telsor
Hall of Famer
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bleeding heart
Entirely in keeping with my usage (especially 2.1) and nothing about being derogatory (as opposed to insulting someone by saying they lack compassion).
Budget Night 2014
- Thread starter tandino
- Start date
- Tagged users None
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bleeding heart
Entirely in keeping with my usage (especially 2.1) and nothing about being derogatory (as opposed to insulting someone by saying they lack compassion).
sherb
Hall of Famer
If you don't think you used the term in an insulting or derogatory sense, good for you!
telsor
Hall of Famer
You think you know my intent better than I do? WOW!
telsor
Hall of Famer
BTW, I'm still waiting for you to justify your clear and unquestioned insult about me lacking compassion.
sherb
Hall of Famer
You're someone who derides people who have compassion ("bleeding hearts").
Based on that, why should I think you have this quality?
As I said, I hope that it is something you acquire over time. That is what happened to me, fyi.
telsor
Hall of Famer
I deride those who have excessive and/or ill directed compassion. How does that mean I have none?
By being rational about who and how you help people, you can help those who need it more (and potentially more people)...How is that an attitude that is lacking in compassion?
When you go to a refugee camp in Africa (you have been right? I'd hate to think I was the only one in this discussion who has actually seen the source of the problem) did you give all you had to the first people who came up to you, or did you seek for those who were unable to come to you and help them?
Exactly, there is so much wastage from having tens of different asylum systems in tens of different countries. They waste more money on lawyers than actually helping people.
to quote Monash Uni academic Adrienne Millbank
to bring it back on topic...
A poster was attacking Hockey for wasting money on offshore processing/Nauru/PNG etc
Money spent on the Pacific solution during the Howard era - around one billion dollars
Money spent on dealing with asylum seekers since 2007 - greater than 10 billion (closer to 15 billion by now)
Money spent by Turkey on sheltering 210 thousand syrian refugees - US 2.5 billion dollars.
The anger is certainly misplaced.
Last edited:
telsor
Hall of Famer
I view the money spent on processing offshore to be more an attempt to discourage than to process, and if the evidence didn't suggest that just letting them in would encourage many many more, I'd consider it a waste.
Also, 'sheltering' (as for Turkey) and 'settling' (as would happen here) are quite different and the latter costs more (often for many years).
In my ideal set up, people would wait in camps, be processed and the 'best' candidates would be selected and brought to Australia for settlement ( best being based on a number of criteria, need and ability to fit in/contribute being the largest). Yeah, I know it's not that clean, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage it to be so where possible. (OK, that's not really the ideal, the ideal would be nobody needing to be refugees in the first place)
Why the best? Well, if they have the skills to require less assistance and get off welfare faster (language, trade, etc) then we can afford to help more people (politically, socially and financially). Yeah, it's a bit cold, but when you accept you can't help everyone, you need to have some criteria in order to help as many as you can.
yeah fair points.
I think the first step for a long term solution (that Australia can develop without forcing recalcitrant countries like Indonesia to play ball) is to foster relationships with countries of first refuge such as Turkey.
At the moment, we have a situation where asylum seekers on Christmas Island/Manus/Nauru don't want to be there.
And its very difficult for Australia to get rid of failed asylum seekers unless they "voluntarily" go home hence the atrocious accommodations. And in some situations such as for Syrians, its impossible to go home at all at the moment. So this expensive waiting game may go on for years before the detention centres are emptied.
This is a situation many countries face. Germany has hundreds of thousands of failed asylum seekers living on welfare with little rights to work but with great difficulty in deporting them. A social timebomb waiting to happen.
Labor had the right idea with the Malaysian solution (it wouldn't have worked back then but is possible now that the boats have largely stopped). Instead of continuing this game of "Survivor" a deal to make a swap with refugees in camps such as in Turkey or India shouldn't be that hard considering that it is a mutually beneficial arrangement for both countries. Even an 8 for 1 swap is probably cheaper than indefinite detention. That way the offshore centres can be quickly scaled down as well as providing an example for other countries wasting money on red tape.
Saying that the libs are definitely bonkers choosing Cambodia as a resettlement country
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-24/greens-to-vote-against-fuel-excise/5546148
Greens to vote against the raise in fuel excise...
Greens to vote against the raise in fuel excise...
Evidently, the Greens don't love the environment and good policy more than wrecking Abbott's budget.
That is indeed their point. Also It is entirely consistent with their transport policy of improved public transport, across the country & not just in the big cities.
- Banned
- #1,090
Then they are hypocrites having had the decision to back it on the basis that they would do so because it was good for environment. Seems that they lied.
Nice try but we all who know the biggest political fibbers are.
The Greens decision is quite logical & a major part of their raison d'etre.
- Banned
- #1,092
ROFL it incredibly goes against their fundamental platform.
see below.
Greens made it perfectly clear that they'd support it provided the funds went to certain areas...and not to building more roads, which Abbott won't budge on.
- Banned
- #1,094
ROFL right and again this then makes the green members hypocritical and against their top platform of the environment extremly obviously. They don't want a fuel tax to be implemented on pollution but were happy to support carbon tax at a click of the fingers.
- Banned
- #1,096
Right really so what about all Australia's transport businesses who will wallop the amount a family uses then??
Transport isn't covered by the carbon tax. I'm sure you knew that and it just slipped your mind.
- Banned
- #1,098
Yes it is you need to think outside the square a bit more
.Yes it is you need to think outside the square a bit more
We really have moved into a new alternative reality of making crap up to suit an agenda in Australia.
- Banned
- #1,100
They have to pay higher electricty prices and other prices too as a result of it but keep denying it.
