Australian Politics Forum - Why not stop the boats, Tony?

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

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

Posts: 5476

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #225 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:22pm

Soren wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:53pm:

Bollocks on stilts. You just making this up. The boats did stop coming. Nauru was empty. And then came Kevvie.
From the Parliamentary Library:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_L...

Year boats people

1998–99 42 921
1999–00 75 4175
2000–01 54 4137
2001–02 19 3039

2002–03 0 0
2003–04 3 82
2004–05 0 0
2005–06 8 61
2006–07 4 133
2007–08 3 25

Shake that head, Git. Stop your ears and eyes.
Do you believe the buzz in your head or your lying eyes, as you look at these numbers?

It's a tuff choice for you, I know.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1340858860/180

Read it if you've the intellect. See if you can get beyond that amazingly powerful deduction that 61 is more than zero which seems as far as you've got so far.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #226 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:28pm

Gist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:22pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:53pm:

Bollocks on stilts. You just making this up. The boats did stop coming. Nauru was empty. And then came Kevvie.
From the Parliamentary Library:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_L...

Year boats people

1998–99 42 921
1999–00 75 4175
2000–01 54 4137
2001–02 19 3039

2002–03 0 0
2003–04 3 82
2004–05 0 0
2005–06 8 61
2006–07 4 133
2007–08 3 25

Shake that head, Git. Stop your ears and eyes.
Do you believe the buzz in your head or your lying eyes, as you look at these numbers?

It's a tuff choice for you, I know.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1340858860/180

Read it if you've the intellect. See if you can get beyond that amazingly powerful deduction that 61 is more than zero which seems as far as you've got so far.

Been through this before. You made that chart up and its bunk.

You use people numbers to identify with boat arrivals. Boat arrivals under pacific solution were 7 and less but you try to confuse and lie to people that over 140 boats arrived.

Just go to the next page anyone wanting to see the figures.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1340858860/195

Or directly to a reply to that graph from me on the next page above
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1340858860/207#207

If Gist tries to argue that the people numbers were obviously going up. Remember that the boat arrival numbers for the pacific solution were going up by 1 a year. The extra people are representative of that 1 extra boat a year. After labor ditched the pacific solution, the boat arrivals went up to 64 in 1 year, 135 the next. That is not even close to a steady 1 boat a year increase of the pacific solution, so cant be compared in order to say "look there was a n increase blah blah"

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:38pm by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

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

Posts: 5476

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #227 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:35pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:28pm:

Been through this before. You made that chart up and its bunk.

Whoa! A weighty argument indeed from the Lord of Stupid! Well that's my arguments done for then. Roll Eyes

Maybe you'd like to try backing it up with something more than that you don't want to count people, only boats? Or that 61 is more than zero?

Back to top

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

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #228 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:39pm

Gist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:28pm:

Been through this before. You made that chart up and its bunk.

Whoa! A weighty argument indeed from the Lord of Stupid! Well that's my arguments done for then. Roll Eyes

Maybe you'd like to try backing it up with something more than that you don't want to count people, only boats? Or that 61 is more than zero?

Dumb is what dumb does. You represent people numbers and try to say the number represents boat arrivals. No, it represents boat people arrival numbers.

After ditched pacific solution. People numbers 2726. That cannot be compared to 61 to 140.

Boat people arrival numbers
60, 148, 161 then skyrockets to 2726

Boats
6, 5, 7 then skyrockets to 60, then 134.

there is no comparison to make in order to get a trend betweeen the pacific solution and the labor idea of ditching it.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:46pm by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58990
Here
Gender: male

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #229 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:47pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:02pm:

I cant beleive some of you dimwits are disputing the results of the pacific solution. It really calls into question your intellgence. you can query the reasons, you can question to morality, but you dont get to question the results. Do the ends justofy the means? always a complex question but even in that you dont get to IMAGINE the 'ends'.

You don't seem to have the same problem with the dim wits who insist that Labor doing virtually the same thing at a different location would not work.

because it isnt the same thing at Malaysia. it is only for 800 of them. and after that we are right where we are now. But if it is 'the same things' as you suggest, then why do you oppose Nauru and instead opt for Malaysia?

Who said I support Malaysia just because I acknowledge it would be the same as Nauru.

When Nauru was commenced it would not have held 800 people and it wasn't flooded, People did not want to go to Nauru so they stopped comming. They also do not want to go to a camp in Malaysia and the result would be the same.

What happens to them and where they end up dead , alive or if they fly into Australia instead is a different question.

The big difference today with Nauru is that people know that it is only a delayed ticket to Australia, the threat is much less effective which is the reason that back to the end of the queue in Malaysia is a better deterant.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #230 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:49pm

Dnarever wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:02pm:

I cant beleive some of you dimwits are disputing the results of the pacific solution. It really calls into question your intellgence. you can query the reasons, you can question to morality, but you dont get to question the results. Do the ends justofy the means? always a complex question but even in that you dont get to IMAGINE the 'ends'.

You don't seem to have the same problem with the dim wits who insist that Labor doing virtually the same thing at a different location would not work.

because it isnt the same thing at Malaysia. it is only for 800 of them. and after that we are right where we are now. But if it is 'the same things' as you suggest, then why do you oppose Nauru and instead opt for Malaysia?

Who said I support Malaysia just because I acknowledge it would be the same as Nauru.

When Nauru was commenced it would not have held 800 people and it wasn't flooded, People did not want to go to Nauru so they stopped comming. They also do not want to go to a camp in Malaysia and the result would be the same.

What happens to them and where they end up dead , alive or if they fly into Australia instead is a different question.

The big difference today with Nauru is that people know that it is only a delayed ticket to Australia, the threat is much less effective which is the reason that back to the end of the queue in Malaysia is a better deterant.

Why cant they do a back to the end of the queue in Nauru. If it is good enough for them to wait in malaysia at the end of the queue, then why not Nauru.

They could do a count of arrivals that come to Australia by plane, then say, your turn, just like malaysia.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58990
Here
Gender: male

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #231 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:53pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:49pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:02pm:

I cant beleive some of you dimwits are disputing the results of the pacific solution. It really calls into question your intellgence. you can query the reasons, you can question to morality, but you dont get to question the results. Do the ends justofy the means? always a complex question but even in that you dont get to IMAGINE the 'ends'.

You don't seem to have the same problem with the dim wits who insist that Labor doing virtually the same thing at a different location would not work.

because it isnt the same thing at Malaysia. it is only for 800 of them. and after that we are right where we are now. But if it is 'the same things' as you suggest, then why do you oppose Nauru and instead opt for Malaysia?

Who said I support Malaysia just because I acknowledge it would be the same as Nauru.

When Nauru was commenced it would not have held 800 people and it wasn't flooded, People did not want to go to Nauru so they stopped comming. They also do not want to go to a camp in Malaysia and the result would be the same.

What happens to them and where they end up dead , alive or if they fly into Australia instead is a different question.

The big difference today with Nauru is that people know that it is only a delayed ticket to Australia, the threat is much less effective which is the reason that back to the end of the queue in Malaysia is a better deterant.

Why cant they do a back to the end of the queue in Nauru. If it is good enough for them to wait in malaysia at the end of the queue, then why not Nauru.

They could do a count of arrivals that come to Australia by plane, then say, your turn, just like malaysia.

Nauru is not the end of the queue - it is a processing point for access to Australia.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #232 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:55pm

Dnarever wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:53pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:49pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:02pm:

I cant beleive some of you dimwits are disputing the results of the pacific solution. It really calls into question your intellgence. you can query the reasons, you can question to morality, but you dont get to question the results. Do the ends justofy the means? always a complex question but even in that you dont get to IMAGINE the 'ends'.

You don't seem to have the same problem with the dim wits who insist that Labor doing virtually the same thing at a different location would not work.

because it isnt the same thing at Malaysia. it is only for 800 of them. and after that we are right where we are now. But if it is 'the same things' as you suggest, then why do you oppose Nauru and instead opt for Malaysia?

Who said I support Malaysia just because I acknowledge it would be the same as Nauru.

When Nauru was commenced it would not have held 800 people and it wasn't flooded, People did not want to go to Nauru so they stopped comming. They also do not want to go to a camp in Malaysia and the result would be the same.

What happens to them and where they end up dead , alive or if they fly into Australia instead is a different question.

The big difference today with Nauru is that people know that it is only a delayed ticket to Australia, the threat is much less effective which is the reason that back to the end of the queue in Malaysia is a better deterant.

Why cant they do a back to the end of the queue in Nauru. If it is good enough for them to wait in malaysia at the end of the queue, then why not Nauru.

They could do a count of arrivals that come to Australia by plane, then say, your turn, just like malaysia.

Nauru is not the end of the queue - it is a processing point for access to Australia.

That can be easily changed in order to function like labors malaysian deal.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26513
Australia

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #233 - Jul 5^th, 2012 at 6:17am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:14pm:

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?

What a load of crap. Do you get beat up a lot?

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

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

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26513
Australia

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #234 - Jul 5^th, 2012 at 6:18am

Gist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:53pm:

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...

Did they count the ones they "turned back"? Anyway the woman on the news said that they never found out what happened to some of them.

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

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

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26513
Australia

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #235 - Jul 5^th, 2012 at 6:25am

Soren wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:53pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:27pm:

the question is BOAT people - not asylum seekers by air. this idiot is beatn even by the interviewer who forced him to admit that Howards Solution stopped the boats. When the question remains focussed on the boats - which is where the problem exists - then howards solution works unequivocably.

No it didn't. It did, for about all of 2 years. And then it started to go pear shaped. And then it went bust.

And all indications are that if we did EXACTLY THE SAME THING AGAIN it would fail for exactly the reasons it was failing then - the asylum seekers came to realise that it wasn't much of a deterrent when everyone gets to come to Australia via Nauru.

Bollocks on stilts. You just making this up. The boats did stop coming. Nauru was empty. And then came Kevvie.
From the Parliamentary Library:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_L...

Year boats people

1998–99 42 921
1999–00 75 4175
2000–01 54 4137
2001–02 19 3039

2002–03 0 0
2003–04 3 82
2004–05 0 0
2005–06 8 61
2006–07 4 133
2007–08 3 25

Shake that head, Git. Stop your ears and eyes.
Do you believe the buzz in your head or your lying eyes, as you look at these numbers?

It's a tuff choice for you, I know.

But how many died @ sea? That is the "problem" isnt it? Ppl dying @ sea?

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

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

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #236 - Jul 5^th, 2012 at 7:27am

That seems to be the criterion.

Then there are the costs, otherwise we would put on a weekly asylum flight. And then there must be the number of the buggers who get in.

But, in fact, over-riding all this is the number of them that we send back to a non signatory of the UNHCR convention Malaysia.[Edited for accuracy - Tony Wink

]

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26203
Gender: male

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #237 - Jul 5^th, 2012 at 8:01am

Gist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:22pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:53pm:

Bollocks on stilts. You just making this up. The boats did stop coming. Nauru was empty. And then came Kevvie.
From the Parliamentary Library:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_L...

Year boats people

1998–99 42 921
1999–00 75 4175
2000–01 54 4137
2001–02 19 3039

2002–03 0 0
2003–04 3 82
2004–05 0 0
2005–06 8 61
2006–07 4 133
2007–08 3 25

Shake that head, Git. Stop your ears and eyes.
Do you believe the buzz in your head or your lying eyes, as you look at these numbers?

It's a tuff choice for you, I know.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1340858860/180

Read it if you've the intellect. See if you can get beyond that amazingly powerful deduction that 61 is more than zero which seems as far as you've got so far.

Well, that's about the only true thing you've said. Yes, 61 is more than zero. However, did you not notice that there were two full years without any boats whatsoever? Have you noticed that the most people came in the year that there were just four boats carrying 133 people??? Gillard had overseen more than 100 boats in her first 12 months in the top job. Hmmm, four boats versus 100 boats in 12 months. I know which I'd consider to be a failure.

Over the six years of the Pacific solution, there were a mere 301 people arrive. Over the past 5 years of Labor, more than 19,000 people have arrived. I cannot put it any more plainly than that.

Labor's attempts to control people smuggling since Rudd dismantled the Pacific Solution have been an EPIC FAILURE of the highest order!!!

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #238 - Jul 5^th, 2012 at 8:41am

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:23pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:07pm:

Longy, circumstances have changed. When circumstances change the same policy is not always effective. The advice from the Department of Immigration is that Nauru is unlikely to be a sufficient deterrent.

Im actually referring to people caliming thatthe previous pacific solution didnt work. it did.

but I would question why the DoI would now mysteriaously claim that a program that was a stellar success before shoudl be any different now. the same factors are at play and so there is little reason to believe the result would be any different.

Have you been following, Longy. Indonesia won't accept tow backs. Nauru will fill in no time. It's a massive hole in the budget for a solution that is unlikely to work. Malaysia will work because it breaks the business model.

Personally, I prefer the Greens solution. Although I probably would have compromised with Labor.

you mis the point which is DETERRENCE. by using nauru the boats stop coming. Malaysia is onjectionable because of their human rights record - which is poor - plus that they will only accept 800 AND we have to take 4000 off their hands with no say so in who they send.

the pacific solution WORKED and only partisan hacks and fools say otherwise.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #239 - Jul 5^th, 2012 at 8:45am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 5^th, 2012 at 6:17am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:14pm:

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?

What a load of crap. Do you get beat up a lot?

SOB

you just make stuff up and many of your posts are a facepalm experience.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Why has Abbott voted against stopping the boats.
Concern for asylum seekers 2 (8.3%) Political advantage 18 (75.0%) Other 4 (16.7%) Total votes: 24 « Created by: MOTR on: Jun 29^th, 2012 at 3:23am »