Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

Remove this Banner Ad

Taylor said:
The fact checkers labelled Hunter's laptop as a fake story because the FBI told everyone it was, while they had it, while they knew it was real.

That should scare everyone equally. Either the side you feel closer aligned to is the target of government agency interference or is being protected by government agency to protect their political interests.

Unaccountable people in positions of power like that should be a problem for all. Five to ten year term limits for all of the people in management of any government department or agency.


...oh, and no politicans able to work for a group they were lobbied by ever.
Click to expand...
Can we just start at the beginning and get a list of the 'fact checkers', what they said etc so we can all be seeing the same information?
 
Bicco said:
For someone big on facts, how about you post some links to backup up what you're saying? A reposted comment is not a fact, it basically hearsay. The 1st thing you need to do is post a link to the research otherwise you haven't posted a fact, you've posted a comment which maybe or may not be true. Get it?
If someone posts a comment that the Himalayas are taller than the Australian Alps and someone replies 'Why is that?', I don't see that as 'turning the discussion '.
Go ahead and post all of the fact checking info you like on Hunters laptop. To be clear, that's not articles about it saying that the story is being censored by the FBI or whatever, it's a fact checking organisation saying that the story isn't true. Make Sense?
Click to expand...

I agree - yet you didn’t ask for a link. Which you could have done. You immediately started a bad faith argument. Now you are back tracking.

I have spotty at best reception. So search Harvard study fact checkers and you should find it. 😀
 
poshman said:
I agree - yet you didn’t ask for a link. Which you could have done. You immediately started a bad faith argument. Now you are back tracking.

I have spotty at best reception. So search on study fact checkers and you should find it. 😀
Click to expand...
Why should I ask for a link, it should automatically be done by you, the poster, to back up what you're saying.
Asking why a statistic exists, in response to a post saying that it does, is hardly 'arguing in bad faith'.
Producing the link to the Harvard study and the fact checking on Hunters Laptop is your homework, not mine. But thanks for the offer.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Bicco said:
Why should I ask for a link, it should automatically be done by you, the poster, to back up what you're saying.
Asking why a statistic exists, in response to a post saying that it does, is hardly 'arguing in bad faith'.
Producing the link to the Harvard study and the fact checking on Hunters Laptop is your homework, not mine. But thanks for the offer.
Click to expand...
Again that is not what you did. You are attempting to re-write history.

At least you have now come at it from a somewhat sane position. I will do it when back from holidays. I can load big footy but not Kayo, FB or insta down here. One bar or reception. If no one else has done so before Tuesday I’ll do it then. Appreciate your deciding to have the discussion in better faith now. Thank you.
 
The Feeder Club said:
Well before the gormless seven justices of the High Court intervened we had a solution of sorts that didn't provoke a diplomatic incident - indefinite detention
Click to expand...
Which is pretty much what is occurring "over there" in terms of the incarceration of former ISIL members. Including Australians, which some groups are pressuring the government into bring back "home" but the government are loathe to do.
There are children involved, which muddies the water, along with the conditions under which indefinite detention is practised.

It's the flipside I wanted to bring into consideration. Reciprocal obligations, as it were.

In the UK, they stripped Jemima Begum of her citizenship, leaving her effectively stateless, which is an unusual move for a Western nation but prevented them from having to worry about her. Her husband is being held by the Kurds, and her children are dead, which removes them from consideration.

With respect to foreign nationals who apply for asylum in Australia, the circumstances are a bit different, but the drive behind repatriating citizens remains the same.

If the price for repatriating asylum seekers who commit crimes in Australia is the repatriation of Australian ISIL members under some sort of reciprocal agreement, would we agree to it?
 
Episode IV said:
Which is pretty much what is occurring "over there" in terms of the incarceration of former ISIL members. Including Australians, which some groups are pressuring the government into bring back "home" but the government are loathe to do.
There are children involved, which muddies the water, along with the conditions under which indefinite detention is practised.

It's the flipside I wanted to bring into consideration. Reciprocal obligations, as it were.

In the UK, they stripped Jemima Begum of her citizenship, leaving her effectively stateless, which is an unusual move for a Western nation but prevented them from having to worry about her. Her husband is being held by the Kurds, and her children are dead, which removes them from consideration.

With respect to foreign nationals who apply for asylum in Australia, the circumstances are a bit different, but the drive behind repatriating citizens remains the same.

If the price for repatriating asylum seekers who commit crimes in Australia is the repatriation of Australian ISIL members under some sort of reciprocal agreement, would we agree to it?
Click to expand...

I don't know enough of the details on the ISIL detainees to comment with any authority. In the end I am sure governments at either end are quite happy with indefinite detention as a solution to a big problem. In our case an interventionist high court butted in. Not sure which countries the ISIL members are detained in - but it might be fair to assume their high courts may be less likely to intervene in their government decisions.
The Begum case is interesting, but my understanding is she was a dual citizen?
 
The Feeder Club said:
I don't know enough of the details on the ISIL detainees to comment with any authority. In the end I am sure governments at either end are quite happy with indefinite detention as a solution to a big problem. In our case an interventionist high court butted in. Not sure which countries the ISIL members are detained in - but it might be fair to assume their high courts may be less likely to intervene in their government decisions.
The Begum case is interesting, but my understanding is she was a dual citizen?
Click to expand...
Not dual, no. There was talk that since her parents were Bangladeshi, she could claim Bangladeshi nationality as a result - not sure of the legality but I think I read something their acceptance of her as a citizen anyway. Requires approval from the Bangladesh government or something, not sure about the details, but she is not at this point a dual citizen.
She's stateless.
Husband is also arguing they should both be permitted to live in Denmark as well, I'd say fat chance of that unless the Danes have gone full woke as well.
 
Episode IV said:
Not dual, no. There was talk that since her parents were Bangladeshi, she could claim Bangladeshi nationality as a result - not sure of the legality but I think I read something their acceptance of her as a citizen anyway. Requires approval from the Bangladesh government or something, not sure about the details, but she is not at this point a dual citizen.
She's stateless.
Husband is also arguing they should both be permitted to live in Denmark as well, I'd say fat chance of that unless the Danes have gone full woke as well.
Click to expand...
Interesting. On the surface I can't agree with the right of a government to cancel the citizenship of one of their own natural born citizens if they are not dual-national citizens of another country. That's bizarre.
 
The Feeder Club said:
Interesting. On the surface I can't agree with the right of a government to cancel the citizenship of one of their own natural born citizens if they are not dual-national citizens of another country. That's bizarre.
Click to expand...
One might argue that citizenship was voluntarily relinquished.
 
Episode IV said:
Ever thought about taking your tiresome crap to SRP where it belongs, huskii? Or are they bored with you there as well?
Click to expand...
Have you ever encountered a poster that reminds you more of one of those little yapping terrier dogs than him? Stupid, annoying, attention seeking and never shuts up.
 
Episode IV said:
Ever thought about taking your tiresome crap to SRP where it belongs, huskii? Or are they bored with you there as well?
Click to expand...

I don't post on their champ

You post tiresome biased crap. I post facts. Straight out of the mouth of people living it from both sides of the fence yet your pro Israeli government position has you blinded by reality.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bicco said:
Can we just start at the beginning and get a list of the 'fact checkers', what they said etc so we can all be seeing the same information?
Click to expand...
It's quite annoying that the details of these "studies" aren't always available.
Some times you can download them though (many behind a university membership or a paywall of some sort), and when I do find something I'll often find something to quibble with in the data sets used. It's very difficult to find anything in which to fully believe.

The only reason I'd tentatively indicate belief in this particular study (if not necessarily the exact figure of 85%) is due to being able to see it in action. I make a point of looking into this type of thing.
Sometimes, it comes down to a statement made which can then be at least partially agreed with by dint of observation. And, of course, sometimes it's difficult to figure out why a study is even needed to begin with, as I noted earlier.

When reading Ground News and similar sites, I find myself reading left wing news outlets more than I do the right wing ones, as long as they're rated well, and I do like to have a look at what's considered a blind spot on either side.
The international aspect is also often valuable. Australian (and US) news sites are too often devoid of much in the way of actual information and loaded with comment I'm not particularly interested in.
 
Last edited:
Episode IV said:
Yes, the "nowhere to go" thing.

Why should Australia assume responsibility for people no one else wants to?
What would happen, realistically, if we simply put them on a plane and sent them back anyway? A diplomatic incident?
Click to expand...
So you're chill with deporting a Rohingya person to Myanmar? Yikes.
 
Episode IV said:
Ever thought about taking your tiresome crap to SRP where it belongs, huskii? Or are they bored with you there as well?
Click to expand...

The Feeder Club said:
Have you ever encountered a poster that reminds you more of one of those little yapping terrier dogs than him? Stupid, annoying, attention seeking and never shuts up.
Click to expand...
lol and you guys bemoan the SRP thread for being intolerant of different views.
 
wahooo said:
So you're chill with deporting a Rohingya person to Myanmar? Yikes.
Click to expand...
Do you think that comment is really worth responding to, wahoo?
I think I've made it fairly clear that the nuances of the situation are there, in the side-discussion I've been having with Feeder.
Perhaps you missed it. Perhaps you're so eager to have a go you've made the simple mistake of only reading the headlines.
Wouldn't be new territory for you, would it.

*edit - but just to make it perfectly clear for you: If a Rohingya person sought asylum here, and committed a serious offence, for example rape or kiddy fiddling, then no, Wahoo. I could not give a toss what happened to them if they were sent back to Myanmar.
 
Last edited:
wahooo said:
lol and you guys bemoan the SRP thread for being intolerant of different views.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between a difference of opinion, and simple ignorance. Not every view deserves respect, particularly not those which are more ideologically driven than informed opinion.
And why is it, Wahoo, that you even need to be told that?

You need to stop hiding behind this "different viewpoint" schtick. Not all viewpoints have equal value.
 
Last edited:
wahooo said:
lol and you guys bemoan the SRP thread for being intolerant of different views.
Click to expand...
Nah. I'm more interested in reading views that are different to mine on here, the best posts are the well reasoned ones that challenge me or inform me of something new I didn't know. Please bring them on - where have you been? 😁

I've just never seen that yet from KH. He's well out of his depth as well as being a pathetic little yapper that's been following me around on the board for months calling me square peg, as if that's some ****ing giant revelation - a mod tagged me the first post I made, everyone knows it. Someone told me he's a school teacher. If that's true, god help the education system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top