Europe submits voluntarily

[bilby]

Even if what you say is correct about Islam always being Jihadist, it has has a long time on the world stage and shows no possibility of actually conquering the world. It is dated and anachronistic. By dwelling on this, you too bring anachronisms to the table...the same Jihadism as they bring, the same violence and the same idiocy that you can somehow kill those who oppose you and they will just vanish from the scene. That is part of your blindness and as long as we have dealt with this issue, you never move too far from recommending military style violence and totalitarian repression of those who oppose your own neo liberal industrialization concept of social development.

Jihadis like evolution moves very slowly, hardly perceivable. It was Gaddafi who said: Islam will conquer Europe without firing a shot, by mass migration.
I do wish more people would read what to Moslems is their life, namely, the Koran!

So I take it Gaddafi was just as bad at maths as you?

 

[Ford]

Jihadis like evolution moves very slowly, hardly perceivable. It was Gaddafi who said: Islam will conquer Europe without firing a shot, by mass migration.
I do wish more people would read what to Moslems is their life, namely, the Koran!

Well, shit. I guess we should write off Sioux Falls , South Dakota then.

My cousins live out there. He's a doctor, she's a lawyer, and they've got kids, too. Muslims...all of 'em. Not only that, but according to her there's thousands of Muslims in the greater Sioux Falls area. What's more, there's a history of Muslims in that area going back to the early 1900's.


Oh...my...god...they've been waging Jihad in SoDak for over a 100 years! Run!

 

[angelo]

Jihadis like evolution moves very slowly, hardly perceivable. It was Gaddafi who said: Islam will conquer Europe without firing a shot, by mass migration.
I do wish more people would read what to Moslems is their life, namely, the Koran!

So I take it Gaddafi was just as bad at maths as you?

Please read the fucking Koran for yourself, and remember that most moslems live by it.

 

[bilby]

So I take it Gaddafi was just as bad at maths as you?

Please read the fucking Koran for yourself, and remember that most moslems live by it.

I have; and no, they don't.

Like most Christians, most Muslims live only by the bits of their holy text that suit them.

 

[angelo]

Please read the fucking Koran for yourself, and remember that most moslems live by it.

I have; and no, they don't.

Like most Christians, most Muslims live only by the bits of their holy text that suit them.

Why do you always compare this death cult with xtianity? It has nothing whatsoever in common with islam.
Those 95.000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 were all attributed to Islam, not xtianity!
And your claim that economic migration costs around $2 per taxpayer is utter rubbish by observing this graph.
http://www.refugeeaction.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Detention-cost-per-person-NCOA.png

 

[bilby]

I have; and no, they don't.

Like most Christians, most Muslims live only by the bits of their holy text that suit them.

Why do you always compare this death cult with xtianity? It has nothing whatsoever in common with islam.
Those 95.000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 were all attributed to Islam, not xtianity!
And your claim that economic migration costs around $2 per taxpayer is utter rubbish by observing this graph.
http://www.refugeeaction.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Detention-cost-per-person-NCOA.png

OK, now I am wondering if you are just trolling, because surely nobody is really that stupid.

This is the second time you have presented this graph, and I pointed out the first time that it says NOTHING AT ALL about the cost per taxpayer.

Oh, and Christianity and Islam (along with Judaism) share a common root; so they have a LOT in common.

Most Christians don't stone their neighbours for wearing mixed fabrics, or give away all their possessions to the poor (in contravention of what their holy book says); Most Muslims do not engage in jihad - also in contravention of what their holy book says.

If you read the Bible, and try to use only the content of that book to predict Christian behaviour, then you will find that your expectations are completely wrong.

The same applies to expectations of Muslims from reading the Koran.

If you want to know how Christians, Muslims, or anyone else actually behaves, you need to watch how they behave. Reading the book they claim to follow is a poor alternative, and will lead to many erroneous expectations.

 

[bilby]

I have; and no, they don't.

Like most Christians, most Muslims live only by the bits of their holy text that suit them.

Why do you always compare this death cult with xtianity? It has nothing whatsoever in common with islam.
Those 95.000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 were all attributed to Islam, not xtianity!
And your claim that economic migration costs around $2 per taxpayer is utter rubbish by observing this graph.
http://www.refugeeaction.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Detention-cost-per-person-NCOA.png

A cop pulled me over just after I took delivery of my brand new car. He said I was driving at 140km/h in a 60 zone; But his claim was proven to be utter rubbish by my odometer, which showed that the car had only driven 58km in TOTAL.

If you understand why that anecdote makes no sense, then you should also understand why your refutation of my claim about the cost per taxpayer by presenting figures on the cost per refugee makes no sense either.

If you can't grasp just how desperately wrong you are, then you need to go back to primary school and learn some simple mathematics.

 

[TSwizzle]

Merkel double downs or near enough double. The estimated 800,000 "refugees" Germany planned on taking in will be almost double, 1,500,000.

Unconfirmed government reports have suggested that the country will take in a total of 1.5 million refugees this year – nearly double the original estimate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ur-damned-duty-to-help-refugees-a6686631.html

Gadafi's math is looking about right.

 

[angelo]

Why do you always compare this death cult with xtianity? It has nothing whatsoever in common with islam.
Those 95.000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 were all attributed to Islam, not xtianity!
And your claim that economic migration costs around $2 per taxpayer is utter rubbish by observing this graph.
http://www.refugeeaction.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Detention-cost-per-person-NCOA.png

A cop pulled me over just after I took delivery of my brand new car. He said I was driving at 140km/h in a 60 zone; But his claim was proven to be utter rubbish by my odometer, which showed that the car had only driven 58km in TOTAL.

If you understand why that anecdote makes no sense, then you should also understand why your refutation of my claim about the cost per taxpayer by presenting figures on the cost per refugee makes no sense either.

If you can't grasp just how desperately wrong you are, then you need to go back to primary school and learn some simple mathematics.

This from a bleeding heart left org.
http://rightnow.org.au/topics/asylum-seekers/the-economic-cost-of-australias-asylum-policies/

 

[angelo]

Merkel double downs or near enough double. The estimated 800,000 "refugees" Germany planned on taking in will be almost double, 1,500,000.

Unconfirmed government reports have suggested that the country will take in a total of 1.5 million refugees this year – nearly double the original estimate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ur-damned-duty-to-help-refugees-a6686631.html

Gadafi's math is looking about right.

He also gave a time period which I've forgotten. Something in the order of 50-100 years.

 

[bilby]

A cop pulled me over just after I took delivery of my brand new car. He said I was driving at 140km/h in a 60 zone; But his claim was proven to be utter rubbish by my odometer, which showed that the car had only driven 58km in TOTAL.

If you understand why that anecdote makes no sense, then you should also understand why your refutation of my claim about the cost per taxpayer by presenting figures on the cost per refugee makes no sense either.

If you can't grasp just how desperately wrong you are, then you need to go back to primary school and learn some simple mathematics.

This from a bleeding heart left org.
http://rightnow.org.au/topics/asylum-seekers/the-economic-cost-of-australias-asylum-policies/

Indeed. They completely disagree with you as well.

Is this an admission that you were wrong; or are you simply incapable of grasping that that link doesn't support you in any way?

 

[Warpoet]

OK, now I am wondering if you are just trolling, because surely nobody is really that stupid.

I wouldn't be so sure. I've honestly never seen him post anything even remotely intelligent on this forum, ever. Reading his posts is like reading the comments on Yahoo News, and the rest of the fearmongering loons in this thread aren't much better.

 

[angelo]

This from a bleeding heart left org.
http://rightnow.org.au/topics/asylum-seekers/the-economic-cost-of-australias-asylum-policies/

Indeed. They completely disagree with you as well.

Is this an admission that you were wrong; or are you simply incapable of grasping that that link doesn't support you in any way?

Of more importance, how did you come to the grand figure of $2 per year for each taxpayer as the cost of accommodating these freeloaders?
I have in front of a figure of 2.9 billion dollars per year and it's from that leftie site!

 

[bilby]

Indeed. They completely disagree with you as well.

Is this an admission that you were wrong; or are you simply incapable of grasping that that link doesn't support you in any way?

Of more importance, how did you come to the grand figure of $2 per year for each taxpayer as the cost of accommodating these freeloaders?
I have in front of a figure of 2.9 billion dollars per year and it's from that leftie site!

I set this out very clearly; It is the amount of Income Tax that goes to paying Newstart and Income Support to the 6,170 asylum seekers who became residents five years ago, for the median taxpayer in Australia.

Your 2.9 billion figure is the cost of offshore detention (which is much more expensive than just letting the asylum seekers in as residents).

Still, 2.9 billion is only 0.7% of the federal budget; or about $69 per annum from the ~$10,000 in tax paid by the median taxpayer.

Keeping people in detention is stupidly expensive, but it's still not very much out of our pockets. It is a LOT less out of our pockets if we just let people come here and claim Newstart - particularly as the VAST majority of asylum seekers are either working or in full-time education (with a view to working) sooner rather than later. A man who claims Newstart has a much higher chance of finding work and becoming a net contributor to the Federal budget than a man in a jail cell in Nauru.

Immigration has always benefitted the host country as they generally take the jobs the natives shun. In the case of Moslems, that's completely turned upside down. In my country for example, more than 85% of asylum seekers granted asylum, are still collecting government benefits five years, and in most cases, even longer. A huge burden on any country's budget!

Lets, see; according to the Australian Federal Government:

In 2009, Australia received 6170 asylum applications

So IF your figure is correct, and if EVERY SINGLE application was granted, five years later - last year - of 6,170 asylum seekers who arrived in 2009, 5,244.5 were still claiming benefits last year.

From the same source quoted above:

Refugees have the same entitlements as all other permanent residents

According to the Centrelink website, the benefits a 45 year old asylum seeker without children who is unemployed might be entitled to claim are:

Newstart - $523.40 per fortnight
Income Support Bonus (if eligible) - $110.60 per fortnight

They may also be entitled to a low income health card.

The total cash benefit per Asylum seeker is therefore around $635 per fortnight, or $16,510 per annum; for 5,250 claimants, this would be a total of 86.7 million per annum. You describe this as "A huge burden on any country's budget!"; it represents $4 per annum from every Australian - that's about 1c per person per day; or to look at it another way, it is about 0.02% of the 420 Billion (with a B) Australian Federal budget; or about 0.06% of the total federal Social Security and Welfare budget. You can multiply those numbers by five (or even ten if you feel like it) to account for five years of arrivals - the figures are still insignificant at $40 per annum per capita.

If the price of a cup of coffee a month is "a huge burden" then we have bigger worries than a few asylum seekers.

The cost of supporting these asylum seekers is rather less than the rounding error in our Federal Budget; EVEN IF your 85% figure was correct, the burden this places on our budget is almost too small to even measure.

You really, really need to start checking your information before regurgitating the bullshit you find on anti-immigration fear-mongering websites, or read from such fucking evil scumbags as Andrew Bolt.

We could easily afford to pay 100% of asylum seekers welfare for the rest of their lives; it would hardly impact the budget at all for us to do so - however I am very sceptical indeed of that 85% figure, and would love to know whose arse it was originally pulled from.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think you've got the wrong focus. It's the printing press that's the innovation. The reformation is just a side effect. Knowledge is power. The printing press shifted control of the knowledge away from the church/elites. Before the printing press the church and parish priest was most people's only way of learning about the world.

Likewise the monotheistic religions can be seen as a side-effect of writing (the technological innovation).

I think it makes more sense to see religion as the symptom of a regions technological maturity, rather than the driving force of history.

I'm not sure what you're arguing for with respect to the original dispute. Do you mean

1. The religious wars would have happened anyway, with or without the Reformation, because of the printing press,

Firstly... the Reformation wasn't so much about religion as about power. If you look at the religious movement of the Reformation they all have in common that they wanted to move concentrated power away from Rome in various ways. Initially they wanted to move it into the hands of regional kings. But as the Reformation went on it was more about moving power into the hands of the individual people. This is what printed books made possible. Newspapers of the 18'th century was the final nail in the coffin of priestly power. After that priests had a purely advisory function in society. Which is their position still. That's what the wars were about.

Secondly, if it hadn't been the Reformation something similar would have happened and we'd call it something else. So the Reformation would inevitably have happened because of the printing press. And then the religious wars would have been due to that. Root cause is still the printing press.

2. The Enlightenment would have happened anyway, with or without the religious wars, because of the printing press,

Yes. That is the logical next step.

3. Democracy and abolition and women's lib would have happened anyway, with or without the Enlightenment, because of the printing press,
4. ???

No. These are the result of other stuff. Women's lib for instance was the result of industrialisation. More effective means of production meant that a home didn't need a full-time caretaker to function.

 

[bigfield]

No. These are the result of other stuff. Women's lib for instance was the result of industrialisation. More effective means of production meant that a home didn't need a full-time caretaker to function.

The home didn't need a full-time caretaker before the industrial revolution, either. In fact it has never needed a full-time caretaker.

Prior to the industrial revolution, Working-class women divided their time between running the domestic economy and doing work that earned money for the household. In the cottage textile industry in England, it was women who made the textiles to be sold at market, and in subsistence farmers around the world, women worked in the fields (and still do).

The industrial revolution enriched a portion of the populace and created a middle class. Middle-class women in England adopted the lifestyle that we now stereotype as the 'Victorian lady", and became the domestic servants of their husbands. Meanwhile, working-class women worked in the factories and agricultural combines because they didn't have any other choice. It was a luxury for a man to have a housewife, not a necessity.

In the twentieth century, this attitude that (middle-class) women should stay in the home persisted. However, technology improved dramatically, and the amount of time required to maintain a household continued to decrease. Housewives were stuck in the house with relatively little housework to do.

Women's Lib gave women personal freedom of choice with respect to their occupation. They could choose to spend their lives doing something more productive than dusting behind cupboards. Women's Lib could have happened centuries ago, although it has always been a problem limited to upper-class women, and more recently, middle-class women. For working-class women it simply increased their options for earning a an income.

 

[angelo]

I set this out very clearly; It is the amount of Income Tax that goes to paying Newstart and Income Support to the 6,170 asylum seekers who became residents five years ago, for the median taxpayer in Australia.

Your 2.9 billion figure is the cost of offshore detention (which is much more expensive than just letting the asylum seekers in as residents).

Still, 2.9 billion is only 0.7% of the federal budget; or about $69 per annum from the ~$10,000 in tax paid by the median taxpayer.

Keeping people in detention is stupidly expensive, but it's still not very much out of our pockets. It is a LOT less out of our pockets if we just let people come here and claim Newstart - particularly as the VAST majority of asylum seekers are either working or in full-time education (with a view to working) sooner rather than later. A man who claims Newstart has a much higher chance of finding work and becoming a net contributor to the Federal budget than a man in a jail cell in Nauru.

So, you're admitting that your $2 per year figure was wrong?

 

[dystopian]

Firstly... the Reformation wasn't so much about religion as about power. If you look at the religious movement of the Reformation they all have in common that they wanted to move concentrated power away from Rome in various ways. Initially they wanted to move it into the hands of regional kings. But as the Reformation went on it was more about moving power into the hands of the individual people. This is what printed books made possible. Newspapers of the 18'th century was the final nail in the coffin of priestly power. After that priests had a purely advisory function in society. Which is their position still. That's what the wars were about.

The reformation was *not* about moving power into the hands of regional kings, and describing it that way is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize popular movements hundreds of years after the fact and ascribe intent to it that was never actually the intent but rather the natural outcome. You're putting the cart before the horse by doing so. The early reformists whose writings kicked things off didn't want to move power away from Rome and into the hands of regional kings; they wanted to *reform* the church, to get rid of 'heretical' doctrine and to get rid of corruption and materialism. The central conflict was most certainly a religious one; relating to doctrine. But you can't galvanize a population of peasants and burghers with theology alone. The reformation sparked into viability because the early leaders were skilled at using biblical prophecies to convince people of their cause; but it was successful not because it was about religion; or about the power of kings versus the church. It was successful because the people were poor and the church was rich; this is what allowed it to spread.

You're also wrong about it being about moving power into the hands of the individual, and the printing press/reformation causing priests to have only an advisory function in society. Exceptionally wrong, in fact. Protestant churches held tremendous power and political influence until well into the 19th century. Priests were by no means a mere advisory function in society. They could often wield power to greater extents than Catholic priests could; as protestant populations of the 17th and 18th centuries were often far more tied up in fundamentalist faith than catholic populations were. In the Catholic world, the Church wielded power because of traditional inertia. In the protestant world, the church wielded power because people were far more personally invested in religion and thus easier to sweep up into a frenzy of fervor.

No. These are the result of other stuff. Women's lib for instance was the result of industrialisation. More effective means of production meant that a home didn't need a full-time caretaker to function.

Incorrect. Women's rights movements became a thing well *before* industrializiation. For instance, in 1707 the Palatinate was the first state to abolish the practice whereby a woman cedes her legal rights and obligations were transferred to her husband upon marriage, thanks to Dorothea von Velen, who could be seen as one of the first modern feminists. Industrialization did not kick off women's liberation. Women's rights movements did accellerate during industralization, but this had nothing to do with the silly claim that homes didn't need a full-time caretake to function because of more effective means of production. More effective means of production have no relation whatsoever to whether a home needs or has a full-time caretaker; the ability of a factory to produce pottery faster and cheaper has no bearing on the function of an individual household.

 

[bilby]

I set this out very clearly; It is the amount of Income Tax that goes to paying Newstart and Income Support to the 6,170 asylum seekers who became residents five years ago, for the median taxpayer in Australia.

Your 2.9 billion figure is the cost of offshore detention (which is much more expensive than just letting the asylum seekers in as residents).

Still, 2.9 billion is only 0.7% of the federal budget; or about $69 per annum from the ~$10,000 in tax paid by the median taxpayer.

Keeping people in detention is stupidly expensive, but it's still not very much out of our pockets. It is a LOT less out of our pockets if we just let people come here and claim Newstart - particularly as the VAST majority of asylum seekers are either working or in full-time education (with a view to working) sooner rather than later. A man who claims Newstart has a much higher chance of finding work and becoming a net contributor to the Federal budget than a man in a jail cell in Nauru.

So, you're admitting that your $2 per year figure was wrong?

Not at all.

I was, and remain, correct, as I have been from the outset.

That you have failed to understand the facts presented is no surprise; indeed it seems that the next factual information on this topic that you understand will be the first.

 

[bigfield]

I set this out very clearly; It is the amount of Income Tax that goes to paying Newstart and Income Support to the 6,170 asylum seekers who became residents five years ago, for the median taxpayer in Australia.

Your 2.9 billion figure is the cost of offshore detention (which is much more expensive than just letting the asylum seekers in as residents).

Still, 2.9 billion is only 0.7% of the federal budget; or about $69 per annum from the ~$10,000 in tax paid by the median taxpayer.

Keeping people in detention is stupidly expensive, but it's still not very much out of our pockets. It is a LOT less out of our pockets if we just let people come here and claim Newstart - particularly as the VAST majority of asylum seekers are either working or in full-time education (with a view to working) sooner rather than later. A man who claims Newstart has a much higher chance of finding work and becoming a net contributor to the Federal budget than a man in a jail cell in Nauru.

So, you're admitting that your $2 per year figure was wrong?

You still haven't figured out the difference between:

A) The cost of paying Centrelink to settled refugees. This costs less than $2 per taxpayer.

and

B) The cost of detaining asylum seekers in offshore camps. This costs way, way more than $2 per taxpayer.

For some reason, you support the more-expensive policy of holding people in camps but then complain that settling refugees is too expensive.

It should be obvious: processing refugees' claims onshore (by issuing bridging visas) and processing them quickly is by far the cheapest option we have. Yet the xenophobes on the right (including the right faction of the ALP) would rather waste incredible amounts of taxpayer money to prevent boat people from ever setting foot in Australia.

It is the best option economically; it is the best option for Australia's foreign relations; and it is the most humanitarian option.

Bilby has vastly overestimated the cost of paying Centrelink to refugees. For the sake of his calculation he assumed that 100% of refugees are paid the full Newstart allowance, which would require that 100% of refugees be unemployed. In reality, about 40% of refugees are employed by the time they have been here for five years, and many others are not entitled to Newstart since they are not 'unemployed' but are instead students, carers, retirees etc. So the costs is actually much less than $2 per person.

Sadly, you are still unable to tell the difference between the costs of settling refugees and the costs of imprisoning asylum seekers.