sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26
th, 2014 at 12:26pm:
Posted on: Today at 12:26pm
5.56_ NATO wrote Today at 12:25pm:
alevine wrote Today at 12:11pm:
5.56_ NATO wrote Today at 12:03pm:
Drowing em was a policy of your mates in the previous govt ,couple of thousand anyway. They couldn't even get that right
There was no policy to drown, and besides, I fail to see where I have ever said I agreed with the Labor party policy on asylum seekers? Are you really so thick as to think that because someone mightn't agree with the sadist's death camps policy, that they must agree with Labor's death camps policy?
What a knob you are, to think that this is a black or white issue, when it comes to Labor's policy vs Liberal's policy.
Anyway. Getting back to the question for you, please don't shy away from it. If the outcomes the only thing that is important, why not just drown them?
True there was no policy to drown them it was just an unexpected bonus.. sorry consequence, of the ALPs dismantling of a previously effective policy. I have no say in regards to what happens to thes illegals mate so don't ask me, all I know is that the current strategy is yielding results , good results
Right, but again, if it's all about the outcome, then wouldn't just drowning them yield the same results, PLUS have the added benefits of being cheaper? You should be on board with this policy, after all, it's all about the final outcome and the final outcome only!
You do have a say, you have a vote. Would you vote, yes or no, for a party that offers the cheap solution of just drowning them? No detention centers. No life boats. No wasting fuel having to tow a boat back. Just drown. The outcome will be the same, the boats will stop
think you will find that thats GREENS AND LABOR POLICY to drown them.. not LIBS.
we brought in the pacific solution just to stop that very thing... drownings.....
but you couldnt wait to start them off again.