Republican win

[Marty_d]

That's not an overly good way to measure goodness of immigration. Using that same logic places like immigration detention islands must do immigration really really well.

Either you're being very tongue-in-cheek, or you completely missed the point. Apologies - I can't tell which.

 

 

[Bruce]

It's the extreme number of immigrants that make problems such as unaffordable housing. In the late 60's I could buy a new house and keep a wife as a student and start flying. All with no family money to help. No way could that happen now.

 

Young people are increasingly unable to afford a house even with 2 incomes. So we have gone backwards in a big way, and all the time we hear about the wonderful economic benefits of big immigration.

 

In my time, the population of Australia has trebled, and we have gone from a food exporter to a net food importer. If my grandchildren have the same deal, there will be 3 Sydneys for NSW to feed when they are my age. Do you really think that's a good idea or even possible?

 

 

[Bruce]

And Marty, in my opinion your dad was most welcome. I hope he taught you to cook . Gosh we had terrible food in the 1950's at least in my house.

 

But I bet that there is at least one category of crime you would lose your bet on, and that is mutilation of little girls. I reckon there would be other categories too, but remember that the reporting system has been interfered with so you need to do better than the official statistics.

 

In any case, my objections are based on economics and sustainability, not crime.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Excessive population IS the biggest problem (and not only in Aust).

 

Note that Australia's population growth is mostly immigration.

 

Therefore immigration is a significant issue for us.

 

No politician has the gonads to address the falacy of unlimited population growth.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

capitalism doesn't work without growth, look at all the problems aviation industry has due to the declining numbers of pilots

 

 

[Yenn]

I wonder when we will wake up to the fact that growth cannot go on forever.

 

As far as affordable housing goes try buying in Gladstone Qld or any of the mining towns. House prices are less than 75% of what they were 5 years ago.

 

 

[dutchroll]

can Pauline actually name a single sharia bank operating in Australia?

I doubt even Pauline has the ability to prove what doesn't actually exist, but I'm sure she'll try anyway. In other recent beauties from her interview yesterday:

 

On Putin: "I respect the man. He is very patriotic towards his country, the people love him, he is doing so well for the country."

 

- Stalin was incredibly patriotic and still managed to be a ruthless and murderous tyrant. Hanson seems utterly unable to distinguish what features make someone "good" for the people of their country.

 

- There are penalties for publicly "not loving" Putin, as a number of now deceased Putin critics have found out. I mean, it's not everyday that someone gets poisoned by Polonium-210, like vocal anti-Putin whistleblower Alexander Litvinenko.

 

- "Doing well"? Seriously? A 40% drop in Russian GDP over the last 3 years! 15% of the population living below the poverty line. Monthly wages down nearly 10% last year. Average monthly wage now $450. What exactly are you snorting Pauline?

 

On MH17: She questions the evidence of Russian involvement.

 

- Yes Pauline, because literally every man and his dog has a Buk 9M38 surface to air missile launcher in his back yard. Being Russia's most advanced mobile surface to air missile, I hear that the Russian Defence Ministry usually does a "buy one, get one free" every second tuesday, for whoever is interested.

 

On vaccines (which she is sceptical of): "I advise parents to go out and do their own research with regards to this."

 

- Uh huh. So the eradication of smallpox, the virtual eradication of polio, and the near eradication of numerous childhood diseases is not enough evidence?

 

The derp is strong with Pauline Hanson.

 

 

[Bruce]

Yep Dutch, there are problems with Pauline. We have to decide which candidate is the least worst.

 

I would like one of the other leaders ( Barnaby and Malcolm) to move round the rural areas in an Australian plane, but only Pauline has done this for real.

 

What does this say about the real commitment of the others to Australian jobs?

 

So at the moment, Pauline Hanson appears to me as the least worst of the choices.

 

And the best chance of Jabiru getting a fair go.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

if Pauline is the best our country has to offer, we are doomed to being Asia's white trash

 

 

[dutchroll]

So at the moment, Pauline Hanson appears to me as the least worst of the choices.And the best chance of Jabiru getting a fair go.

I couldn't vote for an anti-vaxer (and also for her other wayward views).

 

It just indicates to me an inability to rationally process well established facts and information, and that's really dangerous in someone with a lot of political power (or any power actually).

 

You have to be careful what you wish for........

 

 

[storchy neil]

hold that thought sharia bank Sydney proposed neil

 

 

[Marty_d]

Yep Dutch, there are problems with Pauline. We have to decide which candidate is the least worst.I would like one of the other leaders ( Barnaby and Malcolm) to move round the rural areas in an Australian plane, but only Pauline has done this for real.

 

What does this say about the real commitment of the others to Australian jobs?

 

So at the moment, Pauline Hanson appears to me as the least worst of the choices.

 

And the best chance of Jabiru getting a fair go.

Doesn't that Andrew Broad fellow in the Nationals own a Brumby? Seem to remember he was on here once, before he got elected. Vote for him instead, the Nats are slightly less dotty than One Nation.

 

 

[Bruce]

I actually corresponded a bit with Andrew Broad for the very reasons you referred to.

 

Alas, he has no energy to spend on aviation or anything else I can discern.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I actually corresponded a bit with Andrew Broad for the very reasons you referred to.Alas, he has no energy to spend on aviation or anything else I can discern.

Yes, but he bought a Brumby. Therefore he has already supported Australian jobs as much as Hanson has, and he's not as much of a fruit-loop as her.

 

 

[dutchroll]

hold that thought sharia bank Sydney proposed neil

Ok, again let's do something which is a rarity here on rec aviation off-topic forums. Let's apply some common sense, reasoning and rationality.

 

Let's assume a "sharia bank" is going to happen. What does this mean exactly?

 

Firstly let's see if we can figure out if "sharia" involves anything other than decapitating people with a knife in a sandy desert. I propose that "sharia" is not necessarily synonymous with murderously wishing people a horrible and violent death any more than "christianity" is synonymous with shooting dead a doctor in an abortion clinic or saying the death of your son in an IED explosion serving in Iraq serves him right because we are too tolerant of homosexual people, even though there are quite a number of instances of these things happening under both "systems".

 

Let's move on, and ask ourselves: is there actually any principle in "sharia law" which is a good one, or should we wipe everything that complies with sharia law off the face of the earth because it is necessarily "very bad"? Well, donating to charity is a well-established principle, in fact considered a requirement, in sharia law. Is donating to charity a good thing or a bad thing? If your answer to this is "a good thing", then by default you agree that sharia law has at least one good principle. Another sharia law principle is that you have a right to protect your family. So if you agree that you have a right to protect your family, you now agree with *two* sharia law principles! Yikes! I won't go on because some people here will want to go and slash their wrists when they realise that they actually agree with a number of sharia law principles.

 

Islamic or sharia banking has established principles which include the following:

 

1) investment in business which is considered unlawful is prohibited (good or bad thing?).

 

2) Interest charges are forbidden and this is the main thing about Islamic banking. Islamic banks make profit by using equity-sharing, or monthly profit payments. So a business pays back a loan without interest but if it makes a profit, it shares some of that profit with the bank. If it makes no profit, the bank gets nothing. For a mortgage, the profit is through monthly rental payments, but if the homeowner defaults, there is no compounding interest effect against them (good or bad?).

 

Generally these days, Islamic finance is actually cheaper than conventional finance.

 

Before you decide that something is a bogeyman, it actually pays to figure out what it really involves and make an educated decision, not an emotional one. However with the like of Hanson, Lambie, Reclaim Australia, and so on, that principle is apparently a thing of the past. There's no need for education or consideration of caveats and exceptions, before deciding you want to erase something from the face of the Earth.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

sharia banks don't charge you interest they rent you the money.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Dutch

 

Nice try. But no cigar.

 

Failed on two counts:

 

1: posting secular rationalist argument on a forum (any forum)!

 

2: what has Sharia banking principles got to do with Republicans? (OP)

 

3: you'll never win over a bigot with logic!

 

 

[dutchroll]

....that's three.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

[nomadpete]

....that's three.

I just KNEW you'd be picky about that!

 

 

[old man emu]

It is interesting that one of the rules of the medieval Christian Church was that a Christian could not charge interest on a loan. If I remember correctly, the Christian kings let those of the Hebrew persuasion operate money-lending businesses. Remember Shylock from The Merchant of Venice?. That's where the likes of the Rothchilds originated.

 

So one could argue that Sharia law in regards to financial matters is the same as the original Christian custom, and that charging interest on loaned money is a Zionist plot.

 

Obedience to Sharia law still doesn't explain to me how some followers of Islam can build cities of gold while their coreligionists live in abject poverty. (Et tu, Christos!)

 

OME

 

 

[Bruce]

"He lends out money gratis

 

And brings down the rate of interest here with us in Venice"

 

Said Shylock of Antonio

 

 

[willedoo]

Yes Pauline, because literally every man and his dog has a Buk 9M38 surface to air missile launcher in his back yard. Being Russia's most advanced mobile surface to air missile, I hear that the Russian Defence Ministry usually does a "buy one, get one free" every second tuesday, for whoever is interested.

You've got your missiles mixed up, Dutch. The 9M38 is far from Russia's most advanced mobile surface to air missile. It operated in the old BUK-1 and BUK-1M launchers and was replaced twenty years ago by the 9M317 missile launched from the modified launcher, BUK-M1-2 . However, the BUK-M1-2 can retrospectively fire the 9M38 if there's any around.

 

In relation to the investigation, there's still a lot of debate between the Dutch investigators and the makers of the BUK missiles as to which variant brought down MH-17. In the final report, there were a few contradictions and confusion on the part of the investigators as to the missile designation. It looked like they were getting the two different versions mixed up.

 

Some people have made the point that Ukraine still has 70 or so post Soviet BUK-1M's, whereas Russia took them out of service years ago. It's accepted fact, though, that the more modern BUK-M1-2, operated by Russia these days can also fire the older missile (9M38) that you mentioned. The debate between the Dutch investigators, and the manufacturer, Almaz Antey, has some importance because the two different missiles are different in a few ways. The main one is the shape, size and number of the steel shrapnel contained within. The two missiles create totally different blast patterns.

 

The BUK's are old technology. Russia's most advanced mobile surface to air missile? It's a bit like comparing apples to oranges, as they all have their different roles. It's not easy to make that call between the S-300, S-400 and the new S-500, because of their different capabilities. Also, upgrades make something old, new again, so the goalposts shift regularly.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Yes my apologies. I'll take the rap for that. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests it still doesn't "grow on trees" as such. I doubt the pro-separatist rebels bought it at the local flea market and certainly the investigation evidence appears to suggest it was quite deliberately provided to them from across the border.

 

 

[willedoo]

Yes my apologies. I'll take the rap for that. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests it still doesn't "grow on trees" as such. I doubt the pro-separatist rebels bought it at the local flea market and certainly the investigation evidence appears to suggest it was quite deliberately provided to them from across the border.

The problem is, as you say the evidence appears to suggest. Nowdays appearance is everything. Part of their evidence is a computer graphic simulation video they made to portray the BUK being loaded in Russia, driven across the border, setting up, firing, and returning to Russia. It's not real video, just 3D simulation. When pushed by journalists, the investigators said it was based on eyewitness reports and interviews. They won't release any sources, as they say it would put those people in danger. It's similar to the Americans saying they have all the satellite imagery that proves it beyond doubt, but they won't release it to anyone, quoting secret squirrel national security reasons. There are hardly any assumptions in the final report that are able to be publicly verified. So you're right, there is that appearance.

 

I'm not holding an opinion either way as to who did it, but I think the investigation was certainly not up to the standard we would normally expect. I think there will be more investigations in to it as time goes by. Some time back, German intelligence came to the conclusion ( again, based on eyewitness reports that they won't verify for security reasons) that the rebels captured a Ukrainian BUK and used it to accidentally bring down MH-17, mistaking it for a Ukranian transport. I don't know much about them, but I think a launch involves more than just pinching one and pressing the button. There's a lot of angles that haven't been properly looked into.