The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > What is the Opposition's policy regarding the current asylum seekers controversy?

What is the Opposition's policy regarding the current asylum seekers controversy?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. Page 24
  10. 25
  11. 26
  12. 27
  13. ...
  14. 39
  15. 40
  16. 41
  17. All
Bronwyn,

---“You're getting good value then, aren't you”

Good value! LOL
I paid good money-- and all I got was some dudette called Bronwyn singing “I’’m a new age Barbie doll” and, two dudes dressed as Ken humming along out of tune.I knew I should have saved my money and went to see Rihanna!

Not entertaining, and totally devoid of credibility.

You start off
---“ some of the asylum-seekers understandably remonstrated, but to describe their actions as a highjacking is just more of your fanciful demonisation.

Then when that becomes untenable you start to crib
---“ The true shame of Tampa does not lie in the so-called 'high jacking' actions of those rescued. It lies [elsewhere]

Then Yabby catches you out telling fibs--again!
--- “Not so Bronwyn. According to the UNHCR website, all three indeed
are! You clearly are making this up, as you go along :)”

Practically a mirror image of you last attempted fraud
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3080#73503
Last time on a different thread your claimed oversight –what is the excuse this time?
Posted by Horus, Thursday, 5 November 2009 7:44:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just a quick aside that does not relate to the debate here.

Yabby resorts to a pathetically self righteous, sexist putdown when he can't debate effectively. It's sooooooooooooooo 18th century to imply that possession of "motherly instincts" lessens one's credibility in debate. That's pretty dumb yabby. and it reflects only on you. Sexist old men love to use female characteristics as a concocted put down. It shows such an old fashioned contempt towards females. Grow up buddy.
Posted by Smithy456, Thursday, 5 November 2009 8:55:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TZ and Smithy456

"INDONESIAN authorities are bracing for a huge influx of boat people, anticipating as many as 10,000 asylum-seekers are waiting in Malaysia to transit through the archipelago and on to Australia."

And that was in June, the number that have already focused on coming to Aus.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/warning-on-wave-of-boat-people-20090629-d2j3.html

"Networks of people-smugglers service the 1 million Indonesian illegal workers who regularly travel to Malaysia by boat. The same networks also help arrange passage to Australia via Indonesia."

So there is sufficient infrastructure to smuggle 1m people a year, and with about 90 000 asylum seekers in Malaysia, the possibility is very real, and can grow fast.

The Indonesians think so, the Aus customs authorities think so, But hey, a brain surgeon that said "As the current controversy draws to a close, the opposition will be even less popular than ever", thinks otherwise. Puleez.

Well smithy,

You said "Tz did not claim that Shadow Minister had predicted 10s of thousands of boat people."

I said that he implied that I had, as follows:

TZ refuted my statement that my predictions were on the money because I "referred to 10s of thousands of refugees."

Or do I need to use really small words and use pictures for someone apparently devoid of inductive reason.

The only reason you are pursuing this fatuous nit picking is because all the facts contradict the labor party line you are mindlessly repeating.

Why do you think Rudd has the pacific dawn tied up for weeks to drop off 78 asylum seekers. The answer is that if he takes them to Xmas Island, it will demonstrate conclusively that there is no Indonesian solution, and there is nothing to stop the smugglers.

Between the boat people and the visa over stayers we are getting there very fast.

If you disagree please show me.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 5 November 2009 9:36:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Love it, love it. The xenophobia grows with every post. At least he's not trying to disguise it so much now.

Initially Shadow Minister tried to deny that he believes 10s of thousands of refugees could be on their way to here. Then he was finally forced to out himself, and say he doesn't deny it. Now Shadow Minister's numbers are rising to a possible 90,000 with an upper limit of 1 MILLION asylum seekers looking for leaky boats ....... all wanting to head for HERE.

Yep smithy, that's an appropriate word you used, xenophobia. "XENOPHOBIA" regarding boat people, is Shadow Minister's primary tool of trade here.
Posted by TZ52HX, Thursday, 5 November 2009 10:29:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only real solution for displaced people is for the WHOLE world to bear it's responsibilities
Posted by TZ52HX, Thursday, 5 November 2009 4:56:21 PM

TZ, That would help a lot. The UNHCR only has 20 countries in which place their registered refugees. Australia is the 3rd largest receiver with 13000 PA.

If you really believe what you wrote above, then why not get off your bum and lobby to get the rest of the world to take their share. Instead of ranting here and supporting those that are trying to get around the system by entering Aus illegally.

Your compassion for the illegals has helped kill about 51 of them since our government eased the measures that had stopped them trying to come.
Posted by Banjo, Thursday, 5 November 2009 10:41:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*It shows such an old fashioned contempt towards females*

You are indeed correct Smithy. Putting down females for no good reason
is very much 18th century. Today's world is based on reason and logic,
along with evidence.

So I'm thrilled that you are raising one of my pet topics on OLO :)

Fundies on OLO claim that the world is around 6000 years old.
Should I simply agree with them, or look at the evidence?

So it seems that I will have to drag you into the 21st Century.
You could do worse then start here, with your education:

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/neurok.html

Nobody has claimed that men are superior to women. The claim is
that on average, men and women are different but equal. The claim
is that hormones affect human behaviour and judgement. The
claim is that each of our endocrine systems produces different
neurochemistry, which affect our every thought and action, including
our judgement.

So are you now going to deny that hormones affect human behaviour
and judgement and that men and women on average are affected
by different hormones to some degree?

Are you going to claim that women have no maternal instincts and that
these instincts don't affect their thoughts and behaviour?

Welcome to the 21st Century Smithy, for it is the Century of
understanding how the human brain functions!
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 5 November 2009 10:53:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. Page 24
  10. 25
  11. 26
  12. 27
  13. ...
  14. 39
  15. 40
  16. 41
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy