by stan » Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:16 am
by Bully » Wed Jun 17, 2015 5:56 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:And, it would seem, Labor were also paying people smugglers - as they don't want to answer that question. Or are they making some perverse point to highlight the Lib's stance about "commentary of security matters"? If they are, it ain't working.
by bennymacca » Wed Jun 17, 2015 6:06 pm
by Q. » Wed Jun 17, 2015 6:11 pm
Bully wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:And, it would seem, Labor were also paying people smugglers - as they don't want to answer that question. Or are they making some perverse point to highlight the Lib's stance about "commentary of security matters"? If they are, it ain't working.
Good to see at least someone on this forum with me sees that the previous debacle of a government ALSO paid people smugglers....
by test » Wed Jun 17, 2015 6:43 pm
Q. wrote:Bully wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:And, it would seem, Labor were also paying people smugglers - as they don't want to answer that question. Or are they making some perverse point to highlight the Lib's stance about "commentary of security matters"? If they are, it ain't working.
Good to see at least someone on this forum with me sees that the previous debacle of a government ALSO paid people smugglers....
It doesn't make it acceptable.
On what planet do you discourage people smugglers by paying them?
by Bully » Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:32 pm
Q. wrote:Bully wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:And, it would seem, Labor were also paying people smugglers - as they don't want to answer that question. Or are they making some perverse point to highlight the Lib's stance about "commentary of security matters"? If they are, it ain't working.
Good to see at least someone on this forum with me sees that the previous debacle of a government ALSO paid people smugglers....
It doesn't make it acceptable.
On what planet do you discourage people smugglers by paying them?
by Dogwatcher » Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:10 pm
test wrote:Q. wrote:Bully wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:And, it would seem, Labor were also paying people smugglers - as they don't want to answer that question. Or are they making some perverse point to highlight the Lib's stance about "commentary of security matters"? If they are, it ain't working.
Good to see at least someone on this forum with me sees that the previous debacle of a government ALSO paid people smugglers....
It doesn't make it acceptable.
On what planet do you discourage people smugglers by paying them?
Money and politics always overrides human rights, and as long as we've been on this planet it has.
by tigerpie » Wed Jun 17, 2015 11:28 pm
by Bully » Thu Jun 18, 2015 6:45 am
by test » Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:12 am
Dogwatcher wrote:test wrote:Q. wrote:Bully wrote:[quote="Dogwatcher"]And, it would seem, Labor were also paying people smugglers - as they don't want to answer that question. Or are they making some perverse point to highlight the Lib's stance about "commentary of security matters"? If they are, it ain't working.
Good to see at least someone on this forum with me sees that the previous debacle of a government ALSO paid people smugglers....
It doesn't make it acceptable.
On what planet do you discourage people smugglers by paying them?
Money and politics always overrides human rights, and as long as we've been on this planet it has.
by Q. » Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:46 am
by stan » Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:48 am
by bennymacca » Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:05 pm
stan wrote:I just don't see how paying them to turn back will stop them. I would say that it will increase boats in the water in the short term just so they can be paid off to turn around.
by stan » Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:14 pm
bennymacca wrote:stan wrote:I just don't see how paying them to turn back will stop them. I would say that it will increase boats in the water in the short term just so they can be paid off to turn around.
of course they will. especially when the rhetoric has been about not disclosing how many boats are in the water to "ruin the business model" of the people smugglers.
paying them is just insane.
Makes me so angry at both sides of government that they would allow this.
by bennymacca » Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:15 pm
by bennymacca » Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:46 pm
by Q. » Thu Jun 18, 2015 3:45 pm
by stan » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:29 am
by bennymacca » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:36 am
stan wrote:So with the pirate fence looking likely now or closer to something that China would do the question has to be asked when did we go from stop the boats to stop the bits?
by shoe boy » Wed Jun 24, 2015 9:29 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |