Australian Federal Election 2010

[Hallo Alfie]

Another lie exposed.

For example, Australia’s top five trading partners—China, Japan, the United States, the Republic of Korea and India and another six of our top twenty trading partners have implemented or are piloting carbon trading or taxation schemes.

http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/australia-not-alone-climate-change-action

Ahem.

Obama confirmed yesterday there was no plans for a trading scheme or tax; but they were - if anything - trialing a Tony Abbott style direct action scheme.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...nce-barack-obama/story-fn59niix-1226197309213

Mr Obama lauded the Prime Minister's $23-a-tonne carbon tax as "bold", but said the US was acting on climate change by funding alternative energy research and cutting car emissions - a strategy similar to Tony Abbott's direct action policy, attacked by Ms Gillard as inadequate.

and

Mr Obama was asked whether the US would adopt a national carbon tax within the next five years. “In the US, although we haven’t passed what we call a cap-and-trade system, an exchange, what we have done is, for example, taken steps to double fuel-efficiency standards on cars, which will have an enormous impact on removing carbon from the atmosphere,” the President said.

“We’ve invested heavily in clean-energy research ... “

 

[Sceptic-PK]

The planet is going through a cycle that's been going on for millions of years and will continue to do so for another million years. That's my two cents worth.

Jeez, what is it with Hawks supporters and their AGW denialism? On behalf of my brothers I do apologise.

 

[Wildy]

Thanks for the clarification and the strengthening of my point.

What that when most of your power is generated through non-carbon means there's no point taxing energy production?

We are not allowed to have hydro or nuclear, so instead we will simply sabotage our entire economy. Smart huh?

Australia doesn't have hydro? Really? You'd better tell the AIE who seem to be under the impression that 10% of Australia's power is generated through hydro. Or perhaps you should talk to Geoscience Australia?

I am not sure why you think they have "no right to one", nor why (it seems) that those that come by boat because they have money and geography have a greater right.

I have already explained this in a post before your hissy fit. I see no reason why I should repeat myself.

And until you come up with a better word for queue, I think we can safely use it, don't you?

If you want to completely ignore how Australia's humanitarian programme actually works then sure.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

What that when most of your power is generated through non-carbon means there's no point taxing energy production?

No, silly. The point was we are not comparing apples and apples are we?

Australia doesn't have hydro? Really? You'd better tell the "http://aie.org.au/Content/NavigationMenu/Resources/SchoolProjects/FS6_HYDRO_ELECTRICITY.pdf"]AIE[/URL] who seem to be under the impression that 10% of Australia's power is generated through hydro. Or perhaps you should talk to Geoscience Australia?

You are correct, I mispoke - I should have said new Hydro. And we aren't allowed either new hydro (dams are bad m'kay) nor nuclear (nuclear is bad too m'kay).

I have already explained this snip ... I see no reason why I should repeat myself.

Maybe because it didn't make sense then, nor does it now. The question is why you think those that arrive by boat have more rights than those waiting in refugee camps abroad?

If you want to completely ignore how Australia's humanitarian programme actually works then sure.

Or you want to avoid answering the question and/or finding a better word.
Until then we can use queue, fair enough?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Another lie exposed.

For example, Australia’s top five trading partners—China, Japan, the United States, the Republic of Korea and India and another six of our top twenty trading partners have implemented or are piloting carbon trading or taxation schemes.

http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/australia-not-alone-climate-change-action

Ahem.

Obama confirmed yesterday there was no plans for a trading scheme or tax; but they were - if anything - trialing a Tony Abbott style direct action scheme.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...nce-barack-obama/story-fn59niix-1226197309213

Mr Obama lauded the Prime Minister's $23-a-tonne carbon tax as "bold", but said the US was acting on climate change by funding alternative energy research and cutting car emissions - a strategy similar to Tony Abbott's direct action policy, attacked by Ms Gillard as inadequate.

and

Mr Obama was asked whether the US would adopt a national carbon tax within the next five years. “In the US, although we haven’t passed what we call a cap-and-trade system, an exchange, what we have done is, for example, taken steps to double fuel-efficiency standards on cars, which will have an enormous impact on removing carbon from the atmosphere,” the President said.

“We’ve invested heavily in clean-energy research ... “

All those US states that currently have or are planning to have cap and trade schemes don’t count?

 

[Wildy]

Maybe because it didn't make sense then, nor does it now.

Then instead of complaining why don't you come up with a counter argument showing how I'm wrong?

The question is why you think those that arrive by boat have more rights than those waiting in refugee camps abroad?

I have already explained why I think that.

 

[amb]

The do-gooders of this country, and there's a fair few right her on this thread, will be responsible for the demise of a once thriving country that failed to learn from others mistakes. The Germans and the French have admited that their past mistakes of multiculturalism has failed. Why can't that be seen here? Why is a blind eye been turned to this problem while we still have the opportunity to do something about it. Westerners and Easterners are a cosmos apart, and never can the twain be met.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

All those US states that currently have or are planning to have cap and trade schemes don’t count?

Ask their president. Perhaps he is lying or just forgot them.

Then instead of complaining why don't you come up with a counter argument showing how I'm wrong?

Its kinda hard to argue when it doesn't make sense. [/quote]

I have already explained why I think that.

I don't recall it: When and where? Did it make sense?

 

[wombatwal]

The do-gooders of this country, and there's a fair few right her on this thread, will be responsible for the demise of a once thriving country that failed to learn from others mistakes. The Germans and the French have admited that their past mistakes of multiculturalism has failed. Why can't that be seen here? Why is a blind eye been turned to this problem while we still have the opportunity to do something about it. Westerners and Easterners are a cosmos apart, and never can the twain be met.

My wife is from the east, we have a great blend of cultures in our house. I get on very well with my in laws, who are not in Australia. And we are not cosmos apart. Go open your eyes Amb, to the very happy mixed marriages that this country has. I think you are very ignorant on this topic.

 

[Wildy]

Its kinda hard to argue when it doesn't make sense.

How doesn't it make sense? Is it because it's something that doesn't fit your preconceived notions?

Then again it seemed to make enough sense for you about a week ago when you read it and then just cried "pull factor".

 

[amb]

My wife is from the east, we have a great blend of cultures in our house. I get on very well with my in laws, who are not in Australia. And we are not cosmos apart. Go open your eyes Amb, to the very happy mixed marriages that this country has. I think you are very ignorant on this topic.

For every successful interrelation between east and west, there are many more that are not. Perhaps 1 out 10? And that is between non secular people. A true follower of islam is not allowed a interrelation with a westerner.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

How doesn't it make sense? Is it because it's something that doesn't fit your preconceived notions?

Then again it seemed to make enough sense for you about a week ago when you read it and then just cried "pull factor".

Maybe you could try explaining it again with small words and short sentences. That might help.

 

[Wildy]

For every successful interrelation between east and west, there are many more that are not. Perhaps 1 out 10? And that is between non secular people. A true follower of islam is not allowed a interrelation with a westerner.

Source?

 

[Wildy]

Maybe you could try explaining it again with small words and short sentences. That might help.

No. The last time I explained it with small words and short sentences you demanded evidence. Then after I provided evidence you had a hissy fit. What makes me think that you'll do any different?

Right now all I see is someone who is trying so hard to keep his preconceived notions alive despite all the evidence being against him.

 

[wombatwal]

For every successful interrelation between east and west, there are many more that are not. Perhaps 1 out 10? And that is between non secular people. A true follower of islam is not allowed a interrelation with a westerner.

Where is your evidence for that statement about 1 in 10 are the only successful marriages please.
Islam is not a race it is a religion.

 

[amb]

How many people do you think are not muslim in say, Iran, Iraq, Arabia. etc.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No. The last time I explained it with small words and short sentences you demanded evidence. Then after I provided evidence you had a hissy fit. What makes me think that you'll do any different?

Right now all I see is someone who is trying so hard to keep his preconceived notions alive despite all the evidence being against him.

LOL
What I see is someone who (as usual) cannot support their own arguments.

 

[Wildy]

LOL
What I see is someone who (as usual) cannot support their own arguments.

Ahem:

My claim was that we have international obligations to asylum seekers.

Now the right to claim asylum comes from Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which explicitly gives people the right to apply for asylum.

Thus we have to determine their status in order to see whether treaties such as the RC apply to those seeking asylum because not doing so and just sending back to where they came from as well as potentially violating, in this case, the RC but would also violate other treaties such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties¹. The Australian Lawyers for Human Rights listed in chapter 2 (specifically pp.7-9) the various rights people have under the conventions that Australia has ratified.

All the treaties mentioned in the ALHR paper all have sections that are designed to protect people from refoulment, the two that have appeared in our discussions have been the RC (article 33) and the Torture Convention (article 3). The principle of non-refoulment applies to all those in our custody, and in the case of the "boat people" has been put into law with Part 2 Division 8 section 198A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

As the UNHCR notes in the Resettlement Handbook, resettlement is not a human right. Australia is permitted to offer resettlement positions to people in refugee camps but they are not obliged to. In fact Australia has criteria that determines who receives the right to resettle in the country. According to this Department of Immigration and Citizenship sheet resettlement is for people "who are in the greatest need of humanitarian assistance". To use your concept of a queue this means that the person who would be next in line can be passed over in favour of someone further down the queue because they are in greater need of assistance.

What's the bet you're going to ignore this because of something stupid like I haven't linked to something containing a specific phrase?

ETA: I forgot you wanted me to say why this isn't a pull factor. Well since I never claimed that it was a pull factor it isn't up to me to show that it isn't. It's up to you to show that it is.

1. Just in case you decide to take the semantic line, a convention is a treaty according to DFAT.

Yep, no supporting an argument here.

Unless you happen to have a mirror near your computer?

 

[wombatwal]

How many people do you think are not muslim in say, Iran, Iraq, Arabia. etc.

Still waiting for your evidence.
You were talking about race, or was it culture not religion.
Yes multiculturalism.
So should you have mentioned the culture and not the religion?
You did mention east and west.
This certainly covers massive cultural, racial and religious areas.
Or does multiculturalism cover culture, race and religion?
So from all of this Amb.
What would your society look like.
Who would you keep out.
On what grounds.
Race.
Culture
Religion
Would you allow Europeans of non English speaking backgrounds.
Ban only certain races, cultures, religions.
Where is your multiculturalism boundaries?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Ahem:

Yep, no supporting an argument here.

Unless you happen to have a mirror near your computer?

sigh...

The question is why you think those that arrive by boat have more rights than those waiting in refugee camps abroad?

And why should those that get on boats and arrive on our shores be given more rights than others who do not have the wherewithall (money and geography).

And if those that arrive by boat are given more rights, do you see that this is obviously a pull factor?