Rechtub,
Two points:
First, at no time have I disrespected your opinion, I merely disagreed with it, as you often disagree with mine, as is your right. There is a difference between disrespecting and disagreeing with.
Second, I'm not sure when was the last time you checked, but you might have observed that the law of trespass does not apply to the issue of entering a country.
Moreover, that these refugees are not illegals is not my opinion, it's the opinion of the High Court and of the UN.
Perhaps you should take it up with them.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Just finished watching tonight's Q&A. I was amazed how many silly people I have to share my life with. It's worse than I thought. The supposedly funny one was just plain silly & the reporter only expressed dismay at every question put to her but didn't have a single solution to offer. The Minister well, he is Labor. The Bishop was cornered by the silly ones & clearly could not be bothered to argue with the mutts.

Anthonyve - At the top of page 7 I asked you 2 and a bit questions
1) are you happy for your benefits to be reduced and taxes raised if x% of them can here are you willing to risk the future of any children or grandchildren and to what extent are you willing to go to support them.
2) the Anglican minister was looking for people to house the refugees in their homes, how many did you offer to take in?
You claim I "cannot even read and comprehend a post" and claim "I DID answer your question."
It appears it is you who do not understand what you read. At no point on page 7 or after do you say yes or no to your taxes etc going up.
You say nothing about the effects on your children or grandchildren.
Furthermore you have made no commitment either way as to you having some refugees live in your house.
To quote you "Social justice is what drives me." does it drive you in substance or only in rhetoric.

individual - the figure you quoted will be a lot higher because the Government will be paying the charity organizations.

Philip,

Ant has answered you:

1 He has retired and is self funded, so he no longer pays taxes, those are everyone else's problem.

2 His obfuscation indicates that he has neither taken anyone in, nor does he contribute substantially to charity.

And P.S. the term illegal immigrant applies to someone that enters the country without a visa. I.e the immigration was not legal.

Phillip and Shadow Minister,,
Below is a copy/paste of a reply I posted yesterday at -as you will see - 11.54am.
Please note the last three words of the first sentence.
Gentlemen,
Please try to keep up.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

<< Phillip,
Setting aside for the moment that this is a stupid question as it has no relevance to the matter at hand, as in one cannot generalise from the specific, I took none.
How and where and in what manner I support a whole range of charities is - not to put too fine a point on it - none of your, or anyone else's, business.
And if that question, which seems to be so important to you, is the best way you can think of to move your argument forward, then I think you've already lost.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au
Posted by Anthonyve, Monday, 10 September 2012 11:54:22 AM>

Ant,

I read it the first time, and yet again it says nothing.

Now that you are retired and self funded, you are immune from the predations of the ATO and labor trying to fund their ever more grandiose schemes. The largesse that you wish to dole out to the world's needy comes from taxes to which you contribute significantly less.

The man in the street needs to see his tax dollars spent wisely, and as I do, not spent before knowing how it is going to be funded. This government has 4 years of record deficits, in spite of having record revenues from mining. This year looks like going the same way.