|
>> >> >> P>> I'm more concerned about the would-be immigrants to Australia, including
>> >> >> children, that are locked up in prisons in the desert for their sin of coming
>> >> >> here in peace. >> >> S>Hysterical tripe? Absolutely! No-one is locked in the desert. These people
>> >> can leave anytime they want to. All we are doing is preventing them from
>> >> entering one place: Australia. >> "We" is the Liberal Party I guess? My "we" is the global free market, Liberal Party? It was the ALP which introduced mandatory detention for
children. Lefties and born-again-virgins - they like to rewrite history: "I
never did anything dirty like that". >> not the
>> masters of deception (and self-deception) who apparently are your friends. Masters of deception? Ha ha. September-11 never happened. It was a blockbuster
movie which found its way into the wrong cable channel. Right. >> >> >I have the right to stop anyone entering my lounge-room for whatever reason I
>> >> feel like. The fact that they might want to sit in my lounge-room is
>> >> irrelevant. >> No-one's disputing your rights on your own property. You are just denying the rights of Australians to to Australia's property. >> >We have the right to stop anyone from entering this country for any reason we
>> feel like. The fact that they might want to live here is irrelevant. >> I'm sure most national socialists agree with you. ABL and I don't. Well that makes two of you - oh, and the international socialists over a Kindymedia. >> >> >When Alsatian dogs are permitted to tear the flesh off children in immigration
>> >> centers, then I'll agree to a change of policy (probably immediate
>> >> repatriation). If you are so 'concerned' for the welfare of these children, why
>> >> don't you establish a fund for a safety zone in a neighboring country where
>> >> they can live in peace. I'm sure PNG would jump at the chance for a private
>> >> city established for these people. >> I'm concerned about everyone's welfare. That's why I advocate a free system. So do I - but my freedom doesn't include the freedom to other people's
property. You and I might both agree that much of the Commonwealth (ie common wealth) of
Australia should be privatized (ie split into different companies, each with
share trading rights), but at the moment all of Commonwealth Inc is the
property of Australian citizens, and we get to say how it is used. >> >You could fund schools, hospitals, social workers, universities,
>> >> infrastructure, more social workers, training courses in political correctness,
>> >> and more social workers .. all paid for with voluntarily contributions by
>> >> people with their own money. No-one seems keen on that idea. I wonder why. Oh,
>> >> that's right - they want to do all these things with my money. How very
>> >> socially progressive. >> I think you (and I, and ABL) have a dispute with the taxman. Of course
>> immigrants and tourists should come here at their own risk. But they shouldn't
>> be imprisoned. Again, they are not imprisoned - they are just locked out of Australia. Do you
understand the difference between
- Being locked in a cell, which you are unable to leave; and
- Being in an immigration center with the ability to leave whenever you want
to.
It's not that hard, really. >> As for IG's statement that this immigration is illegal - that justifies every
>> law on the books, doesn't it? The problem is that the electoral system doesn't
>> work, and the government has almost no moral legitimacy. We obey legislation so
>> a guy with a gun doesn't put us in prison. So we're back where we started. 87% of Australians agreed with Howard sending the SAS onto the
Tampa. That's a pretty strong mandate.
| 
