Mega Thread The Random Thoughts Thread Part 1

[Moo87]

Given that the other parties (bar Palmer United, I guess) were in full support of the flagrant human rights abuse going on on Manus Island, i'm not sure how anybody can consciously vote for any of them. The greens might not have the economic experience to lead in their own right, but that's a lot better than being responsible for the biggest national disgrace since Trevor Chappell bowled underarm to the kiwis.

I fear our treatment of asylum seekers will be one of those things people will look back in time wondering "what the **** where they thinking?"

It is an absolute disgrace the way both major parties have used this issue to attempt to point score.

 

[El_Scorcho]

'flagrant human rights abuse' that the higher courts have cleared right? What constitutes human rights is such a blurred line, and how do you separate the criminals from the legitimates? You can't. As there are no records, no way to identify who they are or what their reasons are. We are expected to believe what they say without any evidence. It doesn't work like that anywhere in the world (except for maybe in a relationship where word is sometimes law ). It's far more complex than just a human rights issue, and I really don't think any government in the world has got it right so far. Some have let them all in and it's destroyed parts of their country, others don't let any in (see japan) and they seem to go pretty well, while Australia are doing the right thing and putting it's citizens before any others in an attempt to clear those they can before allowing asylum.

It's a very stupid subject, and one i'm not even going to attempt to say I understand the complexities of, but it's not as simple as 'muh human rights.' and it's not as simple as '**** off we're full' I tend to be a little more pragmatic than that.

Even ignoring the border protection issue (which is absolute wank, no country has been even partially destroyed by refugees), the conditions on Manus Island don't meet basic human rights, however you want to draw the line, and conditions on the island are being condemned all over the globe.

Not to mention it's comfortably the most expensive way to deal with asylum seekers. It costs us $400,000 a year to detain a single asylum seeker on Manus Island in squalor.

 

[StuMan]

Unfortunately for Tony and co their default position of blaming everything on Labour is less effective once in Government. It was an effective position in opposition, but their lack of anything resembling a solid policy is starting to catch them out.

They could just start blaming everything on Port?

 

[I Dont Care]

I don't think that's your conscience mate.

Oh...I think it is...mate. Before 1986 I was, well...a greenie. I saw first hand the propaganda lies used to get their 'point' across to the detriment of whatever ripple on effect this had on 'developing' nations. Their screwed up philosophy and social strangulation of resource management is so damaging that to entertain these ideas would lead to total anarchy and chaos. Scissor session with a tree

 

[Doctor Feel]

They could just start blaming everything on Port?

Australia renamed to Adelaidia

 

[El_Scorcho]

Oh...I think it is...mate. Before 1986 I was, well...a greenie. I saw first hand the propaganda lies used to get their 'point' across to the detriment of whatever ripple on effect this had on 'developing' nations. Their screwed up philosophy and social strangulation of resource management is so damaging that to entertain these ideas would lead to total anarchy and chaos. Scissor session with a tree

As i've said, I don't agree with every Greens policy, but this sort of opinion is years out of date. The Australian Greens weren't even founded as a political party in 1986. We're not talking about simply environmental radicals protesting for nuclear disarmament and against any sort of development of any kind in 2015.

And then, you know, the alternative.

 

[Janus]

Even ignoring the border protection issue (which is absolute wank, no country has been even partially destroyed by refugees), the conditions on Manus Island don't meet basic human rights, however you want to draw the line, and conditions on the island are being condemned all over the globe.

Not to mention it's comfortably the most expensive way to deal with asylum seekers. It costs us $400,000 a year to detain a single asylum seeker on Manus Island in squalor.

Would cost us $0 if every person claiming asylum didn't conveniently throw their papers - the papers they had used to travel legitimately all the way to Indonesia - overboard as soon as they could. That just makes deciding their case more difficult than it already is. Those boats didn't meet basic human rights, yet people are voluntarily boarding them and coming into Australian waters. At what point do you let the people who choose to undertake this perilous course of action take some responsibility for the outcome? Where is the financial support from all these bleeding hearts and refugee action groups to improve the facilities? There's none, because hey, the Australian taxpayer can foot the bill, right? You might say it's the most expensive, but until we know exactly the kind of person that is coming into the country, it's not the sort of world where you can afford to take people at face value anymore unfortunately.

 

[I Dont Care]

As i've said, I don't agree with every Greens policy, but this sort of opinion is years out of date. The Australian Greens weren't even founded as a political party in 1986. We're not talking about simply environmental radicals protesting for nuclear disarmament and against any sort of development of any kind in 2015.

And then, you know, the alternative.

I'm not talking about no nukes, and yes they were a political movement back then...maybe not a registered part...but a movement all the same. They used doctored footage of the paper pulp industry in the Victorian Gippsland and claimed it was filmed in the tropical rainforest of North Queensland before World Heritage of the wet tropics, for an example, to get their point across. It was used fairly often in the news media. When selective logging ceased in our rainforests after the World Heritage zones were in place, the worlds cabinet industry simply moved their interests to the jungles of New Guinea and Indonesia. No selective logging resource management there...just crash and burn 'dozer and fire burning logging. Remember the great Indonesian fires that have grounded planes in the last few decades? I originally came up here in FNQ to see the rainforests before they all disappeared after being fed green movement media lies in the '80's. 'tis no different today

 

[El_Scorcho]

I'm not talking about no nukes, and yes they were a political movement back then...maybe not a registered part...but a movement all the same. They used doctored footage of the paper pulp industry in the Victorian Gippsland and claimed it was filmed in the tropical rainforest of North Queensland before World Heritage of the wet tropics, for an example, to get their point across. It was used fairly often in the news media. When selective logging ceased in our rainforests after the World Heritage zones were in place, the worlds cabinet industry simply moved their interests to the jungles of New Guinea and Indonesia. No selective logging resource management there...just crash and burn 'dozer and fire burning logging. Remember the great Indonesian fires that have grounded planes in the last few decades? I originally came up here in FNQ to see the rainforests before they all disappeared after being fed green movement media lies in the '80's. 'tis no different today

So you're arguing that because members the environmentalist movement 30+ years ago lied to protect Australian rainforests from logging, which in turn caused logging to occur in poorer developing countries where there were less regulations, the Australian Greens political party of today can't be trusted and is some sort of menace?

What are they lying about in 2015? Is dredging actually good for the Great Barrier Reef? Is gay marriage actually going to destroy the family unit as we know it? Is seeking asylum not actually a human right?

Despite similar ideals, there is a world of difference between the green movement in the 80s and the political party 30 years down the track, and we live in a radically different world.

 

[I Dont Care]

So you're arguing that because members the environmentalist movement 30+ years ago lied to protect Australian rainforests from logging, which in turn caused logging to occur in poorer developing countries where there were less regulations, the Australian Greens political party of today can't be trusted and is some sort of menace?

What are they lying about in 2015? Is dredging actually good for the Great Barrier Reef? Is gay marriage actually going to destroy the family unit as we know it? Is seeking asylum not actually a human right?

Despite similar ideals, there is a world of difference between the green movement in the 80s and the political party 30 years down the track, and we live in a radically different world.

Trying to put words in my mouth is a typical greenie tactic. I can only respond about things I actually know about, like how our town ran out of water in 2003 because even though we were promised a dam or weir 30 years ago, it got blocked in the mid '90's by enviromentalists because of a sugar glider, and the alternative got blocked about '99 because of....a frog. Another drought is coming after the last few good wet years. Sydney practically ran out of water in 2008/9, the population has grown a bit since then(Australian population currently grows at 500,000 new people per annum), The Greens oppose all new dams, what is their policy if current dams dry up? Bring in more assylum seekers? Marry gays? Stop dredging? You see, things like water, resources, health and the economy are the issues I care about when I vote...hence the Greens go last

 

[El_Scorcho]

Would cost us $0 if every person claiming asylum didn't conveniently throw their papers - the papers they had used to travel legitimately all the way to Indonesia - overboard as soon as they could. That just makes deciding their case more difficult than it already is.

It's funny, lots of other countries don't seem to have this difficulty. We're handing people back to the authority they are running from based on what they say in a short phone call to the minister for immigration, and those people are later being found to be genuine refugees. It's embarrassing.

Those boats didn't meet basic human rights, yet people are voluntarily boarding them and coming into Australian waters. At what point do you let the people who choose to undertake this perilous course of action take some responsibility for the outcome?

This should tell you a lot of what you need to know about how desperate these people are. People know it's really dangerous and they do it anyway. I'm not sure what you mean by "take some responsibility" though. What would you have them do differently? Get on a leaky boat or continue to be persecuted and oppressed.

Where is the financial support from all these bleeding hearts and refugee action groups to improve the facilities? There's none, because hey, the Australian taxpayer can foot the bill, right? You might say it's the most expensive, but until we know exactly the kind of person that is coming into the country, it's not the sort of world where you can afford to take people at face value anymore unfortunately.

This is so ridiculous.

As I quoted, $400,000 a year for one detainee. What can an action group do when we are talking about those kinds of figures? Do you expect the ASRC to just reach down the back of the couch and pull out the tens of millions of dollars required? There is currently way more money than there needs to be in the budget for dealing with asylum seekers. Let's use it more intelligently.

The difference isn't made by supporting bad policy with further donations, it's made by effectively shaming the government into something different. At this stage we could be processing people on Australian soil for half the price and we'd have much greater control over the conditions they are kept in.

I'm not saying don't process these people and i'm not saying we should be allowing just anyone in, but it's pretty awful that we've chosen the most expensive, inhumane option in order to pander to the xenophobia vote.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Another drought is coming after the last few good wet years. Sydney practically ran out of water in 2008/9, the population has grown a bit since then(Australian population currently grows at 500,000 new people per annum), The Greens oppose all new dams, what is their policy if current dams dry up?

Their policy for water sustainability, I assume, is to look at efficient consumption, recycling water, etc.

But most importantly, long term sustainability.

 

[Janus]

It's funny, lots of other countries don't seem to have this difficulty. We're handing people back to the authority they are running from based on what they say in a short phone call to the minister for immigration, and those people are later being found to be genuine refugees. It's embarrassing.



This should tell you a lot of what you need to know about how desperate these people are. People know it's really dangerous and they do it anyway. I'm not sure what you mean by "take some responsibility" though. What would you have them do differently? Get on a leaky boat or continue to be persecuted and oppressed.



This is so ridiculous.

As I quoted, $400,000 a year for one detainee. What can an action group do when we are talking about those kinds of figures? Do you expect the ASRC to just reach down the back of the couch and pull out the tens of millions of dollars required? There is currently way more money than there needs to be in the budget for dealing with asylum seekers. Let's use it more intelligently.

The difference isn't made by supporting bad policy with further donations, it's made by effectively shaming the government into something different. At this stage we could be processing people on Australian soil for half the price and we'd have much greater control over the conditions they are kept in.

I'm not saying don't process these people and i'm not saying we should be allowing just anyone in, but it's pretty awful that we've chosen the most expensive, inhumane option in order to pander to the xenophobia vote.

You know as well as I do that offshore processing is done so that people don't have access to the same rights of legal recourse that onshore processing affords. As for taking responsibility - there comes a point where, after crossing the borders of several countries on the way to Australia, it becomes less about fleeing from persecution (legitimate reason) and more about wanting to immigrate to a country that is seen as the USA of Asia - where opportunity is abundant for hard work (illegitimate reason). Being a refugee should never mean you get to pick where you end up like as if countries were a catalogue. I remember that group of so called asylum seekers (who were probably genuine) refusing to be processed in Indonesia. Does Indonesia suck? Yep. But it would have been safe as Australia is.

 

[cj_09]

As a gold prospector and four wheel driver, the greens can go and **** themselves.

 

[bomberclifford]

It is an absolute disgrace the way both major parties have used this issue to attempt to point score.

They can only use the issue to point score because we let them. We as a collective are culpable for the actions of any government we elect.

 

[Powerstufff]

They can only use the issue (illegal immigrants/refugees) to point score because we let them .....

We don't so much 'let them' run things the way they do as we collectively demand they do it the way it is now done. Any measurable dissatisfaction amongst the voters until the Coalition came in was that our various responses to the influx of boats was not tough enough. You or I might not be happy with what is done in our name but collectively Australians are delighted with the current approach.

 

[Steve Dore]

I am qualunquismo
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/he...glish-equivalent/story-fniym874-1227210910737

Backpfeifengesicht comes to mind every time I have seen Christopher Pyne in the media this week.

Backpfeifengesicht — Punchable is probably the best English equivalent for this excellent German word that means “a face that should be slapped”. Other definitions have translated it as “a face badly in need of a fist” which is equally great.

2014 Word of the Year: Backpfeifengesicht

 

[Doctor Feel]

 

[bomberclifford]

View attachment 107682

Blackpfeifengesicht

 

[NoddyHolder]

there comes a point where, after crossing the borders of several countries on the way to Australia, it becomes less about fleeing from persecution (legitimate reason) and more about wanting to immigrate to a country that is seen as the USA of Asia - where opportunity is abundant for hard work (illegitimate reason).

Why would you want to exclude people with this attitude from our country? For one thing they sound like committed Liberal voters of the future. Refugees and people motivated by economic opportunity have significantly enriched our country for decades and pretty much all of them were initially treated with suspicion and disdain when first arriving.

 

[tribey]

Their policy for water sustainability, I assume, is to look at efficient consumption, recycling water, etc.

But most importantly, long term sustainability.

Lol.

And what a hotbutton issue that became.

"OMG WE ARE HAVING DROUGHTS AND WATER RATIONING DO SOMETHING GUBBERMENT!"

*government builds a desal plant*

"OMG WE ARE NO LONGER HAVING DROUGHTS WHAT A WASTE OF MONEYS!"

The average Australian is an absolute ****wit.

 

[Janus]

Lol.

And what a hotbutton issue that became.

"OMG WE ARE HAVING DROUGHTS AND WATER RATIONING DO SOMETHING GUBBERMENT!"

*government builds a desal plant*

"OMG WE ARE NO LONGER HAVING DROUGHTS WHAT A WASTE OF MONEYS!"

The average Australian is an absolute ****wit.

Lol. It absolutely was a waste of money. When it was proposed by the state Liberal government, it was designed to be half the size of the one that was built and only ever used in an emergency situation like a drought, that happens maybe once every ten years. They also wanted to look at recycling storm water etc combined with that to provide a complete across the board sustainable water solution. But because the Liberals brought out the policy first, that meant that Labor couldn't just copy them. Oh no, they had to create a huge desal plant that I have heard first hand from someone who worked there that they had to bring in overseas and interstate workers to complete because the level of safety at the site was deplorable and everyone refused to work there. Of course, you'll never hear about it, because it was a union site.

Seriously, who gives a **** who comes up with the solution? I'd have no problems saying 'Hey, that's a good idea' and putting it into practice. It's like the time zone debate. Great proposal by Weatheril, and I agree that he doesn't need to go to the people. Just ****ing do it. Start living up to the 'for the people' part of a democracy, because I agree, the average Australian has no idea what is required to actually make the country/state prosper.

 

[Ant Bear]

I only vote so I don't get fined.

 

[Grave Danger]

 

[tribey]

Lol. It absolutely was a waste of money. When it was proposed by the state Liberal government, it was designed to be half the size of the one that was built and only ever used in an emergency situation like a drought, that happens maybe once every ten years. They also wanted to look at recycling storm water etc combined with that to provide a complete across the board sustainable water solution. But because the Liberals brought out the policy first, that meant that Labor couldn't just copy them. Oh no, they had to create a huge desal plant that I have heard first hand from someone who worked there that they had to bring in overseas and interstate workers to complete because the level of safety at the site was deplorable and everyone refused to work there. Of course, you'll never hear about it, because it was a union site.

Seriously, who gives a **** who comes up with the solution? I'd have no problems saying 'Hey, that's a good idea' and putting it into practice. It's like the time zone debate. Great proposal by Weatheril, and I agree that he doesn't need to go to the people. Just ******* do it. Start living up to the 'for the people' part of a democracy, because I agree, the average Australian has no idea what is required to actually make the country/state prosper.

Give it 20 years, we'll be thanking Aunt Molly's musty lovebocks we have it.