OUT: Abbott IN: Turnbull

[Guest]

Thank you for going through all my boring points. For a man with such a lack of interest in everything I say, you certainly went through it with a fine tooth comb and pretty much dismissed everything out of hand.

1) * That I assume is an opinion or some sort of editorial so I guess it's not a question.
* Totalitarism, Barbarism, you do have a problem. Please point out the brutality are they beating the boat people . That once again is an opinion and not a question.
Let's look at the two points I raised at the end.
Unprecedented secrecy: when was the last time you can remember a minister fronting a senate committee and refusing to say he had even read certain documents or refusing to mention how many boats they had intercepted? Even when the governments wanted to jazz up their points of doing something, they at least told us what they were doing. I would link to the article which described Scott Morrison's masterful performance at the senate inquiry but you would probably be bored by it.
Complete disregard for human rights: I'm guessing that you find it OK that people can be detained in overseas prison camps with no access to legal services or ability to know what their rights are even though they have never committed a crime? I'm guessing that's all good family fun.
Now, what other kind of regime pulls stunts like that? Sounds almost like something from the days of the Soviet Union and the Gulag.

2) This also appears to be an opinion unless there is a question there somewhere.

Errrm. Have you been to the site Robbie? Are you saying that it doesn't actually say there is a total media blackout? I can give you the link if you like. Unless, it bores you. Then feel free to ignore it.

3) * They implemented policies that took time to come to fruition, I don't think anyone but a complete fool would have thought that the boats would stop overnight; did you?
* By underlying logic do you meant the fact that the majority of the boats have stopped?

* Distortion by omission; how so? They said they would turn the boats around and they have, they also said they wouldn't comment on operational matters in this and they won't; what is the problem there?

I will include these three points in this one answer. My take on this (and it is only reinforced by the fact that Scott Morrison is stonewalling) is that the Tories saw a set of numbers they didn't like and changed the legislative goal posts and were able to do so quite simply. When you use a slogan as simplistic as 'stop the boats' (said yet again in my best suburban nasal drawl because I am an elitist you know and I just love mocking the simple folk!), you can twist that around to mean anything. It might mean as far we can tell that they have prevented the boats at the Williamstown yacht club from setting sail. However, enough with the hyperbole.
The implication from Abbott's rhetoric is that a tough border protection policy with boat turn arounds would somehow provide a deterrent to asylum seekers and the people smugglers (we can't forget them). However upon seeing the numbers on the ground, they realized that while there is such a thing as a pull factor as far as asylum seekers go that there is also such a thing as a push factor i.e. civil war in Sudan, the end of years of civil war in Sri Lanka and the consequent persecution of those involved in the Tamil movement, the civil war in Syria, It was at this point the goalposts were moved. It was no longer a case of the flow of boats heading to Australia being stopped but a case of boats reaching Australian shores. Therefore, with such a malleable statement, it was possible to say that the boats had been 'stopped'. People were still trying. It's just that they weren't reaching Australian shores anymore.
Note: I made sure that I made it very clear that what I said was an opinion (an opinion based on what information I have). I know you are a stickler for opinions vs. facts (not sure about opinions based on facts but hey, you are judge and jury here). Truth be told is all you my silver haired amigo can do is give an opinion which is based on trusting a government who refuses to tell you anything but hey it's your opinion! How you came to your conclusions is up to you!
4) * if there was any truth to the rumour the ABC, The AGE and every left wing media outlet in the country would be on to it; are they? Why should the Government comment on even bs article in the press particularly after they said they wouldn't.

* See Above.

Oh my gawd. That is rich.

While I defend the concept of the ABC and the Age, your belief that they are some kind of Woodward and Bernstein style reporting machine with an ability to unfairly criticize and expose every misunderstood conservative position (such as locking up children in detention centres for roughly 113k a head and an overall cost of 2.4 billion up till 2011, who knows how much it's costing now?) is an overestimation of what those two news organs really are. One has been cowed and may be gutted even further under the current government (the Australia network has been mooted for dismantling though I must admit that the tendering process looked dodgy and a further round of spending cuts bought on by an 'efficiency commission' that stinks of political revenge). The other belongs to a dying medium and has refused to even keep up with the modern practices of said dying medium.
5) That is just a blatant lie and you know it the number of boats setting off is much less and getting each day.
Well, I have addressed the first bit earlier on about 'stopping the boats. To save rewriting what I said to your more obnoxious conservative running buddy, I will copy and paste my take on why he argument about why we need to 'stop the boats' is a false one. It is long and has lots of citations (we all know how much you hate boring responses but also are so determined to make sure everything is backed up by facts, you are in a bit of a quandary aren't you?)

My earlier statement to Ben Hur:

My position on this has been pretty well documented during the course of this thread. However, for your benefit (I'm dead certain you won't pay any attention anyway, damn facts and figures actually take time to read) I will repeat it.

a) The number of refugee claims that Australia gets every year is miniscule compared to the rest of the world. We rank 49th for total number of refugees at around 22k and 69th for refugees accepted per capita . Compare this to Pakistan who host around 1.7 million. 81% of refugees are housed in the developing world. Therefore, whilst we should take steps to stop people making dangerous boat journeys, the current policy is a gross overreaction that achieves outcomes that could be attained more cost effectively, humanely and efficiently. (More information)

b) As of right now, it appears that the flow of boats reaching Australian shores (there is an important distinction there that will come into play later) has slowed down. However it is difficult to say what is actually going on as the minister for Immigration, Scott Morrison has shut down the weekly press briefing on Operation Sovereign borders and is now distributing media releases to the public when he deems it appropriate. We have already heard that Indonesia has already stepped up it's naval presence due to their bungling. What else are they keeping for us? Even your claim of people not getting on boats is dubious in that people still ARE getting on boats. They just aren't reaching Australian shores. The goal posts have been moved for political purposes.

Due to these factors I would encourage that the Australian government pursue a policy similar to or a variation of the policies adopted during the aftermath of the Vietnam war which includes an intake of refugees whilst the Australian government negotiates with it's Asian Pacific neighbors to create an orderly settlement scheme which allows people to apply for asylum without having to make an onshore application (which by the way is legal in Australia). This intake should not be reliant upon offshore processing or mandatory detention but the overall schemes success hinges upon it's ability to come to an agreement with our regional partners.

Note: Due to the statistics slated earlier in regards to the amount of actual refugees we take in each year, the amount of arrivals we get by boat does not justify a harsh policy of stopping the boats by all means possible. The issue is not to stop all asylum seekers period as we take a small number compared to international standards. The point is to find a way that will get them here without the need for them to get on a boat. Would you prefer they didn't come here Robbie? If so please do tell me why. Make sure you provide plenty of quotes, statistics and facts!

Edited February 4, 2014 by Colin B. Flaubert

[Guest]

Part 2:
I lived in the PRC. A dictatorship yes. Totalitarian, definitely not. And we aren't getting towards the level of censorship or oppression that I saw in the PRC (something I have repeated constantly) but yet again, Robbie, the border protection policies you bring up smack of the kind of thing they pull. Is Abbott sending us to the salt mines to work for slave wages? Not even close. Though I'm sure you still won't be able to make the distinction between a totalitarian regime and a SINGLE policy that smacks of totalitarianism.

I love that you just dismiss anything you don't like as left wing propaganda. Reality does tend to have a definite left wing bias.

And finally, for someone who tells me about how what I am saying is so unrelated, why don't you debunk me oh Enlightened One?

Better stop, I might be boring you.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Colin B. Flaubert

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Thank you for going through all my boring points. For a man with such a lack of interest in everything I say, you certainly went through it with a fine tooth comb and pretty much dismissed everything out of hand.

1) * That I assume is an opinion or some sort of editorial so I guess it's not a question.

* Totalitarism, Barbarism, you do have a problem. Please point out the brutality are they beating the boat people . That once again is an opinion and not a question.

Let's look at the two points I raised at the end.

Unprecedented secrecy: when was the last time you can remember a minister fronting a senate committee and refusing to say he had even read certain documents or refusing to mention how many boats they had intercepted?

Probably none but so what, that's what they have decided to do and if you don't like it vote against them at the next election; if there are enough that agree with you they will be voted out.

Even when the governments wanted to jazz up their points of doing something, they at least told us what they were doing. I would link to the article which described Scott Morrison's masterful performance at the senate inquiry but you would probably be bored by it.

This is another example of you thinking something is important when I don't.

Complete disregard for human rights: I'm guessing that you find it OK that people can be detained in overseas prison camps with no access to legal services or ability to know what their rights are even though they have never committed a crime? I'm guessing that's all good family fun.

Correct I don't have a problem with it.

Now, what other kind of regime pulls stunts like that? Sounds almost like something from the days of the Soviet Union and the Gulag.

Is that another opinion or is that a question?

2) This also appears to be an opinion unless there is a question there somewhere.

Errrm. Have you been to the site Robbie? Are you saying that it doesn't actually say there is a total media blackout? I can give you the link if you like. Unless, it bores you. Then feel free to ignore it.

There is a total media blackout they have said that there is, and?

3) * They implemented policies that took time to come to fruition, I don't think anyone but a complete fool would have thought that the boats would stop overnight; did you?

* By underlying logic do you meant the fact that the majority of the boats have stopped?

* Distortion by omission; how so? They said they would turn the boats around and they have, they also said they wouldn't comment on operational matters in this and they won't; what is the problem there

I will include these three points in this one answer. My take on this (and it is only reinforced by the fact that Scott Morrison is stonewalling) is that the Tories saw a set of numbers they didn't like and changed the legislative goal posts and were able to do so quite simply. When you use a slogan as simplistic as 'stop the boats' (said yet again in my best suburban nasal drawl because I am an elitist you know and I just love mocking the simple folk!), you can twist that around to mean anything. It might mean as far we can tell that they have prevented the boats at the Williamstown yacht club from setting sail. However, enough with the hyperbole.

The implication from Abbott's rhetoric is that a tough border protection policy with boat turn arounds would somehow provide a deterrent to asylum seekers and the people smugglers (we can't forget them). However upon seeing the numbers on the ground, they realized that while there is such a thing as a pull factor as far as asylum seekers go that there is also such a thing as a push factor i.e. civil war in Sudan, the end of years of civil war in Sri Lanka and the consequent persecution of those involved in the Tamil movement, the civil war in Syria, It was at this point the goalposts were moved. It was no longer a case of the flow of boats heading to Australia being stopped but a case of boats reaching Australian shores. Therefore, with such a malleable statement, it was possible to say that the boats had been 'stopped'. People were still trying. It's just that they weren't reaching Australian shores anymore.

I can't tell you enough I'm not in the slightest bit interested in your opinion; your family and friends might be but I'm not

Note: I made sure that I made it very clear that what I said was an opinion (an opinion based on what information I have). I know you are a stickler for opinions vs. facts (not sure about opinions based on facts but hey, you are judge and jury here). Truth be told is all you my silver haired amigo can do is give an opinion which is based on trusting a government who refuses to tell you anything but hey it's your opinion! How you came to your conclusions is up to you!

I've told you I don't give a rat's about your opinion so why do you keep proffering it?

4) * if there was any truth to the rumour the ABC, The AGE and every left wing media outlet in the country would be on to it; are they? Why should the Government comment on even bs article in the press particularly after they said they wouldn't.

* See Above.

Oh my gawd. That is rich.

While I defend the concept of the ABC and the Age, your belief that they are some kind of Woodward and Bernstein style reporting machine with an ability to unfairly criticize and expose every misunderstood conservative position (such as locking up children in detention centres for roughly 113k a head and an overall cost of 2.4 billion up till 2011, who knows how much it's costing now?). One has been cowed and may be gutted even further under the current government (the Australia network has been mooted for dismantling though I must admit that the tendering process looked dodgy and a further round of spending cuts bought on by an 'efficiency commission' that stinks of political revenge). The other belongs to a dying medium and has refused to even keep up with the modern practices of said dying medium.

Blah, Blah blah more useless opinion

5) That is just a blatant lie and you know it the number of boats setting off is much less and getting each day.

Well, I have addressed the first bit earlier on about 'stopping the boats. To save rewriting what I said to your more obnoxious conservative running buddy, I will copy and paste my take on why he argument about why we need to 'stop the boats' is a false one. It is long and has lots of citations (we all know how much you hate boring responses but also are so determined to make sure everything is backed up by facts, you are in a bit of a quandary aren't you?)

My position on this has been pretty well documented during the course of this thread. However, for your benefit (I'm dead certain you won't pay any attention anyway, damn facts and figures actually take time to read) I will repeat it.

You got that right, I said they had stopped the boats and then you come on here and tell me why they shouldn't. Let's address the issue of the boats being stopped; have they or haven't they?

a) The number of refugee claims that Australia gets every year is miniscule compared to the rest of the world. We rank 49th for total number of refugees at around 22k and 69th for refugees accepted per capita . Compare this to Pakistan who host around 1.7 million. 81% of refugees are housed in the developing world. Therefore, whilst we should take steps to stop people making dangerous boat journeys, the current policy is a gross overreaction that achieves outcomes that could be attained more cost effectively, humanely and efficiently. (More information)

b) As of right now, it appears that the flow of boats reaching Australian shores (there is an important distinction there that will come into play later) has slowed down. However it is difficult to say what is actually going on as the minister for Immigration, Scott Morrison has shut down the weekly press briefing on Operation Sovereign borders and is now distributing media releases to the public when he deems it appropriate. We have already heard that Indonesia has already stepped up it's naval presence due to their bungling. What else are they keeping for us? Even your claim of people not getting on boats is dubious in that people still ARE getting on boats. They just aren't reaching Australian shores. The goal posts have been moved for political purposes.

Due to these factors I would encourage that the Australian government pursue a policy similar to or a variation of the policies adopted during the aftermath of the Vietnam war which includes an intake of refugees whilst the Australian government negotiates with it's Asian Pacific neighbors to create an orderly settlement scheme which allows people to apply for asylum without having to make an onshore application (which by the way is legal in Australia). This intake should not be reliant upon offshore processing or mandatory detention but the overall schemes success hinges upon it's ability to come to an agreement with our regional partners.

Note: *Due to the statistics slated earlier in regards to the amount of actual refugees we take in each year, the amount of arrivals we get by boat does not justify a harsh policy of stopping the boats by all means possible. The issue is not to stop all asylum seekers period as we take a small number compared to international standards. The point is to find a way that will get them here without the need for them to get on a boat. Would you prefer they didn't come here Robbie? If so please do tell me why. Make sure you provide plenty of quotes, statistics and facts!

I don't care how many we take small or otherwise my concern is those that come here using people smugglers; I want our Government to choose who comes here not the Indonesian Government.

* See that's just another of your opinions and guess what; I disagree with it.

You know what for problem is; you have a series of opinions on everything but that's about all, I don't agree with you opinions and I'm not going to respond to your opinions. You post on here as if you are spouting the words of the oracle well let me tell you this, not everyone is interested in what you have to say and as I said before fluff is fluff.

In fact in all my time on here you would have to be the most self opinionated poster I've come across; just remember this, not everyone comes on here to see what you have to say; I know that may come as shock to you but it's a fact.

Just a word of advice, more words don't always equate to more sense. Trim your posts down put more questions and less opinion and you might get a modicum of respect.

Edited February 4, 2014 by RobbieF

[Earl Hood 6,101]

It is interesting that the liberal member for the Shep area has called Tony a liar over the SPC issues. Gee that is odd for a guy who spent three years calling everyone else a liar. Takes one to know one I guess. Tony would have known a lie when he heard one because he is full of it himself. Blue tie and all!

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Part 2:

I lived in the PRC. A dictatorship yes. Totalitarian, definitely not. And we aren't getting towards the level of censorship or oppression that I saw in the PRC (something I have repeated constantly) but yet again, Robbie, the border protection policies you bring up smack of the kind of thing they pull. Is Abbott sending us to the salt mines to work for slave wages? Not even close. Though I'm sure you still won't be able to make the distinction between a totalitarian regime and a SINGLE policy that smacks of totalitarianism.

I love that you just dismiss anything you don't like as left wing propaganda. Reality does tend to have a definite left wing bias.

And finally, for someone who tells me about how what I am saying is so unrelated, why don't you debunk me oh Enlightened One?

Better stop, I might be boring you.

You know what Homer, you are losing the plot I thought you had some credibility but you are as crazy as some of the more radical morons on this site.

I don't dismiss you as some left wing propagandist, some of them can hold an intelligent conversation; you seem to be incapable of that, your only desire is to ram your opinion down everyone's throat.

You should seek help, there is a term for your kind Homer.

[Guest]

You know what for problem is; you have a series of opinions on everything but that's about all, I don't agree with you opinions and I'm not going to respond to your opinions. You post on here as if you are spouting the words of the oracle well let me tell you this, not everyone is interested in what you have to say and as I said before fluff is fluff.

In fact in all my time on here you would have to be the most self opinionated poster I've come across; just remember this, not everyone comes on here to see what you have to say; I know that may come as shock to you but it's a fact.

Just a word of advice, more words don't always equate to more sense. Trim your posts down put more questions and less opinion and you might get a modicum of respect.

Here's the thing, Mr. Holier than Thou.

You jump to the conclusion that I actually want your respect when quite frankly, you have proven yourself to be a grade A [censored] and a sook of the highest order within the entire course of this conversation. The last time I checked, this was a message board where we share our thoughts. If you just want everyone to defer to you and call everything even, go elsewhere.

Your problem is that your concept of free speech is limited to your right to tell everyone what you think without being challenged. You were challenged (and up until now, you weren't really insulted), cracked the sads and started along your current line of calling me a big head and started rambling about how myself and P-Man were boring you. I wasn't annoyed up until that point but quite frankly, I'm sick of our self righteous bulls**t.

I have opinions. I base them on facts. You just repeat the same old bollocks over and over again and give no factual basis to what you say and then have the cheek to tell me that all I offer is conjecture. People who can't actually explain why they believe what they believe without getting all precious generally have no grasp of their subject area and are exposed as the BS artists they are. Sums you up to a tee.

If someone annoys me, I block them (and that's what I am going to do to you now which is very sad as I thought you were one of the more reasonable posters).

For someone who is so bored by all this, you seemed to reply a lot. Repeatedly is the word I would use to describe it.

Oh and Homer? That's really the best you can do? No wonder why there are no conservative comedians out there.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Colin B. Flaubert

[DemonFrog 1,356]

Thank you for going through all my boring points. For a man with such a lack of interest in everything I say, you certainly went through it with a fine tooth comb and pretty much dismissed everything out of hand.

1) * That I assume is an opinion or some sort of editorial so I guess it's not a question.

* Totalitarism, Barbarism, you do have a problem. Please point out the brutality are they beating the boat people . That once again is an opinion and not a question.

Let's look at the two points I raised at the end.

Unprecedented secrecy: when was the last time you can remember a minister fronting a senate committee and refusing to say he had even read certain documents or refusing to mention how many boats they had intercepted? Even when the governments wanted to jazz up their points of doing something, they at least told us what they were doing. I would link to the article which described Scott Morrison's masterful performance at the senate inquiry but you would probably be bored by it.

Complete disregard for human rights: I'm guessing that you find it OK that people can be detained in overseas prison camps with no access to legal services or ability to know what their rights are even though they have never committed a crime? I'm guessing that's all good family fun.

Now, what other kind of regime pulls stunts like that? Sounds almost like something from the days of the Soviet Union and the Gulag.

2) This also appears to be an opinion unless there is a question there somewhere.

Errrm. Have you been to the site Robbie? Are you saying that it doesn't actually say there is a total media blackout? I can give you the link if you like. Unless, it bores you. Then feel free to ignore it.

3) * They implemented policies that took time to come to fruition, I don't think anyone but a complete fool would have thought that the boats would stop overnight; did you?

* By underlying logic do you meant the fact that the majority of the boats have stopped?

* Distortion by omission; how so? They said they would turn the boats around and they have, they also said they wouldn't comment on operational matters in this and they won't; what is the problem there?

I will include these three points in this one answer. My take on this (and it is only reinforced by the fact that Scott Morrison is stonewalling) is that the Tories saw a set of numbers they didn't like and changed the legislative goal posts and were able to do so quite simply. When you use a slogan as simplistic as 'stop the boats' (said yet again in my best suburban nasal drawl because I am an elitist you know and I just love mocking the simple folk!), you can twist that around to mean anything. It might mean as far we can tell that they have prevented the boats at the Williamstown yacht club from setting sail. However, enough with the hyperbole.

The implication from Abbott's rhetoric is that a tough border protection policy with boat turn arounds would somehow provide a deterrent to asylum seekers and the people smugglers (we can't forget them). However upon seeing the numbers on the ground, they realized that while there is such a thing as a pull factor as far as asylum seekers go that there is also such a thing as a push factor i.e. civil war in Sudan, the end of years of civil war in Sri Lanka and the consequent persecution of those involved in the Tamil movement, the civil war in Syria, It was at this point the goalposts were moved. It was no longer a case of the flow of boats heading to Australia being stopped but a case of boats reaching Australian shores. Therefore, with such a malleable statement, it was possible to say that the boats had been 'stopped'. People were still trying. It's just that they weren't reaching Australian shores anymore.

Note: I made sure that I made it very clear that what I said was an opinion (an opinion based on what information I have). I know you are a stickler for opinions vs. facts (not sure about opinions based on facts but hey, you are judge and jury here). Truth be told is all you my silver haired amigo can do is give an opinion which is based on trusting a government who refuses to tell you anything but hey it's your opinion! How you came to your conclusions is up to you!

4) * if there was any truth to the rumour the ABC, The AGE and every left wing media outlet in the country would be on to it; are they? Why should the Government comment on even bs article in the press particularly after they said they wouldn't.

* See Above.

Oh my gawd. That is rich.

While I defend the concept of the ABC and the Age, your belief that they are some kind of Woodward and Bernstein style reporting machine with an ability to unfairly criticize and expose every misunderstood conservative position (such as locking up children in detention centres for roughly 113k a head and an overall cost of 2.4 billion up till 2011, who knows how much it's costing now?) is an overestimation of what those two news organs really are. One has been cowed and may be gutted even further under the current government (the Australia network has been mooted for dismantling though I must admit that the tendering process looked dodgy and a further round of spending cuts bought on by an 'efficiency commission' that stinks of political revenge). The other belongs to a dying medium and has refused to even keep up with the modern practices of said dying medium.

5) That is just a blatant lie and you know it the number of boats setting off is much less and getting each day.

Well, I have addressed the first bit earlier on about 'stopping the boats. To save rewriting what I said to your more obnoxious conservative running buddy, I will copy and paste my take on why he argument about why we need to 'stop the boats' is a false one. It is long and has lots of citations (we all know how much you hate boring responses but also are so determined to make sure everything is backed up by facts, you are in a bit of a quandary aren't you?)

My earlier statement to Ben Hur:

My position on this has been pretty well documented during the course of this thread. However, for your benefit (I'm dead certain you won't pay any attention anyway, damn facts and figures actually take time to read) I will repeat it.

a) The number of refugee claims that Australia gets every year is miniscule compared to the rest of the world. We rank 49th for total number of refugees at around 22k and 69th for refugees accepted per capita . Compare this to Pakistan who host around 1.7 million. 81% of refugees are housed in the developing world. Therefore, whilst we should take steps to stop people making dangerous boat journeys, the current policy is a gross overreaction that achieves outcomes that could be attained more cost effectively, humanely and efficiently. (More information)

b) As of right now, it appears that the flow of boats reaching Australian shores (there is an important distinction there that will come into play later) has slowed down. However it is difficult to say what is actually going on as the minister for Immigration, Scott Morrison has shut down the weekly press briefing on Operation Sovereign borders and is now distributing media releases to the public when he deems it appropriate. We have already heard that Indonesia has already stepped up it's naval presence due to their bungling. What else are they keeping for us? Even your claim of people not getting on boats is dubious in that people still ARE getting on boats. They just aren't reaching Australian shores. The goal posts have been moved for political purposes.

Due to these factors I would encourage that the Australian government pursue a policy similar to or a variation of the policies adopted during the aftermath of the Vietnam war which includes an intake of refugees whilst the Australian government negotiates with it's Asian Pacific neighbors to create an orderly settlement scheme which allows people to apply for asylum without having to make an onshore application (which by the way is legal in Australia). This intake should not be reliant upon offshore processing or mandatory detention but the overall schemes success hinges upon it's ability to come to an agreement with our regional partners.

Note: Due to the statistics slated earlier in regards to the amount of actual refugees we take in each year, the amount of arrivals we get by boat does not justify a harsh policy of stopping the boats by all means possible. The issue is not to stop all asylum seekers period as we take a small number compared to international standards. The point is to find a way that will get them here without the need for them to get on a boat. Would you prefer they didn't come here Robbie? If so please do tell me why. Make sure you provide plenty of quotes, statistics and facts!

WOW

I am lost for words

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Here's the thing, Mr. Holier than Thou.

You jump to the conclusion that I actually want your respect when quite frankly, you have proven yourself to be a grade A [censored] and a sook of the highest order within the entire course of this conversation. The last time I checked, this was a message board where we share our thoughts. If you just want everyone to defer to you and call everything even, go elsewhere.

Your problem is that your concept of free speech is limited to your right to tell everyone what you think without being challenged. You were challenged (and up until now, you weren't really insulted), cracked the sads and started along your current line of calling me a big head and started rambling about how myself and P-Man were boring you. I wasn't annoyed up until that point but quite frankly, I'm sick of our self righteous bulls**t.

I have opinions. I base them on facts. You just repeat the same old bollocks over and over again and give no factual basis to what you say and then have the cheek to tell me that all I offer is conjecture. People who can't actually explain why they believe what they believe without getting all precious generally have no grasp of their subject area and are exposed as the BS artists they are. Sums you up to a tee.

If someone annoys me, I block them (and that's what I am going to do to you now which is very sad as I thought you were one of the more reasonable posters).

For someone who is so bored by all this, you seemed to reply a lot. Repeatedly is the word I would use to describe it.

Oh and Homer? That's really the best you can do? No wonder why there are no conservative comedians out there.

More rambling, more self opinionated rubbish, more fluff, by all means block me I've got your measure I know you for what you are a self opinionated blowhard.

BTW you introduced Homer, check back it was an insipid try to humiliate me, that worked well; didn't it.

[DemonFrog 1,356]

[Guest]

So I can add more fluff and self opinionated nonsense to the board, I'll take your boring leopard and raise you one Homer Simpson.

I have been known to smash through windows on the way home from work and plow my car into trees as well.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Colin B. Flaubert

[DemonFrog 1,356]

So I can add more fluff and self opinionated nonsense to the board, I'll take your boring leopard and raise you one Homer Simpson.

I have been known to smash through windows on the way home from work and plow my car into trees as well.

Love to see you beat this one!

[Dee Fan 3,247]

When they are reduced to cartoons, you know they've got nothing.

[Guest]

Love to see you beat this one!

In the grand tradition of jamming my opinion down others throats though Frog, I still say I win in our game of one upsmanship. The reason for this is that you haven't recieved a wacky, zany, cuckoo nickname yet.

To be honest, I think Homer is a bit bland. Could I please be referred to as one of the following:

* Captain Blowhard

* Lord Fluffyton

* Count Fraudula.

Better stop there, otherwise someone might say to me:

[Dee Fan 3,247]

How old are you, ten?

I expect it from the other clown, that's why I have him blocked, but thought you'd have a bit more intelligence; obviously I was wrong.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Good heavens DL Is that Scott Morrison on the right? In my report in post 301 of the Carbon Tax thread on my failed mission to Canberra in January to talk sense to Morrison, I saw such a strange device in Morrisons office.

yes but it broke down, so they had to revert to handing one another post-it notes, under the shield.

[dee-luded 2,959]

It is interesting that the liberal member for the Shep area has called Tony a liar over the SPC issues. Gee that is odd for a guy who spent three years calling everyone else a liar. Takes one to know one I guess. Tony would have known a lie when he heard one because he is full of it himself. Blue tie and all!

maybe thats Not his Blue Tie hanging down

[dee-luded 2,959]

Love to see you beat this one!

ahh, multi tasking indeed.

[P-man 13,366]

When they are reduced to cartoons, you know they've got nothing.

When he joins in a discussion or responds to your questions, he gets "blah blah blah more useless opinion that I'm not interested in". When he doesn't do that, you know he's got nothing.

Perhaps Colin should send you his posts for you to clear first? That should solve the problem.

You're fast becoming a caricature of yourself. There's being an old crank, and then there's just being an overly antagonistic git.

Edited February 5, 2014 by P-man

[Dee Fan 3,247]

When he joins in a discussion or responds to your questions, he gets "blah blah blah more useless opinion that I'm not interested in". When he doesn't do that, you know he's got nothing.

Perhaps Colin should send you his posts for you to clear first? That should solve the problem.

You're fast becoming a caricature of yourself. There's being an old crank, and then there's just being an overly antagonistic git.

What are you his agent, or spokesman, or just part of his cheer squad?

If I want his, or for that matter your, overblown sanctimonious opinions I'll ask for them.

I don't want his take on it, or my opinion is, if he has a fact then blurt it out.

[Guest]

When he joins in a discussion or responds to your questions, he gets "blah blah blah more useless opinion that I'm not interested in". When he doesn't do that, you know he's got nothing.

Perhaps Colin should send you his posts for you to clear first? That should solve the problem.

You're fast becoming a caricature of yourself. There's being an old crank, and then there's just being an overly antagonistic git.

Since we aren't allowed to use animations, images or memes, can Frog and myself continue our game via the medium of song?

http://youtu.be/0xKI8s0Zn3w

Edited February 5, 2014 by Count Fraudula

[P-man 13,366]

What are you his agent, or spokesman, or just part of his cheer squad?

If I want his, or for that matter your, overblown sanctimonious opinions I'll ask for them.

I don't want his take on it, or my opinion is, if he has a fact then blurt it out.

He bores you, you have no interest in his opinions, yet you continued to engage him and ask questions of him. He presented his opinions, backed up by facts, and you've torn his head off.

Then when he stops, you continue your snide comments which frankly are becoming stock standard.

I get that you believe you have the world sorted out and everyone who doesn't align with your views is naïve or stupid. That's absolutely fine. But sometimes you go too far and need to be told to pull your head in. This was one instance of that.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

He bores you, you have no interest in his opinions, yet you continued to engage him and ask questions of him. He presented his opinions, backed up by facts, and you've torn his head off.

Then when he stops, you continue your snide comments which frankly are becoming stock standard.

I get that you believe you have the world sorted out and everyone who doesn't align with your views is naïve or stupid. That's absolutely fine. But sometimes you go too far and need to be told to pull your head in. This was one instance of that.

Well I'll save you the trouble of moralising in future and I'll put you on ban so I don't have to read any more of your concerned comments.

Finally though, he's a smart arse and he stuck his hand in a hornets nest that's why I reacted the way I did; I don't like being taunted by any clown on here.

[Guest]

Well I'll save you the trouble of moralising in future and I'll put you on ban so I don't have to read any more of your concerned comments.

Finally though, he's a smart arse and he stuck his hand in a hornets nest that's why I reacted the way I did; I don't like being taunted by any clown on here.

OK. Here is me coming half way.

There usually comes a time when a bloke just has to admit he was the instigator and you seem incapable of that. I didn't start mocking you until you started carrying on like a sanctimonious tossah.

Has anyone here actually taken your side on this (Ben Hur doesn't count)? If anyone feels I have been a smart arse to Robbie (I have been quite antagonistic in the last little bit I will admit that but that was after a LOT of provocation), I would be happy to apologize. When multiple people basically are telling you directly and indirectly that you are carrying on like a pillock, maybe it's time to think 'Perhaps it is me'.

You talk about people having a high opinion of themselves but put frankly, the 'hornet's nest' you unleashed upon me made you look like a deadset clown and is quite a flattering description of your debating abilities which consist of giving an opinion, feigning indifference upon countering views, rejecting everything out of hand or as merely opinion (weren't the lists of statistics from the UN, the reports from the senate inquiry on top of others enough for you?) and if that doesn't work, carrying on like a galoot. If you don't want to hear other people's opinions, why do you even come to internet message boards? And if you really aren't interested in my posts, why do you feel the need to constantly reply to them?

I will put it this way. I think your heart is in the right place, Robbie. I don't mind your posts on the footy. We can call a truce on this or you can go on embarrassing yourself. You said that I tried to humiliate you earlier but put frankly, I don't really need to because you are doing a good enough job of doing that yourself.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Count Fraudula

[Dee Fan 3,247]

OK. Here is me coming half way.

There usually comes a time when a bloke just has to admit he was the instigator and you seem incapable of that. I didn't start mocking you until you started carrying on like a sanctimonious tossah.

Has anyone here actually taken your side on this (Ben Hur doesn't count)? If anyone feels I have been a smart arse to Robbie (I have been quite antagonistic in the last little bit I will admit that but that was after a LOT of provocation), I would be happy to apologize. When multiple people basically are telling you directly and indirectly that you are carrying on like a pillock, maybe it's time to think 'Perhaps it is me'.

You talk about people having a high opinion of themselves but put frankly, the 'hornet's nest' you unleashed upon me made you look like a deadset clown and is quite a flattering description of your debating abilities which consist of giving an opinion, feigning indifference upon countering views, rejecting everything out of hand or as merely opinion (weren't the lists of statistics from the UN, the reports from the senate inquiry on top of others enough for you?) and if that doesn't work, carrying on like a galoot. If you don't want to hear other people's opinions, why do you even come to internet message boards? And if you really aren't interested in my posts, why do you feel the need to constantly reply to them?

I will put it this way. I think your heart is in the right place, Robbie. I don't mind your posts on the footy. We can call a truce on this or you can go on embarrassing yourself. You said that I tried to humiliate you earlier but put frankly, I don't really need to because you are doing a good enough job of doing that yourself.

You really do't have a clue do you?

Is one of your two doctorates the art of Verbal Diarrhoea?

I thought you were going to put me on ignore; you can't even get that right.

[P-man 13,366]

Well I'll save you the trouble of moralising in future and I'll put you on ban so I don't have to read any more of your concerned comments.

Finally though, he's a smart arse and he stuck his hand in a hornets nest that's why I reacted the way I did; I don't like being taunted by any clown on here.

That's your prerogative.

I think your passion comes from a good place, Rob. Just maybe take a few less angry pills when you log on here. Like you've said in this thread, you can't change people's minds over the internet so why bother getting angry over it?