The numbers depend on the current circumstances in the world. How many we might take today would be very different to how many we might have taken in the 80s. If longloser's messiah should waft down from his heavenly throne tomorrow and bring peace unto the world then there'd be no point having a target of a zillion would there?

But lets examine your solution. "STOP THE BOATS". As if. Tongue

Why? Do you care if they drown? I don't think so. So why do you give a rats? Why the argument?

Face it Simple Soren, your hypocrisy is writ large. You can't quite bring yourself to come out of the closet and admit that you just want the Navy to machine gun the bastards in their boats can you?

But it is self evident, really.

So, then, how many would you "resettle [...[] beore they get to the point that they're willing to risk everything they have including their lives in boats."

In today's figures (never mind the '80s)

Back to top

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #276 - Jul 18^th, 2012 at 12:46pm

Soren wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 12:32pm:

So, then, how many would you "resettle [...[] beore they get to the point that they're willing to risk everything they have including their lives in boats."

In today's figures (never mind the '80s)

More than we are currently resettling. How many would you machine gun?

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Reply #277 - Jul 18^th, 2012 at 1:06pm You'd only need to machine gun 1 or 2 - once the blood is in the water the sharks will take care of the rest.
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10277
Gender: male

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #278 - Jul 18^th, 2012 at 1:22pm

Gist wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 11:57am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 9:09pm:

I didn't pose the solution, you did.
I am merely asking how you would '[r]esettle them before they get to the point that they're willing to risk everything they have including their lives in boats' in a practical manner. How would your solution operate in a well thought out plan where workable objectives can be achieved. If you're serious about this problem, then you should be beyond vague platitudes. You are serious about 'boat people,' are you not?

No, you DID pose the solution only you're incapable of admitting it or more likely of recognising it. YOUR solution was option 1 in my list - that is, to stick your head up your arse and pretend it's not happening.

Same answer for Soren The Simple.

You haven't asked me for my solution. If you do I'll give you a straight answer. (In fact, we've discussed this before in another thread and I gave you my 2 cents on the issue).

I'll ask again, for the third time, what is your pragmatic plan for resettling these people?

This can go on for as long as you like. I am going to keep asking you until you answer.

Back to top

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #279 - Jul 18^th, 2012 at 1:30pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 1:22pm:

You haven't asked me for my solution. If you do I'll give you a straight answer. (In fact, we've discussed this before in another thread and I gave you my 2 cents on the issue).

I'll ask again, for the third time, what is your pragmatic plan for resettling these people?

This can go on for as long as you like. I am going to keep asking you until you answer.

Oh, your straight answer. OK, what is it? Does yours also involve machine guns?

I gave you mine just a few posts ago. If you didn't understand it then maybe you could try rereading it a few times because I don't see why I should retype it over and over just for you.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #280 - Jul 18^th, 2012 at 1:35pm

Gist wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 12:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 12:32pm:

So, then, how many would you "resettle [...[] beore they get to the point that they're willing to risk everything they have including their lives in boats."

In today's figures (never mind the '80s)

More than we are currently resettling.

How many?

Back to top

IP Logged

Prevailing Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7169 Stop Men	Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Reply #281 - Jul 18^th, 2012 at 1:36pm we should abolish all corporate economic borders and zones of exclusion and place razor wire right around Australias coast and mine our waters in all sea approaches used for illegal foreign incursions.
Back to top	I condemn Male Violence Against Women The Government Supports Gynocide There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #282 - Jul 18^th, 2012 at 1:41pm

Soren wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 1:35pm:

How many?

You're not able to actually come out and say it are you? Here, I'll spoon feed you, just c&p the following:

"I don't give a sh!t if they all drown. As long as the feckin' wogs don't come here!"

C'mon... you KNOW that's what you really want to say.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10277
Gender: male

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #283 - Jul 18^th, 2012 at 1:46pm

Gist wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 1:30pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 1:22pm:

You haven't asked me for my solution. If you do I'll give you a straight answer. (In fact, we've discussed this before in another thread and I gave you my 2 cents on the issue).

I'll ask again, for the third time, what is your pragmatic plan for resettling these people?

This can go on for as long as you like. I am going to keep asking you until you answer.

Oh, your straight answer. OK, what is it? Does yours also involve machine guns?

I gave you mine just a few posts ago. If you didn't understand it then maybe you could try rereading it a few times because I don't see why I should retype it over and over just for you.

Was this attempt what you're talking about?

Quote:

Of course it isn't self evident Simple Soren. The numbers depend on the current circumstances in the world. How many we might take today would be very different to how many we might have taken in the 80s ... (abuse deleted)

So your solution is to ... what? It's still not clear.

I'll ask again (fourth time), what is your pragmatic solution to resettlement?

(I'll answer your question after you answer mine).

Back to top

IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Reply #284 - Jul 18^th, 2012 at 1:46pm Backed yourself into a corner again gits?
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged