Cherful,

Here is the opening line to this thread:

"The Greens and Labor are screeching that Dutton should be punished for claiming that many immigrants by boat are illiterate and largely unemployable..."

Most who come "by boat" are from the middle-east or south-east Asia.

Why you singling out immigrants from Sudan and other African nations? They don't come by boat seeking asylum. They come through refugee camps in our annual intake.

Those who come aren't coming because they wish to take our jobs or live off our largesse - in many cases they're fleeing Western bombs. You know how the West makes a killing (excuse the pun) from selling arms to murderous regimes and other groups.

"Peter Dutton would have seen the statistics for unemployment figures and lack of
a schooling background in groups in this country, so he would know what he was
talking about.
Those crying down what he said, have no factual information about the uneducated,
lifetime,unemployed single males that are coming into Western countries so their
comments are based on emotional hysteria and not fact."

Like this guy?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/sudanese-refugee-lauded-by-mike-baird-withdraws-his-support-for-liberals-over-peter-duttons-asylum-seeker-comments-20160520-gozpli.html

Thanks for your contribution, Cherful....just one more example of the scintillating midgetry on offer on this forum.

Loudmouth,

"So if an ad hominem is all you've got, I'd suggest that you've run out of puff, Poirot. Bullying is not possible on-line, sweetie, so there's really no point trying it."

You really are something special, Joe.

You spend many hours verbally bashing Duncan Storrar on the other thread (because he asked a question)...completely ignoring the relevance of his question - instead trashing him shamelessly up and down the thread.

And now you're squealing because someone critiqued your brand of debate.

Golly gosh! - here's a guy who can dish it out but can't take it.

But don't let me keep you on this thread. I'm sure you're champing at the bit to get back to putting the boot into Storrar.

It's even easier to ignore his point and pour ad hom onto Duncan - he's not here to defend himself.

Which would suit a bully, the likes of you just fine.

Cheers - sweetie!

Parrot,

Once again you uncritically echo left whinge propaganda, without realising how stupid it is.

The majority will languish on the dole, but the small number that do get jobs will mostly get menial jobs. Forming their own "businesses" they will not be constrained by the minimum wage and be able to work for less, in the segment of the job industry where there is a dire shortage of work.

Hi Poirot,

'Squealing' ? Moi ? I'm a Bankstown boy, we never squeal, we just cop it. Squealment is foreign to our nature. I'm an anti-squealer and as a post-Marxist, I'm totally opposed to squealism.

I'll leave that up to lumpens like Duncan with his 'Why not me ?! What about my share ?! Is it my fault that I haven't paid tax for years, and therefore can't get a tax cut ?! Poor me !' which has beautifully suckered in the OppLeft :)

Still, as my dear old refined English grandmother would have said, you can't polish a turd and, after all, he's one of your turds, Poirot. You're stuck with him.

Yep, you can take the boy out of Bankstown ....

Unless you drag him up again from the slime, I won't ever refer to him again, sweetie. Life's too short.

See ? Bullying DOESN'T work on-line. Try reasoning, honey, you'll find it's more fun than slagging.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

"'Squealing' ? Moi ? I'm a Bankstown boy, we never squeal, we just cop it. Squealment is foreign to our nature. I'm an anti-squealer and as a post-Marxist, I'm totally opposed to squealism."

Snort!....

But the pièce de résistance is your well-worn tactic, when you've run out of argument, to pull out "sweetie"...of course only when you're debating a female.

I was expecting it - and then right on cue - Loudmouth deploys his white flag.

..and then keeps waving it about because he thinks it's kinda impressive.

What a man!

Cheers....

Hi Poirot,

Yep, sooner or later, the gender card. But I thought that gender was a fluid concept, that 'what it is to be a man' or what it is to be a woman' were negotiable, not fixed and antithetical, as you assume ? So twentieth century, Poirot ! Keep up, honey !

To be honest, I really do mean those terms of endearment, since I see you and me as on similar trajectories, from rock-solid Marxism to some sort of common sense. I've gone further down that road, being so much older - there's fifty years I'll never get back - but it's all experience, as the prostitute said to Craig Thomson. I wish you the best travelling on that road. Just be careful who you travel with.

Cheers,

Joe