OUT: Abbott IN: Turnbull

[daisycutter 29,604]

still sounds like a strawman to me

[Biffen 12,940]

still sounds like a strawman to me

bollocks.

the world is [censored] .

we are all going to die.

[Guest]

Oh and for your points on asylum seekers. I feel I must respond as this kind of cookie cutter analysis of this debate. This is the reason why the state of discussion surrounding refugee issues is so abominable.

1) People that jump on leaky boats drown at sea. Simple view, but fact. I will call this again for what it is. Disingenuous crap. If the coalition or their boosters (or the ALP for that matter) really cared about the fate of refugees why have they spent the last 13 years demonizing them and dog whistling to the disaffected in our society? I have raised the examples before. I see no need to do it again.

2) Off shore processing and a hard stand, such as turning back boats stops people jumping on leaky boats. Simple view, but the facts back it up. I have gone through this earlier with what I said earlier (the stuff you dismissed as meaningless because it basically contradicted your implied point that there is only one way to solve this problem).
Let's also look at it from a more hard headed point of view and take all those touchy feely left wing 'feelings' out of it. Say we turn those boats around. Where do they go? I am guessing Indonesia. Now there have been varying reports on this but the word is that they are not overly happy about this particular kind of policy and from the limited information we are getting these days (easy to say there are no asylum seeker boats are coming when the public never hear about them anymore due to the immigration minister shutting up shop), it sounds as though there have been instances where the Indonesian government has not cooperated. Now, coming after a scandal in which the prime ministers wife has been spied upon and Mark Textor tweeting that their foreign minister looks like a 'porn star', perhaps a more pragmatic approach might be needed in dealing with a country that dwarfs us in population and troop numbers?

3) People that jump on leaky boats have got to safe countries already and don't have to take a perilous boat trip. Simple view, but is true. Ever lived as a non citizen Hannibal? I haven't but I'm pretty sure it's not a lot of fun. Not being able to get a job, pay taxes or participate in wider society would kinda blow. Spent a lot of time in a developing country as well? I guess when you have fulfilled those criteria, you might have a better idea of the actual issues surrounding this.

4) Should we take more refugees ? Sure, but under tight control. Simple view, but the idea of protecting our borders and citizens makes sense to me. Protecting our citizens you say? From what pray tell?

Edited January 30, 2014 by Colin B. Flaubert

[Earl Hood 6,082]

still sounds like a strawman to me

The fence DC, get off the fence mate. The splinters must be annoying by now?

[daisycutter 29,604]

bollocks.

the world is [censored] .

we are all going to die.

sigh, don't you just hate it

do you think a death tax would help to stop people dying?

[Earl Hood 6,082]

Anyway back to Tony Abbott. The more he talks about good guys and bad guys in Syria and the need for the ABC to rigorously pursue the truth but also back the home team and ignore the likes of spying allegations concerning Austalia and on and on; the more I believe Ronald Reagan still walks amongst us, but now he is wearing a bright blue tie.

[Hannibal 5,814]

You are welcome to put your views out there. The principle of freedom of speech allows you to do that. That same principle also allows others to criticize your opinions. So long as you are cool with that everything will be copacetic. If it were me however, I would want a firm grasp on the facts before I shot my mouth off and made inflammatory blanket statements. If I knew nothing about an issue, I would be less inclined to comment on it. Just me though.

Opinions can't be wrong. However, they can be less valid if they are just based on your own personal prejudices and not the facts.

As for the ABC, the post that inspired this, I'm guessing Tony Abbott wasn't as upset when they uncovered the corruption in the CFMEU? I'm guessing he was happy when both Andrew Bolt, Gerard Henderson or Piers Akerman were guests on Insiders? Hell, they allowed Bolt to storm the studio at 774 to have a second go at Stephen Mayne when he was guest hosting breakfast even after he had called in to have a crack at him live to air. I can't watch Q&A anymore due to the prevalence of 'conventional wisdom' on everything from asylum seekers to climate change.

What Abbott wants is balance for balance's sake and unfortunately two sides don't necessarily have a compelling argument and if he wants the ABC to either hire more right wing propagandists (like the ones he invited over to Kiribilli house after the election after they had done his dirty work for him) or just shut up, that reflects poorly on him. Anyway, if he wants journalism that is more his style, he can go over to channel 10 on a Sunday morning and find the greatest propagandist since Tokyo Rose.

I've been around on this site for over ten years and I doubt I've ever seen someone spew so many words and say nothing. Nutbean looks erudite in your wake.

Put forward your heavy weight arguments on climate change, a useless carbon dioxide tax, people drowning at sea, multiculturism and don't forget merging on freeways.

Eagerly waiting...

[Hannibal 5,814]

Hannibal I ask because the same denial tactics are being used in the climate debate as was used in the tobacco debate through the 60's to the 90's. the same think tanks are at work often involving the same spin doctors. It is all about vested interests with money and influence using all their powers to sow doubt, challenge scientists, and doctors at every turn to buy time for them to turn a profit.

At the moment we have huge vested interests with billions invested in coal or gas determined to sow doubt in the science at least long enough for them to get this out of the ground and sell it at a profit.

Of course the billions at stake would not lead the small number of billionaire owners to play games, no it's the peanuts in Government grants available to thousands of scientists that leads them to collaborate in a massive warmest fraud across the Globe and onto the UN.

That is why I ask such stupid questions Hannibal!!

Smoking causes cancer.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Oh and for your points on asylum seekers. I feel I must respond as this kind of cookie cutter analysis of this debate. This is the reason why the state of discussion surrounding refugee issues is so abominable.

1) People that jump on leaky boats drown at sea. Simple view, but fact. I will call this again for what it is. Disingenuous crap. If the coalition or their boosters (or the ALP for that matter) really cared about the fate of refugees why have they spent the last 13 years demonizing them and dog whistling to the disaffected in our society? I have raised the examples before. I see no need to do it again.

2) Off shore processing and a hard stand, such as turning back boats stops people jumping on leaky boats. Simple view, but the facts back it up. I have gone through this earlier with what I said earlier (the stuff you dismissed as meaningless because it basically contradicted your implied point that there is only one way to solve this problem).

Let's also look at it from a more hard headed point of view and take all those touchy feely left wing 'feelings' out of it. Say we turn those boats around. Where do they go? I am guessing Indonesia. Now there have been varying reports on this but the word is that they are not overly happy about this particular kind of policy and from the limited information we are getting these days (easy to say there are no asylum seeker boats are coming when the public never hear about them anymore due to the immigration minister shutting up shop), it sounds as though there have been instances where the Indonesian government has not cooperated. Now, coming after a scandal in which the prime ministers wife has been spied upon and Mark Textor tweeting that their foreign minister looks like a 'porn star', perhaps a more pragmatic approach might be needed in dealing with a country that dwarfs us in population and troop numbers?

3) People that jump on leaky boats have got to safe countries already and don't have to take a perilous boat trip. Simple view, but is true. Ever lived as a non citizen Hannibal? I haven't but I'm pretty sure it's not a lot of fun. Not being able to get a job, pay taxes or participate in wider society would kinda blow. Spent a lot of time in a developing country as well? I guess when you have fulfilled those criteria, you might have a better idea of the actual issues surrounding this.

4) Should we take more refugees ? Sure, but under tight control. Simple view, but the idea of protecting our borders and citizens makes sense to me. Protecting our citizens you say? From what pray tell?

And you call me a lightweight ? FMD. Here I was thinking I may have been up against someone that actually could put me to the sword such was their heavy hitting and you come up with this ?

1. I say "people drown at sea" and you say, "Disingenuous crap.". Naturally I'm expecting a rebuttal that refutes Government sources over these past 6-7 years. Crickets. All I get is opinion about policy. So you're saying people don't really die at sea when you talk about my "disingenuous crap", but then don't even bother arguing that people aren't actually dying at sea ? And you have the temerity to call me disingenuous ?

2. I say, "off shore processing and turning back the boats" is working. So right about now I'm expecting a knock out blow, because you go all lengthy on me. OK, it seems you're somewhat troubled at having to repeat yourself from an earlier post, but go on to say, "Say we turn those boats around. Where do they go? I am guessing Indonesia." I'm thinking, yeah, good thing, right ? But I'm still a little nervous and waiting for this killer blow. But instead you talk of Indonesia not being happy, possibly not "cooperating", our "spying", "tweeting" and more "pragmatic" approaches. And here I'm thinking that lives are being saved at sea and we're stopping unscrupulous people smugglers. Instead, you're a nervous Nellie over some predictable chest beating by Indonesian politicians. You're ignoring that savings lives and choosing who we want enter our country is worthwhile.

3. I say, "people that jump on leaky boats risking a perilous journey have already reached safe havens". Once again, rather than refute this you say, "Ever lived as a non citizen Hannibal? I haven't but I'm pretty sure it's not a lot of fun". No-one ever said it was beer and skittles. Many of these people have been conned to pay smugglers thousands of dollars for trips on safe boats, only to lose their lives. I doubt the smuggler said, "look, it nearly sank last time but we're happy with the improvements". People wanting a better life get conned and have lost their lives. You're admitting that you believe their lives were not at immediate risk when they jumped on a leaky boat. This is fundamentally about a country having the right to protect its borders and determine who enters the country. Saving lives is also a consideration.

4. I speak of determining "who enters our country and protecting our citizens" and you insinuate this is folly. You care not who comes here or how we can determine their background. You care not how they get here, or whether they die on the way. You care not how they'll assimilate into our society. There are many aspects as to who qualifies for refugee status and there are plenty of perils that we're currently facing with assimilation from a number of ethnic communities, not to mention the problems our and other countries are having with Muslim immigrants. But you dismiss these issues with a broad brush as though they're fabrications of an intolerant society.

I don't pretend to be a heavy weight, but for a supposed deep thinker, you're about as light weight as I've seen on here.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Hannibal

[dee-luded 2,959]

I found his comment suggesting that the ABC support the "home team" a little odd... perhaps he should get some advice from China's politbureau to see how he can best go about that.

I think he's saying the ABC has become politically correct & knee jerk. on whims & popularity.

I'd say the ABC has become homogenised, pasteurised, & permeated to within 2mm of their integrity.

[nutbean 8,838]

Nutbean looks erudite in your wake.

I appreciate you thinking of me.

[Guest]

And you call me a lightweight ? FMD. Here I was thinking I may have been up against someone that actually could put me to the sword such was their heavy hitting and you come up with this ?

1. I say "people drown at sea" and you say, "Disingenuous crap.". Naturally I'm expecting a rebuttal that refutes Government sources over these past 6-7 years. Crickets. All I get is opinion about policy. So you're saying people don't really die at sea when you talk about my "disingenuous crap", but then don't even bother arguing that people aren't actually dying at sea ? And you have the temerity to call me disingenuous ?

2. I say, "off shore processing and turning back the boats" is working. So right about now I'm expecting a knock out blow, because you go all lengthy on me. OK, it seems you're somewhat troubled at having to repeat yourself from an earlier post, but go on to say, "Say we turn those boats around. Where do they go? I am guessing Indonesia." I'm thinking, yeah, good thing, right ? But I'm still a little nervous and waiting for this killer blow. But instead you talk of Indonesia not being happy, possibly not "cooperating", our "spying", "tweeting" and more "pragmatic" approaches. And here I'm thinking that lives are being saved at sea and we're stopping unscrupulous people smugglers. Instead, you're a nervous Nellie over some predictable chest beating by Indonesian politicians. You're ignoring that savings lives and choosing who we want enter our country is worthwhile.

3. I say, "people that jump on leaky boats risking a perilous journey have already reached safe havens". Once again, rather than refute this you say, "Ever lived as a non citizen Hannibal? I haven't but I'm pretty sure it's not a lot of fun". No-one ever said it was beer and skittles. Many of these people have been conned to pay smugglers thousands of dollars for trips on safe boats, only to lose their lives. I doubt the smuggler said, "look, it nearly sank last time but we're happy with the improvements". People wanting a better life get conned and have lost their lives. You're admitting that you believe their lives were not at immediate risk when they jumped on a leaky boat. This is fundamentally about a country having the right to protect its borders and determine who enters the country. Saving lives is also a consideration.

4. I speak of determining "who enters our country and protecting our citizens" and you insinuate this is folly. You care not who comes here or how we can determine their background. You care not how they get here, or whether they die on the way. You care not how they'll assimilate into our society. There are many aspects as to who qualifies for refugee status and there are plenty of perils that we're currently facing with assimilation from a number of ethnic communities, not to mention the problems our and other countries are having with Muslim immigrants. But you dismiss these issues with a broad brush as though they're fabrications of an intolerant society.

I don't pretend to be a heavy weight, but for a supposed deep thinker, you're about as light weight as I've seen on here.

Wow, you sure showed me... that you are still a political lightweight. It doesn't surprise me that you would have voted for Abbott as you seem to share his passion for all things simplistic.

Let's start by what I see as the defining aspect of your argument. It seems that you are either for policies that make Atilla the Hun nod his head and smile or you are for open border chaos that lets in every Muslim, Communist and undesirable. Has it ever occurred to you that there may be another way to solve this problem? One where people don't have to get on boats but they don't have to get locked up in outback prisons? My position on this has been pretty well documented during the course of this thread. However, for your benefit (I'm dead certain you won't pay any attention anyway, damn facts and figures actually take time to read) I will repeat it.

a) The number of refugee claims that Australia gets every year is miniscule compared to the rest of the world. We rank 49th for total number of refugees at around 22k and 69th for refugees accepted per capita . Compare this to Pakistan who host around 1.7 million. 81% of refugees are housed in the developing world. Therefore, whilst we should take steps to stop people making dangerous boat journeys, the current policy is a gross overreaction that achieves outcomes that could be attained more cost effectively, humanely and efficiently. (More information)

b) As of right now, it appears that the flow of boats reaching Australian shores (there is an important distinction there that will come into play later) has slowed down. However it is difficult to say what is actually going on as the minister for Immigration, Scott Morrison has shut down the weekly press briefing on Operation Sovereign borders and is now distributing media releases to the public when he deems it appropriate. We have already heard that Indonesia has already stepped up it's naval presence due to their bungling. What else are they keeping for us? Even your claim of people not getting on boats is dubious in that people still ARE getting on boats. They just aren't reaching Australian shores. The goal posts have been moved for political purposes.

Due to these factors I would encourage that the Australian government pursue a policy similar to or a variation of the policies adopted during the aftermath of the Vietnam war which includes an intake of refugees whilst the Australian government negotiates with it's Asian Pacific neighbors to create an orderly settlement scheme which allows people to apply for asylum without having to make an onshore application (which by the way is legal in Australia). This intake should not be reliant upon offshore processing or mandatory detention but the overall schemes success hinges upon it's ability to come to an agreement with our regional partners.

Now onto your points:

1) You really do have a cheek. You come on here and suggest that somehow people who want a responsible and humane refugee policy somehow are happy that people drown at sea so long as it shows that the Abbott policy is failing. When I called this so called concern for asylum seeker out for what it really is, disingenuous crap, you went apoplectic. I will repeat again: I will not take lectures from people who think that being compassionate includes locking children up in desert camps. This so called concern for refugees is merely a smoke screen and a convenience for the race baiters and demagogues to hide their true prejudices. If Tony Abbott was able to stop people getting on boats but was to do it in a way that respected human rights, then I would be all for it. However, he does not and uses this entire policy to dog whistle to the fears of the Australian people.

Did I ever say that people don't drown at sea? I know they do. However, and I will repeat this, I will not buy crocodile tears from a bunch of people who have spent the last 14 years demonizing asylum seekers and making up outright lies about them (i.e. that most of them aren't genuine refugees or are economic refugees when the figures of those who arrive by boat who are genuine exceeds 90%) when they justify their barbaric policies. No amount of indignation from you will stop me from saying that. What you are doing is classic John Howard 101. Try to take the highest possible moral high ground you can when the truth is, your side has dug themselves into such a hole you have to come up every now and again for oxygen.

I mentioned earlier an alternative approach or a variation of it i.e. the one that was used during the late 70's with the Vietnamese boat people. It seemed as that didn't fit in with your myopic world view, you conveniently ignored it. As you do with much of what has been said.

Try your self righteous act on someone else. It doesn't work with me sunshine.

2) Look at my points under the articles cited earlier under the 'b' bullet point.

I know you mightn't like it but Indonesia and our regional partners have a role to play in this. Trying to maintain peaceful relationships with them is one part of the issue. Even if you are in favor of the barbaric policies, wouldn't it be smarter to try and forge a working relationship with the country most arrivals come from?

3) Life in Indonesia as a stateless person is not all beer and skittles? You don't say?

It's not just a case of a better life. It's actually a case of having a life. Read the above article. Look at the situation in Malaysia.These people are existing day to day or worse. It's not because they want a better life. It's because they want to survive.

4) Again I ask, what are you protecting Australia from? You can spit and snarl at me like a wounded alley cat, but how about answering the question? When one uses the word 'protect', it is implied that there is the possibility of harm that one must be protected from. What are asylum seekers bringing to Australia that can bring us potential harm? I am guessing you won't answer this question because it will ultimately expose you.

I will finish up by saying that your style of debate seems to revolve around repeating the same thing over and over again, not backing anything up with numbers and then claiming everything you say is fact. I compare your style of debating to guys who tell the world how big their d**k is. If you have to repeat over and over that it is true but still provide no concrete evidence, then it's likely not true.

P.S. I did get the figure wrong on how much it cost per head to house asylum seekers on shore. (113k vs. 450k). It doesn't weaken my overall point on the costliness of 'border protection' but I can change my mind if I am shown pertinent facts. Can you?

P.P.S. Tony really cares about asylum seekers. So much so, that he is now considering cancelling their bridging VISAs for swearing and spreading rumors. (Hope they don't come to Demonland, they may end up on the next boat to Manus Island). Now, do you really think that is because there is such a problem with disruptive asylum seekers. It's to pander to electorates who have been lead to believe all the crap that have been spun by both mainstream sides of politics.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Colin B. Flaubert

[Hannibal 5,814]

Wow, you sure showed me... that you are still a political lightweight. It doesn't surprise me that you would have voted for Abbott as you seem to share his passion for all things simplistic.

Let's start by what I see as the defining aspect of your argument. It seems that you are either for policies that make Atilla the Hun nod his head and smile or you are for open border chaos that lets in every Muslim, Communist and undesirable. Has it ever occurred to you that there may be another way to solve this problem? One where people don't have to get on boats but they don't have to get locked up in outback prisons? My position on this has been pretty well documented during the course of this thread. However, for your benefit (I'm dead certain you won't pay any attention anyway, damn facts and figures actually take time to read) I will repeat it.

a) The number of refugee claims that Australia gets every year is miniscule compared to the rest of the world. We rank 49th for total number of refugees at around 22k and 69th for refugees accepted per capita . Compare this to Pakistan who host around 1.7 million. 81% of refugees are housed in the developing world. Therefore, whilst we should take steps to stop people making dangerous boat journeys, the current policy is a gross overreaction that achieves outcomes that could be attained more cost effectively, humanely and efficiently. (More information)

b) As of right now, it appears that the flow of boats reaching Australian shores (there is an important distinction there that will come into play later) has slowed down. However it is difficult to say what is actually going on as the minister for Immigration, Scott Morrison has shut down the weekly press briefing on Operation Sovereign borders and is now distributing media releases to the public when he deems it appropriate. We have already heard that Indonesia has already stepped up it's naval presence due to their bungling. What else are they keeping for us? Even your claim of people not getting on boats is dubious in that people still ARE getting on boats. They just aren't reaching Australian shores. The goal posts have been moved for political purposes.

Due to these factors I would encourage that the Australian government pursue a policy similar to or a variation of the policies adopted during the aftermath of the Vietnam war which includes an intake of refugees whilst the Australian government negotiates with it's Asian Pacific neighbors to create an orderly settlement scheme which allows people to apply for asylum without having to make an onshore application (which by the way is legal in Australia). This intake should not be reliant upon offshore processing or mandatory detention but the overall schemes success hinges upon it's ability to come to an agreement with our regional partners.

Now onto your points:

1) You really do have a cheek. You come on here and suggest that somehow people who want a responsible and humane refugee policy somehow are happy that people drown at sea so long as it shows that the Abbott policy is failing. When I called this so called concern for asylum seeker out for what it really is, disingenuous crap, you went apoplectic. I will repeat again: I will not take lectures from people who think that being compassionate includes locking children up in desert camps. This so called concern for refugees is merely a smoke screen and a convenience for the race baiters and demagogues to hide their true prejudices. If Tony Abbott was able to stop people getting on boats but was to do it in a way that respected human rights, then I would be all for it. However, he does not and uses this entire policy to dog whistle to the fears of the Australian people.

Did I ever say that people don't drown at sea? I know they do. However, and I will repeat this, I will not buy crocodile tears from a bunch of people who have spent the last 14 years demonizing asylum seekers and making up outright lies about them (i.e. that most of them aren't genuine refugees or are economic refugees when the figures of those who arrive by boat who are genuine exceeds 90%) when they justify their barbaric and policies. No amount of indignation from you will stop me from saying that. What you are doing is classic John Howard 101. Try to take the highest possible moral high ground you can when the truth is, your side has dug themselves into such a hole you have to come up every now and again for oxygen.

I mentioned earlier an alternative approach or a variation of it i.e. the one that was used during the late 70's with the Vietnamese boat people. It seemed as that didn't fit in with your myopic world view, you conveniently ignored it. As you do with much of what has been said.

Try your self righteous act on someone else. It doesn't work with me sunshine.

2) Look at my points under the articles cited earlier under the 'b' bullet point.

I know you mightn't like it but Indonesia and our regional partners have a role to play in this. Trying to maintain peaceful relationships with them is one part of the issue. Even if you are in favor of the barbaric policies, wouldn't it be smarter to try and forge a working relationship with the country most arrivals come from?

3) Life in Indonesia as a stateless person is not all beer and skittles? You don't say?

It's not just a case of a better life. It's actually a case of having a life. Read the above article. Look at the situation in Malaysia.These people are existing day to day or worse. It's not because they want a better life. It's because they want to survive.

4) Again I ask, what are you protecting Australia from? You can spit and snarl at me like a wounded alley cat, but how about answering the question? When one uses the word 'protect', it is implied that there is the possibility of harm that one must be protected from. What are asylum seekers bringing to Australia that can bring us potential harm? I am guessing you won't answer this question because it will ultimately expose you.

I will finish up by saying that your style of debate seems to revolve around repeating the same thing over and over again, not backing anything up with numbers and then claiming everything you say is fact. I compare your style of debating to guys who tell the world how big their d**k is. If you have to repeat over and over that it is true but still provide no concrete evidence, then it's likely not true.

P.S. I did get the figure wrong on how much it cost per head to house asylum seekers on shore. (113k vs. 450k). It doesn't weaken my overall point on the costliness of 'border protection' but I can change my mind if I am shown pertinent facts. Can you?

P.P.S. Tony really cares about asylum seekers. So much so, that he is now considering cancelling their bridging VISAs for swearing and spreading rumors. (Hope they don't come to Demonland, they may end up on the next boat to Manus Island). Now, do you really think that is because there is such a problem with disruptive asylum seekers. It's to pander to electorates who have been lead to believe all the crap that have been spun by both mainstream sides of politics.

Too long for me mate. I don't have the time. But at least you've got your views out there.

[Guest]

Too long for me mate. I don't have the time. But at least you've got your views out there.

I'm guessing that dealing in nuance or numbers isn't your strong point.

[dpositive 1,663]

"You're welcome to your opinion and I wouldn't really argue with your view."

Yet you do seem to do quite a bit of worthwhile argument I would have said. and that is a compliment as it exposes alternative views

"I'm too busy doing other things to ever become overly analytical."

Perhaps that's the problem there does need to be some serious analysis of serious issues, I think you have acknowleged this before.

"I rely on common sense." The trouble with common sense is it is rarely common and usually not sensible.

"My common sense usually gets me through, but it may differ from yours."See above it is not common sense but individual sense, it is great that it gets you through but it may not help others who differ.

"Carbon dioxide tax that won't change temperatures yet is an impost on business doesn't make sense. Simple view, but I'm happy with it."

A bit simple as it is not was not a tax but a pricing mechanism. Of itself it did not directly and could not change temperature however if it altered the behaviour of those who were paying the price and reduced use of energy produced from non sustainable means and encouraged use of alternative measures of producing energy it could (and indeed published results showed that this did occur) That this was aimed at Carbon emissions was as aresult of overwhelming scientific analysis of much variable data. I and many others acknowledge that this is still ongoing so dont bother to again point out the extremist views. If you are happy there are many who are not.

"The science isn't settled. Simple view, but is stated by scientists on both sides of the fence."

Fantastic. Agreement. So lets keep the research and analysis going and keep us informed.

"There's doubt that the world is warming "dangerously". Simple view, but it's shared by many."

Not sure this is actually true, there is plenty of evidence that there are warming patterns and trends but the "dangerous"aspect is more of an extremist point and relative to time scales and area. It may be more dangerous for the low lying islands if sea levels rise. It may be more dangerous if polar bears are moved to New York , It may be more dangerous for some species . Others species may well flourish

"Even if it is warming dangerously, the tax does NOTHING. Simple view, but fact."

See above

"Multiculturism is a flawed concept that doesn't work."

Again it would seem that Australia as a truly multi- cultural country in your opinion is not working. There are many people and economic and strategic papers that would dispute this. I am unaware of the "concept that is flawed" it would seem that a population of mixed cultures has as much or as little chance of success as discrete communities . As a concept the world is itself a multi-cultural environment which has its flaws but it also has its strengths.

"It encourages difference."

Actually I think Multiculturalism acknowledges differences.

"It doesn't promote assimilation."

Again by its very nature it promotes assimilation, individuals who deny it or do not support it may even in a multi cultural environment not promote it . This is usually to promote a singular culture , extremists will promote division to identify their own culture

"In fact the opposite is true."

see above

"Btw, don't confuse immigration with multiculturism, as the two are not similar in any way."

I will try not too. Immigration is a tool which can establish multicultured societies or discourage them (see White Australia policy)

"Simple view, but it's common sense."

See above concerns about simplifying complex arguments and commonality of sense.

"People that jump on leaky boats drown at sea."

Don't want to get too semantic, but the figures of arriving or turned back people are acknowledged then obviously, many do not drown or are not on leaky boats. The leakiness of the boat was an outcome introduced to negate being turned back

We are now apparently providing unleaky life boats to ensure they do not drown.

"Simple view, but fact." see above. Even my glib answer is too simple I acknowledge that but certainly facts do not support your contention. Some people on leaky boats may drown, some people on unleaky boats may drown. I am unsure of the figures some people see one drowning as unnecessary.

'Off shore processing and a hard stand, such as turning back boats stops people jumping on leaky boats. Simple view, but the facts back it up"

This is an untested hypothesis when we are unaware of how many people are or are not jumping on leaky boats. The evidence of towing back would indicate that they still are.

"People that jump on leaky boats have got to safe countries already and don't have to take a perilous boat trip. Simple view, but is true."

Some have but the question of how safe is certainly subjective. Figures from the Howard years indicated that large numbers were unsafe as they were accepted after a traumatic and inhumane detention.

"Should we take more refugees ? Sure, but under tight control. Simple view, but the idea of protecting our borders and citizens makes sense to me."

I dont disagree but as this is again a complex and fraught area I would prefer some greater analysis and direction from authorities. (I do not mean politicians)

"People don't know how to merge on freeways. Not politics, but it drives me nuts. Don't they know you have to merge at speed ?"

Agree perhaps being pedantic some do not I am sure you do. I acknowledge that often traffic conditions or even my own uncertainty results in me transgressing. Perhaps better education, improved traffic management, less traffic better public transport utilisation. Oh crikey not so simple.

"That said, I'm not sure how much depth you expect me to give or how much time you expect me to waste."

No more or less than you have and I will do the same.

"I fully recognise that any contributions I make on this site are an abject waste of time."

Not at all I enjoy them, they make me consider my own position sometimes strengthen sometimes erodes my thoughts. diverts me from some of the more mundane matters of life and makes me appreciate that we can indulge ourselves in these thoughts where many other people and cultures are restricted.

"I'm happy to be a "lightweight" with simple views."

I just wish you would acknowledge that you can (like our footy team) be better than that.

"You're welcome to express your heavy weight views. In fact, I encourage it."

Thanks for the opportunity I think I ran out of steam. Maybe I prefer things more simple but I recognise that is seldom the case.

I will await further comment from any correspondent hopefully pointing out the flaws in my simple argument and adding to the sum total of knowledge

[Hannibal 5,814]

I'm guessing that dealing in nuance or numbers isn't your strong point.

I seriously don't have the time.

If I get a chance I'll read it, but you tend to waffle on without concrete points, just theory and opinion with which I disagree.

And if I do read it I'll no doubt want to rebut some of your comments, which gets back to time better spent elsewhere.

EDIT: I like a hardline policy that completely dissuades people trying to cross seas to live here. Off shore processing and turning back boats dissuades people. A softer approach encourages people and leads to death at seas. The harder the approach the better in my view. Lock them and their children up and let anyone contemplating a boat trip think twice.

I don't like the length of time people spend in detention centres. Process them far quicker.

Happy to leave it there as we'll never agree.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Hannibal

[dpositive 1,663]

I seriously don't have the time.

If I get a chance I'll read it, but you tend to waffle on without concrete points, just theory and opinion with which I disagree.

And if I do read it I'll no doubt want to rebut some of your comments, which gets back to time better spent elsewhere.

EDIT: I like a hardline policy that completely dissuades people trying to cross seas to live here. Off shore processing and turning back boats dissuades people. A softer approach encourages people and leads to death at seas. The harder the approach the better in my view. Lock them and their children up and let anyone contemplating a boat trip think twice.

I don't like the length of time people spend in detention centres. Process them far quicker.

Happy to leave it there as we'll never agree.

Some points of agreement.

It does take time to improve knowledge. There have been many concrete points put before us. Theory is just that and is to be tested and proven or disproven not just ignored or contradicted. It is handy to have alternative opinion it assists progress and is a valued component of democracy.

I am unsure of wether the hard line policy completely dissuades people trying to cross seas. If it is working, I would think the proponents would be able to show us, the fact they are turning people back would indicate the reverse.

A softer alternative approach would stop the drownings, but of course does introduce other issues.

Processing quicker would definitely help . There was a very high % even in the Howard years who were approved after processing.

It has been shown from a psychological perspective the negative aspects of detaining children

Thanks for your contribution it has opened up plenty of relevant and helpful information and will hopefully assist many like me who require information and not simplistic slogans in making an informed decision. We may demand more of our politicians and leaders

[Hannibal 5,814]

Some points of agreement.

It does take time to improve knowledge. There have been many concrete points put before us. Theory is just that and is to be tested and proven or disproven not just ignored or contradicted. It is handy to have alternative opinion it assists progress and is a valued component of democracy.

I am unsure of wether the hard line policy completely dissuades people trying to cross seas. If it is working, I would think the proponents would be able to show us, the fact they are turning people back would indicate the reverse.

A softer alternative approach would stop the drownings, but of course does introduce other issues.

Processing quicker would definitely help . There was a very high % even in the Howard years who were approved after processing.

It has been shown from a psychological perspective the negative aspects of detaining children

Thanks for your contribution it has opened up plenty of relevant and helpful information and will hopefully assist many like me who require information and not simplistic slogans in making an informed decision. We may demand more of our politicians and leaders

I don't agree with all of your points, but you are a bloody nice guy.

[P-man 13,366]

I feel it should be noted in this thread the decision under this government's watch to allow the dumping of nearly 3 million cubic metres of dredge spoil near the GBR's marine park as part of the aptly named Abbot Point coal port expansion.

This after Hunt claiming that the port expansion and dredging of waste would actually improve the water quality...

Anyone who has visited the Reef I'm sure will agree it must be protected. I can overlook stupid decisions that can be reversed, and damage that can be undone. But if these deceitful, back scratching [censored] have placed our greatest natural wonder in jeopardy, as looks to be the case, I will never forgive them.

[Earl Hood 6,082]

I feel it should be noted in this thread the decision under this government's watch to allow the dumping of nearly 3 million cubic metres of dredge spoil near the GBR's marine park as part of the aptly named Abbot Point coal port expansion.

This after Hunt claiming that the port expansion and dredging of waste would actually improve the water quality...

Anyone who has visited the Reef I'm sure will agree it must be protected. I can overlook stupid decisions that can be reversed, and damage that can be undone. But if these deceitful, back scratching [censored] have placed our greatest natural wonder in jeopardy, as looks to be the case, I will never forgive them.

Can we also add the excizing of some 74,000 hectares of forest from the Tasmanian World Heritage protection zone to now be available for logging, no doubt. After years of negotiation to bing the loggers and Greens to the table and an agreement, truce, reached just last year, now G Hunt had opened up the war again. Well done Greg.

By the way does anyone know the economics of old goeth logging these days? Last time I heard every log harvested was subsidised by the State Government. Time to look at that industries funding.

[daisycutter 29,604]

Can we also add the excizing of some 74,000 hectares of forest from the Tasmanian World Heritage protection zone to now be available for logging, no doubt. After years of negotiation to bing the loggers and Greens to the table and an agreement, truce, reached just last year, now G Hunt had opened up the war again. Well done Greg.

By the way does anyone know the economics of old goeth logging these days? Last time I heard every log harvested was subsidised by the State Government. Time to look at that industries funding.

didn't the tas labor government just recently change it's position on logging and break with the greens?

or is it all greg hunt's idea?

[Earl Hood 6,082]

didn't the tas labor government just recently change it's position on logging and break with the greens?

or is it all greg hunt's idea?

DC i don't know I am still lying down thinking of England. You'll have to give me some time. I am desperately awaiting advice from Lord Weaver. Is he anywhere to be seen, my eyes are failing me!

[dpositive 1,663]

Having the acknowledgement of Hannibal I appreciate that I may be better advised to reference dland for matters of MFC relevance only

I appreciate the depth of some of the general discussion but would probably find more structured and objective analysis and reporting on these issues in mainstream or specialist media

I expect the discussion of footy to be extreme, passionate and irrational but expect better in matters of real importance

It does concern me that so many deluded by partisan ideologues impose ignorance on so many others

I suppose that's the beauty of democracy

[Hannibal 5,814]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/the-abc-guide-to-media-bias/story-e6frfhqf-1226635571521

Love this old Bolt article about the make-up of the ABC.

[Guest]

Some food for thought on asylum seekers from someone who has been at the coalface.
Ex-Immigration officer: is there asylum seeker blood on my hands?