The Daily Wire: Refugees - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 58 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »

Refugees Why are we worrying?

#41 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 12 September 2011 - 10:03 AM

View Posticey, on 12 September 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

So if those numbers are correct, can you do better than Minister Bowen and point me to a source showing a coinciding four thousnd (4000) per cent or so increase in worldwide refugee numbers over the relevant time period? It would be a most compelling reason to accept your argument that "Howard got lucky" and that his policy counted for nought.

No, worldwide they didn't inceare 4,000%. But they did increase in our region [Sri Lanka; Afghanistan] and the increase in boat arrivals did track the increase worldwide in numbers.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#42 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 12 September 2011 - 10:04 AM

View PostGeorgeParsons, on 11 September 2011 - 08:55 AM, said:

Most Australians want on - shore processing. Ordinary people show a lot more decency and compassion than politicians. The London riots have complex causes; Australians won't be on the streets in defiance of common sense.

You're right, polls consistently show that most in the country are not party to the strange political debate on this issue.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#43 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 12 September 2011 - 11:00 AM

View Postscotto, on 12 September 2011 - 10:03 AM, said:

No, worldwide they didn't inceare 4,000%. But they did increase in our region [Sri Lanka; Afghanistan] and the increase in boat arrivals did track the increase worldwide in numbers.


OK, let's drop the "worldwide" parameter which you introduced when you said boat arrivals coincided "exactly with worldwide refugee numbers in the same period". Do we need to drop the refernce to "exactly" as well, instead substituting "inversely"? That would sve me from repeating my earlier question but now looking for a correlation in "our region" .
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#44 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 12 September 2011 - 11:03 AM

GeorgeParsons said:

Most Australians want on - shore processing.


View Postscotto, on 12 September 2011 - 10:04 AM, said:

You're right, polls consistently show that most in the country are not party to the strange political debate on this issue.


That's not an especially robust "most" is it?

Quote

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#45 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:01 PM

View Posticey, on 12 September 2011 - 11:03 AM, said:

That's not an especially robust "most" is it?

a majority... with about a quarter thinking they should be sent elsewhere. That's a pretty clear margin.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#46 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:02 PM

View Posticey, on 12 September 2011 - 11:00 AM, said:

OK, let's drop the "worldwide" parameter which you introduced when you said boat arrivals coincided "exactly with worldwide refugee numbers in the same period". Do we need to drop the refernce to "exactly" as well, instead substituting "inversely"? That would sve me from repeating my earlier question but now looking for a correlation in "our region" .

No, the increase tracked exaclty in time with the worldwide increase in refugee movements.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#47 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 12 September 2011 - 02:25 PM

View Postscotto, on 12 September 2011 - 12:01 PM, said:

a majority... with about a quarter thinking they should be sent elsewhere. That's a pretty clear margin.


I now call the "clear margin's" clarity into question.

Essential Research
(12th Sep, 2011): Thinking about the issue of asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat, do you think they should be processed in Australia or should they be sent to another country for processing?

Posted Image

At least more of the Lib voters seem to "know" what they think!


View Postscotto, on 12 September 2011 - 12:02 PM, said:

No, the increase tracked exaclty in time with the worldwide increase in refugee movements.


In time?

Your refer to the timeframe, but still no direct link. And certainly no link to a proportionate (4000%) change.

Fess up scotto, there is no such correlation is there? :rolleyes:
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#48 User is offline   GeorgeParsons 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 452
  • Joined: 02-May 11

Posted 12 September 2011 - 02:28 PM

The majority of Australians favour on-shore processing. Why should politicians ignore the will of the people?I am fascinated by the Right who believe in freedom for everything but the free movement of people( Oh! And same-sex marriage).Let's have some honesty from the Right. If you accept capitalism you accept the free play of market forces so you accept the free movement of people across the world. If you are on the Right and don't accept this proposition what do you believe?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#49 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 12 September 2011 - 03:04 PM

View Posticey, on 12 September 2011 - 02:25 PM, said:

At least more of the Lib voters seem to "know" what they think!
In time?

Your refer to the timeframe, but still no direct link. And certainly no link to a proportionate (4000%) change.

Fess up scotto, there is no such correlation is there? :rolleyes:

Sure... the Lib voters.. so at most it's about even, on those figures.

The graph - attached to this post, is from an article previously linked within this or a similar discussion, which also discussed worldwide flows.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Attached image(s)

  • Attached Image: monthly_09_2011/post-18-0-42641800-1315806783.jpg

0

#50 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 12 September 2011 - 03:19 PM

View PostGeorgeParsons, on 12 September 2011 - 02:28 PM, said:

The majority of Australians favour on-shore processing.


I think you may have hit the "post" button before seeing the poll above refuting your cherished theory.

View PostGeorgeParsons, on 12 September 2011 - 02:28 PM, said:

Why should politicians ignore the will of the people?I


Good question, but it does happen from time to time. The standard response is that "they" know what's good for us better than we do. Arguably, they are more in touch with the facts than the apathetic common man on the street.

In Gillard's case with the carbon tax, it's more likely neither. She's stuck with it because of circumstances and past history. If she goes, the tax goes. If the tax goes, she goes. Life has occasional sweet delights.


View PostGeorgeParsons, on 12 September 2011 - 02:28 PM, said:

I am fascinated by the Right who believe in freedom for everything but the free movement of people( Oh! And same-sex marriage).Let's have some honesty from the Right. If you accept capitalism you accept the free play of market forces so you accept the free movement of people across the world. If you are on the Right and don't accept this proposition what do you believe?


Perhaps there is a school of thought called selective capitalism, replete with a pinch of protectionism.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#51 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 12 September 2011 - 03:31 PM

View Postscotto, on 12 September 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

Sure... the Lib voters.. so at most it's about even, on those figures.


Two different polls with different results. But not too different. I agree, it's about even, no really clear winner (and a per cent or two either way is not convincing to either side).

View Postscotto, on 12 September 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

The graph - attached to this post, is from an article previously linked within this or a similar discussion, which also discussed worldwide flows.


And still no source. But accepting your graph, why does it not show any sharp increase around the '08'-'09 period consistent with the question put to Chris Bowen?

I can't look at the data behind the graph, but in any case, "asylum intake flows" bears no relation to "boats arriving with people claiming refugee status.

Certainly there's no steep 4000% type upward trends in your '09 graph. Keep googling. :(
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#52 User is offline   GeorgeParsons 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 452
  • Joined: 02-May 11

Posted 12 September 2011 - 05:12 PM

View Posticey, on 12 September 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:

I think you may have hit the "post" button before seeing the poll above refuting your cherished theory.



Good question, but it does happen from time to time. The standard response is that "they" know what's good for us better than we do. Arguably, they are more in touch with the facts than the apathetic common man on the street.

In Gillard's case with the carbon tax, it's more likely neither. She's stuck with it because of circumstances and past history. If she goes, the tax goes. If the tax goes, she goes. Life has occasional sweet delights.




Perhaps there is a school of thought called selective capitalism, replete with a pinch of protectionism.

No. You can't have selective capitalism. This would be like being slightly pregnant. And if you are a capitalist you can't believe in protectionism. Further if all the factors of production can move freely across the world why can't people? Let's be clear about this: Why can every factor but labour move freely?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#53 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 12 September 2011 - 05:28 PM

View PostGeorgeParsons, on 12 September 2011 - 05:12 PM, said:

No. You can't have selective capitalism. This would be like being slightly pregnant. And if you are a capitalist you can't believe in protectionism. Further if all the factors of production can move freely across the world why can't people? Let's be clear about this: Why can every factor but labour move freely?


Most countries protect their borders to a greater or lesser degree.

I doubt that capitalism (although definable) can be as easily and definitively diagnosed as pregnancy. Be I right or wrong on that, please give me an example of a country as clearly capitalistic as a near term mother-to-be is pregnant.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#54 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 12 September 2011 - 10:44 PM

View Posticey, on 11 September 2011 - 12:10 PM, said:

Quote

But of course the Liberals would never consider that. You see, the real reason why the Liberals demonise boat people but not plane people is politics. Plane people are more likely to be better connected and wealthy, and are therefore more likely to vote Liberal than boat people if they become naturalised citizens.

Now that's just out and out cynicism.

Yes, I am cynical when the Liberals are concerned - ulterior motives in every policy. But that's politics for you; we can always find two reasons for every decision - the public one and the real one.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#55 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:16 AM

View Posticey, on 12 September 2011 - 03:31 PM, said:

I can't look at the data behind the graph, but in any case, "asylum intake flows" bears no relation to "boats arriving with people claiming refugee status.

Certainly there's no steep 4000% type upward trends in your '09 graph. Keep googling. :(

Actually, they do, Icey, it's just that you're not willing to see it. I'm not googling anything, just following the broader discussion, which is to say the discussion taking place outside the heads of most federal politicians.

You haven't commented on my previous points regarding refugees - piddling part of our intake, no security threat, etc.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#56 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:19 AM

View Posticey, on 12 September 2011 - 05:28 PM, said:

Most countries protect their borders to a greater or lesser degree.

Most countries with land borders [not to mention Mediteranean countries with short water traverses to neighbours] accept that they cannot prevent refugees from crossing in large numbers. They don't engage in the idiocy of trying to transport much larger numbers of refugees than we will ever see back out of their country.

It is a total fantasy that we can 'protect' our borders in the way that politicians infer we can and should. It's also a fantasy that we need to 'protect' them from refugees in particular. We can't stop the constant flow of drugs into the country with several police services, Customs and other agencies involved.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#57 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:25 AM

View Posticey, on 12 September 2011 - 05:28 PM, said:

Be I right or wrong on that, please give me an example of a country as clearly capitalistic as a near term mother-to-be is pregnant.

You're kidding, right? You can't think of any capitalist economies in the whole world?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#58 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:49 AM

View Postscotto, on 13 September 2011 - 08:25 AM, said:

You're kidding, right? You can't think of any capitalist economies in the whole world?


Depends on your definitions, and I'm interested to see one that meets George's.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#59 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:49 AM

I said:

I can't look at the data behind the graph, but in any case, "asylum intake flows" bears no relation to "boats arriving with people claiming refugee status.

Certainly there's no steep 4000% type upward trends in your '09 graph.


View Postscotto, on 13 September 2011 - 08:16 AM, said:

Actually, they do, Icey, it's just that you're not willing to see it.



Posted Image

Looking, looking, looking ......
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#60 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 13 September 2011 - 09:05 AM

View Posticey, on 13 September 2011 - 08:49 AM, said:


Looking, looking, looking ......

Oh... you're talking about the 4,000 increase... you said that, I didn't.

How about those other points?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


  • 58 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »


Fast Reply