Gaznazdiak wrote:Not arguing, just saying.
On the subject of Australia needing Chinese style breeding restrictions:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... num=&view=
Daddybang wrote:Gaznazdiak wrote:Not arguing, just saying.
On the subject of Australia needing Chinese style breeding restrictions:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... num=&view=
Not saying we need it now but if our population growth continues as is and our food production keeps getting impacted by drought or lack of land etc and our resources are used at the same rate (or increases)then in future it may have to be looked at.
Daddybang wrote:Gaznazdiak wrote:Not arguing, just saying.
On the subject of Australia needing Chinese style breeding restrictions:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... num=&view=
Not saying we need it now but if our population growth continues as is and our food production keeps getting impacted by drought or lack of land etc and our resources are used at the same rate (or increases)then in future it may have to be looked at.
Tiger650 wrote:I am wondering why Australia should import people on the basis of "refugee status" as declared by the UN and their fellow travelers ?
You socialists have a cosy/touchy feely/ view of the world which is divorced from reality, all good if consequences were confined to yourselves but we all get to eat a piece of the s#It sandwich which is "progressive" universal immigration.
We are importing many thousands of bloody Rhoninga, people of such quality that even Buddhists finally lost patience and pissed them off over the border into Bangladesh.
Gaznazdiak wrote:Daddybang wrote:Gaznazdiak wrote:Not arguing, just saying.
On the subject of Australia needing Chinese style breeding restrictions:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... num=&view=
Not saying we need it now but if our population growth continues as is and our food production keeps getting impacted by drought or lack of land etc and our resources are used at the same rate (or increases)then in future it may have to be looked at.
That's just the point of the link I posted though Daddybang, according to census, Births Deaths and Marriages and the Bureau of Statistics, our birthrate has been falling since 1974. On the basis of that fact, without immigrants our population would be in decline.
Not just the birthrate of the blonde haired, blue eyed, bronzed life saver types some people insist are the only real Australians, but all people in Australia, black white and brindle coloured.
More people are dying and migrating than the birthrate can keep up with.
Australia is, like every country, a business. If the stock on your farm were dying or escaping faster than they were breeding you'll have to go to the saleyards to get more or go under. It's simple economics.
I was raised to question everything and take nothing at face value. When politicians with a vested interest in stirring the easily stirred with hyperbole, and I am pointing no fingers here, see an advantage by picking an issue that is as divisive as immigration, they will without compunction, lie through their teeth to get an advantage. A simple bit of research can show their lies for what they are.
Hanson trotted out the "We are being flooded by Asians" line to stir up the rednecks, and it worked because that's what they wanted to hear.
The truth is we get far more immigrants from Britain and New Zealand, but they blend in and aren't such an easy target for sh!t stirring.
Daddybang wrote:Gaznazdiak wrote:Daddybang wrote:Gaznazdiak wrote:Not arguing, just saying.
On the subject of Australia needing Chinese style breeding restrictions:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... num=&view=
Not saying we need it now but if our population growth continues as is and our food production keeps getting impacted by drought or lack of land etc and our resources are used at the same rate (or increases)then in future it may have to be looked at.
That's just the point of the link I posted though Daddybang, according to census, Births Deaths and Marriages and the Bureau of Statistics, our birthrate has been falling since 1974. On the basis of that fact, without immigrants our population would be in decline.
Not just the birthrate of the blonde haired, blue eyed, bronzed life saver types some people insist are the only real Australians, but all people in Australia, black white and brindle coloured.
More people are dying and migrating than the birthrate can keep up with.
Australia is, like every country, a business. If the stock on your farm were dying or escaping faster than they were breeding you'll have to go to the saleyards to get more or go under. It's simple economics.
I was raised to question everything and take nothing at face value. When politicians with a vested interest in stirring the easily stirred with hyperbole, and I am pointing no fingers here, see an advantage by picking an issue that is as divisive as immigration, they will without compunction, lie through their teeth to get an advantage. A simple bit of research can show their lies for what they are.
Hanson trotted out the "We are being flooded by Asians" line to stir up the rednecks, and it worked because that's what they wanted to hear.
The truth is we get far more immigrants from Britain and New Zealand, but they blend in and aren't such an easy target for sh!t stirring.
To stick with ya stock analogy when I get to many animals for the resources on my land I shoot a couple
Maybe a decline in population wouldn't be such a bad thing for a while.
PS contrary to what has been said by some my thoughts on immigrants are based purely on population vs resources not race.
Gaznazdiak wrote:Tiger650 wrote:I am wondering why Australia should import people on the basis of "refugee status" as declared by the UN and their fellow travelers ?
You socialists have a cosy/touchy feely/ view of the world which is divorced from reality, all good if consequences were confined to yourselves but we all get to eat a piece of the s#It sandwich which is "progressive" universal immigration.
We are importing many thousands of bloody Rhoninga, people of such quality that even Buddhists finally lost patience and pissed them off over the border into Bangladesh.
A couple of those pesky facts that always cloud a good discussion.
On the Rohingya:
https://theconversation.com/the-history ... ngya-84040
Lifesaride wrote:Gaznazdiak wrote:Tiger650 wrote:I am wondering why Australia should import people on the basis of "refugee status" as declared by the UN and their fellow travelers ?
You socialists have a cosy/touchy feely/ view of the world which is divorced from reality, all good if consequences were confined to yourselves but we all get to eat a piece of the s#It sandwich which is "progressive" universal immigration.
We are importing many thousands of bloody Rhoninga, people of such quality that even Buddhists finally lost patience and pissed them off over the border into Bangladesh.
A couple of those pesky facts that always cloud a good discussion.
On the Rohingya:
https://theconversation.com/the-history ... ngya-84040
Interestingly the author of the article failed to delve into the main cause of the current hostilities between the buddhists and the Rohingya. There has been many years of sexual assaults on you girls and boys from the buddhist villages, so I believe fault definitely lays on both sides of the fence.
Daddybang wrote:Only problem with the arable land is that (as any farmer will know) is that apart from 1 or two very Small areas Australian soil needs phosphate added to be viable which we have to import.so we have to sell a lot of what we produce to pay for it. We also send sh@tloads of our produce overseas and then pay a premium to get it back.
Now I don't know what effect the drought is having down South but I'm watching the effects of several years of it up here and out West and I can honestly say I don't believe our resources are up to what lies a head if our population growth continues as is. So I will respectfully agree to disagree with those who believe it is.
Gaznazdiak wrote:Lifesaride wrote:Gaznazdiak wrote:Tiger650 wrote:I am wondering why Australia should import people on the basis of "refugee status" as declared by the UN and their fellow travelers ?
You socialists have a cosy/touchy feely/ view of the world which is divorced from reality, all good if consequences were confined to yourselves but we all get to eat a piece of the s#It sandwich which is "progressive" universal immigration.
We are importing many thousands of bloody Rhoninga, people of such quality that even Buddhists finally lost patience and pissed them off over the border into Bangladesh.
A couple of those pesky facts that always cloud a good discussion.
On the Rohingya:
https://theconversation.com/the-history ... ngya-84040
Interestingly the author of the article failed to delve into the main cause of the current hostilities between the buddhists and the Rohingya. There has been many years of sexual assaults on you girls and boys from the buddhist villages, so I believe fault definitely lays on both sides of the fence.
On the Rohingya and sexual assaults:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/worl ... rapes.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... -forces-un
https://www.firstpost.com/world/rohingy ... 12763.html
https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN12S0AN
I could not find one single report of Rohingya being the perpetrators of rape or sexual assaults, but so many reports of them being raped by the peaceful Buddhists of Myanmar that the UN has blacklisted their army for systematically using rape as a weapon.
Unless you pulled that accusation out of your blurter to try to bolster a spurious position, you should be able to back it up, please do.
Lifesaride wrote:Gaznazdiak wrote:Lifesaride wrote:Gaznazdiak wrote:Tiger650 wrote:I am wondering why Australia should import people on the basis of "refugee status" as declared by the UN and their fellow travelers ?
You socialists have a cosy/touchy feely/ view of the world which is divorced from reality, all good if consequences were confined to yourselves but we all get to eat a piece of the s#It sandwich which is "progressive" universal immigration.
We are importing many thousands of bloody Rhoninga, people of such quality that even Buddhists finally lost patience and pissed them off over the border into Bangladesh.
A couple of those pesky facts that always cloud a good discussion.
On the Rohingya:
https://theconversation.com/the-history ... ngya-84040
Interestingly the author of the article failed to delve into the main cause of the current hostilities between the buddhists and the Rohingya. There has been many years of sexual assaults on you girls and boys from the buddhist villages, so I believe fault definitely lays on both sides of the fence.
On the Rohingya and sexual assaults:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/worl ... rapes.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... -forces-un
https://www.firstpost.com/world/rohingy ... 12763.html
https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN12S0AN
I could not find one single report of Rohingya being the perpetrators of rape or sexual assaults, but so many reports of them being raped by the peaceful Buddhists of Myanmar that the UN has blacklisted their army for systematically using rape as a weapon.
Unless you pulled that accusation out of your blurter to try to bolster a spurious position, you should be able to back it up, please do.
That’s probably because each of those articles are published in very left wing sources which are prioritised over and conservative sources by the very left wing google. It was actually widely reported when the rioting started a couple of years ago, before the army stepped in yet again. I will attempt to find articles by I can guarantee they won’t be from the ny times or the guardian.
Edit
1 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-18395788
2 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18497110
That’s about 3 minutes worth of looking
Gaznazdiak wrote:Daddybang wrote:Only problem with the arable land is that (as any farmer will know) is that apart from 1 or two very Small areas Australian soil needs phosphate added to be viable which we have to import.so we have to sell a lot of what we produce to pay for it. We also send sh@tloads of our produce overseas and then pay a premium to get it back.
Now I don't know what effect the drought is having down South but I'm watching the effects of several years of it up here and out West and I can honestly say I don't believe our resources are up to what lies a head if our population growth continues as is. So I will respectfully agree to disagree with those who believe it is.
Fair enough Daddybang, that's OK with me. We are all entitled to see things as our view shapes them.
And yes, we can respectfully agree to disagree.
What a boring old world it would be if everyone was the same, eh?
On the rain subject, it looks like Huey's trying to give it a go down here. Hope he's not just p***k teasing.
Lifesaride wrote:No I am definitely not suggesting that at all mate. I am simply pointing out that there is generally more to the story than is reported by some sources. As I said it was widely reported back back around 2010-14 when things started to heat up in Myanmar. I am just a little skeptical that the Rohingya are 100% blameless in this conflict. If you could point me back to where I said they deserve what they are going through at present that would be appreciated, as I don’t believe I said that or that they do in fact deserve to be displaced.
On the point of left vs right wing media, I think you may have misunderstood me. Once again you are putting words in my mouth, I never said the articles were wrong, I said that I doubted there would actually be any articles from those sources who mention the crimes of Rohingya. I just read through about a dozen articles from very left leaning sources published around 2012 and could not find a mention of any wrongdoing by the Muslim minority. I often read both left and right sources on a subject as BOTH seem to conveniently leave out the parts of the story that don’t suit their agenda.
Gaznazdiak wrote:Lifesaride wrote:No I am definitely not suggesting that at all mate. I am simply pointing out that there is generally more to the story than is reported by some sources. As I said it was widely reported back back around 2010-14 when things started to heat up in Myanmar. I am just a little skeptical that the Rohingya are 100% blameless in this conflict. If you could point me back to where I said they deserve what they are going through at present that would be appreciated, as I don’t believe I said that or that they do in fact deserve to be displaced.
On the point of left vs right wing media, I think you may have misunderstood me. Once again you are putting words in my mouth, I never said the articles were wrong, I said that I doubted there would actually be any articles from those sources who mention the crimes of Rohingya. I just read through about a dozen articles from very left leaning sources published around 2012 and could not find a mention of any wrongdoing by the Muslim minority. I often read both left and right sources on a subject as BOTH seem to conveniently leave out the parts of the story that don’t suit their agenda.
I may have been guilty of putting the wrong subtext to your words, but when you refer to a repressed minority as, "The bloody Rohingya, people of such quality even the Buddhists lost patience with them" it seems as though you are suggesting they are of lesser intrinsic value and deserve what is happening. If there is another way of interpreting that statement that has eluded me, my apologies.
As to the left/right information source, your statement "That’s probably because each of those articles are published in very left wing sources which are prioritised over and conservative sources by the very left wing google." was in relation to not being able to find the supposedly "widely reported" incidents you claim were the cause of the Rohingya's plight.
That doesn't even need subtextual nuance, that is plainly saying that anything reported by anyone you consider to be "left" will not report the truth as you see it.
I am not saying every Rohingya is a sweet natured angel, they are human after all.
The current crisis point in this decades long saga was brought to the boil when a tiny minority within the Rohingya got fed up with being treated like sh!t in the country they have lived in for generations, denied citizenship and basic human rights, and fought back.How many times would you let someone slap your face before you fought back?
As to whether Google is a leftist organization, Robert Rossney, one of the engineers working for them put it best:
"As Stephen Colbert has observed, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Engineering organizations tend towards so-called “liberal” positions because the practice of engineering emphasizes finding workable solutions, and you can’t come up with workable solutions without accurately assessing the state of the world.
American conservatism, especially over the last 30 years, has come to value ideology over evidence. That’s fine if you don’t have to make anything that works. But if you’re concerned with functionality, as engineers are, you have to go where the evidence takes you. And to conservatives, that will make you appear leftist.
Google does have ideological biases. The primary one is right there in its mission statement. Is making information universally accessible and useful is a good thing? It seems likely to me that it is, but it’s a lot harder to prove and disprove than other ideological positions, like “tax cuts improve investment and promote general prosperity,” which are provably false."
Lifesaride wrote:Gaznazdiak wrote:Lifesaride wrote:No I am definitely not suggesting that at all mate. I am simply pointing out that there is generally more to the story than is reported by some sources. As I said it was widely reported back back around 2010-14 when things started to heat up in Myanmar. I am just a little skeptical that the Rohingya are 100% blameless in this conflict. If you could point me back to where I said they deserve what they are going through at present that would be appreciated, as I don’t believe I said that or that they do in fact deserve to be displaced.
On the point of left vs right wing media, I think you may have misunderstood me. Once again you are putting words in my mouth, I never said the articles were wrong, I said that I doubted there would actually be any articles from those sources who mention the crimes of Rohingya. I just read through about a dozen articles from very left leaning sources published around 2012 and could not find a mention of any wrongdoing by the Muslim minority. I often read both left and right sources on a subject as BOTH seem to conveniently leave out the parts of the story that don’t suit their agenda.
I may have been guilty of putting the wrong subtext to your words, but when you refer to a repressed minority as, "The bloody Rohingya, people of such quality even the Buddhists lost patience with them" it seems as though you are suggesting they are of lesser intrinsic value and deserve what is happening. If there is another way of interpreting that statement that has eluded me, my apologies.
As to the left/right information source, your statement "That’s probably because each of those articles are published in very left wing sources which are prioritised over and conservative sources by the very left wing google." was in relation to not being able to find the supposedly "widely reported" incidents you claim were the cause of the Rohingya's plight.
That doesn't even need subtextual nuance, that is plainly saying that anything reported by anyone you consider to be "left" will not report the truth as you see it.
I am not saying every Rohingya is a sweet natured angel, they are human after all.
The current crisis point in this decades long saga was brought to the boil when a tiny minority within the Rohingya got fed up with being treated like sh!t in the country they have lived in for generations, denied citizenship and basic human rights, and fought back.How many times would you let someone slap your face before you fought back?
As to whether Google is a leftist organization, Robert Rossney, one of the engineers working for them put it best:
"As Stephen Colbert has observed, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Engineering organizations tend towards so-called “liberal” positions because the practice of engineering emphasizes finding workable solutions, and you can’t come up with workable solutions without accurately assessing the state of the world.
American conservatism, especially over the last 30 years, has come to value ideology over evidence. That’s fine if you don’t have to make anything that works. But if you’re concerned with functionality, as engineers are, you have to go where the evidence takes you. And to conservatives, that will make you appear leftist.
Google does have ideological biases. The primary one is right there in its mission statement. Is making information universally accessible and useful is a good thing? It seems likely to me that it is, but it’s a lot harder to prove and disprove than other ideological positions, like “tax cuts improve investment and promote general prosperity,” which are provably false."
I also never made the “bloody Rohingya...” quote, I reckon it may be worth going back a page mate. I havent once apportioned 100% guilt to either side. I think this disagreement may be happening because you attributed another members comment to me. My comments have simply been along the lines that some blame rests on both sides of the fence in this particular situation.
I do agree with the majority of what you are saying also.
Ziad wrote:My question is ok let's say both sides are at fault but look at the response from both sides.
Is it ok if a kid throws a stone at your car that you go and bash the living day light out of the kid.... and while you there demolish his house with your excavator or think it's justified that you can rape his mother and sisters. All cuz one kid did it. Next step is that you and your mates put on white bed sheet and go on rampage and burn all the houses of the relatives... and cuz you are still not happy so decide that you kill any ppl that have similar skin color or from same ethnic background..... ohh s**t as I said this is history repeating itself.
Academics call this extreme right wing ideology. And even ASIO has come out and saying they are worried about the alarming rise of extreme right wing ideology in young kids in Australia.
We teach others about friendship, mate ship and tolerance and empathy as one of the basic values of Australians.... but at many times we don't actually do them ourselves
Gaznazdiak wrote:Lifesaride wrote:Gaznazdiak wrote:Lifesaride wrote:No I am definitely not suggesting that at all mate. I am simply pointing out that there is generally more to the story than is reported by some sources. As I said it was widely reported back back around 2010-14 when things started to heat up in Myanmar. I am just a little skeptical that the Rohingya are 100% blameless in this conflict. If you could point me back to where I said they deserve what they are going through at present that would be appreciated, as I don’t believe I said that or that they do in fact deserve to be displaced.
On the point of left vs right wing media, I think you may have misunderstood me. Once again you are putting words in my mouth, I never said the articles were wrong, I said that I doubted there would actually be any articles from those sources who mention the crimes of Rohingya. I just read through about a dozen articles from very left leaning sources published around 2012 and could not find a mention of any wrongdoing by the Muslim minority. I often read both left and right sources on a subject as BOTH seem to conveniently leave out the parts of the story that don’t suit their agenda.
I may have been guilty of putting the wrong subtext to your words, but when you refer to a repressed minority as, "The bloody Rohingya, people of such quality even the Buddhists lost patience with them" it seems as though you are suggesting they are of lesser intrinsic value and deserve what is happening. If there is another way of interpreting that statement that has eluded me, my apologies.
As to the left/right information source, your statement "That’s probably because each of those articles are published in very left wing sources which are prioritised over and conservative sources by the very left wing google." was in relation to not being able to find the supposedly "widely reported" incidents you claim were the cause of the Rohingya's plight.
That doesn't even need subtextual nuance, that is plainly saying that anything reported by anyone you consider to be "left" will not report the truth as you see it.
I am not saying every Rohingya is a sweet natured angel, they are human after all.
The current crisis point in this decades long saga was brought to the boil when a tiny minority within the Rohingya got fed up with being treated like sh!t in the country they have lived in for generations, denied citizenship and basic human rights, and fought back.How many times would you let someone slap your face before you fought back?
As to whether Google is a leftist organization, Robert Rossney, one of the engineers working for them put it best:
"As Stephen Colbert has observed, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Engineering organizations tend towards so-called “liberal” positions because the practice of engineering emphasizes finding workable solutions, and you can’t come up with workable solutions without accurately assessing the state of the world.
American conservatism, especially over the last 30 years, has come to value ideology over evidence. That’s fine if you don’t have to make anything that works. But if you’re concerned with functionality, as engineers are, you have to go where the evidence takes you. And to conservatives, that will make you appear leftist.
Google does have ideological biases. The primary one is right there in its mission statement. Is making information universally accessible and useful is a good thing? It seems likely to me that it is, but it’s a lot harder to prove and disprove than other ideological positions, like “tax cuts improve investment and promote general prosperity,” which are provably false."
I also never made the “bloody Rohingya...” quote, I reckon it may be worth going back a page mate. I havent once apportioned 100% guilt to either side. I think this disagreement may be happening because you attributed another members comment to me. My comments have simply been along the lines that some blame rests on both sides of the fence in this particular situation.
I do agree with the majority of what you are saying also.
Buggeration, I bloody hate doing stupid sh!t like that.
My apologies, it was Tiger650, not you.
Colour me bright red right now.
And not in the political sense.
It doesn't take much to confuse me. Show me 2 shovels and tell me to take my pick and I'm fvcked.
Gaznazdiak wrote:I've just reread all 3 pages of comments on this thread, Homer, and I can't find anyone calling for "unvetted mass migration into Australia", not one.
Just the opposite.
That is just pure Hansonite "We're being swamped" nonsense.
PaddyT wrote:Gaznazdiak wrote:I've just reread all 3 pages of comments on this thread, Homer, and I can't find anyone calling for "unvetted mass migration into Australia", not one.
Just the opposite.
That is just pure Hansonite "We're being swamped" nonsense.
Agree 100%, as i pointed out in my first post my father was at one point considered to be a "dirty wog refo" and he was anything but, he was part of the previous mass immigration wave into this country which frankly could only be called a success. The issues for me are that no one on any side of Australian politics actually wants a sensible debate on the current rate of immigration and what our country should look like in the future, they all just dog whistle with it , as for Hanson, she is the ultimate dogwhistler. There are s!@t people in every community , end of story. Start chucking them in gaol, just as LAFO's hate to be tarred with the brush of the mass shooters, I can tell you ethnic communities hate to be tarred with the brush of their bad apples. Judge individuals, not communities.