Search results for query: *

No doubt they're ****ed. But they fund their military about 20% of what they need, they make money elsewhere, where they can.

Why was he even in America with that kind of toxic mix?

Why wouldn't I? I just acknowledge deterrence is probably the least important of the main issues at hand. Pretty funny watching the less educated posters in here (and you're the best of that bad bunch) grinning like the cat that got the cream, all over a policy that guarantees zero drop off in...

Including the taxpayer.

I think he's saying, what if they were to get PNG citizenship - then travel to Australia and claim asylum from PNG? Its a fair question, because if anyone actually goes through this process (and there will be some unfortunates that do), they will likely face persecution and murder in PNG -...

The Oz is my favourite Aussie paper, their foreign affairs stuff is usually pretty good. Ok my bad, he was making light of a bunch of dead young blokes.

Why are conservatives cheering on a policy that: 1. Provides a strong deterrent to boat arrivals (ok, I agre with this, nothing wrong here) 2. Will cost a LOT more than current, or previous policy. 3. Has serious humanitarian concerns Is it safe to assume that most conservatives' real...

The craziest thing about this whole exercise is that ultimately it saves us no money on resettlement, processing etc. We'll still recieve our 'quota' of refugees for the year. We'll still have people in detention. We'll still have detention facilites. We're just ADDING additional...

Its not really up to politicians to implement policy matey.

There are a lot of conservative voters here with serious issues about women, based on their comments on this board. Anyway, this is going to cost an absolute fortune, and we'll still recieve the same amount of refugees in the end.

Are you really mocking the fact that our Iranian refugees are tortured with electrocution? Wow, just like Tony, you are morally bankrupt to the extreme.

Why would I be suffering? I actually think the policy has merit from a deterrent POV - I just feel regret that we will trash our international reputaiton in this way, waste billions of dollars and mistreat genuine refugees in the process. All because some recalcitrant figured there was votes...

Rightfully so. Anyway, from what I can gather, beginning tomorrow the process is: Asylum seekers arrive in Australian waters Transferred to an Australian Detention Centre for basic screening Claims processed in PNG by PNG officials (Australian officials take long enough as it is, so this...

No they're not, stop lying. Safe in PNG? Safe spending years in detention centres? Not likely mate. Funny though, I don't remember conservatives bleating and moaning when the yanks gave the Shah of Iran asylum. I guess some Muslims are good, right fellas?

Que?

So you're saying something changed around 2010? Interesting. That would mean it wasn't simply Rudd's policies of 2008 that increased the numbers. But nice work on trying to ignore 37 years of facts, and cherry picking the 3 that suit you. You must have been a fair squib on the footy field...

There are already people that have been waiting 3 or 4 years. Anyone who arrived after August 13 can't even apply for a visa in Australia, so that's nearly a year already (some people have been on Nauru and Manus that entire time, both have been at capacity for months). If they're on Manus...

People always talk of our annual quota being blown out of the water, but the reality is 48,000 odd arrivals in 40-ish years isn't a big deal. Like I said earlier, we get nearly 200k genuine "economic migrants" every year, and nobody says s**t. I just wish some of the conservatives on this...

My money is on Morrisson donning blackface makeup and suggesting we could turn the asylum seekers into slaves for hardworking Aussie families.

There is no "safe" in PNG. The murder rate is through the roof, racism is absolutely rampant and crime rates are some of the worst in the world. Nobody is going to want to be resettled there. The whole goal of this policy is to get people to take voluntary repatriation to their country of...

A true conservative! Relying on "an old saying" in the face of statistics.

If that was the motivation, why wouldn't we just buy a few more boats and ferry them back and forth from Java on sea-worthy vessells? Would be billions and billions cheaper than this.

It isn't retrospective, its for arrivals since 13th of August 2012, there are people there already. 100% of them suffer from depression, and this will mean we'll have about 4,500 clients in Nauru and PNG in subhuman standards, depressed, for years on end. Let's take a low estimate and assume 90%...

Well if you think that's bad, how about the number they've done on guys like Xsess? He claimed, in this very thread, that our terrorism risk has increased dramatically due to boat arrivals. Never mind that of the Islamic arrivals nearly all are Shia migrants (who as an ethnic/religious group...

Its great for Australia as well, and something we would have lobbied hard for - let's not pretend this is the Indo's coming up with this policy in isolation. Could it be that a mutlilateral approach is actually the best way to handle it? Whowouldathunkit?!?!?!

Bingo. Because the boats are destroyed there was never any incentive to have a good boat, other than the safety of the crew and the business marketing hit the smuggler got amongst prospective customers. Now they travel on spectacularly dodgy boats (for the most part) that often get sabotaged...

Interesting. That doesn't match up with logic. Many studies have shown that left wing parties have the more educated supporters and members. So that would mean either that there is no correlation between IQ and smoking (or a positive one), or if smoking does make someone stupid, then...

Cool - can you explain why would you be better off under the Liberals in that situation? Specific to your industry I imagine? Or are you married with kids and expecting a few financial bonuses courtesy of Abbott? Paid Parental Leave maybe? I'm sure there are people who would be genuinely...

Well anyone who disagrees with me is by definition an idiot. But that's not what I did with this thread at all.

Good post Ant. First person to state they'd be better off under the coalition.