|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:benelsmore wrote:rusty wrote:mcjules wrote:All they've done is effectively stopped them from getting into the detention centre, that's mission accomplished as far as the general public is concerned. Anyone that cared about the plight of these people would think otherwise.
We also don't know how many boats are still trying to come. Stop being dishonest. We know the boats are a shit load less than if when Labor was running immigration. The amount of lives saved spared would be in the hundreds at least. We don't know how more would be dead if Labor were still in charge, possibly millions? We also know that any boats that attempt to come here have a direct line to the refugee council and ABC and any attempts at an arrival will be plastered Fairfax and the ABC in a desperate attempt to discredit the government. If you were an intellectually honest you would admit that the current policies are working successfully in what they are setting out to do. You might disagree with the morality of those policies, but on a practical level you would admit they are working, rather than trying to obfuscate the issue by making trite statements like "we don't know how many boats are trying to come". This is a moral issue. A moral issue we spend more on than if we were to invest in programmes to turn these people from the criminals you label them as to tax paying Australians........ I don't understand why Munrub and rusty are trying to turn the discussion away from the morality of it except that they know they can't "win" with that argument. No one wants people trying to seek asylum in such a dangerous way but at what cost do you try and prevent it? The current "solution" is expensive and inhumane. Edited by mcjules: 24/7/2015 12:59:41 PM I agree. I am curious about the costs to. I'd wager it would be cheaper to let them in without unnecessary detention and to spend that money saved on making them useful members of society. Everyone wins then. They get a better life, tradies becomes more accessible and we recoup the taxes they pay. My condition would be that they are sent to regional centres with labour shortages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:benelsmore wrote:rusty wrote:mcjules wrote:All they've done is effectively stopped them from getting into the detention centre, that's mission accomplished as far as the general public is concerned. Anyone that cared about the plight of these people would think otherwise.
We also don't know how many boats are still trying to come. Stop being dishonest. We know the boats are a shit load less than if when Labor was running immigration. The amount of lives saved spared would be in the hundreds at least. We don't know how more would be dead if Labor were still in charge, possibly millions? We also know that any boats that attempt to come here have a direct line to the refugee council and ABC and any attempts at an arrival will be plastered Fairfax and the ABC in a desperate attempt to discredit the government. If you were an intellectually honest you would admit that the current policies are working successfully in what they are setting out to do. You might disagree with the morality of those policies, but on a practical level you would admit they are working, rather than trying to obfuscate the issue by making trite statements like "we don't know how many boats are trying to come". This is a moral issue. A moral issue we spend more on than if we were to invest in programmes to turn these people from the criminals you label them as to tax paying Australians........ I don't understand why Munrub and rusty are trying to turn the discussion away from the morality of it except that they know they can't "win" with that argument. No one wants people trying to seek asylum in such a dangerous way but at what cost do you try and prevent it? The current "solution" is expensive and inhumane. Edited by mcjules: 24/7/2015 12:59:41 PM I'm not arguing anything regards the morals. I am agreeing that the policies are working. I even said "rightly or wrongly". Argue the morality all day long if you want but if you expect people to listen to you then when something is proven patently true you should have the decency to acknowledge it and then move on. Saying things like "we don't know because the media don't tell us" is weak. I am no liberal voter and I've argued many times with Rusty but you are being intellectually dishonest if you can't admit these policies, insofar as to stopping the boats in large numbers, have worked.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
benelsmore wrote:
I agree. I am curious about the costs too.
To hazard a guess I would imagine that the costs are quite high initially but would decrease over time as less and less people arrive. (At least I would imagine this is what the government is betting on.) So starting high and trickling to zero (or a nominal amount.) The alternative is to allow the refugees to come in increasing numbers which, over time the Government would argue, costs more and more, year on year. So starting low and increasing (pretty much open ended) as long as there are 100 million plus refugees around the world or until they decide to stop seeking asylum. This year alone (so 7 months to date) 160 000 refugees have landed in Greece and Italy alone. (And those numbers will rise.) If those sorts of numbers arrived in Australia in such a short period of time it would be "challenging" to say the least.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
macktheknife wrote:Make people fill out and pay customs duty and tax before their goods are delivered.
The goal isn't to get tax it is to make it harder to buy overseas so fucks like Harvey Norman don't go under sooner with their overpriced shit. And if it's a gift? -PB
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
rusty wrote:benelsmore wrote:They're idiotic policies that cost us way too much money and achieve nothing.
Why hold someone for 18 months? Why hold someone for greater than 3 months? What does it achieve?
Look I understand if these people have to be held for a week or a month to verify who they are but why hold them offshore at expensive facilities? Why not hold them locally at established facilities?
Why the hell do we treat these desperate people like criminals?
How can you say they've achieved nothing when boats have stopped sinking, people have stopped dying, --SNIP-- No point reading any further when such a statement is shot down by simply saying; "We do not comment on operational matters" :lol: -PB
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:No point reading any further when such a statement is shot down by simply saying;
"We do not comment on operational matters"
:lol:
-PB Taking comments out of context and twisting them to suit your argument is intellectually dishonest and deprives you of being objective and true to yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
Actually working in a room at the Labor national conference where the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre are presenting a study they commissioned from a linguist about the language around immigration.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Intellectually dishonest is the catch phrase of the day :lol: It'll be intellectually dishonest to not use it in every post.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:mcjules wrote:benelsmore wrote:rusty wrote:mcjules wrote:All they've done is effectively stopped them from getting into the detention centre, that's mission accomplished as far as the general public is concerned. Anyone that cared about the plight of these people would think otherwise.
We also don't know how many boats are still trying to come. Stop being dishonest. We know the boats are a shit load less than if when Labor was running immigration. The amount of lives saved spared would be in the hundreds at least. We don't know how more would be dead if Labor were still in charge, possibly millions? We also know that any boats that attempt to come here have a direct line to the refugee council and ABC and any attempts at an arrival will be plastered Fairfax and the ABC in a desperate attempt to discredit the government. If you were an intellectually honest you would admit that the current policies are working successfully in what they are setting out to do. You might disagree with the morality of those policies, but on a practical level you would admit they are working, rather than trying to obfuscate the issue by making trite statements like "we don't know how many boats are trying to come". This is a moral issue. A moral issue we spend more on than if we were to invest in programmes to turn these people from the criminals you label them as to tax paying Australians........ I don't understand why Munrub and rusty are trying to turn the discussion away from the morality of it except that they know they can't "win" with that argument. No one wants people trying to seek asylum in such a dangerous way but at what cost do you try and prevent it? The current "solution" is expensive and inhumane. Edited by mcjules: 24/7/2015 12:59:41 PM I'm not arguing anything regards the morals. I am agreeing that the policies are working. I even said "rightly or wrongly". Argue the morality all day long if you want but if you expect people to listen to you then when something is proven patently true you should have the decency to acknowledge it and then move on. Saying things like "we don't know because the media don't tell us" is weak. I am no liberal voter and I've argued many times with Rusty but you are being intellectually dishonest if you can't admit these policies, insofar as to stopping the boats in large numbers, have worked. If someone other than Munrub or Rusty thinks I haven't acknowledged that the LibLab policy position is working how they intended it to, please let me know and I'll clarify... Oh and it'd be intellectually dishonest of you not to let me know if you think that! Edited by mcjules: 24/7/2015 03:02:18 PM
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:mcjules wrote:benelsmore wrote:rusty wrote:mcjules wrote:All they've done is effectively stopped them from getting into the detention centre, that's mission accomplished as far as the general public is concerned. Anyone that cared about the plight of these people would think otherwise.
We also don't know how many boats are still trying to come. Stop being dishonest. We know the boats are a shit load less than if when Labor was running immigration. The amount of lives saved spared would be in the hundreds at least. We don't know how more would be dead if Labor were still in charge, possibly millions? We also know that any boats that attempt to come here have a direct line to the refugee council and ABC and any attempts at an arrival will be plastered Fairfax and the ABC in a desperate attempt to discredit the government. If you were an intellectually honest you would admit that the current policies are working successfully in what they are setting out to do. You might disagree with the morality of those policies, but on a practical level you would admit they are working, rather than trying to obfuscate the issue by making trite statements like "we don't know how many boats are trying to come". This is a moral issue. A moral issue we spend more on than if we were to invest in programmes to turn these people from the criminals you label them as to tax paying Australians........ I don't understand why Munrub and rusty are trying to turn the discussion away from the morality of it except that they know they can't "win" with that argument. No one wants people trying to seek asylum in such a dangerous way but at what cost do you try and prevent it? The current "solution" is expensive and inhumane. Edited by mcjules: 24/7/2015 12:59:41 PM I'm not arguing anything regards the morals. I am agreeing that the policies are working. I even said "rightly or wrongly". Argue the morality all day long if you want but if you expect people to listen to you then when something is proven patently true you should have the decency to acknowledge it and then move on. Saying things like "we don't know because the media don't tell us" is weak. I am no liberal voter and I've argued many times with Rusty but you are being intellectually dishonest if you can't admit these policies, insofar as to stopping the boats in large numbers, have worked. If someone other than Munrub or Rusty thinks I haven't acknowledged that the LibLab policy position is working how they intended it to, please let me know and I'll clarify... Oh and it'd be intellectually dishonest of you not to let me know if you think that! Edited by mcjules: 24/7/2015 03:02:18 PM The policy is the problem not the results!! I guess it's convenient for some (intellectually dishonest people) to treat immigrants as less than human :(
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:
If someone other than Munrub or Rusty thinks I haven't acknowledged that the LibLab policy position is working how they intended it to, please let me know and I'll clarify...
Yes you did acknowledge that it worked but then you threw this in; mcjules wrote:
We also don't know how many boats are still trying to come.
Which is sort of reads like a "yeah, nah, maybe".
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
SlyGoat36
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
If you had your wife, daughter and son at home and about 40 strangers rocked up asking for shelter in your home would you freely let them in without knowing a single thing other that they are 'in need'?
Answer that honestly in your head and you'll see why people are left on an island away from the country. Call it inhumane but it sure as shit beats dodging people like ISIS :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:mcjules wrote:
If someone other than Munrub or Rusty thinks I haven't acknowledged that the LibLab policy position is working how they intended it to, please let me know and I'll clarify...
Yes you did acknowledge that it worked but then you threw this in; mcjules wrote:
We also don't know how many boats are still trying to come.
Which is sort of reads like a "yeah, nah, maybe". Aha so I'm saying that you can't make the claim that the boats have stopped but you can make the claim that there have been no (maybe a few?) new arrivals in the offshore detention centres because the government doesn't report on it. The outcome they want is no more to process so it's working but the argument that these policies are about "saving lives at sea" are impossible to prove.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
SlyGoat36 wrote:If you had your wife, daughter and son at home and about 40 strangers rocked up asking for shelter in your home would you freely let them in without knowing a single thing other that they are 'in need'?
Answer that honestly in your head and you'll see why people are left on an island away from the country. Call it inhumane but it sure as shit beats dodging people like ISIS :lol: You really don't understand why they're being kept off-shore :roll: Also short period of detainment while their identities are verified and they're assessed for risk to the community is reasonable. That's not what's happening at the moment. Also you're analogy reeks of "fuck off we're full"...
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
biscuitman1871
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.4K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:macktheknife wrote:Make people fill out and pay customs duty and tax before their goods are delivered.
The goal isn't to get tax it is to make it harder to buy overseas so fucks like Harvey Norman don't go under sooner with their overpriced shit. And if it's a gift? -PB Stiff shit. Gift concession was removed some years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
The whole "keeping us safe by detaining people off shore" argument and the analogy with ISIS is ridiculous when you realise FAAAAAR more people who come by plane breach their visas than the numbers who come by boat.
If the goal is to stop potential terrorists coming in, stopping boats is entirely the wrong focus.
|
|
|
|
|
biscuitman1871
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.4K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:The whole "keeping us safe by detaining people off shore" argument and the analogy with ISIS is ridiculous when you realise FAAAAAR more people who come by plane breach their visas than the numbers who come by boat.
If the goal is to stop potential terrorists coming in, stopping boats is entirely the wrong focus. Not sure what argument you are making here. Most breaches of visas involve overstaying and/or working on tourist visas. The fact that they have visas means they have been subject of a security assessment. Unlike those who arrive by irregular means with no documentation (often because they themselves have destroyed it)
|
|
|
|
|
SlyGoat36
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:SlyGoat36 wrote:If you had your wife, daughter and son at home and about 40 strangers rocked up asking for shelter in your home would you freely let them in without knowing a single thing other that they are 'in need'?
Answer that honestly in your head and you'll see why people are left on an island away from the country. Call it inhumane but it sure as shit beats dodging people like ISIS :lol: You really don't understand why they're being kept off-shore :roll: Also short period of detainment while their identities are verified and they're assessed for risk to the community is reasonable. That's not what's happening at the moment. Also you're analogy reeks of "fuck off we're full"... For someone who acts all high and mighty you let yourself down with the homophobic remarks to Munrubz. Not everything is as black and white as you think it to be. You also totally ignored what I said. You wouldn't fill comfortable having strangers in your house around your family.
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
All the 9/11 hijackers had valid visas. If you are an actual terrorist, coming by boat is completely silly.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
biscuitman1871 wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:macktheknife wrote:Make people fill out and pay customs duty and tax before their goods are delivered.
The goal isn't to get tax it is to make it harder to buy overseas so fucks like Harvey Norman don't go under sooner with their overpriced shit. And if it's a gift? -PB Stiff shit. Gift concession was removed some years ago. But China said it was a gift :( -PB
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
SlyGoat36 wrote:mcjules wrote:SlyGoat36 wrote:If you had your wife, daughter and son at home and about 40 strangers rocked up asking for shelter in your home would you freely let them in without knowing a single thing other that they are 'in need'?
Answer that honestly in your head and you'll see why people are left on an island away from the country. Call it inhumane but it sure as shit beats dodging people like ISIS :lol: You really don't understand why they're being kept off-shore :roll: Also short period of detainment while their identities are verified and they're assessed for risk to the community is reasonable. That's not what's happening at the moment. Also you're analogy reeks of "fuck off we're full"... For someone who acts all high and mighty you let yourself down with the homophobic remarks to Munrubz. Not everything is as black and white as you think it to be. You also totally ignored what I said. You wouldn't fill comfortable having strangers in your house around your family. I've never called him "Man rub" :lol: And I didn't really ignore what you said. But to answer directly, yes I wouldn't want a stranger living in my house with my family. How that compares to strangers living in my community I don't know. I happily live around strangers now...
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
rusty wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:No point reading any further when such a statement is shot down by simply saying;
"We do not comment on operational matters"
:lol:
-PB Taking comments out of context and twisting them to suit your argument is intellectually dishonest and deprives you of being objective and true to yourself. How is it out of context? :lol: You made a broad sweeping statement that has shown to be unprovable thanks to the governments policy on not disclosing any information at all in regards to the boats. Talk about dishonesty! -PB
|
|
|
|
|
SlyGoat36
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:SlyGoat36 wrote:mcjules wrote:SlyGoat36 wrote:If you had your wife, daughter and son at home and about 40 strangers rocked up asking for shelter in your home would you freely let them in without knowing a single thing other that they are 'in need'?
Answer that honestly in your head and you'll see why people are left on an island away from the country. Call it inhumane but it sure as shit beats dodging people like ISIS :lol: You really don't understand why they're being kept off-shore :roll: Also short period of detainment while their identities are verified and they're assessed for risk to the community is reasonable. That's not what's happening at the moment. Also you're analogy reeks of "fuck off we're full"... For someone who acts all high and mighty you let yourself down with the homophobic remarks to Munrubz. Not everything is as black and white as you think it to be. You also totally ignored what I said. You wouldn't fill comfortable having strangers in your house around your family. I've never called him "Man rub" :lol: And I didn't really ignore what you said. But to answer directly, yes I wouldn't want a stranger living in my house with my family. How that compares to strangers living in my community I don't know. I happily live around strangers now... Just so you know I have nothing against immigrants, my wife's grandad was one. I'm just a fencesitter so I always look at both sides ;)
|
|
|
|
|
macktheknife
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
Labor will be unelectable without taking the Liberal policy on turnbacks. What good is the moral high ground of the 'left' when it results in another 3, 6 or more years of Liberal rule?
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn - A-league Mad
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.2K,
Visits: 0
|
macktheknife wrote:Labor will be unelectable without taking the Liberal policy on turnbacks. What good is the moral high ground of the 'left' when it results in another 3, 6 or more years of Liberal rule? Agree. Last several elections just come down to the lesser of 2 evils.
|
|
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:macktheknife wrote:Labor will be unelectable without taking the Liberal policy on turnbacks. What good is the moral high ground of the 'left' when it results in another 3, 6 or more years of Liberal rule? Agree. Last several elections just come down to the lesser of 2 evils. Political advertising should be banned. The "stop the boats" hysteria was brilliantly whipped up by the advertising department of the Liberal party and it has altered the psyche of the populace. This is the oldest trick in the book. Exploit fear in the population. Where have we seen this before? They're not the only party that does it. Advertising like this is a form of propaganda. This will only get worse. Meanwhile they pass more concerning things like the data retention laws. Advertisers know what works. And that's exploiting sex and fear.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Tony banning the Adler shotgun. Fuck off kunt. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
lol @ LNP saying ALP has gone extreme-left. If anything there will probably be a merger in the next 10 years. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:lol @ LNP saying ALP has gone extreme-left.
If anything there will probably be a merger in the next 10 years.
-PB :lol: extreme left? Hell naw they gone centre right. The libs have gone extreme right
|
|
|
|
|
switters
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.6K,
Visits: 0
|
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:lol @ LNP saying ALP has gone extreme-left.
If anything there will probably be a merger in the next 10 years.
-PB :lol: extreme left? Hell naw they gone centre right. The libs have gone extreme right even centre is debatable :lol:
|
|
|
|