Jump to content
scruffy1

how crap is this government ?

Recommended Posts

 

Shrug. Prove they wouldn't have been?

You asking me to prove a negative to your claim?

 

I didn't make a claim, I mocked yours to see if you'd reconsider yours.

 

Compassion for people and not sharks is great, but there's a whole convluted chain of responsibility going on, and Australis trades its direct for indirect responsibility. I don't blame the politicians, it's a relatively smart political gamble to play off, but it ignores that the world is getting smaller and more connected, and it's just fucking over someone you want as a customer at some point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Shrug. Prove they wouldn't have been?

You asking me to prove a negative to your claim?
I didn't make a claim, I mocked yours to see if you'd reconsider yours.Compassion for people and not sharks is great, but there's a whole convluted chain of responsibility going on, and Australis trades its direct for indirect responsibility. I don't blame the politicians, it's a relatively smart political gamble to play off, but it ignores that the world is getting smaller and more connected, and it's just fucking over someone you want as a customer at some point.

Why would I reconsider my claim in the face of your MPAA-style argument? Why would anyone?

 

In fact, why are you even making an MPAA-style argument on a forum of people with a very positive relationship with Uncle Torrance and a healthy disrespect for the logic underpinning the particular MPAA argument you're employing?

 

There's no convoluted chain of responsibility going on. We've made that abundantly clear by blocking boat arrival attempts - they're not even trying and because they're not even trying, they're not drowning as a result of tastywheat'so need to feel morally compliant with laws that have the unintended consequences of killing people.

 

Our responsibility as a resettlement country is to resettle refugees, to give them permanency, this makes us head and shoulders more moral than your average country which has UNHCR shanty towns but no resettlement policy - leaving refugees waiting in a proverbial queue for the two dozen or so countries with resettlement policies to offer them a place - a process that may take a decade.

 

So let's consider the idiocracy implemented by Labor:

- just shy of 10,000 illegal arrivals per year on average.

- 13,500 or thereabouts resettlement places per year of which 6k are SHVs - ie not from UNHCR but from hot zones like Yazzidis in Iraq.

- 1200 drownings at least over 6 years, directly because of introduced policy pull factors

- funding indirectly of people smuggling (and fuck knows what else) syndicates

- tens of thousands incarcerated people at direct australian cost, without UNHCR funding.

- complete overload of the detention centre network and the department of immigration

- reduced number of refugees resettled from UNHCR camps because the infiltrators jumped the queue of priorities

 

And this is viewed as the more moral, compassionate and less xenophobic model?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do a good thing by accident when you intended to be a cunt are you still a cunt?

 

Interesting question. See the Liberals did a good thing by design - by being cunts. It was no accident the first time (Pacific Solution), nor the second (Sovereign Borders).

 

The Liberals, on this issue, are cunts. They do not deny it. Malcolm Turnbull said as much in every Q&A on the topic.

 

But it is better to be a cunt, and achieve a better result than be a saint and achieve a worse one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the one making the claim. Why should I have to prove it for you?

 

Our conscience isn't cleared just because they die or suffer harm outside of Australian territorial borders, whether that happens on their way here via other routes or whether we force them to look elsewhere. If it is, I'd question whether you have compassion for the people not dying to sharks and drowning in our territorial borders, or if you just don't want to feel bad about it being more easily blamed on Australia.

 

This isn't an argument about partisan policy. Bringing up any recent stats from LNP or ALP policy changes isn't going to change the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't make the claim that "I'm 100% certain trying to make yourself look good by pretending that shifting deaths from drowning to deaths via other means and/or elsewhere, is anything but compassion."

 

That's your claim.

 

So I'm curious as to whether you can prove that from our 6-year, 50,000 illegal maritime arrival sample - whether 1200 of them would have been killed elsewhere in those 6 years.

If it is, I'd question whether you have compassion for the people not dying to sharks and drowning in our territorial borders, or if you just don't want to feel bad about it being more easily blamed on Australia.

There's a difference between compassion and being compassionate for the sake of your own morals with a negative result.

 

Do I feel bad about people dying out in the world? Yeah... maybe... up to a point. I mean hell... who can keep up with EVERYTHING going on? And it's hard to feel anything but helpless in most cases because it happens in regions where we as Aussies can't do a damned thing.

 

But do I have to continue supporting a policy over which I have voting control that leads people to their deaths because of tastywheat's need to feel morally superior? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't make the claim that "I'm 100% certain trying to make yourself look good by pretending that shifting deaths from drowning to deaths via other means and/or elsewhere, is anything but compassion."

 

That's your claim.

 

So I'm curious as to whether you can prove that from our 6-year, 50,000 illegal maritime arrival sample - whether 1200 of them would have been killed elsewhere in those 6 years.

You want me to prove something that didn't happen because it... didn't happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I didn't make the claim that "I'm 100% certain trying to make yourself look good by pretending that shifting deaths from drowning to deaths via other means and/or elsewhere, is anything but compassion."

 

That's your claim.

 

So I'm curious as to whether you can prove that from our 6-year, 50,000 illegal maritime arrival sample - whether 1200 of them would have been killed elsewhere in those 6 years.

You want me to prove something that didn't happen because it... didn't happen?

Interesting isn't it? Why make the claim if there's no way to ascertain it is true?

 

Any ideas Nich?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think the people are doing if they're not coming to Australia? Like, their options? Stay where they are and hope it doesn't get worse, go somewhere else and hope it's better, go to a camp and hope they get processed soon?

 

I think there's risk involved in all of those options compared to making it to a irst world country.

 

You're saying that... what, it doesn't matter as long as they don't come here because compassion and thus it's someone else's fault? That death via shark is the worst thing that can happen to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think the people are doing if they're not coming to Australia? Like, their options? Stay where they are and hope it doesn't get worse, go somewhere else and hope it's better, go to a camp and hope they get processed soon?

 

I think there's risk involved in all of those options compared to making it to a irst world country.

 

You're saying that... what, it doesn't matter as long as they don't come here because compassion and thus it's someone else's fault? That death via shark is the worst thing that can happen to them?

What I'm saying Much is that you don't know. And I don't know.

 

What I know is that our policies caused a flourishing smuggling trade, extremely well fed sharks with a highly developed taste for the other brown meat, and almost 2000 children in unlimited detention, an overcrowded detention network and an immigration department with a turnover higher than Palmer's policy changes.

 

I know people do because of Australia's policies. I'd like that stopped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ABC News: UNHCR says almost 350,000 people took to the seas to seek asylum or migrate this year

 

Almost 350,000 people have taken to the seas this year in search of asylum or migration, the United Nations refugee agency says.

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees said this was a record number of people involved in the risky sea journeys around the world.
Since January this year, 348,000 people had boarded the boats. The bulk of the arrivals had been in Europe, where more than 207,000 people had crossed the Mediterranean.
This was almost three times more than the previous high of about 70,000 in 2011 during the Libyan civil war.
The conflicts in Libya were again a factor this year, as well as the situation in Syria and Iraq, and the war in Ukraine.
Worldwide this year 4,272 people had died in the process of making sea journeys.
Governments must focus on saving lives: UNHCR
UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres said governments must focus on saving lives, rather than keeping foreigners out.
"This is a mistake, and precisely the wrong reaction for an era in which record numbers of people are fleeing wars," he said in a statement.
"Security and immigration management are concerns for any country, but policies must be designed in a way that human lives do not end up becoming collateral damage."
Mr Guterres said the international community's response had been marred by confusion over how to tackle the problem.
He said all players should address the root causes of why people had fled and should crack down on the criminal networks profiting from desperate would-be migrants.
The solutions should not be seen as an either/or, Labour or Liberal approach. This is an ignorant way of considering the situation, and both parties have been terrible in their own ways, though I would tend to agree with Leonid that the Labour government when Rudd returned to power was the worst combination of incompetence and cruelty.
We're currently spending a lot of money on cruel and unnecessary measures, instead of looking at the ways Australia can benefit from this source of migration, in addition to showing compassion to those in a desperate situation. The current policies are effective against people smugglers, but at the expense of legitimate refugees. Moving to onshore and community detention would save a significant amount of taxpayer funds, part of which could be reinvested in specific measures to shut down the people trafficking networks through collaboration with Indonesian Authorities. There would still be money leftover to increase the number of UNHCR positions, and assist those fleeing violence and persecution to do so via safer means.
My opinion on the reason we aren't seeing reasonable policies coming from government, is that to some degree, the 'unlawful maritime arrivals' serve as a useful distraction to domestic politics. Morrison is able to score points by saying he's 'stopped the boats', ignoring the fact that attempts are still being made, even though this is a relatively trivial issue in terms of both spending, and as a security threat. It's an easy way to get xenophobic and ignorant voters onside. What's interesting, is how easily this view can change for people when exposed to the realities of the situation, as was demonstrated on SBS's Go Back to Where You Came From documentary.
In summary, this is not a choice between compassionate and economically beneficial processing of asylum seekers, and deaths at sea. It's more complicated than that, and there are options other than turning the boats around, and indefinite offshore detention.
Edited by tastywheat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UN is 99.95% of the problem. The other 0.05% are their solutions to their problems.

 

They keep talking about root causes of problems?

 

Simple answer - extremism. Whether it is Arab head-hackers, Rwandan tribes, other random Islamolunatics, Christian child-enslavers, the few commie dictatorships left... Etc.

 

How do you solve it?

 

Let me guess? I'll just list the usual leftist buzzwords:

- edumacation

- empowerment

- local solutions

- justice

- equality

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn near gave my lappy a coffee bath over that last bubble, Scruffy. "massive packet of moron-flavoured biscuits" That's definitely going to be used at least once more, somewhere. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm saying Much is that you don't know. And I don't know.

 

What I know is that our policies caused a flourishing smuggling trade, extremely well fed sharks with a highly developed taste for the other brown meat, and almost 2000 children in unlimited detention, an overcrowded detention network and an immigration department with a turnover higher than Palmer's policy changes.

 

I know people do because of Australia's policies. I'd like that stopped.

For either major goal, I think there are better solutions than what the ALP and LNP have given us over the last decade or two. I'd like to see a decent RBA done on the situation - I want to see the numbers run.

 

I suspect the best solution will involve more countries putting aid money towards resolving the issues that cause such big waves of migration, and more countries signing up for resettlement so that camps don't become generational homes.

 

I'm not sure if I originally found http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2014/june/1401544800/richard-cooke/people-versus-political-class here or on fb, but it contained an interesting comment that's perhaps pertinent:

 

Paul Keating invented a strategy that was then expanded and perfected by John Howard: placate the business community with high levels of immigration, and crack down on asylum seekers to create the appearance of control. Kevin Rudds alteration of this gambit caused extreme anxiety among his colleagues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, all this fun around Credlin is hilarious. It completes the Dubya Down Unda trinity.

 

We already had an incompetent theocratic fool leader (Abbott/Dubya), and a sociopathic cunt who'll ruin lives to better himself and is certainly headed straight to hell (Morrison/Rumsfeld), now we also have the smarmy puppetmaster (Credlin/Cheney).

Edited by aquilus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

involve more countries putting aid money towards resolving the issues that cause such big waves of migration

Aid money does not solve tribal or religious extremism. But it is damned useful as a currency to buy weapons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People ask this question al the time... How crap is it? all i ask is, how could you do a better job? and doing what ever to make it better dose it affect any other things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't reckon anyone could do a worse job than Tones, Joe and Mal at the moment except maybe Chris and Scotty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't reckon anyone could do a worse job than Tones, Joe and Mal at the moment except maybe Chris and Scotty.

To be fair, I wouldn't mind a comedy break of Shortster stabbing himself in the back as an episode of Labor Wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shortarse is the least charismatic Australian politician since Howard, so expect him to usher in a new golden age of arse hattery soon™

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, looks like Scott Morrison is bringing his unique brand of being a cunt to social services.

 

Leonid must be overjoyed, so many plebeians gonna starve like they deserve.

Edited by aquilus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, looks like Scott Morrison is bringing his unique brand of being a cunt to social services.

 

Leonid must be overjoyed, so many plebeians gonna starve like they deserve.

 

Exactly. Maybe we'll terminate welfare assistance to 100K-earning families with one child.

 

We can't afford unnecessary middle class welfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So long as we have plenty of class warfare

Ah well... in that case you should vote Labor. Nothing like class warfare for union members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×