Post: #51

As a 21 year old, my friends list went absolutely mental when Abbott was elected. They all trout out the same bullshit "omgz he's a mysoginist". I made sure to rub it in all their faces. Some ugly chick (legit 2/10) commented on a status of mine saying what a sexist he was, gets liked by a few different people - all guys. Fckin pathetic

Post: #52

it's now perfect to reply "he can't be misogynist, he's now the minister for women's afairs"

By default, he is the female perogative in AUstralia.

Post: #53

every woman that hates him is a feminist and or a misandrist and they only have that notion of him because gillard called him that. They are generally damaged goods anyway so its to be expected.

Further to this as you know, we have had one female PM in our history (Gillard) and look at the mess she created in nothing short of a record time, please open your eyes for the nations sake and see her and her party for what they are, a bad joke with us as the punchline.

Post: #54

(09-20-2013 12:44 AM)loki Wrote:  every woman that hates him is a feminist and or a misandrist and they only have that notion of him because gillard called him that. They are generally damaged goods anyway so its to be expected.

Your definition of a feminist is out of whack.

(09-20-2013 12:44 AM)loki Wrote:  Further to this as you know, we have had one female PM in our history (Gillard) and look at the mess she created in nothing short of a record time, please open your eyes for the nations sake and see her and her party for what they are, a bad joke with us as the punchline.

She was an awful leader, but her policy legacy is sound. Hence why Tony Abbott ended up adopting the two she will be remembered for: the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Gonski education reforms.

Post: #55

well it might be salvaged by him also qualifying "and/or misandrist"

Post: #56

Kermit the Frog would have won the election against Gillard/Rudd. They voted labour out, not Abbott in.

On a side-note - one of my mates from school got a bj from Abbott's daughter (who is a mad hussey)- you should have seen the amount of bragging that went on when Abbott got elected. "Did you hear?...The Prime-Minister's daughter sucked my cock". Fucking hilarious.

Post: #57

Which daughter?

Post: #58

(09-20-2013 03:14 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  Which daughter?

^This. Don't leave us hanging man haha

Post: #59

The one that went to Monte and is about 22, had to delete her facebook account when daddy got into office. I forgot her name.

Post: #60

(09-20-2013 01:15 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 12:44 AM)loki Wrote:  every woman that hates him is a feminist and or a misandrist and they only have that notion of him because gillard called him that. They are generally damaged goods anyway so its to be expected.

Your definition of a feminist is out of whack.

(09-20-2013 12:44 AM)loki Wrote:  Further to this as you know, we have had one female PM in our history (Gillard) and look at the mess she created in nothing short of a record time, please open your eyes for the nations sake and see her and her party for what they are, a bad joke with us as the punchline.

She was an awful leader, but her policy legacy is sound. Hence why Tony Abbott ended up adopting the two she will be remembered for: the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Gonski education reforms.

When I read threads like this, I imagine that I know feel about as lost as one of you Aussies reading a thread about the California Police State or some other local political problem.

Post: #61

(09-19-2013 11:17 AM)tiggaling Wrote:  

(09-19-2013 03:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  It would turn every first-world country into a third-world country overnight.

Interesting view!

But I don't really buy it. Countries in scandinavia are taking in a helluva lot of people from third world countries and there are not likely to sink into some kind of third worldism!

Sure they are. Actually, they're already well on their way. Let's take a look at, say, Malmö.

"Approximately 41 percent of Malmös population consists of first or second generation immigrants." And what happens? Crime goes up, tax-base erodes, poverty and unemploymend explode, growth slows down... "The majority [majority!] of foreign born working age adults in Malmö do not work."

Hello, third world.

Post: #62

National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) was the 2nd centre-piece policy of the last government (after the introduction of a carbon pricing scheme), where the federal government will assume care for disabled people from the states. It is enhanced by rehabilitation programs to endear disabled people to be more productive.

Gonski is named after the commissioner of the program, David Gonski, about the federal government establishing a national curriculum, taking it away from the states. It was to be the centre piece program if the last government won re-election. It comes along with increased federal funding for states that comply, and meet performance targets.

Post: #63

(09-20-2013 06:18 AM)thatGuy Wrote:  

(09-19-2013 11:17 AM)tiggaling Wrote:  

(09-19-2013 03:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  It would turn every first-world country into a third-world country overnight.

Interesting view!

But I don't really buy it. Countries in scandinavia are taking in a helluva lot of people from third world countries and there are not likely to sink into some kind of third worldism!

Sure they are. Actually, they're already well on their way. Let's take a look at, say, Malmö.

"Approximately 41 percent of Malmös population consists of first or second generation immigrants." And what happens? Crime goes up, tax-base erodes, poverty and unemploymend explode, growth slows down... "The majority [majority!] of foreign born working age adults in Malmö do not work."

Hello, third world.

Then they will vote more liberal (like the 3rd world immigrants to the USA do) because they simply can get something for free and give nothing in return. Who can blame them, they don't see it as their country or their future, just free money.

And eventually you have a socialist country where nothing grows and poverty becomes wide spread.

Definitely headed to 3rd world status as that keeps up.

Post: #64

Well, this very recent article shows what Swedes themselves think about Immigrants and their integration, which seems to be quite favourable compared to other nations.

http://www.thelocal.se/50314/20130918/

I haven't been to Sweden in many years, but when I was there, I was quite impressed by the quality of the immigrants.

Integration takes time. The multi-culturalism is one of the best things (maybe the best thing) about big Australian cities I think. (and regional areas)

Some places, like Germany, it isn't so much multi-culturalism, but almost like an invasion from people from certain cultures and countries. (like Turkey) I can understand how people can be against that, especially when it is just every man and his dog who moves there, without really integrating.

Post: #65

(09-20-2013 11:34 AM)tiggaling Wrote:  Some places, like Germany, it isn't so much multi-culturalism, but almost like an invasion from people from certain cultures and countries. (like Turkey) I can understand how people can be against that, especially when it is just every man and his dog who moves there, without really integrating.

But that's what the Australians are voting against! They just had nearly a decade of liberal immigration policies... so it's time for them to tighten up while they integrate the current immigrants.

It's a repeating eternal process, dude. You open the boarders for a little while, then you close them to make sure everyone is accustomed to their new culture. Then you open them up again.

So for example, 10 years of immigration followed by 10 years of closed borders. On and off. It's the only way to keep a country functioning smoothly.

Post: #66

(09-20-2013 11:34 AM)tiggaling Wrote:  Some places, like Germany, it isn't so much multi-culturalism, but almost like an invasion from people from certain cultures and countries. (like Turkey) I can understand how people can be against that, especially when it is just every man and his dog who moves there, without really integrating.

Yeah I was talking to my German housemate about what she thought of the Turks. She said she likes them in Turkey - thinks they're really nice people - but in Germany they live in enclaves, don't learn German, keep to themselves, see themselves as separate from the German people, sponge off welfare etc.

That's not what we have in Australia. The level of integration is really strong compared to places like Germany. By the time a group of immigrants hit 2nd generation they are practically Aussies with Australian accents and with friends from different backgrounds - it's really a very quick process.

Australian immigration is very selective and you need to be well educated, highly skilled and hard working to make it out here. Along with Canada, we get the best of the best.

The real tragedy is that Aborignal Australians are still perceived as the "other" on the periphery of Australian society. The level of racism towards them is entrenched. They are really disadvanted with their high levels of alcoholism, domestic violence, poor literacy levels, and living in the middle of nowhere. Not sure if there is a solution.

Post: #67

(09-20-2013 12:00 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  That's not what we have in Australia. The level of integration is really strong compared to places like Germany.

Cabramatta, Sydney.

Post: #68

I'm officially boycatting Australia by not eating veggiemite until the next elections.

Post: #69

Asylum seekers are not immigrants, its an entirely different issue. They are people seeking to enter a country because their own country is war torn and often they fear their own life for political reasons. Probably, a lot of them, being forced to leave their own country, for circumstances beyond their control, actually wanted to go somewhere with a good quality of life, and Australia appeals to a lot of them. The original news.com.au article I linked makes the point that over 90% of these asylum seekers actually get asylum in Australian, as politically, they do fit the bill.

As a LOT of these people come from war torn countries like Iraq and Afghanistan; countries in which Australia has sent troops into - it is hard to see why Australia cannot handle looking after a few of these people.

Properly immigrating into Australia is *really* hard, and it has been for a long time. I'm not sure there is anything Tony Abbott could do to make it harder!

You need to not only have good qualifications, but the qualifications that are needed in Australia and even then it is going to cost you a lot of money. For a lot of people around the world, Australia is the land of milk and honey, so you have all these highly qualified people from some third world country, working a couple of crapulous jobs wondering why they left where they came from, where everyone prefers to sit around and drink coffee and chew khat, rather than slave their life away in red tape/cotton wool land.

Even if you marry an Australian, it is a torturous and extremely expensive process to just cement your status as a resident, let alone become a citizen.

Post: #70

(09-20-2013 05:06 PM)tiggaling Wrote:  Properly immigrating into Australia is *really* hard, and it has been for a long time. I'm not sure there is anything Tony Abbott could do to make it harder!

Bullshit, 60% of our population growth is due to immigration. Abbott just like Howard is very supportive of high immigration. He famously said in an Australia Day speech a few years ago that "My instinct is to extend to as many people as possible the freedom and benefits of life in Australia."

(09-20-2013 04:11 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 12:00 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  That's not what we have in Australia. The level of integration is really strong compared to places like Germany.

Cabramatta, Sydney.

Obviously there are still enclaves, but on average Australia has much higher levels of residential integration of immigrants than other western countries. Most non-British/Kiwi/South African second generation young people I know can't even speak their parents language. A lot of kids who went to the selective entry state schools are FOBy as fuck though because most of those schools have barely any white kids.

(09-20-2013 11:47 AM)Samseau Wrote:  But that's what the Australians are voting against! They just had nearly a decade of liberal immigration policies... so it's time for them to tighten up while they integrate the current immigrants.

It's a repeating eternal process, dude. You open the boarders for a little while, then you close them to make sure everyone is accustomed to their new culture. Then you open them up again.

So for example, 10 years of immigration followed by 10 years of closed borders. On and off. It's the only way to keep a country functioning smoothly.

I might have misunderstood what you meant, but it seems like you don't understand what's going on here. Immigration intake (where almost all of our immigrants come from) was not an issue in this election. There has been a bi-partisan consensus here for high levels of immigration for decades.

Surprisingly the only major players in recent times that want to reduce immigration levels are on the left and want to do so for environmental reasons: The Greens and Julia Gillard (although she never actually tried to go through with reducing it while in office).

Fun fact: London Mayor Boris Johnson very recently floated the idea of free movement between Australia and the UK like we have with New Zealand and the Ten Pound Pom program we had after WWII, which coincidentally is how Abbott and Gillard both immigrated here. Seeing how well liked by the public those two are, I'd argue we never should have gotten rid of it in the first place Seriously though, I think we should do it.

Post: #71

I wouldn't want free movement between AUS and UK. I have both passports so could be biased.

You would get a lot of scroungers moving from UK to AUS. The welfare entitlement culture in UK is much more pronounced than in AUS. Australia is seen as this land of milk and honey with nice weather.

Australia already lets in a lot of British and they tend to be skilled and talented people. Let's keep it that way.

Post: #72

It's almost impossible for Americans to work in the OZ. A friend spent a year jumping though hoops, just to get down there and not get employment. He was still getting paid enough to get by from the headhunter, but local companies were shy about picking those guys up. A shame with such a manpower deficit. But they offer residency and eventually citizenship after two years. If they opened up 1 year contracts it could alleviate the workers shortage, and most guys I know don't want to leave the U.S. permanently, but go make bank for a year or so and come back.

Post: #73

(09-21-2013 09:21 AM)Que enspastic Wrote:  I wouldn't want free movement between AUS and UK. I have both passports so could be biased.

You would get a lot of scroungers moving from UK to AUS. The welfare entitlement culture in UK is much more pronounced than in AUS. Australia is seen as this land of milk and honey with nice weather.

Australia already lets in a lot of British and they tend to be skilled and talented people. Let's keep it that way.

This welfare point you raised is the only downside I can see. Are you sure it's a cultural thing or could it be just a by-product of the UK's welfare system? Free movement would allow us to get the manpower we need while avoiding any problems regarding integration or xenophobia while giving London's knowledge economy the human capital it needs without the same problems as well, big win-win. I might be biased myself though because I want to work in New York or London after I graduate.

(09-21-2013 09:42 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  It's almost impossible for Americans to work in the OZ. A friend spent a year jumping though hoops, just to get down there and not get employment. He was still getting paid enough to get by from the headhunter, but local companies were shy about picking those guys up. A shame with such a manpower deficit. But they offer residency and eventually citizenship after two years. If they opened up 1 year contracts it could alleviate the workers shortage, and most guys I know don't want to leave the U.S. permanently, but go make bank for a year or so and come back.

Your right. I know very few people who've immigrated here from America. Daygame in the tourist spots here and you'll meet very few as well, especially considering how many there are from small countries like the Netherlands and Sweden. I'd always thought it was because Americans weren't interested in coming to Australia though.

Post: #74

(09-20-2013 05:06 PM)tiggaling Wrote:  Asylum seekers are not immigrants, its an entirely different issue. They are people seeking to enter a country because their own country is war torn and often they fear their own life for political reasons.

You're completely out to lunch here, it seems you've swallowed the liberal blue pill hard on this issue. Red pill truth: first world nations are better off closing their borders to mass third world immigration, even under the guise of allowing only "refugee seekers". Because that's just a fucking semantics game, it doesn't mean shit. Look at Sweden, which just decided that literally every citizen of Syria is eligible for refugee status: http://news.yahoo.com/sweden-grants-blan...22802.html

And why is this a problem? Here's another article for you: http://rt.com/news/stockholm-violence-ou...fires-671/

Quote:For years, Sweden – one of Europe’s most tranquil countries, famous for its attractive immigration policies and generous welfare system – has been accepting an influx of immigrants, which now make up about 15 per cent of its population. These migrants have failed to integrate into Swedish society, and are only in the country to enjoy the country’s social benefits system, Swedish journalist Ingrid Carlqvist told RT.

“The problem is not from the Swedish government or from the Swedish people,” the editor in chief of Dispatch International said. “The last 20 years or so, we have seen so many immigrants coming to Sweden that really don’t like Sweden. They do not want to integrate, they do not want to live in [Swedish] society: Working, paying taxes and so on.”

“The people come here now because they know that Sweden will give them money for nothing. They don’t have to work, they don’t have to pay taxes – they can just stay here and get a lot of money. That is really a problem,” Carlqvist added.

Mass Muslim immigration is currently in the process of destroying Sweden, and then the government decides that the correct course of action is to open the floodgates to millions of Syrian refugees (mind you, Sweden is a country of only 10 million). This is complete and utter madness. The indigenous Swedish population will soon be rendered minorities in their native lands by such immigration policies. No country should sign up for voluntary self-annihilation through massive third-world immigration. It is quite literally a policy of national suicide. First world countries do not owe third world peoples refugee status, especially when those refugees refuse to integrate into Western society. And that is not theoretical. That's exactly what is happening all over Europe with Muslim immigrants.

I suggest you jettison your liberally indoctrinated feelings of white guilt and dump them in the dustbin alongside male privilege, rape culture, the patriarchy and other cultural Marxist inventions. Ever heard of "Muslim guilt or "Arab guilt"? Nope. Because there's no such thing. No people are naturally self-loathing. White guilt is a central component of liberal, Cathedral indoctrination. It's the only way well-meaning people can sign on to carry out a policy of national suicide against their own country and people.

Australia owes nothing to refugees and asylum seekers, and neither does Sweden or any other Western nation for that matter. If you want to be humanitarian, send them aid and help build refugee camps to house them. But don't bring them over to Western countries en masse.

Post: #75

P Dog,

My point was immigrating into Australia is not easy. We all know Australia has had to import a lot of people with skills because of a skills shortage. (probably the result of Australia largely selling out its higher education system to foreigners!)

Scorpion,

Many people have opinion regarding such complex issues like these. I tend to go out to lunch a bit, and take people less seriously when they forcefully shove their absolutely point of view in my general direction as if it was the veritable truth itself!

I personally think Sweden is being far too "liberal" here and that these policies will likely bite them on the bum, if they are not already, I don't disagree with that actually. But also, I'm not totally down with your views, which I find to be equally extreme and inspire people like Anders Breivik to go out on a shooting spree!

Uh, thanks for your suggestion vis-à-vis, "white guilt", but I don't feel this really applies, just that I have critical and insightful views on western culture - which I find to be quite rare in western people themselves. This would be one of the few places where I'm sure there are many who have realised the many weaknesses inherent in western culture.

(09-21-2013 03:43 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Australia owes nothing to refugees and asylum seekers, and neither does Sweden or any other Western nation for that matter. If you want to be humanitarian, send them aid and help build refugee camps to house them. But don't bring them over to Western countries en masse.

Maybe you could do with a brush up on your definition on what a refugee or asylum seeker is, and have a look at a united nations convention on refugees.

http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publicatio...d-refugees

"An asylum seeker is a person who has fled their own country and applied for protection as a refugee.

The United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by its 1967 Protocol (the Refugee Convention), defines who is a refugee and sets out the basic rights that countries should guarantee to refugees. According to the Convention, a refugee is a person who is outside their own country and is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their:

* race
* religion
* nationality
* membership of a particular social group or
* political opinion."

Seems pretty reasonable to me.