Nearly a quarter of a million immigrants are coming to Australia from mainly the Third World this year: a city bigger than the population of Hobart every year, an unprecedented wave of immigration to one of the world’s most arid and infertile continents, utterly transforming the society in which we live without the consent of the majority of the population, damaging our quality of life, further degrading our natural environment and causing more pollution, including carbon emissions, worsening our water scarcity woes, eroding social cohesion, underming our shared sense of nationhood, exacerbating the housing crisis and congestion, deepening our balance of payments problems, and adding to rising unemployment during a period of economic recession.

My question: Isn't it well and truly time for a major national rethink of immigration policy, specifically why we continue to run one of the largest per capita immigration programmes in the world?

Reyes-: Money in the till, I'd say was the answer to our mad immigration policy. 250thousand new people a year is 250thousand new customers. Politicians get re-elected on the strength of prosperous shops and businesses. Maybe it is also symbolic of our own failure to multiply and produce our own citizens to spend and keep our economy driving forward.

A lot of us out here think the same as you do, that it is bound to destabilise the country at some point, in some way. Probably through separatist state conflicts. IRA, Bin Laden sort of stuff.

While I agree that it is time to rethink Australia's approach to immigration on ecological sustainability grounds, the problem with public debate on the issue is that it's all too easy for it to be diverted into any number of extraneous red herrings. Unfortunately, debate about immigration frequently provides a venue for the expression of xenophobic and/or racist sentiments by those unreconstructed bigots whose ideas are otherwise unaccetable in polite conversation these days.

For example, Reyes slips a few such inferences into the original post - in terms of the Australian environment, what difference does it make where immigrants come from? The unsubstantiated guff about "eroding social cohesion" and "underming our shared sense of nationhood" can be read as an invitation to the disaffected Australian xenophobe minority to hang their hats on the hook of sustainability in the population debate, while the purported "deepening our balance of payments problems" are similarly unsubstantiated.

A good example of this distortion of the immigration debate is provided by the typically paranoid xenophobic response by sharkfin above. My guess is that it's this kind of attitude that is the real reason that all the major political parties in Australia avoid debating immigration like the plague.

Which is a shame, because the Australian environment simply will not sustain an increasing number of people who wish to pursue the same kind of profligate lifestyle to which we have become accustomed. Where they come from is irrelevant.

If we are to be sustainable there has to be a limit on population growth and that can be done in a number of legitimate ways.

Reducing immigration is an obvious choice and it does not mean we halt immigration altogether. There are a number of people who leave Australi's shores each year to emigrate to other nations. We could easily replace one outgoing with one incoming if we are to limit growth.

Other mechanisms that encourage larger families such as baby bonuses and maternity leave could be stopped and that money used where it is really needed.

Increase and target specific skills training to avoid the need to import skills from overseas.

There is an excellent article in the CT on this:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/aim-for-sustainable-population-and-generous-immigration/1433156.aspx

http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=2150ation-and-generous-immigration/1433156.aspx

Excellent link Pelican.

From which I extracted the following:

>>>"... it is possible to argue for a sustainable population policy that includes some limits on migration without being anti-migrant. .... I feel deeply that one of the true measures of a society's ethics is how it treats refugees and others on the wrong end of the modern global economy.

Many people may not realise that in recent years more than half of Australia's permanent migrants have been through the skilled migration stream, compared with only 7 per cent of the total being humanitarian migrants and 25 per cent family migrants. So having a sound population policy that brings migration back down to reasonable levels does not mean shutting the door on refugees. In fact, Australia could even increase its refugee intake, while still tracking for stabilisation of the overall population by about 2050, if we reduce skilled migration substantially.

Since most of the recent increase in migration is attributable to perceived economic requirements, not humanitarian or family obligations, perhaps we should scrutinise more closely the claims by industry that they are needed to meet ''skills shortages''. One wonders whether ... are really just code for ''lower wages''. The truth is, the rapid increase in skilled migration is being used as a crutch for the economy, a .... short-term boost to things like housing construction and retail demand but without any serious reckoning of the long-term consequences. Relying on migration to prop up sectors of the economy also diverts us from the task of devising more sustainable solutions."<<<

I have to ask why a prosperous nation like Australian would be seeking skilled migrants anyway?

Could it be due to the 'userpays' system of tertiary educution, introduced by Hawke and expanded by Howard? The closing of technical schools?

I believe we can take in refugees and re-skill our own workforce, but while the only motivation for employment is further consumerism; unsustainable growth, the xenophobic can hide under the banner of "sustainable population" and evade an equitable approach to a stable population.

Quite so, Fractelle and pelican. Indeed, I've made exactly that point in this forum before - i.e. that we should modify our immigration program such that it is restricted to bona fide refugees and their families.

However, I don't think that's quite what some of our most vocal advocates of population restriction have in mind.

True CJ and Fractelle, the issue of sustainability can easily be sidetracked by racist elements which detracts from the really serious issues we face.

Naturally we have to consider advances in technology and address issues of consumption in conjunction with some of these population initiatives.

We can sustain more people up to a point and as referred to in the CT article it would make sense to avoid the inevitable trap of Sydney and Melbourne becoming "mega-metropolises" leading to the inevitable infrastructure problems that come with size.

Clever governments would share the wealth and economic activity around to smaller regional centres which would benefit from the snowball effect of increased services.

Reyes,
I believe it is well past time we had a rethink about immigration.

There are two distinct aspects that need to be looked at seperately.

Firstly, there is the annual overall intake which should only be determined by what is deemed to be our ultimate population and aiming at that. For far too long we have allowed our political parties to get away with not advocating population policies. Only then can electors decide if they agree with a particular party.
Population policies would need to consider such things as, sustainability, enviromental factors, economics, infastructure required and living standards.

The second aspects is to do with the make up of the immigrants required. How many in various catagories, like refugees, unskilled, skilled and family reunion.

I think there also should be some we do not allow. I would catorgorize these as 'culturally incompatable' and would be those groups that have clearly shown that they cannot or will not accept or respect our laws or social standards. The object of excluding these groups is to keep our community standards cohesive and acceptable. For example, we should not continue to receive those groups that hold long standing hatreds for other groups and engage in riotus behaviour or those that flout our laws by holding dog fights, cockfights, carry out forced arranged marriages or FGM. Other groups have shown utter contempt for our laws and courts, etc. What these groups have in common is that they think some aspects of their culture are more important than our standards.

We must also ensure that all potential migrants are aware of our society and laws before they commit to come here.

If you want to consider the economic benefits of high immigration, then look at the massive debt that has been accrued by the states since Howard's odyssey began. And the massive debts were incurred during a period of great prosperity.

The truth is that population growth entails substantial infrastructure costs. The net economic benefit per Australian is negligible, perhaps even negative, which means that anyone profiting from immigration can only do so at the expense of another.

Banjo, instead of applying your 'cultural' screen which will inevitably block decent people along with your allegedly toxic cultures, how about we just uphold our laws, and those flaunting them get punished properly, regardless of what culture they come from?

Seems far more logical than taking massive demographic groups and discriminating against them. In fact, this idea sounds pretty bloody nasty.

TRTL: << Seems far more logical than taking massive demographic groups and discriminating against them. In fact, this idea sounds pretty bloody nasty. >>

Quite so. I believe the term that describes such ideas is "racist".

TurnRightThenLeft,
Rather than term what I advocate as 'nasty' I term it decisive. Would you really prefer to allow these groups to continue to arrive and then force them to change their cultural ways. All people have a right to their cultures. It is simply that some aspects of their culture is unacceptable in our society. Do you really think that those that bring old hatreds of other groups should be allowed to bring those hatreds here and express them in violent acts. Take note of some the aftermath of some soccer matches and more recently the tennis. Cultural aspects are very hard to change as seen when the perpetraitors of the violence are 2nd and 3rd generation and born here.

Good luck in trying to get our authorities to 'uphold the law' One infamous, non citizen, thief and burgular was convicted 158 times before he was deported and then we returned him to Aus. He should have been deported on the second conviction. A convicted, non citizen, drug dealer was allowed to remain here because he had fathered a child while living here. There has never been any charges laid for forced marriages and never any charges laid for FGM although the insidence of FGM is apparently on the increase. Australian girls should not have to suffer in these ways. It is far better to identify the groups that have incompatable cultural practices and prevent them from comming than try to change their views and habits later. Likewise it apparently is the same groups that are raided and charged for continueing cockfighting offences. Our community should not have to bear these costs.

We should strive to have a well ordered and cohesive society and have a duty to our decendants to ensure a safe and secure community. This will not happen if we continue to allow disruptive cultures entry.

We discriminate now in relation to various aspects of criteria and we are under no obligation to accept anyone who desires to come here.

Hi C.J.,
Your Post says - It is this attitude by exenophobics that is the real reason political parties in Australia avoid debating immigration like the plague. Yes I agree that politicians are very fearful of debating immigration but it's because a lot of elections can hang on a few hundred to a few thousand votes in their electorates so they will not risk offending any ethnic group by debating immigration.

I see we are still in opposition in our views about the stability of multi-tribal societies. I dispute the idea of exenophobia being the cause of ethnic cleansing as you know. My position has always been that mankind is as territorial as any lion or other species on the planet. Lions too will kill their own species if they don't back down and surrender the territory.

exenophobia : meaning - morbid fear of foreigners.

I suggest it is not so much the foreigners that are feared as the terrifying fear of loss of control of territory. Most people in refugee camps are there because they have nowhere to go because they have been pushed out of their territories.

Incidently a lot of countries in the world don't allow immigration of foreigners in the numbers we do. Their reason being they have too many people already. In other words they use the sustainable population argument to not take immigrants. Maybe they are secretly hanging their hats on the hook of sustainability to disguise their exenophobia.

Fractelle-: Why should a prosperous nation like Australia need to import skilled labour?

That question says it all. It also points to the answer.

Greed and failure of Government.

There was a time in this country when businesses with more than 5employees were required to train an apprentice.

CJ Morgan, you state that immigration should be 'restricted to bona fide refugees and their families'.

How's that going to work? We have a water shortage as it is, so how can we support more people?

By advocating bona fide refugees (and who's to know whether they are bona fide), you place that ahead of skilled migrants and those that can support themselves. Many, if not most, refugees will not be able to secure employment (language difficulties, unskilled status etc). So how can we afford to support them?

I suppose you see this as a paranoid xenophobic response.

Australia’s immigration intake was today cut by 14% for next year, down from this year’s 133 500 to 115 000.

Well…what can we say about that?

It is good that our absolutely manically pro-growth rulers can see that maximising population growth does have a downside and needs to be mitigated, if only slightly.

There is scope for further reductions within the minds of our unillustrious PM and his cronies. They have announced that further cuts are possible. I think that we will probably see another cut sooner or later, as the unemployment rate rises.

But the total is still absurdly high – higher than it ever was under Howard. So it needs to be reduced a whole lot more.

And most significantly, there is not the slightest thought of sustainability in the reasoning for this reduction…you know: the sacred balance between the human impact on the environment and resource base balanced with the ability of the environment to take the punishment without a constant increasing in degradation, and for every possible element of the resource base that can be renewable to be so, rather than having its stocks run down.

The maximised rate of growth has become the almost maximum rate of growth….which is only ever so slightly less absurd in the face of highly stressed water resources and all manner of other resource problems and environmental issues.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/immigration-slashed-to-protect-jobs-20090315-8yy2.html?page=1

What strange logic from Austin Powerless - on the one hand we don't have enough water to allow any immigrants at all, but on the other those who are "skilled" apparently don't consume any. Of course there are no refugees with useful skills, and most of them won't secure employment anyway.

Tell that to the post WW2 reffos from all over Europe, the Vietnamese and Lebanese refugees. None of them work or drink water either. I put it down to their "language difficulties" and "unskilled status".

<< I suppose you see this as a paranoid xenophobic response >>

Yes, that sums it up quite nicely.

Sharkfin - as ever, I find your quaint proto-sociobiological ideas laughable, but there's no way I could be bothered explaining to you why (again).

Suffice to say that it's people like you and Austin who ensure that the population debate is never taken up seriously in political discourse these days. No political candidate (except perhaps our Pauline) would want to be seen to be supported by racist ignoramuses, so they just leave the subject alone.

Quite tragic, really.

Whats tragic is that the small minds of the green left seriously believe that the Australian continent can't support our current population.

Perhaps it would be correct to say that the South East of the Country is becoming a little crowded. But Qld, the Northern Territory and WA have vast areas which could support large increases in population.

Not that I am suggesting a massive population increas is a good idea. It isn't. But the present migration program is fairly small and inconsequential.

A good reason to limit skilled migration, would be to reduce competition for jobs given the large numbers of Aussies who might well be unemployed in the next few years.

With better management we could make many of our resources go a lot further. The doom and gloom merchants of the loony left have their own agenda, however. It is little surprise that many of these middle aged eco warriors were once socialists.

Those that are interested in this subject should read the editorial intodays SMH.

http://www.smh.com.au/editorial

It is about some apparent annomilies in temporary work visas, an aspect not yet covered on this thread.

PaulL: << Whats tragic is that the small minds of the green left seriously believe that the Australian continent can't support our current population. >>

As usual, PaulL confuses the issue in his 'small-minded' effort to reduce the population debate to a 'left' vs 'right' dichotomy. He's apparently unaware that several of his wingnut cohorts at OLO have leapt on the sustainability bandwagon in order to disguise their xenophobic opposition to non-Anglo immigration.

The question isn't so much whether Australia can support its current population - clearly it can and does, at least in the short term. However, the point is the ecological cost of supporting our current profligate lifestyles and whether they can be sustained into the future.

The Australian environment is not only changing due to AGW, but it is displaying the morbid signs of deteriorating health - as any honest observer who lives outside the cities will attest. Water is in critically short supply in the south, soil salinity and erosion are rampant, the Murray-Darling basin is a basket case, etc etc.

Rethinking immigration is one aspect of the kind of radical shift in policy and agricultural, extractive and industrial practices in which we need to engage in order that our population might be sustained into the future.

CJ, you twist my words and then claim 'strange logic? Was it too hard to reply to my point without first distorting it? It's typically pathetic that you need to stoop to that kind of tactic in the vague hope of 'taking the moral high ground'.

Read carefully and you will see that I did not recommend the admission of skilled migrants. I only pointed out that they would be much less of a burden than unskilled ones. If that's a 'paranoid xenophobic response', your idiocy smacks of ultra PC, leftist drivel.

Voicing your views might win you a root at the students' union, but in reality, if the government was stupid enough to follow them, we would all be in the brown stuff.

It's a joke that when anyone mentions the 's' word (sustainability), you accuse them of xenophobia, racism, 'wingnutism' etc. What's the matter? Can't you handle the fact that not everyone agrees with you?

I can't wait for your reply accompanied by a tirade of your usual drool-enhanced insults. Bring it on.

Ludwig,
Whose figures are right?

Yesterday the Minister began with a figure of 133500 and cut 18500 from that and ended up with 115000.

I have seen all sorts of figures pertaining to immigration, up to 330000 and being a sceptic I doubt all of them.

Some that came up this morning.

2007-8
family reunion 49870
skilled 108540
total 158410

2008-9 originally announced
family reunion 56500
skilled 133500
total 190000

Add refugees 13000
total 203000
minus cuts 18500 announced yesterday
total 184500 expected for year

apparently incoming from NZ can also be added as, for some reason, we do not class Kiwis as immigrants (wonder why)

Are we being conned by the Government or what?
Obviously all the bandied figures cannot be correct, so can any one give accurate figures. I accept that a deduction of outgoing needs to be done to give a net figure but that is not quoted.

I also note that 457 visa holders are not included, nor are the overseas students.

Many thanks to Austin for demonstrating that it's not only refugees who have 'language difficulties'. While it's obviously his problem that he can't express himself properly, he involves others when he doesn't seem to be able to comprehend what we write. If he reads what I've been saying in this thread carefully, he might belatedly realise that I am an advocate of a sustainable population for Australia - but I object to xenophobes like him appropriating the concept as a screen behind which to express racist ideas.

Mind you, being familiar with the standard of Austin's reasoning abilities as evidenced in this forum over some time, I won't hold my breath.

Austin is also a good example of a wingnut who has latched onto the idea of population sustainability, contra PaulL's assertion that it is a notion that is restricted to the "green left".

Thanks, CJ, you didn't let me down. You made the usual rabid accusations that I would expect from you.

You claim that I have 'language difficulties' and 'can't express (myself) properly'. Maybe you'd care to explain how you came to that conclusion or is it just more hot air and insults in place of reasoning, for which you are famous? You should take debating lessons, as you are clearly incapable of having a discourse with someone who doesn't hold your views without frothing at the mouth.

Also, you might like to explain why I am a xenophobe (in your little eyes), if you can. As for having 'latched onto the idea of population sustainability', if you are, as you claim, 'an advocate of a sustainable population for Australia', what's the difference?

Actually, Austin, I really couldn't be bothered. We've been down this track before.

Bye.

Banjo I agree, it is certainly confusing. And the exclusion of Kiwis can only be called downright deliberately deceptive and dishonest!

I presume these are the correct figures:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/what_cut_in_immigration/

Ludwig,
They certainly do not make it easy and looks deliberately so. Yes your figures are about in line with mine.

As far as i can ascertain, we received some 50000 permanent and long term Kiwis last year.

Cannot find a projection for this year but if that remains static then the total incoming this year will be 253000.

Therefore the cut of 18500 will be only 7.3%, which is mere window dressing. So in actual fact we are looking at an immigration figure of 234500 for this year. Again this does not include 754 visa holders or overseas students.

No wonder we are cynical of politicians.

CJ, Fractelle, Pelican and all
I wasn’t going to comment but you know me I can't resist a hand full of logic ball bearing into well oiled prejudicial/myopic runaway train thinking. (Just love Gomez’s train set) :-)

I know this is back tracking but can you tell me are Doctors and their families etc. part of the skilled migration scheme? How else can some of out outback town get Dr.? The Conservative bag the Qld Govt on health but where else are the Medico’s going to come from? Aussie Drs are smart business men they congregate where the money’s best (capitalism 101) but still there isn’t enough.

I seem to remember that farmers can’t get pickers? Even guest workers pollute etc. I read somewhere abattoirs had difficulty getting workers to where the work was and to do it. Hmm a conundrum!

Then again I also as a manager having to go overseas for some trades because the skills here were already too thin on the ground.

I also remember a business man I know migrating here on the skilled migrants plan. Within 3 months he was employing 20 staff now employs 60 staff.
I don’t want to sound unfriendly but by some people’s rationale (not necessarily mine) what skills do most Kiwi migrants bring that make them more desirable than an outback Dr etc.?

What seems to have missed the intense gaze of some extremes is that on a global concept it’s the total number that is the real problem and how are we going to sell the idea of birth restraint to the 3rd world while we simply adopt the notion of we’re ok our pollution etc is yuk but you’re the problem?
When I did offer a strategy ask for practical solutions or ask questions…effective silence.

We’re sorry for the interruption by the rave It has been spent… we will now return to the normal programming :-)

Prempting some of the comments...I know I know ... sorry

Hi Examinator -

Yes, doctors are included among the skilled numbers.

As a consumer of rural health services in Qld, I think that while immigrant doctors provide an essential interim service, they are no substitute for Australian-trained doctors. They tend to stay in small country towns only as long as gthey have to, then they're off to the cities to join their Australian colleagues.

I agree with your perception about the commercial priorities of Australian-trained doctors, but I think that these could be overcome by regulation by a Federal government that had the balls to stand up to the AMA. With respect to trades, surely it's up to our education systems and employers to train Australians, rather than poach skilled workers from elsewhere.

As for the demand for seasonal unskilled workers, I can't see why able-bodied refugees shouldn't be required to take up such positions. Given that our current refugee intake is relatively small, if the 'skilled' component were to be cut substantially I think we could accommodate enough bona fide refugees to meet the demand.

Have a great day.

P.S. Ludwig - I wouldn't rely on statistics sourced from Bolt's blog, unless there is a link to the primary source.

Examinator

CJ beat me to it. I agree with all his points:

That refugees could perform unskilled labor.
Australia get back into training up its people instead of importing them. Get tertiary education back for all levels of society not just the cashed up.
Better supported regional centres would encourage more professional such as doctors - more decentralisation, good reliable rail linkages between long distances.

Not feeling all that well today, but I understand the points you are making and I believe they are all solvable given sufficient will from government and business.

Fractelle,

DECENTRALISATION. What a magic word which I never thought I would hear again.

I do not know about other states but here, in NSW, the government shifted a lot of staff and set up offices in country towns and centres. Manufacturing and other busnesses were given incentives to relocate to country areas and country centres prospered. Because of this there came new housing, schools and hospitals, etc.

However within a short period state centralism became in vogue and economic rationalism became the in thing with politicians. Consequently places like Sydney, Wollongong and Newcastle grew like topsy until they are choking themselves to death with people and traffic and massive transport problems. Country centres went into decline badly.

Health services are a good example of this. District hospitals used to be run by local boards of GPs, busness people and so on. They now have vast regions called area health services administrated by so called professionals. The result being that beaurocracies have grown and local health services depleted. Where local girls once trained for nursing at local hospitals, they now have to go to Unis for training. Apprenticeships is another, TAFE colleges have closed or reduced usage.

They say 'what goes round comes around' so I wonder if we will see decentralisation again. I certainly would vote for any party advocating such

CJ, how nice to see that you are still incapable of backing up your stupid statements with the reasoning behind them.

I'd ask you what you meant by 'We've been down this track before', but you'd dodge that question too.

You really are pathetic - all wind and no substance.

Fractelle.
Look after yourself.

CJ
I agree that the Drs. Union(s) plural (oo um the U in the same phrase as Drs) including specialists’ Colleges, all control Drs and surgeons, specialist numbers.

Hypothetical.
Imagine something on the leather seats turned the Govt into He/she- person heroes (they would be politically exposed too) and fearlessly did the right thing.
• Selected Drs would resign from hospitals
• Visiting specialists wouldn’t visit.
• Many would simply flee over seas to better money. The shortage of Drs is world wide. It would be 10 years of Chaos in the public Health system until replacement are trained.
• O/s Dr wouldn’t come here. International Medical Assns. They don’t want scabs.
Consider history and how viciously precious Drs become if they think the gravy train/ power is about to be derailed (damn socialists).
• waning interest a MD is no longer a licence to print money. Many would get their degree and go O/S ASAP.
A common *excuse* “fair reward for the years of sacrifice and we make life/death decisions (entitlement). sniff.” What’s that smell?
• Obscene/well funded PR campaigns would be everywhere.
• Opposition schmoozing, deals etc. “Underbelly” would be fit for Playschool by comparison.
What price a Labor afterward?
Question “how do you get around it?”

The trades shortage: yes again but what do we do until then.

Refos to work farms?
• Many aren’t that fit/ traumatised etc
• Ethnic mixes, Not all farmers are jolly rational people look at some of the conservative who represent them Katter Jr, Heffernan, Tuckey. I’ve met more than a few raving jingoistic Wing nuts out there.
• Language difficulties etc
• Forced labour issues. Hmmm?
• Would they stay there? Hmm!
I’m not disagreeing just warning "it aint that easy."

PS. Ludwig I’m prejudiced against pointless parasitic life forms, well the media isn’t human (e). Bolt and ilk are simply the print form of the shock jocks hardly sources of rationality or information Any more than the ‘Jerry Springer show’, low grade entertainment.

Hi examinator - I never said it would be easy!

What I was trying to do was suggest some broad parameters within which we can "rethink immigration", such that Australia can achieve a sustainable population while simultaneously ameliorating our deficient skills base and meeting our humanitarian obligations.

Obviously, the broad objectives I outlined would have to be achieved gradually. For example, I think that the AMA and its associated gatekeeping facilities can be rationalised over time using a range of 'carrot and stick' initiatives. Trades training is somewhat simpler, but will require significant funding to redress decades of neglect by State educational authorities and employers.

With respect to requiring unskilled able-bodied refugees to move to areas where there is unmet demand for unskilled labour, I think that this could be achieved relatively easily if appropriate support structures were put in place, and it was done fairly. I'm not talking about the sorts of appalling practices that proliferated under the Howard regime, whereby (for example) large numbers of Sudanese refugees were dumped in rural areas with minimal language and cultural training, and absolutely no other support.

P.S. If anybody wants to know why I'm not responding to Austin Powerless' trolling, just have a look at the last thread where I played his hateful game with him:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2043&page=1

It seems to me that poor old Austin is looking for another "spanking", but this time I'm not going to play.

I've noticed that the standard of discourse in this forum has increased markedly of late, and I have no intention of feeding trolls who seek attention by derailing discussions with personal attacks.

I've noticed that the standard of discourse in this forum has increased markedly of late, and I have no intention of feeding trolls who seek attention by derailing discussions with personal attacks.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 19 March 2009 9:08:38 AM

Isn't that nice. Can we now look forward to discussions on such topics as immigration and multiculturalism without constant personal attacks by CJM, on those he disagrees with, alleging racism and xenophobia.

N.B. CJM's 3rd posting on this thread.

What a fool you are, CJ. You are incapable of following up when your flawed statements are questioned.

You make accusations of 'derailing discussions with personal attacks' yet are oblivious to your own guilt in this. In this thread, for instance, you are first to sling mud by accusing a poster of making a 'typically paranoid xenophobic response'. You love to chuck insults but react in your usual fashion when they come back at you. So pathetic.

Go ahead and administer 'another "spanking"', but maybe you'd like to point out when I received the previous one. Or was it a 'spanking in absentia'?

The link you gave suggests that you have nothing better to do than come on this forum and spout your drivel. It's from seven months ago. I read through all the posts there and saw how you dropped out when your true character was exposed. Then I told Foxy that you were being childish and deserved a spanking so, it appears, you were not the spanker but the spankee.

Thanks for that link, as I had forgotten about your last drubbing. You obviously keep records of all the threads that you take part in. You don't have much of a life, do you?

Yawn.

Is that your best comeback, CJ?

The score so far: Austin Powerless - 2, CJ Morgan - 0.

Can't wait for the next time so I can score my hat-trick.

Zzzzz....