Adopt a refugee

[anton]

http://www.news.com.au/national/aussies-asked-to-take-in-refugees/story-e6frfkvr-1226345214230

is it a repost, i don't know, did not check beforehand, but i think i would always wanted some slaves,
idea though... buy an empty house 2 - 4 bunk beds per room cram them in there bar the doors and windows and give them the bare essentials... PROFIT!

[shifted]

Stupid idea.

Enough orphans/kids needing loving caring homes out there/homeless that would suit better assistance. Government can't fix it's own internal problems, thinks throwing money at everything is a solution and that's it? It's a fantastic idea.

Let's just buy them a house next with tax payer money.

[Gonzola]

Can you choose which one? Like get a hot refugee and threaten to send them back if they don't make fucky fuck?

[ReaperSS]

haha i caught up with an good mate on the weekend. Full nazi skin head from the Locko days. Big guy, goaty shaved head, hitler tats etc lots of guns.
He was so happy about this. I asked why does of all people he like this idea. he said.... " One word... SLAVES and when we have had a bad day at work, come home and beat the #@^$% out of them"

Pretty harsh. Lucky he lives in melborne, flew back on the weekend lol

[mav_vlt]

so you get paid to take one in as a slave or you have to pay to have one as a slave?

[crabman]

Mi goreng for a week = $10.50. Feeding is cheap.

This is looking to be quite a viable way to do some home reno's. I wonder if I can trade out brickies for carpenters for landscapers as I see fit....

[Mad_Aussie]

I'd rather find some hot Japanese chicks to bring over that have been displaced by the Fukushima disaster than some smelly goat herders

[wormbo2]

http://www.news.com.au/national/aussies-asked-to-take-in-refugees/story-e6frfkvr-1226345214230

is it a repost, i don't know, did not check beforehand, but i think i would always wanted some slaves,
idea though... buy an empty house 2 - 4 bunk beds per room cram them in there bar the doors and windows and give them the bare essentials... PROFIT!

why would we send them to nursing homes?!

Well, if I did decide I wanted 1 or 2 refugees around the house, as crabman said, put them to work, they won't really argue, and then you feed them and hose 'em off daily and you're still making kesh!!

I'd expect there'd be some sort of government surveillance/ checkups?
Basically FREE security for your home, and if you have a problem, (which you won't) they get sent back to the slammer.

[Mad_Aussie]

Plus, I'd rather see Aussies get given cash to house these people instead of big multinationals like Serco.

[fourseven]

Wow. What about the homeless Australian people? Why aren't the government paying people to take them in or using money toward getting them sorted out?

What a fucking joke.

[TheChad]

because media, thats why.


though i dare say, FOBS will be much more likely to work hard, and not make mess everywhere they go. homeless people tend to either be young crackheads who need to go to rehab or old people who are seriously crazy, and would benefit from a mental institution.

[Brockas]

A refugee is a person who is outside their country of origin or habitual residence because they have suffered persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or because they are a member of a persecuted 'social group'.


A refugee is not someone who leaves their country of origin or habitual residence because they are poor and want a better lifestyle.

[Ryan1080]

LOL @ all the slave jokes!

In all seriousness though, the reality will be that you will find it will be the accepted asylum seeekers who will take the govt up on the deal, not Aus citizens.

Picture this: Mohammed gets through and gets a visa. Gets a govt house to live in. He still has heaps of rellies in the detention camp, so he applies to have them stay in his house with them... would have been enough of a win, except Mohammed also gets a crapload of cash from govt for each asylum seeker he houses. So off he goes and starts calling the rest of his rellies to come over to Aus. They won't stay in the camp, they'll move in with Mohammed. Might as well just open up the border and not bother hey...

[Mad_Aussie]

^ Way, way oversimplifying it there man

As fourseven said though, there are many many more Aussies here that need this kind of support before anyone else.

[fourseven]

because media, thats why.


though i dare say, FOBS will be much more likely to work hard, and not make mess everywhere they go. homeless people tend to either be young crackheads who need to go to rehab or old people who are seriously crazy, and would benefit from a mental institution.

You're correct on the latter and it's usually a result of returning from war.

Most of the people on the streets these days are early teens or mid twenties. The early teens can't get assistance because they are still considered under their parents care. Mid twenties aren't prepared to ask for help because they're too ashamed, and when they do, the pissy assistance the government gives them feeds them for a few days and gets them a bed for a couple of nights but no real solution to getting a job, a shower, and somewhere to wash their clothes for a job interview.

Junkies live with people who will feed their habit in exchange for favours. Rarely do you see a homeless junkie.

[R3N]

I always thought refugees made good Christmas presents

[fsbk]

^ Way, way oversimplifying it there man

As fourseven said though, there are many many more Aussies here that need this kind of support before anyone else.

if you're insinuating that homeless people get a raw deal from the government, then that's 100% wrong: http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/factors/accomodation.htm

as for refugees, we have a problem. they aren't just going to go away, we have to come up with ways to deal with the problem. simply saying, 'aussies first pingpingpingping' isn't going to do fuck all for the refugee problem.

[wormbo2]

Homeless people have (mostly) had their fair opportunity to be a valued member of Australian society, they most likely grew up or moved here in young years, but decided CRACK/DRUGS/T.A.B > SOCIETY. so... Providing anyone can show a better story of the 'reason' they are homeless, I am to assume the homeless fucked up, and have only their decisions to blame for their living status.

If I gave a homeless guy $300/week he'd piss it up the wall or get mugged or spend it in drugs.
Homeless people would have a chip on the shoulder for Australia ("government failed me, rag rah).

Give a stable Aussie $300/week to help a struggling refugee get on his feet, provide the most potent integration available (daily exposure to OZ society/values) and see if he wants to piss it away?
And any refugee who wants citizenship bad enough, will do his best to make it happen.

/uneducated rant

EDIT: fourseven, you make valid arguments, will do a bit of reading and maybe rehash my argument with more info.

[fourseven]

Very uneducated.


if you're insinuating that homeless people get a raw deal from the government, then that's 100% wrong: http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/factors/accomodation.htm

LOL. I'm insinuating they get a raw deal and I was homeless for 2 years. What's your experience or credentials? The internet told you so?

[Macca]

Very uneducated.



LOL. I'm insinuating they get a raw deal and I was homeless for 2 years. What's your experience or credentials? The internet told you so?


Then the police force took him in

[fourseven]

LOL not quite. A nightclub owner got me out of the shit in the end. It's actually an interesting story... I went from homeless to running a nightclub underage in 2 years.

Silly me though. Centrelink totally helps out homeless people. They sorted everything out and gave me everything I needed!

They can build/buy/rent houses for foreigners, but they can't do the same for Australian people who are in just as much need. And people wonder why I can be racist?

[Mad_Aussie]

You're a meth-head junkie tax-theiving scumbag apparently Fourseven, according to the Antilag hive mind

[Buckets]

The assistance available to people who are "not functioning members of society" be they homeless or as a result of substance abuse or mental illnesses (casting a wide net but the Government and most NGO support agencies seem to cast a similarly wide net) is pretty shocking. What services are there are stretched to the limit, poorly resourced and unable to cope with the demand on the system. KRudd promised in '07 was a big focus on providing assistance and support to these people, from what I make out very little if anything happened.

I'd much rather see these people have their problems sorted or at least a genuine effort to get something happening in this area before we start throwing large amounts of public money at this problem.

Tend to our own garden before we go picking the weeds out of someone elses.

[sneazyVYSS]

i bet there not toilet trained either. prob shit all over the carpet

[cplagz]

LOL not quite. A nightclub owner got me out of the shit in the end. It's actually an interesting story... I went from homeless to running a nightclub underage in 2 years.

Silly me though. Centrelink totally helps out homeless people. They sorted everything out and gave me everything I needed!

They can build/buy/rent houses for foreigners, but they can't do the same for Australian people who are in just as much need. And people wonder why I can be racist?

Explains why you are such a pingpingpingping :p

[duste]

i bet there not toilet trained either. prob shit all over the carpet

Wow.

[wormbo2]

thought I had a pingpingpingping opinion P.S: they're*

[Chompy]

Alf Stewart likes this

[TheChad]

You're correct on the latter and it's usually a result of returning from war.

Most of the people on the streets these days are early teens or mid twenties. The early teens can't get assistance because they are still considered under their parents care. Mid twenties aren't prepared to ask for help because they're too ashamed, and when they do, the pissy assistance the government gives them feeds them for a few days and gets them a bed for a couple of nights but no real solution to getting a job, a shower, and somewhere to wash their clothes for a job interview.

Junkies live with people who will feed their habit in exchange for favours. Rarely do you see a homeless junkie.

i apologise for the over generalisation of young homeless people, i had an image of the typical perth city "bum" in my mind when i was writing that, like the guys who've been at it for so long, because of their underlying mental illnesses. i personally rank alcoholism as drug abuse when its taken to that level.
clearly you represent the other side of the coin, those who are willing but not able due to circumstances etc, who would benefit from the help.

as for what you say about the govt not helping those in need in australia, its because the public don't care, they are embarrassed of the homeless here. everyone would rather just pretend its not an issue, and send money to catch kony. they only care about the boat people because its on the news and the political agendas, and they are also told how they should feel about it by the media.

[shifted]

A lot of people probably don't care, but enough people out there do want to see a change. But how do you go forward to change the system when a minority want something done about it?

Seems you've beaten the odds fourseven will being given a worse start - kudos to you Sir.

[TheChad]

Seems you've beaten the odds fourseven will being given a worse start - kudos to you Sir.

anyone else keen to hear the story/who the nightclub owner was?

[urabus]

Has anyone worked out what Serco are charging to look after these kids while they are in the detention centre? I'll give you a hint. The new detention centre up at Northam holds 600 "clients" (you are not allowed to call them inmates) and has 500 full time staff whether there is anyone in the centre or not. Paying a member of the public $300 / week to look after them is seriously cheap. Now do a quick calculation.... Mum, Dad and three kids. In detention for 3 years.... Put it this way. The first number is a $5 and there are another 6 numbers after it......

It is not an easy problem to solve and the usual redneck jokes about just sink the boats or what would happen if we rocked up on their doorstep etc wont solve anything. Its interesting talking to people that work with them and they said that the refugees work out between themselves very quickly who is legit and who isnt. If you are not legit you will get shunned / bashed / alienated as they dont want you impinging on their chances of getting status.

I am not suggesting for one second that we should open the flood gates as I dont want to see my tax payer dollars being wasted but we have to come up with some sort of solution. Lets start with getting rid of the useless, lying, ginger haired diesel dike Gillard and put the Liberal party back in...

Brendon

[sicka]

old mans pension is $340 a fortnight... super offensive.

and they wonder why pingpingpingpings especially the older generations take such issue

[Mad_Aussie]

I am not suggesting for one second that we should open the flood gates as I dont want to see my tax payer dollars being wasted but we have to come up with some sort of solution. Lets start with getting rid of the useless, lying, ginger haired diesel dike Gillard and put the Liberal party back in...


So, you're all for the idea of saving money in this area (housing fugi's with the public), but want the Libs back (who were the ones that pushed for the Serco system in the first place).... Riiight.

[urabus]

So, you're all for the idea of saving money in this area (housing fugi's with the public), but want the Libs back (who were the ones that pushed for the Serco system in the first place).... Riiight.

I am merely suggesting that there were less boats when uncle johnny was incharge which alleviated much of the issue for these detention centres in the first place. This one in Northam is costing circa $300 000 per person in terms of captial cost so anything you can do to reduce the numbers is probably going to be a good thing. Simply building more detention centres is not the solution.

Brendon

[Mad_Aussie]

Really? The UN reported that the number of asylum seekers has fallen some 10% over the last year.. And we take on s.f.a asylum seekers compared to other nations...

[SircatmaN]

Really? The UN reported that the number of asylum seekers has fallen some 10% over the last year.. And we take on s.f.a asylum seekers compared to other nations...

That would be on a worldwide scale, as for just Australia its a well documented fact that the amount of boats arriving is alot more, mainly due to the fact they know that that wont be turned back anymore.

[shifted]

Population of America >300million. Population of Australia >20million.

Are the numbers based on comparison to population in the country considered ie. how many are taken in compared to the nation's population or on a different scale?

[Douche Bag]

http://images.wikia.com/americandad/images/c/c2/Camp_Refugee.jpg

[newbie101]

You dont want to see Australias intake of refugees balanced per capita.

It makes for some embarrasing reading for almost every first world country. The 3 largest refugee nations (housing them, not generating them) is currently Pakistan, Syria and Kenya.


Oh, and the bullshit emails floating around about refugees getting more from our government are exactly that - bullshit. Only way someone on a pension could end up with less in their pension than a refugee, is if they are partially or entirely self funded.

[Mad_Aussie]

That would be on a worldwide scale, as for just Australia its a well documented fact that the amount of boats arriving is alot more, mainly due to the fact they know that that wont be turned back anymore.

No, it's not. That is a total, total lie pushed mainly by the liberals.

http://www.news.com.au/national/asylum-seeker-boat-arrivals-are-falling-un-report-finds/story-e6frfkvr-1226311266647

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-27/unhcr-says-fewer-asylum-seekers/3915128

http://www.australiantimes.co.uk/news/in-australia/asylum-seeker-numbers-drop-in-australia.htm

We are "bucking the global trend" as they say. We (As in, the west) are creating more wars, which create more refugees, but we're seeing less of them here.

[anton]

http://www.news.com.au/money/federal-budget/welfare-budget-costing-5000-a-head/story-fn84fgcm-1226351467594

Just fanning the flames

[Ryan1080]

No, it's not. That is a total, total lie pushed mainly by the liberals.



Dude, what Australia you live in?

The number of boats have spiked massively since labor came into power. Why do you think we have a problem accommodating them all now? When lib's pacific solution was in place, arrivals dropped steadily to a point, where one year there was only a small handful of boats, as opposed to the dozens and dozens we're getting now.

[Mad_Aussie]

The Australia that has had a 9-10% fall in asylum seeker numbers, as reported by the UN? Where are you getting your figures from?

[Ryan1080]

The Australia that has had a 9-10% fall in asylum seeker numbers, as reported by the UN? Where are you getting your figures from?

Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

Prior to the Pacific Solution, there were 43 boat arrivals in 2001 financial year.

Pacific Solution was implemented, only one boat arrival in 2002.

One boat arrival in 2003

One boat arrival in 2004... etc etc.

Fast forward few years, 2008, Labor in power, Pacific Solution scrapped, 7 boat arrivals.

2009, 60 boat arrivals

2010, 134 boat arrivals

2011, you don't even wanna know this number...

[Mad_Aussie]

And conveniently ignoring the fact that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that there were 43.7 million forcibly displaced people worldwide at the end of 2010, the highest number in 15 years. Clearly it's the government at the time that's at fault for global spikes in the number of displaced people now? In the last year, the actual number of people arriving -not number of boats, as this is not what really matters - reduced. Which is what I'm commenting on.

And taken from the UN, "UNHCR estimates in 2010, there were 358 800 asylum seeker applications made in the
44 industrialised countries1. Of those, 8250 (2 per cent) were made in Australia. The top three
receiving countries in 2010 were United States (55 000) France (47 800) and Germany
(41 400). In Canada there were 23 200 applications and 22 100 in the United Kingdom.".
The problem is not a massive socialogical issue like everyone seems to believe it is. Sure, something needs to be worked out, but this is not something that will go away by running around yelling 'stop the boats'. These people will come here regardless. And it's not destroying our way of life or killing our children or any of the other bullshit points the opposition and a lot of the population are banging on about. There really isn't that many of them arriving, and it's being made into a poilitical point scoring game purely to get ahead in the polls.

[Mad_Aussie]

And also...


2011, you don't even wanna know this number...

Maybe people might. Because the number of boats in 2011 was 69. 69 boats, with 4,572 people in total. Which is a reduction from the 6,502 people the year before. But you don't even want to know that

http://www.safecom.org.au/pdfs/boat-arrivals-stats.pdf

[Ryan1080]

Fantastic... taking the total intake of a country versus the total refugee number is frankly quite retarded. Look at the population of the other countries, there are A LOT more people there to begin with!

I did a quick homework and looked it up. Australia ranks right smack in the middle of all these five. Here's my findings:

Country.....Refugee intake........Population.........Percentage of Population
US............55,000......... 313,508,000...........0.0175%
UK.............22,100 ........ 62,262,000 ..........0.0355%
Aus.............8,250..........22,900,840......... ....0.0360%
Germany....41,400........81,799,600.............. 0.0506%
Canada.......23,200.......34,793,000 ............. 0.0667%
France.......47,800........65,350,000 ............. 0.0731%

So, not as bad as what you're portraying us, is it?

[Ryan1080]

And also...



Maybe people might. Because the number of boats in 2011 was 69. 69 boats, with 4,572 people in total. Which is a reduction from the 6,502 people the year before. But you don't even want to know that

http://www.safecom.org.au/pdfs/boat-arrivals-stats.pdf

Well whooptie do. Still a lot more than the 15 that arrived in 2004, while Pacific Solution was in its full swing...

[Mad_Aussie]

And if you compare those statistics, you'll find that it'll still show we had less fugi's last year than in 2010.
And no, it's not as bad. You've just presented the same information as I did, in a way to make it support your point. You'd make a great politician.

[TJ]

Next thing Ill read on here is that the government is flying soliders over seas and forcing people at gun point onto boats headed here.

[Ryan1080]

And if you compare those statistics, you'll find that it'll still show we had less fugi's last year than in 2010.
And no, it's not as bad. You've just presented the same information as I did, in a way to make it support your point. You'd make a great politician.

How so? I've used a logical method in determining the fairness of the refugee intake number. And I did not support your view, I rebutted it. Your view was that we do not take enough refugees in. I used your data, and actually made a useful logical analysis of it to determine that in fact, we take a lot more per capita than US and Canada!

Blind Freddy will tell you that makes a lot more sense than just looking at the total intake number! With your logic, a country like Monaco with the population of 36,000 people, should have the same intake as US, i.e. 55,000, to make it fair and even yeah? Right... I think you'd make an awesome politician actually!

[Mad_Aussie]

I never said I think we don't take in enough, I'm pointing out that we don't take in that many. And no, comparing the total intake number isn't stupid, especially since we are one of the stand-out economies in the world. Making the statement that Monaco should have the same intake as the US is a truism, and stupid. How about comparing refugee intake based on national GDP - or any similar figure that considers a nations ability to house these people. The amount that this topic is politicised and thrown out of perspective is amazing.

[newbie101]

Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

Prior to the Pacific Solution, there were 43 boat arrivals in 2001 financial year.

Pacific Solution was implemented, only one boat arrival in 2002.

One boat arrival in 2003

One boat arrival in 2004... etc etc.

Fast forward few years, 2008, Labor in power, Pacific Solution scrapped, 7 boat arrivals.

2009, 60 boat arrivals

2010, 134 boat arrivals

2011, you don't even wanna know this number...


Surely you dont actually beleive all the bullshit propoganda jammed down our necks by the liberals?

There are a shitload more factors as to how many refugees we get, than little johnnies policies, and even if there wasnt, how would you explain the 25% INCREASE in refugees in the last 2 years of howards government?

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3886792.html

[Ryan1080]

I never said I think we don't take in enough, I'm pointing out that we don't take in that many. And no, comparing the total intake number isn't stupid, especially since we are one of the stand-out economies in the world. Making the statement that Monaco should have the same intake as the US is a truism, and stupid. How about comparing refugee intake based on national GDP - or any similar figure that considers a nations ability to house these people. The amount that this topic is politicised and thrown out of perspective is amazing.

Wut? So many contradictions in one post lol!

[Ryan1080]

Surely you dont actually beleive all the bullshit propoganda jammed down our necks by the liberals?

There are a shitload more factors as to how many refugees we get, than little johnnies policies, and even if there wasnt, how would you explain the 25% INCREASE in refugees in the last 2 years of howards government?

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3886792.html

Of course, I didn't take these from any sources of "propoganda jammed down our necks by the liberals". In fact, those stats are actually listed on the refugee advocacy sites. Just sayin ;)

[newbie101]

Of course, I didn't take these from any sources of "propoganda jammed down our necks by the liberals". In fact, those stats are actually listed on the refugee advocacy sites. Just sayin ;)

and yet you quote the number of boats coming in, and completely ignore the amount of refugees actually applying for asylumn?

No, not influenced by liberal propoganda at all....

[Mad_Aussie]

Not to mention conveniently ignoring the figures during howards era where the numbers increased, and ignoring the 2011 number but instead insinuating it was higher than 2010, even though you apparently had access to this information?

Clearly not biased.

[Ryan1080]

I never said I think we don't take in enough, I'm pointing out that we don't take in that many. And no, comparing the total intake number isn't stupid, especially since we are one of the stand-out economies in the world. Making the statement that Monaco should have the same intake as the US is a truism, and stupid. How about comparing refugee intake based on national GDP - or any similar figure that considers a nations ability to house these people. The amount that this topic is politicised and thrown out of perspective is amazing.

Ok, so I bothered again... let's compare it based on GDP shall we?

US only, can't be stuffed with the others, but since they take the most, what the heck.

US refugee intake = 55000
Aus refugee intake = 8250

US GDP = 15.094 trillion
Aus GDP = .914482 trillion

US GDP is 16.5 times higher.

If US took in the same proportion of refugees as Australia does, in proportion to its GDP, they would have taken in 136,170 refugees, instead of only 55,000.

Again, Australia takes in more refugees than US, in terms of both the population per capita and GDP amount!

Oh snap Mad Aussie!!!

[Ryan1080]

and yet you quote the number of boats coming in, and completely ignore the amount of refugees actually applying for asylumn?

No, not influenced by liberal propoganda at all....

Ok.. not sure what to make out of that, but here's the detail:

2001 - 43 boats, 5516 people
2003 - 1 boat, 53 people
2004 - 1 boat, 15 people
2008 - 7 boats, 161 people
2009 - 60 boats, 2726 people
2010 - 134 boats, 6535 people

Not sure what your point is though, but I'm not influence by any propaganda. I'm merely stating the facts here.

[Mad_Aussie]

Well there you go, thanks for that. Though it was an off hand comment, I'm surprised you bothered spending time on that - clearly you're pretty into the whole topic. My point was that it's not like we're not financially able to take in some of the global refugee numbers. Our nation isn't falling apart at the seams because of them (regardless of what the Liberal rhetoric is telling you).
It's still a moot point, because when you consider that these are people, and not statistics, we do in fact take in far, far less than most places. Regardless of how you want to present and twist the statistics. And the number dropped last year from the year before. Which was my point.

[Ryan1080]

We take in far less than who? In terms of what? Your point seems to be more about backpedalling than anything else.

You can't ignore other factors when it comes to this. First you say the more the merrier no matter how small the country is, but then when I give an example of a small country and put that in persepctive, you take that back and go at it from another angle, which again fails.

Sure they're all people, not numbers. And personally I have no problem with genuine refugees, it's the queue jumping economic asylum seekers that I have a problem with, as essentially they are the ones who steal the 'spots' from the deserving genuine refugees.

[newbie101]

Not sure what your point is though, but I'm not influence by any propaganda. I'm merely stating the facts here.

OK, last time I contribute to dragging this thread so far off topic, but you just made my point for me.

You are using the same deluded reasoning, half truths and fudged numbers that little johnny and his crowd used (and Abbott is still using) , to brainwash people into thinking the "pacific solution" worked (it didnt) and that it was cheaper for Australia (it wasnt) and that their method of dealing with the influx was fair, equitable and working (it didnt)

For example, your numbers completely fail to mention the 4000+ asylumn seekers that arrived BY AIR every single year of the "pacific solution"

[fourseven]

The Pacific Solution did work. Only an idiot (Labor supporter) says otherwise.

Not a single boat has been turned around since Rudd took over from Howard and abolished it, compared to the dozens while Howard was in power with the agreement of Indonesia. This meant some very angry customers for people smugglers and devalued their service massively. Only about 40% of refugees ended up in Australia during the Pacific Solutions years, as opposed to 80+% now.

The differences between then and now:

1. If you were resettled in Australia you could only get a temporary protection visa.
2. You couldn't sponsor family members/no family reunion rights , now you can/have.
3. Most examinations were robust and took minimum 4 years. Gillard gets them out the door in as little as 4 weeks.

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2011/06/06/1226070/522455-how-the-pacific-solution-worked.jpg

The Pacific Solution was one of the biggest factors of Howard's re-election for his third term.

[Ryan1080]

OK, last time I contribute to dragging this thread so far off topic, but you just made my point for me.

You are using the same deluded reasoning, half truths and fudged numbers that little johnny and his crowd used (and Abbott is still using) , to brainwash people into thinking the "pacific solution" worked (it didnt) and that it was cheaper for Australia (it wasnt) and that their method of dealing with the influx was fair, equitable and working (it didnt)

For example, your numbers completely fail to mention the 4000+ asylumn seekers that arrived BY AIR every single year of the "pacific solution"

Sounds like a Labor voter denial ^^

Did it stop the boats from coming? Yes. So it worked. Period. The reasion why we are in the current situation where we are being swamped is because labor abolished the pacific solution. And they've got too much pride to admit they were wrong, and re-instate it.

Plane and boat are not the same. Last time I checked, in order to fly on an airliner, in most places you need to provide a current passport, and valid visa when coming into Australia, at point of departure. Otherwise they won't let you through. So even if they don't throw their passports and other ID away, like they do with boats, they certainly don't have a visa.

If you're referring to people who overstay their visa, in order to jump up the numbers in your favour, again, not same. These people are not a burden on the taxpayer, and usually work to take care fo themselves. Sure, not the right thing regardless, but it's lesser of the two evils to be honest.

[volt_bite]

Politics, does anyone really win?

[Mad_Aussie]

All the political connotations and arguments aside, the 'Juliar' comment makes me instantly think you're 4 years old when anyone mentions it. It honestly makes whatever point you're trying to get across sound like a childish rant from a kid who's had it's tim-tam taken away.

Edit - fourseven's post disappeared, lols. I still uphold that point though

[fourseven]

Yeah I removed my post because it's not really relevant at this point.

Typing "Juliar" is habit, because it's all you see on forums/comments these days. People are so fucking fed up with her she'll forever be known as Juliar. Nothing to do with childish rant.

[Mad_Aussie]

It's just the name in itself I'm getting at. Sounds like shit kids would say to eachother.

The thing is that I can't stand either sides of politics, purely because it's pretty evident that no decision is made with anyone in mind other than the corporaty lobbyists. Public opinion doesn't mean shit. Just look at the current net censorship bill, the poofter marriage thing, going to war (howard era), etc etc. Even the passing of the airport scanner bill today shows that aside from all the facts and figures, the billions of dollars that company was set to get is still happening, even though 99% of experts say they wont work, and 99% of the public is against it.
Labor, Liberal, it doesn't matter, and it astounds me that everyone gets so worked up about it.

[Ryan1080]

Labor, Liberal, it doesn't matter, and it astounds me that everyone gets so worked up about it.

Labor = unions
Liberal = corporates

Each party has its own source of influence.

Judging from history and my own experience, the nation prospers when Libs are in. That's good enough for me. After all, hardly anyone in labor has any business experience, most are ex union officials who couldn't run a chook raffle...

[TheChad]

Can fourseven tell his nightclub story now?

[fourseven]

LOL!

I won't name names (lets call him Bob) and his club isn't open anymore. I started eating at a cafe in Northbridge on a Sunday morning which was across the road from his club. The cafe owner was 1 of only a few people who knew my real situation and would give me a "big breakfast" for $2. After a few weeks of bumping into Bob at the same cafe after he'd close up his club and come over for breakfast, we had a chat, he found out my situation and offered me a job and somewhere to stay. So I lived in the club as there was a massive living quarters upstairs with shower and laundry facilities. I stacked fridges, cleaned, opened/closed the club, managed staff, occasionally tried my hand at DJing, lighting, all sorts. I was in my mid-teens.

One night Bob decided to get on the gear and overdid it. He had a breakdown and the head doorman and owner of the security company that Bob employed decided to burst his way into the DJ booth where myself and some of Bob's mates were drinking, to shutdown the club. We didn't know Bob was outside about to die but when we intervened to stop this knob from touching the music and lighting equipment he belted me one. At that point I had a tonne of cash saved up as I had zero living expenses. So I let them close the club, packed up my shit, and went and stayed in the most expensive hotel room I could find at the time. The next day I went about getting a rental and a job. Took me 3 days to get a house, 2 weeks to get a full time job. Went back to the club a couple of days later and thanked Bob, had a chat with him etc. Haven't seen him since.

Had the incident with the doorman not happened, I probably would've lived there for years.

Anyway, my point is that the pissy $105 a week you get from Centrelink doesn't help. If you're a male, you're only options are Jewell House in East Perth or living under a bridge. Women and the elderly have a few more options as most hostels/homeless shelters will only take females. Jewell House charges $50 a night, so your Centrelink payment will get you 2 nights if you don't want to eat for the week. I don't know what the solution is for the homeless problem but I know it's not giving them $105 a week and expecting them to find a house so they can live and shower so they can find a job.