It seems Turnbull is that guy in the middle that everyone seems to like.
noice 

He seems OK, but he became a slave to the machine.KuSTaV wrote:
It seems Turnbull is that guy in the middle that everyone seems to like.
he's had to fight pretty hard inside his own party to change their nbn policy tbh. the news today is pretty revealingKuSTaV wrote:
It seems Turnbull is that guy in the middle that everyone seems to like.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/fe … 6408324421One well-placed Liberal source told The Australian that Abbott would rather see Labor continue to bleed politically with ongoing boat arrivals. If that means deaths at sea continue, he said, so be it.
Doesn't surprise me at all, though I doubt anything will come of this. I've before bemoaned at shit's inability to stick to Abbott, this will be no different. Firstly because this is little more than hearsay but secondly because this attitude reflects the opinion of many Australians who feel that if asylum seeker boats sink and they all drown then Australia doesn't have to deal with them and hey, it was their fault for being there in the first place.Jaekus wrote:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/fe … 6408324421One well-placed Liberal source told The Australian that Abbott would rather see Labor continue to bleed politically with ongoing boat arrivals. If that means deaths at sea continue, he said, so be it.
You'll probably never see me say this ever again but I actually agree with Clive Palmer on this. He's thinking like a businessman intent on ruining the competition that is people smuggling. I've heard it recommended before actually but the difficulty is that it's a solution to the problem of people smugglers and people taking risky journeys by sea, it isn't a solution to "the asylum seeker problem". As a policy it runs the risk of being an 'opening the flood gates' type deal which is ridiculous. If the flood gates open more than they currently are it will still mean that Australia is taking in less than the average number of asylum seekers. No-one in Parliament seems willing to accept this but Australia doesn't have an asylum seeker problem. People get tied up in knots with the Census figures showing above average population growth with I think it was 54% of this coming from immigrants. But why do they think that this is from boat people? Boat people are a tiny fraction of the immigrants who come to Australia, the only reason people think they're such a big deal is because every single boat that arrives is reported hungrily by the media with accurate counts of how many people there are on board. You think they'd do the same for plane arrivals?Spark wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-30/let-asylum-seekers-fly-to-australia-palmer/4102422
strange, strange man
Is it not?Ty wrote:
it was their fault for being there in the first place.
Thats the way the world is. What should Australia, and New Zealand, do exactly?Ty wrote:
Drunkface you don't nor have you ever lived in a place like Afghanistan or in a place where you and your family are threatened with death daily simply because those in power don't like the look of you.
Is there any reason I should respond logically to this? You look like an idiot writing something like this man and it's insulting to both of us. For one it suggests that Australia and New Zealand are the only countries taking in refugees. We're not. In fact we're so far down the list that other UN nations are clucking their tongues at us. I'm not saying that we should take more I'm just trying to give some sense of objectivity.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats the way the world is. What should Australia, and New Zealand, do exactly?Ty wrote:
Drunkface you don't nor have you ever lived in a place like Afghanistan or in a place where you and your family are threatened with death daily simply because those in power don't like the look of you.
Half the Afghans? Take in a few million Kosovans? A few million Tibetans? All the Iraqi Sunni = 10 million?
Then we can start on Africa - should we take the Hutus or the Tutsi? They seem about equally to blame for their problems but we'd have to pick one only or we'd look silly.
The Chinese Uighurs seem to be somewhat oppressed, we should take all 9 million of them.
When China invades Taiwan are we going to take all 23 million of them too?
Up to you really. Its no more logical than your position that anyone who feels unsafe should have a right to move to a new country.Ty wrote:
Is there any reason I should respond logically to this?
I quite plainly said that people are being forced from their own countries. Rights didn't come into it, necessities do.Dilbert_X wrote:
Up to you really. Its no more logical than your position that anyone who feels unsafe should have a right to move to a new country.Ty wrote:
Is there any reason I should respond logically to this?
Yes Dilbert, migration is a thing. People migrate because they want a better/different life or lifestyle. Is this supposed to be significant?Dilbert_X wrote:
I work with plenty of Poles, Vietnamese, Chinese, Irish etc etc. Pretty well all of them, or their parents, migrated for a better life.
I don't know what you're struggling to understand here Dilbert. Yes asylum seekers come to Australia but they also go elsewhere. Well over 99% of them go elsewhere. Are you saying the fraction that come to Australia should also fuck off to anywhere else because they happen to pass through other countries before they reach Australia? Doesn't work like that.Dilbert_X wrote:
As far as Australia is concerned pretty well every applicant for asylum here has passed through multiple other countries on their way, but paid their passage, kept their documents and failed to apply for asylum in those other countries.
So basically you're saying that asylum seekers should settle anywhere but Australia. Makes sense, I mean they pretty much are already. Plus the Gillard Government plans to send them to Malaysia anyway. I'm sure other countries are just as fine with more asylum seekers as Australia is and are happy to take the extra asylum seekers that Australia doesn't think it should have to deal with.Dilbert_X wrote:
]Indonesia and Malaysia, the two main jumping off points, aren't particularly oppressive regimes - compared with Taliban Afghanistan or Iran for example. Why make a dangerous, and expensive, boat trip to Australia?
Before you say something like that you should read abut Australia's refugee and humanitarian policy which accounts for its 'onshore' asylum seekers as well as its offshore ones. You say they're gaming the system, you haven't convinced me that you know what the system is.Dilbert_X wrote:
There's a difference between dealing with bona fide refugees, which Australia does like other countries, and dealing with people who enter illegally, ditch their documents and try to game the system.
Because poverty doesn't exist in rich countries and all people everywhere continually seek to uproot themselves from their lives, families, and culture because a different country has a better GDP. Interesting world you're living in Dilbert.Dilbert_X wrote:
And I disagree, if the system operated as you suggest richer countries would be swamped by millions of migrants.
99.5% to be accurateTy wrote:
I don't know what you're struggling to understand here Dilbert. Yes asylum seekers come to Australia but they also go elsewhere. Well over 99% of them go elsewhere.
Many of them are gaming the system, I don't think thats in much doubt.Ty wrote:
Before you say something like that you should read abut Australia's refugee and humanitarian policy which accounts for its 'onshore' asylum seekers as well as its offshore ones. You say they're gaming the system, you haven't convinced me that you know what the system is.
Spark wrote:
can we actually ban dilbert from this thread please
Okay well we can at least agree on that then and leave the topic there. There are those who game the system whether you could call that number many or a few is beyond me. There are people who's act unscrupulously for their own gain in everything though.Dilbert_X wrote:
Many of them are gaming the system, I don't think thats in much doubt.Ty wrote:
Before you say something like that you should read abut Australia's refugee and humanitarian policy which accounts for its 'onshore' asylum seekers as well as its offshore ones. You say they're gaming the system, you haven't convinced me that you know what the system is.
Thats the problem with being a rich and democratic country which signs up to generous agreements - the unscrupulous will take advantage of it.
Last edited by tazz. (2012-07-03 03:33:15)
Not a 10 pound POMCybargs wrote:
10 pound pom bitching about immigration, i think he wants a white australia policy to keep this country ethnically cleanSpark wrote:
Spark wrote:
can we actually ban dilbert from this thread please