eightyknots

Doesn't some sect or other believe there's only 144,000 spots in heaven? Why do they bother then... it was full thousands of years ago!

Yes, that'll be the Russellites (these people now refer to themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses).

Caution. The attached graphic contains a naughty word and very naughty word. But it does contain humor for non believers.[ATTACH]41393[/ATTACH]

Only the atheists in this depiction used coarse language: why?

He is a comedian though

And comedians do their job for the very reason that some people such as Ron L Hubbard started a religion: for money.

And they work very hard, and many of them suffer from depression

Absolutely. Comedians have been over-represented amongst the 'depressed' for many decades.

Dick Smith used to work for Westons, he was an ace sales person there. He left to form Dick Smith Electronics (a business now on its last legs and not likely to survive). He sold out in the early 1980s.

No matter how 'loud' the wall paper is, it tends to melt into the background. Too much hi-vis is overkill and tends to clutter the overall vista making it less safe for those people where hi-vis would have been a real safety asset.

In summary, FT, people don't want to ban hi-vis. They just want it used sensibly and avoid hi-vis crowding in any given space.

Industry is being strangled by safety here so much, projects are simply cancelled due to the cost.......which makes workers the fittest and healthiest......in the dole queue."Safety" has become such an "industry" and so many have jumped on the bandwagon we are legislating ourselves into a future 3rd world country.

Instead, secondary industry has shifted to countries where the hi-vis/over-the-top safety requirements are a bit more relaxed and where common sense is still allowed to prevail.

Simple really

Does not involve a group we like to label terrorists

 

Can't appease the people by making new draconian laws or throwing money at it.

 

Does not involve people of welfare

 

Can't be blamed on labour/greens etc

 

Not christians

 

Nobody slandered a jew

 

So it does not matter to them

 

And budget cuts have mean the ABC has no money to send a reporter unless it is China.

...and it won't increase arms sales. This is a big deciding factor. In my opinion, most modern conflicts from the Falklands to the present, are driven by two factors: an increase of arms sales and/or an increased hegemony of a power or belief system. This belief system may include imposing "democracy" on "undemocratic societies".

There you are, I linked it back to the thread

To put you into the picture, I have attached the map that best illustrates the conflicting claim. Which ever way you look at it, the Chinese claim is very broad-brush, shall we say, because it is so extensive it comes really close to the coastlines of other countries.

There are so many conflicting/overlapping claims that there is real potential for some hot conflict to spark. I had the hope for quite some time that some kind of negotiated, compromise arrangement between the conflicting claims of these nations could be sorted out: perhaps by a team of independent international arbitrators? However, with the Chinese islands being created by dredging, this now seems to be out of the question.

This map is from the abc network:

[ATTACH]47801._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Tell us some more about East Timor?

As far as I can see, Australia has taken a true leadership role by enlisting worldwide support during the first decade of East Timor's independence. Australia is also the largest developmental assistance donor, at least it was last time I looked into this a couple of years ago. This is important to allow security and stability in the country flanked by a potentially hostile neighbour: Indonesia.

I agree that we should generally stick out of China's business and its politics.

And doing anything because Uncle Sam wants us too is always a recipe for disaster.

 

But the situation is not simple, the area they are claiming for many of these islands is so far from China that it can not reasonably be seen as anything but bullying the neighbours and trying to secure rights that clearly under international law are not theirs.

 

These disputed islands are so far from China compared to the countries that are near them, they have as much right to claim them or even lodge a claim for them as we do for claiming Arctic circle oil rights.

 

That does not mean we should be playing point for the USA though.

 

Unfortunately all the countries that do have a legitimate right to make a claim or lodge a disputed claim, are military minnows. And I get the feeling China would quite happily shoot at if they tried to assert themselves.

I understand that the islands being reclaimed are a long way from China but about 140 km from the Philippines, only about 5 or six minutes by a Chinese fighter jet. This makes the Filipinos feel very nervous.

Someone who rules your country by birthright? Even though it seems benign it's not a good look in the modern world .The Poms are used to a class system and still have unelected people in the House of Lords.Equality of opportunity is what I want as a basis of the ethics of government. That's NOT equality of money but whatever little kid you see should have the same chance at succeeding, as the next one. Betty Windsor hasn't done a bad job but the Poms make money from the tourists. Charlie seems like a well intentioned bloke too. Brit's don't care about here. The performance at Singapore was outrageously bad in WW2 .When they joined the EU they dropped all the trade arrangements with us to be part of the EU trade cartel. Stay in the commonwealth. Others do. Unless it becomes useless..

 

With a republic you have to clearly define the powers of the Prime Minister AND the President,( if you use that term) and have NO confusion. We lost access to the right to appeal to the Privy Council years ago so we do need an appropriate Bill of Rights. Nev

There is no reason why we couldn't establish an APC (an Australian Privy Council), the final Tribunal of Appeal just like the London-based Privy Council. I believe that the APC should have six seven judges: one from each state and one from either the ACT or the NT to make up an odd number of judges. Their remit should be something similar to the Equity Court: cases should not be decided on precedent only but at least 50% based on Equity (fairness) promoting the rights of the Australian people. The APC would be far better than a Bill of Rights (BOR) because a BOR always needs judicial interpretation and this can lead to endless legal arguments which only the rich may afford, not people with moderate or little wealth.

Just another matter, the APC should NOT be established in Canberra but some distance away from the seat of legislative power (Parliament) and executive power (the Ministries). It would be preferable if the APC did a circuit away from state capitals too, perhaps a circuit like Launceston, Ballarat Newcastle, Gladstone, Katherine, Esperance and Port Lincoln?

[ATTACH]48472._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Because W was not voted in democratically. There is ample eveidence that the ballot machines from Ohio were hacked and that the when the voting data was transferred to Tennesee, voting trends that were evident in Ohio that were favouring Gore, suddenly and inexplicably reversed. Then the machine tapes were destroyed. Added to that, the counting in Florida was blocked by the Republicans through a stacked SCOTUS when it appeared that the recount was favouring Gore. The Republicans and their wealthy backers were prepared to spend whatever it took, and drag the election through as many courts as needed to get the result they wanted.W was NOT elected, he was appointed by the Republican machine.

Remember that Stalin said this:

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

It seems like the Republicans in the USA borrowed something from Stalin's maxim

Democracy. That is what is pushed by the USA. A yank general once commented about Turkey refusing to allow them to launch their bombers from there. "What is wrong with them, they are a democracy"They also push democracy at the UN until somebody has a go at israel, then they apply the Veto. Democracy, Rubbish.

 

Look what it did for Fiji, they had a democracy and allowed untold numbers of Indians into the country, so that Fijians had no control of the parliament. they suspended democracy and got well and truly abused by the Commonwealth nations.

Democracy may be pushed by the USA. But, how do you explain the military (or CIA-led) "regime changes" where democratically elected governments were overthrown by thugs, insurgents, radicals, opposition groups funded, trained and equipped by the United States? Here are some examples:

1893: Hawaii, an independent republic was overthrown by US sponsored revolutionaries and annexed by the United States.

1902: The Philippines republic was overthrown by the United States after a three years war.

1903: Panama, then controlled by Colombia, had to secede and this was backed by the USA. The canal was under construction already and the USA seized control.

1953: The democratically elected government of Iran was overthrown with CIA help (Operation TPAJAX). An authoritarian rule by the Shah of Iran was the result.

1954: The CIA arranged an overthrow of a democratically elected government of Guatemala and this led to a military government. The civil war that followed led to the loss of life of nearly 1/4 million people.

1964: The democratically elected Brazilian government was overthrown with US support.

1973: The democratically elected government was overthrown with Nixon's support. The result? A military dictatorship by General Pinochet.

1980: The military coup was supported by the United States both with the CIA and 3000 US troops.

There are many more destabilising operations! About three dozen clear attempts to foment trouble in other countries to effect a Regime Change and at least a number of them was a change from democratic to dictatorial.

dead men tell no lieshttp://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

I took the trouble to look at this site but the factoid you wrote in post #296 is not listed on that site. I still say that this is speculation.

I wasn't being coy.

We do have a well balanced democratic Parliamentary system, albeit severely infested by our 2 Party system, and this tends to make the populace think we are a democratic country, and too much American TV.

 

The fact is though we are a Liberal Socialist system and hope each term that the people running the place will do the best for you, although the public assets sell-offs of the last 30 years has thrown some distinct Democratic Capitalist flavour into the fold, mostly the bad bits, like water, energy and communications getting into Private hands and the people bearing the costs of that.

 

Of course the people who scream "Democracy!" are the first to scream about the "Cost of living!", ignorant hypocrites.

 

Australia's socialism is all around you and daily controlling consumer prices, inflation, wages, takes more from the wealthier and gives to the poorer, helps the unemployed etc etc, - on the same hand, the Parliament can make decisions without any consultation with the public, hence your list above. There are checks and balances and laws in place that stop nonsensical or illegal Bills getting past the Floor though.

 

Democracy is "feel good" thing when you think you have it, the reality is people can't afford democracy nor are people smart enough to control it (i.e. Homer's Car).

 

Be careful for what you ask for.

At least the voters elect their politicians after a "fair and free election" unlike the Soviet Union, and many other countries supported with Communist/one party governments. Stalin famously said this:

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

99.9% of mass shooters in the US are god fearing christians, its the one thing they do really really well.

Well, F-T, that factoid of yours sounds like pure speculation. Where are the proper facts to support your assertion? Is this yet another F-T-ism?

As I recall, the last* massacre was carried out by someone who hated Christians and singled them out for bullets.

*...or was that the second last one? ...there are so many.

Eighty knots says two things[ATTACH=full]39712[/ATTACH]

 

and

 

Me too, even the 264 candidates in the NSW Tablecloth Election of 1999

[ATTACH]47781._xfImport[/ATTACH] Eightyknots has been given an Enzed flag by the Recreational Flying management based on current residence only, not nationality . This applies to other people too, such as Bex in China.

Quoth Old Koreelah Voting "above the line" sure simplified things, but I'm amazed there has been no High Court challenge to it. The Constitution says that our reps will be "directly elected by the people"; by voting "above the line" we empower each individual party to select and prioritise our representatives.

An idea with which I heartily agree.

 

Also without a massive amount of preference "fiddling" Ricky Muir would never have been elected and yet he is shaping up to be a realcontributor.

 

If he manages to stay there for a couple of terms we may well be very pleased to have him there in our "chamber of review"

The problem is that the House of Review, our Senate, is not working the way our Constitution Fathers envisaged it. The Senate was meant to have equal representation from every state, whether Tasmania or New South Wales, which has many times Tassie's population. If, in the House of Representatives, Victoria and New South Wales 'ganged up' on less populous states with a law that would disadvantage them, the Senate could block this.

What has spoiled this is the party system in the Senate. Back in the 1970s and 1980s (after Sir John Kerr, etc.), some people proposed that candidates for the Senate should not be permitted to have party affiliation and that they would be Senators for their home state only. After some talk of this, the idea fell away.

When they introduced the "above the line" vote systemI, out of sheer perversity, continued to rank every candidate

Me too, even the 264 candidates in the NSW Tablecloth Election of 1999!

I agree whith that except I would see the number of required preferences at five or six. With only three, the system would entrench the Lib-Lab-Green triumvirate and exclude any possibility of independents getting elected. These days, the indies seem to be more representative of community values than any of the party apparatchicks.

I think that most voters should have no trouble choosing six, for the reasons you outlined.

Back in 1999 there I voted in a massive New South Wales upper house ballot paper the size of a table cloth. This became known as the Tablecloth Election. It took me well over half an hour to rank all of the 264 candidates. If you get even one number wrong the whole ballot is declared informal. I would have hated to be one of the people counting the votes: what a boring job that would have been!

Democracy is the worst system there is.( except for all the others) (W Churchill.) The basis of it is one person one vote. It is based on people being informed what is going on. (Something WE fail miserably at in this country) Being forced to vote originally was directed at stopping the boss from allowing you to vote. People who don't bother to exercise their right to vote tread on the graves of innumerable people who have given everything, including their lives, to try to get the right to vote without penalty or fear for the candidate of their choice. Cherish what you have and be thankful for what you have in this country. If you think it's $#!t tell me of one better. Nev

Too right. Democracy, while not perfect by any means, is still worth keeping because other alternatives are worse. It has been a hard-won freedom that should never be given away to Inquisitions, Sharia Courts, dictatorships or oligarchies.

The Westminster style of democracy, as we have it in Australia, is pretty much the best version of democracy available because its basis is a constitutional monarchy. This is based on a two important foundations:

1. The head of state (the Queen, represented by the Governor General) is a-political ...this means non-political. He or she is called upon to be an impartial umpire should the need ever arise. Even if the need doesn't arise, just to have a neutral presence is very important. We should resist the clamour to have the head of state elected.

2. The Executive is part of the majority of the MPs that "form government" after an election. Parliament (all MPs) make up the Legislative arm of government of which a proportion make the Executive. This overlap system is vital for a well functioning system of democracy. It is important that it remains this way. In the USA the Executive (the President and all his/her APPOINTED people ...not elected) is separate from the elected MPs. This leads to the situation that the foreign minister ("secretary of state"), defence minister, etc, are simply appointed people, personally chosen by an "elected" (well, in a very roundabout way via the Electoral College system but that is another story) president. This is really very unsatisfactory as this kind of Executive reduces accountability towards the electorate ...and has a tendency towards dictatorship. We should always resist having an "elected head of state" for this this reason because, no matter what people say, an elected head of state actually reduces democratic accountability. It also unnecessarily politicises the office for no good reason.

There is also the bicameral system that all jurisdictions in Australia have with the exception of Queensland. This also protects the voters to some degree.

You flood the forum with this but what's your point exactly?

Does it ever go past your mind for a fleeting moment that some people, even rich Corporate Bosses, give money genuinely because that's the Party they want to win, or sometimes to make sure the other Party doesn't, purely from caring about the best interests for their country?

 

And please note that I have just put a load of clothes into the washing machine and sitting here giving praise to the Lord O Corporation that I don't have to go down to the river with a washing board like Great, Great Grandma did 100 years ago ...

 

................. but what have the Romans ever done for us!

The Romans gave us:

Roman Numerals

and Roman Catholics

and Roman Blinds

and Roman Coffees

and Roman Sandals

and Roman Polanski

Also agree. What is really telling though is that we only get to vote for the candidates the party (read the financial backers of the party) put up for election via the pre-selection process. And then, those with the most campaign funds can afford the most advertising and promotion and can afford the highest-priced PR firms.

A really good example of the above is the American Presidential race. On the Democrat side, Bernie Sanders is widely acknowledged as the one who would most benefit the nation, but Hillary Clinton is attracting the Big Money because she is more "corporate-friendly" (particularly Wall Street) than Sanders.

 

On the Republican side, The Koch brothers have pledged that they will spend up to US$960 Million to elect a "friendly" Republican in the 2016 election. Yes, you read that right. They plan to spend almost a Billion dollars to install a cooperative US president. If you don't believe that they will expect quid-pro-quo from their President, then you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

The American presidential experience is the most extreme. But, make no mistake, here -Down Under- there are similar pressures but the number of dollars are different, that's all.

I have been playing with Linux Mint lately, very good alternative to windows and it is FREE!

"It's moments like these you need ...."