On 19/01/2014 at 02:27, Hannibal said:

Yes, I was talking about asylum seekers arriving by boat and air. They do both. No, I'm not talking about overstayers. This obviously needs to be cleaned up too. Start a thread about them if you like.

I don't want families dying at sea and I also want to determine who enters our country. The boats stopped under Howard and are starting to stop again. Don't you like this ? You know, less people dying. Is that good ?

Also, you keep dodging my point that they're traveling through safe countries prior to arriving in Australia. If they are fleeing persecution they don't need to jump on a leaky boat to get here. You seem to enjoy ignoring this fact.

Finally, making an assertion doesn't mean that you're stating fact. It's a declared opinion. It's my view. Funnily enough, I suspect this last minor point, which is completely meaningless in the discussion, will interest you the most. The stuff about people being safe before risking their lives to come here and the boats starting to stop and lives saved appears to be of less interest.

Oh yes, you're right in one sense. While I have sympathy for people that come from wretched situations I don't profess to have the answers and nor do I immerse myself in their personal situations. I'm at arms length and don't profess otherwise. Do you profess otherwise ?

Of course more asylum seekers arrive by boat... the majority do not have the luxury of being able to either book, nor afford a flight to safety. As I said, and this seems to be a point you keep dodging, the most illegals arriving are flying in... in case you missed the point, asylum seekers are not illegals, overstayers ARE illegals.

I am not dodging the point about safe countries... perhaps you can enlighten us as to what those safe countries are and how likely they are o be able to create a good life for themselves in those countries?

"Most illegals (love that word) that try to come here throw away their papers and are not fleeing persecution." That to me looks like a statement of fact... perhaps you should have prefaced it with, "In my opinion..."?

No one has the solution to the problems these people are facing or fleeing from... but we do have the power to help them. You simply don't seem to care as long as they are not in your back yard... out of sight = out of mind.

  On 19/01/2014 at 08:10, hardtack said:

Of course more asylum seekers arrive by boat... the majority do not have the luxury of being able to either book, nor afford a flight to safety. As I said, and this seems to be a point you keep dodging, the most illegals arriving are flying in... in case you missed the point, asylum seekers are not illegals, overstayers ARE illegals.

I am not dodging the point about safe countries... perhaps you can enlighten us as to what those safe countries are and how likely they are o be able to create a good life for themselves in those countries?

"Most illegals (love that word) that try to come here throw away their papers and are not fleeing persecution." That to me looks like a statement of fact... perhaps you should have prefaced it with, "In my opinion..."?

No one has the solution to the problems these people are facing or fleeing from... but we do have the power to help them. You simply don't seem to care as long as they are not in your back yard... out of sight = out of mind.

Most come through Indonesia; how do they get there?

Let me have a guess; they fly in to Indonesia.

  On 19/01/2014 at 08:43, RobbieF said:

Most come through Indonesia; how do they get there?

Let me have a guess; they fly in to Indonesia.

RF, that particular discussion point was concerning those who fly into Australia.

  On 19/01/2014 at 07:59, hardtack said:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/a-systematic-rebuttal-of-the-myths-about-asylum-seekers/

70% of afghanis with an id card is quite high for a TWC

I suspect the figure would be even higher for those who had the wherewithall to get to indonesia and pay large sums to people smugglers

the tazkira (and other spellings) is quite a detailed document (moreso than a passport)

I can accept that a minority could have a decent reason as to why they couldn't produce one in oz

however i think it is reasonable to conclude that the majority willfully and knowingly destroyed or "lost" theirs

you can draw your own conclusions as to their motives and whether you think they were justified, but lets be realistic as to why they are "missing"

  On 19/01/2014 at 08:47, hardtack said:

RF, that particular discussion point was concerning those who fly into Australia.

No it wasn't, read what you wrote.

How do you think the Asylum Seekers, read illegals, get to Indonesia?

They are illegal because they leave a safe haven and head over here after destroying their documents; do you think they would get in to Indonesia if they had no ID?

  On 19/01/2014 at 11:38, RobbieF said:

No it wasn't, read what you wrote.

How do you think the Asylum Seekers, read illegals, get to Indonesia?

They are illegal because they leave a safe haven and head over here after destroying their documents; do you think they would get in to Indonesia if they had no ID?

RF, I suggest you read back to earlier posts by Hannibal and myself... the point that was being discussed there and that I was responding to with that sentence, was that Hannibal was saying that the numbers of illegals arriving by air had fallen below the numbers arriving by boat - in Australia.

  On 19/01/2014 at 11:48, hardtack said:

RF, I suggest you read back to earlier posts by Hannibal and myself... the point that was being discussed there and that I was responding to with that sentence, was that Hannibal was saying that the numbers of illegals arriving by air had fallen below the numbers arriving by boat - in Australia.

It's got nothing to do with that read it again. This is what you said.

Of course more asylum seekers arrive by boat... the majority do not have the luxury of being able to either book, nor afford a flight to safety.

Yes they do they fly to Indonesia then hop on a boat to good old Oz. That's got nothing to do with anyone flying in to Australia at all.

  On 19/01/2014 at 12:01, RobbieF said:

It's got nothing to do with that read it again. This is what you said.

Of course more asylum seekers arrive by boat... the majority do not have the luxury of being able to either book, nor afford a flight to safety.

Yes they do they fly to Indonesia then hop on a boat to good old Oz. That's got nothing to do with anyone flying in to Australia at all.

RF, Hannibal said, and that was where that discussion came from:

"In 2011/12 more people arrived by boat than air. From 2009-2012 the percentages are approx. 53% air and 47% boat. Thankfully, with the boats now stopping less people will die at sea and your cherished percentage with greatly increase once more."

Again, do you know categorically that all of these people fly into Indonesia? Or do they arrive by other means? I certainly do not know the answer to that. And yes, I admit I am probably off the mark with the comment about the majority.

  On 19/01/2014 at 08:10, hardtack said:

I am not dodging the point about safe countries...

No one has the solution to the problems these people are facing or fleeing from... but we do have the power to help them. You simply don't seem to care as long as they are not in your back yard... out of sight = out of mind.

Yes, you do dodge the point. You're conflating the issues. One minute it is fleeing persecution and the next it's building "a better life". I know we disagree, but I also know you're not stupid. You're tacitly acknowledging that they don't have to board a leaky boat to REMAIN SAFE.

Btw, how does your "caring" save them from dying at sea ? How does your caring help ? Your type of "caring" creates needless deaths, as has already been shown. You're more interested in seeming to be compassionate than you are concerned by the consequences.

  On 19/01/2014 at 12:27, Hannibal said:

Yes, you do dodge the point. You're conflating the issues. One minute it is fleeing persecution and the next it's building "a better life". I know we disagree, but I also know you're not stupid. You're tacitly acknowledging that they don't have to board a leaky boat to REMAIN SAFE.

Btw, how does your "caring" save them from dying at sea ? How does your caring help ? Your type of "caring" creates needless deaths, as has already been shown. You're more interested in seeming to be compassionate than you are concerned by the consequences.

I would love to see an alternative to the leaky boats and I would love to see us still accepting genuine asylum seekers. I do not want to see us turn them back and simply wash our hands of any responsibility.

By the way, you can say what you like about me dodging... but at least I am not indulging in less than creative editing:

"I am not dodging the point about safe countries... perhaps you can enlighten us as to what those safe countries are and how likely they are o be able to create a good life for themselves in those countries?"

  On 19/01/2014 at 12:19, hardtack said:

RF, Hannibal said, and that was where that discussion came from:

"In 2011/12 more people arrived by boat than air. From 2009-2012 the percentages are approx. 53% air and 47% boat. Thankfully, with the boats now stopping less people will die at sea and your cherished percentage with greatly increase once more."

Again, do you know categorically that all of these people fly into Indonesia? Or do they arrive by other means? I certainly do not know the answer to that. And yes, I admit I am probably off the mark with the comment about the majority.

You've got more twists that Chubby Checker.

You know what HT, if I make a mistake I simply admit it, you just try to twist the argument to suit your answer.

  On 19/01/2014 at 22:12, RobbieF said:

You've got more twists that Chubby Checker.

You know what HT, if I make a mistake I simply admit it, you just try to twist the argument to suit your answer.

RF, you jump in mid way through a discussion that I was having with Hannibal and claim to know what was being discussing... we were talking about the numbers "illegals" entering this country by plane as compared to the numbers arriving by boat. No twists, no turns, not even a limbo. I admitted to the mistake I made in using the word "majority", but there is nothing else that I need to admit to in this case... and I find it rather funny that you call me out on that, when you are no better yourself when it comes to admitting mistakes... or is it just that you are perfect?

  On 19/01/2014 at 22:52, hardtack said:

RF, you jump in mid way through a discussion that I was having with Hannibal and claim to know what was being discussing... we were talking about the numbers "illegals" entering this country by plane as compared to the numbers arriving by boat. No twists, no turns, not even a limbo. I admitted to the mistake I made in using the word "majority", but there is nothing else that I need to admit to in this case... and I find it rather funny that you call me out on that, when you are no better yourself when it comes to admitting mistakes... or is it just that you are perfect?

Pathetic response.

Look at what I was responding to, it had nothing to do with what you and Hanibal were discussing. Anyway let's just leave it, I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that you will never change someone's mind or win any argument on the internet, all you will do is waste you time and go round in circles.

  On 19/01/2014 at 23:21, RobbieF said:

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that you will never change someone's mind or win any argument on the internet, all you will do is waste you time and go round in circles.

Never was a truer word spoken - this should be pinned.

  On 19/01/2014 at 23:21, RobbieF said:

Pathetic response.

Look at what I was responding to, it had nothing to do with what you and Hanibal were discussing. Anyway let's just leave it, I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that you will never change someone's mind or win any argument on the internet, all you will do is waste you time and go round in circles.

You were responding to my comment which was this: "Of course more asylum seekers arrive by boat... the majority do not have the luxury of being able to either book, nor afford a flight to safety."... and that comment was my response to Hannibal's claim that more were arriving in Australia by boat than by air. Do you have a link that will direct me to stats re the flying into Indonesia? I have read now that many Iraqis do as they can get a tourist visa, and that they are often funded by their extended families and communities; not sure how that applies to asylum seekers from other countries though.

Your closing statement was correct however.

  On 19/01/2014 at 08:43, RobbieF said:

Most come through Indonesia; how do they get there?

Let me have a guess; they fly in to Indonesia.

this accounts for the drownings

thier arms are so tired after flying such a long way

Good to see Tony staying out of the limelight and leaving Kevin Andrews to announce another review.

Was this the team that Tony said was ready for government??

  On 21/01/2014 at 03:27, dpositive said:

Good to see Tony staying out of the limelight and leaving Kevin Andrews to announce another review.Was this the team that Tony said was ready for government??

Gee no one had taken the bait yet!

Not looking for anyone to take the bait Hood just a comment of fact.

Tony Now in Davros?? it will be interesting to see his comments and how they are reported.

  On 22/01/2014 at 01:43, dpositive said:

Tony Now in Davros?? it will be interesting to see his comments and how they are reported.

I knew it!!! He's in league with the Daleks!!

  On 22/01/2014 at 01:55, hardtack said:

I knew it!!! He's in league with the Daleks!!

HT I liked this response even before I checked it was Davos.

Thanks for taking a clever approach as a response and not belittling me with a pedantic geographical lesson.

The pun you identify was certainly accidental but very appropriate perhaps.

Tony is in good form in Davos basically telling Bang Bang to go jump, we will keep turning back the boats and potentially invading your waters. It's a matter of OZ sovereignty mate! Want a have a go?

Strewth It's one thing to walk all over Timor Leste like jumped up bullies where ASIO is actually working on behalf of Woodside Petroleum but I would be very weary of bullying the Indonesians. They can hurt us if they wish too.

I don't think international diplomacy is a strong point for Abbott, Morrison and co.

Oh and I loved his call on Shorten as being very cocky for one so soon in the job as Opposition leader; this comment from the most aggressive, abusive upstart in opposition history. All three word slogans, personal abuse and no policy; As we are now discovering! Anyone for yet another review of something by LNP hacks?

fair dinkum hood, you need to get a life

this obsession will be the end of you

  On 22/01/2014 at 10:31, daisycutter said:

fair dinkum hood, you need to get a life

this obsession will be the end of you

DC I do have a life that is quite varied and productive thanks. And I do gain energy from robust debates. My takes on Tony don't take up that much of my time because he is such a sitting target. I don't have to spend too much time researching data trying to analyse his decisions. I mean it is a matter of debating three word slogans, stereotypes and prejudices with our Tony.

By the way at least I haven't got splinters up my arse from sitting on the fence on so many subjects, in let's wait and so the outcomes from Gonski etc!

Come on DC where's your passion? What do YOU believe in?

By the way one of my passions is tennis and Roger is on fire against Murray. Sublime stuff!

What just cause he went for the photo opportunity of carrying his own luggage on to the plane,paused, put down his luggage to turn and wave to the enthralled media at the top of the steps and then just about put his back out as he grabbed the wrong handle !