Australian Politics Forum - Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

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

Posts: 5476

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #330 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 1:53pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 10:17am:

Gist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Gist wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

I'll give you my solution after you answer my question. (You could just recall our discussion on this topic we had only a few weeks ago and you'd find my answer. Or maybe your memory is as bad as your cognition?).

What is your pragmatic solution to resettlement?

My memory tells me that you gave diddly squat. My memory tells me that you CLAIMED you would answer after I gave an answer. And then you squibbed. Whodathunkit eh?

But perhaps my memory is faulty, as you say. Perhaps I'm confusing you with one of the other foot odour crowd. You are all so alike after all. So perhaps you could provide a link to this answer you gave. Or perhaps you could not.

How are you coming with that link to your post giving your solution there Missed?

You'll get your answer after you answer the question I put to you first.
This dodging does nothing for your so-called egalitarian stance. If you were really on top of this issue, and if you really cared about 'boat people,' then you'd have the answers ready, in detail, and be only too keen to get your point across. But what's becoming apparent is that this issue for you is no more than a political football, an issue that you play with just to oppose the view of the Conservatives. You give reactionary and flippant responses to give the appearance of 'moral superiority,' when in actual fact it's nothing but a point scoring game.

We went through this before. You should remember. That you don't remember the conversations and opposing views to your own is quite telling; that you forget who and what it is you're arguing against is a sure sign of someone who takes instant reactive positions on issues just to oppose the opposition, and has no intention of really solving this problem.

I'll ask again, what is your pragmatic solution to the 'boat people' issue?

Karnal is exactly right - what's it got to do with "conservatives"? If you believe this is some Labor/Liberal face off then you are indeed as stupid as I thought. Their policies are indistinguishable and I support neither. If you'd read anything I've written then you would know this. But of course, reading and comprehension isn't your bag is it?

As for your "I'll tell you after you tell me" bullshit, well, I've heard better lines among the grandkids. You have no solution nor do you give a rats arse. Your sole aim - as always - is simply to attack me. In doing that your simple minded strategy is to make no claim, put forward no argument, put forward nothing. Just attack the target. The fact that you claim you provided something and yet can't quote the same when challenged just shows how shallow you really are.

So face it, you're just yet another of the dribbling troll knuckle dragger brigade. A lightweight of no account. I suggest you go back to playing with your underpants.

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: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #331 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 4:31pm

Gist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:35am:

Soren wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 10:08pm:

Thank you. As stupid as expected.

As you were (ie carry on like a looney).

What's the matter Simple Soren? Realised you'd been a bit quick off the mark at going berserker? You haven't answered the question yet...

How many would YOU resettle?

Boaties without ID? None. Zero.

I wouldn't even consider asylum applications from anyone coming from Indonesia unless they were Indonesians, Malaysia unless Malaysian, etc. None of that nonsense. Across how many borders are we responsible for them?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 19^th, 2012 at 4:42pm by Soren »

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 95299 Gender:	Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Reply #332 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 4:58pm Ah yes, old boy, but what if they were Danes?
Back to top	IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26500
Australia

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #333 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 5:09pm

Soren wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 4:31pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:35am:

Soren wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 10:08pm:

Thank you. As stupid as expected.

As you were (ie carry on like a looney).

What's the matter Simple Soren? Realised you'd been a bit quick off the mark at going berserker? You haven't answered the question yet...

How many would YOU resettle?

Boaties without ID? None. Zero.

I wouldn't even consider asylum applications from anyone coming from Indonesia unless they were Indonesians, Malaysia unless Malaysian, etc. None of that nonsense. Across how many borders are we responsible for them?

But they cant stop in those countries

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

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

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

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

Posts: 5476

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #334 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 5:37pm

Soren wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 4:31pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:35am:

Soren wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 10:08pm:

Thank you. As stupid as expected.

As you were (ie carry on like a looney).

What's the matter Simple Soren? Realised you'd been a bit quick off the mark at going berserker? You haven't answered the question yet...

How many would YOU resettle?

Boaties without ID? None. Zero.

I wouldn't even consider asylum applications from anyone coming from Indonesia unless they were Indonesians, Malaysia unless Malaysian, etc. None of that nonsense. Across how many borders are we responsible for them?

OK, I can agree with you on the refugees without ID, although I suspect we'd disagree on some of the detail. For instance, you say "boaties without ID" and I say you're transfixed by the party hoo ha. Your statement means you'd be happy to accept walk-ins without ID. I wouldn't. Meh. Can't have everything.

However, I think you'd find we DON'T accept refugees without ID. It's why some have sat for so long in detention at times - they're not released until they're identified and determined to be genuine reffos.

As for the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree. Frankly, I can't see what difference it makes how they get here or why it's OK for them to fly in (from any country and across continents) but not to come in via boat. As long as they're assessed as genuine I really don't care how they got here.

Since when did Danes not like boats anyway?

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

Avram Horowitz

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3153
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #335 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 7:13pm

My point is these people who say "they are legal because the law says they can come without visa" is a silly argument because you can ignore this.
You can decide who comes in to your country - and what anyone else says is not relevant.

Ignore opinion of others and act only in your own country interests.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Reply #336 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 7:27pm Karnal wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 4:58pm: Ah yes, old boy, but what if they were Danes? They can go to Sweden.
Back to top	IP Logged

Prevailing

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7169
Stop Men

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #337 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 7:43pm

Only the Rise Up Australia Party is committed to fighting Nazis, stopping the boats, securing our borders and keeping Australia Australian...

Quote:

16. All boats trying to enter Australian waters by illegal means should be stopped to preserve the lives put at risk by people smugglers.
http://riseupaustraliaparty.com/?p=65#more-65

Back to top

I condemn Male Violence Against Women
The Government Supports Gynocide
There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10259
Gender: male

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #338 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 8:39pm

Gist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 1:53pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 10:17am:

Gist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Gist wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

I'll give you my solution after you answer my question. (You could just recall our discussion on this topic we had only a few weeks ago and you'd find my answer. Or maybe your memory is as bad as your cognition?).

What is your pragmatic solution to resettlement?

My memory tells me that you gave diddly squat. My memory tells me that you CLAIMED you would answer after I gave an answer. And then you squibbed. Whodathunkit eh?

But perhaps my memory is faulty, as you say. Perhaps I'm confusing you with one of the other foot odour crowd. You are all so alike after all. So perhaps you could provide a link to this answer you gave. Or perhaps you could not.

How are you coming with that link to your post giving your solution there Missed?

You'll get your answer after you answer the question I put to you first.
This dodging does nothing for your so-called egalitarian stance. If you were really on top of this issue, and if you really cared about 'boat people,' then you'd have the answers ready, in detail, and be only too keen to get your point across. But what's becoming apparent is that this issue for you is no more than a political football, an issue that you play with just to oppose the view of the Conservatives. You give reactionary and flippant responses to give the appearance of 'moral superiority,' when in actual fact it's nothing but a point scoring game.

We went through this before. You should remember. That you don't remember the conversations and opposing views to your own is quite telling; that you forget who and what it is you're arguing against is a sure sign of someone who takes instant reactive positions on issues just to oppose the opposition, and has no intention of really solving this problem.

I'll ask again, what is your pragmatic solution to the 'boat people' issue?

Karnal is exactly right - what's it got to do with "conservatives"? If you believe this is some Labor/Liberal face off then you are indeed as stupid as I thought. Their policies are indistinguishable and I support neither. If you'd read anything I've written then you would know this. But of course, reading and comprehension isn't your bag is it?

As for your "I'll tell you after you tell me" bullshit, well, I've heard better lines among the grandkids. You have no solution nor do you give a rats arse. Your sole aim - as always - is simply to attack me. In doing that your simple minded strategy is to make no claim, put forward no argument, put forward nothing. Just attack the target. The fact that you claim you provided something and yet can't quote the same when challenged just shows how shallow you really are.

So face it, you're just yet another of the dribbling troll knuckle dragger brigade. A lightweight of no account. I suggest you go back to playing with your underpants.

More dodging and vitriol. You seem to do everything except answer the question.
I am going to keep asking, so you might as well at least try and answer it. Keep your emotions under control and think about the issue at hand.

What is the pragmatic solution to "resettling"?

Back to top

IP Logged

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #339 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 8:40pm

aquascoot wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:16am:

plenty of work in NW western australia.
give them all temporary protection visas and put them to work in one of gina's mines.
or they can go chase down the feral camels destroying central australia and start a new export industry .

if after a period on work probation they seem like good blokes, no problems, they can stay.

if they want to spend their day on a mat facing mecca and dont want to contribute to their new country, bye bye................

you are getting the general idea. Smiley

Back to top

live every day

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

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

Posts: 5476

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #340 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:30pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 8:39pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 1:53pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 10:17am:

Gist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Gist wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

I'll give you my solution after you answer my question. (You could just recall our discussion on this topic we had only a few weeks ago and you'd find my answer. Or maybe your memory is as bad as your cognition?).

What is your pragmatic solution to resettlement?

My memory tells me that you gave diddly squat. My memory tells me that you CLAIMED you would answer after I gave an answer. And then you squibbed. Whodathunkit eh?

But perhaps my memory is faulty, as you say. Perhaps I'm confusing you with one of the other foot odour crowd. You are all so alike after all. So perhaps you could provide a link to this answer you gave. Or perhaps you could not.

How are you coming with that link to your post giving your solution there Missed?

You'll get your answer after you answer the question I put to you first.
This dodging does nothing for your so-called egalitarian stance. If you were really on top of this issue, and if you really cared about 'boat people,' then you'd have the answers ready, in detail, and be only too keen to get your point across. But what's becoming apparent is that this issue for you is no more than a political football, an issue that you play with just to oppose the view of the Conservatives. You give reactionary and flippant responses to give the appearance of 'moral superiority,' when in actual fact it's nothing but a point scoring game.

We went through this before. You should remember. That you don't remember the conversations and opposing views to your own is quite telling; that you forget who and what it is you're arguing against is a sure sign of someone who takes instant reactive positions on issues just to oppose the opposition, and has no intention of really solving this problem.

I'll ask again, what is your pragmatic solution to the 'boat people' issue?

Karnal is exactly right - what's it got to do with "conservatives"? If you believe this is some Labor/Liberal face off then you are indeed as stupid as I thought. Their policies are indistinguishable and I support neither. If you'd read anything I've written then you would know this. But of course, reading and comprehension isn't your bag is it?

As for your "I'll tell you after you tell me" bullshit, well, I've heard better lines among the grandkids. You have no solution nor do you give a rats arse. Your sole aim - as always - is simply to attack me. In doing that your simple minded strategy is to make no claim, put forward no argument, put forward nothing. Just attack the target. The fact that you claim you provided something and yet can't quote the same when challenged just shows how shallow you really are.

So face it, you're just yet another of the dribbling troll knuckle dragger brigade. A lightweight of no account. I suggest you go back to playing with your underpants.

More dodging and vitriol. You seem to do everything except answer the question.
I am going to keep asking, so you might as well at least try and answer it. Keep your emotions under control and think about the issue at hand.

What is the pragmatic solution to "resettling"?

Vitriol? My, we are a precious petal aren't we? I think you would know if I wanted to vent.

Here's a suggestion - there are some 23 pages in this thread alone. I think you'll find that I've contributed quite a few posts. You on the other hand have contributed "I'll answer after you answer". Well, that may cut it with the other kids in your kinda class but it doesn't cut it here.

Feel free to read to read my posts. Criticise them by all means. Put up counter arguments. All of that is known as debate - something you've completely failed to do in all your posts. Maybe get your teacher to explain it to you if you don't understand. Until then I'll treat you as just another dickless twat playing with socks and underpants.

Last chance dickslime.

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

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10259
Gender: male

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #341 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:51pm

Gist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:30pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 8:39pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 1:53pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 10:17am:

Gist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Gist wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

I'll give you my solution after you answer my question. (You could just recall our discussion on this topic we had only a few weeks ago and you'd find my answer. Or maybe your memory is as bad as your cognition?).

What is your pragmatic solution to resettlement?

My memory tells me that you gave diddly squat. My memory tells me that you CLAIMED you would answer after I gave an answer. And then you squibbed. Whodathunkit eh?

But perhaps my memory is faulty, as you say. Perhaps I'm confusing you with one of the other foot odour crowd. You are all so alike after all. So perhaps you could provide a link to this answer you gave. Or perhaps you could not.

How are you coming with that link to your post giving your solution there Missed?

You'll get your answer after you answer the question I put to you first.
This dodging does nothing for your so-called egalitarian stance. If you were really on top of this issue, and if you really cared about 'boat people,' then you'd have the answers ready, in detail, and be only too keen to get your point across. But what's becoming apparent is that this issue for you is no more than a political football, an issue that you play with just to oppose the view of the Conservatives. You give reactionary and flippant responses to give the appearance of 'moral superiority,' when in actual fact it's nothing but a point scoring game.

We went through this before. You should remember. That you don't remember the conversations and opposing views to your own is quite telling; that you forget who and what it is you're arguing against is a sure sign of someone who takes instant reactive positions on issues just to oppose the opposition, and has no intention of really solving this problem.

I'll ask again, what is your pragmatic solution to the 'boat people' issue?

Karnal is exactly right - what's it got to do with "conservatives"? If you believe this is some Labor/Liberal face off then you are indeed as stupid as I thought. Their policies are indistinguishable and I support neither. If you'd read anything I've written then you would know this. But of course, reading and comprehension isn't your bag is it?

As for your "I'll tell you after you tell me" bullshit, well, I've heard better lines among the grandkids. You have no solution nor do you give a rats arse. Your sole aim - as always - is simply to attack me. In doing that your simple minded strategy is to make no claim, put forward no argument, put forward nothing. Just attack the target. The fact that you claim you provided something and yet can't quote the same when challenged just shows how shallow you really are.

So face it, you're just yet another of the dribbling troll knuckle dragger brigade. A lightweight of no account. I suggest you go back to playing with your underpants.

More dodging and vitriol. You seem to do everything except answer the question.
I am going to keep asking, so you might as well at least try and answer it. Keep your emotions under control and think about the issue at hand.

What is the pragmatic solution to "resettling"?

Vitriol? My, we are a precious petal aren't we? I think you would know if I wanted to vent.

Here's a suggestion - there are some 23 pages in this thread alone. I think you'll find that I've contributed quite a few posts. You on the other hand have contributed "I'll answer after you answer". Well, that may cut it with the other kids in your kinda class but it doesn't cut it here.

Feel free to read to read my posts. Criticise them by all means. Put up counter arguments. All of that is known as debate - something you've completely failed to do in all your posts. Maybe get your teacher to explain it to you if you don't understand. Until then I'll treat you as just another dickless twat playing with socks and underpants.

Last chance dickslime.

You have contributed a lot of posts, yes. Unfortunately, they contain little substance and are full of abuse. You've commented on 'boat people' many times, yes, but you've not outlined your specific "resettlement" solution in any depth. I am well within the bounds of a debate board to ask you to clarify your position.

I am going to ask again and again until you either answer the question or admit that you have no well thought out plan to this problem. If you find such simple questions offensive, then I suggest you not contribute to discussion forums.

What is your pragmatic, well thought out plan to "resettlement"?

Back to top

IP Logged

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Reply #342 - Jul 19^th, 2012 at 10:03pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 9:51pm: