JC Political Thread - For all things political Part 2

Well, if it is so dangerous that they sent their wives and children away for their safety, how do you explain the numbers of males who come here first, leaving their wives and children behind, in the expectation that they will eventually follow (by the same illegal human trade, of course).

Sorry, that argument is seriously flawed.

And Crisis - I note that you have made no effort to respond to my question as to whether you feel we should just let the human cargo trade continue unabated, by opening our borders to onshore processing?

 

Leaked cables show nuclear power push

Sigh..... Yet more evidence of the fraud this carbon tax is. To implement this tax without a viable base load power alternative is just plain wreckless.

Reaper

 

Who said 50 billion Malcolm Turnbull ?.

 

Yes in as much as its objective was to reducing the number of asylum seekers arriving in the Australian waters by boat.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and others more qualified than I appeared to have issues with it.

what has changed with relation to the convention that would require a new one? Would it be impossible to believe it has been reviewed at least by the UN to ensure it is still relevant?

As stated it stopped asylum seekers arriving in the Australian waters by boat. It made sense in that respect. But humane was not necessarily a part of that. Is there a certain level of hypocrisy with a country being a signatory to the U.N. Refugee Convention implementing policies that exist purely to deter certain refugees coming to their shores

ha ha that sounds like one of those Redneck emails about how refugees get more benefits than old age pensioners!

 

I don’t know what you are talking about.

 

Sink the boats ? lol.

 

That is exactly the ones I was talking about.
Perhaps the fathers were forced to escape before their families and therefore before being able to organize any type of remotely safe passage for everyone. Then had to come up with the money to pay the people smugglers to bring their families along.
It shouldn’t take too much imagination to consider a scenario where police, military or whoever come for someone and they are able to escape but not able to go home to their family. Then flee and organize some way of getting their family out.

I mean it is hypothetical but it makes a lot more sense than this notion they are all irresponsible potential terrorists who come out here on a whim because they think they will get a two story house and a car, with no consideration for their families safety, yet paradoxically pay significant money to bring them anyway. What is the point of spending money to bring out your family if you didn’t think they would make it?
That is the argument that is flawed.

 

Well, I don't subscribe to the argument about being given everything on a plate as rumour would have it, though there is plenty of evidence that they are treated very generously. Can't agree with the first part of your statement though - are you suggesting that it's dangerous for the male to remain, but not for his wife and family, so he clears out ahead of them (with his funds being limited, ostensibly, to just his fare), then he "somehow", whilst in detention, or living as an Australian resident, manages to scrape up the brass to pay for his family later? Can you tell me how he manages to get in contact with the "people smugglers" and get the money to them, once he has left his place of origin? Can you not see the serious anomoly in such an argument?

And would you like to respond to the final question on my post above? It seems to be the one point that every supporter of onshore processing tends to want to ignore, because they have no answer to it. Perhaps you are different?

 

I am loath to use anecdotes in such a broad issue but I have heard first hand a similar story. The person did not come by boat and in fact had reunited with one of his children in another country before emigrating here. It was a similar scenario to what I mentioned though.

That aside I don’t see the scenario I outlined as flawed or overly fantastic. These people wouldn’t just plan this as an extended holiday. For someone to take these risks I personally would think a situation has become very quickly untenable and extreme measures are taken. I am sure there are thousands who would want to do the same but not find a way or the money or have the desperation to do so.
You ask me to explain the reason behind the thousands of individuals from different countries, different backgrounds and different circumstances actions. It is not my place nor would I have any idea. What I do know about them is the same as you. Nothing. Its just that the conclusions I draw are different.

Sorry. I said previously “there is no right or wrong in all this.” In answer to the first part of the question I don’t feel we should just let the human cargo trade continue unabated. The second part of the question about onshore processing is the hard part though and one I am not convinced of either way.

If I may, what is the imperative to you?
1. Stopping refugees either legal or undetermined coming to Australia?
2. Stopping refugees either legal or undetermined going to any country?
3. Stopping the illegal trade in human cargo?
4. Addressing the circumstances behind why people flee their countries of origin?

 

TREASURER Wayne Swan has been named Euromoney's Finance Minister of the Year, only the second time an Australian has won the prestigious award in its 29-year history.
The London-based finance magazine has awarded Mr Swan the title for his "careful stewardship" of Australia's finances and economic performance both during and since the global financial crisis.
"Throughout that time, Australia has not only avoided falling into recession, but has been the best performing of the world's developed market economies," Euromoney said in a statement today.
It said that performance was confirmed when Australia posted 1.2 per cent growth in the June quarter of this year.

Wayne Swan named world's top finance minister | Herald Sun

 

LOL!! Here I deliver probably my biggest troll and you give me nuthin!!!! ;-P


And don’t you go dissin my man Paul. His tenure as both treasurer and PM made question time compulsive viewing. Although one of his greatest insults was given long after he was gone, on radio where he called John Howard a pre Copernican obscanturist! I had to look it up. :-D

 

Ha ha, the devils in the detail!!! Gotta be careful with the carbon tar baby.

 

There was a time when I would agree that Keating was a successful treasurer. However, he spoilt it at the end and left a huge debt legacy (as PM) when the electorate signalled enough in 1996.

However, I cannot fathom how Swan could be considered anywhere near the class of Keating at his best. Maybe he has "won" the award by default. It may not be how good he has done, but rather how putrefyingly bad the others and their economies have been.

For years I was concerned about the aging population, and the potential financial burden the baby boomers would present to the later generations. Then along came Costello. He cleared federal government debt and largely covered the then unfunded commonwealth superannuation liability. At least then I thought that the younger generations would not have to pay taxes to cover large federal government debt while trying to cope with the cost of older Australians. Then along comes Rudd/Gillard/Swan and co. Now the younger generation has even greater federal government debt to cope with as well as the costs of older Australians. I feel so sorry for them.

I also remember how the federal unfunded superannuation liability came into being. The "great" EGW decided that he had immediate need for the funds contributed by federal public servants and ADF personnel. He subsumed the significant funds then held by various federal superannuation funds (e.g. DFRB) and all future membership contributions into general revenue, thus putting the eventual liability for such schemes onto future generations, i.e. short term political gain at the cost of long term financial pain. I have real fear that the Gillard government will do the same by raiding the future fund for short term political purposes.

I am afraid that Swan gets very low marks from me so far. I don't trust him or his PM.

 

Good questions. Here are my responses.

1. I am not opposed to refugees entering Australia. However, I resent them using the methods they do to get here, for a multitude of reasons, the main one being the fact that I see them as queue jumpers and I am not convinced of the reasons behind their determination to get here under such hazardous methods. (In other words, I don't necessarily see them as seeking refuge from dire peril.) I believe that they want out of wherever they live, for a multitude of reasons, and can afford to pay the ransom to get on an illegal merry-go-round that virtually guarantees them what they want, with some risks attached. Obviously, the reward is worth that risk.

2. I have no issue with refugees going to any country, including Australia. I would like to think that refugees are not only taking these steps to eventually arrive in Australia, but are prepared to settle in any safe country that has a policy of accepting refugees.

3. This is the issue which Labor has failed so dismally to halt, and the issue which concerns me more than any other. The present lack of policy in this country actively encourages an illegal and highly profitable activity by people who don't care one iota about the welfare of the refugees - they are concerned solely with profit.

4. As in ceasing the war in the Middle East? Try telling that to the Taliban first. Or Somalia? The warlords there might have something to say about that too. Or any other festering shithole on earth where power and money are more important than human well-being and safety and where life expectancy is measured in months rather than years.I doubt my opinion would interest them in the least and I believe they are the sole cause of this human misery. As for "addressing the circumstances", well, I thought that's what the civilised nations have been trying to do for years, with limited success. Got any better ideas?

 

It's good i guess only 2 Aussies in it's time.


I was thinking. it could say one of two things. We're doing good. or the rest are that bad. Which ever way you can't help but feel our position isn't that bad. give it a few more years and take another look over the developed market again.

 

You pay $20 per month ?.

 

Just imagine how Costello feels now. I have felt for ages that he should be cloned and given the treasurer job no matter which party is in for ever and ever.