Tony's position on this issue is that the welfare of asylum seekers is more important than stopping the boats. That the risk of more drownings is more palatable than sending asylum seekers to Malaysia.

Good position considering that Nauru worked, the pacific solution was a raging success and could be opened on a drop of a hat and has UNHCR signage.

No, labor are just partisan hacks who want more deaths running their gauntlet.


Pacific Solution years had boat arrival numbers of 1 - 7 per year. It worked. Labor just could not and can not have that happening
http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/Boatarrivals.gif

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/boatarrivalraw.png

MOTR wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 3:23am:

Tony's position on this issue is that the welfare of asylum seekers is more important than stopping the boats. That the risk of more drownings is more palatable than sending asylum seekers to Malaysia.

Malaysia is a dud deal. It is not signatory to the UN, and we swap 1 for 5 people.

The only one playing politics here is agillard. Why won't sheeinstate Naurua? Why did she get rid of it in the first place?

It was within Tony's powers to stop the boats. Instead he has sided with the greens and refused to put the welfare of asylum seekers at risk by sending them back to Malaysia. This clearly indicates that he believes the risk of boatpeople drowning is more acceptable than the risk of human rights violations in Malaysia.

Had the Coalition voted for the Gillard/Oakeshott bill, we wouldn't have seen the boats stop. Nor would they have even slowed. We would have seen the number of arrivals increase due to the stupidity of the bill. Under the terms of the agreement, we would send to Malaysia 800 of these boat people per year. In the last eight days there have been seven boats carrying 656 people. Had we not seen so many lives tragically lost, that number would probably be close to 800. So in two weeks, the Malaysia deal would be less than useless. What would we do for the other 50 weeks of the year? Onshore processing? That's what we have now and clearly it is making matters worse, not better. Offshore processing? Sure, that could work if Gillard hadn't killed off a Coalition bill that would have allowed just that.

No, the problem here most certainly is not Tony Abbott nor any member of the Coalition. The one and only place where the blame lies is with this ALP government. Rudd dismantled the highly successful Pacific Solution and since then we've seen Labor blunder from one incompetent policy to another. Gillard clearly has no idea, or else she wouldn't turn to Angus Houston for help. That is not the actions of someone worthy to be our PM. She should lead, but cannot. She should have a plan, but does not. She should call an election. Now.

MOTR wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 10:35am:

It was within Tony's powers to stop the boats. Instead he has sided with the greens and refused to put the welfare of asylum seekers at risk by sending them back to Malaysia. This clearly indicates that he believes the risk of boatpeople drowning is more acceptable than the risk of human rights violations in Malaysia.

The self preclaimed negotiator should know that if you cant get a policy through, you negotiate or go DD. She does not want to because she knows the liberals Nauru worked and she will lose face.

Not even the lives of people will change her. She is not caring at all except for keeping face.

^So Tony is would rather achieve a political aim than stop the boats. I think most of us can see that.

Why doesn't he start up a shop? He could render down their bodies for lard to make soap. They may have gold teeth y'know! That could be a good Lieberal policy.

I mean, if he's going to trade in human misery he may as well go the whole hog, so to speak.

MOTR wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 11:42am:

^So Tony is would rather achieve a political aim than stop the boats. I think most of us can see that.

Yes Abbott would rather stop the boats, use a human rights country (on the request of lefties) and use a policy that was a raging success with historical data to show for it.

Gillard would rather many deaths and partisanship in some wako idea that she can save face.

Just remember every immigrant you bring in, we will make sure we turn into an enemy of the Communist ruling class....you are not building your voter base but an army of malcontents...

I notice no one has refuted my analysis of the Malaysia non-solution. Clearly, you Lefties know there is no argument to be made against my analysis because the Malaysia non-solution would fail.

Relaxing the policy will just invite more boats and the consequence will be more disasters at sea.

MOTR wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 3:23am:

Tony's position on this issue is that the welfare of asylum seekers is more important than stopping the boats. That the risk of more drownings is more palatable than sending asylum seekers to Malaysia.

While this disorganised regatta is taking place we have a crisis here in Oz.


Quote:

About Red Nose Day 25 years of Red Nose Day - Friday 29th June 2012 Red Nose Day, held annually on the last Friday in June, is the major fundraiser for SIDS and Kids. Funds raised through Red Nose Day activities assist SIDS and Kids in providing vital services and programs to the Australian community. About SIDS and Kids SIDS and Kids is dedicated to saving the lives of babies and children during pregnancy, birth, infancy and childhood and to supporting bereaved families. With nine offices throughout Australia and a National office in Melbourne, SIDS and Kids areas of focus include bereavement support, education, research, national awareness campaigning, advocacy and fundraising. [...] http://www.rednoseday.com.au/about-red-nose-day/

Anyone interested in helping our kids? No? Ok, everyone back to the leaky boats.

So remind me who is in power again?
Last time I looked Abbott was not the leader of the government.

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 1:43pm:

So remind me who is in power again? Last time I looked Abbott was not the leader of the government.

Going by the rantings of Gillard and Co, you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise!!!  ;D

MOTR wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 10:35am:

It was within Tony's powers to stop the boats. Instead he has sided with the greens and refused to put the welfare of asylum seekers at risk by sending them back to Malaysia. This clearly indicates that he believes the risk of boatpeople drowning is more acceptable than the risk of human rights violations in Malaysia.

So the Greens are just as much to blame as Tony according to you?

Verge wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 2:10pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 10:35am: It was within Tony's powers to stop the boats. Instead he has sided with the greens and refused to put the welfare of asylum seekers at risk by sending them back to Malaysia. This clearly indicates that he believes the risk of boatpeople drowning is more acceptable than the risk of human rights violations in Malaysia. So the Greens are just as much to blame as Tony according to you?

Only one place to lay the blame - ALP. They inherited a successful policy and all they had to do was leave it alone. But naturally, Rudd dismantled it and now we have this mess. Julia could've fixed it two days ago but, as the partisan hack she is, she refused to do so. Instead, she prefers to play politics in the hope of scoring cheap points. It backfired spectacularly on her and now she is looking to others (Angus Houston) for a solution when the Coalition offered it to her before she tabled Oakeshott's bill. Gillard isn't interested in fixing her mess, only in playing politics.

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 1:43pm:

So remind me who is in power again? Last time I looked Abbott was not the leader of the government.

Remind me again - who determines how the coalition votes? Last time I looked Gillard was not the leader of the coalition.

Gist wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 3:27pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 1:43pm: So remind me who is in power again? Last time I looked Abbott was not the leader of the government. Remind me again - who determines how the coalition votes? Last time I looked Gillard was not the leader of the coalition.

The self proclaimed negotiator Gillard is suppose to negotiate like a good negotiator does.

The opposition is suppose to oppose poor policy (like the Malaysia policy). One is doing their job, the other is hopeless.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 4:38pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 3:27pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 1:43pm: So remind me who is in power again? Last time I looked Abbott was not the leader of the government. Remind me again - who determines how the coalition votes? Last time I looked Gillard was not the leader of the coalition. The self proclaimed negotiator Gillard is suppose to negotiate like a good negotiator does. The opposition is suppose to oppose poor policy (like the Malaysia policy). One is doing their job, the other is hopeless.

I'd never thought I'd see you declare the entire opposition hopeless lolly! I'm not sure I can go THAT far but yes, most of 'em wouldn't be worth picking up out of the gutter if they were covered in fifty dollar notes.

Gist wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 4:41pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 4:38pm: Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 3:27pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 1:43pm: So remind me who is in power again? Last time I looked Abbott was not the leader of the government. Remind me again - who determines how the coalition votes? Last time I looked Gillard was not the leader of the coalition. The self proclaimed negotiator Gillard is suppose to negotiate like a good negotiator does. The opposition is suppose to oppose poor policy (like the Malaysia policy). One is doing their job, the other is hopeless. I'd never thought I'd see you declare the entire opposition hopeless lolly! I'm not sure I can go THAT far but yes, most of 'em wouldn't be worth picking up out of the gutter if they were covered in fifty dollar notes.

Ahhh but you see, you are too stupid to do math. 1 is doing their job = opposing poor policy, the other is not doing their job = not negotiating.

I cant be your math teacher forever. You will have to go out on your own one day.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 4:53pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 4:41pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 4:38pm: Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 3:27pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 1:43pm: So remind me who is in power again? Last time I looked Abbott was not the leader of the government. Remind me again - who determines how the coalition votes? Last time I looked Gillard was not the leader of the coalition. The self proclaimed negotiator Gillard is suppose to negotiate like a good negotiator does. The opposition is suppose to oppose poor policy (like the Malaysia policy). One is doing their job, the other is hopeless. I'd never thought I'd see you declare the entire opposition hopeless lolly! I'm not sure I can go THAT far but yes, most of 'em wouldn't be worth picking up out of the gutter if they were covered in fifty dollar notes. Ahhh but you see, you are too stupid to do math. 1 is doing their job = opposing poor policy, the other is not doing their job = not negotiating. I cant be your math teacher forever. You will have to go out on your own one day.

Hey boatboy, RESCUED ANY BOATS LATELY?

I know a hulk on the Parramatta River that looks like it's in danger of sinking. You best tend to it!

Hasn't been anyone on it in years but hey, IT'S A BOAT IN NEED OF RESCUE!  ;D ;D ;D ;D

What a load of doublethink BS. She cant "negotiate" when they wont talk to her. She has even compromised but they still wont give her an inch. They play with ppls lives to score political points and you fal for it hook line and boat.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 5:14pm:

What a load of doublethink BS. She cant "negotiate" when they wont talk to her. She has even compromised but they still wont give her an inch. They play with ppls lives to score political points and you fal for it hook line and boat. SOB

They offered up a negotiation. She declined to negotiate.

Let this be a lesson to the war mongers...if you invade a country you will create refugees..invade two countries and you double the refugees.
The people cheering Howard on when he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan should realise that they now have a responsibility to those whose lives they have destroyed.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 5:33pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:14pm: What a load of doublethink BS. She cant "negotiate" when they wont talk to her. She has even compromised but they still wont give her an inch. They play with ppls lives to score political points and you fal for it hook line and boat. SOB They offered up a negotiation. She declined to negotiate.

What negotiation?

SOB

MOTR wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 11:42am:

^So Tony is would rather achieve a political aim than stop the boats. I think most of us can see that.

NO ONE can see that. What they are seeing is a govt determined to get its way and ONYL its way regardless of the outcome. labors solution has little chance of success while Abbotts solution is a proven one that workse very well.

A credible, caring and competent PM would embarace Abbots solutionn because it would actually be implemented and passed by both hosues. But no, this damnably uncaring scumbag decided it was HER WAY or NO WAY.

the lives of boat people who die from now on are on her head. Nauru could be opend today but instead it looks liek we will ahve to wait for the next elction to get a policy in place that will actually save lives.

Gillard, you are a DISGRACE.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 5:53pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 11:42am: ^So Tony is would rather achieve a political aim than stop the boats. I think most of us can see that. NO ONE can see that. What they are seeing is a govt determined to get its way and ONYL its way regardless of the outcome. labors solution has little chance of success while Abbotts solution is a proven one that workse very well. A credible, caring and competent PM would embarace Abbots solutionn because it would actually be implemented and passed by both hosues. But no, this damnably uncaring scumbag decided it was HER WAY or NO WAY. the lives of boat people who die from now on are on her head. Nauru could be opend today but instead it looks liek we will ahve to wait for the next elction to get a policy in place that will actually save lives. Gillard, you are a DISGRACE.

Last I checked, 70% of voters here could see it. Of course you couldn't. But then you can't see the end of your nose...  :D

adelcrow wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 5:45pm:

Let this be a lesson to the war mongers...if you invade a country you will create refugees..invade two countries and you double the refugees. The people cheering Howard on when he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan should realise that they now have a responsibility to those whose lives they have destroyed.

your idiotic belief that someone all the refugees are iraqi and afghani makes you look like a fool. do you think the world-wide refugee problem began in 2003?

idiot.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 5:48pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:33pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:14pm: What a load of doublethink BS. She cant "negotiate" when they wont talk to her. She has even compromised but they still wont give her an inch. They play with ppls lives to score political points and you fal for it hook line and boat. SOB They offered up a negotiation. She declined to negotiate. What negotiation? SOB

It was not a round table negotiation. It was an offer of support for ????. It did not have Malaysia as part of the mix and was rejected. If they wanted to fix the boat deaths, then they should have started with something, then push for exactly what they wanted. Instead they have nothing. They knew they would have nothing so should have gone with something.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 4:38pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 3:27pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 1:43pm: So remind me who is in power again? Last time I looked Abbott was not the leader of the government. Remind me again - who determines how the coalition votes? Last time I looked Gillard was not the leader of the coalition. The self proclaimed negotiator Gillard is suppose to negotiate like a good negotiator does. The opposition is suppose to oppose poor policy (like the Malaysia policy). One is doing their job, the other is hopeless.

exactly. I thought Gillard was supposed to be a negotiator par excellence? I certainly dont see that here. she had HER way or NO WAY. that isnt negotation. it is blackmail and it failed like som many other policies.  She wants Malaysia for who-knows-what-reason and will not accept any solution that does not involve that.

GILLARD IS A DISGRACE

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 5:55pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:48pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:33pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:14pm: What a load of doublethink BS. She cant "negotiate" when they wont talk to her. She has even compromised but they still wont give her an inch. They play with ppls lives to score political points and you fal for it hook line and boat. SOB They offered up a negotiation. She declined to negotiate. What negotiation? SOB It was not a round table negotiation. It was an offer of support for ????. It did not have Malaysia as part of the mix and was rejected. If they wanted to fix the boat deaths, then they should have started with something, then push for exactly what they wanted. Instead they have nothing. They knew they would have nothing so should have gone with something.

What? You mean the government didnt accept the oppositions policy? She doesnt have to - they are the opposition. She has been trying to negotiate but they wont budge.

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 5:57pm:

exactly. I thought Gillard was supposed to be a negotiator par excellence? I certainly dont see that here. she had HER way or NO WAY. that isnt negotation. it is blackmail and it failed like som many other policies.  She wants Malaysia for who-knows-what-reason and will not accept any solution that does not involve that. GILLARD IS A DISGRACE

Can't negotiate with someone who's idea of negotiation is to offer you their arse.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 5:58pm:

What? You mean the government didnt accept the oppositions policy? She doesnt have to - they are the opposition. She has been trying to negotiate but they wont budge. SOB

It's amazing what thickheads these righties are, eh? They seem to think that "negotiation" should have meant Gillard accepting everything that Abbott wanted and then they go from there.

What a bunch of clowns! No wonder they NEGOTIATED THEMSELVES OUT OF GOVERNMENT!!

Way to go retards!  ;D ;D ;D

Gist wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:57pm: exactly. I thought Gillard was supposed to be a negotiator par excellence? I certainly dont see that here. she had HER way or NO WAY. that isnt negotation. it is blackmail and it failed like som many other policies.  She wants Malaysia for who-knows-what-reason and will not accept any solution that does not involve that. GILLARD IS A DISGRACE Can't negotiate with someone who's idea of negotiation is to offer you their arse.

Why negotiate?
Both Labor and the Coalition are just playing political games with peoples lives and neither party has any intention of doing the right thing by the people they made refugees through the two wars of revenge.
Crocodile tears by a parliament full of narcissistic cowards is all we are seeing.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 5:58pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:55pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:48pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:33pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:14pm: What a load of doublethink BS. She cant "negotiate" when they wont talk to her. She has even compromised but they still wont give her an inch. They play with ppls lives to score political points and you fal for it hook line and boat. SOB They offered up a negotiation. She declined to negotiate. What negotiation? SOB It was not a round table negotiation. It was an offer of support for ????. It did not have Malaysia as part of the mix and was rejected. If they wanted to fix the boat deaths, then they should have started with something, then push for exactly what they wanted. Instead they have nothing. They knew they would have nothing so should have gone with something. What? You mean the government didnt accept the oppositions policy? She doesnt have to - they are the opposition. She has been trying to negotiate but they wont budge. SOB

So she does her job, gets something passed and then pushes for more later. The greens will not go malaysia deal, neither will opposition.

Gillard/labor know this, so have to do their job if they want something passed. We are not talking about something that does not have a track record. We are talking about a policy that was a raging success.

Labor just want people to die or be canned and branded.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 5:58pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:55pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:48pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:33pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:14pm: What a load of doublethink BS. She cant "negotiate" when they wont talk to her. She has even compromised but they still wont give her an inch. They play with ppls lives to score political points and you fal for it hook line and boat. SOB They offered up a negotiation. She declined to negotiate. What negotiation? SOB It was not a round table negotiation. It was an offer of support for ????. It did not have Malaysia as part of the mix and was rejected. If they wanted to fix the boat deaths, then they should have started with something, then push for exactly what they wanted. Instead they have nothing. They knew they would have nothing so should have gone with something. What? You mean the government didnt accept the oppositions policy? She doesnt have to - they are the opposition. She has been trying to negotiate but they wont budge. SOB

gillard refused to negotiate. all she did was let that idiot Oakeshoot put up a bill which was exactly her own preferred position and then complain when it failed. No negotiation, no compromise.

Gist wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:04pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:58pm: What? You mean the government didnt accept the oppositions policy? She doesnt have to - they are the opposition. She has been trying to negotiate but they wont budge. SOB It's amazing what thickheads these righties are, eh? They seem to think that "negotiation" should have meant Gillard accepting everything that Abbott wanted and then they go from there. What a bunch of clowns! No wonder they NEGOTIATED THEMSELVES OUT OF GOVERNMENT!! Way to go retards!  ;D ;D ;D

maybe you should goole the meaning of 'negotiation'. it doesnt mean getting your own way and flipping the finger at your opposition. thats all she has ever done

adelcrow wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:05pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:57pm: exactly. I thought Gillard was supposed to be a negotiator par excellence? I certainly dont see that here. she had HER way or NO WAY. that isnt negotation. it is blackmail and it failed like som many other policies.  She wants Malaysia for who-knows-what-reason and will not accept any solution that does not involve that. GILLARD IS A DISGRACE Can't negotiate with someone who's idea of negotiation is to offer you their arse. Why negotiate? Both Labor and the Coalition are just playing political games with peoples lives and neither party has any intention of doing the right thing by the people they made refugees through the two wars of revenge. Crocodile tears by a parliament full of narcissistic cowards is all we are seeing.

all you are doing is simplfying the problem and then adopting a partisan poitical position. big deal.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:15pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:04pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:58pm: What? You mean the government didnt accept the oppositions policy? She doesnt have to - they are the opposition. She has been trying to negotiate but they wont budge. SOB It's amazing what thickheads these righties are, eh? They seem to think that "negotiation" should have meant Gillard accepting everything that Abbott wanted and then they go from there. What a bunch of clowns! No wonder they NEGOTIATED THEMSELVES OUT OF GOVERNMENT!! Way to go retards!  ;D ;D ;D maybe you should goole the meaning of 'negotiation'. it doesnt mean getting your own way and flipping the finger at your opposition. thats all she has ever done

Maybe you should google the meaning of 'negotiation'. It doesn't mean demanding you get 100% of your way as a starting point or else you won't even talk to your opposition. That's all Abbott has ever done.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:16pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:05pm: Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:57pm: exactly. I thought Gillard was supposed to be a negotiator par excellence? I certainly dont see that here. she had HER way or NO WAY. that isnt negotation. it is blackmail and it failed like som many other policies.  She wants Malaysia for who-knows-what-reason and will not accept any solution that does not involve that. GILLARD IS A DISGRACE Can't negotiate with someone who's idea of negotiation is to offer you their arse. Why negotiate? Both Labor and the Coalition are just playing political games with peoples lives and neither party has any intention of doing the right thing by the people they made refugees through the two wars of revenge. Crocodile tears by a parliament full of narcissistic cowards is all we are seeing. all you are doing is simplfying the problem and then adopting a partisan poitical position. big deal.

Im supporting the Greens position and I will continue to support the same position when Labor and the Greens block Abbotts regressive refugee policies if or when he gets into power.
Personally I think Clive Palmer is trying to do a Campbell Newman and grab the leadership prior to the next election so the Greens will be blocking his reffo policies  :P

this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives.

The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics.

Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted.

Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing.

SOB

adelcrow wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:16pm: adelcrow wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:05pm: Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 5:57pm: exactly. I thought Gillard was supposed to be a negotiator par excellence? I certainly dont see that here. she had HER way or NO WAY. that isnt negotation. it is blackmail and it failed like som many other policies.  She wants Malaysia for who-knows-what-reason and will not accept any solution that does not involve that. GILLARD IS A DISGRACE Can't negotiate with someone who's idea of negotiation is to offer you their arse. Why negotiate? Both Labor and the Coalition are just playing political games with peoples lives and neither party has any intention of doing the right thing by the people they made refugees through the two wars of revenge. Crocodile tears by a parliament full of narcissistic cowards is all we are seeing. all you are doing is simplfying the problem and then adopting a partisan poitical position. big deal. Im supporting the Greens position and I will continue to support the same position when Labor and the Greens block Abbotts regressive refugee policies if or when he gets into power. Personally I think Clive Palmer is trying to do a Campbell Newman and grab the leadership prior to the next election so the Greens will be blocking his reffo policies  :P

Dont think you would have to block it. Clive Palmer has no chance in hell of winning also no chance in hell of leading the liberals.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:32pm:

this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB

Yeh yeh. If labor wanted to save lives like liberals do, then she would pass a policy that would save lives, has a track record of a raging success. She would not at this stage in the game, play experiments(malaysia policy) against peoples lives.

Pacific solution is called solution because it is.

malaysia policy is a policy, an experiment, not a solution.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:34pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:32pm: this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB Yeh yeh. If labor wanted to save lives like liberals do, then she would pass a policy that would save lives, has a track record of a raging success. She would not at this stage in the game, play experiments(malaysia policy) against peoples lives. Pacific solution is called solution because it is. malaysia policy is a policy, an experiment, not a solution.

If abbott wanted to save lives he would let the government do their job.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:37pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:34pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:32pm: this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB Yeh yeh. If labor wanted to save lives like liberals do, then she would pass a policy that would save lives, has a track record of a raging success. She would not at this stage in the game, play experiments(malaysia policy) against peoples lives. Pacific solution is called solution because it is. malaysia policy is a policy, an experiment, not a solution. If abbott wanted to save lives he would let the government do their job. SOB

Abbott knows what will save lives. It is on record. In raw data.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:38pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:37pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:34pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:32pm: this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB Yeh yeh. If labor wanted to save lives like liberals do, then she would pass a policy that would save lives, has a track record of a raging success. She would not at this stage in the game, play experiments(malaysia policy) against peoples lives. Pacific solution is called solution because it is. malaysia policy is a policy, an experiment, not a solution. If abbott wanted to save lives he would let the government do their job. SOB Abbott knows what will save lives. It is on record. In raw data.

DATA IS ALWAYS COMPLETE AND NEVER LIES!

  ;) ;)

ABBOTT IS A RHODES SCHOLAR REMEMBER!!!!!

The Pacific Solution was a failure. That's something that apparently everyone except righties are capable of understanding.

Gist wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:56pm:

The Pacific Solution was a failure. That's something that apparently everyone except righties are capable of understanding.

7 boats with average of 29 persons per boat(pacifi solution) compared to non-pacific solution 134 boats and 46 persons per boat and 2012 half year equaling 2011 full year. That is hardly a failure on the pacific solution, it is a failure on not having the pacific solution.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:59pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:56pm: The Pacific Solution was a failure. That's something that apparently everyone except righties are capable of understanding. 7 boats with average of 29 persons per boat(pacifi solution) compared to non-pacific solution 134 boats and 46 persons per boat and 2012 half year equaling 2011 full year. That is hardly a failure on the pacific solution, it is a failure on not having the pacific solution.

How many boats were there prior to the Afghan and Iraq invasions?

adelcrow wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 7:00pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:59pm: Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:56pm: The Pacific Solution was a failure. That's something that apparently everyone except righties are capable of understanding. 7 boats with average of 29 persons per boat(pacifi solution) compared to non-pacific solution 134 boats and 46 persons per boat and 2012 half year equaling 2011 full year. That is hardly a failure on the pacific solution, it is a failure on not having the pacific solution. How many boats were there prior to the Afghan and Iraq invasions?

Your story, you tell it.

Lolly, you'll be happy to know that I've just fired off a memo to the government. I promoted your scheme to them in a big way. I even named you as the creator!


Quote:

The LOLLY BOAT SCHEME Essentially the idea is to send one rather large vessel - perhaps a naval vessel or (even better) a chartered cruise ship - to Indonesia to round up ALL of the would-be asylum seekers that are there. Depending on numbers, it could then proceed to do the same in Sri Lanka, Malaysia and other ports in the region. This would have the following benefits [list bull-redcheck] Deprive people smugglers of income Reduce the risk of loss of boats at sea (note - this assumes a large vessel would be pretty safe otherwise the stats could be pretty ordinary) Reduce the number of asylum seeker boats entering Australian waters to just ONE Lolly assures me that the last point is crucial. This would make the policy a resounding success - far better than was achieved throughout virtually all of Howard's Pacific Solution years! He assures me that ONE boat instead of 100 would be a huge reduction in the asylum seeker problem. I commend this plan to the Prime Minister for her urgent consideration. Yours, Gist PS. For all further correspondence please contact lolly@ozpolitic.com

You should be proud ol' mate!

Gist wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 7:11pm:

Lolly, you'll be happy to know that I've just fired off a memo to the government. I promoted your scheme to them in a big way. I even named you as the creator! Quote: The LOLLY BOAT SCHEME Essentially the idea is to send one rather large vessel - perhaps a naval vessel or (even better) a chartered cruise ship - to Indonesia to round up ALL of the would-be asylum seekers that are there. Depending on numbers, it could then proceed to do the same in Sri Lanka, Malaysia and other ports in the region. This would have the following benefits [list bull-redcheck] Deprive people smugglers of income Reduce the risk of loss of boats at sea (note - this assumes a large vessel would be pretty safe otherwise the stats could be pretty ordinary) Reduce the number of asylum seeker boats entering Australian waters to just ONE Lolly assures me that the last point is crucial. This would make the policy a resounding success - far better than was achieved throughout virtually all of Howard's Pacific Solution years! He assures me that ONE boat instead of 100 would be a huge reduction in the asylum seeker problem. I commend this plan to the Prime Minister for her urgent consideration. Yours, Gist PS. For all further correspondence please contact lolly@ozpolitic.com You should be proud ol' mate!

7 boats a year (just the same as the pacific solution) will do just fine compared to 134 boats a year under labor.

That policy you created has you (daft) written all over it, not me.

Deport an equal number of ideological atheists for each asylum seeker we grant refuge - now thats a fair swap, a green communist pig for a refugee.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 7:19pm:

That policy you created has you (daft) written all over it, not me.

Oh, don't be shy like that. You scheme is brilliant! ONE boat would cut the numbers to ONE SEVENTH what Howard was able to manage. Sheer brilliance!

Gist wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 7:19pm: That policy you created has you (daft) written all over it, not me. Oh, don't be shy like that. You scheme is brilliant! ONE boat would cut the numbers to ONE SEVENTH what Howard was able to manage. Sheer brilliance!

Self promotion still does not make your policy any better.

Why not stop the boats, Tnoy?

Imagine this arse could be PM.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 7:33pm:

Why not stop the boats, Tnoy? Imagine this arse could be PM.

You are going to love it, I know I will lol.

The Greens and Gillard have a mantra - C00ns and refos before working class Aussies...

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 7:25pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 7:23pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 7:19pm: That policy you created has you (daft) written all over it, not me. Oh, don't be shy like that. You scheme is brilliant! ONE boat would cut the numbers to ONE SEVENTH what Howard was able to manage. Sheer brilliance! Self promotion still does not make your policy any better.

I see you're self-effacing to a fault but it wasn't my policy. I have to admit I was addled by numbers of people. It took a refreshing shower a little while ago to wake me up to your brilliance - numbers of people is stupid! Who cares about that? Cut the number of boats - that's all that counts!!

I've heard that Gillard has already asked that your plan be forwarded on to Angus Houston. Don't be surprised if it's the centrepiece of their recommendations in a few weeks time. With proper planning they could charter one of the cruise ships to do a sweep of the Indian Ocean during their regular passage here for the cruise season. Easy peasy!

You could get a gong next Australia Day!!  :o :o

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:32pm:

this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB

i dont think you really understand the workigns of parliamentary government. the ones blocking labors refo pla (if youcan call it that) are the GREENS. the GREENS are the ones in coalition with Labor - not Abbott. Abbott is the OPPOSITION leader and is under no obligation whatseover to support any govt policy.

the situation of a hung parliament seems to confuse you. Gillard has to negotiate most of her policies. this is no different except this time she cant get it. This is called COMPROMISE - something she knows nothing about.

Gist wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:56pm:

The Pacific Solution was a failure. That's something that apparently everyone except righties are capable of understanding.

only you and similar dimwits think that. egverybody else without a political axe to grind says it was a spectacular succes - which it was

idiot

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:56pm: The Pacific Solution was a failure. That's something that apparently everyone except righties are capable of understanding. only you and similar dimwits think that. egverybody else without a political axe to grind says it was a spectacular succes - which it was idiot

You know, you really shouldn't sign your posts as "idiot". We do all know that about you of course, but we try not to say it out loud. But when you sign your posts that way ... well... you'll never stop being a laughing post if you do that.

Gist wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 7:52pm: Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:56pm: The Pacific Solution was a failure. That's something that apparently everyone except righties are capable of understanding. only you and similar dimwits think that. egverybody else without a political axe to grind says it was a spectacular succes - which it was idiot You know, you really shouldn't sign your posts as "idiot". We do all know that about you of course, but we try not to say it out loud. But when you sign your posts that way ... well... you'll never stop being a laughing post if you do that.

idiot.

Gist wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 7:49pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 7:25pm: Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 7:23pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 7:19pm: That policy you created has you (daft) written all over it, not me. Oh, don't be shy like that. You scheme is brilliant! ONE boat would cut the numbers to ONE SEVENTH what Howard was able to manage. Sheer brilliance! Self promotion still does not make your policy any better. I see you're self-effacing to a fault but it wasn't my policy. I have to admit I was addled by numbers of people. It took a refreshing shower a little while ago to wake me up to your brilliance - numbers of people is stupid! Who cares about that? Cut the number of boats - that's all that counts!! I've heard that Gillard has already asked that your plan be forwarded on to Angus Houston. Don't be surprised if it's the centrepiece of their recommendations in a few weeks time. With proper planning they could charter one of the cruise ships to do a sweep of the Indian Ocean during their regular passage here for the cruise season. Easy peasy! You could get a gong next Australia Day!!  :o :o

I am trying to set your plan up but just need you to refine it for me.

I have it in pseudo code for now, but will get it all together after your input.

1. 49 people per boat is less than 29
2. Less boats sink if you have 130 or more boats per year than if you had less than 10 boats per year
3. Trends can be shown from 1 boat
4. Trends from 7 boats count the same as trends from 130 boats
5. 134 boats per year non-pacific solution, is better than 7 boats per year tops of the pacific solution

Thats all I have of your policy for now. You cant be sure I will use any of your other brilliant mathematical suggestions you make from here on, but I will be sure to give them the deep consideration they deserve.
;D ;)

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:32pm:

this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB

That's right Abbott is opposition not government but an opposition is not a rubber stamp for the government. The electorate did not give Gillard  a majority so she cannot as many before her have done both Lab and Lib just ram through whatever policy she likes. Abbott has every right to vote against policy he regards as bad...if he did not he would not be discharging his duty as a representative. Same deal with Gillard she does not have to adopt opposition policy. However she is only PM because she did a deal, not with the Australian people, but with the Greens and independents (excluding Katter).

But neither Gillard or Abbott are responsible for the deaths...responsibility lies with the people themselves that get onto leaky unseaworthy boats.

Of course she could call an election on the issue...but I doubt she will do that either.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:38pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:37pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:34pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:32pm: this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB Yeh yeh. If labor wanted to save lives like liberals do, then she would pass a policy that would save lives, has a track record of a raging success. She would not at this stage in the game, play experiments(malaysia policy) against peoples lives. Pacific solution is called solution because it is. malaysia policy is a policy, an experiment, not a solution. If abbott wanted to save lives he would let the government do their job. SOB Abbott knows what will save lives. It is on record. In raw data.

And nobody knows if gillards policy will save lives because it hasnt been tried. Its a governments prerogative to try new policies.

Like i said howards policy was inhumane. Thats why it was removed.

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:32pm: this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB i dont think you really understand the workigns of parliamentary government. the ones blocking labors refo pla (if youcan call it that) are the GREENS. the GREENS are the ones in coalition with Labor - not Abbott. Abbott is the OPPOSITION leader and is under no obligation whatseover to support any govt policy. the situation of a hung parliament seems to confuse you. Gillard has to negotiate most of her policies. this is no different except this time she cant get it. This is called COMPROMISE - something she knows nothing about.

You are trying to sidetrack my point. ABBOTT is the one that is all over the media saying she should reinstate howards policy. the greens are who abbott actually tried (lamely)} to negotiate with.He wont negotiate with labour @ all but if he did the greens could be gotten past and lives supposedly saved.

The government is not obligated to go with anyone elses policies - not abbotts Or greens. IMO they should adopt the greens policy but they are under no obligation to. The greens and especially abbott are obligated to negotiate with her and help her pass something to supposedly save lives.

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:56pm: The Pacific Solution was a failure. That's something that apparently everyone except righties are capable of understanding. only you and similar dimwits think that. egverybody else without a political axe to grind says it was a spectacular succes - which it was idiot

It was inhumane.

SOB

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 9:04pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:32pm: this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB That's right Abbott is opposition not government but an opposition is not a rubber stamp for the government. The electorate did not give Gillard  a majority so she cannot as many before her have done both Lab and Lib just ram through whatever policy she likes. Abbott has every right to vote against policy he regards as bad...if he did not he would not be discharging his duty as a representative. Same deal with Gillard she does not have to adopt opposition policy. However she is only PM because she did a deal, not with the Australian people, but with the Greens and independents (excluding Katter). But neither Gillard or Abbott are responsible for the deaths...responsibility lies with the people themselves that get onto leaky unseaworthy boats. Of course she could call an election on the issue...but I doubt she will do that either.

Why an election? Why not a referendum? Because everyone knows the greens would win.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 6:30am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 9:04pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:32pm: this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB That's right Abbott is opposition not government but an opposition is not a rubber stamp for the government. The electorate did not give Gillard  a majority so she cannot as many before her have done both Lab and Lib just ram through whatever policy she likes. Abbott has every right to vote against policy he regards as bad...if he did not he would not be discharging his duty as a representative. Same deal with Gillard she does not have to adopt opposition policy. However she is only PM because she did a deal, not with the Australian people, but with the Greens and independents (excluding Katter). But neither Gillard or Abbott are responsible for the deaths...responsibility lies with the people themselves that get onto leaky unseaworthy boats. Of course she could call an election on the issue...but I doubt she will do that either. Why an election? Why not a referendum? Because everyone knows the greens would win. SOB

Politicians only have referendums where they either are all but certain of the result, there are limited options or where it does not matter to them one way or the other.
I'm probably on safe ground in holding that this will never be a referendum question in the current climate.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 8:37pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 7:49pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 7:25pm: Gist wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 7:23pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 7:19pm: That policy you created has you (daft) written all over it, not me. Oh, don't be shy like that. You scheme is brilliant! ONE boat would cut the numbers to ONE SEVENTH what Howard was able to manage. Sheer brilliance! Self promotion still does not make your policy any better. I see you're self-effacing to a fault but it wasn't my policy. I have to admit I was addled by numbers of people. It took a refreshing shower a little while ago to wake me up to your brilliance - numbers of people is stupid! Who cares about that? Cut the number of boats - that's all that counts!! I've heard that Gillard has already asked that your plan be forwarded on to Angus Houston. Don't be surprised if it's the centrepiece of their recommendations in a few weeks time. With proper planning they could charter one of the cruise ships to do a sweep of the Indian Ocean during their regular passage here for the cruise season. Easy peasy! You could get a gong next Australia Day!!  :o :o I am trying to set your plan up but just need you to refine it for me. I have it in pseudo code for now, but will get it all together after your input. 1. 49 people per boat is less than 29 2. Less boats sink if you have 130 or more boats per year than if you had less than 10 boats per year 3. Trends can be shown from 1 boat 4. Trends from 7 boats count the same as trends from 130 boats 5. 134 boats per year non-pacific solution, is better than 7 boats per year tops of the pacific solution Thats all I have of your policy for now. You cant be sure I will use any of your other brilliant mathematical suggestions you make from here on, but I will be sure to give them the deep consideration they deserve. ;D ;)

I'll be going on a boat today lolly. Several in fact! One of those boats will have one person on it - just me! Others will possibly have dozens. But you can of course ignore that little complication in your pseudo code. It's only the boats that count of course. My dinghy with me... the ferry with dozens... all the same really...

Will you come rescue that hulk that I mentioned? I should be going past it today. I'll let you know if it is still afloat. I'm sure it will be deeply grateful if you were to come save it.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:34pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:32pm: this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB Yeh yeh. If labor wanted to save lives like liberals do, then she would pass a policy that would save lives, has a track record of a raging success. She would not at this stage in the game, play experiments(malaysia policy) against peoples lives. Pacific solution is called solution because it is. malaysia policy is a policy, an experiment, not a solution.

Progs, why would interning people in Malaysia be less effective than interning people in Nauru.

MOTR wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 9:01am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:34pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:32pm: this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB Yeh yeh. If labor wanted to save lives like liberals do, then she would pass a policy that would save lives, has a track record of a raging success. She would not at this stage in the game, play experiments(malaysia policy) against peoples lives. Pacific solution is called solution because it is. malaysia policy is a policy, an experiment, not a solution. Progs, why would interning people in Malaysia be less effective than interning people in Nauru.

This is why...

Had the Coalition voted for the Gillard/Oakeshott bill, we wouldn't have seen the boats stop. Nor would they have even slowed. We would have seen the number of arrivals increase due to the stupidity of the bill. Under the terms of the agreement, we would send to Malaysia 800 of these boat people per year. In the last eight days there have been seven boats carrying 656 people. Had we not seen so many lives tragically lost, that number would probably be close to 800. So in two weeks, the Malaysia deal would be less than useless. What would we do for the other 50 weeks of the year? Onshore processing? That's what we have now and clearly it is making matters worse, not better. Offshore processing? Sure, that could work if Gillard hadn't killed off a Coalition bill that would have allowed just that.

No, the problem here most certainly is not Tony Abbott nor any member of the Coalition. The one and only place where the blame lies is with this ALP government. Rudd dismantled the highly successful Pacific Solution and since then we've seen Labor blunder from one incompetent policy to another. Gillard clearly has no idea, or else she wouldn't turn to Angus Houston for help. That is not the actions of someone worthy to be our PM. She should lead, but cannot. She should have a plan, but does not. She should call an election. Now.

MOTR wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 9:01am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:34pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:32pm: this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB Yeh yeh. If labor wanted to save lives like liberals do, then she would pass a policy that would save lives, has a track record of a raging success. She would not at this stage in the game, play experiments(malaysia policy) against peoples lives. Pacific solution is called solution because it is. malaysia policy is a policy, an experiment, not a solution. Progs, why would interning people in Malaysia be less effective than interning people in Nauru.

Also, this month has seen 1,641 arrivals. The Malaysia deal is useless in just over a week. Swan budgeted for 450 arrivals per month. We're currently getting nearly four times that.

MOTR wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 9:01am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:34pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:32pm: this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB Yeh yeh. If labor wanted to save lives like liberals do, then she would pass a policy that would save lives, has a track record of a raging success. She would not at this stage in the game, play experiments(malaysia policy) against peoples lives. Pacific solution is called solution because it is. malaysia policy is a policy, an experiment, not a solution. Progs, why would interning people in Malaysia be less effective than interning people in Nauru.

Think outside the box.

If you were an Aseeker that wanted to go to malaysia, you would go to indonesia, then to Australia, then back to malaysia to have all the trappings(the goodies) that the Australian government puts on the 800 going to malaysia.

That is just one reason.

VOTE 1 : 'Tony Abbot,  the man who always put politics ahead of lives '

John Smith wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 9:11am:

VOTE 1 : 'Tony Abbot,  the man who always put politics ahead of lives '

That one sentence shows how ignorant, uneducated and biased you are.

The problem I can see on here is also about "the UN says we must do this" etc.

As if complying with the UN is a must be done.

I can tell you from personal experience the UN gets it wrong and you should not always listen to them f it does not suit your country security.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 11:45am:

The problem I can see on here is also about "the UN says we must do this" etc. As if complying with the UN is a must be done. I can tell you from personal experience the UN gets it wrong and you should not always listen to them f it does not suit your country security.

And what gives a terrorist credibility in this matter?

Wilkie introduced a bill to re-open Nauru. Why didn't Gillard go with it? She wants offshore processing, Nauru is offshore, has signed the UN convention, could be ready sooner than any other offshore location - but Gillard said no.

Why?


Because it would amount to admitting that scrapping it in the first place was wrong.
SO now she is slippin' and slidin' and blaming Abbott even though she is in coalition with the Greens, not Abbott. If she can't persuade her own coalition partners with whom she has control of the parliament, why is that Abbott's fault.

This thread is about Tony's hypocrisy, not Gillard's. When given the opportunity to stop the boats, Tony knocked it back for his own political advantage.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 10:12am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 9:11am: VOTE 1 : 'Tony Abbot,  the man who always put politics ahead of lives ' That one sentence shows how ignorant, uneducated and biased you are.

show me one major decision Abbott as made where he hasn't put politics first?

MOTR wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 1:15pm:

This thread is about Tony's hypocrisy, not Gillard's. When given the opportunity to stop the boats, Tony knocked it back for his own political advantage.

This thread is about Gillard's hypocrisy, not Abbott's. When given the opportunity to stop the boats, Gillard knocked it back for her own political advantage.

This thread is about Tony's hypocricy, Gillard did not go around the country moronically chanting stop the boats. When given the opportunity he shamelessly voted with the greens to continue onshore processing. Was he putting the welfare of asylum seekers above a mindless slogan or does he want to ensure the boats keep on coming for his own political advantage. It seems most of us realise he wants the boats to keep on coming.

But I read on here and I admit it's only since this year I read, but lots of you are crazy enough to also want these boats to come?

There are things you can do to make it much more hard for these people and you don't want it??

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 5:12pm:

But I read on here and I admit it's only since this year I read, but lots of you are crazy enough to also want these boats to come? There are things you can do to make it much more hard for these people and you don't want it??

Avram, I would tell you in yiddish if I thought it would help you understand (even though I don't know the language ...) we want them to come and you to go ....

"These people" spoken like a true racist.

Tell me why you want people to come who offer you nothing and you have to pay for them?

I must also add looking at what Australians are saying both who I know and in the media - no most Australians do not want them to come true?
You must be in the minority.

These people has nothing to do with race.

I dont know what race they are, these people means boat people who turn up in Australia on boats with no visa and burn their ID papers to expect them to just be allowed in.

Race is irrelevant.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 5:22pm:

Tell me why you want people to come who offer you nothing and you have to pay for them? I must also add looking at what Australians are saying both who I know and in the media - no most Australians do not want them to come true? You must be in the minority.

they offer plenty, you on the other hand only offer hatred and racism ... and, once again, you are wrong ., ask most Australians if we should increase our intake of asylum seekers and the answer will be an astounding yes.

You pay not a cent for us who come on visas. All paid by my family.

Tell me why do you accept paying for these people?
Why do they not pay for themselves?

Hatred? Racism? I told you this is nothing about race, it is about Behaving correctly.
These people offer you nothing. Tell me what do they offer you???

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 5:31pm:

You pay not a cent for us who come on visas. All paid by my family. Tell me why do you accept paying for these people? Why do they not pay for themselves? Hatred? Racism? I told you this is nothing about race, it is about Behaving correctly. These people offer you nothing. Tell me what do they offer you???

They are people in need. I know this is beyond you.

SOB

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 5:31pm:

You pay not a cent for us who come on visas. All paid by my family. Tell me why do you accept paying for these people? Why do they not pay for themselves? Hatred? Racism? I told you this is nothing about race, it is about Behaving correctly. These people offer you nothing. Tell me what do they offer you???

You're not a refugee and when the Jews were refugees they were accepted and resettled by this country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht9VSjXDnZs&sns=em

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 5:31pm:

You pay not a cent for us who come on visas. All paid by my family. Tell me why do you accept paying for these people? Why do they not pay for themselves? Hatred? Racism? I told you this is nothing about race, it is about Behaving correctly. These people offer you nothing. Tell me what do they offer you???

I'd rather pay for them than get you for free ......

And you can pretend you're not being racist now, but your history on here shows you normally stereotype them as Arabs, or paki's or some other group you don't like

adelcrow wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 5:37pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:31pm: You pay not a cent for us who come on visas. All paid by my family. Tell me why do you accept paying for these people? Why do they not pay for themselves? Hatred? Racism? I told you this is nothing about race, it is about Behaving correctly. These people offer you nothing. Tell me what do they offer you??? You're not a refugee and when the Jews were refugees they were accepted and resettled by this country.

Stop pulling this to discussion about Jewish refugees from decades ago.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 5:40pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:37pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:31pm: You pay not a cent for us who come on visas. All paid by my family. Tell me why do you accept paying for these people? Why do they not pay for themselves? Hatred? Racism? I told you this is nothing about race, it is about Behaving correctly. These people offer you nothing. Tell me what do they offer you??? You're not a refugee and when the Jews were refugees they were accepted and resettled by this country. Stop pulling this to discussion about Jewish refugees from decades ago.

Yeah Adel ... how dare you let the truth interfere in his delusions ....

Quote:

Goebbels had decided to use the S.S. St. Louis and her passengers in a master propaganda plan. Having sent agents to Havana to stir up anti-Semitism, Nazi propaganda fabricated and hyped the passengers' criminal nature - making them seem even more undesirable. The agents within Cuba stirred anti-Semitism and organized protests. Soon, an additional 1,000 Jewish refugees entering Cuba was seen as a threat.

Sound familiar, Avram.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 5:40pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:37pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:31pm: You pay not a cent for us who come on visas. All paid by my family. Tell me why do you accept paying for these people? Why do they not pay for themselves? Hatred? Racism? I told you this is nothing about race, it is about Behaving correctly. These people offer you nothing. Tell me what do they offer you??? You're not a refugee and when the Jews were refugees they were accepted and resettled by this country. Stop pulling this to discussion about Jewish refugees from decades ago.

This discussion is all about refugees

John Smith wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 5:39pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:31pm: You pay not a cent for us who come on visas. All paid by my family. Tell me why do you accept paying for these people? Why do they not pay for themselves? Hatred? Racism? I told you this is nothing about race, it is about Behaving correctly. These people offer you nothing. Tell me what do they offer you??? I'd rather pay for them than get you for free ...... And you can pretend you're not being racist now, but your history on here shows you normally stereotype them as Arabs, or paki's or some other group you don't like

Then I am sure you will be glad to know I am leaving for Tel Aviv on Wednesday for 2 weeks.
My views on Arabs are from personal experience on their behavior to me.

Why not stop the boats, Tony?

As a young boy who spent a lot of time at Manly pier young Tnoy had a bad experience with a Manly Fairy and has had a problem with boats ever since.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 6:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:39pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:31pm: You pay not a cent for us who come on visas. All paid by my family. Tell me why do you accept paying for these people? Why do they not pay for themselves? Hatred? Racism? I told you this is nothing about race, it is about Behaving correctly. These people offer you nothing. Tell me what do they offer you??? I'd rather pay for them than get you for free ...... And you can pretend you're not being racist now, but your history on here shows you normally stereotype them as Arabs, or paki's or some other group you don't like Then I am sure you will be glad to know I am leaving for Tel Aviv on Wednesday for 2 weeks. My views on Arabs are from personal experience on their behavior to me.

Maybe you should stay there along with your flag rather than march around in your jackboots here with your star of david swastika.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 5:40pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:37pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:31pm: You pay not a cent for us who come on visas. All paid by my family. Tell me why do you accept paying for these people? Why do they not pay for themselves? Hatred? Racism? I told you this is nothing about race, it is about Behaving correctly. These people offer you nothing. Tell me what do they offer you??? You're not a refugee and when the Jews were refugees they were accepted and resettled by this country. Stop pulling this to discussion about Jewish refugees from decades ago.

His point is valid. Jews were refugees and were accepted by australia. Now there are different refugees being accepted by australia. I know you are incapable of understanding compassion though

SOB

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 6:36pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 6:26pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:39pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:31pm: You pay not a cent for us who come on visas. All paid by my family. Tell me why do you accept paying for these people? Why do they not pay for themselves? Hatred? Racism? I told you this is nothing about race, it is about Behaving correctly. These people offer you nothing. Tell me what do they offer you??? I'd rather pay for them than get you for free ...... And you can pretend you're not being racist now, but your history on here shows you normally stereotype them as Arabs, or paki's or some other group you don't like Then I am sure you will be glad to know I am leaving for Tel Aviv on Wednesday for 2 weeks. My views on Arabs are from personal experience on their behavior to me. Maybe you should stay there along with your flag rather than march around in your jackboots here with your star of david swastika.

Anti-semitism

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 6:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:39pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:31pm: You pay not a cent for us who come on visas. All paid by my family. Tell me why do you accept paying for these people? Why do they not pay for themselves? Hatred? Racism? I told you this is nothing about race, it is about Behaving correctly. These people offer you nothing. Tell me what do they offer you??? I'd rather pay for them than get you for free ...... And you can pretend you're not being racist now, but your history on here shows you normally stereotype them as Arabs, or paki's or some other group you don't like Then I am sure you will be glad to know I am leaving for Tel Aviv on Wednesday for 2 weeks. My views on Arabs are from personal experience on their behavior to me.

Ive never had any personal problems with Arabs, Muslims or Jews..have you thought that maybe its you?

Another stupid lefty thread.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 7:18pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 6:36pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 6:26pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:39pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:31pm: You pay not a cent for us who come on visas. All paid by my family. Tell me why do you accept paying for these people? Why do they not pay for themselves? Hatred? Racism? I told you this is nothing about race, it is about Behaving correctly. These people offer you nothing. Tell me what do they offer you??? I'd rather pay for them than get you for free ...... And you can pretend you're not being racist now, but your history on here shows you normally stereotype them as Arabs, or paki's or some other group you don't like Then I am sure you will be glad to know I am leaving for Tel Aviv on Wednesday for 2 weeks. My views on Arabs are from personal experience on their behavior to me. Maybe you should stay there along with your flag rather than march around in your jackboots here with your star of david swastika. Anti-semitism

every single time you say something stupid (which is often) and someone puts you in your place you resort to calling them anti semitics ..... this , from  you, has just come to mean that you accept defeat and have nothing intelligent to say.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 7:25pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 6:26pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:39pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:31pm: You pay not a cent for us who come on visas. All paid by my family. Tell me why do you accept paying for these people? Why do they not pay for themselves? Hatred? Racism? I told you this is nothing about race, it is about Behaving correctly. These people offer you nothing. Tell me what do they offer you??? I'd rather pay for them than get you for free ...... And you can pretend you're not being racist now, but your history on here shows you normally stereotype them as Arabs, or paki's or some other group you don't like Then I am sure you will be glad to know I am leaving for Tel Aviv on Wednesday for 2 weeks. My views on Arabs are from personal experience on their behavior to me. Ive never had any personal problems with Arabs, Muslims or Jews..have you thought that maybe its you?

I doubt it ever occured to him ....

John Smith wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 7:26pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 7:25pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 6:26pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:39pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:31pm: You pay not a cent for us who come on visas. All paid by my family. Tell me why do you accept paying for these people? Why do they not pay for themselves? Hatred? Racism? I told you this is nothing about race, it is about Behaving correctly. These people offer you nothing. Tell me what do they offer you??? I'd rather pay for them than get you for free ...... And you can pretend you're not being racist now, but your history on here shows you normally stereotype them as Arabs, or paki's or some other group you don't like Then I am sure you will be glad to know I am leaving for Tel Aviv on Wednesday for 2 weeks. My views on Arabs are from personal experience on their behavior to me. Ive never had any personal problems with Arabs, Muslims or Jews..have you thought that maybe its you? I doubt it ever occured to him ....

My wife and I shared a lift while at a conference in Hong Kong last week with a Saudi fella wearing all the traditional Saudi gear, we had quite a nice polite conversation and he didnt try and kill me once or curse my wife for not wearing a burka.
In fact he was quite a nice friendly fella.
I reckon its down to individuals and how they treat each other in their day to day lives

Yes how would I know?

I only talked to around 500 per day at the border.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 7:25pm:

Another stupid lefty thread.

What exactly makes this thread "lefty"?

SOB

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 7:47pm:

Yes how would I know? I only talked to around 500 per day at the border.

With a gun on your arm and a nasty attitude. What do you expect?

SOB

Back on Topic, Tony Abbott is not the one to blame for the Boat people situation, he is not the prime minister or the imigration.

the situation starts and finishs with the labor party government and their indepenent supporters.

How you stop the boats is you get the fn imigration dept, staff out of there fn officers in sydney and melbourne get them off their arses and over to Indonesia to set up a administration centre and go looking for Boats leaving Indonesia and stop them.

Tony is happy to tow boats back to Indonesia but baulks at sending asylum seekers to Malaysia. Neither are signatories to the UNHCR convention. The Malaysian solution would break the business model of the people smugglers, Nauru won't. Tony won't work towards stopping the boats because he believes they are a political asset.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 9:06am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 9:01am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:34pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:32pm: this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB Yeh yeh. If labor wanted to save lives like liberals do, then she would pass a policy that would save lives, has a track record of a raging success. She would not at this stage in the game, play experiments(malaysia policy) against peoples lives. Pacific solution is called solution because it is. malaysia policy is a policy, an experiment, not a solution. Progs, why would interning people in Malaysia be less effective than interning people in Nauru. Also, this month has seen 1,641 arrivals. The Malaysia deal is useless in just over a week. Swan budgeted for 450 arrivals per month. We're currently getting nearly four times that.

So Nauru takes 1,200 people. It can be expanded to 1,500 people at most and can't be expanded beyond that.

By your numbers it would be full in under a month.

Then what are you going to do moron? What do you do with all the people coming after Nauru is full???

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 7:18pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 6:36pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 6:26pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:39pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 5:31pm: You pay not a cent for us who come on visas. All paid by my family. Tell me why do you accept paying for these people? Why do they not pay for themselves? Hatred? Racism? I told you this is nothing about race, it is about Behaving correctly. These people offer you nothing. Tell me what do they offer you??? I'd rather pay for them than get you for free ...... And you can pretend you're not being racist now, but your history on here shows you normally stereotype them as Arabs, or paki's or some other group you don't like Then I am sure you will be glad to know I am leaving for Tel Aviv on Wednesday for 2 weeks. My views on Arabs are from personal experience on their behavior to me. Maybe you should stay there along with your flag rather than march around in your jackboots here with your star of david swastika. Anti-semitism

Anti-bigot...anti-you!

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 7:47pm:

Yes how would I know? I only talked to around 500 per day at the border.

Was that on PS2 or PS3?

Why not stop the boats, Tony?

If elected on the first day he wil cancel the Manly Ferry.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 1^st, 2012 at 8:47pm:

Why not stop the boats, Tony? If elected on the first day he wil cancel the Manly Ferry.

That is the best greens policy ever.

Gist wrote on Jul 1^st, 2012 at 10:22am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 9:06am: MOTR wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 9:01am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:34pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:32pm: this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB Yeh yeh. If labor wanted to save lives like liberals do, then she would pass a policy that would save lives, has a track record of a raging success. She would not at this stage in the game, play experiments(malaysia policy) against peoples lives. Pacific solution is called solution because it is. malaysia policy is a policy, an experiment, not a solution. Progs, why would interning people in Malaysia be less effective than interning people in Nauru. Also, this month has seen 1,641 arrivals. The Malaysia deal is useless in just over a week. Swan budgeted for 450 arrivals per month. We're currently getting nearly four times that. So Nauru takes 1,200 people. It can be expanded to 1,500 people at most and can't be expanded beyond that. By your numbers it would be full in under a month. Then what are you going to do moron? What do you do with all the people coming after Nauru is full???

Ummm, hate to break it to you but Nauru had never reached breaking point during the Pacific Solution. The combination of TPV's, offshore processing and turning back boats was a huge disincentive and therefore few people took the chance. As a result, people were processed far quicker than they are now. Who's the moron now? Owned!!!  ;)

Why not stop the boats, Tony?

He does all the time: Does in his bath tub count?

Dnarever wrote on Jul 1^st, 2012 at 10:17pm:

Why not stop the boats, Tony? He does all the time: Does in his bath tub count?

A childish post is indicitive of an inability to formulate a coherent argument. In simple English, you ain't got sh!t...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 1^st, 2012 at 9:44pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 10:22am: So Nauru takes 1,200 people. It can be expanded to 1,500 people at most and can't be expanded beyond that. By your numbers it would be full in under a month. Then what are you going to do moron? What do you do with all the people coming after Nauru is full??? Ummm, hate to break it to you but Nauru had never reached breaking point during the Pacific Solution. The combination of TPV's, offshore processing and turning back boats was a huge disincentive and therefore few people took the chance. As a result, people were processed far quicker than they are now. Who's the moron now? Owned!!!  ;)

Ummm, hate to break it to you but Nauru had never reached breaking point during the Pacific Solution

That is the point when it first opened it had a capacity no where near 800 and it didn't reach capacity even though it would have been very easy to break it this way. It didn't happen because there were no volunteers to go to Nauru and very obviously the same is true for Malaysia.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 1^st, 2012 at 10:38pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 9:44pm: Gist wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 10:22am: So Nauru takes 1,200 people. It can be expanded to 1,500 people at most and can't be expanded beyond that. By your numbers it would be full in under a month. Then what are you going to do moron? What do you do with all the people coming after Nauru is full??? Ummm, hate to break it to you but Nauru had never reached breaking point during the Pacific Solution. The combination of TPV's, offshore processing and turning back boats was a huge disincentive and therefore few people took the chance. As a result, people were processed far quicker than they are now. Who's the moron now? Owned!!!  ;) Ummm, hate to break it to you but Nauru had never reached breaking point during the Pacific Solution That is the point when it first opened it had a capacity no where near 800 and it didn't reach capacity even though it would have been very easy to break it this way. It didn't happen because there were no volunteers to go to Nauru and very obviously the same is true for Malaysia.

So you're saying that even though Nauru didn't have that much capacity, it wasn't even full. Sounds to me like a success! Can't say the same for Malaysia. The reason Nauru was so successful was partially because of TPV's. It wasn't solely offshore processing that did the trick, or do you still not understand that simple fact? That is precisely why Malaysia will not work.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 1^st, 2012 at 9:44pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 10:22am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 9:06am: MOTR wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 9:01am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:34pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:32pm: this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB Yeh yeh. If labor wanted to save lives like liberals do, then she would pass a policy that would save lives, has a track record of a raging success. She would not at this stage in the game, play experiments(malaysia policy) against peoples lives. Pacific solution is called solution because it is. malaysia policy is a policy, an experiment, not a solution. Progs, why would interning people in Malaysia be less effective than interning people in Nauru. Also, this month has seen 1,641 arrivals. The Malaysia deal is useless in just over a week. Swan budgeted for 450 arrivals per month. We're currently getting nearly four times that. So Nauru takes 1,200 people. It can be expanded to 1,500 people at most and can't be expanded beyond that. By your numbers it would be full in under a month. Then what are you going to do moron? What do you do with all the people coming after Nauru is full??? Ummm, hate to break it to you but Nauru had never reached breaking point during the Pacific Solution. The combination of TPV's, offshore processing and turning back boats was a huge disincentive and therefore few people took the chance. As a result, people were processed far quicker than they are now. Who's the moron now? Owned!!!  ;)

Hate to break it to you dickhead but Nauru's capacity is 1200.. so by your numbers it'd be full in a month. If it wouldn't be full in a month then neither would Malaysia be done and dusted in a month for exactly the same reasons.

I know a drooling, inbred prat like you has trouble counting past all 14 fingers and toes but trust me - it's true. You are a brainless prat.  :D

Gist wrote on Jul 1^st, 2012 at 11:41pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 9:44pm: Gist wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 10:22am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 9:06am: MOTR wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 9:01am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:34pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 6:32pm: this is complete bulls1t. abbott is opposition not government. he has no right to block gillards policy and insist she use his. she is pm. her policy is the one that he needs to let pass to save lives. The assumption here that abbotts policy should pass is wrong. Gillard is the government. Her policy should pass and abbott is blocking it. He is responsible fpor the deaths - all in the name of politics. Of course imo the greens idea is the best but they arent the goernment either and also cant demand thier policy be adopted. Howards policy was removed because it was inhumane. Reinstating it is more inhumane because now we know its inhumane. Malaysia is just as bad but the government has the call. Not abbott. He is just obstructing. SOB Yeh yeh. If labor wanted to save lives like liberals do, then she would pass a policy that would save lives, has a track record of a raging success. She would not at this stage in the game, play experiments(malaysia policy) against peoples lives. Pacific solution is called solution because it is. malaysia policy is a policy, an experiment, not a solution. Progs, why would interning people in Malaysia be less effective than interning people in Nauru. Also, this month has seen 1,641 arrivals. The Malaysia deal is useless in just over a week. Swan budgeted for 450 arrivals per month. We're currently getting nearly four times that. So Nauru takes 1,200 people. It can be expanded to 1,500 people at most and can't be expanded beyond that. By your numbers it would be full in under a month. Then what are you going to do moron? What do you do with all the people coming after Nauru is full??? Ummm, hate to break it to you but Nauru had never reached breaking point during the Pacific Solution. The combination of TPV's, offshore processing and turning back boats was a huge disincentive and therefore few people took the chance. As a result, people were processed far quicker than they are now. Who's the moron now? Owned!!!  ;) Hate to break it to you dickhead but Nauru's capacity is 1200.. so by your numbers it'd be full in a month. If it wouldn't be full in a month then neither would Malaysia be done and dusted in a month for exactly the same reasons. I know a drooling, inbred prat like you has trouble counting past all 14 fingers and toes but trust me - it's true. You are a brainless prat.  :D

What the hell is that shi..

Do we now allow direct cursing to a person. Calling someone an idiot is one thing, but to call them that name is sumpin else.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 1^st, 2012 at 11:50pm:

What the hell is that shi.. Do we now allow direct cursing to a person. Calling someone an idiot is one thing, but to call them that name is sumpin else.

Cursing? What the hell is that sh!t? Cross your fingers, it'll break the curse.

If Gillard opened Nauru and the boats kept on coming would Tony contemplate Malaysia?

MOTR wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 3:26am:

If Gillard opened Nauru and the boats kept on coming would Tony contemplate Malaysia?

I don't know....but it's certainly a question that's worth her asking Abbott....

Perhaps they could make the Malaysian swap contingent on Nauru reaching a certain capacity. Tony would probably insist on TPVs to wedge Labor. If Labor conceded on TPVs he'd insist on tow backs, knowing this is undeliverable.

Well. Thing is. Something doesnt add up here from the howard era. Why were their asylum seekers in woomera? Why were they in NSW and QLD detention centres? How did they get there? Where did they get there FROM?

SOB

Wasn't Woomera closed?

..

MOTR wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 10:12am:

Wasn't Woomera closed?

Its supposedly been closed now but it wasnt in howards time. Like i have mentioned before a family member worked there.

SOB

Processing asylum seekers offshore hides the harsh reality of mandatory detention.

MOTR wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 10:22am:

Processing asylum seekers offshore hides the harsh reality of mandatory detention.

That it isnt it but they obviously bring them to the mainland anyway.

SOB

MOTR wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 10:22am:

Processing asylum seekers offshore hides the harsh reality of mandatory detention.

The harsh reality is that they are safer than where they came from (apparently that is why they came). Being safer and in safety, that is what is to be achieved and is achieved.

That is humane. They need to be processed so we know who they are. That is for our safety which comes first.

Most of them would have been those who arrived before the introduction of the Pacific Solution, and of course overstayers.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 10:44am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:22am: Processing asylum seekers offshore hides the harsh reality of mandatory detention. The harsh reality is that they are safer than where they came from (apparently that is why they came). Being safer and in safety, that is what is to be achieved and is achieved. That is humane. They need to be processed so we know who they are. That is for our safety which comes first.

Many countries process their asylum seekers in the community. There is no greater risk than any other new immigrant. Do you have any statistical evidence to back your claims, progs?

MOTR wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 10:49am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:44am: MOTR wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:22am: Processing asylum seekers offshore hides the harsh reality of mandatory detention. The harsh reality is that they are safer than where they came from (apparently that is why they came). Being safer and in safety, that is what is to be achieved and is achieved. That is humane. They need to be processed so we know who they are. That is for our safety which comes first. Many countries process their asylum seekers in the community. There is no greater risk than any other new immigrant. Do you have any statistical evidence to back your claims, progs?

I dont need to back my claims. They are safe now, we will be safe when we know who they are.

The most dangerous people fly first calsss

Dnarever wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 10:52am:

The most dangerous people fly first calsss

Maybe so, but you would know who they were.

Fascists and totalitarians have a long history of dehumanising and exaggerating the criminal threat posed by refugees and other scapegoats, for their own political advantage. We should all be pulling up agitators who are happy to use this type of strategy.

MOTR wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 11:00am:

Fascists and totalitarians have a long history of dehumanising and exaggerating the criminal threat posed by refugees and other scapegoats, for their own political advantage. We should all be pulling up agitators who are happy to use this type of strategy.

Yeh go for it.

Actually wasnt a new detention center built in brisbane recently? Over near the airport? Why?

SOB

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 11:02am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 11:00am: Fascists and totalitarians have a long history of dehumanising and exaggerating the criminal threat posed by refugees and other scapegoats, for their own political advantage. We should all be pulling up agitators who are happy to use this type of strategy. Yeh go for it.

O.K. where is your evidence, progs.

MOTR wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 11:17am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 11:02am: MOTR wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 11:00am: Fascists and totalitarians have a long history of dehumanising and exaggerating the criminal threat posed by refugees and other scapegoats, for their own political advantage. We should all be pulling up agitators who are happy to use this type of strategy. Yeh go for it. O.K. where is your evidence, progs.

Evidence for what. You made the statement, I just said go for it.

The Crown has a legal obligation to ensure the security of the borders of Australian citizens and free customs. and Julia Gillard is the person who holds the office of Prime Minister.  Julia Gillard is breaking the law and there is grounds for her impeachment and legal removal from office.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 10:56am:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:52am: The most dangerous people fly first calsss Maybe so, but you would know who they were.

Mossad agents on forged Australian documents?

It could happen - whoops - it did.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 11:41am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:56am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:52am: The most dangerous people fly first calsss Maybe so, but you would know who they were. Mossad agents on forged Australian documents? It could happen - whoops - it did.

Yes and that is something else the government needs to fix.

Just read this in a piece by Peter van Onselen on the asylum seeker policy stand-off: 


Quote:

One well-placed Liberal source told The Australian that Abbott would rather see Labor continue to bleed politically with ongoing boat arrivals. If that means deaths at sea continue, he said, so be it.

Anyone here think there is not substance to this?

I think you are just very soft.

The reasons for this I think are many and different.
Living other side of the world to rest if us in the world, the fact you have no conflict to face, and that you don't understand how it is to face enemies.

Your youth is lazy and overweight, I look at them and see them compared to my 20 year old cousin who is now in national service in the army at home.

In Australia you are immune to real problems is my analysis of the last 7 months.
You worry about the UN and that you must follow every word they say on refugees where I am used to my government ignoring the UN. Why? Because we know they can't touch us. But you don't understand this and you worry.

These boat people. You should not allow them to ignore your rules. You should stand firm and refuse to let them in. But you need strong leadership and because you are so lazy I don't think you do anything about it.

I am waiting for my plane now to take me to Bangkok and then on to Ben Gurion with El Al but I honestly assure you this time tomorrow when I speak to my friends and family at home and they ask me what is Australia like - they will not understand some of the things you do.

Be much stronger than you are and become better and less lazy.

I will see everyone in 3 weeks when I return for my last 5 months in your country.

Shahlom my Aussies.

You are in for a shock when you get home, Avram. Nearly a half of Israeli adults are overweight and over a third of their children.

Although to be fair to you personally, Avram, you are probably in the "sink em" camp.

No compassion @ all. I just hope all jews arent like him.

Oh - oops Was that "anti-semitism"?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:31am:

No compassion @ all. I just hope all jews arent like him. Oh - oops Was that "anti-semitism"? NO SOB

Me Too

It is sad to think that the jewish people may have become what they hate.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:05am:

I think you are just very soft. The reasons for this I think are many and different. Living other side of the world to rest if us in the world, the fact you have no conflict to face, and that you don't understand how it is to face enemies. Your youth is lazy and overweight, I look at them and see them compared to my 20 year old cousin who is now in national service in the army at home. In Australia you are immune to real problems is my analysis of the last 7 months. You worry about the UN and that you must follow every word they say on refugees where I am used to my government ignoring the UN. Why? Because we know they can't touch us. But you don't understand this and you worry. These boat people. You should not allow them to ignore your rules. You should stand firm and refuse to let them in. But you need strong leadership and because you are so lazy I don't think you do anything about it. I am waiting for my plane now to take me to Bangkok and then on to Ben Gurion with El Al but I honestly assure you this time tomorrow when I speak to my friends and family at home and they ask me what is Australia like - they will not understand some of the things you do. Be much stronger than you are and become better and less lazy. I will see everyone in 3 weeks when I return for my last 5 months in your country. Shahlom my Aussies.

Why are you returning, if Australia is so bad?

Perhaps you could cash in your return ticket and buy a book or two:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RQjQvxtmK8A/TQJYAuFn1aI/AAAAAAAADaQ/tWxiXSr3Jq8/s1600/trolling-for-dummies.png

Actually, that one is probably on your book shelf already.   ;)

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 7:58am:

Just read this in a piece by Peter van Onselen on the asylum seeker policy stand-off:  Quote: One well-placed Liberal source told The Australian that Abbott would rather see Labor continue to bleed politically with ongoing boat arrivals. If that means deaths at sea continue, he said, so be it. Anyone here think there is not substance to this?

of course there is no substance to it. The worrying thing is that there are obviously idiots who so think it is true.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 7:27pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:58am: Just read this in a piece by Peter van Onselen on the asylum seeker policy stand-off:  Quote: One well-placed Liberal source told The Australian that Abbott would rather see Labor continue to bleed politically with ongoing boat arrivals. If that means deaths at sea continue, he said, so be it. Anyone here think there is not substance to this? of course there is no substance to it. The worrying thing is that there are obviously idiots who so think it is true.

Are you saying this is an imaginary source?

If I was Tony, I'd be suing Murdoch. Although perhaps I wouldn't want to put him offside.

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 7:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:27pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:58am: Just read this in a piece by Peter van Onselen on the asylum seeker policy stand-off:  Quote: One well-placed Liberal source told The Australian that Abbott would rather see Labor continue to bleed politically with ongoing boat arrivals. If that means deaths at sea continue, he said, so be it. Anyone here think there is not substance to this? of course there is no substance to it. The worrying thing is that there are obviously idiots who so think it is true. Are you saying this is an imaginary source? If I was Tony, I'd be suing Murdoch. Although perhaps I wouldn't want to put him offside.

its just another of those fabrications or imaginations. if you heard that Rudd stopped the Pacific solution to cause deaths would you believe it? Would you believe it for a second if someone claimed that Gillard wanted more deaths? There is the same level of reason to believe Abbott thinks the same. after all, its not like he isnt massively in front anyhow.

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 7:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:27pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:58am: Just read this in a piece by Peter van Onselen on the asylum seeker policy stand-off:  Quote: One well-placed Liberal source told The Australian that Abbott would rather see Labor continue to bleed politically with ongoing boat arrivals. If that means deaths at sea continue, he said, so be it. Anyone here think there is not substance to this? of course there is no substance to it. The worrying thing is that there are obviously idiots who so think it is true. Are you saying this is an imaginary source? If I was Tony, I'd be suing Murdoch. Although perhaps I wouldn't want to put him offside.

its probably another of those 'poo happens' beat ups (at best). a comment with all context removed. And that is if there is ANY truth to it - which i doubt.

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 7:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:27pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:58am: Just read this in a piece by Peter van Onselen on the asylum seeker policy stand-off:  Quote: One well-placed Liberal source told The Australian that Abbott would rather see Labor continue to bleed politically with ongoing boat arrivals. If that means deaths at sea continue, he said, so be it. Anyone here think there is not substance to this? of course there is no substance to it. The worrying thing is that there are obviously idiots who so think it is true. Are you saying this is an imaginary source? If I was Tony, I'd be suing Murdoch. Although perhaps I wouldn't want to put him offside.

"One well placed liberal source..." Well there it is...how can you argue with such credible and damning evidence. Did he say that even if there were children with adorable puppies and kittens? What a crock full of shyte!

I respect your position. Indeed, I was thinking the same thing. Then I thought why would a journalist employed by Murdoch fabricate such a limb for himself. Just a thought.

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 7:56pm:

I respect your position. Indeed, I was thinking the same thing. Then I thought why would a journalist employed by Murdoch fabricate such a limb for himself. Just a thought.

the standard of journalism has plummeted somewhat over the years. Even finding an article long on facts, full of interest and devoid of opinon is like finding a jewel. But the public is to blame. We apparently dont want facts. We want invective and hyperbole. ANd because one person wants that the opponent has to respon in kind otherwise the message is totally lost.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 8:40pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:56pm: I respect your position. Indeed, I was thinking the same thing. Then I thought why would a journalist employed by Murdoch fabricate such a limb for himself. Just a thought. the standard of journalism has plummeted somewhat over the years. Even finding an article long on facts, full of interest and devoid of opinon is like finding a jewel. But the public is to blame. We apparently dont want facts. We want invective and hyperbole. ANd because one person wants that the opponent has to respon in kind otherwise the message is totally lost.

I don't buy it, Longy. You are accusing a senior journalist of  outright fabrication, not merely hyberbolising.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5rLroF9gsk&feature=related

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 8:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:40pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:56pm: I respect your position. Indeed, I was thinking the same thing. Then I thought why would a journalist employed by Murdoch fabricate such a limb for himself. Just a thought. the standard of journalism has plummeted somewhat over the years. Even finding an article long on facts, full of interest and devoid of opinon is like finding a jewel. But the public is to blame. We apparently dont want facts. We want invective and hyperbole. ANd because one person wants that the opponent has to respon in kind otherwise the message is totally lost. I don't buy it, Longy. You are accusing a senior journalist of  outright fabrication, not merely hyberbolising.

Did I miss the evidence. there does not seem to be anything factual.

No, progs. It is all heresay. I'm just struggling to find a motivation. I'm just sharing my own personal assessment. I'd bet I was right but he's certainly not guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:11am:

You are in for a shock when you get home, Avram. Nearly a half of Israeli adults are overweight and over a third of their children. Although to be fair to you personally, Avram, you are probably in the "sink em" camp.

Sink em?

http://semprul.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/kitchen-sink.jpg

For a start tony abbott is not the one that has to stop the boats it is the sitting governments responsibility to take action to stop the boats.

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 8:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:40pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:56pm: I respect your position. Indeed, I was thinking the same thing. Then I thought why would a journalist employed by Murdoch fabricate such a limb for himself. Just a thought. the standard of journalism has plummeted somewhat over the years. Even finding an article long on facts, full of interest and devoid of opinon is like finding a jewel. But the public is to blame. We apparently dont want facts. We want invective and hyperbole. ANd because one person wants that the opponent has to respon in kind otherwise the message is totally lost. I don't buy it, Longy. You are accusing a senior journalist of  outright fabrication, not merely hyberbolising.

They do that. Or rather they copy paste from some source that did that. It comes out now and then when its REALLY bad that some journo copied from some other journo who got their "facts"form some blogger etc.

SOB

warrigal wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 4:44am:

For a start tony abbott is not the one that has to stop the boats it is the sitting governments responsibility to take action to stop the boats.

Not when you can't get your legislation through parliament. Tony knows the Malaysian solution will stop the boats, but that is against his best interests.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 4:46am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:40pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:56pm: I respect your position. Indeed, I was thinking the same thing. Then I thought why would a journalist employed by Murdoch fabricate such a limb for himself. Just a thought. the standard of journalism has plummeted somewhat over the years. Even finding an article long on facts, full of interest and devoid of opinon is like finding a jewel. But the public is to blame. We apparently dont want facts. We want invective and hyperbole. ANd because one person wants that the opponent has to respon in kind otherwise the message is totally lost. I don't buy it, Longy. You are accusing a senior journalist of  outright fabrication, not merely hyberbolising. They do that. Or rather they copy paste from some source that did that. It comes out now and then when its REALLY bad that some journo copied from some other journo who got their "facts"form some blogger etc. SOB

With an accusation such as this I would have thought the journalist in question would have been quizzed  re the bonafides of his source.

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 4:49am:

warrigal wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 4:44am: For a start tony abbott is not the one that has to stop the boats it is the sitting governments responsibility to take action to stop the boats. Not when you can't get your legislation through parliament. Tony knows the Malaysian solution will stop the boats, but that is against his best interests.

You think it'll stop the boats? The only part of that deal that could be perceived as any kind of disincentive to hop onto a boat is the fact that 800 people per year (not per month) would be sent to Malaysia, a country with a deplorable record on its treatment of refugees. However, at the present rate of arrivals, that figure is reached in little more than a week, with nearly 2000 arriving last month. So once those 800 people have been sent to Malaysia, there is no longer any deterrent and even if it does manage to slow the boats, once that number passes 800, the surge will re-commence. That is why, in a nutshell, the Malaysia deal is doomed to fail.

I'm not sure how you get the first 800 onto the boats. Anyway Gillard has offered Malaysia and Nauru. So if there is an overflow they are off to Nauru.

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:22am:

I'm not sure how you get the first 800 onto the boats. Anyway Gillard has offered Malaysia and Nauru. So if there is an overflow they are off to Nauru.

How would those people know they are going to Malaysia? I doubt the people smugglers would tell them. It would be bad for business. As for Gillard's offer, it's not an offer. It's an ultimatum. Why should anyone be asked to support a bad and illegal policy? Gillard herself promised not to ever send any people to a non UNHCR signatory country, yet she is hellbent on doing precisely that with absolutely no protections in place for those people.

Another boat, another policy failure by Gillard and Bowen...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/asylum-seeker-boat-near-indonesia-sends-distress-signal/story-fncvk70o-1226416359396

That's ridiculous, armchair, of course they are going to know. By your own logic Nauru isn't going to work anyway.

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:28am:

That's ridiculous, armchair, of course they are going to know. By your own logic Nauru isn't going to work anyway.

Really? Why would Nauru not work?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:28am:

Another boat, another policy failure by Gillard and Bowen... http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/asylum-seeker-boat-near-indonesia-sends-distress-signal/story-fncvk70o-1226416359396

You see how this works for Tony. He is the one that needs to compromise. He knows that tow backs are out of the question so Nauru is hardly going to be the deterrent it once was. If you want to stop the boats without substantially  increasing refugee quotas, Malaysia has to be part of the solution.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:30am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 8:28am: That's ridiculous, armchair, of course they are going to know. By your own logic Nauru isn't going to work anyway. Really? Why would Nauru not work?

Nauru worked because of the tow backs. Indonesia is no longer prepared to accept tow backs.

Using your own flawed logic the current rate of arrivals would also very quickly swamp Nauru's capacity.

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:41am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 8:30am: MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 8:28am: That's ridiculous, armchair, of course they are going to know. By your own logic Nauru isn't going to work anyway. Really? Why would Nauru not work? Nauru worked because of the tow backs. Indonesia is no longer prepared to accept tow backs. Using your own flawed logic the current rate of arrivals would also very quickly swamp Nauru's capacity.

They must want the boats back. apparently they just asked for their indonesian crew members back. Abbott will just save the trouble of gaoling them first and say "here ya go, there is your crew members back" + cargo

Indonesia wants us to take responsibility for the asylum seekers. they don't want the boats towed back. Abbott knows this and Bishop has promised SBY it won't happen. Things have changed and it is very unlikely Nauru will work the way it did.

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:06am:

Indonesia wants us to take responsibility for the asylum seekers. they don't want the boats towed back. Abbott knows this and Bishop has promised SBY it won't happen. Things have changed and it is very unlikely Nauru will work the way it did.

And when Abbott gets in, Indonesia will be the ones sdaying 'Australia wants us to take responsibility for our asylum seeker problem and times have changed'

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:11am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:06am: Indonesia wants us to take responsibility for the asylum seekers. they don't want the boats towed back. Abbott knows this and Bishop has promised SBY it won't happen. Things have changed and it is very unlikely Nauru will work the way it did. And when Abbott gets in, Indonesia will be the ones sdaying 'Australia wants us to take responsibility for our asylum seeker problem and times have changed'

Are you on drugs, progs? The message coming from the Indonesians is loud and clear. They will not accept the tow back of boats. How does Abbott control that? He might have you brainwashed into believing anything he says, but believe me it's not catchy.

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:11am: MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:06am: Indonesia wants us to take responsibility for the asylum seekers. they don't want the boats towed back. Abbott knows this and Bishop has promised SBY it won't happen. Things have changed and it is very unlikely Nauru will work the way it did. And when Abbott gets in, Indonesia will be the ones sdaying 'Australia wants us to take responsibility for our asylum seeker problem and times have changed' Are you on drugs, progs? The message coming from the Indonesians is loud and clear. They will not accept the tow back of boats. How does Abbott control that? He might have you brainwashed into believing anything he says, but believe me it's not catchy.

Australias message will be loud and clear too.

You are in denial. Why does this not surprise me.

Do you think we don't need Indonesia's cooperation on this one. If you want to push them into a corner it is very likely they will walk away from their current policy of regulating the flow of asylum seekers and just open the flood gates.

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:20am:

You are in denial. Why does this not surprise me. Do you think we don't need Indonesia's cooperation on this one. If you want to push them into a corner it is very likely they will walk away from their current policy of regulating the flow of asylum seekers and just open the flood gates.

Because you are in denial  ;D

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:27am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:20am: You are in denial. Why does this not surprise me. Do you think we don't need Indonesia's cooperation on this one. If you want to push them into a corner it is very likely they will walk away from their current policy of regulating the flow of asylum seekers and just open the flood gates. Because you are in denial  ;D

speaking of denial ... bugger your an idiot ... what do you plan on doing? Invading Indonesian territory to force them to take the refugees back? once they are in our waters or in our care, we are stuck with them .

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:44am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:27am: MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:20am: You are in denial. Why does this not surprise me. Do you think we don't need Indonesia's cooperation on this one. If you want to push them into a corner it is very likely they will walk away from their current policy of regulating the flow of asylum seekers and just open the flood gates. Because you are in denial  ;D speaking of denial ... bugger your an idiot ... what do you plan on doing? Invading Indonesian territory to force them to take the refugees back? once they are in our waters or in our care, we are stuck with them .

That might be part of your answer.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:49am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:44am: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:27am: MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:20am: You are in denial. Why does this not surprise me. Do you think we don't need Indonesia's cooperation on this one. If you want to push them into a corner it is very likely they will walk away from their current policy of regulating the flow of asylum seekers and just open the flood gates. Because you are in denial  ;D speaking of denial ... bugger your an idiot ... what do you plan on doing? Invading Indonesian territory to force them to take the refugees back? once they are in our waters or in our care, we are stuck with them . That might be part of your answer.

once they are in our waters

The name for interfering with them in international waters is piracy.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:49am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:44am: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:27am: MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:20am: You are in denial. Why does this not surprise me. Do you think we don't need Indonesia's cooperation on this one. If you want to push them into a corner it is very likely they will walk away from their current policy of regulating the flow of asylum seekers and just open the flood gates. Because you are in denial  ;D speaking of denial ... bugger your an idiot ... what do you plan on doing? Invading Indonesian territory to force them to take the refugees back? once they are in our waters or in our care, we are stuck with them . That might be part of your answer.

wow ... you think our navy is suddenly going to come up with hundreds of new boats to form a picket along our territorial waters to prevent the boats entering our territory?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

if we can't stop them entering our waters now what makes you think that will change?

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:53am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:49am: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:44am: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:27am: MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:20am: You are in denial. Why does this not surprise me. Do you think we don't need Indonesia's cooperation on this one. If you want to push them into a corner it is very likely they will walk away from their current policy of regulating the flow of asylum seekers and just open the flood gates. Because you are in denial  ;D speaking of denial ... bugger your an idiot ... what do you plan on doing? Invading Indonesian territory to force them to take the refugees back? once they are in our waters or in our care, we are stuck with them . That might be part of your answer. wow ... you think our navy is suddenly going to come up with hundreds of new boats to form a picket along our territorial waters to prevent the boats entering our territory? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha if we can't stop them entering our waters now what makes you think that will change?

Cant or want. They currently run the greens and labor gauntlet now and are dieing. Maybe that gauntlet needs to change.

Run what gauntlet. Where are we going to tow them back to. Or are you suggesting we sink a few.

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 11:36am:

Run what gauntlet. Where are we going to tow them back to. Or are you suggesting we sink a few.

It is going to have to be an indonesian co-opertation. Co-operative from the beginning or a forced co-operation via incentives/disincentives or whatever it will take.

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:41am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 8:30am: MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 8:28am: That's ridiculous, armchair, of course they are going to know. By your own logic Nauru isn't going to work anyway. Really? Why would Nauru not work? Nauru worked because of the tow backs. Indonesia is no longer prepared to accept tow backs. Using your own flawed logic the current rate of arrivals would also very quickly swamp Nauru's capacity.

Shows how little you know. Nauru worked because of a combination of factors, the most substantial being TPV's. Temporary Protection Visa's are a huge disincentive to people smugglers and their human cargo alike. To say that Nauru worked only because of turning back boats or mainly because of it just shows what a weak grasp on the facts you have.

That's not a fact, armchair, that's an opinion.

Could you tell us what the findings were from the inquiry into the effectiveness of TPVs?

Nauru post 2005 was failing as a deterrent. That's a fact.

Gist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:04pm:

Nauru post 2005 was failing as a deterrent. That's a fact.

Not even close. It was a raging success right up to when labor diched it and then we get an explosion in boat numbers and an explosion in people per boat. 7 boats tops with 29 per boat average pacific solution. After being ditched, we got 134 boats and 46 people per boat average. FACT.

Raging success.

They just pointed out on the TV that the boats were still leaving indonesia under howards  "solution" they just werent getting here. Plenty were still going down and sinking too.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:12pm:

They just pointed out on the TV that the boats were still leaving indonesia under howards  "solution" they just werent getting here. Plenty were still going down and sinking too. SOB

there is almost nothing you say that isnt worth mocking or pointingthe finger at and laughing. So the gist of this current stupid statement is that the pacific solution caused boats to sink and somehow rudd changing it caused the boats to float and sink less often?

honestly, are you ever sober?

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:09pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 6:04pm: Nauru post 2005 was failing as a deterrent. That's a fact. Not even close. It was a raging success right up to when labor diched it and then we get an explosion in boat numbers and an explosion in people per boat. 7 boats tops with 29 per boat average pacific solution. After being ditched, we got 134 boats and 46 people per boat average. FACT. Raging success.

Yeah right. And one of those boats had 24,132 people on it. But it only counts as 1 in lollyworld.  :P

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:12pm:

They just pointed out on the TV that the boats were still leaving indonesia under howards  "solution" they just werent getting here. Plenty were still going down and sinking too. SOB

Yes, I do remember pointing out to lolly the drone that there was no count of the number of boats that DIDN'T make it here. But ... well... drone...

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:09pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 6:04pm: Nauru post 2005 was failing as a deterrent. That's a fact. Not even close. It was a raging success right up to when labor diched it and then we get an explosion in boat numbers and an explosion in people per boat. 7 boats tops with 29 per boat average pacific solution. After being ditched, we got 134 boats and 46 people per boat average. FACT. Raging success.

The FACT is - and it's obviously one that's too big for your one tiny neuron to cope with - is that the growth started smack in the middle of the Pacific Solution. Which is what I said - Nauru failed as a deterrent.

But you go ahead and give us further prominent displays of stupid, I realise you relish them.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 3:15pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 8:41am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 8:30am: MOTR wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 8:28am: That's ridiculous, armchair, of course they are going to know. By your own logic Nauru isn't going to work anyway. Really? Why would Nauru not work? Nauru worked because of the tow backs. Indonesia is no longer prepared to accept tow backs. Using your own flawed logic the current rate of arrivals would also very quickly swamp Nauru's capacity. Shows how little you know. Nauru worked because of a combination of factors, the most substantial being TPV's. Temporary Protection Visa's are a huge disincentive to people smugglers and their human cargo alike. To say that Nauru worked only because of turning back boats or mainly because of it just shows what a weak grasp on the facts you have.

Here is a fact, following the implementation of TPVs under the Howard Government, well over 9000 asylum seekers arrived by boat, that included an increase in the percentage of women and children were forced to make the dangerous trip because they were excluded from the family reunion program.

This to me suggests the threat of tow back was the most effective deterrent.