V8Central Forums
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Search | FAQ | Links | Private Messages
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 General Topics
 General chit-chat
 General Libs vs ALP Thread
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Share
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 589

bundy
BANNED



Australia
1509 Posts
joined 21 Aug 11

 offline

Posted - 21 Dec 2011 :  22:58:57  Show Profile Send bundy a Private Message  Reply with Quote Copy this URL to Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by AlbertM

Bundy, the high court ruling has stopped any and all off shore processing not just Malaysia, unless the immigration act is changed. Regardless of any recommendations.



Because you say so?

Go to Top of Page

AlbertM
Crackpot



12526 Posts
joined 15 Jan 03

 offline

Posted - 22 Dec 2011 :  07:54:18  Show Profile  Visit AlbertM's Homepage Send AlbertM a Private Message  Reply with Quote Copy this URL to Link to this Reply
If I'm talking out of my ass why does the government need to change the imagration act at all to restore Nauru?

Remember? Abbott will only the support THE CHANGES if Nauru is used. Also, if the LNP wins the next election they will have to do what Labor is is trying to do now, change the act.

Ford fans be proud. History of Australian motor racing shows Ford has been and will always be superior. They have to slow them down when they get serious about racing. The Phase 4 scared the **** out of people, they banned it. Sierra gets called on a technicality, Falcon EF "...had its wings clipped to make Holden part of the show", AU not allowed to show it's potential, Falcon BF gets clipped. Mustang Is so good Supercars made up a rule and gets a bag of cement in the roof, and it still wins.
_Mford
Go to Top of Page

bundy
BANNED



Australia
1509 Posts
joined 21 Aug 11

 offline

Posted - 22 Dec 2011 :  08:03:29  Show Profile Send bundy a Private Message  Reply with Quote Copy this URL to Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by AlbertM

If I'm talking out of my ass why does the government need to change the imagration act at all to restore Nauru?

Remember? Abbott will only the support THE CHANGES if Nauru is used.


Put two and two together and you'll get the answer

HINT: Don't forget about Malaysia's involvement in the plans too



Edited by - bundy on 22 Dec 2011 08:04:49
Go to Top of Page

AlbertM
Crackpot



12526 Posts
joined 15 Jan 03

 offline

Posted - 22 Dec 2011 :  15:37:39  Show Profile  Visit AlbertM's Homepage Send AlbertM a Private Message  Reply with Quote Copy this URL to Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by bundy

quote:
Originally posted by AlbertM

If I'm talking out of my ass why does the government need to change the imagration act at all to restore Nauru?

Remember? Abbott will only the support THE CHANGES if Nauru is used.


Put two and two together and you'll get the answer

HINT: Don't forget about Malaysia's involvement in the plans too




???

The LAW needs to be changed regardless of the off shore location.

Ford fans be proud. History of Australian motor racing shows Ford has been and will always be superior. They have to slow them down when they get serious about racing. The Phase 4 scared the **** out of people, they banned it. Sierra gets called on a technicality, Falcon EF "...had its wings clipped to make Holden part of the show", AU not allowed to show it's potential, Falcon BF gets clipped. Mustang Is so good Supercars made up a rule and gets a bag of cement in the roof, and it still wins.
_Mford
Go to Top of Page

Legendary Gerry
Moderator



Australia
22221 Posts
joined 19 Feb 07

 offline

Posted - 22 Dec 2011 :  16:06:26  Show Profile Send Legendary Gerry a Private Message  Reply with Quote Copy this URL to Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by AlbertM

quote:
Originally posted by bundy

quote:
Originally posted by AlbertM

If I'm talking out of my ass why does the government need to change the imagration act at all to restore Nauru?

Remember? Abbott will only the support THE CHANGES if Nauru is used.


Put two and two together and you'll get the answer

HINT: Don't forget about Malaysia's involvement in the plans too




???

The LAW needs to be changed regardless of the off shore location.



The way I read it at the time (as far as the law goes) was that Malaysia was out but nothing was actually ruled upon in regards to Nauru as the judges weren't asked to rule on it. The "so-called learned opinions" were that as Australia still took responsibility for Nauru that it would be a different scenario altogether BUT, to make sure it was ok they would add it under the new laws proposed.
Go to Top of Page

Trev
Team Manager



Australia
5741 Posts
joined 13 Feb 03

 offline

Posted - 22 Dec 2011 :  17:43:53  Show Profile  Visit Trev's Homepage Send Trev a Private Message  Reply with Quote Copy this URL to Link to this Reply
It will be interesting now if Tony will say no to Nauru, I reckon he will coz he doesn't know how to say yes

I reserve the right to arm bears
Go to Top of Page

Legendary Gerry
Moderator



Australia
22221 Posts
joined 19 Feb 07

 offline

Posted - 22 Dec 2011 :  22:53:25  Show Profile Send Legendary Gerry a Private Message  Reply with Quote Copy this URL to Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by Big Trev

It will be interesting now if Tony will say no to Nauru, I reckon he will coz he doesn't know how to say yes



There's the problem Trev.

"Labor will talk to Nauru about reopening an asylum seeker processing centre there if the coalition agrees to pass the government's amendment to the Migration Act without changes."

I wouldn't blame the Coalition if they still say no - she's holding a gun to their heads.
The numbers (800 isn't it) to be returned is way too small.
Go to Top of Page

bundy
BANNED



Australia
1509 Posts
joined 21 Aug 11

 offline

Posted - 23 Dec 2011 :  00:21:19  Show Profile Send bundy a Private Message  Reply with Quote Copy this URL to Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by Legendary Gerry

quote:
Originally posted by AlbertM

quote:
Originally posted by bundy

quote:
Originally posted by AlbertM

If I'm talking out of my ass why does the government need to change the imagration act at all to restore Nauru?

Remember? Abbott will only the support THE CHANGES if Nauru is used.


Put two and two together and you'll get the answer

HINT: Don't forget about Malaysia's involvement in the plans too




???

The LAW needs to be changed regardless of the off shore location.



The way I read it at the time (as far as the law goes) was that Malaysia was out but nothing was actually ruled upon in regards to Nauru as the judges weren't asked to rule on it. The "so-called learned opinions" were that as Australia still took responsibility for Nauru that it would be a different scenario altogether BUT, to make sure it was ok they would add it under the new laws proposed.



Close.

See the problem is that neither side wants to give total ground over the issue. But, unlike for the coalition, for Labor it is a lose, lose situation even if they can put in place their preferred option of having the off-shore processing done in Malaysia. They will alwways have great difficulty in toppling the Coalition's proven record when they were in power even if we see a reduction in the numbers coming.

The coalition see it as an issue that they will always win with the public. And with good cause too. They are coming to the table now because she is willing to cede ground to the Coalition's policy of re-instating the pacific solution with Nauru. By committing to partly re-establishing and using Nauru, she is legitimising the success of the previous Howard government's regime. Something that Gillard and the Labor party as adversaries and knowing how important this issue is at the ballot box (or was in 2001) will not fully allow which is why she is unwilling to let go of her Malaysia solution.

So, here we have two parties really at logger-heads with each other. With neither side willing to give total and absolute ground over the issue. But with the decision of the HC concerning Malaysia which basically decided that the Minister cannot decide to send aslyum-seekers to a country which doesn't have the proper legislative safe-guards in place nor is it a signatory to the relevant UN convention. Nor, is it legitimate to send asylum seekers to the country on the belief or expectation that these various laws and international conventions will be enacted or signed up to in the near future. It needs to be here and now for a Minister to make such a decision about the fate of anyone who tries to claim asylum in this country.

So, to reach common ground and carry out the plans that the Labor party propose which is to use both Malaysia and Nauru, it must change the laws to conform with what is required to use Malaysia. The use of Nauru is a relative non-issue as to any potential legal barrier (although such changes would eradicate any existing uncertainties relating to it) but its involvement is crucial to the Coalition's support for these amendments to the law to allow for the use of Malaysia. So, here we are...a political solution to a legal problem.

---------------------------

Seems all that explaining was for nothing.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/tony-abbott-stand-on-malaysia-solution-dims-hopes-of-compromise-on-asylum-seekers/story-fn9hm1gu-1226229217139


Edited by - bundy on 23 Dec 2011 11:59:58
Go to Top of Page

rabbits
Team Manager



Australia
5035 Posts
joined 19 Aug 03

 offline

Posted - 23 Dec 2011 :  15:58:37  Show Profile Send rabbits a Private Message  Reply with Quote Copy this URL to Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by AlbertM

Yes costs are up, so why are you using 5 year old figures like 165 million to justify you argument NOW.



Really, Albert? You're going to try and win argument of $165m vs $800m by using inflation as your defence?

Are you ****ing serious?

You just never know when to give up, do you?

That's fine - just to prove what a ridiculous argument pushing that 'barrow is - the reported figure for illegal boat people is $800m for this year.
You seem to be all torn up over me using the $165m quoted for both the end of 2008 and expected cost for 2011, so, we'll add 3% compounding inflation to cover the extra costs, shall we? ( you do know why I am using 3%, don't you? )

2008 - $165m
2009 - $170m
2010 - $175m
2011 - $180m is what it would be...

Happy? Probably not.....

And the law doesn't have to be CHANGED - it just has to be PUT BACK to what it was before Rudd ****ed it all up....

Can anyone remind me how many Malay's we get to keep in exchange for every on asylum seeker we send there to be flogged with sticks?
It's a couple for every 1, isn't it?
What is there to say yes to??

But in typical ALP fashion, when they're devoid of any substance and actually have no intentions of taking any action, they play the media-popularity card 'we're trying, but Abbott just keeps saying no...'

Makes me ****ing sick.

Edited by - rabbits on 23 Dec 2011 16:04:12
Go to Top of Page

Trev
Team Manager



Australia
5741 Posts
joined 13 Feb 03

 offline

Posted - 23 Dec 2011 :  16:03:29  Show Profile  Visit Trev's Homepage Send Trev a Private Message  Reply with Quote Copy this URL to Link to this Reply
I was right Abbott is going to reject the offer on principle, he is a

I reserve the right to arm bears
Go to Top of Page

Legendary Gerry
Moderator



Australia
22221 Posts
joined 19 Feb 07

 offline

Posted - 23 Dec 2011 :  16:46:19  Show Profile Send Legendary Gerry a Private Message  Reply with Quote Copy this URL to Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by Big Trev

I was right Abbott is going to reject the offer on principle, he is a


person with principles!!
Go to Top of Page

AlbertM
Crackpot



12526 Posts
joined 15 Jan 03

 offline

Posted - 23 Dec 2011 :  18:50:49  Show Profile  Visit AlbertM's Homepage Send AlbertM a Private Message  Reply with Quote Copy this URL to Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by rabbits

quote:
Originally posted by AlbertM

Yes costs are up, so why are you using 5 year old figures like 165 million to justify you argument NOW.



Really, Albert? You're going to try and win argument of $165m vs $800m by using inflation as your defence?

Are you ****ing serious?

You just never know when to give up, do you?

That's fine - just to prove what a ridiculous argument pushing that 'barrow is - the reported figure for illegal boat people is $800m for this year.
You seem to be all torn up over me using the $165m quoted for both the end of 2008 and expected cost for 2011, so, we'll add 3% compounding inflation to cover the extra costs, shall we? ( you do know why I am using 3%, don't you? )

2008 - $165m
2009 - $170m
2010 - $175m
2011 - $180m is what it would be...

Happy? Probably not.....

And the law doesn't have to be CHANGED - it just has to be PUT BACK to what it was before Rudd ****ed it all up....

Can anyone remind me how many Malay's we get to keep in exchange for every on asylum seeker we send there to be flogged with sticks?
It's a couple for every 1, isn't it?
What is there to say yes to??

But in typical ALP fashion, when they're devoid of any substance and actually have no intentions of taking any action, they play the media-popularity card 'we're trying, but Abbott just keeps saying no...'

Makes me ****ing sick.



I'm not comparing the figures. I accusing you of making them up. How can you be so sure that it will cost the same now as it did 5 years ago.

Plus you keep changing you argument. Your last forcast didn't include inflation and you exagerated Labors cost figures.

quote:
And the law doesn't have to be CHANGED - it just has to be PUT BACK to what it was before Rudd ****ed it all up....

In others words... CHANGED

I know I have solid custom from bundy with bike chains, but with your back pedalling I could stretch supply to you.


quote:
Originally posted by Legendary Gerry

quote:
Originally posted by Big Trev

I was right Abbott is going to reject the offer on principle, he is a


person with principles!!



Bwhahahaha. And Labor supporters are called misguided.

Ford fans be proud. History of Australian motor racing shows Ford has been and will always be superior. They have to slow them down when they get serious about racing. The Phase 4 scared the **** out of people, they banned it. Sierra gets called on a technicality, Falcon EF "...had its wings clipped to make Holden part of the show", AU not allowed to show it's potential, Falcon BF gets clipped. Mustang Is so good Supercars made up a rule and gets a bag of cement in the roof, and it still wins.
_Mford

Edited by - AlbertM on 23 Dec 2011 18:56:08
Go to Top of Page

bundy
BANNED



Australia
1509 Posts
joined 21 Aug 11

 offline

Posted - 23 Dec 2011 :  20:13:01  Show Profile Send bundy a Private Message  Reply with Quote Copy this URL to Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by AlbertM

quote:
And the law doesn't have to be CHANGED - it just has to be PUT BACK to what it was before Rudd ****ed it all up....

In others words... CHANGED

I know I have solid custom from bundy with bike chains, but with your back pedalling I could stretch supply to you.


It wouldn't have to be changed if Gillard wasn't so dead set on using Malaysia as the solution and not solely Nauru.

The Labor party should just give into Abbott because she is never going to win on this issue!!



Go to Top of Page

bigem
A polar bear



Australia
15994 Posts
joined 22 Jun 04

 offline

Posted - 03 Jan 2012 :  21:31:10  Show Profile Send bigem a Private Message  Reply with Quote Copy this URL to Link to this Reply
Was asked to move this from the upside down flag thread:

How about we put some 'reality' into the topic and look at the knee-jerk reaction from our Labor Government to live cattle exports and the devastating effect their temporary bans have had on OUR farmers!!

The reaction by the Indo's is adirect retal;iation to the stupidity of the Government and the moron Agriculture Minister, Joe Ludwig, who looks and sounds like he would be right at home as an ATO investigator!!

Typical ****ing dip****, no ****ing idea bureucrat!!


http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3392361.htm

The big banks are having a field day with this, they just became land owners as they force the good people who had borrowed against the proceeds of the cattle that WAS going to Indonesia, but isn't now!!

They are shooting the cattle and burying them as they no longer have a market for them!!

Labor Government = Morons!!

New Commodore Hey! So you used your own money? Would you like to buy a used bridge?
Go to Top of Page

bundy
BANNED



Australia
1509 Posts
joined 21 Aug 11

 offline

Posted - 03 Jan 2012 :  22:19:10  Show Profile Send bundy a Private Message  Reply with Quote Copy this URL to Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by bigem

Was asked to move this from the upside down flag thread:

How about we put some 'reality' into the topic and look at the knee-jerk reaction from our Labor Government to live cattle exports and the devastating effect their temporary bans have had on OUR farmers!!

The reaction by the Indo's is adirect retal;iation to the stupidity of the Government and the moron Agriculture Minister, Joe Ludwig, who looks and sounds like he would be right at home as an ATO investigator!!

Typical ****ing dip****, no ****ing idea bureucrat!!


http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3392361.htm

The big banks are having a field day with this, they just became land owners as they force the good people who had borrowed against the proceeds of the cattle that WAS going to Indonesia, but isn't now!!

They are shooting the cattle and burying them as they no longer have a market for them!!

Labor Government = Morons!!



They have never been a party for the bush em. It is not in their blood. That is why it was such an injustice to the rest of Australians who live in regional Australia that the independents, Windsor and Oakshott, sided with the Labor party to help them form minority government.

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 589 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  











Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Share
Jump To:
V8Central Forums © 2001 - 2018 V8Central Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.64 seconds.