halloween

7 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>I fully agree that any illegal immigrant should be removed expeditiously or incarcerated, what else would you do with foreign criminals?

...err...offer them protection while you process their application if you are a signatory to the 1951 refugee Convention, as Israel is.

 

But if you were a racist, and they are black, you'd deport them against their will to a country that apparently doesnt want them to be robbed, killed or trafficked.

 

But if they were white or Jewish, you'd keep them.

 

Do you have any proof that those facing deportation haven't been processed and refugee status refused? you might like to read the thread about Italy. The Nigerian murderer was refused 2 years ago, and allowed to roam free knowing he would be deported.

BTW you continue to attribute to me views that I do not hold, and in an insulting manner. Preference for Jewish migration to Israel is that country's choice.

26 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

No, it's not my measure. It's the measure used by science. Don't invoke a scientific theory if you want to pick and choose which parts of it to accept. But if you do, I'd call that unnatural selection.

Which is exactly what civilization is, directed rather than natural selection. We choose to have less children because we don't need the numbers, we protect the weak and frail that would otherwise not survive, we channel aggression into sports and jail those who cannot control it, and those that do not value the rights and life of others are incarcerated in prison or mental institutions.

The 18yo drug addict girl is a perfect example. In Rome, she would have some chance of survival, she would have very little in Abuja, Luanda or Mogadishu. Bring the predators to Rome and she ends up cut into pieces to satisfy some animals lust.

So it's get a haircut OR get a real job?

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Again, as any geneticist will tell you, the only definition of fitness that makes objective sense in terms of fitness is reproductive success. Is there any evidence that people from Africa have less success in reproducing in Europe than do white Europeans? Generally one of the "threats" that the right wing in Europe touts about Africans is that they have a higher birth rate than do white natives.

So, if that's true, that would mean that Africans are more fit.

And why exactly did you refer to the jungle? Do you believe that most Africans live in the jungle? Or until recently, lived in the jungle? Is your researched based on the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs?

That is your measure, which ignores the factor of choice. Western countries have lower birth rates because their citizens choos lifestyle over mass reproduction, knowing that their children are much more likely to grow to reproduction age. How does the infant mortality rates of Africa, the death rate from curable diseases, and the constant fear of violent assault and death factor in the environmental fitness?

BTW you can have a jungle without having trees.

12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The former is directed selection, the latter is natural selection. And the criterion of success in natural selection is how many of your offspring survive and reproduce in turn. So, by the criterion you invoke, and given Africa's rapid population growth, Africans are on the whole, more fit than white Europeans, whose low birth rate signals their being less fit.

You don't seem to understand natural selection. Fast breeding populations change more rapidly, but that is not a measure of fitness to their environment. Directed and natural selection are the same thing in essence, the only difference being resulting outcome.

Domesticated animals do not fare well in the jungle, and the civilised residents of western cities are suffering the depredations of those less civilised.

3 hours ago, Bikeman93 said:

So if you are outside the country for more than 183 days you may be a non resident for tax purposes.

 

Read the bit "Foreign resident tax rates 2016–17"

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/Individual-income-tax-rates/?page=1#Foreign_residents

 

The OAP is not generally considered taxable income unless it passes the tax free threshold through additional income or lowering the tax free threshold itself.

 

Are you aware that the full OAP is ~$22,000, and the threshold is $18,000? Do you think pensioners get a tax bill of $800 (19c +MCL times $4000)?

The OAP is not taxed. And as a Oz citizen, tax resident previous year travelling abroad while maintaining a residence in Oz, I can still claim to be a tax resident even after 11 months absence.

I'm sure the UDD doesn't support the call for expediting prosecution.

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

Alas, not being present to interview the refugees myself I rely on news feeds in this case the Independent UK..perhaps you question that as a reliable source. Up2u. I don't.

 

"The country has granted asylum to fewer than one per cent of those who have applied and has a years-long backlog of applicants."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-issues-deportation-notices-african-refugees-benjamin-netanyahu-a8194306.html

 

You say that initial processing indicates less than 1% meet the standard set....whatever Israel's dubious set standard is when the country's PM has already prejudged them all, as you seem to have done, and labelled them all as infiltrators not refugees.

 

So that aside, you are saying all Israel needs do is interview a few refugees, ignore their individual cases, just use any sample, extrapolate and generalize from that and treat all these human beings who have fled war, torture and death as mere ciphers. That's what this whole issue is about...treating people in need simply as dehumanized statistics. That's a travesty of the whole refugee process.

 

Just imagine if Europe and the USA had treated Jews fleeing the Holocaust like that...we've decided without interviewing them that statistically they are infiltrating economic migrants (and ...we're not racists but...well, you know, they are sort of different from us) who will upset our demographics. Send them back where they came from or somewhere else. 

Just a minute...they did treat them like that!

 

I'm glad you don't work for UNHCR

You seem intent on extrapolating my accurate reading of your quote to attribute to me attitudes I do not hold, while inaccurately drawing conclusions from that quote. Do you have some anti-Israeli bias affecting your clear interpretation of statements?

Other countries have long back-logs of processing the applications of asylum seekers, most of whom are illegal immigrants, who then use the time taken to process their claim as some sort of defence "we have been here for years." I fully agree that any illegal immigrant should be removed expeditiously or incarcerated, what else would you do with foreign criminals?

BTW I am also quite glad that I don't work for the UNHCR.

2 minutes ago, Bikeman93 said:

So if you are outside the country for more than 183 days you may be a non resident for tax purposes.

 

Read the bit "Foreign resident tax rates 2016–17"

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/Individual-income-tax-rates/?page=1#Foreign_residents

Before 2/ there was 1/. Which part of it don't you understand?

BTW next financial year I will be outside Oz for 11 months, returning to earn ~$4000. Because I will meet other criteria, I expect to pay zero tax on those earnings.

10 minutes ago, dexterm said:

So how do you and Israel arrive at the figure that 99% are not genuine refugees when the link I provided stated that there's a  years-long backlog of applicants to be processed

...that's some crystal ball gazing!

I think the fact that the refugees are mainly people of color may give you a clue as to Israel's incredible powers of clairvoyance. Now if they were from Norway...

I didn't arrive at a figure, I pointed out that Israeli statistics support it. Nor do I make unsupported claims about unprocessed applications - I'll leave that to you.

BTW if they were Norwegian jews you may have a point. OTOH I see no reason why any country should rush to verify the claims of asylum seekers, especially when initial processing indicates less than 1% meet the standard set.

6 minutes ago, Bikeman93 said:

On top of that they are now removing the tax free threshold ($18,200) and raising the tax rate (32 cents in the dollar) if you spend more than 6 months outside of the country (non resident). Meaning if you do get a pension you may lose 1/3 in tax.

1/ the OAP is not considered taxable income

2/ if you are in Oz less than 183 days per financial year, you MAY be a non-resident for tax purposes. This is far from new, and there are other ways to maintain tax residence.

On 2/4/2018 at 5:22 PM, candide said:

If they saw them as less corrupt, That's equally amusing.

In order to prove that YL was more corrupt than Suthep of the Junta, there first needs to be investigations carried on them.  

Perception doesn't require proof or investigation. As there are no current reports of billions of public money being stolen or disappearing down black holes, the perception of less corruption holds.

8 hours ago, dexterm said:

You're the one making the assertion; you're the one who should offer proof, not the old falacy of asking someone to prove a negative.

 

About 60,000 refugees mostly from Eritrea and Sudan, fleeing persecution and the wars there crossed Israel’s border with Egypt before Israel erected a fence.

 

Maybe you have interviewed them yourself, because Israel has only managed successfully to process 1% of applications so far, but that's enough for them to turn away all the remaining refugees. Another shameful irony of history.
 
 "But some have lived for years in Israel and many work in low-paying jobs that many Israelis shun. The country has granted asylum to fewer than one per cent of those who have applied and has a years-long backlog of applicants."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-issues-deportation-notices-african-refugees-benjamin-netanyahu-a8194306.html

 

Try reading your link again. Your claim that Israel has processed 1% of applications is NOT stated, but your quote supports the claim that 99% are not genuine refugees, at least by Israeli standards.

6 hours ago, greenchair said:

You have avoided the essence of my post which is the violence from red, yellow, and green is about the same.

In fact, there are no exact numbers on the people killed or maimed from any group, but when making a point one does need to use a ball park figure. 

Does it matter if it were 99 or 53. The violence and law breaking has come from all sides. 

 

And to justify that false claim, you quote inaccurate figures to give your claim substance. In reality, it reduces any credibility that you claim.

The violence has come from both sides, but the vast majority of it has come from the reds, egged on by the UDD and ignored by the RTP.

3 hours ago, candide said:

They protested against corruption, right, with the aim of ...... puting corrupt Suthep or the army into power! 

Is it that hard to see that those protesting saw Suthep and/or the RTA as LESS corrupt? Or that they were right as subsequent investigation proved?

21 hours ago, Bob12345 said:

And for some reason I do not expect Halloween to reply on substance to this, because his hollow rhetoric is just that: hollow.

I am working 12 hr days, which leaves me just sufficient time to scan TVF and point out glaring inaccuracies, especially those used as convenient excuses.

22 hours ago, greenchair said:

What about the poor man that was held for 5 days at the protest site. 

He was beaten and sexually abused by several men and then put in a sack and thrown off a bridge. Luckily a cruise boat saw him being thrown off and fished him out. Then there's the state sanctioned firing into the crowd in 2010 killing 99 people. Then there's the beating up and intimidation of people trying to go and vote. When voting booths had to be closed down for safety. Then there's closing down the airport costing the country billions of dollars. 

There is only one fundamental difference. 

One is fighting for an elected governmental system. 

The other has stopped every attempt at that since 2006. Because they don't know how to create policies that win. 

99 is a good number, often quoted by red sycophants, ignoring that it includes those killed by the reds. But who needs accuracy?

22 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

They were in alliance as Suthep himself bragged about.  Political scientist Thitinan Pongsudhirak (at Chulalongkorn, hardly a redshirt nest) said the same again in his column BP yesterday, i.e., he observed that the military "aided and abetted" the PDRC.  Remember the Singha heiress' fancy dress party in green in poverty-ridden Thonglor days after the coup?  

 

So yes, duh, the army, judiciary, bureaucracy, Democrat Party, Election Commission, PDRC and I'm sure I'm forgetting some are different, but in alliance.  It's like saying the SS and Luftwaffe were independent entities, as if they had nothing to do with each other.

 

Why should the yellows get violent when you can get the courts to make absurd contortions on your behalf, tying the police's hands so you're allowed to flout every possible law for months, even kidnapping people and false imprisonment of police officers who had the temerity to attend their protest, and also have the military to hold the population at gunpoint  (which I saw with my own eyes).  It's in this vacuum and context you and robblok love to ignore that indeed there was very sporadic redshirt violence.  Given the scale of injustice and repression it could be a hell of lot worse.

 

Moreover, one side is stealing democracy, the other is seeing it snatched away for the third time in a decade, hardly the same justification.  

 

Foreigners who get a great start in life in a liberal democracy at home, then to become mouthpieces for an exploitative sociopath elite ...  deleted because of forum rules that we have to be respectful!

You are just another apologist for the red thugs. Why do you think so many people were allied with the common goal of removing the Shinawatras from Thai politics? IMHO because they realised that democracy had been perverted to allow criminals to buy their way into government and rape their country.

Try as you might to minimise and justify, the facts remain that the reds contain a violent faction that are quite prepared to engage in violence and intimidation against those who recognise the crimes of their owners.

11 hours ago, Bob12345 said:

You first find an instance where the reds put snipers on the skytrain tracks to shoot dozens of protestors and a couple of nurses in temple compounds.

The greens are by far the most violent party (although maybe the muslims seperatists can surpass them).

 

 

p.s. we (me and many other posters) have had this discussion with you before, so i truely don't see why you have to bring up the discussion point "which side is more violent" again. It gets boring.

You must have fun at traffic lights being unable to see the difference between yellow and green. But I can understand how an argument gets boring (for you) when the evidence is hard to refute.

15 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No, gangster people smugglers armed with guns does not equate to an invasion, that is some seriously paranoid thinking.

Why would people smugglers be in the refugee camp, their business is at the other end of the line?

1 hour ago, nisakiman said:

 

 

 

Well they've been a hell of a long time returning, and the publicans are still waiting. In fact most pubs aren't even pubs anymore - they had to turn themselves into restaurants with a bar (and snotty, screaming kids running around) to survive, such was the influx of non-smokers that rushed to enjoy the now 'smoke-free' pubs. I guess the sheer numbers of non-smokers rushing to the pubs is why only 17,000 pubs and clubs have closed in the UK since the smoking ban. Yes, that's 17,000. Seventeen thousand.

 

Sorry, sunshine, but the only reason any pub might be gaining customers is because all the others in the area have been forced into liquidation by the smoking ban. The smoking ban was a disaster for the hospitality industry. Tens of thousands lost their jobs, thousands of good businesses were forced to close, millions of older people had their only social lives taken from them. Why do you think that, for the first time ever, the UK government is creating a 'Minister for Loneliness'? It wouldn't be because nearly all the British Legion clubs and Working Men's clubs and bingo halls were forced to close in the wake of the smoking ban, would it? Those places where the older generation would traditionally meet and socialise? But then, you would never have been to one of those establishments, so you wouldn't know, would you? Nor do you care.

 

You're just like all the other zealots. Self-centered, intolerant, bigoted and not very clever. You obviously know nothing about the actual science and research, but have memorised all the propaganda soundbites you've read in the 'Daily Mail' or whatever, which you trot out at every opportunity to display your level of indoctrination, your status as one of the 'in crowd', those who are 'acceptable' because they say the 'right' things; tick all the PC boxes.

 

I usually avoid getting annoyed at other people's lack of understanding, but sometimes the unctuous sanctimony of some people's attitude really does irk me.

 

You ever heard the biblical quote "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone"?

 

Think about it.

"In 2014-15, 14.5% of adults aged 18 years and over were daily smokers (2.6 million adults), down from 16.1% in 2011-12. This decrease is a continuation of the trend over the past two decades. In 2001, 22.4% of adults smoked daily while 23.8% of adults smoked daily in 1995."

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by Subject/4364.0.55.001~2014-15~Main Features~Smoking~24

That's why very few if any pubs closed in Oz. Those not suffering from addiction and/or terminal stupidity just don't care when more smoking bans are enforced.

11 hours ago, Gregster said:

Getting back to the 2 year “home detention” qualifying rule for portability:

 

Would one still qualify for portability having served their 2 years living at a OZ friend’s house and still owning a locked-up Thai condo?....or would CL refuse you portability because they have no belief in your story of staying in Oz “forever more” as you:

 

1/clearly arrived back to Oz from Thailand exactly 2 years prior just to get portability

2/have no OZ property nor OZ assets nor OZ property lease.

3/you only have the Thai condo

 

The only problem I can see is if they ask you to prove you live at that address with a lease, electricity or landline phone bill, or similar.

2 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Here: a closed environment

There: an open air beach!

 

Here: not much else, but smoke!

There: Thais littering everywhere, throwing garbage into every klong, environmental -  laws diregarded left and right!

 

Here: apples!

There: oranges!

I was referring to the effects of the ban, not the logic behind it. Smoke rotting your brain, as well?

BTW where is "here"? and if you are "there" how does it affect you?