|
Frogmanv2 posted:Except we have signed and ratified laws stating that we will offer refuge to people in fear of torture and murder in their homeland. quote:On 30 October 2012, the Labor party resolved to excise the entire Australian mainland from the migration zone, in order to remove any incentive for asylum seekers traveling from Indonesia to try to reach the mainland instead of the previously excised territories which are closer to Indonesia.[4] The legislation to excise the mainland itself from the migration zone was passed by Parliament on 16 May 2013 As Ratbag Craig said, the Refugee Convention has become a farce and we should just back out of it. When Indonesia agrees to ratify it we can reconsider.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
The only reason LNP and the Greens want to pass legislation that will hinder the power of preference deals is because they've made a preference deal. Makes sense. #Vansplaining
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:oh, bullshit. They're free to return to their home country any time they want. Hhm?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:As Ratbag Craig said, the Refugee Convention has become a farce and we should just back out of it. When Indonesia agrees to ratify it we can reconsider. "we can step out of it, until there's a country in the way that would mean we wouldn't need to act on it, then we can step back in when there's no requirement for us to act" libertarian logic
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:As Ratbag Craig said, the Refugee Convention has become a farce and we should just back out of it. When Indonesia agrees to ratify it we can reconsider. Or we could just back out of our unethical and disgusting attempts to avoid doing the right thing, such as the legislation you posted 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:If you're going to jump on a boat, throw away your documentation, and come to Australia, you should know what to expect. What documentation would you expect a refugee to have with them? Like, what would satisfy you that someone didn't "throw away" their documentation?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:that just means you were too cowardly to tweet heinous poo poo like "maybe the ALP aren't literally perfect" *adds to ignore list*
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
We're going to build a wall and make Indonesia pay for it. And people are going to come to Australia, but they are going to come here legally.
I would blow Dane Cook fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:We're going to build a wall and make Indonesia pay for it. Do we still confiscate and destroy boats? We could make it out of the flotsam they already paid for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Do we still confiscate and destroy boats? We could make it out of the flotsam they already paid for. We also buy boats and put asylum seekers on them from our ships and then push them back to Indonesia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:What documentation would you expect a refugee to have with them? Like, what would satisfy you that someone didn't "throw away" their documentation? If everyone was bar-coded and chipped none of this would be an issue
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
Australian Loser Party
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
being a lolbertarian is so 2012. that poo poo is older than ron paul Trumpism is the new hotness
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:We're going to build a wall and make Indonesia pay for it. Eddie McGuire is already practicing this in the mirror, for when he runs for Prime Minister
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Konomex posted:I specifically voted for Stephen Smith did you see him Crean himself just now
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Negligent posted:did you see him Crean himself just now This has to become a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Did anyone else catch this on 7.30 last night:quote:LEIGH SALES: Let's get you to flesh out a bit more detail on some things you touched on today. One thing is that you said Labor is committed to trying to take the economy to full employment. What percentage unemployment do you consider to be full employment? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
So "full employment" is literally labour's always lower interest rates line in that it has no substance and only exists to be a sound bite. Don't know why I was hoping for more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Birdstrike posted:Did anyone else catch this on 7.30 last night: No, uneployment!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Full employment does not mean 0% unemployment guys
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
5% is considered "full" employment under certain situations. It's an economic term, not a literal one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Typical ALP. Caving at 5%. The greens will make it 100% via envirogulags where we mine tree amber.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
We had an unemployment rate of 4% only a few years ago, and we had actual full employment for a few decades. To come out and make a big policy announcement about full employment and set your target at 5% is weak as piss. They should be committed to providing anyone with the capacity and desire to work with a job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
He really wanted to say full communism but he's been scared off by management in his time with the unions
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:No, uneployment! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
open24hours posted:We had an unemployment rate of 4% only a few years ago, and we had actual full employment for a few decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
The aim low strategy is the perfect complement to the small target.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
You guys think EvilElmo salutes his Bill Shorten portrait every morning before logging in?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
I can't believe that the greens voted to murder gays and frak every farm. I am so disgusted. I know what I must do now, vote 1 shorten
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
If ALP-ites are so outraged at the Greens stopping debate on a gay marriage bill, why aren't they just as outraged that their own party didn't pass such laws when they had the chance a few years ago?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
It's a dog's breakfast, a complete dog's breakfast and, you know, tossing another can of Pal into the dog's breakfast does not make it a good breakfast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Can someone explain precisely what's going on with the greens and the voting reform thing in the senate? At the moment there are a bunch of terrible stories going around about it which don't really explain the machinations behind it
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:It's a dog's breakfast, a complete dog's breakfast and, you know, tossing another can of Pal into the dog's breakfast does not make it a good breakfast. dog enjoys it though. (don't feed your dog pal, it is shithouse)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Can someone explain precisely what's going on with the greens and the voting reform thing in the senate? At the moment there are a bunch of terrible stories going around about it which don't really explain the machinations behind it Just going to copy some stuff from yesterday first: Gitro posted:Fun times in the upper house. Microparties and Labor trying to wedge the greens and introduce new bills for debate to stymie the senate reforms, then drumming up some righteous indignation because the greens voted against debating their own bills. quote:What the hell just happened in the red chamber? Senate voting reform includes optional preferential voting, so you'd only have to fill out 6 boxes to vote below the line (after which your vote would just exhaust and it would be considered that you didn't want it going to anyone else). Arguments for are that it makes BTL voting easier and avoids messy/lovely preference flows (I imagine why the greens are supporting it). Also been argued that it will hinder minor party/independents representation (I imagine also why LNP are supporting it). Senators like Ricky Muir and Glenn Lazarus are obviously against it for that reason. ALP are siding with the crossbenchers to fight the LNP and Greens on it. Passing the bill also wipes away a double dissolution trigger. Greens and LNP want to pass it and get it out of the way. ALP and independents/microparties brought forward a motion to debate the green's SSM proposal to stall voting/passing it. So the greens voted against debating their own proposal. edit: from SMH, a summary of the changes for the reform: quote:Optional preferential voting "above the line" on the Senate ballot paper which will allow up to six boxes to be numbered, rather than just one The Narrator fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Guys whats a good super fund to go into? I had all my stupid lovely funds bundled by my bank (St. George, BT super) and now they've done the leg work I want to shift it into an actual good fund because Im 30 now and realise I should be ensuring I have money by the time I am allowed to retire (presumably 90 years old)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
The Narrator posted:Just going to copy some stuff from yesterday first: Thanks. It looks like the media are lazily playing along with labor and the cross benchers, since almost all of the headlines I've seen on this are along the lines of "GREENS VOTE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE" without any explanation of the wider context.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
open24hours posted:We had an unemployment rate of 4% only a few years ago, and we had actual full employment for a few decades. To come out and make a big policy announcement about full employment and set your target at 5% is weak as piss. They should be committed to providing anyone with the capacity and desire to work with a job. He could literally just say the bolded part, exactly as written, when asked what he means by full employment and avoid falling into a trap of having to nominate a percentage. Having to say 5% or 4% is a losing preposition either way because very few people really understand what full employment means and to most voters, saying 5% suggests that you're not working for "full" employment at all or it requires you to give a lengthy explanation about different economic principals which cannot be reduced to a sound byte Has Labor announced what they're going to do to reach 5% unemployment?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Thanks. It looks like the media are lazily playing along with labor and the cross benchers, since almost all of the headlines I've seen on this are along the lines of "GREENS VOTE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE" without any explanation of the wider context. Yeah, that's the narrative that people have been picking up, and the headline successfully fooled me yesterday. Makes for a much more dramatic angle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Anidav posted:You guys think EvilElmo salutes his Bill Shorten portrait every morning before logging in? You log in very day? Laserface posted:Guys whats a good super fund to go into? I had all my stupid lovely funds bundled by my bank (St. George, BT super) and now they've done the leg work I want to shift it into an actual good fund because Im 30 now and realise I should be ensuring I have money by the time I am allowed to retire (presumably 90 years old) Australian super is apparently pretty good and most industry super funds are also pretty good. What industry do you work in?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
EvilElmo posted:Australian super is apparently pretty good and most industry super funds are also pretty good. What industry do you work in? I work in IT for a club. looking at the industry super page I dont really see a IT related one and Australian Super seems to be the biggest fund.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:07
|
|