Speaking the TRUTH gets you labeled a "racist".

Absurd? I would have thought it would have been obvious that a large proportion of Australia`s population would have little, or no significant interaction with Abos. If it wasn`t for my work, and the fact that I like them, I`d hardly ever come into contact with Aborigines.

 

The types you describe are more prevelant in Aborigines than Whites.

 

Not my arguement, honestly are you people really this dumb?

Perhaps this type of thinking doesn't gel for people that like to tar many with the same brush. They like to cry racist and shame OZ shame.

I stand by my comment the vast majority of people in OZ do nothing what-so-ever to the detriment of indigenous people. The vast majority have no cause nor opportunity nor desire to do so.

We work, go home, have families, go to the pub, play sport whatever, we have better things to do in our lives than to go out of our way to be racist against people we have very little interaction with.

 

I never said racism doesn't exist.

How many people do this? How many people have an opportunity to do this?

I'll stand by what i see. You are way of my point.

 

Unless a crime is committed exclusively by a particular racial group, it's unlikely that race is actually the cause of the crime.

While looking at a tendency to criminal behaviour on a racial basis is (by definition) racist, I'd prefer to characterize the anlaysis as lazy. The real cause is almost always something that requires deeper digging and is most often found in more than one racial group.

If you truly want to understand a societal problem, you need to identify the actual causes of the problem. If you fairly want to alleviate the problem, you'll most likely need to make that solution available to all races. It's therefore counter productive to restrict your analysis or solution by describing it as "abo" or in any other racially specific terms.

 

There is a significant number of Indigenous people that look as white as anyone else or even other races. Australian Indigenous people are not the same and vary significantly. This is due to the vast differences within their race itself and mixing with other races over the centuries.

I have heard people ask my partner what nationality she is and she looks so much like an Aboriginal lady I am surprised. Her two sons though, if they said they were Lebanese no one would doubt them.

I know that most people are wary when dealing with Indigenous people, even we are. Just last night we were discussing her family, her homeland and the issues there. She had just been chatting to some nieces and problems within the mission came up. She contacted the local command of the area from which she comes and talked to an officer for some length about the issues.

Sensible, rational, reasonable and logical dialogue was established and I feel a big step forward was made when he realised that there are old Aunties, Nans etc that are trying desperately to fix the issues.

They re-visited the problem then with a new outlook and the issue looks like it will start to decrease now where previously it was escalating to a dangerous level. After an understanding was reach as to the actual cause, which they were not aware of, the cause and suspects became clear.

Even though my partner has issues herself with police, and understandably so, I have personally witnessed the police prejudice, she is well aware that they do on the whole do a reasonable job and that the only way forward for her mob is to work with the authorities.

We both wish however that people would not judge her until they have got to know her. Externally she is a little daunting, she has had to fight for every inch she has achieved, and in my opinion, has had to fight much too hard considering all she has ever wanted was to give her two sons a good education, a good home and a good job. This has hardened her up and made her extremely sceptical of people that say "they understand" or that they will help. I have never realised that for them to just achieve what we see as a basic right, they have to fight daily just to get a fair go, something we Australians brag about giving.

I think that the days that Australians truly mean it when they say "A Fair Go" will be a great day for Australia.

 

Fair enough, I’m not saying everything is perfect. I don’t have the answers, I’m just saying that for many in OZ the situations that arise to “not give a fair go” are few and far between.

 

You maybe a mind reader or a genious, but I very much doubt that either scenario is even a remote possibilty.

But it ever occur to you that I d could be a self funded retiree? Or is that too difficult a mental hurdle for you to jump?

I learnt many years ago that it can be dangerous to make assumptions.

But of one thing I am certain. I have paid more in taxes in my lifetime than these queue jumpers will ever pay!

 

Thank you, I detest being told something doesn't happen when I know (*)(*)(*)(*) well it does because I have seen it first hand. As the Indigenous population in Australia is around 5% of our population and as half of them go unnoticed in our society it is true that not a lot of us have anything directly to do with them and that is half the problem.. They are also shy by nature so do not come out like we do. They also have different goals in life, clawing their way to the top not being one of them so they do not have the exposure that we have in common roles, doctors, lawyers etc.

If we all tried just a little bit to see it from their side I KNOW it would make a huge change. I have proven this on small scales, my goal is to spread this to a larger arena.

 

So are you? I am a self funded retiree. I too have paid taxes, over 500K in the past 15 years actually, most probably close to a million in my 40plus years working which included 10 years military service. I do not mind helping those that cannot for some reason help themselves. I do however worry about those using the system, both black and white (there are more whites on social security too). But the design of a capitalist market system like ours dictates that a large number will be on welfare (or nothing, would be preferable in capitalism), but our investment in their welfare comes back to us as they spend ALL their money, whilst the wealthy tend to hoard it and manipulate markets with theirs. Who is the biggest problem in society, I would say the wealthy by a long shot.

 

We have 94% employment.

Who do you think hires all these people? Who do you think takes risks? Creates industries? Who opens new manufacture industries/mines/shops, builds new homes/apartments/computers? Where would society be without capitalism, without people taking risk, investing money and creating employment?

Why do you think there were only 100 odd people at these occupy rallies? The 99% represent a whole lot less people than they like to think.

 

What I am saying is that the 5 to 10% unemployed and therefore on welfare are a necessary part of capitalism, we want to have people available at call, we want to be able to change jobs etc, there has to be some that are out of work, and 5 to 10% is a reasonable number for the system to work, even then we have shortfalls in some jobs, finding unemployed people to train etc.

Capitalism needs this unemployed force for many reasons for it to work, they just don't like paying for it, well they don't like paying for anything really but that's business.

 

If it's not your argument then why say it in the first place? Are you really that dumb? Or are you just bad at wording your posts correctly? If there is any stupidity that made me think that its on your end because you wrote the post. Ironic, isn't it?

Yep, you really are terrible at wording posts.

 

You have been exposed as deliberately lying on a number of occassions so your credibility is zero and nothing you post can be taken at face value.

 

LOLZ, don't even know WTF you are on about.....then again i never have.

 

lol, I even quoted it out for you and you still don't get it. You poor thing

 

1. They're not queue jumpers.

"The use of the ‘queue’ by politicians and the media in the context of asylum seekers is a case of what George Orwell described in his masterful expose of propaganda 198. “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,” the ever perceptive Orwell wrote.

In the case of asylum seekers Ms Gillard, Mr Abbott and others know full-well there is no queue, there has never been one and there never will be one."

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2318586.html


2. You can't be certain of how much tax they will pay in their lives.

.
.
.

 

If you are going to quote these type of stats, just remember that they are more meaningful if you quote them on a per capita basis:

'(there are more whites on social security too). '

However, I do concede that this could present some difficulty, since there seems to be so many of our indigenous brothers who look very 'white'.

 

The liars are those who, for their own mishevious, twisted political ends, are trying to persuade the general populace that those who refuse to wait their turn, by going through the proper channels are not simply selfish queue jumpers. These are people who have no hesitation in jumping and trampling over all of those far ahead of them in the long and winding queue.

No amount of playing with the English language will ever change the true meaning of that word. So, once again, I will try and do my best and enlighten your mind, inspite of the fact that you insist (maybe it suits your political purpose) in useing this word in its literal meaning:


If you said 'Keep your eye on the ball'would you assume its literal meaning and start looking for a real (bouncing) ball? only a fool or a person whose first language is not English would do so.Similarily, if you are on the phone trying to make a booking and you are told there is a queue,no one in their right mind would expect to see a queue of people in front of them would they? But anyone with a simple understanding of the English langauge would immediately realise that there is a queue, even though they can not see that queue, and they will have to wait their turn in that queue.

Maybe, since according to your banner, English is not your first langauage you could not understand this simple concept . That would be understandable, and I am pleased to have been able to explain it to you in terms that can be easily understood.


The real Orwellian message comes from those who are trying to deny the true meaning of this word to suit their own nefarious political ends

 

If it was possible your credibility would be zero minus.

I dont know of anybody who would take any of your posts seriously.

I'm in a generous mood, so maybe I will just be patient and hope, as the day goes by, your manners and logic will improve.

 

Boat people are going throught the proper channels.

It's perfectly legal to seek asylum in Australia by getting on a boat and heading for our shores.

They are not queue jumpers. This has been explained to you.

There is only one person in this entire forum who keeps referring to its literal meaning: you.

I have repeatedly said that the "queue" is not a physical line of people.

What part of that do you find difficult to understand?

You are the only one referring to it as an actual "queue".

I challenge you to post a link to any of my posts that refer to the queue as a physical line of people.

Put up or shut up.

We're all waiting ...

 

How stupid do you feel now:

 

Let's put it to a poll: "whose posts are taken seriously?"

I give my vote to ian.

Anyone for diligent? Anyone? ...

 

I have explained the meaning of the word queue and frankly I don't understand why you keep shouting just because you can not understand the meaning of this simple word. As I explained, it maybe because English is not your first language. But shouting at people with whom you disagree is not a very intelligent way of trying to persuade them to your point of view.

There is a queue of people trying to enter this country and those who deny are just denying the truth and reminds me of the old fable by Hans Christian Andersen of 'The Emperor with no Clothes'. In this story, the Emperor wore no clothes but none of his subjects would dare to admit it. Ever heard of it? It is remarkably relevant to this discussion, where some keep on denying a fact that is staring them in their collective faces.

 

Stop avoiding the question, like you do with every single post.

Provide a link to one of my posts where I refer to your "queue" in its literal meaning.

Stop accusing people of things they haven't done and then running away and avoiding the issue.

Provide the link now.