Should voting rights be restricted to net tax payers?

[smokingjacket]

Why would a libertarian have any time for the notion of a social contract?

I'm not saying you they do, and yet, you should.

 

[CM86]

care to ask a question in context and get the question right

feel free to "take" what you wish. it doesn't make it right.

but hey, I still like you

Thought so.

 

[Chief]

You're actually getting worse...
Desperation?

Think he has been hitting the Macallan.

 

[Jones_3_16]

Well, while you are being so enlightening, perhaps you could tell us if you or your family came to WA from South Africa? Or did you develop your Godforsaken views solely in Freo?

And since there's been some history talk in this thread, here's a fact that doesn't really get pointed out much. The Nazis weren't good economically. The Centrists in Germany had put in place the policies that led to a bump in employment before the Nazis came to power. They were a bunch of thugs who had to go to war, murder, steal and pillage and their people were still reduced to rations (and of course much less later on in the war). Meanwhile the "leftists" who were their enemy and whom everyone says were economically disastrous - they were able to maintain government for over 70 years and were in charge of a huge chunk of Europe for much of that time. Of course they were economically incompetent, but not when compared to the Nazis who imprisoned and killed them. Nazi 'efficiency' or 'innovation' is far more to do with single-minded pursuits and a lack of ethical boundaries.

I am not defending the nazi party or its record in power.

For the tenth time - I do not support action based on race, religion, sexual preference.

I do support what I like to call "inclusive nationalism" - open to all Australians regardless of ethnic background so long as they a patriotic, do not engage in leftism, work hard, pay their way and adopt our way of life.

Religious and ethnic minorities would have nothing to fear under an "inclusive nationalist" government. Leftist vermin on the other hand would find life a little tougher - that is all leftists regardless of race or religion.

Leftists are what is holding this country back, not minority groups.

 

[Taylor]

Reclaim Australia should stop being so direct and start rallying for a bill of rights that states;
Right to Freedom of Family
Right to Freedom of Expression
Right to Freedom of Body
Right to Freedom of Religion
Right to Freedom from Religion
Right to Freedom from Harm from those exercising their own Freedoms

 

[madmug]

I am not defending the nazi party or its record in power.

For the tenth time - I do not support action based on race, religion, sexual preference.

I do support what I like to call "inclusive nationalism" - open to all Australians regardless of ethnic background so long as they a patriotic, do not engage in leftism, work hard, pay their way and adopt our way of life.

Religious and ethnic minorities would have nothing to fear under an "inclusive nationalist" government. Leftist vermin on the other hand would find life a little tougher - that is all leftists regardless of race or religion.

Leftists are what is holding this country back, not minority groups.

How do you reconcile these juxtapositions?

Just say you are a bigot, then we can all get on with our day.

 

[Taylor]

How do you reconcile these juxtapositions?

Just say you are a bigot, then we can all get on with our day.

It's the old "don't care what you do as long as it doesn't effect me".

"Feel free to worship any apple pie in the sky, but if that great apple pie tells you to go hurt other people then you can't do that."

etc

 

[The Punter]

Leftists are what is holding this country back, not minority groups.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[Maggie5]

How's this question.
Why did you call Maggie5 and Play by Numbers racist, and refer to 18c?

And I will take your continued avoidance as an admission that you finally read up on 18c, and realised how stupid you were. So now you're just squirming.

He won't answer questions, he can only waffle.

 

[Power Raid]

Its interesting that the anti-reclaim protestors have actually made the reclaim protestors relevant.

We will always have active racists and passive racism (as we see so often here in BF - PbN and Maggie spring to mind). Talking through the issue and pointing out racism is more effective than turning the issue into a media circus.

The Anti-reclaim protestors should simply let reclai have there protest and a day later have a "day of healing" gathering. Unfortunately though they are so emotional about rights and acceptance of all, they fail to see a right to protest and a right to free speech is enjoyed by all and not just those we agree with.

 

[Jones_3_16]

How do you reconcile these juxtapositions?

.

There is no inconsistency. See below.

It's the old "don't care what you do as long as it doesn't effect me".

"Feel free to worship any apple pie in the sky, but if that great apple pie tells you to go hurt other people then you can't do that."

etc

This is pretty much it.

But I would add the following: They need to speak (or attempt to speak) English; They need to respect women; They need to accept that they have moved here not to other way around so don't expect any special accommodations or special treatment; no blowing people up or harbouring people that won't to blow people up.

Pretty simple rules.

 

[Maggie5]

There is no inconsistency. See below.
This is pretty much it.
But I would add the following: They need to speak (or attempt to speak) English; They need to respect women; They need to accept that they have moved here not to other way around so don't expect any special accommodations or special treatment; no blowing people up or harbouring people that won't to blow people up.
Pretty simple rules.

Hope that this message has been sent to the homegrown white Aussies or are they exempt?

 

[The Punter]

Disrespecting someone for whatever reason is not against the law. It's been argued at quite some length in this country recently that even voicing that lack of respect shouldn't be against the law.

Can we be multicultural if we have to be multi-regulatory? I would argue that we need to adhere to a set of laws that are enacted by and enforced on the instructions of the Parliament, who have been elected by the entire populace, and after that please yourself. I don't care what language you speak, although there certainly are self-interest reasons to learn English once you get to Australia.

 

[Maggie5]

Its interesting that the anti-reclaim protestors have actually made the reclaim protestors relevant.

We will always have active racists and passive racism (as we see so often here in BF - PbN and Maggie spring to mind). Talking through the issue and pointing out racism is more effective than turning the issue into a media circus.

The Anti-reclaim protestors should simply let reclai have there protest and a day later have a "day of healing" gathering. Unfortunately though they are so emotional about rights and acceptance of all, they fail to see a right to protest and a right to free speech is enjoyed by all and not just those we agree with.

Sorry, don't have a free date for you so no 'day of healing'.
What a bag of wind you are. Calling people racists! You have no idea. Be very careful as your posts are becoming report worthy! Refer Big Footy rule Rule 7. Race / Sexual Preference

 

[Jones_3_16]

Disrespecting someone for whatever reason is not against the law. It's been argued at quite some length in this country recently that even voicing that lack of respect shouldn't be against the law.

Can we be multicultural if we have to be multi-regulatory? I would argue that we need to adhere to a set of laws that are enacted by and enforced on the instructions of the Parliament, who have been elected by the entire populace, and after that please yourself. I don't care what language you speak, although there certainly are self-interest reasons to learn English once you get to Australia.

If someone comes here with no intention of learning english then they have no real intention of being gainfully employed - they should stay where they are. We do not need them.

 

[CM86]

He won't answer questions, he can only waffle.

Waffle it is, with evidence directly following your post.

Calls you racist again, and blames anti-racism for Reclaim aus racists.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

But I would add the following: They need to speak (or attempt to speak) English; They need to respect women; They need to accept that they have moved here not to other way around so don't expect any special accommodations or special treatment; no blowing people up or harbouring people that won't to blow people up.

Get outta my country, ya foreigner! Although asking people to "attempt to speak English" is very soft. That'd include everyone who's ever come here.

Waffle it is, with evidence directly following your post.

Calls you racist again, and blames anti-racism for Reclaim aus racists.

And his profile pics have been pretty dodgy too. If I was going to put anyone on Ignore it'd be PR.

 

[Maggie5]

Waffle it is, with evidence directly following your post.

Calls you racist again, and blames anti-racism for Reclaim aus racists.

OMG, just realised he is another WA poster!

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[The Punter]

If someone comes here with no intention of learning english then they have no real intention of being gainfully employed - they should stay where they are. We do not need them.

You're dealing with the symptom.

If a rich Saudi oligarch decides to come here to retire and not work or learn English, then please come here and spend your money.

If someone comes here and does not want to learn English so he can just receive welfare, then that's not a good thing, but it's also not a good strategy because he's probably not going to get much welfare or get very far. Most of the people who come here are looking for work and will learn pretty fast - they have motivation to do so.

The problems are more nuanced that you suggest, and need a more in-depth response than dealing with language issues.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

If a rich Saudi oligarch decides to come here to retire and not work or learn English, then please come here and spend your money.

If someone comes here and does not want to learn English so he can just receive welfare, then that's not a good thing, but it's also not a good strategy because he's probably not going to get much welfare or get very far. Most of the people who come here are looking for work and will learn pretty fast - they have motivation to do so.

I understand the pragmatic reasons behind such an opinion, but you're literally talking about 'one rule for the rich; one rule for the poor' and that doesn't seem very Australian to me. If he's maintained those oil riches through thuggery and supporting anti-democratic groups (like some Russian oligarchs are accused of) then I would like to think we didn't allow him in.

Character tests should always come into it. And then there are problems with trying to find out info and working out who to believe. It's complex stuff and you'd like to think the Govt was capable of managing it. Man Monis was a clear stuff-up, but maybe their error rate is only 0.1%. On the other hand he was 'missed' a second time and then a third time, even under our most anti-terrorism PM yet (if you take Abbott's policies at face-value rather than as an attempt to wedge Labor while incidentally eroding civil rights with little compensating gain).

 

[Elroo]

Menzies was a warrior that ruled with strength and honour and kept the people safe from dread.

Theres lots of things you could say about Menzies but a "warrior" is definitely not one of them.

 

[The Punter]

I understand the pragmatic reasons behind such an opinion, but you're literally talking about 'one rule for the rich; one rule for the poor' and that doesn't seem very Australian to me. If he's maintained those oil riches through thuggery and supporting anti-democratic groups (like some Russian oligarchs are accused of) then I would like to think we didn't allow him in.

Character tests should always come into it. And then there are problems with trying to find out info and working out who to believe. It's complex stuff and you'd like to think the Govt was capable of managing it. Man Monis was a clear stuff-up, but maybe their error rate is only 0.1%. On the other hand he was 'missed' a second time and then a third time, even under our most anti-terrorism PM yet (if you take Abbott's policies at face-value rather than as an attempt to wedge Labor while incidentally eroding civil rights with little compensating gain).

To be fair, your response was a number of levels of nuance above what was Jones316 bringing to the argument, and I was trying to get there slowly for the benefit of all. I was trying to point out that some people don't need to work because they have money. People who will need to work already have a level of motivation to learn English.

 

[carnthemlions]

Argument over your head. Expected no less. Feel free to engage discussion in correlation vs causation, if for once you can raise your bar above Bay 13.

Misologists really coming out of the woodwork in this thread.

Meds misses the point again #141845
Read the post again. Funnily enough, it wasn't about the 1950s at all. You just jumped on the wrong part- you're making me look like some sort of master troll here

 

[Belnakor]

Theres lots of things you could say about Menzies but a "warrior" is definitely not one of them.

try googling that phrase..