by smac » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:01 pm
by The Big Shrek » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:07 pm
smac wrote:Very big on labelling people, aren't you Shrek? Some people can have opinions on things without acquiring an allegiance or fitting a mould.
by redandblack » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:28 pm
smac wrote:Very big on labelling people, aren't you Shrek? Some people can have opinions on things without acquiring an allegiance or fitting a mould.
by The Big Shrek » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:48 pm
by Drop Bear » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:10 pm
The Big Shrek wrote:Do you think refugees have bottomless pockets to pay for lawyers?
by Psyber » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:22 pm
Are you really dense, Shrek, or is it just the dissembling game you play?The Big Shrek wrote:..What a load of crap Psyber. Do you think refugees have bottomless pockets to pay for lawyers? Maybe there wouldn't be such a need for 'champions of the downtrodden' if the post-modern facists such as yourself weren't so intent on treading on them.
by Psyber » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:24 pm
I would have thought they would want to not look like they were on expense accounts and have our people wonder where the money comes from...Quichey wrote:Psyber wrote:We can't be "nice" to all and assume all alleged refugees are genuine - illegal arrival has benefits for agents of governments or of criminal organisations, by-passing security checks, and for the simply impatient who will not wait to apply and be assessed in the normal way. Only a firm line will inhibit this.
Think about it Psyber. One does not by-pass security checks without having valid papers. There has never been any evidence that those arriving by these channels are terrorists. Agents of governments or criminal organisations would have valid papers and probably fly first-class.
by Psyber » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:26 pm
Hmm, maybe I need a lawyer. That sounds like slander to me!The Big Shrek wrote:... post-modern facists such as yourself weren't so intent on treading on them.
by mick » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:31 pm
The Big Shrek wrote:Ha ha, did you like that post modern facist remark mick?
by The Big Shrek » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 pm
Psyber wrote:Hmm, maybe I need a lawyer. That sounds like slander to me!The Big Shrek wrote:... post-modern facists such as yourself weren't so intent on treading on them.
On the other hand I didn't label anyone, contrary to your assertion. I just said terrorists or criminals may try to infiltrate among genuine refugees.
by The Big Shrek » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:40 pm
mick wrote:The Big Shrek wrote:Ha ha, did you like that post modern facist remark mick?
You should learn to spell fascist first, perhaps you could identify one accurately then
by Psyber » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:44 pm
On par with being abusive then?The Big Shrek wrote:Ah the old incorrect spelling comeback mick! Very imaginative!mick wrote:You should learn to spell fascist first, perhaps you could identify one accurately thenThe Big Shrek wrote:Ha ha, did you like that post modern facist remark mick?
by The Big Shrek » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:54 pm
Psyber wrote:On par with being abusive then?The Big Shrek wrote:Ah the old incorrect spelling comeback mick! Very imaginative!mick wrote:You should learn to spell fascist first, perhaps you could identify one accurately thenThe Big Shrek wrote:Ha ha, did you like that post modern facist remark mick?
by redandblack » Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:00 pm
by mick » Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:13 pm
The Big Shrek wrote:Psyber wrote:Hmm, maybe I need a lawyer. That sounds like slander to me!The Big Shrek wrote:... post-modern facists such as yourself weren't so intent on treading on them.
On the other hand I didn't label anyone, contrary to your assertion. I just said terrorists or criminals may try to infiltrate among genuine refugees.
You did label lawyers as money hungry. Most probably are but not the ones representing refugees.
by The Big Shrek » Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:21 pm
mick wrote:The Big Shrek wrote:Psyber wrote:Hmm, maybe I need a lawyer. That sounds like slander to me!The Big Shrek wrote:... post-modern facists such as yourself weren't so intent on treading on them.
On the other hand I didn't label anyone, contrary to your assertion. I just said terrorists or criminals may try to infiltrate among genuine refugees.
You did label lawyers as money hungry. Most probably are but not the ones representing refugees.
You really do live in La La Land.
by mick » Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:38 pm
by smac » Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:52 am
redandblack wrote:smac wrote:Very big on labelling people, aren't you Shrek? Some people can have opinions on things without acquiring an allegiance or fitting a mould.
You mean labels, rarely used on here, such as 'bleeding hearts', 'champagne socialists', 'chardonnay set', etc, etc, etc......
by Q. » Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:09 am
mick wrote:Illegal immigrants not asylum seekers, name one person in the current government who would publically endorse your fanciful notions. What has really changed since Howard in real terms?chipping around the edges like the changes to work choices.
by Q. » Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:14 am
Psyber wrote:I would have thought they would want to not look like they were on expense accounts and have our people wonder where the money comes from...Quichey wrote:Psyber wrote:We can't be "nice" to all and assume all alleged refugees are genuine - illegal arrival has benefits for agents of governments or of criminal organisations, by-passing security checks, and for the simply impatient who will not wait to apply and be assessed in the normal way. Only a firm line will inhibit this.
Think about it Psyber. One does not by-pass security checks without having valid papers. There has never been any evidence that those arriving by these channels are terrorists. Agents of governments or criminal organisations would have valid papers and probably fly first-class.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |