ORDoubleBlues wrote:Why is Andrew Bolt condemned by certain people? Is it because he dares to tell the truth?
Agree, really like his articles....dont think people like reading the truth slapped in there faces....sweep it under the carpet!!!
by southee » Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:06 am
ORDoubleBlues wrote:Why is Andrew Bolt condemned by certain people? Is it because he dares to tell the truth?
by mick » Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:59 am
southee wrote:ORDoubleBlues wrote:Why is Andrew Bolt condemned by certain people? Is it because he dares to tell the truth?
Agree, really like his articles....dont think people like reading the truth slapped in there faces....sweep it under the carpet!!!
by Lazarus » Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:29 am
mick wrote:southee wrote:ORDoubleBlues wrote:Why is Andrew Bolt condemned by certain people? Is it because he dares to tell the truth?
Agree, really like his articles....dont think people like reading the truth slapped in there faces....sweep it under the carpet!!!
I think Andrew Bolt talks a lot of sense as well. I really started to like Rudd a lot more when he talked about "illegal immigrants" because that's what they are until their status is verified.
by Psyber » Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:53 am
Anyone who attempts to enter any country without approval is by definition acting improperly if not as an "illegal immigrant", or is an invader.Lazarus wrote:Ha ha ha, guilty until proven innocent.mick wrote:I think Andrew Bolt talks a lot of sense as well. I really started to like Rudd a lot more when he talked about "illegal immigrants" because that's what they are until their status is verified.
by redandblack » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:28 am
by Lazarus » Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:02 pm
by smac » Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:10 pm
by mick » Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:14 pm
by Psyber » Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:09 pm
by Lazarus » Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:04 pm
by Psyber » Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:10 pm
Lazarus wrote:I am glad you haven't objected to my queue jumper points.
If you are not fussed about definitions why did you say "by definition an illegal immigrant or an invader"?
I am also glad you have moved the discussion away from law and towards what is morally right. I think we can all agree that we should act according to what is the right thing to, not merely act in accordance with current law.
Drawing parallels between trespassing in someone's home and entering a country without consent is a bit rich. One is a far more serious breach of privacy and intrusion into one's liberties than the other. I can assure you that if a boat person was found breaking into a house they would be jailed rather than just deported.
The moral wrongness of entering a the country must be determined by the purpose of the person doing it. Entering a country without consent if you fear for your safety is not wrong. Everyone on this forum would do it if them or their family was in danger.
No-one has said there should not be a system for reviewing the status of each person Psyber. But such a system can exist without declaring people to be illegal.
by Dog_ger » Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:29 am
by Lazarus » Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:19 pm
Dog_ger wrote:We need taller fences and sharper razor wire.
by Lazarus » Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:28 pm
by dedja » Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:01 pm
Dog_ger wrote:We need taller fences and sharper razor wire.
by Psyber » Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:16 pm
Point taken, another sloppiness, I'll rephrase my first post with an edit.Lazarus wrote:This is the last post I will write about the definition issue as it is dragging on a bit.
My problem was with the term "illegal immigrants" even though they are not illegal. My understanding of what you have said is that entering another's country without consent is inherently wrong until proven otherwise and this is why you used that term. Hence there is a moral illegality rather than a legal illegality.
When someone says something is by definition "illegal" it is going to necessitate a legal definition. There is no other way to define something as illegal other than by looking at it legally. A moral illegality doesn't make sense as the only way something can be illegal is if it is contrary to law.
by Sojourner » Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:13 am
mick wrote: These niceties and legal argument are all very well but I predict "The Indonesian solution" will replace Howard's Pacific solution.
by mick » Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:33 am
Sojourner wrote:mick wrote: These niceties and legal argument are all very well but I predict "The Indonesian solution" will replace Howard's Pacific solution.
Looks very much the case at the moment, a little surprising considering recent revelations about how asylum seekers are reported to be treated in the Indonesian Detention Centres though?
by Psyber » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:15 pm
by topsywaldron » Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:23 pm
mick wrote:I must say the hypocrisy of our Government is breath taking.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |