hardtack

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.

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

81% had no papers...very different meaning. These people are fleeing and it's very possible many would never have had paperwork In the first place. As for the comment re arriving by air, the majority of known ILLEGALS (overstayers) arrive by air...you are confusing boat people (legal asylum seekers) with illegal immigrants...how many boat people are you aware of that hold tourist or working holiday visas? Funny how you use a labour view as if it is meant to convince us of a point in your argument. You stated your what you now call "view" as a "fact" ... nice back peddling. None of us want to see these people risking their lives at sea and only an idiot would think we do. You claim to be concerned about their lives but that is really typical right wing speak for "we don't want these people here at all". You claim to care about their well being but really don't care at all...the fact that you call them illegals, speaks volumes for your regard for see people and their welfare...as does your belief that these people are not fleeing danger.

Boat arrivals are classified as asylum seekers... Seeking asylum is not illegal and as they are nabbed before landing on our shores, they are not immigrants. They fully expect to be taken into custody so that they can then seek asylum...they are not attempting to land and avoid detection. Your ILLEGAL overstayers however, deliberately try to avoid detection and are in far greater numbers in our society than boat arrivals... The boat arrivals who are free to live in our society are there legally. As for precious percentages, you seem to be the one concerned with citing them...not I. And your last sentence is a cop out. You made an absolute statement that most were not escaping persecution or peril. You made an absolute statement that most were throwing away their papers.

He may not have even read your post as he doesn't appear to have acknowledged it in any way at all.. it was simply a podium on which Hannibal could rest his soap box. Funny that the name Hannibal was associated with one of the greatest known refugee rescues (Operation Hannibal), yet this keyboard warrior would rather send the refugees back to what they are running from based on some misguided belief that the bulk are coming from a safe environment.

Most illegals arrive by air as valid holiday/working visa holders from places like the USA, China, Japan, New Zealand, the UK, European countries and so on. Assylum seekers are NOT illegals. Can you prove a single thing you have said regarding "most" not fleeing persecution and throwing their papers away? There are plenty of sites where you can find stats regarding illegals (overstayers who hide from the authorities), but please feel free to show us the irrefutable evidence for your claims. YOU buy the spin that the Hansons, Howards (Hanson reinvented) and Abbotts of this world sell to you. These people would not be taking the risks that they take unless they were desperate... and I think even you might realise that.

A chemist would read it as "un-ion-ized" A builder would read it as "union-ized" capiche?

That reminded me of a funny tweet I saw yesterday - something about asking a chemist and a builder their response to the word "unionized".

I believe RR is holding down a small unchartered Pacific island, on his own and unaware that the war is over.

Did he have a good beer snake going?

So let me see if I have got this right... Campbell Brown went berserk with a knife?

Please leave all feuds at the door...the original poster should be left to shine like a shaft of gold when all around is darkness (see Monty Python's Oscar Wilde for more detail)

And the first nomination for worst post of 2014 is...

So, the Gonzo part derives from a love of all things Hunter S Thompson and the requisite excesses? I was never a fan of smoking dope as I found it too antisocial for my tastes and so took the what was then referred to as, the juice freak route. LSD, mescaline (synthetic), psilocybin etc were all dabbled in, but still nothing could quite equal the alcohol in appealing to my extrovert nature. These days I indulge very little in anything, but still do enjoy the very occasional drinks session.

They did a quick interview which I mostly missed, but said he was loving it at the Dees and loving it under Roos. Someone else can provide a more detailed account?

Yes, males and females do have different traits and some males have what are generally accepted as female traits and some women exhibit what are generally considered male traits; something that is not uncommon in same sex relationships...only the physical attributes are obviously different. Another thing to consider, particularly in male same sex relationships, the child is getting a balanced exposure in their formative years at school, particularly when you consider that roughly 80% of teachers to whom children are exposed to for most of their waking hours are female. They are getting plenty of exposure to male and female role models. Also consider that roughly 15% of families are single parent families...by your reckoning BH, that will result in a hell of a lot of messed up kids who will not have had a well balanced family environment. But I don't see any anecdotal evidence to suggest that is in fact the case...nor do I see any that says children raised in same sex parent families are in any way disadvantaged. Let's face it, if we were to really go back to what is natural, children should probably be raised by the "tribe" as opposed to being restricted to just two parents.

Sorry, that just makes no sense at all. It would be far more sensible to say that the best opportunities come from growing up in a loving and caring environment.

Probably not RF, but if I was creating a lot more rubbish and using more than my fair share of landfill, then I suppose I would have to wear those extra costs.

No tatts? You just eliminated three of our best - Jones, Howe and Clark.

This subject keeps getting raised here, but from my recollection, in the last couple of seasons under Roos, the Swans were playing some very exciting football that combined tight defensive structures with fast attacking footy.

Understand RF, but in reality I am paying to dispose of my rubbish... it's called rates :-)

You're right DP, it's not worth the effort of refuting it as every side can interpret these events however they like. Sea ice is not necessarily indicative of global warming or cooling and, as one of the scientists on the recently freed Russian boat said, the current levels of sea ice are a result of weather as opposed to climate. It was however brought to my attention that the New American is a part of the right wing organisation The John Birch Society... for a conservative, BH tends to cite the right wing press one hell of a lot. And Clint... there is no question that has not been asked before (some funny and some useful answers in here): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2161619/posts

I'm considering donning a brown suit, dusting off the old bicycle and going door to door with a copy of the club charter in my hand.

You and A de C are both right... Randy Savage died of cardiac arrhythmia while driving. Skull Murphy died in a car crash, but that is going way back to the 60's - 70's.

Agreed DC... I think none of us would survive that.