And the boats keep coming

A.A. Alfie said:
can you show us what and where their policy for non genuine refugee arrivals is?
Click to expand...

Why would they have a specific policy for that? The absence of a policy suggests they don't have any plans to change how that works. And why would they?
 
A.A. Alfie said:
So you don't think that the moron's Green's influence over the Gillard government in the past 18 months has had anything to do with government policy. Get serious!
Click to expand...

A.A. Alfie said:
I'm not certain I would call the socialist per se, however some of their values and backgrounds are of that strain (e.g. Lee Rhiannon).

That aside, most of the moron's Green's policies are not written down anywhere. For example, can you show us what and where their policy for non genuine refugee arrivals is?
Click to expand...

That would be two consecutive instances where you have ironically added an apostrophe incorrectly when trying to pluralise the word "moron". You did it with "Greens" too, but it's not quite as funny.
 
bit_pattern said:
Wrong stats.

We were talking about the % of boat arrivals that receive refugee status compared to other forms of applicants. And you can look at any of the government sources cited throughout this thread and it is patently clear - boat arrivals are consistently found to have genuine refugee claims than any other applicant. that was the same under Howard, the same under this government. It has nothing to do with Immigration being a "soft touch" on asylum seekers.
Click to expand...

Ah, my mistake. I was pretty drunk last night though! I still think my questions were valid though, at least as far as they pertained to Alfie's assertion that policies are the driving force behind illegal arrivals.
 
Legend said:
That would be two consecutive instances where you have ironically added an apostrophe incorrectly when trying to pluralise the word "moron". You did it with "Greens" too, but it's not quite as funny.
Click to expand...

Er... ownership, not pluralisation.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
So you don't think that the moron's Green's influence over the Gillard government in the past 18 months has had anything to do with government policy. Get serious!
Click to expand...

:confused: Alfie debating method #1, when it is pointed out that he has made a mistake, just strike out on a complete tangent to what was being discussed.

You already knew that the Greens did not support the Governments policy on refugees arriving by boat. That is why the bill was not put up, because it cannot pass. On this particular policy, the Government and Liberals are actually much closer than the Government and the Greens. So you talk about Green influence on Government policy. If the Greens had that much influence, the Government would have put up a policy the Greens supported, and it would have passed the house. But you know that already, so I don't know why I am wasting my time telling you.
 
bit_pattern said:
Why would they have a specific policy for that? The absence of a policy suggests they don't have any plans to change how that works. And why would they?
Click to expand...

Welcome them all hey? Open up the borders completely, why they may even send dozens of Qantas flights to pick them up and bring them here and never mind the more than half a million Australians waiting for state housing, they can all go to hell. They would need them all to house illegal migrants. :rolleyes:
 
Legend said:
Alfie, you fail to realise, in spite of your unexpectedly calm retort, that the apostrophes should've been on the right of the Ss.



It would be very much appreciated if you could narrow down the over 1,000 words you've just posted to the appropriate amount to which you refer.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the problem here. People only read what is ideological to their own same thinking.
 
Umm... well, in that case... wouldn't all us loonies read the entire thing given it's the principles of the Greens?

I've got your Christmas present, it should make things easier for you.

P.S. It's a shovel.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
I have not said he is doing nothing wrong. In fact I find the politicking disgusting and have said so twice now.
Click to expand...

And yet you're so quick to do so yourself (case in point the OP in this thread).

But for you lot to paint this as all Abbott's fault is a total disconnect and disgusting to boot.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I have said that this is Abbott's fault, but I would say that Abbott is partly to blame because if he had just allowed the amended changes we would have a solution that would have fit your opinions far better than Abbott's proposed "solution" and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

*What is happening is:
"Abbott won’t discuss a compromise plan the Gillard government hasn’t formulated, cannot explain and which would not fly in any case." Ergo, it's all his fault. :boggled:
Click to expand...

But as far as I'm aware Labor wants this change so they can implement their Malaysian Solution which collapsed because of the HCA decision that the changes to the legislation are supposed to deal with.
 
Legend said:
Alfie, you fail to realise, in spite of your unexpectedly calm retort, that the apostrophes should've been on the right of the Ss.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you would be directing me to the right. Seems at odds with most of your ideology, wouldn't you want them more to the left? :)

Wildy said:
I don't believe I have said that this is Abbott's fault, but I would say that Abbott is partly to blame because if he had just allowed the amended changes we would have a solution that would have fit your opinions far better than Abbott's proposed "solution" and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Click to expand...

And if Gillard had just accepted Abbott's proposed ........ blah blah.

Same argument goes both ways.

Why is it Gillard will bend over for the Greens and others yet not compromise with the coalition?

Wildy said:
But as far as I'm aware Labor wants this change so they can implement their Malaysian Solution which collapsed because of the HCA decision that the changes to the legislation are supposed to deal with.
Click to expand...

So what has changed if she still wants Malaysia? Where is the compromise?

What is Gillard proposing and - as I have only recently heard but can't confirm - for Malaysia to be viable in the High Court, Malaysia too must change some policy. Why and if they would do so remains to be seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom