Australian Federal Election 2010

[amb]

Ahem:



Yep, no supporting an argument here.

Unless you happen to have a mirror near your computer?

Do you know when that treaty was written? Wasn't it around just after WW 2 ?
Around 1949-51 or thereabouts. It has no bearing with most other nations. It's something Australia can drop at any time.

 

[amb]

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?

Have you read what I posted above? Multiculturalism does not work. Just ask the Europeans! I believe I did post a link.

 

[amb]

Just in case you missed it. Here it is again. Read it. It's not my opinion only.

ww.msnbc.msn.com/id/41444364/ns/world_news-europe/t/british-pm-multiculturalism-has-failed/#.TsT-CPJadFk

That link doesn't appear to work. Here's another.

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/TETVRTI99VFGJIKI0

 

[Wildy]

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

It's because they do have more rights. It's demonstrably true as I've shown.

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).

See the post that you claim "makes no sense".

Why should you deny the rights of one section of asylum seekers simply because you don't like the way they came to Australia to claim asylum?

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

It's not just boat arrivals but all asylum seekers, those that arrive by plane as given just as many rights (and possibly given far more privileges) as those that arrive by boat.

And what evidence do you have that fulfilling our international obligations is a pull factor? Because so far you've provided no evidence that this is the case.

And if "fulfilling our international obligations" is a pull factor, then why doesn't it seem to apply to other countries that have the same obligations such as NZ?

 

[Wildy]

Do you know when that treaty was written? Wasn't it around just after WW 2 ?
Around 1949-51 or thereabouts. It has no bearing with most other nations. It's something Australia can drop at any time.

Since I mentioned many treaties there you might have to be a little more specific.

 

[wombatwal]

Just in case you missed it. Here it is again. Read it. It's not my opinion only.

ww.msnbc.msn.com/id/41444364/ns/world_news-europe/t/british-pm-multiculturalism-has-failed/#.TsT-CPJadFk

That link doesn't appear to work. Here's another.

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/TETVRTI99VFGJIKI0

89% of Australians believe multiculturalism has failed.

That's your evidence?
A poll, as best that I can work out you are on about.
You would go well on a woo site, not a sceptical site.
Anyway, if you want to get rid of multiculturalism, what cultures/race/religion would you not let in to our mono cultural paradise.
Would you kick some people out?
What is the make up of our country.
Oh, by the way, you did not post a link previously to multiculturalism.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It's because they do have more rights. It's demonstrably true as I've shown.

What I think you have tried to show is our current obligations. Your opinions seem to be in line with our current obligations. This seems more like an appeal to authority rather that your opinion.

I think I have to yell the key word here so you understand: My question was why do YOU think that people who arrive by boat have more rights than those waiting in refugee camps abroad?

See the post that you claim "makes no sense".

What for?
1/ It makes no sense to me - I don't understand your point
2/ I want your opinion, not someone elses.

Why should you deny the rights of one section of asylum seekers simply because you don't like the way they came to Australia to claim asylum?

I do no such thing.
What I object to here include:
- the proverbial queue jumping
- the people smuggler market and trade
- more rights for people who exploit the priveleges that come for boat arrivals as opposed to others
- the unfairness just because they have money and geography
- dead babies on the rocks

But I have asked YOU a similar question (which YOU refuse to respond to): why do YOU think that those that arrive by boat should be given greater priveleges than those who don't. Does not in itself create a pull factor? If not why not?

It's not just boat arrivals but all asylum seekers, those that arrive by plane as given just as many rights (and possibly given far more privileges) as those that arrive by boat.

Indeed, I also have a problem with that but there are a few differences, including:

- They have visas and documents, their claims are far more easily validated than those who might throw their documents overboard.
- babies do not die on rocks
- people smugglers have a lesser (or zero market) from what I can tell.

And what evidence do you have that fulfilling our international obligations is a pull factor? Because so far you've provided no evidence that this is the case.

Actually I have provided evidence - you didn't like it. Stiff.
What I have said is that soft laws allowing for onshore processing (etc) is a pull factor. You seem to be confused by suggesting a broad "international obligations" as the reason. But that is you just being dishonest again methinks.

And if "fulfilling our international obligations" is a pull factor, then why doesn't it seem to apply to other countries that have the same obligations such as NZ?

Again, you wrongly use the term "international obligations" - I am talking about boats here. That aside, I have already given you the answer to this. Money and geography - assuming of course that NZ laws are similar to ours
- It is far more dangerous travelling to (say) NZ by boat. The difference is thousand of kilometers in unsafe waters. I doubt even the people smugglers would find crews stupid enough to attempt that trip.
- Even if they could, how much more would it cost?

It is safer and cheaper coming to Australia and our laws make it attractive = pull factor.

 

[bit_pattern]

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

Since February 2007, seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces have joined together to create the Western Climate Initiative (WCI),a regional greenhouse gas emissions trading system.[102] July 2010, a meeting took place to further outline the cap-and-trade system which if accepted would curb greenhouse gas emissions by January 2012.[103]

Then there's California, only the worlds 6th largest economy. Sure, the Fed wasn't able to legislate a carbon price because Congress is dysfunctional (thanks to those on your side of politics in the Tea Party. Well done to you!)

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.

... According to the Australian, who have no problem slipping biased opinion into the news and pretending it's fact. Ahem.

And even if the scheme DOES vaguely resemble the Liberal policy, it is only there because it is the poor second option because the Fed wasn't able to get a more efficient and effective Cap and Trade bill through Congress.

 

[Wildy]

What I think you have tried to show is our current obligations. Your opinions seem to be in line with our current obligations. This seems more like an appeal to authority rather that your opinion.

So if I happen to believe that Australia should do what it's supposed to do then it's an appeal to authority? Do you have any idea what an appeal to authority is?

I think I have to yell the key word here so you understand: My question was why do YOU think that people who arrive by boat have more rights than those waiting in refugee camps abroad?

And I've already answered it several times. So you don't like my opinion, boo hoo. I mean how dare someone come up with an opinion based on the facts.

What for?
1/ It makes no sense to me - I don't understand your point

The reason for that point was because you demanded evidence for a claim.

2/ I want your opinion, not someone elses.

So the next time you want me to provide evidence for a claim I'm not supposed to use "facts" and "evidence" but "opinions"?

I do no such thing.
What I object to here include:
- the proverbial queue jumping

Which, as you've worded it, is someone complaining that something that doesn't exist exists.

- the people smuggler market and trade

Which is a fair enough objection. In this list of stuff this one is the only valid point.

- more rights for people who exploit the priveleges that come for boat arrivals as opposed to others

The people who arrive by boat the the exact same rights as those who arrive by plane.

- the unfairness just because they have money and geography

And? What do you propose then?

- dead babies on the rocks

Appeal to emotion.

But I have asked YOU a similar question (which YOU refuse to respond to): why do YOU think that those that arrive by boat should be given greater priveleges than those who don't.

You did read my last post where I said that those that arrive by plane most likely get greater privileges than those who arrive by boat right? But then you don't like it when I give my opinion because it's not based on the ravings of people like Andrew Bolt.

Does not in itself create a pull factor? If not why not?

Considering that you are the one that is claiming that it's a pull factor, why don't you provide some evidence that this is the case?

Indeed, I also have a problem with that but there are a few differences, including:

- They have visas and documents, their claims are far more easily validated than those who might throw their documents overboard.
- babies do not die on rocks
- people smugglers have a lesser (or zero market) from what I can tell.

So then what should happen to plane arrivals then? Do you think they should be sent back on the next immediate flight?

Actually I have provided evidence - you didn't like it. Stiff.

And where have you provided evidence? Because I'm pretty sure I would remember it. Or is this evidence to Alfie standards where I'm just supposed to consider your opinion as gospel because it's an opinion.

What I have said is that soft laws allowing for onshore processing (etc) is a pull factor.

You have said it, but have provided no evidence that this is the case.

You seem to be confused by suggesting a broad "international obligations" as the reason. But that is you just being dishonest again methinks.

And you seem to be projecting here.

Again, you wrongly use the term "international obligations" - I am talking about boats here.

How am I wrongly using the term "international obligations"? How does that differ between boat arrivals and plane arrivals?

That aside, I have already given you the answer to this. Money and geography - assuming of course that NZ laws are similar to ours

You complain that these people have money, you've admitted that it's cheaper to fly to NZ than paying people smugglers. You have to accept that, essentially, money makes geography meaningless.

- It is far more dangerous travelling to (say) NZ by boat. The difference is thousand of kilometers in unsafe waters. I doubt even the people smugglers would find crews stupid enough to attempt that trip.

But why do they have to arrive by boat? Is "did they arrive by boat" a key factor when you look at the movement of displaced people?

- Even if they could, how much more would it cost?

Well until 2009 the cost of a plane ticket.

It is safer and cheaper coming to Australia and our laws make it attractive = pull factor.

You say this many times, but what evidence do you have?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Since February 2007, seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces have joined together to create the Western Climate Initiative (WCI),a regional greenhouse gas emissions trading system.[102] July 2010, a meeting took place to further outline the cap-and-trade system which if accepted would curb greenhouse gas emissions by January 2012.[103]

So Obama must have been lying?

Then there's California, only the worlds 6th largest economy.

And a basket case economy. Are you sure you want to hold them up as an example of sensible policy?

Sure, the Fed wasn't able to legislate a carbon price because Congress is dysfunctional (thanks to those on your side of politics in the Tea Party. Well done to you!)

Wow!
I had no idea I had such influence.

So if I happen to believe that Australia should do what it's supposed to do then it's an appeal to authority? Do you have any idea what an appeal to authority is?

big snip of silly stuff

Most of which we have discussed previously and I have no intention of rehashing.

For the moment I am going to assume we are simply missing in our language to one another. The only oither option I see is that you are close to being the most dishonest poster I have met in some time. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

In the meantime, my one real question to you remains outstanding. Despite your protests you have refused to actually provide either your opinion or logical reason as to why those in (say) Africa waiting in refugee camps are less priveleged than those that come by boat.

 

[bit_pattern]

So Obama must have been lying?

Or you're too simple minded to get the idea that while the Fed can't legislate a carbon price America can still take action at a local level. One of the two.

he only oither option I see is that you are close to being the most dishonest poster I have met

Now THAT is the pot calling the kettle black, if ever I've seen it!

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Or you're too simple minded to get the idea that while the Fed can't legislate a carbon price America can still take action at a local level. One of the two.

Don't tell me, it's their president that said it. Perhaps you also don't understand that 10 states out of forty doesn't quite cut is as the entire country. You are aware there are fifty states, aren't you?

Why not tell us then of the US states that have cap and trade. The tell us about the forty that don't. How those with them are economically going, and to what extent their efforts are applied.

Once you have done that, tell us when the rest of the USA will follow suit, then China, then India, Japan and so on. Our tax, ETS and modeling is based on those countries following suit by 2016. Guess what, none of them are. Guess what else, another of this governments lies is again exposed.

This country is now being run by fools, but what is worse is the number of morons that believe them.

Now THAT is the pot calling the kettle black, if ever I've seen it!

And hilarious coming from you as it was you I had in mind when I said "close to the most dishonest".

 

[bit_pattern]

Don't tell me, it's their president that said it. Perhaps you also don't understand that 10 states out of forty doesn't quite cut is as the entire country. You are aware there are fifty states, aren't you?

Speaking of dishonest, Alfie, who has ever said that all states would be participating? How is Gillard "lying" for saying that the US is "piloting (a) carbon trading ... scheme" They are. It's called the Western Climate Initiative. The only person lying here is you by pretending that Gillard has ever suggested otherwise.

Once you have done that, tell us when the rest of the USA will follow suit, then China, then India, Japan and so on. Our tax, ETS and modeling is based on those countries following suit by 2016. Guess what, none of them are. Guess what else, another of this governments lies is again exposed.

China and Japan have already committed to implementing emissions trading schemes, genius. They are due to start around 2013 and 2015 respectively (about the same as Australia's ETS)

This country is now being run by fools, but what is worse is the number of morons that believe them.

Suck it up because Labor are crawling back up in the polls and your hero Tony "Tea Party" Abbott seems to be in a death spiral of his own when it comes to approval numbers.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Speaking of dishonest, Alfie, who has ever said that all states would be participating?

The USA is fifty states genius.

How is Gillard "lying" for saying that the US is "piloting carbon trading or taxation scheme" They are. It's ccalled the Western Climate Initiative. The only person lying here is you by pretending that Gillar has ever suggested otherwise.

(as per link provided initially)
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.

And then Obama says they aren't. Is he lying, doesn't know, or just isn't too bright himself?

Please show me the depth and breadth of the USAs "carbon trading or taxation scheme" (psst - fifty states remember?)

I am still waiting on the 10 states already running too, how their economies are going and the depth and breadth of their schemes.

China and Japan have already committed to implementing emissions trading schemes, genius. They are due to start around 2013 and 2015 respectively (about the same as Australia's ETS)

Evidence please, then India, then the USA (which has not changed from fifty states two seconds ago). And then depth and breadth of their schemes.

Suck it up because Labor are crawling back up in the polls and your hero Tony "Tea Party" Abbott seems to be in a death spiral of his own when it comes to approval numbers.

Scary - Gillard had two good weeks and clawed her way back up from a massacre to a mere annihilation. Terrifying.

Worst PM ever.

 

[bit_pattern]

Evidence please, then India, then the USA (which has not changed from fifty states two seconds ago). And then depth and breadth of their schemes.

WTF is "depth and breadth" even supposed to mean?

And India has the mosg progressive carbon tax in the world, which just shows how much you know. You just regurgitate whatever Rupert Murdoch and Tony Tea Party tells you what to believe

India

India sets emission levels for 563 of the country's biggest polluters, such as power and, steel mills and cement plants, allowing businesses who use more energy to buy carbon certificates from those who use less. Trading will start in 2014.

Nationwide, it has a carbon tax (1 July 2010) of 50 rupees/tonne ($1.07/tonne) of coal produced in and imported to India.

In comparison to many other of its Asian counterparts, India's carbon pricing schemes are ambitious. They reflect an urgent need to curb emission rates from a country that – with four times the population of the US, an economy growing 8-9 per cent a year, and surging energy demand – makes it the country with the third highest carbon emissions.

Although it has refused to accept legally binding targets, India has pledged to reduce "carbon emissions intensity" - that is, carbon emissions per unit of GDP - by 20-25% from 2005 levels by 2020. But there are concerns about how both carbon initiatives will evolve because of a lack of data and trained manpower as well as weak penalties for firms that refuse to comply. Nonetheless, India's tax on coal is one of the first carbon taxes enacted at the national level by any major economy in the world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/10/carbon-tax-emissions-trading-international

India sets emission levels for 563 of the country's biggest polluters, such as power and, steel mills and cement plants, allowing businesses who use more energy to buy carbon certificates from those who use less. Trading will start in 2014.

Hmm, now where have I heard of that before?

Scary - Gillard had two good weeks and clawed her way back up from a massacre to a mere annihilation. Terrifying.

Two years is a long time in politics, Tony Tea Party is quickly running out of steam, having proven himself little more than a one-trick pony. and Howard recovered from similar polling and went on to win another two elections.

Only a dribbling fool would read too much into polls taken in the middle of an election cycle.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

WTF is "depth and breadth" even supposed to mean?

You seem to get angry when you don't understand something. Questions can be your friend, you know.

Depth and breadth would be cost per tonne and what is charged.

And India has the mosg progressive carbon tax in the world, which just shows how much you know.

Oh noes:
- $1 per tonne. Progressive indeed in a world market.
- Non binding targets
- Nuclear energy in the mix
- but most of all they talk of reductions in "carbon emmissions intesity". I assume you can explain what this actually means in terms of overall reductions for us oh knower of all things?

Now about those other countries, especially the USA which was where your objections started. Which states, costs, application and economic situation please?

The USA is fifty states, if all fifty aren't in, the USA isn't in. Ask Obama.

Only a dribbling fool would read too much into polls taken in the middle of an election cycle.

Perhaps. But it is only the true moron that would dismiss them with the wave of a hand.

 

[amb]

Jeezus, there are some very stupid or at best very naive people here. The fact remains, that if an election was held this weekend, Labor would lose most of its seats. In fact they may never recover, and if that's the calibre of their members, it may be a good thing.
If the Liberal party gets rid of Abbott, they could possibly win up to 80% of the federal seats in Parliament. Perhaps more.
As for the carbon scheme. No nation on Earth is as stupid as this lot to saddle their economy with a $ 23 per ton carbon tax. This is a Greens initiative. And if this looney left wing party had its way, we would end up not all that much better off than say, Greece, or Iceland. Bankrupt.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Actually, the morons Greens want to take us backwards 120 years or so. They want to close down coal, not have nuclear, have 100% green power in 10 years. None of which is remotely achievable and/or sensible.

They basically want open borders and let anyone in. They don't explain what we should do if (say) a terrorist arrived.

Why the morons Greens' policies are not scrutinised and dismantled more in the press and elsewhere remain something of a riddle to me. Their attitudes are amazing; it's kind of like letting the infants run the household budget. No thought of consequences: We can spend all our money on lollies and the birdies nesting in the back yard without a moments thought for paying the mortgage, educating the kids and taking prudent steps with regard to safety etc.

And what is worse is that this government and PM has bent over backwards to accommodate as much of the stupid as possible. That said, she seems to be getting a bit tougher on them lately, and has risen in my estimation of her slightly because of it.

However, she remains the worst PM ever.

 

[bit_pattern]

Actually, the morons Greens want to take us backwards 120 years or so. They want to close down coal, not have nuclear, have 100% green power in 10 years. None of which is remotely achievable and/or sensible.

They basically want open borders and let anyone in. They don't explain what we should do if (say) a terrorist arrived.

Why the morons Greens' policies are not scrutinised and dismantled more in the press and elsewhere remain something of a riddle to me. Their attitudes are amazing; it's kind of like letting the infants run the household budget. No thought of consequences: We can spend all our money on lollies and the birdies nesting in the back yard without a moments thought for paying the mortgage, educating the kids and taking prudent steps with regard to safety etc.

And what is worse is that this government and PM has bent over backwards to accommodate as much of the stupid as possible. That said, she seems to be getting a bit tougher on them lately, and has risen in my estimation of her slightly because of it.

However, she remains the worst PM ever.

You should write for News Ltd!

 

[amb]

I remain cynical of her motives for trying to differentiate from the loony greens. Come election time, they will be lovers.