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

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #255 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:29am

Gist wrote on 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.

More of your BS

You tried to represent boat arrival numbers for the pacific solution as the people count, then conveniently used the actual boat arrival numbers of the non-pacific soltuion. you are obviously dumb, but am pretty sure you are dishonest as well.

I would be happy to go between the pacific solution average persons per boat of 29 or the labors non-pacific solution of average 46 persons per boat.

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #256 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:46am

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:29am:

Gist wrote on 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:

[quote author=4A485355070 link=1340904189/248#248 date=1341516699]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.

More of your BS

You tried to represent boat arrival numbers for the pacific solution as the people count, then conveniently used the actual boat arrival numbers of the non-pacific soltuion. you are obviously dumb, but am pretty sure you are dishonest as well.
I would be happy to go between the pacific solution average persons per boat of 29 or the labors non-pacific solution of average 46 persons per boat.[/quot

I think we should start looking at the number of deaths to be honest... I think this far out weighs how many come by boat and how many come by plane.. DEATH is FINAL.

if you were on yahoo you will remember the lampooning we got when rudd first6 ended the pacific solution..
the sky is falling the sky is falling" look NO BOATS>.and there were no boats... it took a while for the people smugglers to get organised..

now all of a sudden some think what we are getting isnt really a problem.. LOL.. its all the libs fault of course for not agreeing with Labor.... as if!!!!!

it most definitely isnt Labors fault for moving the goal posts and allowing the people smugglers back in business.. look how sophisticated they have now got?? they know how to contact our navy..with more lies...what a hoot..

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #257 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:50am

cods wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:29am:

Gist wrote on 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.

More of your BS

You tried to represent boat arrival numbers for the pacific solution as the people count, then conveniently used the actual boat arrival numbers of the non-pacific soltuion. you are obviously dumb, but am pretty sure you are dishonest as well.
I would be happy to go between the pacific solution average persons per boat of 29 or the labors non-pacific solution of average 46 persons per boat.

I think we should start looking at the number of deaths to be honest... I think this far out weighs how many come by boat and how many come by plane.. DEATH is FINAL.

if you were on yahoo you will remember the lampooning we got when rudd first6 ended the pacific solution..
the sky is falling the sky is falling" look NO BOATS>.and there were no boats... it took a while for the people smugglers to get organised..

now all of a sudden some think what we are getting isnt really a problem.. LOL.. its all the libs fault of course for not agreeing with Labor.... as if!!!!!

it most definitely isnt Labors fault for moving the goal posts and allowing the people smugglers back in business.. look how sophisticated they have now got?? they know how to contact our navy..with more lies...what a hoot..

No I wasn't around for the yahoo days.

Isnt it typical of labor to stop a policy that is working, because it was liberal policy and have nothing to replace it.

You would think, well actually know, that if you are going to stop something that is working, you have something to replace it before you stop the old policy.

A bit like you find another job before you quit your current job.

Labor = policy on the run
Labor = failures

Back to top

IP Logged

corporate_whitey Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 8896 Archivist	Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony? Reply #258 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 12:00pm This is a contemptible Government that refuses to defend Australia and its borders from alien invasion.
Back to top	World Wide Working Class Struggle 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 #259 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 12:20pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:29am:

Gist wrote on 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.

More of your BS

You tried to represent boat arrival numbers for the pacific solution as the people count, then conveniently used the actual boat arrival numbers of the non-pacific soltuion. you are obviously dumb, but am pretty sure you are dishonest as well.

I would be happy to go between the pacific solution average persons per boat of 29 or the labors non-pacific solution of average 46 persons per boat.

And immediately, when it's pointed out to you AGAIN what a dipsh!t you are, you start blabbing about people per boat. Being a brainless dick, any time now you'll forget everything that's been said and start blabbing about boats I'm sure.

Face it lolly, you're a born liar, constantly ignoring anything that's said that you don't want to hear or that doesn't suit your argument. You can't decide whether you want to count boats, people, people per boat, deaths, turnips or something else. When challenged about boat numbers you immediately lie and say no, you were talking about people. Or turnips.

What a joke you are. Get used to being challenged on a regular basis!

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 #260 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 12:58pm

Gist wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 12:20pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 11:29am:

Gist wrote on 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.

More of your BS

You tried to represent boat arrival numbers for the pacific solution as the people count, then conveniently used the actual boat arrival numbers of the non-pacific soltuion. you are obviously dumb, but am pretty sure you are dishonest as well.

I would be happy to go between the pacific solution average persons per boat of 29 or the labors non-pacific solution of average 46 persons per boat.

And immediately, when it's pointed out to you AGAIN what a dipsh!t you are, you start blabbing about people per boat. Being a brainless dick, any time now you'll forget everything that's been said and start blabbing about boats I'm sure.

Face it lolly, you're a born liar, constantly ignoring anything that's said that you don't want to hear or that doesn't suit your argument. You can't decide whether you want to count boats, people, people per boat, deaths, turnips or something else. When challenged about boat numbers you immediately lie and say no, you were talking about people. Or turnips.

What a joke you are. Get used to being challenged on a regular basis!

You are challenged. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #261 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 7:10pm

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.

Why is it that the Libs are refusing to budge unless Labor endorse the failed policy of TPVs.

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

adelcrow

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20133
everywhere
Gender: male

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #262 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 7:22pm

Its just as well that we live in a country that has a strong economy, low unemployment, a high standard of living, a good health and education system and that is the envy of the western world. So much so that the only thing we have to bitch about is a few asylum seekers coming here by boat and who's harassing who in federal parliament.

Back to top

Go the Bunnies

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #263 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 7:24pm

adelcrow wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 7:22pm:

Its just as well that we live in a country that has a strong economy, low unemployment, a high standard of living, a good health and education system and that is the envy of the western world. So much so that the only thing we have to bitch about is a few asylum seekers coming here by boat and who's harassing who in federal parliament.

And whether the carbon tax gets removed in 2014 or 2015

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

adelcrow

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20133
everywhere
Gender: male

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #264 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 7:26pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 7:24pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 7:22pm:

Its just as well that we live in a country that has a strong economy, low unemployment, a high standard of living, a good health and education system and that is the envy of the western world. So much so that the only thing we have to bitch about is a few asylum seekers coming here by boat and who's harassing who in federal parliament.

And whether the carbon tax gets removed in 2014 or 2015

Big business says we will always have a price on carbon now one has been introduced and are tailoring their investments with that in mind so we can safely say carbon pricing in one form or another is here to stay.

Back to top

Go the Bunnies

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 74828 Gender:	Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony? Reply #265 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 7:29pm why do the libs refuse to even join the talks to try and come up with a solution? isn't that political grandstanding to the upteenth degree .....? playing politics with peoples lives ... Abbott should be jailed .
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

adelcrow

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20133
everywhere
Gender: male

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #266 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 7:31pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:

why do the libs refuse to even join the talks to try and come up with a solution? isn't that political grandstanding to the upteenth degree .....? playing politics with peoples lives ... Abbott should be jailed .

The jails are full of people that have got in Abbotts way over the years so there may be a welcoming party of ex rivals waiting for him

Back to top

Go the Bunnies

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony? Reply #267 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 7:39pm The Libs sticking point is TPVs, which according to progs' criteria is a failed policy because we had well over 8000 boat arrivals while it was in place. So Abbott is holding the parliament to ransom over a failed policy.
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

John Smith

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 74828
Gender: male

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #268 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 7:42pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 7:39pm:

The Libs sticking point is TPVs, which according to progs' criteria is a failed policy because we had well over 8000 boat arrivals while it was in place. So Abbott is holding the parliament to ransom over a failed policy.

abbott should be jailed for crimes against humanity ... imagine his poor wife having to wake up next to him every day ... i say a life sentence

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

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 #269 - Jul 6^th, 2012 at 7:43pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 7:39pm:

The Libs sticking point is TPVs, which according to progs' criteria is a failed policy because we had well over 8000 boat arrivals while it was in place. So Abbott is holding the parliament to ransom over a failed policy.

You'd best ask lolly if that's 8,000 boats or 8,000 people on boats.

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 »