When the court rejects labor's delegation to PNG of Australia's responsibility concerning refugees.

What then. Will we return to processing refugees on the mainland?

What happens when the psychiatrists order the greens locked in padded cells?

John Smith wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:39pm:

What happens when the psychiatrists order the greens locked in padded cells?

What rudd's right wingers want is illegal according to Australian law.
So what happens. Will anyone ask Mr Rudd before the election.

____ wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

When the court rejects labor's delegation to PNG of Australia's responsibility concerning refugees. What then. Will we return to processing refugees on the mainland?

And why would they reject it?

____ wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:44pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:39pm: What happens when the psychiatrists order the greens locked in padded cells? What rudd's right wingers want is illegal according to Australian law. So what happens. Will anyone ask Mr Rudd before the election.

What's the law he is breaking?

____ wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:44pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:39pm: What happens when the psychiatrists order the greens locked in padded cells? What rudd's right wingers want is illegal according to Australian law. So what happens. Will anyone ask Mr Rudd before the election.

not what I've been hearing ...... no matter how much you may wish it to be so. Even the libs are saying it is most likely legal.

____ wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:44pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:39pm: What happens when the psychiatrists order the greens locked in padded cells? What rudd's right wingers want is illegal according to Australian law. So what happens. Will anyone ask Mr Rudd before the election.

Really?  Do please explain.

John Smith wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:39pm:

What happens when the psychiatrists order the greens locked in padded cells?

It's a very fair question. Rudd is expecting a legal challenge.

____ wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:44pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:39pm: What happens when the psychiatrists order the greens locked in padded cells? What rudd's right wingers want is illegal according to Australian law. So what happens. Will anyone ask Mr Rudd before the election.

It took the ALP two PMs, 45000 illegal immigrants and 1300+ dead to come up with "Plan A".

Plan B will be thought about after Kevin has moved on from drowning them to having them raped, murdered and cannibalised.

MOTR wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:39pm: What happens when the psychiatrists order the greens locked in padded cells? It's a very fair question. Rudd is expecting a legal challenge.

Fair to expect a challenge ... of course, after the success last time they'd be crazy not to challenge.

Fair to expect it to fail .... not likely.

I gather you thought the Malaysian solution was a master stroke at first too?

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:49pm:

____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:39pm: What happens when the psychiatrists order the greens locked in padded cells? What rudd's right wingers want is illegal according to Australian law. So what happens. Will anyone ask Mr Rudd before the election. It took the ALP two PMs, 45000 illegal immigrants and 1300+ dead to come up with "Plan A". Plan B will be thought about after Kevin has moved on from drowning them to having them raped, murdered and cannibalised.

Oh lookie it's tony jnr. Cry and cry and whine an whine, and when the solution comes .... Whine and whine and whine and whine.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:49pm: ____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:39pm: What happens when the psychiatrists order the greens locked in padded cells? What rudd's right wingers want is illegal according to Australian law. So what happens. Will anyone ask Mr Rudd before the election. It took the ALP two PMs, 45000 illegal immigrants and 1300+ dead to come up with "Plan A". Plan B will be thought about after Kevin has moved on from drowning them to having them raped, murdered and cannibalised. Oh lookie it's tony jnr. Cry and cry and whine an whine, and when the solution comes .... Whine and whine and whine and whine.

I've seen your posts before. This one fits perfectly with the rest of your banal contributions.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:46pm:

____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:37pm: When the court rejects labor's delegation to PNG of Australia's responsibility concerning refugees. What then. Will we return to processing refugees on the mainland? And why would they reject it?

The prospect of legal challenge is real because of grave doubts about whether obligations under the Refugee Convention and other treaties, like the Convention on the Rights of the Child, will be honoured.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/a-bold-step-by-rudd-but-is-it-his-tampa-moment-20130719-2q9v7.html

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:54pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:49pm: ____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:39pm: What happens when the psychiatrists order the greens locked in padded cells? What rudd's right wingers want is illegal according to Australian law. So what happens. Will anyone ask Mr Rudd before the election. It took the ALP two PMs, 45000 illegal immigrants and 1300+ dead to come up with "Plan A". Plan B will be thought about after Kevin has moved on from drowning them to having them raped, murdered and cannibalised. Oh lookie it's tony jnr. Cry and cry and whine an whine, and when the solution comes .... Whine and whine and whine and whine. I've seen your posts before. This one fits perfectly with the rest of your banal contributions.

When you come up with a coherent position that doesn't contradict your beliefs then feel free to come back and post something.

____ wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

When the court rejects labor's delegation to PNG of Australia's responsibility concerning refugees. What then. Will we return to processing refugees on the mainland?

Due to the abstrusity of the law anything is possible. We've recently witnessed a case where a man was given a good behaviour bond of 2 years duration for having sex with his daughter when she was 9-year-old until she was about 14-years-old.

Anything is possible.

____ wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:58pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:46pm: ____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:37pm: When the court rejects labor's delegation to PNG of Australia's responsibility concerning refugees. What then. Will we return to processing refugees on the mainland? And why would they reject it? The prospect of legal challenge is real because of grave doubts about whether obligations under the Refugee Convention and other treaties, like the Convention on the Rights of the Child, will be honoured. http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/a-bold-step-by-rudd-but-is-it-his-tampa-moment-20130719-2q9v7.html

The legal challenge on the refugee convention would not be domestic.  It has to be international.  But tell me, what domestic law has been broken?

____ wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:58pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:46pm: ____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:37pm: When the court rejects labor's delegation to PNG of Australia's responsibility concerning refugees. What then. Will we return to processing refugees on the mainland? And why would they reject it? The prospect of legal challenge is real because of grave doubts about whether obligations under the Refugee Convention and other treaties, like the Convention on the Rights of the Child, will be honoured. http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/a-bold-step-by-rudd-but-is-it-his-tampa-moment-20130719-2q9v7.html

Now we are in the shite.  "Grave" huh!  What makes them 'grave' as opposed to just 'doubts.'

Hyperbole much?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:59pm:

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:54pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:49pm: ____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:39pm: What happens when the psychiatrists order the greens locked in padded cells? What rudd's right wingers want is illegal according to Australian law. So what happens. Will anyone ask Mr Rudd before the election. It took the ALP two PMs, 45000 illegal immigrants and 1300+ dead to come up with "Plan A". Plan B will be thought about after Kevin has moved on from drowning them to having them raped, murdered and cannibalised. Oh lookie it's tony jnr. Cry and cry and whine an whine, and when the solution comes .... Whine and whine and whine and whine. I've seen your posts before. This one fits perfectly with the rest of your banal contributions. When you come up with a coherent position that doesn't contradict your beliefs then feel free to come back and post something.

Why would I need to do that when I am pointing out the contradictions in yours and instead of a coherent response, there was your banality in all its glory.

I didn't really expect anything more from you because to address your contradictions would mean that you wouldn't be able to ignore them.

Never mind, continue on with being a stain on logic and Australia.

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 8:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:59pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:54pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:49pm: ____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:39pm: What happens when the psychiatrists order the greens locked in padded cells? What rudd's right wingers want is illegal according to Australian law. So what happens. Will anyone ask Mr Rudd before the election. It took the ALP two PMs, 45000 illegal immigrants and 1300+ dead to come up with "Plan A". Plan B will be thought about after Kevin has moved on from drowning them to having them raped, murdered and cannibalised. Oh lookie it's tony jnr. Cry and cry and whine an whine, and when the solution comes .... Whine and whine and whine and whine. I've seen your posts before. This one fits perfectly with the rest of your banal contributions. When you come up with a coherent position that doesn't contradict your beliefs then feel free to come back and post something. Why would I need to do that when I am pointing out the contradictions in yours and instead of a coherent response, there was your banality in all its glory. I didn't really expect anything more from you because to address your contradictions would mean that you wouldn't be able to ignore them. Never mind, continue on with being a stain on logic and Australia.

What contradiction of mine?  Care you provide the posts where I have contradicted myself?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:58pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:46pm: ____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:37pm: When the court rejects labor's delegation to PNG of Australia's responsibility concerning refugees. What then. Will we return to processing refugees on the mainland? And why would they reject it? The prospect of legal challenge is real because of grave doubts about whether obligations under the Refugee Convention and other treaties, like the Convention on the Rights of the Child, will be honoured. http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/a-bold-step-by-rudd-but-is-it-his-tampa-moment-20130719-2q9v7.html The legal challenge on the refugee convention would not be domestic.  It has to be international.  But tell me, what domestic law has been broken?

I have answered your original question. If you require information on the fine print,

In the words of the cruel sea ... better get yourself a lawyer son. Better get yourself a good one.


Now back to my question.
What happens when the court rejects it. 

Aussie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 8:08pm:

____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:58pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:46pm: ____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:37pm: When the court rejects labor's delegation to PNG of Australia's responsibility concerning refugees. What then. Will we return to processing refugees on the mainland? And why would they reject it? The prospect of legal challenge is real because of grave doubts about whether obligations under the Refugee Convention and other treaties, like the Convention on the Rights of the Child, will be honoured. http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/a-bold-step-by-rudd-but-is-it-his-tampa-moment-20130719-2q9v7.html Now we are in the shite.  "Grave" huh!  What makes them 'grave' as opposed to just 'doubts.' Hyperbole much?

What of family reunion. Rudd says they will never step on Australian soil. What if their families are already here?

Quote:

What of family reunion. Rudd says they will never step on Australian soil. What if their families are already here?

We will all just have to wait and see if anyone who has been accepted as a refugee by PNG will actually be prevented from migrating from there as a PNG citizen to Australia for a family re-union.  Somehow, I doubt there will be any problem.  They can show up at the Aussie Embassy at Port Moresby, apply for migration to Australia, and Bob's yer Uncle if they meet requirement that any other PNG citizen would have to meet.

Whatever the court decision - the winner will be the LIBs

If court rejects - Rudd will have egg on his face

If court accepts - Milne will have egg on her face

After the election - all Abbott has to do is sit back and wait.

If the PNG Solution works - he can claim credit just like Wendy did as he claimed the Greatest Treasurer title

If the PNG Solution fails - he can blame Rudd

yeah you can "apply" to migrate here, but will you be accepted???

Just because you apply don't mean you'll get accepted???

woof woof wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 8:48pm:

yeah you can "apply" to migrate here, but will you be accepted??? Just because you apply don't mean you'll get accepted???

Well, that is when you get all uppity about your rights to migrate, and start paying lawyers.

Aussie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 8:37pm:

Quote: What of family reunion. Rudd says they will never step on Australian soil. What if their families are already here? We will all just have to wait and see if anyone who has been accepted as a refugee by PNG will actually be prevented from migrating from there as a PNG citizen to Australia for a family re-union.  Somehow, I doubt there will be any problem.  They can show up at the Aussie Embassy at Port Moresby, apply for migration to Australia, and Bob's yer Uncle if they meet requirement that any other PNG citizen would have to meet.

Problem is that - as Amnesty International point out - PNG has signed the Convention for Refugees but opted out of the articles on providing freedom of movement, housing, unemployment and rights to citizenship.
PNG also has significant human rights issues.

These people will not be well treated.

But hey if it beats Tony Abbott send them there right Aussie?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 9:56pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 8:37pm: Quote: What of family reunion. Rudd says they will never step on Australian soil. What if their families are already here? We will all just have to wait and see if anyone who has been accepted as a refugee by PNG will actually be prevented from migrating from there as a PNG citizen to Australia for a family re-union.  Somehow, I doubt there will be any problem.  They can show up at the Aussie Embassy at Port Moresby, apply for migration to Australia, and Bob's yer Uncle if they meet requirement that any other PNG citizen would have to meet. Problem is that - as Amnesty International point out - PNG has signed the Convention for Refugees but opted out of the articles on providing freedom of movement, housing, unemployment and rights to citizenship. PNG also has significant human rights issues. These people will not be well treated. But hey if it beats Tony Abbott send them there right Aussie?

what's doing here this is not an Andrei post you hate the floating garbage that come here?? have you signed in with the wrong alias???

Maqqa wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 8:43pm:

Whatever the court decision - the winner will be the LIBs If court rejects - Rudd will have egg on his face If court accepts - Milne will have egg on her face After the election - all Abbott has to do is sit back and wait. If the PNG Solution works - he can claim credit just like Wendy did as he claimed the Greatest Treasurer title If the PNG Solution fails - he can blame Rudd

That's the way I see it as well. 

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 9:56pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 8:37pm: Quote: What of family reunion. Rudd says they will never step on Australian soil. What if their families are already here? We will all just have to wait and see if anyone who has been accepted as a refugee by PNG will actually be prevented from migrating from there as a PNG citizen to Australia for a family re-union.  Somehow, I doubt there will be any problem.  They can show up at the Aussie Embassy at Port Moresby, apply for migration to Australia, and Bob's yer Uncle if they meet requirement that any other PNG citizen would have to meet. Problem is that - as Amnesty International point out - PNG has signed the Convention for Refugees but opted out of the articles on providing freedom of movement, housing, unemployment and rights to citizenship. PNG also has significant human rights issues. These people will not be well treated. But hey if it beats Tony Abbott send them there right Aussie?

Gee, I wonder how many of Achmed's customers will be rushing to get on his boat in those circumstances, wot?  Abbott wanted to stop the boats, yes?  Rudd's solution probably has, and he has not had to send any leaky boat back or involved our Navy in any dangerous rescue operations, unless of course Achmed has printed out some glossy brochures making the well kept secret delights of equatorial tropical PNG better known.

The aim is to stop Achmed.  Do you agree this scheme does exactly that?

But they won't stop Achmed. Achmeds clients are fleeing persecution so will still get on boats according to the left.

____ wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

When the court rejects labor's delegation to PNG of Australia's responsibility concerning refugees. What then. Will we return to processing refugees on the mainland?

the lawyer that took us to court and WON over the Malaysian deal.... has also said there could be a court case and it stands a very good chance of ending up the same way...

he looked very happy...


I would not be counting any chickens thats for sure.

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:31pm:

But they won't stop Achmed. Achmeds clients are fleeing persecution so will still get on boats according to the left.

I did not ask the left.  I asked you.  Will it work?  Will it stop Achmed.

Aussie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:39pm:

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:31pm: But they won't stop Achmed. Achmeds clients are fleeing persecution so will still get on boats according to the left. I did not ask the left.  I asked you.  Will it work?  Will it stop Achmed.

Not as well or as cheaply as turning the boats around.

____ wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 8:14pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 8:00pm: ____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:58pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:46pm: ____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 7:37pm: When the court rejects labor's delegation to PNG of Australia's responsibility concerning refugees. What then. Will we return to processing refugees on the mainland? And why would they reject it? The prospect of legal challenge is real because of grave doubts about whether obligations under the Refugee Convention and other treaties, like the Convention on the Rights of the Child, will be honoured. http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/a-bold-step-by-rudd-but-is-it-his-tampa-moment-20130719-2q9v7.html The legal challenge on the refugee convention would not be domestic.  It has to be international.  But tell me, what domestic law has been broken? I have answered your original question. If you require information on the fine print, In the words of the cruel sea ... better get yourself a lawyer son. Better get yourself a good one. Now back to my question. What happens when the court rejects it.

So the court will reject it based on a domestic law... But you don't know which one.

Got it.

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:39pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:31pm: But they won't stop Achmed. Achmeds clients are fleeing persecution so will still get on boats according to the left. I did not ask the left.  I asked you.  Will it work?  Will it stop Achmed. Not as well or as cheaply as turning the boats around.

So you agree....it will work in stopping Achmed.  Goodo.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:42pm:

So the court will reject it based on a domestic law... But you don't know which one. Got it.

I don't believe I am defending you here ale - but I dislike the Greens more than I dislike Labor

The challenge was never about a domestic law being broken but rather about Australia meeting it's UN Refugee Convention Obligation - so your point with Green_poo is correct

You will note 3 days ago Rudd flag the point that the UN Refugee convention should be changed

This suggests that he's afraid his PNG Solution would go down the same path as the Malaysian Solution

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:39pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:31pm: But they won't stop Achmed. Achmeds clients are fleeing persecution so will still get on boats according to the left. I did not ask the left.  I asked you.  Will it work?  Will it stop Achmed. Not as well or as cheaply as turning the boats around.

I see English comprehension is not your strong point.
ok so we have another  righty with f ck all brains.

Aussie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:46pm:

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:41pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:39pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:31pm: But they won't stop Achmed. Achmeds clients are fleeing persecution so will still get on boats according to the left. I did not ask the left.  I asked you.  Will it work?  Will it stop Achmed. Not as well or as cheaply as turning the boats around. So you agree....it will work in stopping Achmed.  Goodo.

I said not as well or as cheaply as turning the boats around. Waving a go home banner from the beach at Port Hedland also won't work as well as turning back the boats, but that would also be cheaper.

Maqqa wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:47pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:42pm: So the court will reject it based on a domestic law... But you don't know which one. Got it. I don't believe I am defending you here ale - but I dislike the Greens more than I dislike Labor The challenge was never about a domestic law being broken but rather about Australia meeting it's UN Refugee Convention Obligation - so your point with Green_poo is correct You will note 3 days ago Rudd flag the point that the UN Refugee convention should be changed This suggests that he's afraid his PNG Solution would go down the same path as the Malaysian Solution

The Malaysian solution broke the migration act.  Hence they changed it.
 
What act/law/whatever, domestically, does the png deal break?

scope wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:48pm:

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:41pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:39pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:31pm: But they won't stop Achmed. Achmeds clients are fleeing persecution so will still get on boats according to the left. I did not ask the left.  I asked you.  Will it work?  Will it stop Achmed. Not as well or as cheaply as turning the boats around. I see English comprehension is not your strong point. ok so we have another  righty with f ck all brains.

If you want to cheer from the sidelines I suggest your mothers bedroom would be the best place for you to be.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:47pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:42pm: So the court will reject it based on a domestic law... But you don't know which one. Got it. I don't believe I am defending you here ale - but I dislike the Greens more than I dislike Labor The challenge was never about a domestic law being broken but rather about Australia meeting it's UN Refugee Convention Obligation - so your point with Green_poo is correct You will note 3 days ago Rudd flag the point that the UN Refugee convention should be changed This suggests that he's afraid his PNG Solution would go down the same path as the Malaysian Solution The Malaysian solution broke the migration act.  Hence they changed it.   What act/law/whatever, domestically, does the png deal break?

We will find out soon enough when yet another ALP plan goes arse up.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:47pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:42pm: So the court will reject it based on a domestic law... But you don't know which one. Got it. I don't believe I am defending you here ale - but I dislike the Greens more than I dislike Labor The challenge was never about a domestic law being broken but rather about Australia meeting it's UN Refugee Convention Obligation - so your point with Green_poo is correct You will note 3 days ago Rudd flag the point that the UN Refugee convention should be changed This suggests that he's afraid his PNG Solution would go down the same path as the Malaysian Solution The Malaysian solution broke the migration act.  Hence they changed it.   What act/law/whatever, domestically, does the png deal break?

You didn't understand it - I'll spell it out again

PNG Solution could go down the Malaysian Solution path because it could contravene our UN Refugee Convention obligations

In the case of Malaysia - they are not signatory to the Convention therefore if Australia couldn't send them there under the swap.

Gillard wanted the laws changed so that she could send them there

The difference now is PNG is signatory to the Convention therefore Rudd believe he can send them

The issue is - given the high crime rates and civil unrest there's no guarantee the people being sent there will be safe

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:52pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:49pm: Maqqa wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:47pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:42pm: So the court will reject it based on a domestic law... But you don't know which one. Got it. I don't believe I am defending you here ale - but I dislike the Greens more than I dislike Labor The challenge was never about a domestic law being broken but rather about Australia meeting it's UN Refugee Convention Obligation - so your point with Green_poo is correct You will note 3 days ago Rudd flag the point that the UN Refugee convention should be changed This suggests that he's afraid his PNG Solution would go down the same path as the Malaysian Solution The Malaysian solution broke the migration act.  Hence they changed it.   What act/law/whatever, domestically, does the png deal break? We will find out soon enough when yet another ALP plan goes arse up.

Aww poor little drongo is not happy he won't be seeing his weekly entertainment of boats being turned back at sea on the tv news. 
Perhaps drongo you can explain what law this plan breaks.  Because at the moment it's wishful thinking by those eager to either keep the political debate alive, or eager to see people die at sea.

Maqqa wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:55pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:49pm: Maqqa wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:47pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:42pm: So the court will reject it based on a domestic law... But you don't know which one. Got it. I don't believe I am defending you here ale - but I dislike the Greens more than I dislike Labor The challenge was never about a domestic law being broken but rather about Australia meeting it's UN Refugee Convention Obligation - so your point with Green_poo is correct You will note 3 days ago Rudd flag the point that the UN Refugee convention should be changed This suggests that he's afraid his PNG Solution would go down the same path as the Malaysian Solution The Malaysian solution broke the migration act.  Hence they changed it.   What act/law/whatever, domestically, does the png deal break? You didn't understand it - I'll spell it out again PNG Solution could go down the Malaysian Solution path because it could contravene our UN Refugee Convention obligations In the case of Malaysia - they are not signatory to the Convention therefore if Australia couldn't send them there under the swap. Gillard wanted the laws changed so that she could send them there The difference now is PNG is signatory to the Convention therefore Rudd believe he can send them The issue is - given the high crime rates and civil unrest there's no guarantee the people being sent there will be safe

You have no idea between domestic migration act and the refugee convention,

Have a nice day maq and save up your energy.  I don't need your explainations.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:59pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:55pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:49pm: Maqqa wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:47pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:42pm: So the court will reject it based on a domestic law... But you don't know which one. Got it. I don't believe I am defending you here ale - but I dislike the Greens more than I dislike Labor The challenge was never about a domestic law being broken but rather about Australia meeting it's UN Refugee Convention Obligation - so your point with Green_poo is correct You will note 3 days ago Rudd flag the point that the UN Refugee convention should be changed This suggests that he's afraid his PNG Solution would go down the same path as the Malaysian Solution The Malaysian solution broke the migration act.  Hence they changed it.   What act/law/whatever, domestically, does the png deal break? You didn't understand it - I'll spell it out again PNG Solution could go down the Malaysian Solution path because it could contravene our UN Refugee Convention obligations In the case of Malaysia - they are not signatory to the Convention therefore if Australia couldn't send them there under the swap. Gillard wanted the laws changed so that she could send them there The difference now is PNG is signatory to the Convention therefore Rudd believe he can send them The issue is - given the high crime rates and civil unrest there's no guarantee the people being sent there will be safe You have no idea between domestic migration act and the refugee convention, Have a nice day maq and save up your energy.  I don't need your explainations.

Back under your rock ale

I understand very well

I remember Bowen and the ALP saying that the Malaysian solution was "rock solid" they have "the best" advice back then too. Are you willing to stake that tiny little pustule that represents your reputation that they haven't cocked this one up too?

Or are you just going to carry on as you did last time with your fingers in your ears going lalalalalallalalala?

Will Rudd have to recall parliament to pass a law to back up his new deal?

Maqqa wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:55pm:

[ The issue is - given the high crime rates and civil unrest there's no guarantee the people being sent there will be safe

Your issue maybe but on one elses, except the rapidly dwindling lunatic Green party. Christine Milne actually cried on TV today for the refugees. what an embarrasment to the party. I presume you will be voting for them Maqqa since your beleif system obviously follows theirs.

The Greens had a golden opportunity handed to them on a plate with
the increased presence they gained in 2007 and 2010.

Then, by virtually blackmailing Gillard into introducing the CT, they not
only helped to destroy her career, but blighted their own popularity at the
same time.

Now that Rudd is back at the throttle, and has decided to push ahead with
his ETS (which the Greens hated( and dump the CT, the Greens are carrying
on like a 14 year-old whose girl's gone off with another boy.

All Rudd is doing is what he went to the polls in 2007 saying he was going to
do. There's no back-flip or reversal here. Turning away from unpopular or
unworkable policy is not back-flipping (unless you're Labor, it would seem).

Labor has gone from being an ally in a (sort-of) coalition Government, to
being a bigger enemy than the Con-alition virtually overnight.

And he's decided to 'stop the boats'. And haven't the Con-alition and its
beauty-chorus been carrying-on?? Abbott's boat may still have masts, but
the sails and rudder (??) have been shot away and there's water in the
petrol, to continue a metaphor.


So now they're all at each other's throats. And you know who's shining
through?

That's right. Rudd.

Ah, smack, I'm laughing..... Laughing so smacking hard, my ribs are aching!!!

My issue is that these useless idiots keep trying and failing the most expensive unproven ideas that they can, but are completely unwilling to implement a relatively cheap and known working solution.

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:06pm:

My issue is that these useless idiots keep trying and failing the most expensive unproven ideas that they can, but are completely unwilling to implement a relatively cheap and known working solution.

Machine gun the boats as they come in?

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:02pm:

I remember Bowen and the ALP saying that the Malaysian solution was "rock solid" they have "the best" advice back then too. Are you willing to stake that tiny little pustule that represents your reputation that they haven't cocked this one up too? Or are you just going to carry on as you did last time with your fingers in your ears going lalalalalallalalala?

The Malaysia solution contravened the migration act as a clause deemed a country can only be used as a destination of off shore processing if the country had proper processes for refugee assessment and safeguards for refugees.  That was removed by labor and the coalition and it now simply says " country has to be a member to the refugee convention.". Which png is.

So what law is this solution breaking? 

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:06pm:

My issue is that these useless idiots keep trying and failing the most expensive unproven ideas that they can, but are completely unwilling to implement a relatively cheap and known working solution.

Which contradicts their own stance of a country having to be a member to te refugee convention,  but it's okay, because we are turning boats back in international waters and our domestic laws don't apply. D1ckheads.

And yay to putting our navy at risk and for boats being scuttled!  Relatively easy!

ian wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:09pm:

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:06pm: My issue is that these useless idiots keep trying and failing the most expensive unproven ideas that they can, but are completely unwilling to implement a relatively cheap and known working solution. Machine gun the boats as they come in?

There's a few here who'd support that.

Sadly.

ian wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:09pm:

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:06pm: My issue is that these useless idiots keep trying and failing the most expensive unproven ideas that they can, but are completely unwilling to implement a relatively cheap and known working solution. Machine gun the boats as they come in?

Turn the boats around and machine gun the leftys is my preference, but I'd be more than happy with just machine gunning the leftys. Even dole bludging asylum seekers are preferable to leftys, not to mention how much fun it would be.

Notice how many boats are sinking these days? Surprise, surprise, its because the people smugglers have worked out they only need to use boats that can put out to sea and send a distress signal then we must rescue them. All this has been discussed previously. Perhaps you think we should subsidise the people smugglers to buy better boats so we can turn them back more easily. This theory is why Abbott is an intellectual baboon and I fail to understand why even those with simple intelligence can not comprehend it.

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:14pm:

ian wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:09pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:06pm: My issue is that these useless idiots keep trying and failing the most expensive unproven ideas that they can, but are completely unwilling to implement a relatively cheap and known working solution. Machine gun the boats as they come in? Turn the boats around and machine gun the leftys is my preference, but I'd be more than happy with just machine gunning the leftys. Even dole bludging asylum seekers are preferable to leftys, not to mention how much fun it would be.

Well, you sound like a bit of a dill, don't you?

Aussie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:46pm:

So you agree....it will work in stopping Achmed.  Goodo.

You presume that Rudd has announced it, therefore it will happen?   ;D ;D

Do you have no caveats in mind at all?   No capacity for forward thinking and assessing risk?

In the absence of any detail you are oblivious to potential problems, pitfalls, legal challenges, political issues or potential crippling costs of the proposed solution and totally unconcerned with Labors late history of fvucking every policy they attempt?  As far as you are concerned the problem is now sorted?

I have never thought you were too bright Aussie and this confirms my opinion of you not being much of a thinker or planner and certainly not capable of pre-emptive or strategic thought.

I know the line you would have taken if Abbott had announced this as an election policy, you are just another hypocritical lefty with the usual flexible outrage.  Rudd has announced a policy that if announced by Abbott you would not abide yet here you are defending it.  8-)

Still, just the usual from the one eyed rusted ons.

Kat wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:20pm:

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:14pm: ian wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:09pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:06pm: My issue is that these useless idiots keep trying and failing the most expensive unproven ideas that they can, but are completely unwilling to implement a relatively cheap and known working solution. Machine gun the boats as they come in? Turn the boats around and machine gun the leftys is my preference, but I'd be more than happy with just machine gunning the leftys. Even dole bludging asylum seekers are preferable to leftys, not to mention how much fun it would be. Well, you sound like a bit of a dill, don't you?

Well, you sound like a bit of an annoying fking cvunthole, don't you?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:12pm:

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:02pm: I remember Bowen and the ALP saying that the Malaysian solution was "rock solid" they have "the best" advice back then too. Are you willing to stake that tiny little pustule that represents your reputation that they haven't cocked this one up too? Or are you just going to carry on as you did last time with your fingers in your ears going lalalalalallalalala? The Malaysia solution contravened the migration act as a clause deemed a country can only be used as a destination of off shore processing if the country had proper processes for refugee assessment and safeguards for refugees.  That was removed by labor and the coalition and it now simply says " country has to be a member to the refugee convention.". Which png is. So what law is this solution breaking?

Which the ALP didn't know about back then until it went to the courts. This thought bubble will also have its day in court and you will find out then, won't you.

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:24pm:

Kat wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:20pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:14pm: ian wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:09pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:06pm: My issue is that these useless idiots keep trying and failing the most expensive unproven ideas that they can, but are completely unwilling to implement a relatively cheap and known working solution. Machine gun the boats as they come in? Turn the boats around and machine gun the leftys is my preference, but I'd be more than happy with just machine gunning the leftys. Even dole bludging asylum seekers are preferable to leftys, not to mention how much fun it would be. Well, you sound like a bit of a dill, don't you? Well, you sound like a bit of an annoying fking cvunthole, don't you?

Oh lookie he wants another banning. 

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:26pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:12pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:02pm: I remember Bowen and the ALP saying that the Malaysian solution was "rock solid" they have "the best" advice back then too. Are you willing to stake that tiny little pustule that represents your reputation that they haven't cocked this one up too? Or are you just going to carry on as you did last time with your fingers in your ears going lalalalalallalalala? The Malaysia solution contravened the migration act as a clause deemed a country can only be used as a destination of off shore processing if the country had proper processes for refugee assessment and safeguards for refugees.  That was removed by labor and the coalition and it now simply says " country has to be a member to the refugee convention.". Which png is. So what law is this solution breaking?  Which the ALP didn't know about back then until it went to the courts. This thought bubble will also have its day in court and you will find out then, won't you.

Fingers crossed?  ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:28pm:

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:24pm: Kat wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:20pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:14pm: ian wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:09pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:06pm: My issue is that these useless idiots keep trying and failing the most expensive unproven ideas that they can, but are completely unwilling to implement a relatively cheap and known working solution. Machine gun the boats as they come in? Turn the boats around and machine gun the leftys is my preference, but I'd be more than happy with just machine gunning the leftys. Even dole bludging asylum seekers are preferable to leftys, not to mention how much fun it would be. Well, you sound like a bit of a dill, don't you? Well, you sound like a bit of an annoying fking cvunthole, don't you? Oh lookie he wants another banning.

We live in hope...

Kat wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:32pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:28pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:24pm: Kat wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:20pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:14pm: ian wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:09pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:06pm: My issue is that these useless idiots keep trying and failing the most expensive unproven ideas that they can, but are completely unwilling to implement a relatively cheap and known working solution. Machine gun the boats as they come in? Turn the boats around and machine gun the leftys is my preference, but I'd be more than happy with just machine gunning the leftys. Even dole bludging asylum seekers are preferable to leftys, not to mention how much fun it would be. Well, you sound like a bit of a dill, don't you? Well, you sound like a bit of an annoying fking cvunthole, don't you? Oh lookie he wants another banning.  We live in hope...

Just report him Kat.  People are actively trying to make this place better and he hasn't learnt after the 12th nick.

If you can't take it, shut your fking hole.

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:24pm:

Kat wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:20pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:14pm: ian wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:09pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:06pm: My issue is that these useless idiots keep trying and failing the most expensive unproven ideas that they can, but are completely unwilling to implement a relatively cheap and known working solution. Machine gun the boats as they come in? Turn the boats around and machine gun the leftys is my preference, but I'd be more than happy with just machine gunning the leftys. Even dole bludging asylum seekers are preferable to leftys, not to mention how much fun it would be. Well, you sound like a bit of a dill, don't you? Well, you sound like a bit of an annoying fking cvunthole, don't you?

Guess that makes me one as well.

Have to say you are not doing your cause any good if all you can do is abuse those who disagree with you.

Have a nice day....

:)

Yes, it does actually. Little miss annoying popped her head up and started with the abuse and obviously brought a dildo to a gun fight.

Your presence makes it two dildo's now.

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

Yes, it does actually. Little miss annoying popped her head up and started with the abuse and obviously brought a dildo to a gun fight. Your presence makes it two dildo's now.

:)

Lobo wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:55pm:

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:44pm: Yes, it does actually. Little miss annoying popped her head up and started with the abuse and obviously brought a dildo to a gun fight. Your presence makes it two dildo's now. :)

What do you think his next nick is going to be?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 12:00am:

Lobo wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:55pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:44pm: Yes, it does actually. Little miss annoying popped her head up and started with the abuse and obviously brought a dildo to a gun fight. Your presence makes it two dildo's now. :) What do you think his next nick is going to be?

Happy???

;)

Lobo wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 12:02am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 12:00am: Lobo wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:55pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:44pm: Yes, it does actually. Little miss annoying popped her head up and started with the abuse and obviously brought a dildo to a gun fight. Your presence makes it two dildo's now. :) What do you think his next nick is going to be? Happy??? ;)

Hopefully ;)

How about "Allleftysarebuggerbags"?

Oh. Of course.

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Kat wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:20pm:

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:14pm: ian wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:09pm: alp4eva wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 11:06pm: My issue is that these useless idiots keep trying and failing the most expensive unproven ideas that they can, but are completely unwilling to implement a relatively cheap and known working solution. Machine gun the boats as they come in? Turn the boats around and machine gun the leftys is my preference, but I'd be more than happy with just machine gunning the leftys. Even dole bludging asylum seekers are preferable to leftys, not to mention how much fun it would be. Well, you sound like a bit of a dill, don't you?

He has a point, labor is a rightwing party so labor followers are safe.

And now they have no moral compass, can do as they please.

alp4eva wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 11:33pm:

If you can't take it, shut your fking hole.

I think you may have chosen the wrong forum... we dont like people that do this...

whats wrong with common decent language???

do you use this language to your family?? if not dont do it on here..thank you.

like it or not we are all exposed to it..

If the courts reject it the Liberals will find themselves between a rock and a hard place, Do they support stopping the boars or don't they???

The answer is that they support their best political opportunities.