And the boats keep coming

I can understand referring to an opinion that's not your's to refute an accusation of sharing that opinion, but only when it appears to be different.

To all intense ham porpoises, amb, I don't understand why you're using an argument you don't prescribe to. Perhaps I need to stop taking everything so liverlilly.
 
Skepticemea said:
I can understand referring to an opinion that's not your's to refute an accusation of sharing that opinion, but only when it appears to be different.
Click to expand...


Well that's quite obviously being your problem from the outset.


Skepticemea said:
To all intense ham porpoises, amb, I don't understand why you're using an argument you don't prescribe to.
Click to expand...


Because:

amb said:
Reading the papers in the last couple of days has only reinforced my perception that most politicians are nothing more than sponges with their noses well and truly in the troth.
Click to expand...


Skepticemea said:
Perhaps I need to stop taking everything so liverlilly.
Click to expand...


Otherwise you're words might be misappropriated. Its being known to happened before.
 
Akhenaten said:
Well that's quite obviously being your problem from the outset.





Because:

​





Otherwise you're words might be misappropriated. Its being known to happened before.
Click to expand...

Ahhh! I shall substain from any farther enquiry.
suicide.gif
 
Well, Dr. No is still saying NO.
What a surprise :rolleyes:.
It is obvious he is not interested in talking and maybe some compromise that politics is generally about.
How disingenuous is he when he said he wanted something concrete from the Government before he would talk.
Now that labor have compromised, Dr No says NO.
No wonder the Independents did not go with him last year.
The no song.
 
bit_pattern said:
I read it two days ago when it was first published on his The Monthly blog.
http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog-search-least-bad-asylum-seeker-policy-robert-manne-4447
Click to expand...

And what are your thoughts on it?

Actually I asked everyone to make a comment on it, I note with small sense of satisfaction (mixed with some personal confusion at that emotion given the gravity of the matter) that no-one has bothered.

Very telling.

wombatwal said:
Well, Dr. No is still saying NO.
What a surprise :rolleyes:.
It is obvious he is not interested in talking and maybe some compromise that politics is generally about.
How disingenuous is he when he said he wanted something concrete from the Government before he would talk.
Now that labor have compromised, Dr No says NO.
No wonder the Independents did not go with him last year.
The no song.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about exactly?

It sounds more like he is saying "yes, if you give me 1, 2 and 3." The government can then say, well I will give you 1 and 2, I can't give you 3, but instead I will offer x and y in exchange.

That's what is known as negotiating and compromise.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
What are you talking about exactly?

It sounds more like he is saying "yes, if you give me 1, 2 and 3." The government can then say, well I will give you 1 and 2, I can't give you 3, but instead I will offer x and y in exchange.

That's what is known as negotiating and compromise.
Click to expand...
What!!!
The noalition are not negotiating at all, they say it is Nauru and nothing else.
Dr. No said no to Malaysia.
Scott Morrison was on ABC radio just a few minutes ago and all he could say was that he was pleased that Labor had now realised that Nauru was the way to go. Malaysia was not on his agenda.
He did say that the noalition want Rudd and Bishop to meet as well. When he was asked about this Morrison said that the foreign minister and shadow foreign minister should be meeting because the governments of Indonesia and Malaysia would be involved, really??
Morrison also responded about their stand on not allowing Malaysia into the talks by saying that the Greens should be negotiated on this.
Bloody hell, the Greens are sitting pretty because the current situation is what they want.
I think the noalition is playing ducks and drakes by trying to put a bigger wedge between Rudd and Gillard.
You Alfie agreed with me about Malaysia and Nauru being on the agenda.
The noalition disgust me on this issue.
 
Last edited:
The Malaysian deal is very good isn't it? We send over 800 tourists while we accept 8000 tourists. What a deal!! Could only be made by a socialist agenda. Meanwhile, just here in the West, over 25.000 people are homeless and pensioners are asked to live on a pittance. Charity begins at home. Now, where did I hear that from?
 
amb said:
The Malaysian deal is very good isn't it? We send over 800 tourists while we accept 8000 tourists. What a deal!! Could only be made by a socialist agenda. Meanwhile, just here in the West, over 25.000 people are homeless and pensioners are asked to live on a pittance. Charity begins at home. Now, where did I hear that from?
Click to expand...

If it wasn't already clear, it now is. Your concerns are not about boats, but about immigration by the wrong type.
 
But of course. She doesn't know what she's on about, neither is the French leaders, or British for that matter.
 
Amb, you must surely recognise that your constant peddling of the 'biased leftist ideology' is perfectly compatible with your own attitude, right? Why bother wasting your breath with the inherent hypocrisy of such a comment and just stick to the point?
 
Methinks some here are only trying to light my very short fuse. Surely no one is so stupid. So, before I get suspended I bid you goodbye and compliments of the season.
 
amb said:
Methinks some here are only trying to light my very short fuse. Surely no one is so stupid. So, before I get suspended I bid you goodbye and compliments of the season.
Click to expand...

You've been outside of this conversation since the start. You never answer any questions, you just opine and ignore then rinse and repeat.

Why have you decided that the 10th page is the right time to pack it in?
 
Amb, this multiculturalism you are banging on about is a red herring. This has nothing to do with refugees. We are a signatory to the refugee "act' or whatever it is called. We have to process people who say they are refugees to see if they are, that is what this thread is about.
If you want to talk multiculturalism please start a new thread.
 
wombatwal said:
Amb, this multiculturalism you are banging on about is a red herring. This has nothing to do with refugees. We are a signatory to the refugee "act' or whatever it is called. We have to process people who say they are refugees to see if they are, that is what this thread is about.
If you want to talk multiculturalism please start a new thread.
Click to expand...

They arent any different to some people though - foriegners = nasty types!
 
On that note, I'm bowing out of this thread. There's obviously nothing that can be done to change entrenched opinions, either mine or the double A's and as I've resorted to the sort of behaviour I usually complain about in others, there's little point in winding myself up.
 
Back on track.
Alfie, how are you going to persuade your mate Dr. No, say yes to Malaysia.
You of course agree with me that Malaysia and Nauru should both be used for the placing of potential refugees.
 
wombatwal said:
Back on track.
Alfie, how are you going to persuade your mate Dr. No, say yes to Malaysia.
You of course agree with me that Malaysia and Nauru should both be used for the placing of potential refugees.
Click to expand...

I think it's worth a try. Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom