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

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26512
Australia

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #240 - Jul 5^th, 2012 at 8:53am

longweekend58 wrote on 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.

What exactly was wrong with my post? Hmmm? The fact that you dont like it? lol. Does it hurt your arguments in some way? Hmmm?

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 #241 - Jul 5^th, 2012 at 9:08am

longweekend58 wrote on 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.

That is a moot point. No tow backs changes things. It is also disengineous of you to suggest this is purely a parochial point of view, when you know this is the advice coming from the Department of Immigration.

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #242 - Jul 5^th, 2012 at 9:27am

MOTR wrote on Jul 5^th, 2012 at 9:08am:

longweekend58 wrote on 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.

That is a moot point. No tow backs changes things. It is also disengineous of you to suggest this is purely a parochial point of view, when you know this is the advice coming from the Department of Immigration.

the DoI seems to be playing political silly buggers with this. There is NO DOUBT that the Pacific Solution worked. Depsite the best efforts of some partisan hacks and other fools saying otherwise there is no credible argument that the pacific Solution didnt work. The DoI is now saying that a solution that DID work in the very recent past wont work now because 'circumstances have changed'. what circumstances? the date??? the exact same driving forces are sending the boats out to sea. it is the same people smugglers, the same refugees and the same outcomes. Re-instituting the Pacific Solution WILL work beause it is the only solutin that has EVER worked. Malaysia is problematic because it is a limited solution (800 only) and their rather poor human rights record.

Gillards reasons for not using Nauru is political. the DoI's argument is also political - which is a disgrace. Like so many other peopl in australia I just dont understand why when 100s are dying at sea we dont re-implement the ONLY solution that has ever worked. I know some people dont like the Pacific SOlution but removing it has led to the deaths of over 1000 people. How that can be construed as a success is beyond me.

BRING BACK THE PACIFIC SOLUTION TO SAVE LIVES.

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

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

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

Posts: 5476

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #243 - Jul 5^th, 2012 at 10:03am

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:39pm:

Dumb is what dumb does. You represent people numbers and try to say the number represents boat arrivals.

A simple error which I admitted when it was pointed out. Whereas it has taken you many days and many, many posts until now to finally understand that people are not boats. As we see here:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:39pm:

No, it represents boat people arrival numbers.

Glad to see the light has finally come on for you. And then your brains fall out again:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:39pm:

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.

That wasn't the point. I have shown you a trend DURING the Pacific Solution. YOU are the only one comparing before and after - I didn't. I'll repeat it AGAIN for you and armchair for what must be the fiftieth time in the hope that maybe one day that neuron that you two share may begin to comprehend:

The Pacific Solution was failing. Beginning 2005 it was increasingly having less effect as a deterrent. That can easily be seen in the PEOPLE numbers from 2005-2007 when the Pacific Solution ended.

Lots of words there. See if you can manage to understand them this time.

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 #244 - Jul 5^th, 2012 at 10:19am

Gist wrote on Jul 5^th, 2012 at 10:03am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:39pm:

Dumb is what dumb does. You represent people numbers and try to say the number represents boat arrivals.

A simple error which I admitted when it was pointed out. Whereas it has taken you many days and many, many posts until now to finally understand that people are not boats. As we see here:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:39pm:

No, it represents boat people arrival numbers.

Glad to see the light has finally come on for you. And then your brains fall out again:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 10:39pm:

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.

That wasn't the point. I have shown you a trend DURING the Pacific Solution. YOU are the only one comparing before and after - I didn't. I'll repeat it AGAIN for you and armchair for what must be the fiftieth time in the hope that maybe one day that neuron that you two share may begin to comprehend:

The Pacific Solution was failing. Beginning 2005 it was increasingly having less effect as a deterrent. That can easily be seen in the PEOPLE numbers from 2005-2007 when the Pacific Solution ended.

Lots of words there. See if you can manage to understand them this time.

No it was not failing in comparison to not having the pacific solution. The pacific solution was a raging success at its worst numbers in comparison to not having the pacific solution.

1 extra boat load of people a year is not failing. 60, 134 boat loads of people would be failing.

Back to top

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 #245 - Jul 5^th, 2012 at 10:23am

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 5^th, 2012 at 10:19am:

No it was not failing in comparison to not having the pacific solution. The pacific solution was a raging success at its worst numbers in comparison to not having the pacific solution.

1 extra boat load of people a year is not failing. 60, 134 boat loads of people would be failing.

I'll send you a load of Mrs Marsh's chalk. I can see you'll do better with that lot.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #246 - Jul 5^th, 2012 at 10:52am

Armchair_Politician wrote on 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.

That's very insensitive and uncaring of you, to be speaking so plainly. Your plain speaking is hurtful!

Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony? Reply #247 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 5:22am So when Tony gets into power and tries to reintroduce the Pacific Solution, would it be wrong for Labor to block it in the Senate?
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

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony? Reply #248 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 5:31am To quantify this debate, what number of arrivals per year would be considered a fail?
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

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony? Reply #249 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 9:48am MOTR wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 5:31am: To quantify this debate, what number of arrivals per year would be considered a fail? The least amount possible in order for their to be the least amount of sinking. The least for it not to be an expensive NRMA exercise. 10 - 20 a year would cover it.
Back to top	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 #250 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:07am

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 9:48am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 5:31am:

To quantify this debate, what number of arrivals per year would be considered a fail?

The least amount possible in order for their to be the least amount of sinking. The least for it not to be an expensive NRMA exercise.

10 - 20 a year would cover it.

People?
Boats?
Turnips?
Calathumpian babelfish?

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 #251 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:15am

Gist wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:07am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 9:48am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 5:31am:

To quantify this debate, what number of arrivals per year would be considered a fail?

The least amount possible in order for their to be the least amount of sinking. The least for it not to be an expensive NRMA exercise.

10 - 20 a year would cover it.

People?
Boats?
Turnips?
Calathumpian babelfish?

God dam boy you are daft.

This thread is about boats. Got it. Someone smack im over the back of the head.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 58797
Here
Gender: male

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #252 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:17am

Gist wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:07am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 9:48am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 5:31am:

To quantify this debate, what number of arrivals per year would be considered a fail?

The least amount possible in order for their to be the least amount of sinking. The least for it not to be an expensive NRMA exercise.

10 - 20 a year would cover it.

People?
Boats?
Turnips?
Calathumpian babelfish?

All this when something like 50,000 fly in without a word about it, no problem at all.

Back to top

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 #253 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:22am

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:15am:

Gist wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:07am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 9:48am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 5:31am:

To quantify this debate, what number of arrivals per year would be considered a fail?

The least amount possible in order for their to be the least amount of sinking. The least for it not to be an expensive NRMA exercise.

10 - 20 a year would cover it.

People?
Boats?
Turnips?
Calathumpian babelfish?

God dam boy you are daft.

This thread is about boats. Got it. Someone smack im over the back of the head.

Just wanted to be clear because you don't seem to know what you're counting half the time.

So you have no problem with 5 or 10 ships carrying say 1,000 asylum seekers each? I thought the Lolly Asylum Seeker Strategy was limited to one ship but obviously you have gone beyond that now.

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

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

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

Posts: 5476

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #254 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:24am

Dnarever wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:17am:

Gist wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:07am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 9:48am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 5:31am:

To quantify this debate, what number of arrivals per year would be considered a fail?

The least amount possible in order for their to be the least amount of sinking. The least for it not to be an expensive NRMA exercise.

10 - 20 a year would cover it.

People?
Boats?
Turnips?
Calathumpian babelfish?

All this when something like 50,000 fly in without a word about it, no problem at all.

No, you misunderstand the problem. Lolly is fine with 50,000 people. Or even 100,000 people! What he's worried about all the boats. He doesn't like to see boats sink! Lolly will be rescuing the derelict hulk on the Parramatta River soon before it can sink.

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

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 »