A thread on politics- have some balls and post

Remove this Banner Ad

Consider the fact that they might see borders as an irrelevant construct in a world where ecological collapse is a global issue. “Open borders” doesn’t mean more people on the planet. If I leave my back door open, a neighbour’s cat might wander in but doesn’t mean there are “more cats” in the ecosystem.

I mean I personally don’t believe in “open borders” (which in any case you seem to be using as a dishonest straw man argument to mock those who believe in a more compassionate approach to asylum seekers) but you have to be pretty deliberately obtuse to think that environmentalism and compassion for asylum seekers are inherently contradictory positions.
How is it obtuse? Greens supporters are contradictory. They want even more people to come here but magically think that more people wont produce more need for energy or water resource. Tell be TBD how this can be done? How can more people use less water and less environment?
 
Greens do want open borders ...its in their platform.

I mean, that’s just not true. As I am not a member of the Greens I had to look it up, and it was the simplest of 30 second fact checks.

 
Greens do want open borders ...its in their platform. If they were truly greens they would be for nil population growth..but they can't do that as most of their supporters are for social justice come one come all
You know words have meanings? "Open borders" has a specific meaning, and I see nothing in the Greens platform to suggest they want it. In fact, since they mention applications for asylum and priority lists for immigration, that would suggest they don't favour open borders. Perhaps you can point out to me the section that specifically states the Greens want open borders.


Again, if you're so opposed to social justice, do something to raise the profile of Sustainable Australia.

The greens voted against any population plebiscite in the senate a few weeks ago..to let the public have a say about whether we should limit immigration
The public is free to vote for parties that want to limit immigration. Should we have a plebiscite on changes to radio transmission policy too, which has been discussed in parliament in the last year? If not, why not?

So how many people should Australia let in per year? I would be happy with a po public vote on this but big business runs australia as well as treasury
Ask the experts, not me. I'd just be guessing. But I would say that if we were actually serious about building infrastructure in this country we could take more than we currently do with no issues. That's the biggest issue, not the number of immigrants.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

How is it obtuse? Greens supporters are contradictory. They want even more people to come here but magically think that more people wont produce more need for energy or water resource. Tell be TBD how this can be done? How can more people use less water and less environment?
If we change to renewable energy, and adopt sustainable farming practices instead of allowing corporations to grow cotton in semi-arid land, that will be a huge saving on resources.
 
How is it obtuse? Greens supporters are contradictory. They want even more people to come here but magically think that more people wont produce more need for energy or water resource. Tell be TBD how this can be done? How can more people use less water and less environment?

As I have said, I’m not a “Green” and have no obligation or compulsion to spend all my Sunday helping you fill gaps in your understanding, especially when I already addressed it already.

So once more for those slow on the uptake... it is not inherently contradictory to be willing to take in more asylum seekers and care about the environment. Particularly if one thinks more globally.

These people are already on planet earth. They don’t simply not exist just because you can’t see them. Carbon in the atmosphere is carbon in the atmosphere whether it comes from Biloela or Bangalore.

It’s utterly possible to be an environmentalist and care about asylum seekers at the same time. I mean... they are living creatures right?

Anyway, like I said, it’s Sunday and I’ve spent too much time in the past banging my head against people who recite the same old talking points from the Andrew Bolt hive mind.

Have at it.
 
As I have said, I’m not a “Green” and have no obligation or compulsion to spend all my Sunday helping you fill gaps in your understanding, especially when I already addressed it already.

So once more for those slow on the uptake... it is not inherently contradictory to be willing to take in more asylum seekers and care about the environment. Particularly if one thinks more globally.

These people are already on planet earth. They don’t simply not exist just because you can’t see them. Carbon in the atmosphere is carbon in the atmosphere whether it comes from Biloela or Bangalore.

It’s utterly possible to be an environmentalist and care about asylum seekers at the same time. I mean... they are living creatures right?

Anyway, like I said, it’s Sunday and I’ve spent too much time in the past banging my head against people who recite the same old talking points from the Andrew Bolt hive mind.

Have at it.
Um it is contradictory and a very poor argument..australia has a choice in how many people we admit. The people dont get a say though

Instead they live in the leafy burbs and have platitudes that are empty

Moar immigration!
Moar diversity!
Greens voters scream....just not near them
 
If we change to renewable energy, and adopt sustainable farming practices instead of allowing corporations to grow cotton in semi-arid land, that will be a huge saving on resources.

Why not just import fewer people and use less carbon as a result? How many people in your opinion can australia fit bananas? At 2percent growth it doubles every 36 years. Please put a number on how many people australia can sustain
 
Um it is contradictory and a very poor argument..australia has a choice in how many people we admit. The people dont get a say though
Why stop at immigration? If we're going to have a plebiscite on that, let's have one on the Regional Forest Agreements Legislation repeal which is currently in front of parliament. What makes one issue worthy of a plebiscite and not another, when people are free to vote for parties against immigration at every election?

Instead they live in the leafy burbs and have platitudes that are empty
Hold on, I thought they lived in the inner city. Which is it?

Moar immigration!
Moar diversity!
Greens voters scream....just not near them
Completely ignoring the inconvenient fact of West End being the main Greens base in Queensland to suit your agenda, I see.
 
Last edited:
Why not just import fewer people and use less carbon as a result?
Because there are far greater gains to be made from renewable energy and better use of resources. Besides, most immigrants are skilled immigrants, and I haven't heard anything about the Greens wanting to expand skilled immigration, only to target it more closely to skills shortages. Their focus is on refugees who make up less than 10% of immigrants.

How many people in your opinion can australia fit bananas? At 2percent growth it doubles every 36 years. Please put a number on how many people australia can sustain
I've answered your question already and I'm just going to repost the answer.
Ask the experts, not me. I'd just be guessing.
It's not my opinion you should be curious about, it should be those of scientists and social scientists who conduct research in the field.
 
Why stop at immigration? If we're going to have a plebiscite on that, let's have one on the Regional Forest Agreements Legislation repeal which is currently in front of parliament. What makes one issue worthy of a plebiscite and not another, when people are free to vote for parties against immigration at every election?


Hold on, I thought they lived in the inner city. Which is it?


Completely ignoring the inconvenient fact of West End being the main Greens base in Queensland to suit your agenda, I see.
West end is the home of sjw...look at trad!

Live nowhere near the environment or the Bush but love the greens....lol
 
Because there are far greater gains to be made from renewable energy and better use of resources. Besides, most immigrants are skilled immigrants, and I haven't heard anything about the Greens wanting to expand skilled immigration, only to target it more closely to skills shortages. Their focus is on refugees who make up less than 10% of immigrants.


I've answered your question already and I'm just going to repost the answer.

It's not my opinion you should be curious about, it should be those of scientists and social scientists who conduct research in the field.
Most immigrants are not skilled immigrants...amazed you fall for big business and govt propaganda
 
It's not my opinion you should be curious about, it should be those of scientists and social scientists who conduct research in the field.

Unfortunately people might have to look beyond News Limited publications to encounter this information. And there is the true problem at the heart of our democracy.
 
West end is the home of sjw...look at trad!

Live nowhere near the environment or the Bush but love the greens....lol

Generally good discourse is meant to sharpen, build and hone ideas. You seem to be going in the other direction. It appears the more you are challenged, substance seems to give way to childish internet hive mind banalities such as "lol virtue signallers!" and "hurrrr SJWs!".

When you decided to bump 4 month-old posts this morning, specifically demanding that particular posters respond to you, what were you hoping to achieve? Because the way your debating strategy is unfolding, it feels like you just felt like thumping your chest, insulting people and picking a fight.

Surely there is something better to do on a glorious Brisbane Sunday?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Most immigrants are not skilled immigrants...amazed you fall for big business and govt propaganda
All right then Smarty Pants, prove it. Show me that most permanent immigrants do not enter the country through the skilled migration program.

West end is the home of sjw...look at trad!
Trad isn't an SJW in any way, she serves the big corporations just as the rest of Queensland Labor do.

Live nowhere near the environment or the Bush but love the greens....lol
Wait, so they live nowhere near the environment but they also live in the "leafy suburbs"? As I've said, I know multiple greens members from country towns.
 
Generally good discourse is meant to sharpen, build and hone ideas. You seem to be going in the other direction. It appears the more you are challenged, substance seems to give way to childish internet hive mind banalities such as "lol virtue signallers!" and "hurrrr SJWs!".

When you decided to bump 4 month-old posts this morning, specifically demanding that particular posters respond to you, what were you hoping to achieve? Because the way your debating strategy is unfolding, it feels like you just felt like thumping your chest, insulting people and picking a fight.

Surely there is something better to do on a glorious Brisbane Sunday?
Love pointing out green hypocrisy

Like larissa waters living in pullenvale and commuting via car (my all that pollution and carbon!) To her newly outfitted paddo office (imagine all the materials used to furnish her new digs!)
 
All right then Smarty Pants, prove it. Show me that most permanent immigrants do not enter the country through the skilled migration program.


Trad isn't an SJW in any way, she serves the big corporations just as the rest of Queensland Labor do.


Wait, so they live nowhere near the environment but they also live in the "leafy suburbs"? As I've said, I know multiple greens members from country towns.

Naively supporting big govt and business against the common man in australia bu demanding even more people flood in
 
Love pointing out green hypocrisy

Like larissa waters living in pullenvale and commuting via car (my all that pollution and carbon!) To her newly outfitted paddo office (imagine all the materials used to furnish her new digs!)
This is really the stupidest argument.
Should she live closer to Paddington?
Should environmentalists not have furniture?

I suppose she shouldn't use a phone, yanno, because it validates the erection of more towers. Throw out her TV, because commercials promote waste. One would hope she doesn't wear jewelry, supporting the extraction of metals via harmful mines. You seem to think the only valid advocates for the environment must live in grass huts, sustained by bush tucker.
 
Oh no he uses a vehicle appropriate to where he lives. Which is *checks notes* not the inner city. Huh. If you're going to insist on arguing in bad faith and denial, could you be a bit less obvious about it? At least try to put up a sporting performance.
Lol justifying the greens leader no less using a diesel emitting 6 cylinder 4wd...yep no hypocrisy
 
This is really the stupidest argument.
Should she live closer to Paddington?
Should environmentalists not have furniture?

I suppose she shouldn't use a phone, yanno, because it validates the erection of more towers. Throw out her TV, because commercials promote waste. One would hope she doesn't wear jewelry, supporting the extraction of metals via harmful mines. You seem to think the only valid advocates for the environment must live in grass huts, sustained by bush tucker.
Good points skoob

And pullenvale is a long way to go from her office in paddo, adding to urban sprawl
 
This is really the stupidest argument.
Should she live closer to Paddington?
Should environmentalists not have furniture?

I suppose she shouldn't use a phone, yanno, because it validates the erection of more towers. Throw out her TV, because commercials promote waste. One would hope she doesn't wear jewelry, supporting the extraction of metals via harmful mines. You seem to think the only valid advocates for the environment must live in grass huts, sustained by bush tucker.

Presumably LethalLions is one of those small government conservatives who refuses to accept any childcare rebates, negative gearing concessions, private health rebates and any other form of unnecessary middle class welfare... got to stand up for your principles afterall.

Actually, to be fair, he wouldn't be eligible for childcare rebates, because I can only assume that someone so passionate about population control would surely have committed themself to a lifetime of not procreating. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite now....
 
Presumably LethalLions is one of those small government conservatives who refuses to accept any childcare rebates, negative gearing concessions, private health rebates and any other form of unnecessary middle class welfare... got to stand up for your principles afterall.

Actually, to be fair, he wouldn't be eligible for childcare rebates, because I can only assume that someone so passionate about population control would surely have committed themself to a lifetime of not procreating. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite now....
Arent you for population control brown dog? How many people should we have in australia? Why arent Australians allowed to have a say if we want more people at all?

Anyone advocating more people coming here at all with the massive drought we are facing is el stupido ...
 

Remove this Banner Ad

A thread on politics- have some balls and post

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top