Australian Federal Election 2010

[Hallo Alfie]

Except the government itself confirms the correlation and causation; if not they would not want to have offshore processing nor use terms like "lured onto boats" because of our policies (owtte).

It aint just me mate.

 

[Wildy]

Except the government itself confirms the correlation and causation; if not they would not want to have offshore processing nor use terms like "lured onto boats" because of our policies (owtte).

It aint just me mate.

But are there any experts?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

They would be the same ones that say to send back the non genuine refugees I guess.

Meanwhile...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...christmas-island/story-e6frea8c-1226182933435
AN asylum seeker boat carrying 94 people has been intercepted off the Australian coast.

It is understood that the boat was intercepted close to Christmas Island today and carrying 92 asylum seekers and two crew.

It is the sixth boat to arrive since the Federal Government was forced to abandon its Malaysian people swap deal because of a parliamentary impasse last month.

Six boats in less than a month - seven if you count the failed attempt that brought about more dead. You would call that a coincidence I guess (shrugs)?

 

[Wildy]

Six boats in less than a month - seven if you count the failed attempt that brought about more dead. You would call that a coincidence I guess (shrugs)?

It would under the standards of evidence that you set up a few pages back.

Do you believe that these people should just stay in Indonesia?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It would under the standards of evidence that you set up a few pages back.

Untrue. I said that a one off statistic would be coincidence; a pattern becomes correlation.

Do you believe that these people should just stay in Indonesia?

Nope. There is are international agreements in place already to deal with refugees. Australia takes its fair share and I would not be against more coming. What I do not like are people dying at sea through massive amounts of Labor/Green stupid, nor people jumping the proverbial queue because they have money and opportrunity to get ahead of (possibly) more deserving others.

 

[Wildy]

Untrue. I said that a one off statistic would be coincidence; a pattern becomes correlation.

And yet when I was describing a pattern you suddenly decided to redefine it as a "one off statistic".

But that's also neither here nor there since you're using a correlation to prove causation something you said cannot be done.

Or does that maxim only apply to things that you disagree with?

Nope. There is are international agreements in place already to deal with refugees.

So where should the refugees go after they leave their country?

Australia takes its fair share and I would not be against more coming.

How do you determine what is a "fair share"?

What I do not like are people dying at sea through massive amounts of Labor/Green stupid, nor people jumping the proverbial queue because they have money and opportrunity to get ahead of (possibly) more deserving others.

Except that the queue doesn't exist. But assuming there is a queue how would an Afghani or Iraqi join this queue?

ETA: Does the charge of "queue jumping" also apply to asylum seekers who arrive by air?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And yet when I was describing a pattern you suddenly decided to redefine it as a "one off statistic".

Did I? If so I apologise, I seem to recall it as a one off event. One without any supporting evidence or even supporting opinion btw.

But that's also neither here nor there since you're using a correlation to prove causation something you said cannot be done.

Nope. That's not what I said at all.

So where should the refugees go after they leave their country?

Probably a good idea to seek asylum where they are for now - they are safe after all from the evil empire they fled.

How do you determine what is a "fair share"?

I don't.

Except that the queue doesn't exist.

Missed the word "proverbial" huh?
That aside, how do they not? (from your link)

Do boat arrivals ‘take all Australia’s refugee places’?

Successful onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals) usually only make up a relatively small proportion of the total number of refugees accepted by Australia each year—usually in the region of 17 to 20 per cent (except for 2000–01 and 2009–10, when the numbers were higher due to an increase in the number of boat arrivals).

Over the last ten years, approximately 13 000 places have been granted under Australia’s Humanitarian Program each year:

• due to an increase in boat arrivals, 40.6 per cent of the 13 733 Humanitarian Program grants in 2000–01; and 32.9 per cent of the *13 770 grants in 2009–10 were to onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals).41


* So 32.9% of grants were provided to onshore applicants. To me that reads as about 5000 people that are in (say) camps in Africa that could have been taken instead. How would you read it?

But assuming there is a queue how would an Afghani or Iraqi join this queue?

Apply for asylum.

ETA: Does the charge of "queue jumping" also apply to asylum seekers who arrive by air?

Yep.

 

[a_unique_person]

From Abbott's own mouth

TONY ABBOTT: I want to make it very, very clear that the Government is not to blame for the tragedy unfolding in the waters off Indonesia.

Guess that settles it, then.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3354533.htm

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Do you also agree that the Government is incapable of stopping the boats?
Do you also agree with him that the government should change their legislation to include coalition amendments and reopen Nauru?
Maybe you agree with him on this? (from your own link):

If as the Acting Prime Minister has just informed the house it is so important that the Malaysia people swap be put into effect, will the Government immediately bring before the Parliament for a vote the people swap legislation?

If this government is not prepared to put the legislation that it says is necessary to a vote of this parliament it should accept that it has lost control of the parliament and it should do the decent thing, call an election.


Now, what would you do with the non genuine refugees that arrive?
Do you know what the Green's policy on non genuine refugees is? To be honest I have looked and looked and have been unable to find it. I can only wonder why it's not there?

 

[Wildy]

Did I? If so I apologise, I seem to recall it as a one off event. One without any supporting evidence or even supporting opinion btw.

Then you weren't paying attention to what I said at all.

Probably a good idea to seek asylum where they are for now - they are safe after all from the evil empire they fled.

So they should apply for asylum in Indonesia?

I don't.

So then how can you claim that Australia takes in it's fair share of refugees when you don't know what a "fair share" is?

Missed the word "proverbial" huh?

Ah, so you're using weasel words in order to make a claim without making a claim. Gotcha.

That aside, how do they not? (from your link)

Do boat arrivals ‘take all Australia’s refugee places’?

Successful onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals) usually only make up a relatively small proportion of the total number of refugees accepted by Australia each year—usually in the region of 17 to 20 per cent (except for 2000–01 and 2009–10, when the numbers were higher due to an increase in the number of boat arrivals).

Over the last ten years, approximately 13 000 places have been granted under Australia’s Humanitarian Program each year:

• due to an increase in boat arrivals, 40.6 per cent of the 13 733 Humanitarian Program grants in 2000–01; and 32.9 per cent of the *13 770 grants in 2009–10 were to onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals).41


* So 32.9% of grants were provided to onshore applicants. To me that reads as about 5000 people that are in (say) camps in Africa that could have been taken instead. How would you read it?

I would read it as people who made onshore asylum applications were resettled under the humanitarian programme.

But why are the people that are in the camps in Africa more deserving of a place than these people?

Apply for asylum.

How do they go about applying for asylum? Where do they have to go?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

From your arguments above, am I to understand that you think onshore processing is the way to go? That people being lured by lax policies and children drowning at sea is a good or humane thing?

I have tossed in one supporting argument about queues and you seem to be makiview?ng it my entire argument; it's not. My main concern and the thrust of my position is my concern for people dying unnecessarily.

So I ask. What policy best reflects your views?

I have outlined why I support the PS already. What policy do you think best?

 

[Wildy]

Why don't you answer the questions posed to you instead of trying to deflect?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Then you weren't paying attention to what I said at all.

Whatever, I am pretty certain I am right here but will let you show me otherwise.

So they should apply for asylum in Indonesia?

Apply in Indonesia for other parts of the world? Sure, why not?

So then how can you claim that Australia takes in it's fair share of refugees when you don't know what a "fair share" is?

Your own link says we take 2.2%. How many do you think is fair? I'd have thought if we were not pulling our weight it would be something of an international issue. Given our population is something like 0.4% of the global population it seems about right to me. As I also said, I have no problem with more either.

I would read it as people who made onshore asylum applications were resettled under the humanitarian programme.

At the expense of who? Could more people have been brought here had they not landed?

But why are the people that are in the camps in Africa more deserving of a place than these people?

I didn't say emphatically that they were. But why are they less deserving just because somone is better placed in terms of of geography and money?

How do they go about applying for asylum? Where do they have to go?

I reckon they could figure it out; they found the people smugglers easy enough didn't they?

Why don't you answer the questions posed to you instead of trying to deflect?

Done.

Your turn...

From your arguments above, am I to understand that you think onshore processing is the way to go? That people being lured by lax policies and children drowning at sea is a good or humane thing?

I have tossed in one supporting argument about queues and you seem to be makiview?ng it my entire argument; it's not. My main concern and the thrust of my position is my concern for people dying unnecessarily.

So I ask. What policy best reflects your views?

I have outlined why I support the PS already. What policy do you think best?

 

[a_unique_person]

That people being lured by lax policies and children drowning at sea is a good or humane thing?

Good old Aflie. You can't beat a self serving rhetorical question, can you?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Good old Aflie. You can't beat a self serving rhetorical question, can you?

This one isn't rhetorical:

What would you do with any non genuine refugees?

A very easy question for any adult interested in the subject to answer, wouldn't you think?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...push-for-top-job/story-e6freuzi-1226184026989

KEVIN Rudd is being urged by key backers within the Labor Party to challenge Julia Gillard for the leadership as early as this month.

I didn't like all Rudd that much as a PM - an odd bird to say the least, but he was fantastic compared to her. I hope it happens soon.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The ABC's response is predictable and counters

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-03/labor-dismisses-questions-over-gillards-leadership/3616400
Frontbencher Brendan O'Connor says Ms Gillard has the "full confidence of the caucus".

LOL. "Full confidence"; usually code for dead woman walking.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-03/cameron-launches-attack-on-news-ltd/3616902

A senior ALP faction leader branded Rupert Murdoch's News Limited "a threat to democracy" today as the feud between the newspaper group and the Government intensified.

Left faction convenor Doug Cameron's extraordinary outburst was sparked by a story in News Limited's Daily Telegraph reporting that former PM Kevin Rudd is being urged by his backers to challenge Prime Minister Julia Gillard.



Nearly as funny but for different reasons

Liberal Senator Eric Abetz said Senator Cameron needed "liver cleansing treatment" and said he should not blame newspapers for Labor's problems.

"It is no secret around this building that Kevin Rudd is trying to make a comeback and here we have Senator Cameron blaming the Murdoch press for it. I ask you, if that is what he actually believes he is hugely deluded," Senator Abetz told reporters.

 

[wombatwal]

"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead".

This is either a lie or about the biggest broken promise in Australia's political history.

You choose which you prefer. I call it a lie.

What would you do about the non genuine refugees?

It's a broken promise.
Give me your evidence that it was a lie.
Come on man up and give me the evidence.
I assume you know what a lie is?
Man up and give me the evidence or man up and say you were wrong.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I was wrong - it is a broken promise. The biggest broken promise in the history of Australian politics. But the term 'broken promise' is far too soft considering the magnitude of the betrayal.

So for consistencies sake I will continue to call it a betrayal (or a lie).

If you don't like it, too bad - at least you will understand where I am coming from.

Now, maybe others can man up too?