The 2013/2014 Off Season Thread

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Without xenophobia you probably wouldn't be here. You certainly wouldn't be so prosperous.

It's a bit disingenuous for a collection of genes, such as you are, to start decrying the adaptive traits that led to your existence. Though it is interesting that it makes you (and so many others) uncomfortable.

Sure. And in the past there was significant survival value in all sorts of things that we would now consider a bit odd, such as abandoning the weak (babies, elderly) and letting them die. I have no problem whatsoever with xenophobia.....I have a problem with racist behaviour (and I'm probably 'guilty' of both).

 

[84 Baby]

I can confirm that "Lord Jingleballs iz in da house 4" is my favourite of the series.

I preferred the Christmas specials "Lord Jingleballs is coming on frown" & "Slashing through the ho (starring Lord Jingleballs)"

 

[Gronk]

Here's my substance, if you want to call it that:

Firstly, we ask the question of whether we should have a refugee program? The answer is absolutely yes and anyone who says differently is a f**kstick who should be ignored.

Now, having answered that I look at the problem in a logical, sustainable fashion.

What are our responsibilities once we take a refugee? Food, clothing and shelter are the three basics, obviously. However, many refugees will have language problems so they will need education there. Children will need education in general. Many adult refugees will need to be trained and given job skills, so they can become self-sufficient. On top of this are general health issues but especially psychological counseling due to the fact that a lot originate from f**ked up shitholes where they have been through horrific shit.

In summary: money, and lots of it.

Now this is cool. The reason we should be taking refugees is because we can afford it, so paying the money to do this stuff is a perfectly acceptable way to spend my taxes.

However, because it involves money and therefore needs to be budgeted it must immediately come with a cap, a quota. Failure to set a quota and stick to it means the system becomes unsustainable and we lose the ability to do long term good.

As such, similarly to those who would state we shouldn't take refugees at all, those who argue against a quota are dickfaces that should immediately be ignored forevermore.

Now, having established that we need a quota, it is a logical extension that we need to control this ourselves. This means no boats. You can't have a sustainable, controllable quota system if other people are deciding when they come here. So, no boats.

This way, we are able to bring refugees from regional centres in a timely, orderly manner consistent with our ability to meet their needs once here and in a manner that fills our quota spread out across the entire year.

Under this system no one drowns at sea, criminal organisations do not make millions, no one languishes in our offshore detention centres, genuine refugees are still brought into Australia and the costs are minimal to the Australian people. With these things in mind, the system is sustainable across the long term and does maximum good.

Ok so what you have just said is basically the coalition's policy on refugees and onshore arrivals.

We've always had a quota. Recently it's been 20,000, but the current government reduced it by 6,000.

And stop the boats.

Which is easier said than done. The best way is to apparently pretend that they don't happen by towing them back before they hit the migration zone. The Abbott government has engaged the cone of silence with regards to the the asylum seeker vessels, and refused to even confirm the existence of the latest arrivals for days/weeks now. To date Scott Morrison has still not conceded that a second vessel (re: high court proceedings) actually exists. If he had really stopped the boats, then he'd be absolutely transparent about it.

The facts are that (other than threatening to put onshore arrivees (sp) to detain them and settle them in PNG or Cambodia) stopping the boats is nigh impossible. Both sides of politics should recognise this, so that Morrison does not have to pretend that they don't happen, just to save election face.

There is no easy answer to the arrivals. Off shore processing is probably the way to go, only because history has shown that those who are not granted visa to stay, clog the legal system with appeals.

One thing I do know, is that refoulement is not the answer. What a appallingly inhumane thing to do.

To force back people to their place of origin where they might face persecution or threats to life and liberty on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group is wrong. Oh, but they are screened I hear you say ? Yes this was introduced by our previous government called the "enhanced screening process". What a joke - so whilst bobbing up and down in the ocean they are asked 3 questions. Do you know what they are ?

“What are your reasons for coming to Australia?
Do you have any other reasons for coming to Australia?
Would you like to add anything else?”

If the detainee does not raise a red flag by saying they want to seek asylum because they fear persecution, or if the interviewing officer does not believe them, they can be screened out and deported.

F**king hell, surely we're better than that.

Furthermore, we do not waste time and money on economic refugees, spots are not taken by non-genuine refugees and the ones who get our spots are those who have genuinely fled atrocities and not those simply looking for a better job.

Here's some articles regarding the "refugees" already taken back to Sri Lanka. Please note these articles are from the ABC and SMH, so they're not evil lies spread by Rupert Murdoch, the spawn of Satan:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/asylum-seekers-face-court-in-sri-lanka-20140708-3bkrg.html#ixzz36uIjYqQ0

"I went [to] Australia to find employment and then settle and bring my wife and family."

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s4042088.htm

This man says his son and other relatives were just trying to get work.

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politic...key-role-in-smuggling-bid-20140708-3blbe.html

Another passenger, M.G. Sumanadasa, 59, a stonemason, said he was told he was going to New Zealand.
“I got on board to earn more money and to have a family house in New Zealand."

These are not political refugees fleeing persecution, Gronk. They are economic refugees wanting a better job and if we let them in they take the spot of a genuine refugee.

Now we come to the part where we are being labelled cruel etc. I don't like it but I understand that the short term pain will bring long term sustainability that will benefit the largest number of people who are genuine refugees.

So, clamp down f**king hard, f**king early and we'll end up with a sustainable system in the shortest possible time.

I see, so they're all economic refugees ? It's like telling your daughter that the kittens in the sack all have cancer, before you throw it into the river. Cop out.

Yes some are economic refugees and they should be screened out . I'm all for it, but not by the orwellian "enhanced screening process" thanks. Again, we're better than that.

You might be fascinated to learn that the UNHCR provided an important qualification in their 2011 issue of the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Guidelines for RSD. They noted the distinction is “sometimes blurred”.

“Behind economic measures affecting a person’s livelihood there may be racial, religious or political aims or intentions directed against a particular group.”
The handbook goes on to note that “objections to general economic measures are not by themselves good reasons for claiming refugee status. On the other hand, what appears at first sight to be primarily an economic motive for departure may in reality also involve a political element, and it may be the political opinions of the individual that expose him to serious consequences, rather than his objections to the economic measures themselves”.

As signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, we have an obligation to hear each asylum seeker before presuming that their claim for refugee status is not valid because of their nationality or ethnic origin. Did you know that ?

I also think that Australia has additional responsibilities to refugees from countries where Australian defence personnel have been deployed in "conflict" situations. Our record in this regard is poor. How embarrassing will it be later this year when we chair the G20 when other countries are doing their bit and we're not.

So, there's my "substance", if you want to call it that.

My system stops people drowning, stops criminals making millions from the suffering of others, means no one languishes in Nauru or Manus Island, minimises the cost to the Australian people over the long term and eliminates economic refugees stealing spots from those who genuinely need them.

It is rational and sustainable.

It's not your anything. It's just summary of what's happening now.

Your bullshit is whimsical fairy, bleeding heart, unsustainable, cruel bullshit that lets people drown while criminals make millions from their suffering.

Who's the real humanitarian?

You're just a typical leftoid who is more concerned with shaking your fist at a conservative party so you can selfishly hijack morality for your own ego. You are a blight upon humanity and your kind are to be ignored.

Ok so why throw in the the ad hominem attack ? It confuses me why you need to this :lol: are you aware that at the end of anything you post like this, you attack my character or beliefs in advance ? A bit like discrediting my point of view before I even post it. You attempt to undermine what I say before I even say it.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I think we can all agree that compassion is both a strength and a weakness. That's why we have in groups and out groups.

#ResourceManagement

 

[Twizzle]

No we cant

I heard Abbott say yesterday in an interview that one of the reasons he wants to turn the boats around is that they blow out the budget.

ie: money is more important than human life.

Nice bloke

 

[Avenger]

Abbott is a halfwit. I cant wait until Malcolm stabs him and takes over.

 

[emjaycee]

Salary cap is not fair but is needed.

 

[Kornstar]

No we cant

I heard Abbott say yesterday in an interview that one of the reasons he wants to turn the boats around is that they blow out the budget.

ie: money is more important than human life.

Nice bloke

As someone who pays more than the minimum wage in tax, i'm with Abbott on this!

No one else in the world gives a f**k about human life, why should we, on my dime????

I get f**king nothing for the tax i pay, the merkins get the money for free and I'm supposed to feel great about it?

I don't vote for either party, i always vote for Korn in every election, i hate all politicians, they are all liars but how much was it each boat that arrived? a Billion or something? f**k that, there is always a price, on everything!!!

 

[hindy111]

Ok so what you have just said is basically the coalition's policy on refugees and onshore arrivals.

We've always had a quota. Recently it's been 20,000, but the current government reduced it by 6,000.

And stop the boats.

Which is easier said than done. The best way is to apparently pretend that they don't happen by towing them back before they hit the migration zone. The Abbott government has engaged the cone of silence with regards to the the asylum seeker vessels, and refused to even confirm the existence of the latest arrivals for days/weeks now. To date Scott Morrison has still not conceded that a second vessel (re: high court proceedings) actually exists. If he had really stopped the boats, then he'd be absolutely transparent about it.

The facts are that (other than threatening to put onshore arrivees (sp) to detain them and settle them in PNG or Cambodia) stopping the boats is nigh impossible. Both sides of politics should recognise this, so that Morrison does not have to pretend that they don't happen, just to save election face.

There is no easy answer to the arrivals. Off shore processing is probably the way to go, only because history has shown that those who are not granted visa to stay, clog the legal system with appeals.

One thing I do know, is that refoulement is not the answer. What a appallingly inhumane thing to do.

To force back people to their place of origin where they might face persecution or threats to life and liberty on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group is wrong. Oh, but they are screened I hear you say ? Yes this was introduced by our previous government called the "enhanced screening process". What a joke - so whilst bobbing up and down in the ocean they are asked 3 questions. Do you know what they are ?

?What are your reasons for coming to Australia?
Do you have any other reasons for coming to Australia?
Would you like to add anything else??

If the detainee does not raise a red flag by saying they want to seek asylum because they fear persecution, or if the interviewing officer does not believe them, they can be screened out and deported.

F**king hell, surely we're better than that.


I see, so they're all economic refugees ? It's like telling your daughter that the kittens in the sack all have cancer, before you throw it into the river. Cop out.

Yes some are economic refugees and they should be screened out . I'm all for it, but not by the orwellian "enhanced screening process" thanks. Again, we're better than that.

You might be fascinated to learn that the UNHCR provided an important qualification in their 2011 issue of the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Guidelines for RSD. They noted the distinction is ?sometimes blurred?.

?Behind economic measures affecting a person?s livelihood there may be racial, religious or political aims or intentions directed against a particular group.?
The handbook goes on to note that ?objections to general economic measures are not by themselves good reasons for claiming refugee status. On the other hand, what appears at first sight to be primarily an economic motive for departure may in reality also involve a political element, and it may be the political opinions of the individual that expose him to serious consequences, rather than his objections to the economic measures themselves?.

As signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, we have an obligation to hear each asylum seeker before presuming that their claim for refugee status is not valid because of their nationality or ethnic origin. Did you know that ?

I also think that Australia has additional responsibilities to refugees from countries where Australian defence personnel have been deployed in "conflict" situations. Our record in this regard is poor. How embarrassing will it be later this year when we chair the G20 when other countries are doing their bit and we're not.

It's not your anything. It's just summary of what's happening now.

Ok so why throw in the the ad hominem attack ? It confuses me why you need to this :lol: are you aware that at the end of anything you post like this, you attack my character or beliefs in advance ? A bit like discrediting my point of view before I even post it. You attempt to undermine what I say before I even say it.

They drew the short straw.Lifes unfair.Worlds unfair..Half the ones coming in from Sri-Lanka are coming for a better life and aren't refugees.They come with I-Phones ffs.
Unfortunately the other half do need help.This is the same as the dole and Dole bludgers.Some wreck it for the honest ones. There isn't a simple answer but we have to be very carefull who comes in.It lowers our standing of living, it really does.I don't want to sound selfish but I like being able to eat my pub meals and going for dinner.I don't want to be on struggle street TBH. Or just above the poverty line.

 

[Suitman]

They drew the short straw.Lifes unfair.Worlds unfair..Half the ones coming in from Sri-Lanka are coming for a better life and aren't refugees.They come with I-Phones ffs.
Unfortunately the other half do need help.This is the same as the dole and Dole bludgers.Some wreck it for the honest ones. There isn't a simple answer but we have to be very carefull who comes in.It lowers our standing of living, it really does.I don't want to sound selfish but I like being able to eat my pub meals and going for dinner.I don't want to be on struggle street TBH. Or just above the poverty line.

Who's ever said we don't?
It's the way we are treating them atm that is the issue.

Suity

 

[Gary Gutful]

I preferred the Christmas specials "Lord Jingleballs is coming on frown" & "Slashing through the ho (starring Lord Jingleballs)"

Lord Jingleballs was also very good in "A Mid Summer Night's Cream".

 

[Gary Gutful]

Ok so what you have just said is basically the coalition's policy on refugees and onshore arrivals.

We've always had a quota. Recently it's been 20,000, but the current government reduced it by 6,000.

And stop the boats.

Which is easier said than done. The best way is to apparently pretend that they don't happen by towing them back before they hit the migration zone. The Abbott government has engaged the cone of silence with regards to the the asylum seeker vessels, and refused to even confirm the existence of the latest arrivals for days/weeks now. To date Scott Morrison has still not conceded that a second vessel (re: high court proceedings) actually exists. If he had really stopped the boats, then he'd be absolutely transparent about it.

The facts are that (other than threatening to put onshore arrivees (sp) to detain them and settle them in PNG or Cambodia) stopping the boats is nigh impossible. Both sides of politics should recognise this, so that Morrison does not have to pretend that they don't happen, just to save election face.

There is no easy answer to the arrivals. Off shore processing is probably the way to go, only because history has shown that those who are not granted visa to stay, clog the legal system with appeals.

One thing I do know, is that refoulement is not the answer. What a appallingly inhumane thing to do.

To force back people to their place of origin where they might face persecution or threats to life and liberty on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group is wrong. Oh, but they are screened I hear you say ? Yes this was introduced by our previous government called the "enhanced screening process". What a joke - so whilst bobbing up and down in the ocean they are asked 3 questions. Do you know what they are ?

“What are your reasons for coming to Australia?
Do you have any other reasons for coming to Australia?
Would you like to add anything else?”

If the detainee does not raise a red flag by saying they want to seek asylum because they fear persecution, or if the interviewing officer does not believe them, they can be screened out and deported.

F**king hell, surely we're better than that.


I see, so they're all economic refugees ? It's like telling your daughter that the kittens in the sack all have cancer, before you throw it into the river. Cop out.

Yes some are economic refugees and they should be screened out . I'm all for it, but not by the orwellian "enhanced screening process" thanks. Again, we're better than that.

You might be fascinated to learn that the UNHCR provided an important qualification in their 2011 issue of the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Guidelines for RSD. They noted the distinction is “sometimes blurred”.

“Behind economic measures affecting a person’s livelihood there may be racial, religious or political aims or intentions directed against a particular group.”
The handbook goes on to note that “objections to general economic measures are not by themselves good reasons for claiming refugee status. On the other hand, what appears at first sight to be primarily an economic motive for departure may in reality also involve a political element, and it may be the political opinions of the individual that expose him to serious consequences, rather than his objections to the economic measures themselves”.

As signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, we have an obligation to hear each asylum seeker before presuming that their claim for refugee status is not valid because of their nationality or ethnic origin. Did you know that ?

I also think that Australia has additional responsibilities to refugees from countries where Australian defence personnel have been deployed in "conflict" situations. Our record in this regard is poor. How embarrassing will it be later this year when we chair the G20 when other countries are doing their bit and we're not.

It's not your anything. It's just summary of what's happening now.

Ok so why throw in the the ad hominem attack ? It confuses me why you need to this :lol: are you aware that at the end of anything you post like this, you attack my character or beliefs in advance ? A bit like discrediting my point of view before I even post it. You attempt to undermine what I say before I even say it.

Some good points, well made Gronk. I'd be interested to see how HJ responds to this.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Ok so what you have just said is basically the coalition's policy on refugees and onshore arrivals.

We've always had a quota. Recently it's been 20,000, but the current government reduced it by 6,000.

So? Bump it back up if you want. It's still a quota and so still needs control, which means people can't decide that they are going to come here.

So even doubling the quota to 27,000 means we need to stop the boats.

And stop the boats.

Exactly.

Which is easier said than done. The best way is to apparently pretend that they don't happen by towing them back before they hit the migration zone. The Abbott government has engaged the cone of silence with regards to the the asylum seeker vessels, and refused to even confirm the existence of the latest arrivals for days/weeks now. To date Scott Morrison has still not conceded that a second vessel (re: high court proceedings) actually exists. If he had really stopped the boats, then he'd be absolutely transparent about it.

If you think that boat arrivals aren't slowing then you're a fool. There will occasionally be some idiots who try but this needs to be kept to a minimum and the government is doing that whether you want to believe it or not.

There is no easy answer to the arrivals. Off shore processing is probably the way to go, only because history has shown that those who are not granted visa to stay, clog the legal system with appeals.

There is an easy answer: be harsh merkins.

It's not nice but it's very simple.

One thing I do know, is that refoulement is not the answer. What a appallingly inhumane thing to do.

Labor returned hundreds of Sri Lankans. The lot just returned by the Coalition were shown to be people seeking to take a refugee spot simply so they can earn more money here.

In short, f**k 'em.

“What are your reasons for coming to Australia?
Do you have any other reasons for coming to Australia?
Would you like to add anything else?”

Sounds pretty succinct and efficient to me.

F**king hell, surely we're better than that.

We are. That's why we stop the boats, stop people drowning, stop criminal organisations from making millions and go to regional processing centres to find refugees.

Under my system, we still take the exact same amount of refugees. It's just more humane (no drownings or offshore detention) and costs less to the Australian people.

I see, so they're all economic refugees ? It's like telling your daughter that the kittens in the sack all have cancer, before you throw it into the river. Cop out.

Yes some are economic refugees and they should be screened out . I'm all for it, but not by the orwellian "enhanced screening process" thanks. Again, we're better than that.

You might be fascinated to learn that the UNHCR provided an important qualification in their 2011 issue of the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Guidelines for RSD. They noted the distinction is “sometimes blurred”.

“Behind economic measures affecting a person’s livelihood there may be racial, religious or political aims or intentions directed against a particular group.”
The handbook goes on to note that “objections to general economic measures are not by themselves good reasons for claiming refugee status. On the other hand, what appears at first sight to be primarily an economic motive for departure may in reality also involve a political element, and it may be the political opinions of the individual that expose him to serious consequences, rather than his objections to the economic measures themselves”.

As signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, we have an obligation to hear each asylum seeker before presuming that their claim for refugee status is not valid because of their nationality or ethnic origin. Did you know that ?

All meaningless bleeding heart babble.

I also think that Australia has additional responsibilities to refugees from countries where Australian defence personnel have been deployed in "conflict" situations. Our record in this regard is poor. How embarrassing will it be later this year when we chair the G20 when other countries are doing their bit and we're not.

Not very. No one that comes here for the G20 will give a shit.

Ok so why throw in the the ad hominem attack ? It confuses me why you need to this :lol: are you aware that at the end of anything you post like this, you attack my character or beliefs in advance ? A bit like discrediting my point of view before I even post it. You attempt to undermine what I say before I even say it.

It's funny, that's why. And seriously, that's it: I'm just having a bit of fun. Laughing at idiotic leftoids is one of my favourite pastimes.

**********

Basically, you haven't made a single valid point.

Let me make this very simple: At the end of the Howard government there were 4 people in detention and zero - ZERO - children.

You and your frothing, self-righteous bleeding hearts co-morons are responsible for all the atrocities that have happened since. The detention, the drowning, the people smugglers...all have come because you dismantled an effective system...a system that also saw us taking a full quota of asylum seekers.

Now we need to enact harsh measures to try and get a return to where we were in 2007 where, once again, there was almost non-existent detention (and so no self-harm etc), no children in detention, no people drowning and no people smugglers making a motza.

You don't like it? Tough f**king shit.

If this works, we'll be back to minimal, if not zero, detention, NO CHILDREN in detention, no people drowning and no criminals making millions from people smuggling. We'll take refugees from regional centres and do our bit, just like we always have.

The only argument that can be put forward for any change is to increase the quota. That's a perfectly valid argument but a quota just means more from regional centres, so still shutting down people smuggling.

All you have shown is further proof that you are a clueless, self-preening, self-annointed morally superior fool. I don't care if you feel that is attacking your character because it is a statement of the truth.

YOUR ideas have led to people drowning. YOUR ideas see children in detention. YOUR ideas give millions to people smugglers. YOUR ideas risk refugee spots being taken by people who don't deserve them. YOUR ideas have cost this government, and the taxpayers, money.

YOU are the problem. I am the solution.

 

[Gronk]

So? Bump it back up if you want. It's still a quota and so still needs control, which means people can't decide that they are going to come here.

So even doubling the quota to 27,000 means we need to stop the boats.

Exactly.

If you think that boat arrivals aren't slowing then you're a fool. There will occasionally be some idiots who try but this needs to be kept to a minimum and the government is doing that whether you want to believe it or not.

There is an easy answer: be harsh merkins.

It's not nice but it's very simple.

Labor returned hundreds of Sri Lankans. The lot just returned by the Coalition were shown to be people seeking to take a refugee spot simply so they can earn more money here.

In short, f**k 'em.

Sounds pretty succinct and efficient to me.

We are. That's why we stop the boats, stop people drowning, stop criminal organisations from making millions and go to regional processing centres to find refugees.

Under my system, we still take the exact same amount of refugees. It's just more humane (no drownings or offshore detention) and costs less to the Australian people.


All meaningless bleeding heart babble.

Not very. No one that comes here for the G20 will give a shit.

It's funny, that's why. And seriously, that's it: I'm just having a bit of fun. Laughing at idiotic leftoids is one of my favourite pastimes.

**********

Basically, you haven't made a single valid point.

Let me make this very simple: At the end of the Howard government there were 4 people in detention and zero - ZERO - children.

You and your frothing, self-righteous bleeding hearts co-morons are responsible for all the atrocities that have happened since. The detention, the drowning, the people smugglers...all have come because you dismantled an effective system...a system that also saw us taking a full quota of asylum seekers.

Now we need to enact harsh measures to try and get a return to where we were in 2007 where, once again, there was almost non-existent detention (and so no self-harm etc), no children in detention, no people drowning and no people smugglers making a motza.

You don't like it? Tough f**king shit.

If this works, we'll be back to minimal, if not zero, detention, NO CHILDREN in detention, no people drowning and no criminals making millions from people smuggling. We'll take refugees from regional centres and do our bit, just like we always have.

The only argument that can be put forward for any change is to increase the quota. That's a perfectly valid argument but a quota just means more from regional centres, so still shutting down people smuggling.

All you have shown is further proof that you are a clueless, self-preening, self-annointed morally superior fool. I don't care if you feel that is attacking your character because it is a statement of the truth.

YOUR ideas have led to people drowning. YOUR ideas see children in detention. YOUR ideas give millions to people smugglers. YOUR ideas risk refugee spots being taken by people who don't deserve them. YOUR ideas have cost this government, and the taxpayers, money.

YOU are the problem. I am the solution.

So wanting the refugee issue to be dealt with in an alternative, intelligent and humane manner makes me a clueless, self-preening, self-annointed morally superior fool ? So sad.

MY ideas did nothing. Where did you get that from ? You're assuming that I endorse anything that labor did on this issue in the past. Wrong. I am very much a-political on this. I said above that it was labor's idea to detain in Naru and PNG which I have stated time and time again are akin to prison camps. I have also stated that that their "enhanced screening process" is utter bullcrap, a smoke screen that suggests that a fair hearing or assessment took place. They started this all this with the "Pacific Solution".

I may have not offered a remedy above (if I had the absolute solution I would be a f**king Nobel laureate), but my contribution to this debate is on very much on par with yours merkin. You have done nothing but argue that Operation Sovereign Borders is a cracker of an idea. All you have done is don the LNP colours and waved the pom poms.

As for your childish abuse - again you have resorted to ad hominemin, which is really just playground stuff used by those that are insecure with their intellectual ability . You might as well call me a stoopidhead next time.

PS. You know what shits me most about your heartless stance and KOrnstar's rant, ...

As someone who pays more than the minimum wage in tax, i'm with Abbott on this!

No one else in the world gives a f**k about human life, why should we, on my dime????

I get f**king nothing for the tax i pay, the merkins get the money for free and I'm supposed to feel great about it?

.. is the heartbreaking irony that these refugees (being political, economic, religous, or environmental) come from cultures that would welcome anyone into their homes and feed you the last of their staples. They would offer you whatever they had, because they come from a life where family and community stand head and shoulders above themselves.

 

[Gronk]

Carrie Bickmore was punked last night on The Project. I wonder if Willie Mason drew it ?

 

[Gronk]

Remember how Tony Abbott said that the lawyer who instigated proceedings in the High Court for the refugees was just another labor party stooge created to road block and cause a fuss ?

The Lawyer is George Newhouse and today he embarked on a massive rant against labor, setting the record straight. Go George. Yes mate, they're all agenda driven arseholes.

Prominent Asylum Lawyer Calls Labor “A$&holes” -- link

Do you know who George Newhouse works for ? SHINE LAWYERS, our back of the jersey sponsors.

 

[spiderdan]

if refugees/asylum seekers want to be granted automatic entry into the country all they need to do is say they are good at a sport. seems to be the way to fast track citizenship these days.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

Carrie Bickmore was punked last night on The Project. I wonder if Willie Mason drew it ?

Good old Carrie Dickmore.

 

[Delboy]

Let's agree to disagree on politics

Now, does anyone know why Ken Edwards isn't selected in any team and not on thinker list?

 

[Gronk]

Let's agree to disagree on politics

Now, does anyone know why Ken Edwards isn't selected in any team and not on thinker list?

It's all a bit hush hush. The Eels office answer most questions on twitter, but was silent when asked about Kenny.

#OMGYouBastardsYouKilledKenny

sam ‏@AzzSam Jul 8
@TheParraEels do u guys know why kenny Edwards is not in first grade or for Wenty he isn't named on the injuried list either


Parramatta Eels ‏@TheParraEels Jul 7
#blueandgold Members, your team list is on its way to your inboxes!

SAMMY EEL ‏@dddddd_dora Jul 7
@TheParraEels whens Manu mau bk

Parramatta Eels ‏@TheParraEels Jul 7
@dddddd_dora You can see our full injury list here: http://eels.co/1mDCczm


Followed by Peter Lim and 3 others
Lisa Mitchell ‏@sydmum24 Jul 7
@TheParraEels @dddddd_dora Just looking for Kenny Edwards he isn't on the Injury list or NYC ?