Australian Federal Election 2010

[a_unique_person]

Whose poll? Evidence please.

The same one you always refer to.

All the ones I saw last week had basically no change for the past month.

Meanwhile we wait..

Do you have such little conviction in your beliefs that you won't express them.

What would you do with non genuine refugees?
What is the watermelon policy on them?
Why am I not a conservative in your opinion?

As usual you follow the Green line which are big on talk, short on brains.

Why don't you just answer? Absolute and abject cowardice!
At least have the guts to say what you believe. Or is it that you know how stupid it is you have no option but to enjoy the ongoing swim in Egypt?

Man up mate. What can you be so afraid of?


Like my new avatar?

You have such an endearing personality, Alfie.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Why do I need to know why they make that decision?

It was your fantasy, I just figured you would know.

That people leave their families behind? Then you had better tell the UNHCR (page 559, or page 5 of the pdf).

Of course they leave others behind. There is no doubt about it. Presumably they are not refugees in danger of the imminent death that their family members fled.

This is an interesting game of story making we are playing isn't it?

I. Don't. Know.

Maybe you ought to find out before making claims then.

Yes they are different. The people who have come by boat are asylum seekers, their status as refugees has not been determined yet and we are obliged to process their claims and help them under international law.

And they have jumped the queue given they were already safe from imminent danger in their home country.

You seem also to be trying to make a distinction between those in (say) camps in Africa to those that arrive by boats. Are those in Africa not also asylum seekers and refugees?
What's the difference exactly?

The people in the refugee camps, while refugees, don't have the right to resettlement. They have, as I understand it, made their asylum claim in whatever country they are in and have been found to be refugees.

Why don't they have the right to resettlement? How does that make a difference? Does that mean they are not asylum seekers?

How are these people who have made it to a different country any different than those that have fled (say) Iran and made it to Indonesia?

I would assume so.

Which confirms there is a queue (for want of another word).

What word would you think better? I reckon we can safely stick with queue until something better comes up. Fair enough?

You would think so, but New Zealand has the same obligations and they haven't had to resort to measures like the PS.

Are you serious? Have you checked the distance between Indonesia and Australia and compared it to New Zealand. Like I keep saying it is a matter of money and geography.

Why is this not a pull factor (i.e. your confirmation that they are treated with "greater obligation")?

You seem to be supporting my points here.

I've already provided the links, they're the ones below the link to the 2010 report. I've already mentioned which tables to look at .

Actually the links you have provided - as usual - support my claim not yours. It would be an easy thing for you to pull the charts, provide excerpts etc and place them on the forum to show how they back you up.

As it stands, your links support my claims.

The same one you always refer to.

Given I refer to two or three, which one?

Like I said earlier, there is little change in the past month - a one off poll means nothing. If it becomes a trend, then we could pay attention. In the meantime - even if you (and the poll) are right it still means a shellacking!

You have such an endearing personality, Alfie.

Thank you.

Why you can't answer simple questions on things you have a very strong interest in, make accusations about others without anything in support (you refuse to even supply your own logic) or conversely admit you are wrong, defies logic and common sense.

Why won't you answer? I can only think you are just so wrong that you cannot support any of it.

If that be the case, can I claim the points and assume you will remain silent on these things?

What should we do with non genuine refugees?
What do the Greens say we should do with them (I have checked their website and can find nothing)
Why am I something other than a conservative?

This is really a simle thing mate; answer the questions so we can debate them further, or admit you are wrong.

Your silence strongly suggests (read confirms) the latter, am I right?

 

[a_unique_person]

tl;dr

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Condensed version:

coward
questions outstanding
answer please

 

[a_unique_person]

Hey Alfie, I love responding to your questions, because I know you won't.

* Ignore what I said, and just respond to what you wanted me to say.
* Make a stupid 'joke' if I make a spelling mistake.
* Accuse me of wanting to see young children get their heads smashed open on rocks.
* If I'm busy IRL, say I'm a woman.
* Belittle me.
* Taunt me.
* Troll.


You wouldn't ever do that Alfie, so I have no idea why I can't be bothered replying to you.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So just more milksoppish excuses. But why are you whining? It was you who set the tone for our discussions very early on after my arrival at JREF. Reap what you sow as they say.

Why not just answer the questions? They are simple enough. Is it impossible for you to admit you were wrong? Or is it that you just enjoy being fast and loose with the facts (I use the term loosely) with no intentions of supporting them.

For someone who has been here such a long time, how is it you don't understand how the forum works as regard to proof?

What should we do with the non genuine refugees?
Do you know what the greens would do with non genuine refugees?
Why am I something other than a conservative?

 

[a_unique_person]

CBF

 

[Gaspode]

Keep the discussion civil please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And yet here you are responding dodging as you usually do.

What do you think we should do with non genuine refugees?
Do you know what the moron's Greens policy is on them?
Why am I not a conservative - politically speaking?

You have made an amazing run given you started your numerous daily dodgings mid October.

<SNIP>

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited re Mod-box found here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7734958&postcount=4188

 

[Wildy]

Of course they leave others behind. There is no doubt about it. Presumably they are not refugees in danger of the imminent death that their family members fled.

But they're still refugees right?

Maybe you ought to find out before making claims then.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

And they have jumped the queue given they were already safe from imminent danger in their home country.

Then I'm sure you can back this claim up with evidence then can't you?

You seem also to be trying to make a distinction between those in (say) camps in Africa to those that arrive by boats. Are those in Africa not also asylum seekers and refugees?

You do know that you're making a distinction between the two as well. You just prefer to call one group "queue jumpers".

What's the difference exactly?

I've mentioned it many times already, our obligations to them under international law.

Why don't they have the right to resettlement?

Quite simply because no such right exists in any UN charter.

How does that make a difference? Does that mean they are not asylum seekers?

Yes it does make a difference. They are seeking resettlement in a third country from their country of asylum,

How are these people who have made it to a different country any different than those that have fled (say) Iran and made it to Indonesia?

That would be dependent on whether they make an asylum claim or not wouldn't it?

Are you serious? Have you checked the distance between Indonesia and Australia and compared it to New Zealand. Like I keep saying it is a matter of money and geography.

Why is this not a pull factor (i.e. your confirmation that they are treated with "greater obligation")?

If "following our international obligations" was a pull factor then you would expect to see more people going to New Zealand simply because it would be easier and cheaper to do despite the extra distance. They're called "planes" and the reason why you would expect more people to use them to apply for asylum in NZ is because during the time of the PS NZ did not have a requirement that you had to have a visa in order to board a plane like we do (this was changed with the Immigration Act 2009 (NZ)).

Actually the links you have provided - as usual - support my claim not yours.

Explain. You can just say this and use one data point to "prove" it but that doesn't mean that it's true.

It would be an easy thing for you to pull the charts, provide excerpts etc and place them on the forum to show how they back you up.

And what exactly would you accept? You refused to acknowledge the graph I directed you to in the 2010 report instead deciding to cherry pick a value from a time period that I wasn't even talking about (or was the PS still in place in 2009-2010?) and claim that it's representative of an entire time period?

As it stands, your links support my claims.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

But they're still refugees right?

The ones left behind? No. They would be citizens (presumably) of their own country and presumably safe and sound, or they would have left too wouldn't they?

Then I'm sure you can back this claim up with evidence then can't you?

Hey, it's your crazy story - I'm just going with the flow and piggy backing on your suppostions.

You do know that you're making a distinction between the two as well. You just prefer to call one group "queue jumpers".

Correct. That is the only distinction that I am aware of. You on the other hand are suggesting one has more rights than the other.

I've mentioned it many times already, our obligations to them under international law.

Show me.
Then explain why it isn't a pull factor.

Yes it does make a difference. They are seeking resettlement in a third country from their country of asylum,

Which again seems to confirm my point that the only difference is that they are treated differently here - in other words a pull factor.
I thought you were saying there was no pull factor.

If "following our international obligations" was a pull factor then you would expect to see more people going to New Zealand simply because it would be easier and cheaper to do despite the extra distance.

We are talking about boats mate, not planes. By your logic, those that get on a boat to come here could readily get on a plane too? There must be a reason they don't. It's cheaper and safer after all.

Why don't people get on the boats to New Zealand? Because it is even more dangerous that travelling to Australia.

Explain. You can just say this and use one data point to "prove" it but that doesn't mean that it's true.

Right back at you. You need to show me how your reference comes close to supporting your claims. So far you haven't done it.

 

[Wildy]

The ones left behind? No. They would be citizens (presumably) of their own country and presumably safe and sound, or they would have left too wouldn't they?

I mean the ones who leave their families behind.

Hey, it's your crazy story - I'm just going with the flow and piggy backing on your suppostions.

So once again you try to slither out of backing up your claim. Then again apparently you seem to be of the opinion that your speculations are just as valid as providing actual evidence but if I speculate I'm making up "crazy stories".

Correct. That is the only distinction that I am aware of. You on the other hand are suggesting one has more rights than the other.

Because they do.

Show me.
Then explain why it isn't a pull factor.

What exactly do you want me to show you?

Which again seems to confirm my point that the only difference is that they are treated differently here - in other words a pull factor.

Can you show that they aren't being treated differently elsewhere?

We are talking about boats mate, not planes. By your logic, those that get on a boat to come here could readily get on a plane too? There must be a reason they don't. It's cheaper and safer after all.

Then you clearly stopped reading at the word "planes". If they don't have a valid visa they can't get on a plane to Australia. That's one of the reasons why they get on the boats.

Why don't people get on the boats to New Zealand? Because it is even more dangerous that travelling to Australia.

Until 2009 why would they have to? But then it's not as if they haven't tried.

Right back at you. You need to show me how your reference comes close to supporting your claims. So far you haven't done it.

That asylum claims dropped during the period of the PS? In the 2010 report I directed you to a graph which showed the change in asylum claims and you ignored it. What makes me think that you'll accept any other evidence?

Or are graphs, like everything else it seems, not valid evidence when presented by others?

 

[Damien Evans]

Keep the discussion civil please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

OH, why?

You had a perfect opportunity to close this trainwreck of a thread and you give that instead? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I mean the ones who leave their families behind.

I have no argument about them beiung refugees, I don't get your point.

Because they do.

i.e. Pull factor.

What exactly do you want me to show you?

What have you got?

Can you show that they aren't being treated differently elsewhere?

Sure: those in (say) Africa have to wait their turn. That seems to me to be different treatment and a pull factor.

You seem to be arguing both sides of the discussion here, I am getting rather confused.

Then you clearly stopped reading at the word "planes". If they don't have a valid visa they can't get on a plane to Australia. That's one of the reasons why they get on the boats.

Again, I am confused, we were discussing why people don't get on boats to New Zealand. You said they catch planes with visas.

That asylum claims dropped during the period of the PS?

Worldwide - yep. In Australia yep. But not to effectively zero which is what the boat numbers reduced to. Correlation not shown.

In the 2010 report I directed you to a graph which showed the change in asylum claims and you ignored it. What makes me think that you'll accept any other evidence?

I read it, I also explained why it doesn't say what you want. I then directed you to another chart to further explain why.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-07/access-warns-surplus-timeline-in-doubt/3638526

Treasurer Wayne Swan is being told to abandon his plan for a budget surplus in the next financial year.

Economic forecaster Deloitte Access Economics says the budget is heading for a deficit of almost $2 billion in 2012-13.

Oh dear!
Another solemn promise looks like it will not be delivered.

I am certain there are good reasons if they don't deliver; Tony Abbott for one.

Who else could they blame? Oh! Maybe Alan Joyce? Alan Jones? Andrew Bolt? Greece?

They do like to blame anyone but themselves. But before anyone makes excuses for them remember this; they made the promises "no ifs or buts".

Worst government ever.

 

[Wildy]

I have no argument about them beiung refugees, I don't get your point.

Why does imminent danger matter?

i.e. Pull factor.

So why isn't it a pull factor for New Zealand?

What have you got?

Give a proper answer instead of answering with another question.

Sure: those in (say) Africa have to wait their turn. That seems to me to be different treatment and a pull factor.

You seem to be arguing both sides of the discussion here, I am getting rather confused.

That's probably because you have no idea how either the asylum process or the resettlement process works.

Again, I am confused, we were discussing why people don't get on boats to New Zealand. You said they catch planes with visas.

Perhaps you should try re-reading what I said more carefully.

Worldwide - yep. In Australia yep. But not to effectively zero which is what the boat numbers reduced to. Correlation not shown.

Good thing that I never claimed that the drop in asylum claims in Australia was to effectively zero.

I read it, I also explained why it doesn't say what you want. I then directed you to another chart to further explain why.

So your evidence that supports your claim that it doesn't say what I said it says is a data point that is outside the time period in question?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Why does imminent danger matter?

It fits the definition of a valid asylum seeker doesn't it?

So why isn't it a pull factor for New Zealand?

The greater chance of dying giiven the distance. Do you think these people are getting on million dollar yachts with expert sailors at the helm? A lot of them don't make it the (say) 400km from Indonesia to Christmas Island, let alone the (say) 1500km to Darwin; how does (say) 9000 km to Aukland sound on a leaky creaky boat? I think you will find your answer in the geography.

Give a proper answer instead of answering with another question.

It's your claim, you get to support it.

Good thing that I never claimed that the drop in asylum claims in Australia was to effectively zero.

Exactly. You did suggest that the number of boats dropped in line with world wide asylum applications numbers. Given that the boat numbers dropped to nearly none per year, presumably the worldwide numbers were similar. What's that? They weren't. Well I'll be ....

 

[a_unique_person]

Abbott the irresponsible populist.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/abbotts-gross-failure-of-economic-credibility-20111107-1n31k.html

As Access's Chris Richardson says, failure to manage a surplus next year is only politically horrendous, not economically. This was a line in the sand drawn by politicians, not by economists. The danger is that the threat of the opposition's baying could drive Swan to cut harder than is wise, given the continuing global uncertainties.
The outlook painted by the RBA last week was sufficiently dangerous for the bank to trim monetary policy to neutral. It would be a worry if our cheap politics results in fiscal policy being tightened imprudently.
Further out, there are bigger worries if the likely events come to pass and Abbott is elected prime minister and Hockey becomes his treasurer.
Hockey's apologists claim he just has to run with the policies Abbott invents, but that excuse is wearing very thin. Hockeynomics looks like a dangerous cult – a world in which Canberra increases services but cuts taxes, while building up a massive surplus. No, it does not add up.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/mining-tax-has-exposed-abbott/story-e6frfhqf-1226186251139

Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey, who sometimes shows a disturbing tendency to match his leader's cheap populism, asserted that "the suggestion that we should be putting money into the IMF to bail out the eurozone when not even the British are prepared to do so is extraordinary".
But Hockey knew - or should have known - that British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne also had said: "There may well be a case for further increasing the resources to the IMF to keep pace with the global economy."
Within hours of Abbott and Hockey advocating their feral version of economic isolationism, British PM David Cameron left them egg-faced by calling for a boost in IMF funding at the G20 summit in France.
Australia has a vital interest in global financial security. That is why support for Australia's IMF contributions has always been bipartisan - until now.

Conservatives around the country must have inwardly groaned at such ignorance and appeal to the basest sentiments.

Abbott is all bully and bluster, but no sense. With polls now swinging towards a two party prerred majority for Labor, it seems people are waking up to the fact that cheap stunts and vivious attacks don't actually equate to leading a country in dangerous economic times. Cheap and nasty populism may not win out after all.


​

 

[Hallo Alfie]

What should we do with non genuine refugees?
What would the greens do with them?
Why am I not a conservative?

 

[Wildy]

It fits the definition of a valid asylum seeker doesn't it?

What definition of "asylum seeker" are you using?

The greater chance of dying giiven the distance. Do you think these people are getting on million dollar yachts with expert sailors at the helm? A lot of them don't make it the (say) 400km from Indonesia to Christmas Island, let alone the (say) 1500km to Darwin; how does (say) 9000 km to Aukland sound on a leaky creaky boat? I think you will find your answer in the geography.

But didn't you say that money also plays a part? Why couldn't they just buy a plane ticket in Jakarta to Auckland? Why would they need to take a boat? Or does money only matter when they're trying to come to Australia?

It's your claim, you get to support it.

No, I want to know what you would consider an acceptable form of evidence since so far your standards of evidence seem to shift quite a bit.

Exactly. You did suggest that the number of boats dropped in line with world wide asylum applications numbers. Given that the boat numbers dropped to nearly none per year, presumably the worldwide numbers were similar. What's that? They weren't. Well I'll be ....

Again, no, I asked if the people claiming that the PS worked have factored the worldwide drop in asylum applications when they claim that it worked.